The dentist (Gary Roberts)

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Tuukka

No dog in this fight but;

- To my knowledge ballistic gelatin is still the most widely used and recommended testing method by terminal ballistics experts. No, not the same as shooting a human body, but the findings mirror quite closely the real life results and it is a viable testing method.

- Dr. Roberts posts on a number of websites ( LF.net, 10-8 forums, M4carbine, Tacticalforums ), where professional, vetted LE / MIL folks post as well, he enjoys a status on those forums as a very qualified expert in the field of terminal ballistics testing.

- I find it hard to believe that this forum would not benefit from his knowledge and that professional folks could not get along? I also find it hard to believe that the only "true" knowledgeable ballistics experts reside on just this forum, trauma surgeons or not.

Tuukka:

Not enough time to respond in detail here, but consider the following.

Ballistic gelatin was once accepted as the best tissue simulant. Given the failure of it to accurately replicate the performance of the LeMas in live tissue, I would say that in my experince, it is now proven deficient. I base that on the hundreds of rounds of LeMas I have personally fired, and more than 50 live tissue comparison shootings that I have personally witnessed. I am not a trauma surgeon, but the attending physicians' feedback, to include Dr. Vail's, parallel my own.

As I have previously mentioned, as a former SF soldier, I do not care what the bullets are made of or how they work. I just care that they do. And I do not care if they are sold by LeMas, Lake City, or Remington, or made by Sierra, RBCD, or Hornady. If they work in live tissue, but not in gelatin, and I cannot explain why, should I then not use them? I want to save my soldiers' lives, and kill bad guys dead, not have a debate on what the mechanism of destruction is and how it is not accurately simulated in ballistic gel.

I believe that Dr. Roberts (DDS) is an active promoter of himself as the pre-eminent terminal ballistics expert in the country, if not the world. He is essentially tagging onto Dr. Martin Fackler's work, but without the professional training and qualifications, as Dr. Fackler was an accredited trauma surgeon and pathologist with the credibility to compare terminal ballistic performance in ballistic gelatin with his real world trauma experience. The fact that the LeMas appears to work in live tissue, but not in ballistic gelatin is a refutation of his reliance on ballistic gelatin as a preferred medium and directly threatens his prosfessional credibility. I believe that he has decided to personally and professionally attack non-believers because of this.

Dr. Roberts has not been mentioned here for some time. He has a PS.com account, and has been asked to make his comments here that pertain to Lemas and members of this forum. Yet he has never posted. Instead, he chooses to go to another forum, and make remarks personally critical of TS and I. Why do you suppose that is? Dr. Vail was ripped to shreds and his professional reputation trampled at another forum you mentioned by a bunch of fanboys with zero medical or tactical experience. He was called a quack and his professional credentials questioned by people who have no creds, apparently at the behest of GKR and his supporters. Is that what passes for scientific method and prodfessional dialogue among the other boards?

I am sure there are lots of boards and forums with trauma experts. I really doubt that there are very many firearms and tactical boards with trauma surgeons who have the experience in gunshot wounds, have seen the use of LeMas in person, and who have had the opportunity to conduct necropsies on the number of post-LeMas shot live tissue targets that the physicians here have. Just as a courtesy, tell me how many board certified trauma surgeons you have encountered out there with those creds posting their results on the other boards you have cited. While you are at it, ask Dr. Roberts how many rounds of LeMas he has fired and how many necropsies he has conducted on the live tissue targets which were shot with LeMas.

In summary, I would be more than happy to hear Dr. Roberts comments here in an area where he has professional education and training, like dentistry. I would say that he and I agree on some issues and disagree on others. I do not automatically accept ballistic gelatin as the best simulant of terminal ballistics in live tissue, I do not accept his opinion on the terminal ballistics of the LeMas ammunition (based on my personal experience and observations) and I do not make a habit out of traveling all of the various tactical forums of the internet looking for opportunities to attack Gary and his character. Note that this thread was opened in response to an unprovoked personal attack on TS and I on another board. Is that the act of a man with character?

Again, I challenge "DocGKR" to come here and present his professional explanation of why the LeMas rounds appear to function so well in destroying live tissue, but not in ballistic gelatin. Can he expalin how Dr. Vail's analysis of the same performance in live tissue is flawed?

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Yes, my fav was the national guard PFC, (friend of the dentist), that told everyone he was in fact a Special Forces soldier, used his "SF credibility" to back up the dentist and was busted here.....

Ah yes...

That same PFC, now a CPL, is now in the SFQC and despite the 10 or so counseling statements he has received in just a couple months the command wont seem to get rid of him...

Crip

[Tuukka]

TR, that is a quite a thorough answer, thank you. I´ll buy the first beer at the next SHOT if you're there

I am neither a ballistics expert or MD, just a person with an interest in these matters.

A bit of a reversal to your post, is it safe to say that those rounds that function reliably ( fragmentation, mushrooming etc. ) & are effective in gelating testing, are usually also quite effective in real life?

If LeMas is a such a great perfomer in real life, why is it not being utilized widely?

Your last challenge is quite valid, professionals should be able to discuss things in a rational and factual manner. I would really like to see all the facts brought to the table, with as many qualified individuals posting.

One of the main things I like about this site, is that there will be no juvenile piling up and BS against posters when things are being discussed.

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by dr. mabuse

That the dentist won't come here and stand and deliver ( although the facts are clearly on his side ), speaks volumes.

Reading that M4carbine.nyet link reminds me why I stay away from airsofter-type forums.

As far a jello shooters, that they don't appreciate the difference ( and limitations ) of qualitative vs quantitative studies is, er, interesting. And one clown throws down the "scientific method" argument in the middle of it all.

They are know-nothing, poser, children. IMHO.

I am a member of that forum as well. 95% of the posters there are good people who I would gladly share a cold one with. The other 5% I would't piss on if they were on fire. As far as it being an airsoft type forum it is very very far from that. There are several QP's from this forum and other assorted BTDT from across the street who are active members there as well as dozens of industry insiders. It is an excellent resource for people looking for technical info on the M4 and other related kit. The 5% who are typified by some of the posters in that thread can make reading some of the threads there very difficult. Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.

[dr. mabuse]

*

[koz]

Let's not turn this into a "our forum is better than yours" thread. I do believe there is good information on many of the forums out there. But I also take a lot with a grain of salt. There are plenty of experts in this industry who have become experts by writing articles in SWAT, Guns and Ammo, etc.

I would hope that any expert would stay professional, even at the point of disagreement.

[Ambush Master]

Originally Posted by koz

Let's not turn this into a "our forum is better than yours" thread. I do believe there is good information on many of the forums out there. But I also take a lot with a grain of salt. There are plenty of experts in this industry who have become experts by writing articles in SWAT, Guns and Ammo, etc.

I would hope that any expert would stay professional, even at the point of disagreement.

I totally concur!! But, the FACT remains that the good Dr. GKR is registered here, has perused these Forums, but will NOT stand up in here, as a man should/would if he were all that confident in his "beliefs"!!!

Hide and watch/ wait and see!!!!

Later
Martin

[Sacamuelas]

There should be more debate on the issue before conclusions are asserted about a certain type projectile's performance. Both sides should present their information and force themselves to listen to the other evidence and conclusions.

I am a dentist too.... trust me, I know things.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by dr. mabuse

4. Dr. Robert's passive aggressive nature is subtle yet annoying to me as well as he and his supporters fairly ignoring live tissue testing speaks volumes.

You may want to grab your copy of DSM-IV-TR off your shelf and re-familiarize yourself with the definition of passive aggressive behavior.

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

You may want to grab your copy of DSM-IV-TR off your shelf and re-familiarize yourself with the definition of passive aggressive behavior.

Not sure of your training/experience/practice, but I would suggest a visit to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...rders#Cautions.

The DSM, a continuing work in progress, clearly cautions that, "its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropiate application of its contents. Appropiate use of the diagnostic criteria is said to require extensive clinical training, and its contents [cannot be simply applied in a cookbook fashion]. The APA, (American Psychiatric Association), notes diagnostic labels are primarily for use as a [conventional shorthand] among professionals. The DSM advises that laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make a diagnosis, and people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychological counseling and treatment".

If you have trouble connecting to Wikipedia on this topic, it could be that I got a character wrong. The bottom line is that, without being a credentialed, trained, and well practiced provider of mental health care, the DSM suggests, strongly, and cautions the layperson...regarding any attempt "to make a diagnosis".

My $.02.

RF 1.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Red Flag 1

Entire post

RF1--

FYI, you are agreeing with me <<LINK>> .

[dr. mabuse]

*

[swatsurgeon]

Originally Posted by Tuukka

No dog in this fight but;

- To my knowledge ballistic gelatin is still the most widely used and recommended testing method by terminal ballistics experts. No, not the same as shooting a human body, but the findings mirror quite closely the real life results and it is a viable testing method.

- Dr. Roberts posts on a number of websites ( LF.net, 10-8 forums, M4carbine, Tacticalforums ), where professional, vetted LE / MIL folks post as well, he enjoys a status on those forums as a very qualified expert in the field of terminal ballistics testing.

- I find it hard to believe that this forum would not benefit from his knowledge and that professional folks could not get along? I also find it hard to believe that the only "true" knowledgeable ballistics experts reside on just this forum, trauma surgeons or not.

...but the findings mirror quite closely the real life results.. ........
Absolutely inaccurate statement. This is the foundation of my letters to the FBI ballistics lab as well as my commentary in national lectures. The human body is too complex an entity to be mirrored by gel to appropriately predict wounding. Gel remains a medium to compare predetermined bullet characteristics (in gel) that enable adequate comparison of only those characteristics (in gel), i.e., depth of 'penetration' of gel, measurement of a permanent and temporary cavity....in gel, not the human body. So far only Finland (that I have found) has utilized autopsy data, Trauma surgeon operative data, animal testing data, tissue simulant data and computer simulation data for a global database that can adequately predict wound ballistics. I have dealt with so many GSW patients as have colleagues of mine (that are all ballistically informed/educated...notice, I never said and will never say 'EXPERT', we are professionals) that will tell anyone who want to hear that gel does not adequately represent the human body when it comes to human body wound ballistics....gel represents gel wound ballistics only.

ss

[dr. mabuse]

*

[swatsurgeon]

Tuukka,
What you have stated is what the average person is given as truthful information by 'authorities'. It is up to the individual to believe or investigate what they hear to verify that information and with Google and other search functions at your fingertips, 'expert opinion' is becoming 'opinion' because we now have the tools to challenge those opinions and clarify/verify validity.

ss