Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic

[CharlesArbuckle]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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

I apologise. I had wrongly thought I had posted an introduction when I joined.

[CharlesArbuckle]

Originally Posted by swatsurgeon

Charles,
for people following this thread.....the makeup of the bullet is not on trial here.

Yes it is. The manufacturer's basis for this bullet is "new bullet technology". Its not. Its off the shelf varmint bullets. Noboady here would support a weapon manufacturer that lies and/or uses false advertising, yet people are doing exactly that with LaMas.


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.

The point is LaMas uses bullets that were desinged in ballistic geletin. So anyone stating that they can not "adequately/accurately test this ammo for a "gel to tissue correlation" is off there rocker.

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.

Then please do not insult me by ignoring the fact that it acts exactly like those same off the shelf bullets when driven at the same velocity. I have seen LaMas ammo fired right next to the same ballistic tip bullets fired at the same velocity (22-250 and 220Swift) with the exact same performance. All this is a moot point for us, as LaMas ammo is not legal for land warfare use, and never will be. If someone wants that type of performance thats not in the US military, fine. Go buy varmint ammo or get componets and reload over pressure rounds, instead of supporting a company that outright lies .

ss

.

[The Reaper]

Charles:

I think that the LeMas personnel have been told by the manufacturer that the bullets they are selling are unique. They do not manufacture the ammo themselves. It is a real stretch to assume that they are lying or providing false advertising. Lying implies intent to deceive. Are you one of the people who think that the POTUS lied about Iraq as well?

Are the pistol bullets off the shelf as well? If so, whose? I have not seen too many 2300 fps .45 ACP loads.

If you had read all of this thread, you would know that the debate here is not what the bullets are made of, it is about what they do in live tissue. Who else's 5.56 or 7.62 loads will replicate the live tissue performance of the LeMas?

I do not believe that the LeMas bullets function the same in gelatin as live tissue, and I have fired several hundred of them. I have seen no pressure signs when shooting the LaMas ammo in the proper modern firearms, and I have seen conventional commercially loaded ammo blow primers in the same gun fired before the LeMas. What is the sopiurce of your pressure data? More relevant to the discussion, your profile does not indicate that you are a ballistician, have you fired any into live tissue?

All of the LeMas bullets are not the same. You do not indicate any JAG service either. Who are you to predict what is and what will be legal? Terrorists and criminals are not Geneva protected personnel and units pursuing them have used non-GC compliant ammo for years. Are they illegal too?

Frankly, you need to lay out more creds than you have so far to participate in this ammo discussion. State your personal experience with the ammo, not what GKR told you to say.

Stay focused on the performance of the ammo in live tissue, and how it compares to other ammo.

Do not commit any more personal attacks against anyone, to include LeMas, or you will be permanently excluded from this debate here.

TR

[CharlesArbuckle]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Charles:

I think that the LeMas personnel have been told by the manufacturer that the bullets they are selling are unique. They do not manufacture the ammo themselves. It is a real stretch to assume that they are lying or providing false advertising. Lying implies intent to deceive.

Then I apologise if LaMas is truely ignorant of the facts. But as a reputable company they should invetigate there manufacture in light of this info.



Are the pistol bullets off the shelf as well? If so, whose? I have not seen too many 2300 fps .45 ACP loads.

I do not know, I havent seen any 2,300fps 45 loads either. I should have been more specific, I am refering to the 5.56 loads. I have very little expierence with LaMas handgun loads.



If you had read all of this thread, you would know that the debate here is not what the bullets are made of, it is about what they do in live tissue. Who else's 5.56 or 7.62 loads will replicate the live tissue performance of the LeMas?

I have read all of this thread. I know of know commercially loaded 5.56 ammo that matches the velocity of the LaMas ammo, as it is over pressure. However the same bullets driven at the same speed perform exactly like the LaMas rounds.



I do not believe that the LeMas bullets function the same in gelatin as live tissue, and I have fired several hundred of them. I have seen no pressure signs when shooting the LaMas ammo in the proper modern firearms, and I have seen conventional commercially loaded ammo blow primers in the same gun fired before the LeMas. What is the sopiurce of your pressure data?

While they may not be dangerously overpressure, they are over the norm. Here is the pressure numbers http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bi...;f=78;t=001189 middle of the third section. I did not have a strain gauge on hand when I shot.


More relevant to the discussion, your profile does not indicate that you are a ballistician, have you fired any into live tissue?

Nor does yours. I have fired them in live tissue.


All of the LeMas bullets are not the same.

But they all use bullets that are by design, expanding bullets.


You do not indicate any JAG service either. Who are you to predict what is and what will be legal?

Exposed lead and plastic tip bullets are not legal for land warfare use. You know this as well as I.



Terrorists and criminals are not Geneva protected personnel and units pursuing them have used non-GC compliant ammo for years. Are they illegal too?

No, and if that is the specific situation then fine.



Frankly, you need to lay out more creds than you have so far to participate in this ammo discussion.

What creds would allow me to participate? This an honest question, what are you looking for?



State your personal experience with the ammo, not what GKR told you to say.

A few hundred rounds, with a couple in live tissue. Furthermore why is it when someone doesnt agree with a positive stance on LaMas ammo, Dr. Roberts told them to say it? Sounds like a dance around aswering the real issue. I do not know Dr. Roberts on a personal level, and have only communicated with him on the erronet a couple times.



Stay focused on the performance of the ammo in live tissue, and how it compares to other ammo.

Understood.



Do not commit any more personal attacks against anyone, to include LeMas, or you will be permanently excluded from this debate here.

Nothing I have posted was a personal attack on anyone, to include LaMas. Everything I posted was factual. I'm sorry if it doesnt fit you predetermined mold.

TR

I have been nothing but respectful to everyone here, and will continue to be provided it is returned. Of that you have you no worries.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by CharlesArbuckle

I have been nothing but respectful to everyone here, and will continue to be provided it is returned. Of that you have you no worries.

Well, you have already called members here liars, and I would see that as somewhat less than respectful.

Are you the one who tested the ammo and wrote the posts that you referred to, or are you putting up someone else's test info?

Looks to me from the posts that you referenced, that the 5.56 Land Warfare was shot in the wrong barrel. The pressure specs for that ammo should be tested in an 10.5" 1x7" barrel, they run fine in mine. IMHO, they will run hot in anything over 14.5" or so.

If the same bullets at the same MV perform in exactly the same fashion, why did GKR state that they were only suitable for "shooting small furry animals"? I have shot much larger animals and as swatsurgeon stated, the performance and tissue damage is incredible. Why is no one else currently loading this ammo as a defense round?

Not all LeMas ammo is lead or plastic tipped, or designed to be expanding. Some is dedicated AP and IIRC, is homogenous. I believe you can see that on the thread you referenced. Ask Gary.

I think that my use of the ammunition over a multi-year period, my participation in this thread, and previous posts on the LeMas rounds establishes that I am adequately versed in ballistics to discuss this topic generically. It is acknowledged that I am not a trauma surgeon, or a "certified" ballistics expert, and I have not stayed in a Holiday Inn recently. I am still waiting for another pathologist or trauma surgeon to refute swatsurgeon's analysis. You have never posted on anything on this board except this thread (except for your recent intro), have little in your profile, and have only posted comments that seem to be quotes directly from GKR. Are you actually Gary Roberts, or is he just channelling through you?

What is your background in ballistics, weapons, or medicine?

I find it amazing when you claim not to know GKR, since your previous comments on the LeMas ammo are virtually verbatim from a conversation he and I had recently. The similarities and points are identical, and in exactly the same sequence. You could have worked from exactly the same script. What a coincidence.

The real surprising thing is that Gary can get fans (not personally directed at you, since you are not in communication with him), to take what he says and parrot it on websites as Gospel, even if they have never fired a round. I am glad to hear that you have shot the ammo in question. What did you shoot, what did you hit with it and what were the results you observed?

That is the real issue here. The thread is about how LeMas works in live tissue. Not what the bullets are made out of, not how they function, not how they perform in gelatin, not what claims have been made, not whether they are Geneva Convention compliant. WHAT DO THEY DO IN LIVE TISSUE?

You called the vendors of the ammo, who are members here, liars. Where I grew up, that is offensive and would be considered fighting words. I think you owe them an apology unless or until you can prove that they have knowingly misled people about their ammo. If you do not see that, I think you are missing the point. The comments that "it doesnt fit you predetermined mold" is irrelevant. People on Tactical Forums have committed ad hominem attacks on Dr. Vail without ever refuting his results. That will not happen here in a discussion I am involved in. I think everyone has been told that already.

We can have this discussion with you (and others who share Gary's viewpoints) making his points for him, or we can let him and his experts make their own arguments with Dr. Vail with his associates. It has been almost two months since I posted the article by Dr. Vail, and GKR has visited here regularly without personally offering any scientific refutation of the findings. Note that the discussion here has been professional and without name calling or allegations of quackery, even when visitors were belligerent from the beginning. All we have seen are people who come here to seemingly make GKR's arguments for him. One would think that he (or a physician with ballistics experience sharing his views) was afraid to make his argument himself for some reason. If he has his facts right, why?

Why is GKR here himself reading, but not answering Dr. Vail's findings concerning the performance of LeMas ammo in live tissue? I have personally offered him the opportunity to discuss the matter with Dr. Vail in a limited access forum here, and he was noncommittal.

Does he concede that it is devastating in live tissue, and merely wants to argue the details of its manufacture?

I believe that an offer has been made to conduct another live tissue shoot at a controlled facility with GKR (and anyone he wants to bring) present to take whatever readings they wish, with Dr. Vail and his party in attendance. The results could be mutually signed off on and published as factual, putting this argument to rest.

To date, I do not believe that he has accepted the challenge.

I have spoken with Gary and he does not seem like a bad sort of fellow. I wonder why he remains mute here, content to let others argue for him?

TR

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

All we have seen are people who come here to seemingly make GKR's arguments for him.

I trust you do not include me in that group. I don't know Dr Roberts and I've never spoken to him personally. I've never acted under any direction from him and I have no financial or professional attachments to any member here or on TF.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Odd Job

@ The Reaper

I trust you do not include me in that group. I don't know Dr Roberts and I've never spoken to him personally. I've never acted under any direction from him and I have no financial or professional attachments to any member here or on TF.

OJ:

To my observation, you have not speculated on the performance of the ammunition beyond a desire to see radiological data, and discussion of gelatin as a valid test medium.

As a member of TF.com, you would have to acknowledge that most of the info there is from sources which are clearly hostile towards LeMas and are not inclined to entertain opposing viewpoints to GKR's opinions. Given that, your posts here seem to have been relatively open-minded towards an analysis of hard data in a field of your expertise, and a spirited defense of radiographers and their skills.

I thought that you had decided to wait till that data is available to visit or comment further here?

TR

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

Thanks for your comment, I do appreciate it.

I thought that you had decided to wait till that data is available to visit or comment further here?

APLP says the radiographs from the shoot that SS reported on, are not available. SS hasn't answered my latest questions about his role in the shoot. I am quite aware that I am not at all liked on this forum and there are quite a few reasons for this and I have thrashed some of them out here. I don't think there is going to be any further information coming my way on which we can base a further discussion here. That's fine with me. That's how the deal is.

But one thing I wanted to be clear was that I am not a messenger boy.

[The Reaper]

I looked and the X-Rays that I have are the same ones APLP has, and as photos of X-Rays, I do not think that they show much, if any detail.

If anyone has any decent radiography from a LeMas shoot, I would hope that they would share it.

Based on my experience, all they are going to show is a spherical cloud of dust sized particles around a central wound channel with the radius dependent on the velocity and weight of the bullet.

I would not be so quick to judge your popularity here, I personally have no issues with you, and if someone does, that should not really affect their objectivity or willingness to provide data.

After all, the intent of this thread is to put out information and try to engage in a bit of informed discussion.

Appreciate your feedback.

TR

[APLP]

Originally Posted by Odd Job

@ The Reaper

Thanks for your comment, I do appreciate it.



APLP says the radiographs from the shoot that SS reported on, are not available. SS hasn't answered my latest questions about his role in the shoot. I am quite aware that I am not at all liked on this forum and there are quite a few reasons for this and I have thrashed some of them out here. I don't think there is going to be any further information coming my way on which we can base a further discussion here. That's fine with me. That's how the deal is.

But one thing I wanted to be clear was that I am not a messenger boy.

Odd Job,

You will be welcome to have full access to the next round of documentation as it relates to your fields of expertise that will include Le Mas AP handgun data that you have expressed specific interest . If you cannot attend I will make efforts to send the data to you at your location. I would expect another evolution to take place at a designated research facility within the next couple of months.

[Odd Job]

@ APLP and TR

Thank you

[CharlesArbuckle]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Well, you have already called members here liars, and I would see that as somewhat less than respectful.

I apologized for that at the top of my last post.


Are you the one who tested the ammo and wrote the posts that you referred to, or are you putting up someone else's test info?

I'm confused here. If your talking about the link I provided on test pressure, its from Dr. Roberts.



If the same bullets at the same MV perform in exactly the same fashion, why did GKR state that they were only suitable for "shooting small furry animals"? I have shot much larger animals and as swatsurgeon stated, the performance and tissue damage is incredible. Why is no one else currently loading this ammo as a defense round?

I cant presume to speak for Dr Roberts, but it might have to do with the fact that they are COTS varmint bullets, or the lack, in his eyes, of adequate penetration.



Not all LeMas ammo is lead or plastic tipped, or designed to be expanding. Some is dedicated AP and IIRC, is homogenous. I believe you can see that on the thread you referenced. Ask Gary.

You are right. I wasnt really thinking about those. Sorry for the oversight.



I think that my use of the ammunition over a multi-year period, my participation in this thread, and previous posts on the LeMas rounds establishes that I am adequately versed in ballistics to discuss this topic generically. It is acknowledged that I am not a trauma surgeon, or a "certified" ballistics expert, and I have not stayed in a Holiday Inn recently.

It was not my intention to question your creds.



You have never posted on anything on this board except this thread (except for your recent intro), have little in your profile,

I havent posted because because I rarely visit. I rarely ask questions on forums boards, because I dont really have any questions, and if I do they can useally be answered with a search. When I do come here I dont answer questions or give advice because its usually answered suffiecently by members such as yourself.



and have only posted comments that seem to be quotes directly from GKR. Are you actually Gary Roberts, or is he just channelling through you?

Once agian, I am not Gary Roberts, I do not know Dr. Roberts, if my posts seem to be quotes from him, I'm flatered, but they are not.



What is your background in ballistics, weapons, or medicine?

By ballistics, I assume you mean terminal, but just in case heres all three. I have little expierence with internal ballistics, other than attaching strain gauges, and helping with pressure testing on a couple of occasions. External, everything from muzzle to 2,400yds. Terminal, mainly studying written works from Dr. Fackler, Dr. Roberts, etc, picking the Delta's brains, a few gunshot wounds while working on an ambulance, and performing amateur autopsies on hundreds of animals, shot with everthing from .17cal to 50BMG.

On weapons, save for some machine guns, most of them. I shoot 60K rounds (separate from the unit) on average every year, most being 5.56, 9mm, and 45acp. I'm a school trained sniper (Benning), SDM, attended numerous small arms and CQB/MOUT courses both Mil and civilian, master classed IDPA shooter, 3-gun, F- classs shooter, and part time firearms trainer. I've shot with, trained with, and been trained by Tier1 units, and world champions. In short I know which end the bullets come out.

On medicine, an EMT/IV, some basic and avanced trauma classes and thats about it. Certainly no 18D level stuff, though they do probably get tired of me asking them questions all the time .






I find it amazing when you claim not to know GKR, since your previous comments on the LeMas ammo are virtually verbatim from a conversation he and I had recently. The similarities and points are identical, and in exactly the same sequence. You could have worked from exactly the same script. What a coincidence.

I dont believe in coincidence's so maybe just a logical conclusion.



The real surprising thing is that Gary can get fans (not personally directed at you, since you are not in communication with him), to take what he says and parrot it on websites as Gospel, even if they have never fired a round.

I truely doubt Dr. Roberts gets anybody to "parrot" his thoughts "on websites as Gospel" Probably more to do with that his posts are inteligent, scientificly based, sound, and unbiased. I dont think he has anything personal with LaMas, he just wants the truth along with most of the rest of us.


I am glad to hear that you have shot the ammo in question. What did you shoot, what did you hit with it and what were the results you observed?


A couple steel plates, though I really cant remember what kind of steel they were, that ranged from 1/8-1/2in, and a couple furry creatures. I have seen the results from deer (around 115lbs) and I thought they preformed like any thin jacketed "ballistictip" bullet fired at high velocity. It certainly killed the animal, and there was lots of tissue dissruption, but not enough penetration for anything other then completely broadside shots IMHO. Would I shoot a human with them? Sure. I just dont believe they do anything "special".




That is the real issue here. The thread is about how LeMas works in live tissue. Not what the bullets are made out of, not how they function, not how they perform in gelatin, not what claims have been made, not whether they are Geneva Convention compliant. WHAT DO THEY DO IN LIVE TISSUE?

Oh, they dissrupt the shit out of it. They were desinged to by the manufactures. No argument there. My worry with them is they are varmint bullets, they behave like varmint bullets (maybe a little more violently the comercialy loaded rounds) and so suffer, from the evidence I have seen, from rather shallow penetration.




You called the vendors of the ammo, who are members here, liars. Where I grew up, that is offensive and would be considered fighting words. I think you owe them an apology unless or until you can prove that they have knowingly misled people about their ammo. If you do not see that, I think you are missing the point.

I addressed that at the top of this post.



The comments that "it doesnt fit you predetermined mold" is irrelevant.

Maybe, maybe not. I think from an objective viewpoint, most ( not necessarily you) that are awstruck by LaMas are just that, awsturck by what it does. And it does create massive tissue damage, but so does alot of other rounds and ammo. I have no persoanl interest in this, I would not feel inadequate carring LaMas into combat, but I would rather see another company produce ammo to the same specs, if I were to use it, just because LaMas has been less the totaly honest about it.



We can have this discussion with you (and others who share Gary's viewpoints) making his points for him, or we can let him and his experts make their own arguments with Dr. Vail with his associates. It has been almost two months since I posted the article by Dr. Vail, and GKR has visited here regularly without personally offering any scientific refutation of the findings. Note that the discussion here has been professional and without name calling or allegations of quackery, even when visitors were belligerent from the beginning. All we have seen are people who come here to seemingly make GKR's arguments for him. One would think that he (or a physician with ballistics experience sharing his views) was afraid to make his argument himself for some reason. If he has his facts right, why?

I do not know for sure why Dr. Roberts doesnt post here, but I have my guesses. I for one would like to see him post here too.




I have spoken with Gary and he does not seem like a bad sort of fellow. I wonder why he remains mute here, content to let others argue for him?

If you think I argue for Dr. Roberts, you are sorely mistaken. I am here of my own accord, and with my own thoughts.


TR

Sorry for using the quotes all the time, it just seems easier to keep track of whats going on.

[swatsurgeon]

Odd Job,
Sorry for the delay in answering..just got back from vacation. I will respond to each of your questions:

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. {CORRECT}

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). {CORRECT}

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. {I was present for all cartridges being removed from each box of either 'factory' ammo or the LeMas box. I have seen and inspected enough of the LeMas to know it on sight and can verify that what came out of the LeMas 'white box' was the LeMas ammo that I have seen on other occasions. I was present next to the shooter and saw the magazine go into each firearm used for each test so that no switching of intended ammo was done }

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). {CORRECT}

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). {CORRECT, although I'm not sure what other parameters you are referencing}

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): {This has been addressed by others previously in this thread}

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? { I have seen no commercial ammo offered to date that states it will penetrate armor and have wound ballistics such as those demonstrated by LeMas. I have never read or been advised of any commercial ammunition company demonstrating similiar results as those seen with the LeMas rounds; in live tissue.}

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? { I dissected animals hit by all types of ammo, both thoracic cavity and hind quarter shots in the samre manner regardless of the type of ammo used. You could easily have 'blinded' the shooting of any of the animals and I would be able to distinguish between those hit with the LeMas rounds and those hit by all others. I could not have told you which of the other commercially available ammo was used only that the LeMas was used on a particular animal.}

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. { As stated, I have not seen any handgun ammo that will/can do what LeMas does in tissue, i.e., replicating a high powered ammunition impact. I haven't seen any of the other manufacturers offer their ammo as having similiar wounding patterns and would be glad to compare any chosen by Dr. Roberts that should replicate the LeMas wounding patterns as well as do gel testing on both to see the gel to tissue correlation, which I believe will not show a high degree of correlation to the wounding effects in tissue as discussed at length in this thread.}

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. { The only support I offer is that the gel testing does not accurately demonstrate the wound ballistics of LeMas on live tissue; there is no correlation between the two media. As far as the marketing claims, the only ones i agree with are that the bullet performs as marketed}

I hope this adequately answers your questions. Please feel free to ask more or for clarifications. Now will you ask Dr. Roberts about tissue impacts as well as comparison of any other ammo with LeMas in tissue as well as gel. The failure of correlation is a prime topic for discussion and those that 'depend' on ammunition wound ballistics should want more answers of why the correlation isn't there. It makes you wonder if other ammunition couldn't make it to market because of "poor gel profiling" that would have had good/excellent results in a different test medium,i.e, live tissue. Wouldn't it be a crime if present LE duty ammo and military ammo had objective pathologic correlation (from surgeons and pathologist) that demonstrated a poorer performance in the human body when gel said it would perform to the 'marketing' standard.....
Makes me wonder if a new test medium ought not be developed so that all end users are assured of terminal ballistics rather than inferring from shots in a non-tissue simulant.


ss

[Odd Job]

@ SS

Thanks for the reply. There are one or two items I still don't have clear in my mind:

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). {CORRECT, although I'm not sure what other parameters you are referencing}

I mean technical parameters such as firing distance and variable weight/size of pig in each case. There are probably more parameters than what I have mentioned, but it will suffice to know whether it was your role to verify those (in general) or not.

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? { I have seen no commercial ammo offered to date that states it will penetrate armor and have wound ballistics such as those demonstrated by LeMas. I have never read or been advised of any commercial ammunition company demonstrating similiar results as those seen with the LeMas rounds; in live tissue.}

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.

{ The only support I offer is that the gel testing does not accurately demonstrate the wound ballistics of LeMas on live tissue; there is no correlation between the two media. As far as the marketing claims, the only ones i agree with are that the bullet performs as marketed}

I understand your point of view on the gel vs tissue debate as applies to this thread, but your last sentence in that quote is very general. For example it could be interpreted that you support marketing claims on how the bullet performs with regards to temperature changes from one medium to another. Perhaps it would be easier if you specified that there are certain LeMas marketing claims that you do not actively support, or have not aimed to support. Are there any such claims and if so, is your stance on those claims derived from the test documented in this thread or from failure to correlate with other real-world shootings you have been involved in?

Now will you ask Dr. Roberts about tissue impacts as well as comparison of any other ammo with LeMas in tissue as well as gel. The failure of correlation is a prime topic for discussion and those that 'depend' on ammunition wound ballistics should want more answers of why the correlation isn't there. It makes you wonder if other ammunition couldn't make it to market because of "poor gel profiling" that would have had good/excellent results in a different test medium,i.e, live tissue.

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 have had PMs from members both here and on TF and I have PMed people too, but in all cases the subject/content of those messages has related directly to me and if I look at them objectively they have been for my benefit/illumination. My own technical outlook on the matter at hand (concerning your comment above about other ammunition not performing like LeMas) is that I presume their ammunition will in fact behave the same way as the LeMas ammunition does, if the remaining variables to do with the properties of the cartridges are emulated (excluding the projectile, because I am of the opinion now that the construction of the projectile is not the key factor in the success of the rifle ammunition in this test). I have very little knowledge of internal and external ballistics so all I can think of is the velocity of the projectile being much higher in the LeMas ammunition than in others. The handgun ammunition is a different story.

Wouldn't it be a crime if present LE duty ammo and military ammo had objective pathologic correlation (from surgeons and pathologist) that demonstrated a poorer performance in the human body when gel said it would perform to the 'marketing' standard.....

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.

Makes me wonder if a new test medium ought not be developed so that all end users are assured of terminal ballistics rather than inferring from shots in a non-tissue simulant.

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.

[The Reaper]

Odd Job:

I have been nothing if not tolerant of you on this thread. I have supported you remaining active on this topic when others did not. At the same time, you have been walking a very fine line.

My understanding was that you were interested in this ammunition and in learning more about its wound potential from your field of expertise, a radiographic perspective.

Now it appears that you are asking questions about the personal participation of Dr. Vail which appear to either question his integrity, or at least get a lot further into the details of the testing than would seem to be appropriate for someone who is merely interested in the radiological examination of the wounds in live tissue. I, for one, do not like the tone and direction of your comments to Dr. Vail.

It would be most unfortunate if your comments were to be interpreted as disrespectful, as that would mean the end of your participation here. I would hope that you would not address others, particularly physicians, to their faces in this manner. Perhaps either dialect or the internet are clouding this communication.

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. What concern is it of yours who set up the test protocols or what his opinion of the marketing claims are? He wrote the article as a commentary on the LeMas ammunition's performance in live tissue.

This thread is about terminal performance of LeMas in live tissue, as indicated in Dr. Vail's article. Stay on track and be respectful in your tone. I will not repeat myself (again) on this.

I hope that we can continue this thread in a professional manner.

TR