Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic

[swatsurgeon]

Odd Job,

I am interested in that, myself. But the problem is (in my opinion) that unless the ammunition is a consistently-poor performer (such as the Glaser for example), statistical methods aimed at arriving at a conclusion about real-life effectiveness of ammunition (using post-mortem or even hospital data) are confounded by the very thing that sets these tissue tests apart from gel tests: the fact that the human body is not a homogenous medium and the fact that humans are not shot under controlled conditions such as gel or even these pigs to an extent. I suppose the closest we could get to establishing whether ammunition is a 'lemon' or not, is by trying to find a large sample of live victims in which that ammunition can be positively identified. But then we might end up with only things like Glasers. That is one of the things the gel-testers have in their favour: they have no problem with comparing ammunition because of the consistency of their medium and their shooting conditions. {Finally, you see the very point being discussed from the perspective and commentary originally offered. }





I would be interested in that too. But here is a thought: I am sure you will agree with me that a common 'feature' of human gunshot wounds today is that no two gunshot wounds are alike. To develop a medium that can simulate this effect must surely result in a full circle back to inconsistencies in the scientific testing/results? If this was not the case, we would surely have arrived at the definitive caliber to carry by now, even when comparing the same ammunition. {Again, the correct deduction, there is no one test medium that will reveal ALL wounds to the human body. I do have more that 35 retrieved Gold Dots from shootings to all areas of the body. Some that hit only skin and soft tisue with penetration less than 6 inches, no clothing and no bones hit; shot from 5 yards (9mm and .40) from a weapon barrel length of 4.25 inches. Gel tests reveal deeper penetration as well as "reliable" expansion; this was not the case in some of these patients. I challenge Dr. Roberts or anyone else to demonstrate close to 100% correlation of gel tests to human hits. Where is the deeper penetration? This is simply an example of the biased claims of those that promote ballistic gel as the sure answer to wound ballistic correlation in the human body. Atleast I can see in the human body and question ballistic dogma with cases such as mentioned. The hog shots reveal alot, not everything...they are not human bodies but atleast I can better 'infer' and judge the incapacitation potential better than a gel hit.}



As far as other, as you claim, similiar bullets to LeMas, where are they with their live tissue data. I would be happy to dissect an animal shot with them as well as LeMas and lets see what the live tissue looks like. The point is that the handgun rounds are different, not replicated by any other manufacturer I am aware of and the rifle rounds haven't yet been replicated in a reliable way that has this type of wound ballistics information (in the 2 calibers I witnessed with LeMas, the .223 and .308) Are they armor piercing and can still demonstrate the terminal ballistics I described? If they can , great. The entire thread is based on an ammunition that claims to have a greater wounding potential and be armor defeating, both handgun and rifle rounds and that when they are fired into gel (at least the 9mm) that there is NO correlation to the wounding in live tissue. I am getting tired of sounding like a broken record but no new arguments against my observations have been brought forth: no other live tissue data and no explanation of results that I witnessed with such 'failures' in gel.
ss

I forgot to add: I have never cared for a patient hit with a 'varmit' round and when I asked 30 of my colleagues around the country in major trauma centers, either have they. We see mostly handgun related injuries and <10% rifle injuries. I have no first hand knowledge about the wound ballistics of these rounds. I chose the Gold Dots as an example because they are so common with LE...I have many more types of rounds that I could discuss

[swatsurgeon]

Odd Job,
I forgot to add something to one of your comments.....
you wrote: I am certain that Dr Roberts reads this thread, but even if he didn't I wouldn't get involved in any sort of relaying of messages between individuals of PS and TF.
I would not ask you to relay a message; I asked that you pose a question to him (on TF.com) just as you posed one to me and see his response.

ss

[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:

Incidentally, you are leaping to conclusions, such as the source and composition of the rounds, which while accepted as gospel on other sites, may or may not be valid. Certainly they call your own objectivity into question.

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?)

What concern is it of yours who set up the test protocols or what his opinion of the marketing claims are?

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.

[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

[Odd Job]

Edit: I started writing this post before TR's post above, and finished after him.

@ SS

{Finally, you see the very point being discussed from the perspective and commentary originally offered. }

Actually there is a lot that we agree on (refer to my first post here). I haven't changed my mind about anything and it wouldn't matter if you disagreed with me at all. I had those perceptions about the variable configurations of gunshot wounds long before I came here.

{Again, the correct deduction, there is no one test medium that will reveal ALL wounds to the human body. I do have more that 35 retrieved Gold Dots from shootings to all areas of the body. Some that hit only skin and soft tisue with penetration less than 6 inches, no clothing and no bones hit; shot from 5 yards (9mm and .40) from a weapon barrel length of 4.25 inches. Gel tests reveal deeper penetration as well as "reliable" expansion; this was not the case in some of these patients. I challenge Dr. Roberts or anyone else to demonstrate close to 100% correlation of gel tests to human hits.

It is never going to happen, because humans are not shot under laboratory conditions or even under the conditions that those pigs were shot. We are in agreement there. Shot placement is also not controlled in real shotings. In fact I got so tired of people on TFL saying 'So-and-so got hit x times by bullet y in the chest and didn't die' that I spent a whole day making 3D graphics for them just to outline the incident trajectory variables alone. If you go there you will see it, I spend a lot more time there than TF or PS. I've always said that no two gunshot wounds are the same and that no gunshot wound can be emulated in gel with absolute accuracy. There are too many extra variables involved with real life gunshot wounds. On this we surely agree.

Where is the deeper penetration? This is simply an example of the biased claims of those that promote ballistic gel as the sure answer to wound ballistic correlation in the human body. Atleast I can see in the human body and question ballistic dogma with cases such as mentioned.

You have several examples of failed Gold-Dot hits and I would like to use that to answer this. There is no doubt that the sub-optimal hits in those cases were not predicted by the performance of those Gold-Dots in gel. That's clear. Likewise not all of those sub-optimal hits can be attributed to failure of the ammunition itself, for the variables involved in those shootings may be out of the parameters of use as specified by the manufacturer, and out of parameters where the cause of the failure to penetrate can be found. A typical example is a weapon fired from within a pocket (unlikely with LEO shootings I know, but that is the sort of thing I mean). Distance and intervening materials and the angle of incidence all play a role in this and they aren't variables that get tested in laboratories as far as I know. Yet, despite these failings and despite the fact that the gel tests did not predict them, do you agree that the Gold-Dot in general remains a fine defense bullet in service handguns? Perhaps one or two of those rounds were defective, who can tell? But those variables and those failures must (at least in part) happen to all brands of ammunition, even LeMas. There is no magic bullet...

The hog shots reveal alot, not everything...they are not human bodies but atleast I can better 'infer' and judge the incapacitation potential better than a gel hit.

I would like to see comprehensive documentation of the LeMas handgun ammunition in those cases, especially the X-rays.

As far as other, as you claim, similiar bullets to LeMas, where are they with their live tissue data. I would be happy to dissect an animal shot with them as well as LeMas and lets see what the live tissue looks like.

Somebody needs to do that, I agree (in terms of the rifle ammo).

The point is that the handgun rounds are different, not replicated by any other manufacturer I am aware of...

That has been my view too

...and the rifle rounds haven't yet been replicated in a reliable way that has this type of wound ballistics information (in the 2 calibers I witnessed with LeMas, the .223 and .308) Are they armor piercing and can still demonstrate the terminal ballistics I described? If they can , great. The entire thread is based on an ammunition that claims to have a greater wounding potential and be armor defeating, both handgun and rifle rounds and that when they are fired into gel (at least the 9mm) that there is NO correlation to the wounding in live tissue. I am getting tired of sounding like a broken record but no new arguments against my observations have been brought forth: no other live tissue data and no explanation of results that I witnessed with such 'failures' in gel.

I think the LeMas rifle ammunition is going to be a contentious topic and perhaps at this stage of the game, it would be better if I don't say anything more about it. We haven't hit an impasse yet, but I feel it coming in a few posts time if I talk about it any further. It is going to be difficult to compare LeMAs to similar cartridges when we don't have an official statement from LeMas about the projectiles used. This reflects also in my response to TR above.

I forgot to add: I have never cared for a patient hit with a 'varmit' round and when I asked 30 of my colleagues around the country in major trauma centers, either have they. We see mostly handgun related injuries and <10% rifle injuries. I have no first hand knowledge about the wound ballistics of these rounds. I chose the Gold Dots as an example because they are so common with LE...I have many more types of rounds that I could discuss

Those figures are similar to ours in Johannesburg. More than 90% of all the gunshot wounds I have seen are due to handguns. Otherwise we see AK-47 and R5 (a Galil derivative) injuries and the odd shotgun wound. I have seen several examples of those first hand and I am guessing that some features of the R5 wounds (5.56mm) will be similar to those caused by a 'varmint' round.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...5_Rifle_Injury

[Odd Job]

@ TR

Here is your quote, in case you forgot:


Quote:
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?

Actually no, that is not the post I am talking about. The post I am talking about is this one (from 2 weeks ago, the first post I made after Charles posted):

There has been (as yet) no rebuttal or evidence from any of the key players who have a financial (or otherwise tangible) stake in the LeMas product, to the effect that what Charles Arbuckle posted is not true. In other words there is no effort to refute the claim that some LeMas 'spitzer' projectiles are rebranded OTS commercial projectiles.

Nowhere have I claimed that all the LeMas projectiles are off the shelf bullets. That's why I use the description 'spitzer.' I apologise if that is the source of misunderstanding. I don't mean any disrespect to you but I did not find your explanation/response to Charles Arbuckle helpful.

To progress now, I am no longer going to make comments or post anything to do with the LeMas rifle bullets. I'll keep those comments for another time and place.
So to clarify now: I am interested in the LeMas handgun ammunition, and if you like, I can restrict my observations to the X-rays. I'll wait until they are available.

Is this acceptable, sir?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Odd Job

There has been (as yet) no rebuttal or evidence from any of the key players who have a financial (or otherwise tangible) stake in the LeMas product, to the effect that what Charles Arbuckle posted is not true. In other words there is no effort to refute the claim that some LeMas 'spitzer' projectiles are rebranded OTS commercial projectiles.

To my knowledge, there is only one person posting here who has a financial interest in the LeMas ammunition, though there may be several who have an interest in seeing it fail.

As I have explained previously, the manufacturer has repeatedly informed LeMas that the projectiles loaded in the LeMas ammunition are not the same as the COTs bullets they resemble. I have pulled a few rounds and they do look like the bullets GKR has suggested they might be. I do not have the ability to make that call, and I suspect that LeMas does not either. Charles Arbuckle made several claims. Some of them seem to be rather incredible. LeMas has said that they have assurances that the claims that the bullets are COTS is not true. Until someone has conducted comparable testing with the COTS bullets in ballistic gelatin, live tissue, and armor, I think that the allegation remains just that. He may be right. Or he may not. I would like to see the terminal ballistic testing which substantiates that claim.

In the quote that I cited, in your second sentence, you clearly stated that the projectiles are off the shelf ("Because the projectiles are off-the-shelf and are common"). That citation was the basis for my statement that you had claimed that all LeMas ammunition was off-the-shelf. If you meant that an unsubstantiated claim had been made that the rifle projectiles were COTS, then that would have been a correct statement.

Originally Posted by Odd Job

To progress now, I am no longer going to make comments or post anything to do with the LeMas rifle bullets. I'll keep those comments for another time and place.
So to clarify now: I am interested in the LeMas handgun ammunition, and if you like, I can restrict my observations to the X-rays. I'll wait until they are available.

Is this acceptable, sir?

That is more than acceptable. I have no problem with you posting on this thread as long as it remains respectful, professional, and relates to the topic of Dr. Vail's article, specifically, the wounding characteristics of the LeMas ammunition in live tissue. I believe that everyone involved has agreed that better X-Rays need to be taken at the next LeMas live tissue shoot (probably with portable veterinary gear), and that you will be provided with those X-Rays. If you have some specific radiographic requirement (beyond what you have already mentioned) that you think would be beneficial to the test, I am sure that all attempts would be made to accomodate you.

I would really like to see Gary Roberts participate in this discussion with an eye towards his attendance at the next LeMas live tissue shoot.

TR

[swatsurgeon]

All,
I do find it interesting that what started out as an observational commentary and reasonable questioning of a status quo (interpreting wound ballistics in tissue from gelatin) has evolved into a professional degradation of me by those at TF.com. It is amusing to see the level of immaturity displayed by a few on that site. I happen to have a sense of humor, what I don't have is a desire to publically ridicule someone as has been done on TF.com.
I hope they never have the opportunity to need a Trauma Surgeon that knows how to operate on them, understanding ballistics enough to help guide pre-operative and intra-operative procedures based on life threatening/emergent injuries on any part of their body.
In what should have been an intelligent discussion between those of us that have witnessed/used the LeMas ammunition on live tissue and those that feel that it does not do what is claimed is lost because of the lack of respect for those of us that simply state observations and use our intelligence to offer reasonable explanations and questions of standards that don't appear to apply to a different technology(LeMas).
I have seen no person from any internet site or ammo manufacturer offer to do live tissue shoots with any ammo that is similiar or the same as the LeMas rounds since a contention is that it may be an available round packaged differently. Well then, let someone load a 'varmint' round into a .223 or .308 and any other available round into a 9mm and .45 handgun and lets go shooting. And it must perform exactly as the LeMas does: armor penetrating and causing the same degree of tissue damage after passing through armor; as well as applying to the Blackwater shootout to be glass defeating to match the LeMas results. There are other Trauma Surgeon that have dealt with hundreds/thousands of GSW victims that will come to verify what I have seen and offer a 'different' perspective at a shoot of other 'similiar' ammo. If people are so sure of their beliefs, put them to the test, therefore a scientific paradigm will be established.
I am willing to learn that I am possibly incorrect in thinking that another ammo can't do the same tissue destruction and demonstrate the same properties as LeMas, is anyone from TF.com willing to state the converse?
Until such proof exists, then I have no concerns that what I saw was not unique to LeMas ammunition. I also have the proof that the correlation to gel for the LeMas 9mm doesn't exist. It performs differently in live tissue than in gelatin; this can not be disputed.
Bullet manufacturers base their development on results in ballistic gelatin; I again ask, is it not a modern scientific standard to develop a new test medium if a new technology is created/shown that doesn't fit the existing one: answer is yes in every lab I have ever been in. Just call up to the Penn State lab I referenced or any other lab that deals in new ideas and developments.
Time to deal in reality instead of protecting past beliefs.

ss

[dr. mabuse]

ROGER THAT SIR!

Again, the patience and professionalism on this forum is amazing.

Thought about you and TR and the others when a 21 year old TF.com fan/ballistics expert tried to hijack my CHL class last Saturday after I mentioned RBCD ammo.

I patiently replied, " For our ammo requirements, we don't particularly care how we get there, just as long as we get there. Right?"

He failed to have a snappy comeback for that comment.

[swatsurgeon]

Here is a link to a parallel thread post that is written by an LEO...fits right in to our discussion.
I just wonder if the loudest TF.com moderator would like to call him a quack as well?

ss

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...t=11330&page=2 (see#17)

[MRF54]

Yawn... stretch... yawn...

Is anyone doing anything for data?

[swatsurgeon]

MRF54,
What sort of data; data is a relative term. There is no official human autopsy data, there is matched cohort animal data, there is armor and glass data.
There is an LEO that has posted here that has data from tests he performed comparing standard duty ammo used by his SWAT/PD teams vs. LeMas. He only did 1 live tissue test, the rest were clay block backdrops behind typically encountered barriers/armor, etc.
Stan Bulmer can likely offer different data sets.....you need to be more specific.
TR has posted his data on a parallel thread for rifle.
I am hoping to get human data once the LeMas rounds are adopted by certain LE agencies that are planning on using it for their 'special' teams.....I have stated to a few of them that I would like to attend any autopsies or be put intouch with the Trauma Center caring for anyone shot with these rounds. We are a small enough network of Trauma Surgeons around the country that I should be able to get this information once this ammo is used.
ss

[Roguish Lawyer]

I want to cross-reference a post I just made in TR's test fire thread since it is relevant to the discussion here.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...2&postcount=20

[swatsurgeon]

RL,
that data exists...every day we operate on someone shot with a low velocity round (typical handgun,< 2000fps) you can refer back to an array of gel reports on the specific round to check the measured parameters: depth of penetration, degree of expansion, usual/unusual characteristics of permanent cavity and temporary cavity if it exists (demo'ed in gel block) but it states nothing else about the tissue injury. I find it amusing and have stated this in my commentary: if gel says penetration of "X", there is a statistically significant chance that it will not be "X" in the human body because gel can not take into account the heterogenicity of the body, i.e., too many tissue densities and irregularities as compared to consistant properties of gel. I have not seen any disclaimers on gel tests of overpenetration when the results state a penetration depth of 12-15 inches...there is alot of overpenetration in the real world which increases the liability to those relying on testing that states an 'optimal depth'. Not many humans are built exactly the same and bullet behavior is impossible to predict despite what proponents of gel testing claim. Gel is a single piece of information that can not be taken at just face value and that is what I am seeing/reading...this is dangerous in my opinion.

ss

[Roguish Lawyer]

Thanks, ss.

Based on everything I have read, I would expect that if you took two objects, one with constant density of X and one with layers of different densities (like say x, .8x, 1.2x, .2x, 1.5x, .5x), and fired the same type of round from the same weapon into each, you would see greater "damage" from the second round because the projectile is fragmented or otherwise affected by the sudden change in resistance as it travels through each layer of the second object.

Is this a worthwhile experiment or should I stick to legal stuff?