Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic

[Ambush Master]

Originally Posted by x_sf_med

I too wonder why the Lemas works, but am content to let the experts explain their findings.

Nuff said!!! When you start to delve into the "How it works" arena, you have entered into an area that is DANGER CLOSE to TTPs!!!

The disclosure of the mechanics/physics involved could give someone all that they need to DEFEAT this round, and I do not mean politically or Jellowise, but physically, were it to be deployed (not to mention patent rights etc.)!!!

What the HELL is the problem with the evidence/results of what this projo does when it hits something that it is designed to hit?!?!?! I won't even attempt to go into what I have seen, obviously, to some, THAT doesn't count!!!

OJ,

I was still clearing fungus up (on my feet) from the jungles of Laos when you were born!! I've shot a few folks and know enough about this, from experience, to know that I would definitely give this stuff a REAL chance, as opposed to it having to pass the "Jello Test" first (which was administered by a DENTIST)!!!

Good luck!!

Edited to add: NO offence intended Saca!!
Martin

[Sacamuelas]

Originally Posted by Odd Job

@ TS
Actually in the US the term X-ray Tech refers to X-ray Technologist. It is a specific title attached to those who perform medical imaging for medical diagnosis. An X-ray technician repairs X-ray equipment. In other parts of the world we are known as Radiographers and those are also protected titles. We deal in multiplanar imaging too, not just two-dimensional. Do you know what a CT scanner is?

I'm an allied medical profession and an integral and vital part of any trauma team in the civilian setting. Anyone who tries to belittle or dismiss the contribution of a radiographer to the team is quite frankly not in touch with the structure of a casualty department.

No I haven't operated on a person with a gunshot wound, have you? My research into gunshot wounds was cleared by the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. I have an ethics clearance number. I provided the material which will subsequently be published, to the head of the trauma unit in that hospital for review and his observation is that my work is very good. In fact I was asked to approach the post-graduate committee to submit it as the basis for a PhD. The findings of that research will be used to provide protocols in the handling of gunshot evidence, imaging of the gunshot victims, and guidelines for the accurate localisation and safe retrieval of projectiles in the hospital environment. If I didn't know what I was talking about I wouldn't have been invited to speak at the National Association of Forensic Radiographers and Society of Radiographers here in London. I have continuous requests for me to lecture on the subject, the latest one being from the State Pathologist in Northern Ireland. I am also involved in providing templates and guidelines for the design of 3D models to present gunshot trajectory exhibits in courts of law, also for that pathologist.

My ability to offer a reasoned debate and back it up with my real-life experience of gunshot wounds is what allows me to converse with Dr Vail (and anybody else you care to mention) about these matters.

The debate at hand is well within my bailliwick. I don't post about matters that I can't provide a constructive and real contribution to. You might well learn something from that.

Who do you think gives the trauma surgeon his figures? They usually come from the casualty nursing staff or the trauma co-ordinator. Mine come from the official trauma statistics of the Johannesburg Hospital and they were prepared by the charge nurse of area 163 (the adult trauma unit). I verified them just to be sure by going through all the registers myself. In terms of the 2002 statistics, the trauma surgeons were instructed to provide me with any clinical information I may need as regards the necessary information relating to the damage sustained by gunshot victims. By this I mean damage that was not radiologically evident and typically which meant damage found at surgery. I was present in the theatre for many of the cases and I took pictures of the damage that was found. The same applies to retrieved projectiles.
In terms of my contributiuon to the trauma surgeons at the JHB Gen Hospital, it has been substantial and valuable. We didn't have a radiologist after hours for plain film reporting, so mine was an opinion that was highly valued. In addition to that I often supplied variations in imaging protocols to detect as-yet unseen projectiles and I also found several valuable pieces of forensic evidence by examining clothing in the research. I have helped out many a trauma surgeon who missed something on the imaging or indeed missed an actual skin breach or clinical sign on a gunshot victim. You clearly don't know how a radiographer fits in to the trauma setup at a hospital...

Odd job-
While initially it was slightly amusing to read your long diatribe, it is distressing to be forced to read this desperate attempt to provide “expert” credentials by overemphasizing your professional capabilities, expertise, and training on this site. In my personal experience a radiographer (radiologic technologist in the USA) is trained to simply administer radiologic procedures after they are prescribed by a licensed practitioner. You are not an actual licensed practitioner.

In this country, you are only qualified and legally allowed to physically administer the actual radiological procedure. The actual expert interpretation and subsequent formation of a diagnosis from the films, data, and other diagnostic information you collect are strictly and expressly limited to the practitioner that prescribed the procedure. I am sure you are not suggesting in the above posts that you are actually qualified to diagnose or definitively interpret anything on the films, CT scans, MRI, etc you take by yourself. I assume you are familiar with the unethical dilemma you would find yourself in if that were the case. Please see the current Code of Ethics for the ASRT( American Society of Radiologic Technologists) :

ASRT Code of Ethics

• The radiologic technologist conducts himself or herself in a professional manner, responds to patient needs and supports colleagues and associates in providing quality patient care.
• The radiologic technologist acts to advance the principal objective of the profession to provide services to humanity with full respect for the dignity of mankind.
• The radiologic technologist delivers patient care and service unrestricted by concerns of personal attributes or the nature of the disease or illness, and without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, creed, religion or socio-economic status.
• The radiologic technologist practices technology founded upon theoretical knowledge and concepts, uses equipment and accessories consistent with the purpose for which they were designed and employs procedures and techniques appropriately.
• The radiologic technologist assesses situations; exercises care, discretion and judgment; assumes responsibility for professional decisions; and acts in the best interest of the patient.
• The radiologic technologist acts as an agent through observation and communication to obtain pertinent information for the physician to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient and recognizes that interpretation and diagnosis are outside the scope of practice for the profession.
• The radiologic technologist uses equipment and accessories, employs techniques and procedures, performs services in accordance with an accepted standard of practice and demonstrates expertise in minimizing radiation exposure to the patient, self and other members of the health care team.
• The radiologic technologist practices ethical conduct appropriate to the profession and protects the patient's right to quality radiologic technology care.
• The radiologic technologist respects confidences entrusted in the course of professional practice, respects the patient's right to privacy and reveals confidential information only as required by law or to protect the welfare of the individual or the community.

I and the rest of the practitioners do appreciate the assistance from techs such as yourself in obtaining high quality images that enable us to obtain the information we need to form a diagnosis and extrapolate the required conclusions to predict prognosis and develop treatment plans. Most radiation techs I have dealt with have been professional and helpful, but all of them have been cognizant of and aware of the limitations of their level of education and expertise in the overall treatment spectrum. I must admit that I have never heard a licensed radiographer self-promote his/herself with such sensationalized hype similar to what I have read in your above posts. I can only assume that you are a younger man than I initially thought when I read your earlier, less boastful posts. With more maturity, you may find your lane in this world. For your coworkers and more importantly the other practitioner’s patients that you work with in your hospital, I hope this comes true.

It is positive that you are interested in this field of ballistic research. By your own admission, your expertise other than being a regular technologist seems to consist of submitting a proposal for a study, taking a lot of photos of trauma team members and patients, taking diagnostic films of and examining clothing worn by trauma patients, and having an administrator tell a few trauma surgeons to help you obtain and record post-operative metrics for your project. Of course, you did point out a few rare examples of when you performed functions outside your actual realm of expertise. I assume this is an attempt to display your above average skill set compared to a regular tech. While in your mind this may seem like it would sound impressive to us, it simply sounds like an attempt to obfuscate your actual expertise in medicine and/or ballistics coming from an apparently unfulfilled and seemingly insecure tech.

Please refrain from posting any more unless you can positively contribute to the actual topic. Comments derogatory to Admins, Quiet Professionals, or moderators of this site will not be tolerated. To display a tolerance for opposing viewpoints, your previous remarks directed at specific people have been overlooked so far. If you wish to remain engaged in this debate on this site, do not continue this trend toward unprofessional commentary as a guest. You have been allowed to "prove" your expertise or lack thereof in the above posts. No more commentary is required. Everyone on this site now has enough information about you and your background in your own words to formulate his/her own conclusion as to the validity of your observations.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Does anyone have any proof that LeMas ammunition does not perform in live tissue as stated in the report posted in the original posts in this thread? If so, I would like to see it please.

Until then, I don't see the need for continuing discussion. Nothing other than results in live tissue were reported. Nothing to the contrary has been posted that I can see.

Talk of radiographs, technician credentials and wounds in South Africa are not germane to the discussion unless those wounds were caused by LeMas ammunition.

If anyone wishes to discuss the relative merits of X-ray technicians, feel free to start a thread in the Med Forum. If you wish to discuss round performance in gelatin, feel free to start another thread in this forum. This thread is reference the performance of LeMas ammunition in live tissue.

The dicussion will stay on topic or the unrelated posts will be removed.

[CoLawman]

After watching this thread continue to grow my curiosity finally got the best of me. I could not figure out why SWAT Surgeon would be offering opinions on Lamaze ( yep I read it as Lamaze not Lemas) Anyone besides me have to attend Lamaze classes?

Anyway I have just spent the last two hours reading and rereading the the threads and now I want to record my observations.

1. One it is not a thesis from SWAT Surgeon on birthing techniques.

2. There are some very very bright individuals that are members here.

3. Team Sergeant has been used by me personally in two homicide investigations involving death by firearms as an expert. He is impressive!

4. I have personally been involved in the investigation of some 200 homicides and exponentially more assaults by firearms. And never once did an x-ray tech testify in place of the surgeons or forensic pathologists. In fact I do not recall an instance where the testimony of a surgeon or forensic pathologist was even complimented by the testimony of a radiologist.

5. In the United States a radiologist would not have had such unencumbered access to medical records. In fact, I would assume that there would be some serious internal investigations if a hospital administration learned that patient records were being posted on the Internet.

6. Dr. Sac beat me to the punch and was far more eloquent and succinct.

7. Time to get out of here before TR makes some crack about fat cops and donuts.

[Odd Job]

@ X_Sf_med

I did not lay into you until you spouted off as an expert and discounted all opinions but your own. I said nothing abut your attitude until it became intolerable. With every request ( at times stern) for you to change your attitude, we have been subject to a series of excuses, whines and "I know more than you's".

Can you please tell me where I discounted every opinion but my own? If that is the case, what is my purpose here, to waste peoples' time? Please give me a bit more credit than that.

As to medical experience - any qualified SF Medical NCO is a primary caregiver for his team in the field, and a more than qualified trauma caregiver in any setting- do a little checking into the requirements for earning just the medical qualifiactions for an 18D (there are links on this site). During my training, back in the dark ages, we were required to work in the Emergency Room of a major military hospital on our own time - we generally chose Friday and Saturday nights, or the days when there were major Airborne operations... would you care to hazard a guess why? Try gunshot wounds, stabbings, major traumas, and acute illnesses. A good number of us have also been through full qualification as SF Weapons NCOs. Using straight logic, don't you think that there is a deep understanding of ballistic trauma to the human body?

I fully agree, and if those certain members want to argue with me based upon their experience that is fine, in fact that is what I want, a discussion. Nowhere do I say any of you don't have the werewithall to discuss this matter. Yet instead of discussing it, there are certain members here who resort to derogatory and derisive attacks on me and and my profession.

Treat us with the same respect you were treated with before you wanted to prove you were some kind of demigod - if you are good at your job, fine - don't try to throw your degrees at us - most of us do have (if not the paper, the experience of) multiple college degrees.

Sir, you are all afforded respect from me BY DEFAULT. That is what I have been trying to tell you. I don't think I am any kind of demigod, SS posted statistics instead of addressing the questions I had to do with LeMas, and I also posted statistics. I am not throwing any qualifications at you: in fact it is my qualifaction that seems to be the bone of contention here. I have experience just like you and all I ask is that you hear me out instead of branding me a 'photographer' and dismissing what I have to say.

If you would question and listen to what others say, then form cogent antitheses, that lead to understanding / synthesis - that is a formal argument. What you are doing is forming arguments ad- hominem and arguments from weakness- which have been shown to be fallacious. I will spend the time to map out your premises and conclusions into logic trees if you require them.

I am questioning and listening, in fact I am getting no answers to my questions, as is plainly obvious to anyone who has been following this thread form the start. I find it quite amusing that you mention 'ad-hominem' when it is I who is the victim of ad hominem attacks. Show me where I am guilty of this. Show me where my arguments are fallacious.

I don't claim to be a radiographer, but I can read an x-ray, MRI, CAT or PET scan pretty well.

Yeah, and if I afforded you the same credibility as you have afforded me I would say you have no business looking at any medical imaging because you are nothing more than a field medic. (Please note I do not claim that, I just want you to know how it feels to be treated this way).

[Odd Job]

@ Sacamuelas

1) Nowhere have I claimed to be a clinician. I do not diagnose, I do not operate, I am not a doctor. I am well aware of regulations pertaining to my field. I am registered as a radiographer in SA, UK, NZ and AU and I know the rules. By the way the pertinent rules relating to X-ray Techs in the US are governed more by the ARRT than by ASRT. There are 35 States that make ARRT certification mandatory before working as a RAd Tech, and of the remaining 15 the hospital usually makes it a requirement if it is a large academic hospital. I am not a US Rad Tech. I have never worked there and I am not registered there.

2) There appears to be far greater scope for professional development amongst radiographers in the UK than in the US. I tell you this for background purposes only, so you can see the difference. In the UK, there are radiographer-led studies and radiographers (provided they have passed the relevant course) CAN report on imaging. For example there are radiographer-led Barium studies and there are radiographer casualty reports. Also happening right now is radiographer-led CT pain management (injections) and Tesio line insertions. We are allowed to do much more here than your X-ray techs appear to be allowed to do in the US. This may be the source of this whole disdain at the fact that I am a radiographer/X-ray Tech. Next time I am in Colorado I will take a tour of one of the large hospitals and find out what the general view of Rad Techs is. I am beginning to think that they are less valued and utilized in the USA.

3) You don't have to be a doctor to conduct research into gunshot wounds. I wouldn't have been allowed to conduct that research if the head of the trauma unit and the research committee at the university didn't think I had a viable protocol and didn't think my background was appropriate. I certainly don't claim that a layman could have done it, but there is room at the table for an allied health worker in certain circumstances. I don't want the whole table (as some here claim I do) I just want a seat at the table since I have earned it.

4) If I am 'out of my depth' here, why is it that cetain individuals here must choose to attack me and my profession instead of debunking my material? Surely it must be easy to poke holes in my arguments if I don't have the wherewithall to contribute?

5) I am disappointed that you tried to belittle my research by saying that I took a handful of photos and followed a trauma surgeon around. That is not so. At the risk of being accused of 'spouting off' again, I have been working on this project for 4 years now and I am still not finished, I am close though. If you have a genuine interest in my research I can forward to you an outline of it. I have nothing to hide. Currently one of the top guys from the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners is checking one of my draft manuscripts in the US. Another one is with the Trauma head (a world-renowned professor) at the JHB hospital. I have asked them to be very critical of my work and I have had very positive feedback up to now. The same can be said of the feedback I got from a trauma surgeon here in the UK. I don't do anything in a vaccuum. I fully acknowledge the dependence I have have had on medical staff and technical staff (forensics) in the pursuit of this research. But that does not mean the research has no value or that I have irrelevant experience. This research has been done. I have the experience from my years at the hospital, and I have my research data. I cannot delete that, and you cannot ignore it. If you were critical of the content of my research, that would be another matter, but saying that I am not qualified to have done that research or offer it here as material for discussion is not fair.

6) There are technical aspects of radiology to do with the appearances of projectiles and projectile fragments that have not been published or described yet. The same can be said for a comprehensive model to track projectiles from the time of the shooting to the time of patient discharge or patient death. That is my primary research aim. A trauma surgeon could have done it, or a radiologist could have done it, but they haven't. So I did it. These are valuable findings and they fall squarely in the field of terminal ballistics. If you would like me to provide you with a sample case from my file, I will. Then you can tell me if I shouldn't be talking about the subject.

7) My attitude: sir, I honestly don't intend to come across rude or disrespectful. And I can't work out how it is you would label me such and not TS. It may be a cultural thing, I don't know. But that is how I deal with attacks on me. There is a definite difference between how TS speaks to me and how many others have. Have I not been polite to Dr Vail himself? Or Mr Bulmer? I have addressed people exactly as they have addressed me. If I come across rude, then it is a mirror for the precursor to that post. I ask you to try to look at my posts objectively and in the context in which they stand and tell me I am really such a bad person.

Lastly, thanks for a measured post. I appreciate it even though you are also dismissive of my contributions.

[Odd Job]

@ CoLawman

5. In the United States a radiologist would not have had such unencumbered access to medical records. In fact, I would assume that there would be some serious internal investigations if a hospital administration learned that patient records were being posted on the Internet.

Check this link, it explains the Privacy Rule and HIPAA:

http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp

This applies not just to radiologists but to all hospital staff. The key here is anonymisation and fair/justifiable use of material. For your information, my research was not conducted in the US, it was conducted in SA. And I was given strict rules on how any images or patient information could be used publically. The Ethics Committee decides what I am allowed to do in the hospital. They even told me what I was allowed to ask the patient and what I was not. Ironically I was not allowed to ask them questions that I might have asked if I was not conducting research. The bottom line is: I have not distributed or made available any records or information that could be used to identify an individual. When I did the research I assigned each patient a number. When I was finished with the follow-ups I deleted the names and just kept the numbers. I was able to do this because I don't require long term followup on these patients. In addition to the limitations imposed on me by the Ethics Committee, I agreed to digitally extract any birthmarks, tattoos, moles or other identifying marks form any images that are to be published, whether electronically or in print. And I have adhered to the hospital's privacy policy when posting articles or cases on the internet.

As for expert testimony, radiographers are usually only called to court when there is some question about the technical aspects of the imaging or the circumstances surrounding the imaging. A typical example is in a Non-Accidental Injury paediatric series where there is a question about the L or R marking of a limb.
I agree that we wouldn't be involved in a homicide investigation under normal circumstances. However with the advent of widespread digital imaging in 3D and the use of surface modelling to replace physical models in court, there is a push to use 3D representations instead of actual photographs, when discussing possible trajectories in court. These have traditionally been done by artists who work from photographs under the direction of a clinician but where biplanar imaging exists the data can be more easily and accurately assembled into a model by somebody who understands medical imaging. I see a definite role for a radiographer there. In all other instances radiographs may be enhanced and/or manipulated for the specific purpose of demonstrating a feature that has forensic significance. That stems from the fact that while the imaging may have been adequate for clinical reasons at the time, it is not ideal for the forensic application. The converse is also true: images rejected for being undiagnostic in a clinical sense can still be utilized for a forensic purpose and in those cases the radiographer may be called to explain the technical aspects of such an unorthodox view.

[Odd Job]

@ NDD

Talk of radiographs, technician credentials and wounds in South Africa are not germane to the discussion unless those wounds were caused by LeMas ammunition.

I have a genuine interest in the radiographs of the LeMas testing, because by the advertised effect and properties of the projectile, the radiographic appearances should be quite remarkable compared to similar ammunition. I would like to see the X-rays of the LeMas tests, that is surely on topic.

Edit: I apologize if the thread has leaned towards me in the past few days. It is not something I wanted and not something I can control.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes, asking to see the radiographs of LeMas ammunition is indeed pertinent to the discussion at hand. In that vein, please do carry on.

And let's keep the discussion on topic.

[MRF54]

I have been following this 'thread' in a variety of forums on the www. It has gotten more and more entertaining... and annoying but, I don't think it should go away!

I have a few questions:
1. Is it legal and/or professional for a full-time USG employee of a Govt testing organization to openly discuss on a privately owned forum(s):
A. Testing procedures,
B. Outcomes of a limited (now perceived as biased) test,
C. Opinions of the product,
D. Opinions and accusations of the vendor?

2. Has a vendor's rights been violated when the lead person with the USG organization personally pursues (and rallies public support) to assassinate a vendors reputation and product? Why not just say it didn't pass the test and then just leave it alone?

3. Is there any type of oversite or enforcement for this type of behavior?

4. Why don't the nay sayers rally here at PS like they do everywhere else?

Now, I have a few things to say...
First off, I am not a doctor, a scientist, a LeMas guy, a drug addict, a medic, a range fairy, a computer geek, a slacker, a chump, a radiographer-thingy, a quack, a poser, a stunt man, a forensic expert, a dentist, a seal, a shark, a carnie, or a movie star - but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Basically, I'm a nobody with a little bit of knowledge on the subject.

Years ago I was made aware of a mysterious magic golden BB called LeMas. To say that I was skeptical would be an understatement. I thought it was just another vendor trying to push their product on us to endorse, yada yada yada. I rcvd some of their 9mm, 5.56mm, and .45cal to do an eval/test - I wasn't really motivated to do anything with it. Well, we had a wild 'out of its mind' great-dane that had showed up at work. This dog was terrorizing other animals we had on the site and damaging some property. We called the humane society and they never showed up - we even tried feeding it. Please note that I am a dog lover (not romantically). A few days later, low and behold this great-dane decided to get territorial with us so, I decided we should just kill it and feed the carcass to the turtles - I'm not going to allow anyone to get bit by a diseased k9. Well, one of the guys grabbed an MP5SD and a mag off the desk (we had 45's and M4's too) and out we went. The dog charged us. In full stride, the fellow with the SD cranked off one round and hit the 'devil-dog' (semper fido) right in the upper part of his front left leg on angle not perpendicular. The dog fell over dead. Everyone just sort of stood there dumbfounded. The guy with the SD actually looked at the weapon and said "WTF?" We cautiously moved up to the animal expecting it was playing possum to lure us in - nope it was D-E-A-D, dead. One of the guys cut back the skin to check out the wound (not very scientific huh?). The entrance wound on the skin was a typical 9mm puncture but there was a hole about the size of a racket ball in it's rib cage and the insides looked like regurgitated MRE (C-rats for the FOG's). I immediately asked to see the mag from the SD. He had loaded up LeMas earlier because he thought it was just some cheap ammo (packaging). Needless to say, this event got my (actually everyone's) attention but I was still very very skeptical. Again, this was several years ago.

As a result of this event, I got serious about finding out more info about what this ammo could and could not do. I would be willing to bet that I have shot, tested, and killed more critters than anyone with this ammo - except maybe the LeMas guys. I have killed beavers, coyotes, and wild hogs et al, in abundance with it. You have not lived until a 200+lb sow (that's a chick pig with teats for you city guys: 18D's no whacking off) is charging you and you can drop her with 2 poorly placed shots from an off the shelf G19. But my experience with this ammunition is not limited to self rescue from terrorist hogs or the eradication of destructive varmints. I guess I've shot just about everything with this stuff EXCEPT another human - any volunteers? Anyone, anyone... Bueller?

I have been fortunate to be part of multiple legal live tissue tests and barrier penetration tests of the few years I have known about the ammo. I think I know more about this round from an end user perspective than just about anyone out there. Hell, I even have some whacky theories on where the magic BB actually gets it's mojo. But I will not discuss that here.

The sampling numbers are vast: live tissue, ballistic wax stuff, and jello. It hasn't just been a couple of kapines - FYI: all animal use protocols were used under a USG issued and certified license. I have participated in numerous side by side controlled comparisons of 9mm, .45cal, 5.56mm (including varmint rounds), 7.62x39mm, 7.62x51mm, and 300WM under varying conditions and with various barriers. FYI - when Doc Syd gathered his data it was so damn cold we had to put out a space heater... outside... it was miserable. At that particular test, competition, and demonstration there were several physicians, 18D/PA's, veterinarians, and active duty combat (recent) vets. Everybody participated. Everybody saw everything, Everybody left with the same conclusion. When I am fortunate enough to be included in these tests it is like ground hog day... except the temperature is always on one end or the other of the spectrum.

Why should I care about this ammo and what it does?
Although I don't wear a uniform anymore and have absolutely no stake in LeMas whatsoever, I am still very connected to the community in a variety of ways. If I new I was going to go out and get it on again I would want the most lethal round I could carry. I think our service people deserve the absolute best in everything. And it makes me sick to see mandarin politics, bias, and immaturity impede the process. You have to see this stuff to believe it and it will freak you out. To the man, not one person that I have seen exposed to LeMas did not say 2 of these 4 statements: "WTF is that?", "The badguys don't have this do they? Cause I do not want to get shot with this stuff!", "Why are we not using this?", and/or "How do I get some?"

Does it really work?
Yes, exactly the way it was designed - this stuff has MOJO, 'yo. As a matter of fact it is the only round that I am aware of that is AP, stays in the subject (head, chest, extremity), and has the exact same performance every single time in the same area on different subjects even through various barriers. If I hit you with one round to the chest you are going to die, quickly (i.e. really fu@king fast). An extremity, you had better immediately tourniquet or you bleed out. Plus, the round comes apart in microns so it is impossible to clean out. if you get hit in an extremity go up a joint and amputate. HOWEVER, the ammo is a not a do-all round. It is short range AP stuff. I would carry it on urban operations w/o a 2nd thought. I can give you the good news at 250m with the 5.56mm round - if you're past that I have other options to lay down some hate with. A typical 9mm wound looks like I shot you point blank with 00-buck or a blast injury and it just zips through 3a soft and hard armor.

What about the jello testing? Here's my hypothesis...
The current issue ammunition performance is to unpredictable to test in live tissue effectively. There are too many variables and it is unreliable to gain significant measurable, replicate-able results. I have seen this when I have been a part of live tissue testing with these rounds - you just never know what they are going to do. LeMas is different. It always does the same thing whether it is through a 3a vest, rifle plates, glass, t-shirt, or bare epidermis. But it doesn't perform like a conventional round in ballistic gelatin... or does it? No, it's not just like a conventional round. If you do a jello test make sure you x-ray the block before and after... you are in for a surprise! No, it's not dust - it's thousands of metal shards that just gave you a bad organ day.

Understanding why it works isn't really that important to me. Knowing what it is made of or how it is made isn't really that important to me. Maybe they feed them to Do-Do birds and as it passes through the digestive process it receives magic bullet mojo based on the linear dispersion rate on the summer equinox only if there is full moon at high tide with power-puff girls assembling them with chemical 'X'... If it works, I reallllllly don't care how or why. I haven't cared about the stuff I've used before why is this any different?

You cannot argue with arrogance but you can demonstrate what is proper. Where has the integrity gone to with regards to this ammo and why is no one holding anyone accountable for their unprofessional actions? There has been a loss of mutual respect and dignity on this issue. It needs to be resolved so the community can benefit.

Unconventional warriors need unconventional leadership (we have to be lead because we are unmanageable), unconventional gear, and unconventional ammunition. Imagine a controlled pair from your M4 or pistol literally dropping a guy unconscious or dead on the spot every single time... wherever you hit him... even if the boogie man is wearing body armor, a magnum PI shirt, or behind steel plates.

I have yet to meet, read, or see anything that disproves what the round actually does in living tissue in every single test that I have been a part of. There is a ton of conjecture, accusations, and hyperbole. I have been told it doesn't work - it's not lethal. I have also been told it is too lethal and thus not useable - seriously. On that note, I do not think this ammo should be for joe.

I firmly believe that more testing does need to be conducted on other variables but what it does to living tissue is indisputable. But who cares what I think, I'm a nobody! Well, I've got to go keep my pimp hand strong.

[Kyobanim]

Great post MRF54.

[Five-O]

MRF54,

If I may be so bold....your post is the post the other lay people (like myself) have been waiting for in this thread. Thank you.

[CoLawman]

BRAVO MRF54!

[KevinB]

I've seen it work -and - I've velocity tested it (its fricken hot)

We had it pressure tested but no-one ever got back to me - but I surmize it above SAAMI and NATO pressure specs.

FWIW I never got better than 3-4MOA with the older stuff out of M4's and similar.

Back to the dicussion

[Five-O]

MRF54,
Just curious. Why, in your experience, should LeMas ammo be limited to SOF types and not be issued to joe?