The dentist (Gary Roberts)

[koz]

The thread on M4carbine was cleaned up and re-opened by one of the Mods. I believe the particular mod is a member here as well.

[swatsurgeon]

there are now attorney's advertising for internet defamation that injures reputations, work, etc......I actually had an attorney comment that I had a case from being slandered professionally (medically) when the original subject matter had no bearing on me as a surgeon but the discussion on the other board deteriorated into a smear of my professional character/reputation and practice...."dangerous territory" as per the attorney. I never pursued it but still have a print out of the entire discussion. It only takes one person to make a case if it negatively impacts my professional medical practice.

ss

[Tuukka]

Originally Posted by 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

Yes, I am complete amateur on this matter and have to rely on the professionals to present the facts, but doing a proper investigation behind the facts is some what hard being an amateur ie. a case of who's opinion to trust.

Here is a quote from the referenced thread;

From a terminal performance perspective gelatin is AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION TOOL to examine a bullet's behavior (penetration, deformation, fragmentation, and yaw) when it strikes and penetrates soft tissues.

From a wound ballistics perspective gelatin provides A REASONABLE INDICATION of a bullet's wounding characteristics in soft tissues.

If ballistic gelatin is not the best possible testing medium, is testing on animals or cadavers a better alternative?

Related to this matter, here is a doctoral dissertation by a person I have been involved with due to my work;

Jorma Jussila
Wound ballistic simulation : Assessment of the legitimacy of law enforcement firearms ammunition by means of wound ballistic simulation
https://oa.doria.fi/handle/10024/2120

[BrainStorm]

Some random thoughts...

1. Many of us were personally called out in the referenced thread started by Dr. Roberts. I will be visiting with the owner of M4Carbin this weekend to seek advice regarding responding to the factual concerns I have with that particular thread.
   
   Council here would be appreciated as well.
   
   
2. One of the police departments he failed to mention that adopted LeMas and did conduct a study and was written about by an ex-FBI agent under a pseudonym is Coral Gables Florida. DocGKR stated he knew the FBI guy and thought him a good man. He was going to investigate and report back. To my knowledge, he never reported back. But his thread states that "every" PD that has done any investigation has rejected this ammo. Hmmm.
   
   
3. The use of ballistic gel and it's justification becomes a circular argument when you understand that new cartridges are accepted in the industry by performing well when tested in ballistic gel. Then field results are reported that they perform as expected by ballistic gel testing. With this method, cartridges that perform outside the parameters of ballistic gel have a hard time getting accepted in the industry.
   
   When you design to the "test" you get results that work best with the "test." When I worked for a mechanical components company, I was responsible for the software that predicted the performance of the component in a customer design. These were industry accepted performance algorithms. When we came up with a new design that was outside the parameters of the performance prediction algorithms, it was extremely difficult to get our customer's engineers to take a chance on the new components.
   
   
4. Dr. Roberts is too clever by half in his carefully crafted statement about what the restricted (I mistakenly called it secret) report contains. When he says everything he found was substantiated, he avoids saying exactly what he found. Was it the results of cutting the bullets in half to challenge the Le Mas marketing characterization of blended? Or was there any live or cadaver tissue testing done? Inquiring minds want to know.
   
   He did tell me to file a FOIA request, but when I attempted to do so, I was thwarted. Furthermore, if the report is not classified secret as he states, why can it not be shared on a one-to-one basis?
   
   
5. The primary reason I came to this forum is because SwatSurgeon hangs out here. I try to keep an open mind about evaluating products and I wanted to get a more balanced view then was available wherever Dr. Roberts held court.

[dr. mabuse]

*

[BrainStorm]

As promised, I visited with the owner of M4Carbine today. We discussed my concerns. He gave me some additional insights into Dr. Roberts. We agreed on ROE.

It is likely that I will push back on the errors of commission and more importantly, the errors of omission in the referenced thread. Some research is necessary so that I don't step into the same failing. I intend to compose carefully in order to avoid ad hominem attacks.

If any here want to assist me with information or proofread my response, feel free to PM me, and I will do the leg work.

Thanks.

[Ken Brock]

Originally Posted by swatsurgeon

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

well said

I put up some comparison pictures showing the same JHP that was fired into gel and into living flesh. I put them up here and on other forums

can you believe that some people actually told me that gelatin was "more relevant" than live tissue?

[Tuukka]

A few points, for which I'd want to generate discussion;

- It is quite obvious that the terminal ballistics of a new bullet or a bullet already in use need to be tested by the various manufacturers, organisations etc.

- As I wrote earlier, is it safe to say that those bullets that perform well in gelatin testing are usually also quite effective in actual shootings?

- If gelatin is not the best test material, what is the replacement? Bearing in mind it it most likely should be something readily available, uniform to conduct comparison testing, easy to conduct the testing with etc?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Tuukka

A few points, for which I'd want to generate discussion;

- It is quite obvious that the terminal ballistics of a new bullet or a bullet already in use need to be tested by the various manufacturers, organisations etc.

- As I wrote earlier, is it safe to say that those bullets that perform well in gelatin testing are usually also quite effective in actual shootings?

- If gelatin is not the best test material, what is the replacement? Bearing in mind it it most likely should be something readily available, uniform to conduct comparison testing, easy to conduct the testing with etc?

Live tissue is not homogenous.

Organs, fat, muscle, bone, etc. each have different characteristics and elasticity.

Ballistic gelatin is fine as a generic single density test medium for most ammunition. In some cases, the terminal ballistic performance is similar to its performance in live tissue. In others, it does not appear to be. I wonder how many rounds might have been effective in live tissue, but were rejected because of their performance in gelatin. Conversely, I wonder if rounds have been selected because of their superior performance in gelatin, but did not perform to expectations in tissue.

Personally, I think live tissue should be the standard test media for bullets intended for use against live tissue. The issue is the test protocols and repeatability.

Would you test armor piercing rounds against Jell-O to determine their armor penetration as well?

TR

[swatsurgeon]

Originally Posted by Tuukka

A few points, for which I'd want to generate discussion;

- It is quite obvious that the terminal ballistics of a new bullet or a bullet already in use need to be tested by the various manufacturers, organisations etc.

- As I wrote earlier, is it safe to say that those bullets that perform well in gelatin testing are usually also quite effective in actual shootings?

- If gelatin is not the best test material, what is the replacement? Bearing in mind it it most likely should be something readily available, uniform to conduct comparison testing, easy to conduct the testing with etc?

Tuukka,
it is unfortunate that companies that want to bring a particular bullet to market have to abide by certain market factors, i.e., following the FBI ballistic laboratory testing protocols, etc. The use of gel, as previously mentioned, gives all of the companies even footing with regards to testing their propietary bullet design against a standard as well as other similiar bullets under similiar circumstances...they all use 10% ballistic gel, certain temp/density, etc. What then happens is a marketing team hypes the design and gel results and tries to make the buyer believe that their product is the best at: one stop shots, perfect penetration, reliable expansion,a nd the list goes on and on. What they don't AND CAN'T tell you is the wound ballistics in human(or other....thanks PETA) tissues so that real life shootings can educate the rest of law enforcement. There have been a few articles that attempted to do this....they are noton the Most Read list for agencies that I work/worked with.
The performance is gel is all that the marketing people should be writing about, not the "potential" in human or animal tissue. I have many, many trauma cases of all caliber modern bullets that performed close to , not even close to or didn't perform anything like gel said they would. I have posted pictures here and other places, have lectured nationally with the bullets in my hand and xrays, pictures of the patients and can assure you that predicted (marketed) performance has statistically been incorrect. That is not to say that some bullets that are stated/tested in gel to penetrate 11 inches do penetrate 11 inches...just not reliably, so overpenetration is a major concern. Plenty of bullets do not expand fully, therefore a "failure", ....you see my point.
I feel that there is a great injustice being done to law enforcement...they don't have all appropriate information (wound ballistics) to make an informed decision of what to carry in their duty weapons. If they would carry ball ammo in .380 or 9mm and hit their intended target area perfectly every time, this discussion would not be happening right now. Shot placement is everything in a gun fight where faster incapacitation means the other guy may not get a shot off at the officer.
People need to feel important and flex their academic muscles or just become experts, for what reason I'm not sure since there is no one that I am aware of that truly rises to the level of expert in this field. There are plenty of us with real world experience that is down played or negated because we don't 'fit the mold' no pun intended.........by speaking about what bullets do inside of bodies that has poor scientific corrolation to gel testing. As prevoiusly mentioned, Finland is the only country I am aware of that does use clinical, simulated and simulant data to give law enforcement facts that are worth something.....
Not every test medium will work with every bullet design...i.e., the LeMas issue, but there are others.
I hope this has answered your questions...no rhetoric, no gum flapping, no expert opinion, just a professional's observation of the end product of whast bullet companies wish they could tell you but can't. The human body has yet to be replicated, gel was decided as the ballistic medium by shooting a small number of swine, I will find the article again...it is available on the net,I believe it was by Dr. Fackler as 1st author. By the way, I have had exactly one patient in my entire career that had the perfect thigh/gel corrolation shot and it over penetrated when gel said it shouldn't have...I do have pictures of all of these examples. If you read some of the posts by odd job, we discussed the use of CT scan imaging to measure exact depths of penetration....it really is a joke that it is a major marketing tool since it is incorrect so often.
Anyway, enjoy your journey into the art and little science of wound ballistics as some will have you believe (don't drink the kool-aid!!) that it is alot of science based on gel.

ss

[swatsurgeon]

Found it......

The foundation for using the Gel model as an approximate or equivalent substitute for animal tissue
3 blocks of gel
5 swine
For each of the 2 bullets tested

now that is science wouldn't you say?

Here is an article that was talked about for awhile but again, changing data points or excluding some changes the statistics: from Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Assoc
Wolberg, EJ. Wound Ballistics Review, Winter 1991;10-13
Autopsy study by M.E., torso shots with retained bullet: not included if bone hit or over penetration
Early vs delayed deaths unknown/not statedCompared to gelatin data
27 officer involved shootings reviewed, penetration depth for 147gr Win JHP
Gel = 12-14 inches
Autopsy = 10-17 inches

so again ask yourself, where is the valid data, not data that leaves out critical information.......not very 'scientific' in my opinion.

ss

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Live tissue is not homogenous.

Organs, fat, muscle, bone, etc. each have different characteristics and elasticity.

Ballistic gelatin is fine as a generic single density test medium for most ammunition. In some cases, the terminal ballistic performance is similar to its performance in live tissue. In others, it does not appear to be. I wonder how many rounds might have been effective in live tissue, but were rejected because of their performance in gelatin. Conversely, I wonder if rounds have been selected because of their superior performance in gelatin, but did not perform to expectations in tissue.

Personally, I think live tissue should be the standard test media for bullets intended for use against live tissue. The issue is the test protocols and repeatability.

Would you test armor piercing rounds against Jell-O to determine their armor penetration as well?

TR

Interesting you point this out TR. My old agency for the longest time carried one round because of its Gel performance. But a few of us knew of a round that worked better on people (the Win SXT +P+), we finally got the switch, and in three very similar shootings the new round out performed the old. Even though the gel data did not support it.

This made me a Gel non-believer for life.

I can understand the want from the scientific community to have a medium that can replicate tissue for evaluation purposes. But in light of gels in ability to replicate a bullets performance why has the scientific community been so resistant to changing the medium? Are the politics that bad or do the special interests have that much influence? I would think that for the betterment of the scientific community its members as a whole would be pushing for a more accurate medium.

It further seems like their are two debates present that that should be addressed separately. 1) The validity of testing in Gel vs Live Tissue, and 2) LeMas performance in Live Tissue.

If the bullet hits that hard and does that much damage great, lets pass it around! If not lets all move on to the next wonder bullet.

Just my .02 cents (from a knuckle dragger's POV)

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Red Flag 1

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.

I don't now a lot about this situation,but RF 1's response looked good enough for me.................

Big Teddy

[BrainStorm]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Live tissue is not homogenous.

Organs, fat, muscle, bone, etc. each have different characteristics and elasticity.

In engineering realms where I have some experience, I am familiar with standardized tests to simulate the results of dynamic and/or non-homogeneous environments that have received industry acceptance. I find it curious that ballistics science has not yet developed standardized testing outside of a homogeneous medium designed for testing only a limited regime.

Also curious is that the test regime cannot explain results observed by professionals from GSW produced by bullets of non-traditional design. Yet, the defenders of ballistic gel seem unwilling to explain the "anomalous" results or to be open minded about its limitations.

[Irishsquid]

I pretty much figured if the government mandates a medium for testing, it's probably AFU. Much like the "backface deformation," testing of body armor. If it makes too big of a "dent," in modeling clay, it doesn't get a certain rating. Makes perfect sense to me!! That said, gel is still the best medium I have, unfortunately. Apparently, people will get pissy if you start shooting living things to test ammo. Personally, I say there are a lot of stray dogs/coyotes in my area that are appropriate for ammo testing...