Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic

[Odd Job]

@ All

My response to SS was moved to this thread:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.php?t=11178

[x SF med]

SS-
my guess is that the guy in the x-rays is alive - but not thinking very clearly anymore - paralyzed, deaf and probably blind on the right side. Not a head of broccoli, but pretty close.

[swatsurgeon]

Actually the elevator is only missing the top 2 floors on him....I was surprised at how functional he was after 3 weeks in coma then slow recovery for 4 more. Normal vision, balance is alittle off, leans to the right, slight weakness left arm and leg, speech is good, not perfect. Lives with chronic headaches and photophobia (good eyes pick up)

[CharlesArbuckle]

Originally Posted by MRF54

?

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

I mean no disrespect to anyone, but most dont come because there is no room for contention here. If you do not aggree with the moderators, you are barreted and/or banned. It's there house, I guess.



I have expierence with LaMas 5.56 ammo. My only question is... Has all that are still claiming that the rounds are "unique" and can not be tested in ballistic geletin, not seen this? -

"Using stereomicroscopy comparative analysis and SEM data, AFTE affiliated forensic scientists were able to prove that each of the LeMas rifle loads tested actually used commercially produced conventional rifle bullets: for example, the LeMas 5.56 mm Urban Warfare load is actually a Nosler 40 gr Ballistic Tip #39510, while the LeMas 5.56 mm Land Warfare appears to be a Sierra 45 gr JSP Varminter #1310. Similarly the LeMas .308 Land Warfare turned out to be a Hornady 110 gr JSP #3010, while the LeMas .308 TFSP is really a Hornady 110 gr VMAX #23010, and the LeMas .308 Urban Warfare is a Nosler 125 gr Ballistic Tip #30125--oh, and the one lead-free LeMas rifle load we tested, the .308 SSSP/HARPPII, turned out to use Barnes Solid 125 gr all brass bullets #30812.

Dr. Roberts"

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by CharlesArbuckle

I mean no disrespect to anyone, but most dont come because there is no room for contention here. If you do not aggree with the moderators, you are barreted and/or banned. It's there house, I guess.



I have expierence with LaMas 5.56 ammo. My only question is... Has all that are still claiming that the rounds are "unique" and can not be tested in ballistic geletin, not seen this? -

"Using stereomicroscopy comparative analysis and SEM data, AFTE affiliated forensic scientists were able to prove that each of the LeMas rifle loads tested actually used commercially produced conventional rifle bullets: for example, the LeMas 5.56 mm Urban Warfare load is actually a Nosler 40 gr Ballistic Tip #39510, while the LeMas 5.56 mm Land Warfare appears to be a Sierra 45 gr JSP Varminter #1310. Similarly the LeMas .308 Land Warfare turned out to be a Hornady 110 gr JSP #3010, while the LeMas .308 TFSP is really a Hornady 110 gr VMAX #23010, and the LeMas .308 Urban Warfare is a Nosler 125 gr Ballistic Tip #30125--oh, and the one lead-free LeMas rifle load we tested, the .308 SSSP/HARPPII, turned out to use Barnes Solid 125 gr all brass bullets #30812.

Dr. Roberts"

Charles you've been here long enough to have read the rules I'm sure. You might try again. And while we've banned a few, we've never "barreted" anyone.

Try reading them again.

TS

[swatsurgeon]

Charles,
for people following this thread.....the makeup of the bullet is not on trial here. The effects in tissue, unexplained by gel testing, is the featured item.
I do not care what it is made of, how it is made or what the name or hype has been. The ammuntion I fired, saw fired, compared to 'conventional' ammunition acts differently in tissue than what is predicted by a simulant that demonstrates it can not adequately/accurately test this ammo for a "gel to tissue correlation" that the average ammo can adequately predict.
When the model doesn't fit, we change the model to exploit the effects that it can't demonstrate.

Please do not insult me with the metallurgic facts that have no bearing on the commentary I wrote or the facts being discussed. I have no malice toward anyone that questions, with a reasonable argument, the facts presented, i.e., it acts differently in tissue than in gel and that because of this, it has not received the appropriate testing and attention to it's incapacitation potential simply because of a report of ballistic gelatin characteristics.

ss

[MRF54]

Originally Posted by CharlesArbuckle

I mean no disrespect to anyone, but most dont come because there is no room for contention here. If you do not aggree with the moderators, you are barreted and/or banned. It's there house, I guess.



I have expierence with LaMas 5.56 ammo. My only question is... Has all that are still claiming that the rounds are "unique" and can not be tested in ballistic geletin, not seen this? -

"Using stereomicroscopy comparative analysis and SEM data, AFTE affiliated forensic scientists were able to prove that each of the LeMas rifle loads tested actually used commercially produced conventional rifle bullets: for example, the LeMas 5.56 mm Urban Warfare load is actually a Nosler 40 gr Ballistic Tip #39510, while the LeMas 5.56 mm Land Warfare appears to be a Sierra 45 gr JSP Varminter #1310. Similarly the LeMas .308 Land Warfare turned out to be a Hornady 110 gr JSP #3010, while the LeMas .308 TFSP is really a Hornady 110 gr VMAX #23010, and the LeMas .308 Urban Warfare is a Nosler 125 gr Ballistic Tip #30125--oh, and the one lead-free LeMas rifle load we tested, the .308 SSSP/HARPPII, turned out to use Barnes Solid 125 gr all brass bullets #30812.

Dr. Roberts"

Charles,
First off, welcome to this forum. Seeing that this is your first post at PS you must be following this controversy pretty closely. For me, one of the things that attracted me to this forum is the rules and the deliberate enforcement of them. I find it refreshing - plus it keeps you on your toes! All that being said... I would follow TS' advice and read the rules and then follow protocol if you want to be taken seriously and/or treated nicely... but I don't think anyone in here really cares much for how people feel (unless it's your birthday)... this isn't a feel good fan club kinda place... this is someone else's house, thus we are all guests and are obligated out of courtesy to follow the house rules. But once again welcome and I look forward to discussing this with you!

Your statement-
My answer to you is yes, I am aware of that information. However, I have a few problems with it...

1. Vendor information was publicly posted and discussed by a person representing a (by charter) unbiased organization. What other ammunition manufacturer or person has had to endure this type of public discrediting? Are not the shelves of hunting stores, gun shops, and Stuff-Mart full of ammo that doesn't pass the golden standard of ballistic jello?

2. Dr. Roberts was not the first person to question this visual similarity and dissect the ammo. I have been trying to figure this one out for years and I am to a point now where it just doesn't matter anymore due to the performance of LeMas.

3. Where are the receipts from the bullet manufacturers showing LeMas purchasing these bullets? There should be a paper trail a mile long indicting them to this fact. But then again, why is this an issue? As a matter of fact that might be a good thing. That would = easier manufacturing, more of this stuff quicker, and more business for US based companies. Sounds like a win-win for everyone!

4. IF LeMas is using these other manufacturers bullets (I have no proof either way ) it still does not diminish what the LeMas rounds consistently do to tissue when shot side by side against, supposedly, the same bullet - even through various barriers! Commercial ammo is shot against commercial ammo. The other stuff isn't consistent and does not perform like the LeMas in live tissue.

5. I view this type of information, publicly posted and debated, as an opportunity for those that have made up their mind to derail all interested parties from the facts. The fact is, LeMas really does a fantastic job at destroying live tissue - CONSISTENTLY through various BARRIERS. Nothing the LeMas guys have said, Dr. Roberts, SwatSurgeon, the 100's of operators who have now seen it work, or myself say/have said/or will say is going to change that.

6. Doesn't LeMas have some sort of proprietary rights about their products? Knowing their secret recipe doesn't change the fact that everyone who has witnessed a side by side comparison of their ammo vs the others has seen it work in off the shelf weapons on live tissue.

So, in agreement to what SS posted earlier, let's keep this thread in line and have a discerning, focused, and mature discussion about LeMas and it's effects on living tissue. Believing in LeMas IS NOT a prerequisite to joining this debate - I haven't been offered any cool-aid yet. Having your own facts, your own experience, and your own questions is however needed to participate with any seriousness.

Part 2:
Standard #1 is jello.
Standard #2 is long range accuracy.
1.What is the real lethality range of all the current issued 5.56mm ammo fired from a standard M4? I don't want to hear about computer models.

2. What are the average ranges of engagement of Western infantry with their service rifle since WW2?

3. What are the average engagement ranges of Coalition Forces in OIF/OEF with their M4's?

4. Why place accuracy (and negligible terminal effects of all the 5.56mm) above and beyond performance from 0-250m with the LeMas? If LeMas kills the competition (puns r fun), isn't this just another derailment from the facts?

*I have no idea what LeMas will do to live tissue at 400m. Does anyone have any real data at this range?

I heard that Chuck Norris was endorsing LeMas because it was the first bullet he saw that ever scared him.

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

FWIW most people cannot shoot a weapon straight.
Now that you have peaked my interest I'll go and shoot some LeMas at what ever distance you post and get back to you concerning MOA. TS
Graduate, Special Forces Sniper School.

TS:

Have been waiting for some results but I see no one gave you any distances!

How about shooting for group at 200, 300, and 500 yards through both an SPR and a service grade M-4. I figure five strings of five per type of ammo should give some very accurate statistical results.


Gene

[Odd Job]

@ SS

...for people following this thread.....the makeup of the bullet is not on trial here. The effects in tissue, unexplained by gel testing, is the featured item.
I do not care what it is made of, how it is made or what the name or hype has been. The ammuntion I fired, saw fired, compared to 'conventional' ammunition acts differently in tissue...

I would just like to clarify what your role was in the testing of the LeMas ammunition and what your subsequent commitments are (which may affect similar tests in the future). The way I understand it, it's like this:

1. You don't have a vested interest in whether the manufacturers of LeMas have produced a physically unique projectile or not, and you have no role in confirming or refuting this.

2. You were not advised either before testing or during testing that any of the tested LeMas projectiles were rebranded OTS commercial projectiles (for the purpose of documenting differences in the behaviour of the projectile in live tissue that were not as a result of the design of the projectile).

3. Your role was not to verify what projectiles were involved in the testing; and in fact you could not verify this by surface inspection of the cartridges; and even if that verification was possible you were not in a position to do so because you did not conduct all the firing of the projectiles.

4. You do not have a commitment, instruction or a tacit agreement to support any of LeMas's marketing claims with regards to the advertised mode of deployment of the projectiles (reasonable proof of impartiality).

5. Your role was expressly limited to the documentation of the effects of each firing into the live animal and did not extend to documentation and/or verification of the test firing parameters (especially when it comes to possible differences in parameters when firing LeMas ammunition vs others).

Could you please set me straight if I am wrong on any of these points.

My ruminations continue:

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. If we assume for now that this is in fact the case, I would like to know whether your analysis of these live tissue firings would have been handled in any way differently from how it was done, with particular regard to the following (if you were made aware of this rebranding prior to the shoot):

1. Would you have made any attempt (either out of curiosity or for scientific purposes) to come to a conclusion (based on your knowledge of real life terminal ballistics) why essentially the same projectile exhibited such superior performance when fired out of a LeMas cartridge compared to existing commercial cartridges loaded with that same projectile?

2. Would you have been more critical or in any way changed how you physically inspected the tissues, with particular regard to the effects of 'standard' vs LeMas targets?

Lastly, I would like to know if this new information about these projectiles in any way changes your plans, or proposed methodology with regards to a subsequent test of the LeMas ammunition with particular regards to an impartial documentation of which projectiles are fired into which tissues and whether these are unique LeMas projectiles or not. I say this because nobody as yet has claimed that ALL of the LeMas projectiles are rebranded OTS projectiles: I have not yet seen anybody claim that the 9mm projectiles are not original designs, for instance.

I have assumed that you will be involved in subsequent LeMas testing but I have not assumed that you are standing as a professional referee for the support of the LeMas marketing claims. Likewise on this point I would like you to correct me if I am wrong because this affects the perceived 'nature' of the current and future tests of this ammunition.

[Team Sergeant]

Was damaged when it was split from the "Radiological Discussion of Lemas Ammo". We are attempting to correct the problem.

That is all.

Team Sergeant

[Dan]

Fixed

[KevinB]

Originally Posted by Gene Econ

TS:

Have been waiting for some results but I see no one gave you any distances!

How about shooting for group at 200, 300, and 500 yards through both an SPR and a service grade M-4. I figure five strings of five per type of ammo should give some very accurate statistical results.


Gene

Gene -- it got moved into the other thread (unk why)

My only distances where 100m and 200m.

Stan came back with a point that the round does not like longer than 14.5" barrelled 1:7's.

I'd be curious for TS's results with your suggestion.

[Ambush Master]

Originally Posted by KevinB

Gene -- it got moved into the other thread (unk why)

My only distances where 100m and 200m.

Stan came back with a point that the round does not like longer than 14.5" barrelled 1:7's.

I'd be curious for TS's results with your suggestion.

Kevin,

I just moved it back in here. When this got split into the Radiological Thread, it got messed up a bit. We're getting it straightened out.

I believe what you are looking for is post# 149 & 150.

Martin

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by KevinB

Gene -- it got moved into the other thread (unk why) My only distances where 100m and 200m. Stan came back with a point that the round does not like longer than 14.5" barrelled 1:7's. I'd be curious for TS's results with your suggestion.

Kevin / Martin:

I read posts 149 and 150 again and there are no results of accuracy evaluations. Hopefully TS will hit a KD range and do some of these tests.

Kevin -- What were your results at 100 and 200 please. Hopefully you used service grade carbines or rifles with as issued barrel lengths and rifling twists.

Also -- it seems there is a bunch of different types of this ammo in 5.56. And each one seems to like a certain twist and barrel length. I am getting kind of confused over these varieties of ammo, their intent, and associated barrel lengths and twists. Anyone out there who can direct me to this information?

Wouldn't mind seeing some info on chamber pressures over about 120 degrees worth of changes in ammunition temperature if anyone has such information.

Thankyou

Gene

[KevinB]

Gene - I shot it with a 16" midlength Douglas 1:7 Wylde Chambered KAC SR16.

Our C8SFW (whe I was in the CF) had a 1:7 16" barrel.


I got aprox 3.5MOA out of it at both 100-200m (this has been over two and a half years since I shot this) I cannot recall the exact group measurements but they where not nearly as good as the IVI C77 nor the HSM 77gr I had on hand.
When I go on leave next I will dig thru the garage and see if I have the results still on a paper copy.