[BrainStorm]

I wrote this in another forum under a different name. Hopefully you will find it useful here. I reference Dr. Vail, who we all know as SwatSurgeon here.

Generally this level of passion is reserved to political views, computer type (IBM vs. Apple), sports team preference, and religion. They are usually interesting threads when ad hominem attacks can be avoided.

Some thoughts on this discussion, hopefully helpful.

• Advertising and promotional materiel always leaves me amused. I am surprised at how some of it is so devoid of reality. Political candidates, cars, ammo, ... All are problematic when making a choice. Hopefully some due diligence in involved in the decision making process some time before the final decision is made. I find the promotional material for RBCD/Le Mas problematic, but not dispositive. Observations of results by professionals capable of making those observations have great weight with me.
  
• When I pressed Dr. Roberts about the contents of the "secret" report, he suggested that I file a FOIA (Freedom of Information ACT) request. He is very careful in his formulation of his characterization of how the report supports his observations. That begs the question of "What about the observations of others regarding the performance of this ammo?"
  
  I started to file a FOIA request several times, but governments BS along the way always distracted me. Perhaps someone here has more stomach for this kind of thing.
  
• When I spoke with Stan Bulmer (he called me) about this report he told me a lot about its faults in general terms and the faults in the evaluation process, but refused to be specific, citing retribution for revealing the results of a secret report.
  
• I have corresponded with Dr. Vail on several subjects and have found him smart, serious and knowledgeable. I'm impressed with the man and have no reason to doubt his observations. Understand, what he provided was observations, not any suggestion of the underlying science that produced those results.
  
• From my background in science and engineering, I believe Dr. Roberts analysis has several flaws. The most egregious is that he ultimately resorts to the "fact" that ammo has performed well in the field and thus has validated the ballistic gel predictions. Therefore ballistic gel is a good predictor of performance. However, it should be noted that ammo is evaluated by ballistic gel tests before it is accepted by the professional community. This is a circular argument. It begs the question of "What if there were other modes of performance that might be useful, but are not part of any testing regime?" Perhaps RBCD/Le Mas ammo is just the candidate to break out of this insular evaluation technique?
  
• The Coral Gables police department did an evaluation of LeMas and chose it. See article in American Cop Magazine. That article was written by a respected retired FBI agent under a pseudonym. Does anyone here know of any faults with their evaluation process? I'm assuming with the great liability exposure that Police Departments have, they would have done their due diligence.
  
• Like any boutique manufacturer, RBCD must continue to challenge themselves with respect to quality management. I have heard several anecdotal reports of indicators of overpressure and seen several reports of measurements of pressure and they concern me. I would be cautious. With the cost of this ammo and the chances that there may be pressure issues, I would not think it is ammo that would be frequently shot through any given gun. In a self-defense situation, I'm not concerned about damage to my handgun, just reliability and effectiveness. Given, that perspective, I am giving RBCD some serious consideration.