[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Odd Job

@ TR

You have read me wrong here, that's not what I'm trying to do.
If SS interprets my post the same way you did, he need only say the word and I'll be on my way.

As regards what you said here:

Charles Arbuckle posted about the LeMas rifle bullets being proved by Dr Roberts as being off the shelf ammunition and I made the comment thereafter that so far nobody here has refuted that. I wasn't the one who opened that door. Can somebody from LeMas please make an official rebuttal to what Charles Arbuckle posted so that we don't get into this kind of argument? I feel like I am taking three steps back now, because now the projectile is a variable (or is it?)

Here is your quote, in case you forgot:

Originally Posted by Odd Job

"And that, sir, is the rub. Because the projectiles are off-the-shelf and are common to both LeMas and those ammunition brands/types with which those spitzer-type bullets have been traditionally associated. I would like to know if that nurtures any curiosity in your mind as to what the contributing factor/parameter is, with regard to the obvious difference in performance between the LeMas ammunition and the equivalent ammunition as commercially available today, which has the same projectile."

You are stating this as fact. It is not. Period. GKR himself has admitted that the pistol bullets are unique. The rifle bullets' origin and status is debatable, as the manufacturer has stated that they are not identical to COTS bullets. There is NO COTS loaded round available that I have ever encountered that will do what the LeMas rounds do. If there is, please provide me with the opposing live tissue tests of their ammo. I refuted Charles Arbuckle's (if that is his real name) comments to my satisfaction. I take it that you did not read my comments, disagreed with them, or chose to ignore them?

Originally Posted by Odd Job

I am not trying to find out who set up the protocols, I am trying to exclude SS from those protocols. That exclusion is not to his detriment it is to his benefit. As for his opinions of the marketing claims, they are relevant to his analysis of this ammunition, especially since he stands by them and he is in a position to verify/substantiate them. I have a problem with some of the claims, and SS's evaluation of the effects of the ammunition in the test is of interest to me where it correlates with the advertised properties of the projectile. Where it does not 'gel' I am interested to know why. Is it a marketing problem or a failure of the round? I would assume the end-user would want to know too. That is what a review is all about IMO.

This was not your test. You did not set it up, pay for it, or attend it. You do not establish the protocols for this live tissue testing. You are not conducting a peer review of the protocols. You should be asking questions or providing commentary on the LeMas ammunition's performance in live tissue, better yet, as it relates to radiological testing.

I represent an end user. Frankly, as a soldier (or were I a cop), I do not care a whit what they are made of, where they come from, or how they do what they do. The rounds penetrate all of the armor that I have shot far better than any conventional design. Yet they do not overpenetrate. They create wounds in live tissue beyond any round I have ever seen fired. I have never seen a performance failure in which the round did not perform at least as well as advertised. Dr. Vail has attested to the efficacy of the round in live tissue. What marketing claims has he made? None, as far as I know, as a physician, he has only made performance claims. Can you refute them? That is the point of this review.

You have presented your creds as a radiological tech, and been accepted as such. Dr. Vail is a board certified trauma surgeon who has provided informed commentary on the performance of the ammo in live tissue. Again, he did not make any marketing claims beyond that. Do you have any further questions about the performance of the LeMas ammunition within the parameters of Dr. Vail's article? If you intend to analyze marketing claims or projectile properties on a thread dedicated to bullet performance in live tissue you are off topic, not germane to the issue at hand, and will not be tolerated.

Frankly, we are looking for another physician with creds as a trauma surgeon, pathologist, etc. to participate an informed discussion on Dr. Vail's findings as to what the ammo does or does not do in live tissue. For the physician to have hands on experience with wounds inflicted in live tissue by the LeMas, as Dr. Vail has, would be an added bonus. Gary Roberts is welcome to post on this thread, or start a new one, with comments relating to the ballistic performance of the LeMas ammunition in live tissue. Entertaining your curiosity about peripheral matters is not the focus of this thread, Sir, nor will it become so.

Again, if you have questions or comments relating to the performance of the LeMas ammo (or conventional ammo) in live tissue, or wish to comment on radiological protocols you would like to see from the next shoot, feel free to contribute. I hope that you understand and respect that.

Anyone who does not should stay out of this discussion.

TR