[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

It is not so much the number of failures I am after, but the circumstances surrounding the failures. This will allow us to have an envelope of characteristic performance taking into account the type of tissue traversed and the configuration of the projectile. That envelope in turn allows us to specify the limitations of application. I would be curious to know what the terminal trajectory and final configuration of the projectile was in each of those cases. I am still very interesed in seeing the X-ray imaging as regards these tissue tests.

In terms of the components of the projectile, it would be necessary to know what they are so that the radiological density of the fragments can be used to determine which fragments went where. It would also be a step in the right direction to support the manufacturer's claims that the ammunition is unique. Tissue imaging and projectile analysis will support this, because obviously the radiological appearances of Dr Vail's tests will be different from those of a similar, competing brand. If your X-ray appearances are like nothing I've ever seen before, I am going to sit up and take notice, but I need to know what metals I am looking for.

I would also disagree that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide a test medium other than ballistic gelatin. The test medium that it is currently performing as claimed in is the desired performance medium; i.e., live tissue. Your statement that the alternate media is a requirement to sell the ammunition may be a requirement for some countries, but terminal performance in live tissue is an entirely adequate demonstration for others.

You misunderstood me. I am asking for alternate tests, not alternate media. Non-destructive documentation of the effects of the projectile are needed and this is not an unreasonable request. If your claim is that the projectile has performed hundreds of times with consistency in tissue, then it should be no problem to be able to document that radiologically. That is the only way I can think of arriving at data that is reproducible independently when gel testing is excluded. An autopsy is not a valid starting point for mapping the wounding capabilities of the projectile. It is destructive, does not allow for multiple planes of investigation and is dependent on the technique of the operator. Furthermore it does not provide a way to map the locations of all the projectile fragments within the subject (to check for consistency and configuration of fragment deposition in the wound).

It would clear up a lot of questions if Dr Vail would let me see some X-ray imaging of the damaged tissues, but I still maintain that some control-based study is needed to finally quantify the performance of the Le Mas bullet. One of the things that I suggested to Dr Vail was that he had pre and post imaging, temperature differential based studies to document what the effects of the projectile are in cold vs warm tissues. After all, if temperature is cited as one reason why the gel is not good for testing, why not shoot hogs at various temperatures? Would it not be in your favour to demonstrate failure of the round at low temperature? And would it not be quite easy to produce a sample of warm firings, with consistent radiological appearances, and a sample of cold firings, with consistent (but different) appearances?
You would then be able to say to the skeptics: "Here, these are our results. We shot 50 pig thighs at a warm temperature and here are the 3D reconstructions of the wound channels and here are the X-rays, all showing consistency of performance and demonstrating the wounding potential of these rounds in that tissue."
And then you could say "But look at the cold tissue. Here we have shot another 50 pigs, also through the thigh and the imaging proves that the internal damage is not the same as the warm samples. And we have CT Hounsfield measurements to document the density of all the tissues in the terminal trajectory in each case, so that you can see that we have used tissue blocks that are as 'uniform' as possible for the cold and warm tests."