Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Odd Job

Now let me make this quite clear. If I was actually serving in one of your units as a junior, or if I was in a boarding school then I would be subject to this discrepency in how I am treated. But I am not, am I? This is a forum, gentlemen, an internet forum: I am here in London and you have absolutely no say in what I do in life. I have expertise and you have expertise. We have different expertise and we are not each other's masters. How you treat me is how I will treat you.
If you don't like it, tough.

LOL,
Loud and clear Odd Job.

"If one of you signs up on a radiology forum that I frequent" I don't think that likely in this life time but I'll bear that in mind.

Please continue.....OJ.

TS

[NousDefionsDoc]

Odd Job,
While pretty , your x-ray drawing does not reflect my shot wish list. I went back and checked the anatomy again, as it has been a while. I can indeed do it with one and it wouldn't be at all difficult. But at least you made me get out the A&P book again.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, do you have anything that proves or even suggests that LeMas ammo does not perform as claimed in tissue?

In your original post, you quite accurately pointed out two separate questions.

1. I don't believe anybody here has said that gelatin is useless as a test medium, unless jokingly. It is just not the end all - be all of testing mediums. Unless of course that is the target you will be using on a daily basis. I don't look for the round that performs best on paper either. Since we will be shooting tissue, is tissue not a viable test medium for us? Since when did the medium become the test?

2. And then the performance of LeMas ammunition. Here on this board we have a report by a Trauma Surgeon regarding the performance of LeMas on tissue. So I ask again, does anybody have any proof that LeMas does not perform as stated in tissue?

I was thinking back, I have never heard any of the proponents state that it will do this in gelatine. And I have never seen the detractors state that it does not perform as stated on tissue. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that I have never seen it.

All I have ever seen is "You can't replicate those results in gelatine, so it is useless!" Given a choice between no results in gelatin and the results shown in the report and others I have seen, I will not discount this ammunition for combat use. Of course I will need to use it myself before deciding.

So if you have information regarding a test on LeMas in tissue that shows different results than those of SWAT Doc, please post it. Or if you know of anybody that does, please ask them to come forward. Because at the end of the day, that is what this report and thread are really all about - the performance of LeMas ammunition in tissue as witnessed by a trauma surgeon.

It is not about English X-ray Techs and Old SF Medics. And it is not about LeMas ammunition in gelatin as a testing medium. If you feel the need to discuss the latter two, we can start other threads.

Awaiting results of a test disproving the results of SWAT's report - on tissue.

[TheRealChuck]

Gentlemen,

This has turned into a good discussion.

Here are some statements that Stan made to me while discussing blistering observed in some test shoots:

"If you can identify the unique blistering when you pull these pictures up, you will see something no other ammunition technology can create"

and later in the same paragraph,

"I just wanted to see if you can find the unique signatures of these bullet deployments after I reread you posting on Tactical Forums concerning what you understood to be the absurdity of thermal dynamics."

Other Doctors (I believe it was Dr. Roberts) have stated that these "signatures" are not unique to LeMas but occur with other high velocity projectile wounds.

Additionally, the first video produced by LeMas shows high speed photography of the bullets penetrating steel. Then it zooms to a closeup of what appears to be flames at the point of impact. There is an implication there and there have been consistent issues and theories that the bullets perform differently in live, warm meat, versus cold gelatin.

What follows is an email exchange I had with Stan some time ago, and I have found nothing to change my opinions:


Please note that the discussion moves away from the bullet design to one of theory; i.e., light bullets pushed to high velocities, versus "currently procured duty ammunition."

And finally,

Dr. Roberts posted this recently; it is an enlightening scientific read and for the most part is a repost of information posted earlier. I do not profess to speak for him, but this has been debated and discussed to death. Real responses have not been made.

tacticalforums.com/


Chuck



Chuck,
That email is between you and Stan, not the world. Also I've no idea who you are or your experience level. While you are welcome to post please refrain from posting on this thread, we are waiting for Dr Roberts to speak for himself. I'm sure he does not require third party hearsay posted on his behalf.

Also no more hot linking to forums run by civilians that have zero tactical experience. I will no longer allow the hot links.

Team Sergeant

[NousDefionsDoc]

Thank you Chuck. Interesting, but still doesn't answer the question.

Do you know if Mr. Roberts has performed testing on tissue using LeMas ammunition? If so, can you provide a link to the results please?

[TheRealChuck]

TS: When I originally had that exchange, I told Stan I might post my part of the email; it was relevant. I thought his answers were also relevant, and there was nothing private about it. But this is your house and your rules. I might add that it seems like you are stacking the cards in favor of Stan and LeMas. My experience includes a very finely tuned BS detector, which is pegged in the red. Also, I checked your policy on linking prior to posting the link, which has since been changed. I think it's sad that you have the opinion that only SF experience counts as "tactical." There is a lot of tactical experience on that other forum, whether or not you like the owner's comments.

NousDefionsDoc: To my knowledge, the answer is no. But some of the analysis indicates that conventional varmint bullets are being used by LeMas and pushed to high velocities. Again, this raises the fiduciary motivation for clouding the issues and would establishes that LeMas is nothing special (especially since a hole has been blown in the "blended metal" facade). So the issue becomes should DOD/DA move away from conventional 5.56 loadings, lighten the round and up the velocity? There is nothing proprietary about that., it is merely a paradigm shift. It's all packaging and marketing.

Chuck

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by TheRealChuck

TS: When I originally had that exchange, I told Stan I might post my part of the email; it was relevant. I thought his answers were also relevant, and there was nothing private about it. But this is your house and your rules. I might add that it seems like you are stacking the cards in favor of Stan and LeMas. My experience includes a very finely tuned BS detector, which is pegged in the red. Also, I checked your policy on linking prior to posting the link, which has since been changed. I think it's sad that you have the opinion that only SF experience counts as "tactical." There is a lot of tactical experience on that other forum, whether or not you like the owner's comments.


Chuck

Chuck,
Read your own post. You could be Dr. Roberts dental assistant for all we know. We are not going to throw eggs but wait for Dr. Roberts to answer for himself. Stan is also here watching.
Save your third person comments for the other forums. You think we are stacking the deck,well as soon as Dr. Roberts posts we will stand down and allow him to take center stage. The forum will be all his (and Stans, Dr. Vail's), with questions from "vetted" professionals, DEA, FBI, FAM's SF'ers, SEALS, etc.

You know where to email me for further discussion.

TS

[APLP]

Chuck[/QUOTE]

Chuck, that private e-mail took place quite a long time ago, probably in excess of two years ago, am I correct? I do not take offense to the material you posted however you stretched the rationalized time frame a bit. I still believe much of the subject matter you quoted to be correct.

Although conventional high velocity thoracic rifle bullet impacts can show the lung surface bubbling you referenced the Le Mas rifle round signatures are much more prolific in different ways with respect to location and dimension.

In addition, there are no ballistic gelatin 12-18 inch compliant handgun hollow point bullet designs which also create that type of signature. The Le Mas armor piercing handgun ammunition is designed to function from current duty weapon platforms, if you can find any currently available off the shelf handgun that can fire the 147 grain gold dot at 2,000+ fps, please feel free to post thoracic cavity live tissue impacts that duplicate such lung tissue signatures. The recorded thoracic cavity tissue destruction for the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet contained in Dr. Vail's report was fired from a stock Glock-17.


Mr. Roberts reported 18.1 inches of penetration depth in denim clad calibrated 10%ballistic gelatin with a recovered bullet core that showed no expansion. Mr. Roberts further stated in his published report that the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet created less tissue destruction than any conventional hollow point bullet yet provides no actual living tissue data which documents his statement.

Dr. Vail provided actual living tissue data for the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet.

What part of the documented performance for the Le Mas 9mm Ap bullet when impacting living tissue do you not understand?

[TheRealChuck]

Team Sergeant, I have emailed you the means to "vet" that I am exactly who and what I say I am and not Dr. Roberts dental assistant.

Chuck

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by TheRealChuck

Team Sergeant, I have emailed you the means to "vet" that I am exactly who and what I say I am and not Dr. Roberts dental assistant.

Chuck

I really didn't think you were a dental assistant Just a figure of speech.

TS

[TheRealChuck]

Team Sergeant: Roger!

Stan:

Has it been that long? I just checked and you are correct, our email exchange took place in Jan 2004. I did not "stretch the rationalized time frame." The material was correct and in your own words, and I have seen nothing to indicate that your position as it pertains to any of the information you provided me had changed. This is not a new discussion. As you have just confirmed, it has been going on for over two years on various forums to include AR-15, Lightfighter, and TacticalForums.

As I stated previously, a 90 grain BMT round compared to a 147 grain JHP, is not an accurate comparison. Our email conversation does not indicate it, but unless I am mistaken, your video compared a 185 grain speer Golddot with a 90 grain BMT. If LeMas is somehow different, then the correct comparison is a 90 grain BMT round against a conventional 90 grain JHP fired at the same velocities! Otherwise, this goes back to nothing more than an argument over ballistics paradigms, heavy slow with deep penetration vs. fast light with large temporary cavities (and with sufficient velocity, tissue fragmentation).

If the paradigm is so effective, then any ammunition manufacturer can load a 90 grain bullet in a .40 (or 9mm), load it hot and achieve similar results.

NousDefionsDoc: I have no knowledge of animal testing other than those mentioned here. I do not believe any other live animal testing has been done. I would be interested to see a scientifically conducted test, following established protocols, too.

Chuck

[NousDefionsDoc]

Roger Chuck. I wasn't ignoring you, just watching.

[APLP]

Originally Posted by TheRealChuck

Team Sergeant: Roger!

Stan:

Has it been that long? I just checked and you are correct, our email exchange took place in Jan 2004. I did not "stretch the rationalized time frame." The material was correct and in your own words, and I have seen nothing to indicate that your position as it pertains to any of the information you provided me had changed. This is not a new discussion. As you have just confirmed, it has been going on for over two years on various forums to include AR-15, Lightfighter, and TacticalForums.

As I stated previously, a 90 grain BMT round compared to a 147 grain JHP, is not an accurate comparison. Our email conversation does not indicate it, but unless I am mistaken, your video compared a 185 grain speer Golddot with a 90 grain BMT. If LeMas is somehow different, then the correct comparison is a 90 grain BMT round against a conventional 90 grain JHP fired at the same velocities! Otherwise, this goes back to nothing more than an argument over ballistics paradigms, heavy slow with deep penetration vs. fast light with large temporary cavities (and with sufficient velocity, tissue fragmentation).

If the paradigm is so effective, then any ammunition manufacturer can load a 90 grain bullet in a .40 (or 9mm), load it hot and achieve similar results.

NousDefionsDoc: I have no knowledge of animal testing other than those mentioned here. I do not believe any other live animal testing has been done. I would be interested to see a scientifically conducted test, following established protocols, too.

Chuck

Hey Chuck,

I was also looking forward to your response to the Le Mas 9mm AP gelatin data provided by Mr. Roberts, and the Dr. Vail documented performance for the same round in living tissue. Please elaborate how you believe a "conventional lead bullet construction" for the high velocity light weight Le Mas 9mm AP bullet can behave one way in gelatin and another in living tissue.

This issue I reference is very signifigant as you postulate that any projectile per bullet caliber design pushed at the same velocity as the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet would create the same living tissue destruction. But what I really want to know is if you also believe that same gold dot bullet fired at 2,000+ fps will also demonstrate no bullet core expansion and 18 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin? If so please explain your rationale for that.

I would further like you to explain why the Le Mas high speed light weight 9mm AP bullet which penetrated hard 3A armor and then gelatin also did not demonstrate any bullet core expansion as per Mr. Roberts report.

And lastly I would like to know according to your implied ballistic theory why the same Le Mas 9mm AP bullet which penetrated 18.1 inches of denim clad ballistic gelatin human muscle tissue simulant is not capable of over penetrating either a 150 pound 6 inch thick rear hog appendage or 4 pound chunck of raw meat.

As for repeatability for performance in living tissue, I assure you that the performance of this bullet has been repeated for SME medical personnel hundreds of times in controlled environments. Did Mr. Roberts not tell you this, or did he not know this fact.

[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

[jbour13]

Originally Posted by 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

So far I've learned volumes from this thread alone. Peregrino has brought this back to the root and it brings those basic questions back to the front.

From what I've read, this round isn't on par with a true varmint round, it sets the bar well beyond it. True varmint rounds lose integrity if you push the envelope too much. I've also seen hand loads (polymer ballistic tip) degrade to the point that you get jacket separation about 20 ft from the bore after one year of sitting in their cases. Kinda cool to see that little puff, but discouraging if you've loaded a few too many and can't do anything but pull the bullet or try it in another rifle. What makes this round so intriguing to me is that it retains mass on hard surface and dumps it's energy on less dense material (water based) like tissue.

Being a soldier, I could care less in this day and age if someone says a round is too lethal. That oxymoron speaks loudly from the bleeding hearts around the world. This day and age the Islamofacist seeks death and will only stay alive long enough to take an American with him. If he wants death, not a problem, high velocity lead poisioning shall be your end.

Controlling the variables with gelatin are fine. It's a fine test medium to determine a bullets behavior upon impact, ie, yawing upon impacting. It gives an approximate value of how well it penetrates. But since we've all determined that gelatin lacks those anatomical parts that humans are composed of, why is it the industry standard?

I've a few ideas why it is the standard. Availability, cost, consistent medium, no fighting with PETA,....makes sense to me. It's a comfort item for most manufacturers. I compare it with the first automobile and the controversy that surrounded it. It scares the horses, it smells, it costs too much, etc.

That being said, revolutionary developments happen everyday in multiple markets. The firearms industry has been one of the consistent players for a long time, and to compliment that, the ammunition manufacturers have pandered to them. It's a rarity that a specific type of ammunition is created and the gun/ weapon built around it. This ammuntion manufacturer has pretty well leveled the playing field and made lethal ammo in multiple configurations that seem to perform well in different calibers and platforms. This is likely the reason why you don't see much change and continued efforts to sow dis-information.

I know I'm preaching to the choir! Not pointing fingers and calling names, PM me to keep this thread clear if you'd like to talk off-line.

[jatx]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but here is my observation after following this for the past year or so.

The LeMas debate is just like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, where an irreconcilable difference was pointed out as existing between two types of people: those who could care less how the cycle works (so long as it works) and those who must understand how it works in order to be satisfied. The two types remain forever mutually unintelligible. They frustrate the hell out of each other.

The gel versus warm meat argument is a red herring, IMHO. It is only being brought up because half of the people discussing this technology will not be happy until they learn something about the ammuntion's precise mechanism of action.