[Peregrino]

I've been following this discussion from the beginning. Despite a few forays it has remained remarkably civil and intelligent/informative compared to the usual internet hyperbole and acrimony. What I don't understand is "what are we arguing about?" The ONLY things that I want to know about any ammunition are - "Does it perform as advertised in living flesh?" and "Is it safe to fire in modern weapons in good working order?" LeMas claims that their ammo does indeed perform as advertised in tissue and that it is safe to use in modern firearms in good working order. I have personally never seen or heard anything that would lead me to doubt those issues. In the 2 1/2 years that I've been following this debate I've spoken to a number of trusted eyewitnesses and seen lots of graphic videos that support the first claim (performance in living tissue) and I've personally witnessed range firing where I inspected the weapons used and was unable to detect any damage to the firearm after shooting as much ammo as was available (leading me to believe it's safe to shoot).

Every detractor of the LeMas ammo has concentrated on the round's performance in gelatin, a medium that LeMas has never (to the best of my knowledge) claimed would extract optimum performance. (Personally I've never been attacked by a block of gelatin so it's not one of my primary concerns.) I understand why the "scientific" community prefers to use calibrated ballistic gelatin as a test media. I have no problems with that practice - AS FAR AS IT GOES. I'll even admit that it has contributed to advances in ballistics research and development. However when there appears to be a significant disparity in results between a test media and live tissue, perhaps it's time to look "outside the box". Searching for a different model to explain the disparity does not invalidate the body of work done in gelatin, nor is it an attack on the persons of gelatin advocates. True scientists should be helping to expand the sphere on human knowledge, not viciously attacking "heretics" who challenge dogma.

The second tactic of the LeMas detractors is to dismiss the tissue results as "typical of lightweight, high velocity cartridges e.g. varmit rounds". Absolutely true - except as TR already pointed out most varmit rounds (I shoot 40/50 gr Sierra Blitzkings at 3400/3200 fps) have thin jackets and tend to "blow apart" at shallow depths. Makes for spectacular groundhog/jackrabbit hunting but I personally find it objectionable against heavier game. Suggesting a heads up comparison of similar bullet weight and velocity is valid but it's not the point. The point is LeMas is suggesting a paradigm shift (away from standard weights/velocities, conventional wisdom, towards his ammo). Nobody else appears to be suggesting this approach - none of the major manufacturers have (even the ones whose bullets other internet sites are claiming LeMas is "rebranding"). To support his assertion that his approach is the better one - the test has to be between what we use now and what he wants to sell us. I don't know about the metalurgy claims made by either side of this argument. As far as I'm concerned they can be BMT, conventional lead core/gilding metal jacket, or unobtanium, it doesn't matter if they perform in flesh as advertised. It's apples and oranges. LeMas says oranges are better while the gelatin crowd insists that oranges must be tested and proven to perform according to apple standards. Labeling it "Snake Oil" and dismissing it out of hand as marketing hyperbole does nothing to advance knowledge or performance. (Even the FDA acknowledges the necessity for human testing.)

I've weighed in on this argument because I'm a retired soldier. I have personal reasons to want our troops to have the most effective ammunition/equipment possible. Although I didn't participate in the current unpleasantness, I do have some combat experience. I also have a brother with four tours in the sandbox and many good friends who have paid recent/multiple dues over there. These are all people on the cutting edge; they depend on their weapons and ammo for their lives as well as mission accomplishment. Complaints about the efficacy of our current ammo have been growing and getting louder for years. The proposed solutions (e.g. the 6.8 debate) all have their proponents/opponents and the debates are particularly acrimonious (there's that word again; BTW - it means too blinded by prejudice to engage in civilized discourse or explore alternatives). If the LeMas rounds perform as advertised they represent a quantum leap in lethality (that's what soldiers do - they kill people and try to stay alive while doing it) that does not require the expense/difficulty of fielding a new weapons system. I get pissed about the entrenched position of the naysayers because they are preventing an unbiased examination of the ammunition. If it doesn't perform as advertised, so be it. I'll shut up and sit down. If it does do what LeMas claims, can/will the opponents do the same? Bottom line - The money to conduct open minded testing of the LeMas ammo in an appropriate media - a thoracic/abdominal shot in living tissue - is less than the $400,000 SGLI payout that happens when hadji takes five rounds of 5.56 from an M-4 in the chest and still manages to kill a US soldier. If there is an alternative ammo with greater lethality that could have prevented this then everybody who blocked it's adoption has that soldier's blood on their hands (they obviously don't have a conscience to worry about). And the ones screaming about the various Law of Land Warfare Treaties - need to do their homework a little better. Most of their objections don't apply. My .02 - Peregrino