Mr. Roberts,

With respect to your observations that Le Mas advertises lead free ammunition, you are correct. As you have already acknowledged RBCD does in fact manufacture both lead free and non lead free ammunition. Le Mas Ltd. obtained a contractual teaming relationship to further develop the already existing RBCD military and law enforcement product lines. The current Le Mas Ltd. military and law enforcement product lines still utilize both lead and lead free product lines. I take full responsibility for the early marketing communications from myself and Le Mas Ltd. that the entire product line was either lead free or contained specific exotic metals. If Le Mas Ltd. had better communication with RBCD with respect to the pre existing RBCD product lines I would not have made mistakes in my communications during the early development of the Le Mas Ltd. product lines. If you review the historical RBCD product information which pre-dated the existence of Le Mas Ltd. you will see much of the same information that was initially advertised by Le Mas Ltd.

Quoted: Several research facilities have independently tested the LeMas/RBCD bullets with exactly the same results—NO blended metals, NO platinum or other exotic materials, NO thermally reactive materials, and definitely NOT all lead free. Unlike salesmen, SEM and XRF do not lie.

Actually Mr. Roberts if what you are alleging from your ballistic gelatin testing data, SEM, and XRF bullet core analysis is that the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet is not in fact a new non comparative technology, then either you, or your scientific methods of analyses are in fact lying. Let me recap:

“DATE: 11 March 2002
FROM: Gary K. Roberts, LCDR, USNR
RE: Preliminary Assessment of the Terminal Wounding Effects of selected RBCD Ammunition…

“On 07 March 2002, we had the opportunity to do a preliminary assessment of RBCD ammunition in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin, a tissue simulant with a well-proven correlation with human tissue.”

Your ballistic gelatin testing of the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet core material showed no expansion or notable fragmentation when penetrating ballistic gelatin. Once again remember that the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet core weighs just 41.0 grains as a loaded projectile. Your March 2002 published ballistic gelatin data shown below chronicles penetration depth, recovered weight, and recovered dimensions of the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet. As I have noted the original loaded AP 9mm bullet core weight is 41.5 grains. Since I have released the enclosed live tissue data, you now claim that you published March 2002 report clearly stated that the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet fragments in tissue, yet when impacting denim clad ballistic gelatin just 1.5 grains of bullet core mass was recovered.



Again, to recap your published scientific research, your Le Mas AP 9mm ballistic gelatin study reported documented 18.1 inches of ballistic gelatin with no bullet core material expansion of fragmentation. Additionally the same Le Mas AP 9mm bullet you tested demonstrated no measurable expansion into ballistic gelatin after penetrating ¼ inch 3A hard armor. You further stated in your published study that the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet demonstrated tissue destruction properties similar to that of a FMJ bullet design and less tissue destruction than conventional hollow point handgun ammunition.

Mr. Roberts, your published tissue destruction data as stated below in your published report is in fact a lie.

“Tissue damage is comparable to that of other non-expanding 9 mm bullets and is less than that of standard 9 mm JHP designs, since the RBCD bullet does not create as much tissue damage due to it’s smaller recovered diameter, as noted below:”

The below picture factually demonstrates living tissue performance for the Le Mas Ltd. AP 9mm appendage impact when fired from a 10.5 inch barrel at a distance of 5 yards.



Your published scientific ballistic gelatin tissue destruction data with respect to the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet performance in living tissue is false and misleading at best. You now testify that your conducted SEM and XRF bullet core analysis shows “standard lead bullet” construction materials. You seem to imply such data exists as proof that the Le Mas Ltd. BMT ammunition is not in fact a non comparable bullet technology. If you somehow believe that your conducted SEM/XRF bullet core data for the Le Mas ammunition proves the validity of your inaccurate ballistic gelatin predictions for demonstrated performance in armor and living tissue, than I challenge to you prove such claims. Please validate your continued rhetoric by provide data for any other existing “standard lead bullet” construction materials you reference which replicates the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet performance in denim covered gelatin, hard armored gelatin, SEM, and XRF bullet core analysis, and living tissue destruction properties.

The below picture documents the Le Mas AP 9mm thoracic impact after 3A armor and the rear appendage impact when fired from a 10.5 inch barrel from a distance of 5 yards.



The below picture demonstrates living tissue performance for the same Le Mas Ltd. AP 9mm non armored appendage impact pictured above. Although you imply no statistical difference between calibrated ballistic gelatin, and actual living tissue impact mediums, clearly even to the most simple of minds, both the accuracy and supposedly scientific conclusions of your published data smacks of hyperbole and personal political agenda.



Mr. Roberts, you are either a liar, or do not believe your own limited scientific data as you have still failed to explain your false and inaccurate predictions for the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet core behavior in gelatin, armor, and living tissue. Do you still now “claim” to have actually published accurate Le Mas Ltd. AP 9mm bullet living tissue destruction data? Do you still likewise “claim” your referenced SEM or XRF bullet core material assessments somehow also lend scientific credibility for your inaccurate and misleading information regarding demonstrated performance in ballistic gelatin, hard armor and living tissue.

Mr. Roberts, although you might be too stupid to realize it, you have yourself proved that the Le Mas Ltd. BMT handgun projectile is in fact a non comparable bullet technology based on your very own conducted scientific methods of analysis.

Originally Posted by GKR Mr. Bulmer writes: I don’t know the date of what you are posting as none of the current Short Range Armor Piercing Le Mas Ltd. ammunition product lines have been advertised as lead free. Neither have the Land Warfare, or the no longer marketed for quite some time Urban Warfare. None of the handgun CQB ammunition products have ever been advertised as lead free. The above quote is not truthful, as the Bulmer/LeMas claims of blended metal, lead-free, “smart” construction illustrated above were made several times over the past five years when both the State Dept/Urban Warfare and Land Warfare loads were being heavily marketed to DOD and LE agencies.  Likewise, the LeMas 9 mm and .45 ACP handgun loads were being offered as lead-free, blended metal projectiles.  Far from not being marketed for, “quite some time”, the so called LeMas Urban Warfare loads were still being touted in the LeMas promotional CD’s distributed at the 2004 SHOT show…

The current Short Range Armor Piercing product line has not, and never was advertised as lead free. I repeat my challenge for you to find any client who has purchased the ammunition to testify that the ammunition was advertised as lead free. The RBCD manufactured Le Mas Ltd. HARPP 1, 2, and 3 rifle armored glass rounds, and the special purpose Hollow Point handgun ammunition are still marketed as lead free bullet constructions.

You are incorrect that the Urban Warfare round was marketed as a lead free projectile at the 2004 Shot Show. You are also incorrect that the Urban Warfare round was being marketed as part of the Short Range Armor Piercing product line. Did you personally view such claims being made by Le Mas Ltd. at the Shot Show, or are you just assuming what you allege. The only purpose for including the Urban Warfare 5.56 armor and tissue performance in the Le Mas “Paradigm” CD was to document once again, your grossly inaccurate ballistic gelatin predictions for living tissue destruction performance of the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition you published in your March 2002 report. If I am not mistaken your name was even referenced in the narration of that Paradigm armor and tissue CD presentation. No information was provided by Le Mas Ltd. to anyone that the SRAP product line was lead free, and the Urban Warfare specifically was not even advertised as a current product line as the development of the SRAP 5.56 LW bullet provided much greater full diameter hard armor penetration capabilities from short barreled weapons.

The below picture shows the recovered Le Mas Ltd. SRAP 5.56 NATO projectiles and displaced full diameter hard armors after penetrating 3/8 inch AR-500 steel when fired from a 14.5 inch 1/7 twist barrel.

Mr. Roberts wrote: Mr. Bulmer wrote at Lightfighter.net, “That there are no historical DOD JAG rulings that would prohibit the BMT non ballistic tipped rifle ammunition to be used by US active duty personnel in a declared conventional war.”  Yet this is not true.  Since the LeMas/RBCD ammunition has now been proven to be of lead core construction, the exposed lead at the tip of the mis-named Land Warfare rifle ammunition is clearly a violation of the Hague convention.  Likewise, the exposed lead at the tip of the LeMas/RBCD 9 mm and .45 ACP handgun ammunition is also in violation of the Hague Convention, while the radiolucent nylon polymer core is prohibited by Protocol I of the 1980 UN Conventional Weapons Convention.  As a result, the US DOD JAG has ruled that the LeMas/RBCD ammunition is illegal for use in international armed conflict—whether by military personnel or private contractors hired to perform security work.

Mr. Roberts, more accurately stated, there are no dedicated full diameter hard armor penetrating bullet designs which have been prohibited by historical DOD JAG rulings.
Don’t give double talk or your personal interpretations, just show quotes where any historical US JAG ruling which delineates “dedicated full diameter hard armor penetrator” bullet designs as being ruled illegal for Land Warfare applications. Additionally I believe the US JAG office has acknowledged and approved ammunition designs which demonstrate minimum penetration fragmenting bullet designs for specific small arms operational requirements. Both the Le Mas Short Range Armor Piercing Land Warfare and AP OTM bullet designs demonstrate primary full diameter hard armor penetration capability from a single bullet design which also secondarily demonstrates minimum penetration fragmenting bullet living tissue characteristics. The Le Mas AP CQB handgun ammunition also primarily functions as dedicated full diameter armor penetrators. Your published March 2002 “observed tissue destruction” report documents that the Le Mas AP 9 mm bullet core demonstrates no expansion or fragmentation in the only currently accepted “standard” for a living tissue medium simulant. Furthermore, none of the full diameter rifle Short Range Armor Piercing Land Warfare, OTM, or CQB handgun ammunition “flatten or expand” in living tissue which are the prohibited functional descriptions for exposed lead tipped bullets referenced in the Hague convention of 1907.

The below picture shows the Le Mas Ltd. Armor piercing 9mm and .45acp full diameter penetration through 3/16 inch T-304 stainless steel. Both of these bullet designs are capable of defeating in excess of 1/4 inch T-304 stainless steel.



No credible effort has taken place to date with respect to legal review of the Le Mas ammunition products. If you, Mr. Roberts, claim to be the SME expert who did so, I repeat no credible effort has taken place to date.

Just let me know when we get to shoot table food, OK?

Originally Posted by GKR That LeMas video is also enlightening, as it shows high velocity rifle bullet impacts up to between 3000-4000 fps, with significant fragmentation and stretch injuries and wounding effects similar to those described by Fackler for high velocity, early upset, fragmenting projectiles: 1. The bullet fragments in tissue. 2. Multiple fragments spread out radially from the wound tract. 3. Temporary cavitation stretches tissue. 4. The multiply perforated tissue cannot absorb the stretch that would ordinarily be tolerated by intact tissue. 5. The weakened tissue is torn and severely disrupted.

Mr. Roberts, take a hike please, more quotes from someone else, you seem to function as historical librarian rather than an implied scientist capable of independent creative thought. You did not discover the above data from your previously published Le Mas ammunition ballistic gelatin test data and clearly failed to provide any such description as you now quote in your March 2002 report to either the US DoD or law enforcement agencies. Shawn Dobson made such statements over two years ago when he reviewed the live tissue x-ray data provided by Le Mas Ltd. from the Paradigm CD. His conclusion after reviewing that data was much more accurate than yours and similar to the many SME MD personnel who have worked with this ammunition for the last 3 years. Your conclusion upon reviewing that same Paradigm data was to claim more snake oil by me and Le Mas Ltd with attempts to insult the credibility of SME MD’s who performed both the necropsy and x-ray data of the destroyed tissues. You have often claimed to have taken possession of the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition product line samples, did you not conduct comparative gelatin and living tissue testing. If so where is such data, if not, WTF are you talking smack about. These subject matters are not rocket science Mr. Roberts. There are many real SME medical personnel who have been working with the Le Mas ammunition for quite a while now. Have you really not been informed of such operational world data?

If you think that the performance of the Le Mas Ltd. Short Range Armor Piercing ammunition is likewise a “simple lead bullet” as you have similarly testified for the Le Mas AP handgun rounds, then prove your claims by documenting any other existing available bullet design which replicates performance and description in ballistic gelatin, full diameter hard armor penetration, SEM/XRF bullet core analysis, and performance in living tissue. If you can’t produce such data, which validates your claims right now, then than you have again lied and continue to provide false statements you claim as scientific fact.

Mr. Roberts you have no clue how far behind the power curve you really have been, for so long. It  dumbfounds me that yet you have made such great efforts to prohibit and spread great disinformation, either out of sheer stupidity or personnel political agenda, about what many of the BMT these bullet designs bring to the end users who defend this country both domestic and abroad. The limited small sample, non comparative hard armor and living tissue destruction data I have posted in this response to the “ass shot jokes” here on AR15 is no different from what has been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated by Le Mas Ltd. for end users operationally during the last 2.5 years.

Whether or not you feel it, I am taking a very high road here Mr. Roberts with respect to your character and integrity. Would you like to challenge me to the low road?

The below picture shows the M-855 62 grain 5.56 NATO rear appendage impact from a 12 inch 1/7 twist barrel from distance of 5 yards.



The below picture shows the M-262 77 grain 5.56 NATO rear appendage impact from a 12 inch 1/7 twist barrel from distance of 5 yards.



The below picture shows Le Mas SRAP 5.56 NATO bullet appendage impact from a distance of 5 yards when fired from a 12 inch 1/7 twist barrel.



The below picture shows the Le Mas Ltd. SRAP rear appendage impact from a 12 inch 1/7 twist barrel from a distance of 5 yards.

Quoted: A question: The pictures of the sectioned pig are interesting, but what are they pictures of exactly? Are they pictures of the meat having been cut into to expose the wound track, or are they pics of what the bullet did on exit? It's hard to tell by your pictures, but it doesn't *appear* that the hog had its entire backside blown away after being shot; it looks like the pictures you posted were taken AFTER it had been disected. What does that prove? Or was it your intention to make people THINK that the damage was all caused by the bullet without clarifying that it was actually cut open? The pictures CLEARLY show a knife which is covered in blood/tissue, leaving no doubt that the tissue shown was exposed by first cutting into the animal. If your ammo peforms so well, why aren't you more forthcoming in submitting it for scientific analysis? You know that ballistic gelatin is only ONE test medium. I'm sure that renowned wound ballistics experts such as Dr. Fackler have always correlated data to shots into live tissue, which would then CLEARLY show your ammunition's potential. As I've said before - YOU posting pics without proper context and reference is not something I can accept as useful. If they are a true representation of the ammo's performance, fine. Have it validated by an independent analysis. Until you do, those pictures could just as well have come from a pig shot with a .22  in the process of being butchered. [Edited to clarify some points]

More data inbound. I will answer your questions ASAP after the next posting. You have made  incorrect assumptions in many of your statements above.

For crying out loud Zhuk, the knife's still being used in one of these pictures.  You can clearly see the cut line in the last photo, leading right from the wound.  My 180gr Barnes-X handloaded 30-06 at 5 yards into about the same spot didn't leave the pig.  No one rational expects that the ass end of the pig was blown off.  You're being argumentative for no good reason (yet).

To me, these shots all look like they were taken by an observer, documenting the test context.  This is opposed to the actual test photographer taking shots to record results in a fully scientific manner.  If you've ever shot scientific photography, you'd know that there is always someone else taking context shots to capture the environment of the experiment informally.  This is because it takes too long to set up a single scientific shot, you'd spend a week doing what one person can do in minutes.

I think BMT said he was going to post the test pictures and formal results in a later post.  I expect this will take a while, because a good, thorough, scientific procedure takes time.  We should wait till then to bash folks for trying to hide something!  Then the good doctor can post his findings in parallel and we can see what's what then... -4jury

A month ago:

I don’t know the date of what you are posting as none of the current Short Range Armor Piercing Le Mas Ltd. ammunition product lines have been advertised as lead free. Neither have the Land Warfare, or the no longer marketed for quite some time Urban Warfare. None of the handgun CQB ammunition products have ever been advertised as lead free. As you also will notice there has only been direct marketing interfaces with any of the clients who have used our ammunition for quite some time now. You are invited to locate one client who has purchased any of the above ammunition who will state the ammunition was advertised as lead free. You are really picking your ass down deep there Mr. Roberts.

Now:

With respect to your observations that Le Mas advertises lead free ammunition, you are correct. As you have already acknowledged RBCD does in fact manufacture both lead free and non lead free ammunition. Le Mas Ltd. obtained a contractual teaming relationship to further develop the already existing RBCD military and law enforcement product lines. The current Le Mas Ltd. military and law enforcement product lines still utilize both lead and lead free product lines. I take full responsibility for the early marketing communications from myself and Le Mas Ltd. that the entire product line was either lead free or contained specific exotic metals. If Le Mas Ltd. had better communication with RBCD with respect to the pre existing RBCD product lines I would not have made mistakes in my communications during the early development of the Le Mas Ltd. product lines. If you review the historical RBCD product information which pre-dated the existence of Le Mas Ltd. you will see much of the same information that was initially advertised by Le Mas Ltd.

Communications mistakes... One would wonder if these "communication mistakes" (i.e. lies) would still be going on if it were not for the good Dr. and his work to uncover the truth about your ammunition. After all, a month ago he was "picking his ass down deep" when he brought it up. Tell us, is the meaning of "Blended Metal Technology" also one of your "communication mistakes?

All will be clear shortly, folks.  Old Stan is just starting to get nervous.

Alright, but I would petition for Mr. Bulmer read this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0922233233/104-7116645-5803153?v=glance&n=283155

before his next post. His pseudo intellectual language is a bit over the top, to say the least. Perhaps his inability or unwillingness to use clear and concise language is what leads to these "communication mistakes." Or maybe the purpose of his convoluted language is actually intentional; a scapegoat in the case he is called on his BS. In this way he can blame all his falsehoods on "communication mistakes." If one was (like Stan) to use enough redundant adjectives, poor punctuation, improper tense, and awkward phraseology, he could easily proffer loads of BS under the guise of aptitude, and still leave plenty of room to work with cognitive dissonance. Of course, it would be a ruse.

Quoted: Alright, but I would petition for Mr. Bulmer read this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0922233233/104-7116645-5803153?v=glance&n=283155 before his next post. His pseudo intellectual language is a bit over the top, to say the least. Perhaps his inability or unwillingness to use clear and concise language is what leads to these "communication mistakes." Or maybe the purpose of his convoluted language is actually intentional; a scapegoat in the case he is called on his BS. In this way he can blame all his falsehoods on "communication mistakes." If one was (like Stan) to use enough redundant adjectives, poor punctuation, improper tense, and awkward phraseology, he could easily proffer loads of BS under the guise of aptitude, and still leave plenty of room to work with cognitive dissonance. Of course, it would be a ruse.

+1......Wait, what did you say?

Quoted: The below picture factually demonstrates living tissue performance for the Le Mas Ltd. AP 9mm appendage impact when fired from a 10.5 inch barrel at a distance of 5 yards. The below picture documents the Le Mas AP 9mm thoracic impact after 3A armor and the rear appendage impact when fired from a 10.5 inch barrel from a distance of 5 yards. ..... smacks of hyperbole and personal political agenda. Mr. Roberts, although you might be too stupid to realize it, you have yourself proved that the Le Mas Ltd. BMT handgun projectile is in fact a non comparable bullet technology based on your very own conducted scientific methods of analysis.

maybe you mean non comparable in the sense most folks don't lug around 10.5 inch handguns?

so that was a slightly sarcastic statement, i apologize for the sake of the argument.    which is:

why do you refer to this as "handgun" ammo but use subgun/ carbines to prove your "claims"?

I feel like a 20 year old at wal mart buying 9mm ammo and being asked "is this for a handgun, or a rifle?"

+1......Wait, what did you say?

Exactly.

why do you constantly refer to this as "handgun" ammo but constantly use subgun/ carbines to prove your "claims"?

Because he is peddling high speed, lightweight ammunition. The figures look a lot better out of a longer bbl. This is perfectly in line with Mr. Bulmers MO: Exaggerate, misrepresent, mislead.

Quoted: why do you constantly refer to this as "handgun" ammo but constantly use subgun/ carbines to prove your "claims"? Because he is peddling high speed, lightweight ammunition. The figures look a lot better out of a longer bbl. This is perfectly in line with Mr. Bulmers MO: Exaggerate, misrepresent, mislead.

yes, that is what i think, but i want to hear what he has to say about it.

Quoted: why do you constantly refer to this as "handgun" ammo but constantly use subgun/ carbines to prove your "claims"? Because he is peddling high speed, lightweight ammunition. The figures look a lot better out of a longer bbl. This is perfectly in line with Mr. Bulmers MO: Exaggerate, misrepresent, mislead.

I'm going to the store to pick up some popcorn and some Coke. Anyone need anything while I'm out?

Wow that's a ton of words used up to say nothing more than shooting pigs puts a hurt on them and I’m pissed off that someone disagrees with me.  Is this a rant or an attempt at humor?  Maybe this is a pun on a 10.5 inch barrel and a "hog-leg"?  

Quit crying so much.  It's hard to sell something that doesn't stand up very well to repeatable testing.  Seems like a simple "I'll show YOU!!!  I'll just shoot 30 (or maybe 100) pigs and surely one will suit my purposes.  See - one did!!!!!"

Quoted: Alright, but I would petition for Mr. Bulmer read this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0922233233/104-7116645-5803153?v=glance&n=283155 before his next post. His pseudo intellectual language is a bit over the top, to say the least. Perhaps his inability or unwillingness to use clear and concise language is what leads to these "communication mistakes." Or maybe the purpose of his convoluted language is actually intentional; a scapegoat in the case he is called on his BS. In this way he can blame all his falsehoods on "communication mistakes." If one was (like Stan) to use enough redundant adjectives, poor punctuation, improper tense, and awkward phraseology, he could easily proffer loads of BS under the guise of aptitude, and still leave plenty of room to work with cognitive dissonance. Of course, it would be a ruse.

By George, I think you've figured it out.

.

I've have been out for a looong time and this topic is still banging around ammo board. wow......

Quoted: Quoted: why do you constantly refer to this as "handgun" ammo but constantly use subgun/ carbines to prove your "claims"? Because he is peddling high speed, lightweight ammunition. The figures look a lot better out of a longer bbl. This is perfectly in line with Mr. Bulmers MO: Exaggerate, misrepresent, mislead. yes, that is what i think, but i want to hear what he has to say about it.

The last time I posted armor and tissue pictures here on AR15 from a standard 45acp barrel length handgun, I was accused of actually firing a shotgun into the target at contact distance. The last part of my posting in this thread which had yet to be posted demonstrates a factory length Glock 9mm pistol thoracic cavity impact. Seems lots of folks are carrying 9mm Glocks these days. I also included the M-262 NATO 77 grain thoracic cavity impact from which to compare damage.

Quoted: The last time I posted armor and tissue pictures here on AR15 from a standard 45acp barrel length handgun, I was accused of actually firing a shotgun into the target at contact distance. The last part of my posting in this thread which had yet to be posted demonstrates a factory length Glock 9mm pistol thoracic cavity impact. Seems lots of folks are carrying 9mm Glocks these days. I also included the M-262 NATO 77 grain thoracic cavity impact from which to compare damage.

ya know, if you let other testers experiment with your product...ahh, nevermind.

So, what's the mechanism behind why your 9mm round is so destructive?  I'm not interested in hearing simply that it is destructive, or that it is unique in some manner (whether in construction or behavior).  I am interested in the mechanism.  In other words, what does it do that causes bad guys/pig legs/small mammals to go "ouchie!" when shot with?

Quoted: Quoted: The last time I posted armor and tissue pictures here on AR15 from a standard 45acp barrel length handgun, I was accused of actually firing a shotgun into the target at contact distance. The last part of my posting in this thread which had yet to be posted demonstrates a factory length Glock 9mm pistol thoracic cavity impact. Seems lots of folks are carrying 9mm Glocks these days. I also included the M-262 NATO 77 grain thoracic cavity impact from which to compare damage. ya know, if you let other testers experiment with your product...ahh, nevermind. So, what's the mechanism behind why your 9mm round is so destructive?  I'm not interested in hearing simply that it is destructive, or that it is unique in some manner (whether in construction or behavior).  I am interested in the mechanism.  In other words, what does it do that causes bad guys/pig legs/small mammals to go "ouchie!" when shot with?

Lead go fast. Big boom.

on my box of rbcd 45acp ammo, on the back it says

semi lead free ammunition, lead free priminig, total copper jackets. now I'm not an expert but I do shoot animals and while you can say that pigs and deer arnet people it's a damn good indicator of how a perticular round will work, now cutting all the bullshit aside, who other than me has actually shot a animal with this stuff, my 115gr did more damage than the 270 did on the hog, or my AR, or my FAL, or my 12gauge slug. Now I'm not saying I know exactly how it works, but I know what I saw on many animals, how can this be explained?

I am interested in the mechanism. In other words, what does it do that causes bad guys/pig legs/small mammals to go "ouchie!" when shot with?

Haven't you heard? Stan says that there is no known science that can explain it... They don't know how they're designing these bullets, they just are. Weird, huh?

semi lead free

Now that is hilarious. Semi lead free. How can anything be "semi free?" Are they trying to find the word "reduced," perhaps? Next time I pull into the gas station, I'm gonna ask if they have any "semi lead free" gasoline and see how hard they laugh at me. Or maybe I'll ask the grocery stocker if they have any "semi fat free" cookies, and see how long it takes the 15 year old kid to explain to me that there is no such thing as "semi free."

For crying out loud. If there is lead in the product, it is not "free" of lead in any way, shape, or form. It is either free of lead or it is not. Free:

11 a (1) : not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with something else

-Merriam-Webster

I think this labeling is just another example of the way Lemas/RBCD/Mr. Bulmer will try to mislead the consumer in any way possible. But I'm sure it's just another "communication mistake."

my 115gr did more damage than the 270 did on the hog, or my AR, or my FAL, or my 12gauge slug. Now I'm not saying I know exactly how it works, but I know what I saw on many animals, how can this be explained?

It's pretty easy to mistake gruesome looking wounds for those most effective at stopping. And I would tend to think, and I'm not trying to be offensive here at all, that if you think a 45ACP round did more damage than a 7.62 or a 12 ga slug, then maybe that is exactly what is happening. It's understandable, especially considering the fact that Lemas/RBCD's entire marketing strategy seems to be based on capitalizing on the general lack of public understanding of wounding mechanisms. Hence the pot roasts, blocks of clay, pictures of dead pigs without any type of scale or explanation, etc.

Quoted: Quoted: The last time I posted armor and tissue pictures here on AR15 from a standard 45acp barrel length handgun, I was accused of actually firing a shotgun into the target at contact distance. The last part of my posting in this thread which had yet to be posted demonstrates a factory length Glock 9mm pistol thoracic cavity impact. Seems lots of folks are carrying 9mm Glocks these days. I also included the M-262 NATO 77 grain thoracic cavity impact from which to compare damage. ya know, if you let other testers experiment with your product...ahh, nevermind.

Tens of thousand rounds carried and used across the pond. Even MoDog has claimed to have shipped ammo (illeglly perhaps) to end users who have actually employed the rounds operationally. Funny that not a single BTDT end user who has actually employed the BMT ammunition has ever stated the rounds did not perform as advertised. Wonder why that might be. It is also amazing to me that folks here on AR15 think that unless Gary Roberts is not provided rounds for testing by me that no independant testing has taken place. A bit of disconnect has taken place since the other thread was locked down but lots of folks have observed independant testing take place. None of the pictures I have posted in this thread were Le Mas Ltd. productions. ColtRifle will continue to be invited to all of  these types of evolutions and what he chooses to share will be up to him. These types of independant testing evolutions occur frequently.

So, what's the mechanism behind why your 9mm round is so destructive?  I'm not interested in hearing simply that it is destructive, or that it is unique in some manner (whether in construction or behavior).  I am interested in the mechanism.  In other words, what does it do that causes bad guys/pig legs/small mammals to go "ouchie!" when shot with?

I have repeatedly shown, not told how the rounds perform in armor and tissue. Gary Roberts has told you how they do not perform. I don't think very many people here on AR15 who talk so much smack have actually ever seen what the rounds which are championed from FBI ballistic gelatin protocols really deliver in the way of armor and living tissue. If they had, they would not make such stupid statements. When Gary Roberts stated that  5.56 bullet performance after penetrating soft 3A armor did not matter because all 5.56 ammo penetrates 3A I knew that he has never validated indoor basement gelatin data with real world tissue performance. I don't give two shits about whether "bad guys/pig legs/ small mammals" go "ouchie" when hit with Le Mas rounds. I only care about how quick a single round impact to an appendage or torso makes the target "0" mission capable whether that target is behind armor or not. Mr. Roberts has presented his calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin studies, and has proclaimed the Le Mas ammunition inferior to conventional bullet designs optimized to meet FBI ballistic gelatin protocols. If you cannot tell the difference between the two from the pictures I have posted just keep on slinging crap.

If you cannot tell the difference between the two from the pictures I have posted just keep on slinging crap.

But on your first pig it says it was shot with a 10.5" barrel. The pig would probably look different if I shot it with a 4" barrel.

Quoted: I am interested in the mechanism. In other words, what does it do that causes bad guys/pig legs/small mammals to go "ouchie!" when shot with? Haven't you heard? Stan says that there is no known science that can explain it... They don't know how they're designing these bullets, they just are. Weird, huh? semi lead free Now that is hilarious. Semi lead free. How can anything be "semi free?" Are they trying to find the word "reduced," perhaps? Next time I pull into the gas station, I'm gonna ask if they have any "semi lead free" gasoline and see how hard they laugh at me. Or maybe I'll ask the grocery stocker if they have any "semi fat free" cookies, and see how long it takes the 15 year old kid to explain to me that there is no such thing as "semi free." For crying out loud. If there is lead in the product, it is not "free" of lead in any way, shape, or form. It is either free of lead or it is not. Free: 11 a (1) : not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with something else -Merriam-Webster I think this labeling is just another example of the way Lemas/RBCD/Mr. Bulmer will try to mislead the consumer in any way possible. But I'm sure it's just another "communication mistake." my 115gr did more damage than the 270 did on the hog, or my AR, or my FAL, or my 12gauge slug. Now I'm not saying I know exactly how it works, but I know what I saw on many animals, how can this be explained? It's pretty easy to mistake gruesome looking wounds for those most effective at stopping. And I would tend to think, and I'm not trying to be offensive here at all, that if you think a 45ACP round did more damage than a 7.62 or a 12 ga slug, then maybe that is exactly what is happening. It's understandable, especially considering the fact that Lemas/RBCD's entire marketing strategy seems to be based on capitalizing on the general lack of public understanding of wounding mechanisms. Hence the pot roasts, blocks of clay, pictures of dead pigs without any type of scale or explanation, etc.

BDUser,
You are lying as none of the Le Mas ammunition packaging has ever had the statements you allege. Are you just talking smack or are you claiming facts with respect to anything you have posted above.

Gary Roberts criticized that no measurements of permanent tissue destructions were provided in the Paradigm CD, yet after pointing out the fact that the units of measurement etched into the surgical scalpels referenced by the two MD surgeons conducting the necropsy was the source of stated wound dimensions, he withdrew that claim. I find it amazing when a video recording is provided showing comparative estimates of permanent living tissue destructions dimensions where a conventional bullet wound channel dimension will not accommodate a single finger and the other wound channel easily fits two clenched fists is deemed as non relevant comparative data. Please let me know which wound dimensions in the posted pictures in the above thread you were confused about and I will try to help.  

Quoted: my 115gr did more damage than the 270 did on the hog, or my AR, or my FAL, or my 12gauge slug. Now I'm not saying I know exactly how it works, but I know what I saw on many animals, how can this be explained? It's pretty easy to mistake gruesome looking wounds for those most effective at stoppingsure for someone who doesnt know what they're talking about. And I would tend to think, and I'm not trying to be offensive here at all, that if you think a 45ACP round did more damage than a 7.62 or a 12 ga slug, then maybe that is exactly what is happening.not at all, I'm saying that the rbcd 115gr destroyed more tissue than the other rounds I have fired into liveing things that I cut up to see what happened, I am in the med field and I know how to cut into flesh and muscle It's understandable, especially considering the fact that Lemas/RBCD's entire marketing strategy seems to be based on capitalizing on the general lack of public understanding of wounding mechanismsbe that as it may, I am very well versed in the "wounding mechanisms". Hence the pot roasts, blocks of clay, pictures of dead pigs without any type of scale or explanation, etc.

It dumbfounds me that yet you have made such great efforts to prohibit and spread great disinformation, either out of sheer stupidity or personnel political agenda, about what many of the BMT these bullet designs bring to the end users who defend this country both domestic and abroad.

I'm dumbfounded by poor grammar.

BDUser, You are lying as none of the Le Mas ammunition packaging has ever had the statements you allege. Are you just talking smack or are you claiming facts with respect to anything you have posted above.

Whoa, hold on there Cochise. Those statements purportedly exist on the packaging of RBCD ammunition obtained by murdoc. I was responding to his assertion that those words are on the packaging of his 115gr 45ACP RBCD, so your beef is with him. I don't see why he would lie, considering the fact he seems to be a proponent of your ammunition. And if you still insist on denying it, maybe we could convince murdoc to scan the label. But you don't want to have to eat crow on this issue twice, do you?

Also, I don't see any units of measurement on the cutting instruments in these pictures. Nor do I see explanation of any sort about what's going on in the pictures. I see pictures where it appears as though the wound channel has been splayed with significant excision having taken place. Which may or may not serve purpose as documentation within a specific scientific examination, but served up on their own (out of context) to the untrained public eye, have no meaning at all. Except for marketing. Because cutting apart an animal and saying "look what it did" can be convincing to people who don't know what they are looking at.

not at all, I'm saying that the rbcd 115gr destroyed more tissue than the other rounds I have fired into liveing things that I cut up to see what happened, I am in the med field and I know how to cut into flesh and muscle

I'd be interested to hear how a med student (yeah I saw that before you edited it) well versed in wounding mechanisms happened to measure this massive tissue destruction. Certainly a med student well versed in wounding mechanisms and interested in exploring the terminal ballistics of this round would have at least partial documentation of his examinations. Or at the very least he can recall the wounding patterns that were so extraordinary, and how they affected various impacted structures.

Quoted: BDUser, You are lying as none of the Le Mas ammunition packaging has ever had the statements you allege. Are you just talking smack or are you claiming facts with respect to anything you have posted above. Whoa, hold on there Cochise. Those statements purportedly exist on the packaging of RBCD ammunition obtained by murdoc. I was responding to his assertion that those words are on the packaging of his 115gr 45ACP RBCD, so your beef is with himmy box of rbcd platinum plus ammunition says on the back and I quote  "performance plus platinum ammunition"  underneith that it says " Semi lead free ammunition. Lead free priming, total copper jackets. Use in only firearms in good condition" blah blah blah and it says alot more but I'm not going to type it. I don't see why he would lie, considering the fact he seems to be a proponent of your ammunitionI'm not taking sides, just writeing down what Ive seen. And if you still insist on denying it, maybe we could convince murdoc to scan the labelif need be I will tomorrow, no problem. But you don't want to have to eat crow on this issue twice, do you? Also, I don't see any units of measurement on the cutting instruments in these pictures. Nor do I see explanation of any sort about what's going on in the pictures. I see pictures where it appears as though the wound channel has been splayed with significant excision having taken place. Which may or may not serve purpose as documentation within a specific scientific examination, but served up on their own (out of context) to the untrained public eye, have no meaning at all. Except for marketing. Because cutting apart an animal and saying "look what it did" can be convincing to people who don't know what they are looking at. not at all, I'm saying that the rbcd 115gr destroyed more tissue than the other rounds I have fired into liveing things that I cut up to see what happened, I am in the med field and I know how to cut into flesh and muscle I'd be interested to hear how a med student (yeah I saw that before you edited it)it looked stupid how I worded it, and a med student can mean alot of diff fields and I didn't want anyone to take it that I'm going to be a GP well versed in wounding mechanisms happened to measure this massive tissue destructionI'm not an expert, and as far as tissue destruction it fragmented and severed muscle and looked like it turned the some parts of the organs it hit to jelly . Certainly a med student well versed in wounding mechanisms and interested in exploring the terminal ballistics of this round would have at least partial documentation of his examinationswell I was interested, and still am but I did it for me, and I didn't want to get to involved because no, I took no pics because well it was for me and I did it long before I ever read a thread on arfcom about this, and you can be assured when I do get to go out again I will take pics . Or at the very least he can recall the wounding patterns that were so extraordinary, and how they affected various impacted structures. yea it looked like it fragmented like when I shot the hog with m193 out of my 20, but the diff where the fragments didn't make it to the other side of the pig and stop just under the skin, the wounds looked wider

  look I just want to know why it did it, and that's all. If it turns out to just be because of speed ok, but I just would like to know

Check this out: www.lemasltd.com

Access restricted to authorized Military and Law Enforcement personnel. Enter Access Code:

Only no place to enter "access code," it's fake. What do you make of that... Been that way for years too. Perhaps... just perhaps, could this be another attempt by Stan Bulmer to mislead the public? No! Stan wouldn't do that.

OR, maybe this is another "communication mistake." Maybe Stan will tell us that they don't care about the website, that they were going to add an authorized access section but didn't, and that it still being up there is just a "communication mistake."

Quoted: BDUser, You are lying as none of the Le Mas ammunition packaging has ever had the statements you allege. Are you just talking smack or are you claiming facts with respect to anything you have posted above. Whoa, hold on there Cochise. Those statements purportedly exist on the packaging of RBCD ammunition obtained by murdoc. I was responding to his assertion that those words are on the packaging of his 115gr 45ACP RBCD, so your beef is with him. I don't see why he would lie, considering the fact he seems to be a proponent of your ammunition. And if you still insist on denying it, maybe we could convince murdoc to scan the label. But you don't want to have to eat crow on this issue twice, do you? Also, I don't see any units of measurement on the cutting instruments in these pictures. Nor do I see explanation of any sort about what's going on in the pictures. I see pictures where it appears as though the wound channel has been splayed with significant excision having taken place. Which may or may not serve purpose as documentation within a specific scientific examination, but served up on their own (out of context) to the untrained public eye, have no meaning at all. Except for marketing. Because cutting apart an animal and saying "look what it did" can be convincing to people who don't know what they are looking at. not at all, I'm saying that the rbcd 115gr destroyed more tissue than the other rounds I have fired into liveing things that I cut up to see what happened, I am in the med field and I know how to cut into flesh and musale I'd be interested to hear how a med student (yeah I saw that before you edited it) well versed in wounding mechanisms happened to measure this massive tissue destruction. Certainly a med student well versed in wounding mechanisms and interested in exploring the terminal ballistics of this round would have at least partial documentation of his examinations. Or at the very least he can recall the wounding patterns that were so extraordinary, and how they affected various impacted structures.

Le Mas Ltd. is a separate company than RBCD. Don't worry about my crow, do more research before you start making inaccurate assumptions which you post as fact.

If you are claiming that the data shown for comparative tissue damage demonstrated between the M-855, M-262, and Le Mas AP 9mm is not comparatively valid I say you are full of crap.

If you require a conversation with one of the independent SME MD's who conducted the necropsy for validation of comparative data from the pictures I posted, send me an e-mail. I am sure you will be welcome to try and BS your way through that conversation.

Quoted: Le Mas Ltd. is a separate company than RBCDoh, my bad

Le Mas Ltd. is a separate company than RBCD. Don't worry about my crow, do more research before you start making inaccurate assumptions which you post as fact.

I didn't make any assumptions. Murdoc said his RBCD ammunition box contains the aforementioned language, and I responded. I never attributed the statements to Lemas Ltd specifically, but rather suggested it was part of a common BS marketing campaign associated with RBCD/Lemas/Bulmer. You have said even on this thread that there is a "contractual teaming relationship" between Lemas and RBCD. If you are prepared to acknowledge that RBCD's usage of the term "semi lead free" is stupid, and that neither you or anyone at Lemas had anything to do with that terminology being proffered, I am willing to acknowledge that perhaps RBCD made these ridiculous statements without being goaded by yourself or Lemas.

If you are claiming that the data shown for comparative tissue damage demonstrated between the M-855, M-262, and Le Mas AP 9mm is not comparatively valid I say you are full of crap.

STAN! NO, posting a couple of pictures without scale or context is NOT comparatively valid data! You can call me full of crap all you want,  but you are still wrong to assert that pictures that can only be interpreted subjectively can provide some sort of legitimate quantitative or even qualitative data.

If you require a conversation with one of the independent SME MD's who conducted the necropsy for validation of comparative data from the pictures I posted, send me an e-mail. I am sure you will be welcome to try and BS your way through that conversation.

I would LOVE that, Stan. Better yet, why don't you contact your SME's and have them post on this thread for all to see. While you're at it, why don't you also get a/the designer of this ammunition involved. A lot of us are wondering how he/they keep designing bullets around a mechanism that no known science can explain. We're wondering what Lemas means by "blended metal." We're wondering about the accuracy of these rounds. We're wondering about how they are produced. We're wondering about where they are produced. Etc. We're doing a whole lot of wondering, and have been for a long time. And despite the thousands upon thousands of words you type on these threads, you say amazingly little. So we're still wondering. Maybe it's time for you to bring in these SME examiners and designers to actually answer some questions that you keep dodging.

Quoted: Tens of thousand rounds carried and used across the pond. Even MoDog has claimed to have shipped ammo (illeglly perhaps) to end users who have actually employed the rounds operationally. Funny that not a single BTDT end user who has actually employed the BMT ammunition has ever stated the rounds did not perform as advertised. Wonder why that might be. It is also amazing to me that folks here on AR15 think that unless Gary Roberts is not provided rounds for testing by me that no independant testing has taken place. A bit of disconnect has taken place since the other thread was locked down but lots of folks have observed independant testing take place. None of the pictures I have posted in this thread were Le Mas Ltd. productions. ColtRifle will continue to be invited to all of  these types of evolutions and what he chooses to share will be up to him. These types of independant testing evolutions occur frequently.

Whether you like it or not, Dr. Roberts IS an expert in the field of terminal ballistics.  You wouldn't propose a new law of gravitation and then stubbornly refuse to let Einstein, Dirac, and Penrose review your work, would you?  Oh wait, I'm bringing VALID science into this, my fault.  We've seen how you've repeatedly snubbed your nose at that goofy concept.

I have repeatedly shown, not told how the rounds perform in armor and tissue.  blah blah blah excised.

No shit all you've done is show and spout rhetoric, and have yet to offer a mechanism.  Hell, I'll provide simple, rudimentary explanations.  They're not perfect, but they're still infinitely better than what we've been hearing from you about yours.  "Trust us, they work in ways beyond what science can explain!  Just look at what they do in jackrabbits!  Why do you care about details--look at the results!!!"  Sorry that doesn't cut it.  Here's some examples:

From Hornady's website re: XTP bullet:
"The XTP Magnum™ bullet was specially built to ... deliver controlled expansion and weight retention. Special features in the nose facilitate and control expansion on impact. Others, like the cannelure, ensure the jacket and core remain locked solid during expansion."

From Remington's website re: Golden Saber:
"Exclusive brass jacket controls mushroom and releases energy over longer distances."

From Winchester's website re: Partition Gold:
"Consistent, Dramatic Bullet Expansion
Deep Penetration Regardless of Barrel Length"

From Speer's website re: Gold Dot:
"The high-tech design of Gold Dot gives the handgun shooter excellent accuracy, penetration, expansion and retained weight - all in one."


I could go on, but I think the point is made.  Some of what is typed above is marketing fluff--you're not the only one who does that--but at least every one of those manufacturers gives SOME indication of what to expect from the product mechanically.  Hell, even Corbon does it with their DPX round, and who would've thought that THEY'D get onboard with less hype and more science?

You've tossed aside scientific testing, attempted to make a mockery of Dr. Fackler and Duncan MacPherson's revolutionary work, and now you're on the defensive, hurling accusastions and wondering why pictures of pig legs and bloody knives aren't enough to sedate your savage attackers.  Amazingly, some of us are just smart enough to want more than just "trust us--it does what it does" type of responses.

Good day.

,

'nuff said,
Mike

ps - Note: the horse above was NOT shot w/ this "crap-tastic" ammo.

tagged.

Hell or high water, I'm getting my pics posted tonight.  Who knew there were so damn many USB connectors?


And Stan, sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not bound by one of your cherished NDAs.  In any event, that would be a civil tort, not a criminal act.

Quoted: Quoted: why do you constantly refer to this as "handgun" ammo but constantly use subgun/ carbines to prove your "claims"? Because he is peddling high speed, lightweight ammunition. The figures look a lot better out of a longer bbl. This is perfectly in line with Mr. Bulmers MO: Exaggerate, misrepresent, mislead. I'm going to the store to pick up some popcorn and some Coke. Anyone need anything while I'm out?

A ham sandwich would be nice...swiss cheese, too (make sure it has lots of holes)?

Quoted: Hell or high water, I'm getting my pics posted tonight.  Who knew there were so damn many USB connectors? And Stan, sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not bound by one of your cherished NDAs.  In any event, that would be a civil tort, not a criminal act.

,

Yo Modog, you seem confused with respect to the subject of you and NDAs. You have never been part of any Le Mas activity.  So what bubble are you yapping about?

If you are referring to your statements that you had shipped ammo to other destinations just ask GKR whether you broke any criminal laws or not. Although GKR has falsely accused Le Mas of such types of illegal activities, you for one have seemed to have happily stepped up to the plate and reported yourself as having done so. I am sure he was dissappointed as so many of his accusations concerning such subject matters have all been false.

Still grreatly looking forward to the pics though. I hope you get the lot numbers in focus.

God damn.......



Go shoot a ham sandwich and report back, mmkay?

Extreme Shock has waaay better magazine ads, man.

Quoted: Whether you like it or not, Dr. Roberts IS an expert in the field of terminal ballistics.  You wouldn't propose a new law of gravitation and then stubbornly refuse to let Einstein, Dirac, and Penrose review your work, would you?  Oh wait, I'm bringing VALID science into this, my fault.  We've seen how you've repeatedly snubbed your nose at that goofy concept.

Gary Roberts is indeed a ballistic expert of written history and ballistic gelatin. I think you have extended his other accomplishments and capabilities a little too far with respect to the other individuals you mention. Mr. Roberts has yet to address the most basic of issues here which is that his ballistic gelatin science is blatantly false with respect to his assessments and predictions for tissue destructions created with the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet. Anyone who still thinks his data is in fact valid as I have referenced in the comparative posting for his findings and actual living tissue destructions posted in the beginning of this thread is in fact an idiot.

No shit all you've done is show and spout rhetoric, and have yet to offer a mechanism.  Hell, I'll provide simple, rudimentary explanations.  They're not perfect, but they're still infinitely better than what we've been hearing from you about yours.  "Trust us, they work in ways beyond what science can explain!  Just look at what they do in jackrabbits!  Why do you care about details--look at the results!!!"  Sorry that doesn't cut it.  Here's some examples: From Hornady's website re: XTP bullet: "The XTP Magnum™ bullet was specially built to ... deliver controlled expansion and weight retention. Special features in the nose facilitate and control expansion on impact. Others, like the cannelure, ensure the jacket and core remain locked solid during expansion." From Remington's website re: Golden Saber: "Exclusive brass jacket controls mushroom and releases energy over longer distances." From Winchester's website re: Partition Gold: "Consistent, Dramatic Bullet Expansion Deep Penetration Regardless of Barrel Length" From Speer's website re: Gold Dot: "The high-tech design of Gold Dot gives the handgun shooter excellent accuracy, penetration, expansion and retained weight - all in one." I could go on, but I think the point is made.  Some of what is typed above is marketing fluff--you're not the only one who does that--but at least every one of those manufacturers gives SOME indication of what to expect from the product mechanically.  Hell, even Corbon does it with their DPX round, and who would've thought that THEY'D get onboard with less hype and more science? You've tossed aside scientific testing, attempted to make a mockery of Dr. Fackler and Duncan MacPherson's revolutionary work, and now you're on the defensive, hurling accusastions and wondering why pictures of pig legs and bloody knives aren't enough to sedate your savage attackers.  Amazingly, some of us are just smart enough to want more than just "trust us--it does what it does" type of responses. Good day.

Dr. Fackler and DMacPherson have not tested my ammunition, Gary Roberts did. Dr. Fackler and Duncan MacPherson did not publish false data with respect to the actual living tissue destructions created by the Le Mas AP 9mmin bullet, Gary Roberts did. Mr. Roberts published grossly inaccurate scientific data with respect to living tissue destructions created by the Le Mas AP 9mm bullet in living tissue. Mr. Roberts and others laughed at my statements that historical ballistic gelatin protocols would not explain the non comparative BMT bullet performance in armor and tissue. Mr. Roberts then referenced XRF and SEM bullet core construction data which was suppose to somehow then prove his data correct. If you somehow believe the Le Mas AP 9mm armor and real tissue data I have shown is meant to directly attack the scientific holy grail validity of ballistic gelatin data as published by Gary Roberts, you are correct.

As I stood next to Gary Roberts in March of 2002 as he tested selected BMT and other conventional bullet designs in ballistic gelatin, he remarked to me as he pointed to the ballistic gelatin results of the 5.56 77 grain OTM bullet, that if I could just make my rounds look like those, then, I would have a great bullet design. When I remarked after his comment that the rounds performed differently in living tissue he scoffed, "that’s impossible."

No one has remarked about the real tissue performance of the M-262 NATO and M-855 NATO rounds that I have posted. I guess that when compared to the little bitty Le Mas Ltd. AP 9mm bullet I would not have much to say either if I had been the one to champion such conventional 5.56 bullet designs as a dramatic increase in lethality to our troops. But then again there is always the 6.8SPC to try next, and I believe another new bullet yet to be announced that will be championed as well with similar rhetoric. Now if they could just get a dedicated full diameter 6.8SPC AP round to also provide dramatic secondary bullet fragmentations when impacting living tissue, that would surely be the ticket.

The last section of my post should be up sometime soon. Perhaps you will find such bullet design statements which comfort you included in that material but then again probably not.

BMT, I noticed you conveniently ignored the post about your website...  care to explain why?

Quoted: Quoted: Hell or high water, I'm getting my pics posted tonight.  Who knew there were so damn many USB connectors? And Stan, sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not bound by one of your cherished NDAs.  In any event, that would be a civil tort, not a criminal act. , Yo Modog, you seem confused with respect to the subject of you and NDAs. You have never been part of any Le Mas activity.  So what bubble are you yapping about? If you are referring to your statements that you had shipped ammo to other destinations just ask GKR whether you broke any criminal laws or not. Although GKR has falsely accused Le Mas of such types of illegal activities, you for one have seemed to have happily stepped up to the plate and reported yourself as having done so. I am sure he was dissappointed as so many of his accusations concerning such subject matters have all been false. Still grreatly looking forward to the pics though. I hope you get the lot numbers in focus.

 I think when the fat lady sings, the only criminal activity related to "Blended Magic Technology" won't have a thing to do with me.