Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic

[rubberneck]

On another board I frequent one of Doc Roberts followers equated Doc Roberts with Doc Holliday and did so with a straight face. As my old man used to say never argue with an idiot, as he will only drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience. Keep up the good work Dr Vail.

[Texian]

Originally Posted by swatsurgeon

Texian, I know nothing of the ballistic information of RBCD ammo. It is different than the LeMas...same manufacturer, different make-up (as per information forwarded to me)....so can't help you on that one. ss

Roger that, Doctor. Thanks.

[x SF med]

In the dark ages, against unarmored opponents, we used Glasser Safety Slugs, nasty little buggers - LeMas seems a huge improvement, with the AP capability. Glad I don't have to try to patch up any recipients of those bad boys. Can you say, "ouch, that hurts a little" ?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Texian

Roger that, Doctor. Thanks.

IIRC, the RBCD has similar performance in tissue, without the enhanced AP characteristics of the BMT/LeMas. The LeMas rounds are optimized within the capabilities for certain platforms and desired performance. They have SMG versions of pistol rounds and carbine versions of rifle rounds. The RBCD are designed to optimize tissue destruction. I am sure that APLP can explain it better when he is on again. HTH. TR

[TheRealChuck]

Gentlemen: I am Chuck from TacticalForums. I expect that I will be unceremoniously canked, but I'm a little surprised at the wholesale buy-in here. I have no beef with Stan Bulmer; he and I have corresponded. He provided me with the same information many of you have, and I evaluated it. I have asked him many questions, and in a lot of cases, he has been unable to adequately answer them. So here is my rebuttal: 1. I can't explain TV either, but my Dad can. Stan and Sid claim that no one can explain LeMas, but Dr. Martin Fackler explained it early on. LeMas performs no different than any other light round fired at extremely high velocities. Any comparison with standard 5.56 or 7.62 is inaccurate and misleading. Those rounds use heavier bullets and lower velocities; if I recall correctly, the difference is almost 1,000 fps. If Stan claims that the bullet design is the secret behind the performance of his ammo, the honest comparison would be comparison testing with the same caliber, same bullet weight, and same velocities, and his bullet vs. an industry bullets. But Stan has not done that. Instead, he has resorted to marketing literature and videos zooming in without commentary on the bullet passing through a steel plate with what appears to be visible flames. Leading the view to infer peculiar that the bullet has peculiar properties or other such nonsense. It's called a varmint round. A few years ago, there was an issue because certain 9mm rounds were penetrating LE body armor (not the Zylon debacle), which stopped similar rounds. The only real issue was that the bullet travelled at a higher velocity, which caused the penetration. It is very simple physics, which remains unchanged despite the current debate. 2. Question: How many (SF Soldiers, Soldiers, cops, Feds, DOCTORS, etc.) does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: Five. One to change the lightbulb and four to sit back and say, "I could do it better than that." 3. I know a few SF guys that think LeMas is crap, what makes you gentlemen so uniquely qualified, or should I say more uniquely qualified to bless off on this ammo, and why should I give a damn about your opinion. So far, I have read that the opinions here are based on LeMas marketing, and the unscientific review of one Doctor. I asked Ben Thomas the same thing I'll ask you people, anyone here perform an autopsy of a someone shot with LeMas in the field? 4. I have spoken and corresponded with Dr. Roberts, and I have asked him some hard questions about his ballistics background. He answered my questions to my satisfaction. He is an expert in the field of wound ballistics. Neither Stan Bulmer of Sid Vail claim expertise in the field. 5. Neither Dr. Roberts, Dr. Fackler (who also mocked LeMas ammo early on and accurately predicted that it would be a light bullet pushed to high velocities), nor others who decry LeMas ammo, only preach the use of ballistic gelatin as a test medium. It is one means of measuring consistency and expected performance. 6. Bad guys drop through one of three things. Trauma to the CNS, hemorrhagic shock, or through psychological shock. In order to cause the first two the bullet has to penetrate adequately and damage blood vessels and/or organs. I saw Glasers mentioned. What happens when the bad guy is wearing a thick coat, or when the bullet has to pass through an arm, or the side window of a car. The FBI and International Wound Ballistics Association recommendation of 12-18" of calibrated calibrated gelatin factors those things in. I have footage of an officer being shot under the Arm with a .25 after shooting the bad guy five times in the chest with .38 rounds. The bad guy survived, the officer died because the "mouse gun" round passed over the top of his body armor, through his arm pit, and severed his aorta. I also have footage of a bad guy arguing with an officer after being gut shot with a .45, taking the officers radio, and actively resisting a tackedown. 8. Don't question me because I'm SF, and I know everything tactical is BS. It's pathetic. I've seen absolutely no coherent arguments for this ammo on this forum. I've seen no one bring in their first or second hand experience with teh ammo or otherwise. I've seen an admitted ignorance of the subject, but it works, and references to TacticalChildren.com. I've also seen guys using their current or former MOS, which grants very little knowledge on the subject of wound ballistics, to say shut up, I know best because I'm in SF. Wow, I'm blown away. 9. And Dave13, you are the only person on this forum who asked a critical question. I'll answer. It is not being used officially. It is not in the military system. I suppose some unit might have bought some of the ammo as a Commercial Off the Shelf item, but the ammo has NOT been validated by the the Army or SOCOM and approved for issue. The reference to classified is pathetic BS and an implication that it's too secret for your poor little ears. Chuck

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by TheRealChuck

Gentlemen:

I am Chuck from TacticalForums. I expect that I will be unceremoniously canked, but I'm a little surprised at the wholesale buy-in here. I have no beef with Stan Bulmer; he and I have corresponded. He provided me with the same information many of you have, and I evaluated it. I have asked him many questions, and in a lot of cases, he has been unable to adequately answer them. So here is my rebuttal:

1. I can't explain TV either, but my Dad can. Stan and Sid claim that no one can explain LeMas, but Dr. Martin Fackler explained it early on. LeMas performs no different than any other light round fired at extremely high velocities. Any comparison with standard 5.56 or 7.62 is inaccurate and misleading. Those rounds use heavier bullets and lower velocities; if I recall correctly, the difference is almost 1,000 fps. If Stan claims that the bullet design is the secret behind the performance of his ammo, the honest comparison would be comparison testing with the same caliber, same bullet weight, and same velocities, and his bullet vs. an industry bullets. But Stan has not done that. Instead, he has resorted to marketing literature and videos zooming in without commentary on the bullet passing through a steel plate with what appears to be visible flames. Leading the view to infer peculiar that the bullet has peculiar properties or other such nonsense. It's called a varmint round.

A few years ago, there was an issue because certain 9mm rounds were penetrating LE body armor (not the Zylon debacle), which stopped similar rounds. The only real issue was that the bullet travelled at a higher velocity, which caused the penetration. It is very simple physics, which remains unchanged despite the current debate.

2. Question: How many (SF Soldiers, Soldiers, cops, Feds, DOCTORS, etc.) does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: Five. One to change the lightbulb and four to sit back and say, "I could do it better than that."

3. I know a few SF guys that think LeMas is crap, what makes you gentlemen so uniquely qualified, or should I say more uniquely qualified to bless off on this ammo, and why should I give a damn about your opinion. So far, I have read that the opinions here are based on LeMas marketing, and the unscientific review of one Doctor. I asked Ben Thomas the same thing I'll ask you people, anyone here perform an autopsy of a someone shot with LeMas in the field?

4. I have spoken and corresponded with Dr. Roberts, and I have asked him some hard questions about his ballistics background. He answered my questions to my satisfaction. He is an expert in the field of wound ballistics. Neither Stan Bulmer of Sid Vail claim expertise in the field.

5. Neither Dr. Roberts, Dr. Fackler (who also mocked LeMas ammo early on and accurately predicted that it would be a light bullet pushed to high velocities), nor others who decry LeMas ammo, only preach the use of ballistic gelatin as a test medium. It is one means of measuring consistency and expected performance.

6. Bad guys drop through one of three things. Trauma to the CNS, hemorrhagic shock, or through psychological shock. In order to cause the first two the bullet has to penetrate adequately and damage blood vessels and/or organs. I saw Glasers mentioned. What happens when the bad guy is wearing a thick coat, or when the bullet has to pass through an arm, or the side window of a car. The FBI and International Wound Ballistics Association recommendation of 12-18" of calibrated calibrated gelatin factors those things in. I have footage of an officer being shot under the Arm with a .25 after shooting the bad guy five times in the chest with .38 rounds. The bad guy survived, the officer died because the "mouse gun" round passed over the top of his body armor, through his arm pit, and severed his aorta. I also have footage of a bad guy arguing with an officer after being gut shot with a .45, taking the officers radio, and actively resisting a tackedown.

8. Don't question me because I'm SF, and I know everything tactical is BS. It's pathetic. I've seen absolutely no coherent arguments for this ammo on this forum. I've seen no one bring in their first or second hand experience with teh ammo or otherwise. I've seen an admitted ignorance of the subject, but it works, and references to TacticalChildren.com. I've also seen guys using their current or former MOS, which grants very little knowledge on the subject of wound ballistics, to say shut up, I know best because I'm in SF. Wow, I'm blown away.

9. And Dave13, you are the only person on this forum who asked a critical question. I'll answer. It is not being used officially. It is not in the military system. I suppose some unit might have bought some of the ammo as a Commercial Off the Shelf item, but the ammo has NOT been validated by the the Army or SOCOM and approved for issue. The reference to classified is pathetic BS and an implication that it's too secret for your poor little ears.

Chuck

Chuck:

You are not going to be "canked" until you do something to warrant it. That is not the way we do business here.

I am not a wound ballistician, but I am not a dentist purporting to be a terminal ballistics expert either. Let's drop the argument that LeMas cannot explain why the rounds work and talk about what they do. I am curious why you are here arguing the points rather than the expert, Dr. Roberts, but I will assume that he is busy elsewhere and will come to do his own work later.

I do not now nor have I ever been employed by LeMas. I have not received anything from them other than test ammo. I have no vested interest here other than seeing that my brothers in harms way have the best tools possible. It astounds me to see that there are other Americans who would deny those resources to them. I have seen what the LeMas ammo does and I would rather carry it into combat that any of the alternatives, and yes, I have used the Mark 262, its variants, and fired the 6.8.

Over the course of the past three years, I have fired several hundred rounds of the LeMas into everything from steel plate to live tissue. One thing that did not seem logical to shoot was ballistic gelatin, as I have yet to encounter any in a combat zone outside of a DFAC. My main complaint is that there are tons of people who have never fired a round or handled a round of the LeMas ammuntiion who are parrotting what they have been told. Frankly, as you know as an MP, arguments have more merit when they are based on firsthand knowledge rather than hearsay. To attempt to discredit those you disagree with by ad hominem attacks is the mark of someone insecure in their position. Does personally atttacking someone with real credentials and posting snide little comments make your argument stronger and more professional, or less? What is next, death threats for Dr. Vail by tacticalforum members? You have already posted his photo there, should we look for his home address and family members listed there as well? Is this how professionals debate?

Bottom line up front, how many rounds of LeMas have you fired against what targets, and if none, what is the source of your information?

I am a Special Forces soldier, which clearly you do not find to be anything special, but I am comfortable in my role. I do have a fairly good background in weapons and ammunition, and have used pretty much everything from .17 HMR to .50BMG. I have fired quite a few varmint rounds and have never seen one perform like the LeMas. The varmint rounds have a tendency to come apart very quickly, and give nasty almost surface wounds of an inch or two. The LeMas rounds penetrate deeper and leave a much more significant injury. Fragmentation in tissue is almost complete and particles are dispersed radially as far as 20" from the path of the bullet. I have shot animals with this round and the wounds are virtually identical to those in the LeMas photos and Dr. Vail's. Doesn't a lightly constructed varmint bullet at very high velocities come apart quickly in ballistic gelatin? Why does the LeMas not fragment at all in gelatin, yet it does almost perfectly in tissue? Could it be that ballistic gelatin is not the best medium for evaluating terminal ballistic pertformance in live tissue?

I think that as a junior MP, your joke about SF soldiers is pretty laughable. Since I am trying to keep my side of this professional, I will defer from the usual fat cop jokes here.

Open your mind just a crack, Chuck, and try to wrap it around this: Dr. Vail just did a necropsy of live tissue, shot under controlled conditions, and as a qualified trauma surgeon, told you what it would do in humans. Would you feel better if he had shot the hogs in Baghdad? Do you think that a bad guy in Fallujah has tissue that will not respond like tissue does here in the US? He has already told you what it will do to a live tissue target who is shot anywhere. In combat, in Iraq, or in your bedroom. Why would a bullet entering a human body in the Middle East perform any differently than the same round entering a hog in Arkansas?

Furthermore, your argument there smacks of the, "Well we will have to see how it performs in combat before we will issue any", and "Well, we can't issue any till we know how it performs in combat" conundrum. You don't want soldiers armed with it because you say it doesn't work, yet you demand that it be used before you will arm soldier with it. Clearly, with that logic, it will never be tested, used, or adopted. What are we afraid of?

[The Reaper]

As far as Gary Roberts' qualifications, I will acknowledge that he is a ballistics expert in ballistic gelatin testing. I will defer to a trauma surgeon to tell me how rounds perform in live tissue. If I get hit by a bullet, I think that I know who I would rather have put me back together as well. How can you, a layman, question the professional credentials of a physician who has examined thousands of gunshot wounds? Answer me this, Chuck. How many gunshot wounds has Dr. Roberts treated? How many in humans? How many necropsies or autopsies has he performed?

I am glad that you have an extensive video collection. I have seen videos as well, but prefer to do my testing for myself. My live tissue testing tracks almost exactly with that of Dr. Vail's. There is a penetrating wound channel which terminates in an almost explosive fragmentation of the projo. The examining physician when I used it stated that it looked to him like an internal blast injury rather than a gunshot wound. Have you stuck your hand into a wound made by the LeMas? I have. If I put a 6-10" blast cavity inside of a bad guy's torso, with frag radiating out to 20", his fighting days are over, immediately. If I hit an extremity, it is gone, shredded, amputatable at the next highest joint, if he doesn't bleed out first.

You are correct in that the ammo has not been adopted by the US Army. In fact, I do not believe that they have even tested it in live tissue. I suspect that a large part of that is due to misinformation by people who have never fired a round of it, or if they have, spent it shooting Jell-O.

In summary, for you and the rest of the crew who are parrotting what they have been told:

The ammo works in live tissue, and it works very well. Some of it also works as an AP round. I have fired it, and can verify that it does. I have seen enough shots from it myself, in person, to know that what Dr. Vail is saying is correct. The videos and photos Stan has posted are entirely consistent with my experience with the ammo as well.

I cannot speak for LeMas, but I am pretty sure that if someone wanted to test the ammunition yet again, in live tissue, they could arrange for your experts and ammo to be used in a head to head shoot-off in live tissue, under controlled conditions, with your witnesses present.

Professionals do not call other professionals names, threaten to beat their asses for disagreeing, or post their pictures on the internet. I think that pretty much says it all about the differences between the sites, and the posters.

Real experts will test for themselves, and make their own arguments in person, with scientifically repeatable data to support it. Not send their fan club to argue for them. Where is the rebuttal with comparable live tissue testing from Dr. Roberts, with the assistance of a competent trauma surgeon, to refute Dr. Vail's report? In fact, where is Dr. Roberts? Why is he not arguing his own points? Stan is here, as is Dr. Vail. GKR is a regular here as balpro, he was here at 0317 this morning and drops by all of the time to read. Let him quit reading and say what is on his mind, to Stan and Dr. Vail directly. Not to offend, but is it too much to ask for one scientist to argue with another one directly, rather than using lackeys who have never fired a round of the ammo in question?

What has he got to lose by speaking up for himself?

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Chuck, You need to go to the introductions thread HERE and introduce your self.

[Texian]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

IIRC, the RBCD has similar performance in tissue, without the enhanced AP characteristics of the BMT/LeMas. The LeMas rounds are optimized within the capabilities for certain platforms and desired performance. They have SMG versions of pistol rounds and carbine versions of rifle rounds. The RBCD are designed to optimize tissue destruction. I am sure that APLP can explain it better when he is on again. HTH. TR

Thanks for the info, Sir. I believe I'll go out, buy a box, and try it for myself.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Texian

Thanks for the info, Sir. I believe I'll go out, buy a box, and try it for myself.

If you do not plan to shoot live targets, take two pieces of meat of roughly the same size and construction. Shoot one with your carry load and the other with the LeMas. Examine the meat when done and let us know what you found. TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes, please do. Chuck, I believe you have a question from Reaper on the table. Have you shot LeMas on tissue? I haven't had the opportunity as yet, logistics are a problem.

[TheRealChuck]

TR: Thanks for your response. First of all, I have all the respect in the world for SF guys. But I spent 11.5 years on active duty, been friends with, and worked with SF guys, and I have no illusions either. (And I'm neither fat, nor a junior MP.)

I have purposefully not posted Dr. Roberts curriculum vitae or the explanations he gave me. If you want to know his qualifications, which do go beyond ballistic gelatin testing, you'll have to ask him. But I do count him as a friend and professional associate.

As I said, Stan provided me with his marketing packets. I corresponded with him at length. He did not answer my questions to my satisfaction. Dr. Roberts has invited Stan to conduct scientific testing, but Stan has refused.

Next, I never posted anyone's picture, or threatened to beat anyone's ass. I'm sure you'll agree that professionals don't question another's credentials without knowing what they are talking about. A representative from this forum did just that, which sparked SabreSix's rebuttal.

I came here because I found this forum, found the post, and was amazed at the collective thinking. No discussion, no debate; just discussions on ballistic gelatin, "TacticalChildren," and the one guy who dares question the collective, gets smacked down hard. I have a big mouth, I was bored, and I decided to put my .02 in. My post was immediately deleted by the mods, then reinstated after an email exchange with Team Sergeant. I didn't ask for it, but there you go.

As far as Stan, Sidney, and Gary; yeah, I'd like to see it, too. But it's gone on and on at lightfighter.net and TacticalForums.com. The arguments have been made, the gauntlets have been thrown. I do find it funny, though, that at Defense Review, a disclaimer was made that "BMT" stands for 'Blended Metal Technology', which is a trademark, not a description of bullet composition." It seems that Stan only backed down from the claim of "Blended Metal" after Dr. Roberts obtained scientific analysis on the construction of LeMas bullets. And I shouldn't be suspicious? I'll grant that you gentlmen probably have no fiduciary dog in this fight. But Stan has a LOT riding on this. And he is seeking support wherever he can find it.

I have not shot LeMas, nor have I claimed to. But I have seen deceptive marketing practises, a lot of hype, newspaper stories promoting the round, etc. I have also not seen honest comparative testing of the round. No one has done that yet, and no one has addressed my point. Yeah, I'm suspicious. If the round is so special, I've given a baseline for what I'd like to see: same caliber, same bullet weight pushed to the same velocity against the same targets; LeMas bullet construction against other bullet designs.

I'd also like to see what the bullet does after passing through a thick coat, a car windshield, etc. But I guess that's just wishful thinking.

Chuck

[The Reaper]

Chuck:

I think that you will find that here, you will get what you give. A professional comment will get a professional discussion, mud-slinging will likely lead to a banning, rather than any personal slander or photo posting. I never said that you were fat, BTW.

The surprising thing to me is that GKR is on here frequently, and I for one would invite a discussion between him and Dr. Vail, but he seems unwilling to pick up that glove here.

Frankly, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I believe that an open discussion between the two of them could get LeMas to agree to a head to head, with GKR and his experts/witnesses and their preferred loads in a head to head live tissue test against Dr. Vail and LeMas ammo. I could be mistaken though. It occurs that what Dr. Vail did would qualify as scientific testing, since he performed repeatable experimental testing in a field he is experienced and credentialled in, and evaluated it.

Strange to me that you found the discussion here "collective thinking" when the people providing most of the discussion have actually fired the rounds on tissue, unlike most forums, where people are merely expounding on what they have heard from second or third hand sources.

Hard to say what is hype till you have seen it work for yourself. If you doubt me, fine, but I would caution that an opinion carries a lot more weight when it is backed up by experience and empirical data. I have shot everything from their 9mm to their .300 Win Mag. For me, the key was that the rounds performed in a consistent manner and were destructive in a manner hard to imagine unless you have witnessed it for yourself. I have fired the rifle rounds against covered tissue as well as through glass and it performed in the same manner. I have seen it shot through cockpit glass, which is pretty tough stuff and some of their bullet designs can do it consistently.

I cannot explain how it functions, but as I noted, since varmint bullets seem to come apart pretty quickly in gelatin and the LeMas does not fragment in gelatin at all, how can that be the key to how it works? Has GKR done any live tissue testing at all?

Welcome aboard, BTW.

TR

[swatsurgeon]

Chuck,
I both appreciate and respect your opinion and participation in this discussion.. This is how we all can benefit by the wisdom of many...

You clearly have a backround that no one challanges or minimizes, no one here will call you a quack or fake unless you speak from the 3rd person; I would only request the same respect.

The Reaper's post to your initial one actually contained many of the points I wanted to make.

1) Gel has a place in both the scientific and real (military and LEO) world, that I do not argue.

2) Gel does not represent the full wounding capability of any round, sorry but this is a scientific truth. It gives the observer the ability to see the basic characteristics of a bullet's performance: permanent and if present, temporary cavity, a depth of penetration, etc.....that have NO defined correlation to the human body unless the bullet was shot into a human thigh that was devoid of skin and subcutaneous fat, fascia and bone...this is a simple truth that Dr. Fackler and Roberts must agree with; It is implied in Dr. FacKlers research and development papers on ballistic gel. The reference in my commentary from the lab at Penn State with the PhD engineers also stated the disparity from gel to tissue....they are alot more educated in these matters than you or I...this is their life's work (scientists...go figure)

3) Tissue testing is the final word on any ballistic technology. I recently had a patient shot with 2 .40 cal Gold Dots (by the police) to the chest. Both went into the chest cavity, through the lung and I retrieved both of them from the soft tissue under his arm. One was completely expanded (as predicted in gel, with a penetration of only 8 inches. The other was only 1/2 expanded, based on recovered diameter and traveled 6 inches, having struck a rib first. The patient was not only very much alive but only needed a chest tube for36 hours and then was released to the police. The Lt. that I spoke with about the condition of the patient thought I was putting him on when I said the patient would likely be discharged in just a few days...he expected a dead patient; his experience and training with the .40 cal Gold Dots was that this bad guy should be dead from 2 center of mass hits.
The fact that the people that make decisions about which ammo to field test and possibly use based on ballistic gel results, such as those produced by Dr. Roberts have kept the LeMas rounds from ever getting to a 'fair' trial. I absolutely agree with you...if we could autopsy a person shot with the ammo, we could see the 'real world' results. Unfortunately, the representation by Dr. Robert's lab, and likely the opinion of others, has made that possibility not happen. It needs to be tested in tissue, not gel to examine it's potential effects, its reproducible effects. The Gold Dots I mentioned had a 50% failure rate (interms of gel predicted behavior) as well as an alive patient. The same round in LeMas, if my predictions are true, would be a patient that would not have made it to the hospital alive due to either massive hemorrhage or inability to ventilate from massive lung tissue injury.
This is only one example of hundreds that I have that bullet performance in the human body was not validated by gel testing of that particular round.

Forget the name of the bullet, forget the BS/advertising/word of mouth that you have heard....if I offered you a new ammunition that promised to be reliable in your weapon, performed 100% of the time, provided maximum wounding in the human body that likely would end your battle/gun fight due to the terminal ballistics...would you be excited to use that ammo in the defense of your country or your home.
Believe it, it works and you can't have it because of the bad press it got from gel tests and word of mouth....I want this ammo in your hands to defend your family...it won't over penetrate the bad guy to harm your family member in the next room.

Do I have a passion about this, you're damn right I do because our guys in the sandbox and LEOs here using less than lethal rounds out of guns that should do the trick...it's the ammo that's wrong. Do I have a desire to see the truth said about everything ballistic...yeah, I do because too many major decisions are made on the basis of performance in gel...it is only a piece of the puzzle, not the entire story. Anyone that questions my ability to offer these opinion has a right to, but I have the right to my opinion and the proof to back them up. I have already found another bullet manufacturer that agrees that gel does not fully represent the wounding of tissue using their round. The sooner we stop protecting tradition to prevent progress, the better we will all be.

I say this here and believe it to be true: if those that make decisions about ammunition: FBI ballistics lab , DOD, NTOA, etc, would get together and be present at a live tissue demo of multiple bullet manufacturers, including LeMas, they will see that the commentary I wrote is both accurate and the truth. Why would I risk my reputation especially when I have no vested interest other than a curiosity of challanging dogma. I challange the status quo everyday at my job and have a reputation within the Trauma surgery world of just that.

Chuck, thank you for being the questioning person you are....you are the type of man that can make his decisions based on fact and oberved truths. I offer only those, no fantasy or pretense, no bullshit, I refuse to barter in it, my professional career is based on facts, science, art and the ability the disregard the status quo. LeMas works, forget all of the previous hype.
Also, if you have the ability to influence KM;his use of pictures and words is less than professional on all accounts, I think you would agree.

[Texian]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

If you do not plan to shoot live targets, take two pieces of meat of roughly the same size and construction. Shoot one with your carry load and the other with the LeMas. Examine the meat when done and let us know what you found. TR

Roger that, Sir. I'll report my findings here.