Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page AR-15 » Ammunition
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Site Notices
Page / 4
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 8:25:09 AM EDT
[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Animal testing is not needed. Just distribute a bunch of rounds to U.S soldiers in Iraq. Fallujah would have been perfect for this.



It doesn't meet JAG's approval.



Even if it doesn't have JAG's approval, why send soldiers into a combat zone with ammunition which is potentially flawed to the point of putting a soldier's life in jeopardy? *I* certainly wouldn't be volunteering to carry that crap if my life was on the line.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 8:32:31 AM EDT
[#2]

Quoted:
Wow are all of you PMSing or something?  I wanted to compare the results to see if there is a difference between hollowpoints and Lemas that doesn't show up in gelatin.  When have you ever been attacked by a pigs back leg?  Apparently according to you the only way to test it is in human flesh.  Have fun!



No, no and no.

I've expanded on this multiple times. Bulmer continues to advance the idea that his bullets can't be modeled by ballistic gelatin. It's up to HIM to explain why. There's some very simple physical principles at play when talking about wound ballistics, and there's nothing special enough about his bullets which would require altering the laws of physics.

There is at least one study which examines real-life shootings (about 50 or so) and compares the data of the same bullets fired into ballistic gelatin. The results clearly show that the ballistic gelatin is right on the money and prove that the "guys in white lab coats" know what they're talking about.

Give me one example of what material could be so unique, that it would interact with human flesh in one way, and ballistic gelatin in another when striking at high velocities.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 9:05:46 AM EDT
[#3]
Tag baby.. Tag.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 9:36:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Hmmm..... depleted uranium?  I don't know.  I will give it my explanation for everything "assmagic"
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 3:33:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Good to see the Doc posting here.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 4:38:25 PM EDT
[#6]
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 5:04:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 9:24:26 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:
Yes we do, but it is threads like this that make folks like Dr. Roberts and Pat Rogers run away from here and back to a more structured website where folks are required to do their homework before espousing their views.  If you were in their position, you'd likely do the same.

Yet, I still think that there needs to be a place where ignorance is a bit more tolerated, so that the good information casts a wider net.  But that idea has begun to wear on me (and Brou and Tatja) as well.  Fewer and fewer people are willing to put in the work, and insist on everything being spoon-fed to them, sometimes thrice over, before they'll even *consider* that their position might be flawed.

More and more, I'm thinking that if the Ammo forum were a separate board, I'd require that people check a box that they'd read the Oracle, or even take a short quiz on it, before being allowed to post a new topic.  If Goatboy wasn't so busy...

-Troy



I think as soon as you come here you should get redirected to the ammo oracle.  It's informative and it's a great read.  There's another thread about best shtf ammo, money is no object and people say they would buy XM855.  You can lead a horse to water, you know the rest.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 10:55:14 PM EDT
[#9]
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 9:24:03 AM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:
I think as soon as you come here you should get redirected to the ammo oracle.  It's informative and it's a great read.  There's another thread about best shtf ammo, money is no object and people say they would buy XM855.  You can lead a horse to water, you know the rest.



Whenever that happens, some people get their feelings hurt and claim that they've read it but their questions wasn't answered. You can't win in this game I think.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 9:42:38 AM EDT
[#11]
I saw nothing in ammo oracle concerning the range at which 53 grain Hornady hollowpoints expanded and penetrated 12 inches, and yet I was directed there.  It isn't all knowing for chrissake!  
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 9:54:51 AM EDT
[#12]
They dont penetrate 12" just like all HP and ballistic tipped .223 bullets ever tested.  If you would go read and stop posting you could leanr something and DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD AGAIN.  This thread is NOT about your education nor your 53 grain HP ideas.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 10:26:40 AM EDT
[#13]
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 3:05:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 3:12:58 PM EDT
[#15]
I propose that you leave this thread open, but clean all the crap out of it other than Doc's original post.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 3:27:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 4:39:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 4:46:15 AM EDT
[#18]
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 4:56:16 AM EDT
[#19]
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 5:23:09 AM EDT
[#20]

Quoted:
He needs to learn to use the search function.



I'm thinking more along the lines of brain function.
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 10:05:12 AM EDT
[#21]
Who is DocGKR? Is he Dr. Flacker? There was not a bio in the user info.

Thanks,
Ants
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 10:21:14 AM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:
Who is DocGKR? Is he Dr. Flacker? There was not a bio in the user info.

Thanks,
Ants



He is Dr. Gary K. Roberts.

He is not Dr. Martin L. Fackler.
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 1:33:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 3:43:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Link Posted: 12/20/2004 6:49:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Doc,

Are you using a SEM and EDS system to analyse the "blended metal" rounds, or a different procedure? I only ask because I have access to such a system at work; some independant corroborating tests would be interesting, although probably pretty close to impossible, between the availability of the blended metal rounds and the scarcity of available SEM time.

EDIT: Clicked through your links, and it appears that's what you've done in the past. Pretty cool!
Link Posted: 12/21/2004 10:44:26 AM EDT
[#26]
It will be interesting to see the results of the analysis to say the least. I've been waiting a long time
for this data. Hopefully Doc won't cut and run from here, due to the low IQ factor.

Link Posted: 12/21/2004 12:04:05 PM EDT
[#27]

Quoted:
As noted:  

lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=7206084761&m=823107126

www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000847


------------------------

Last week, FedEx delivered boxes of current production RBCD/LeMas .223 Urban Warfare and .223 Land Warfare loads, as well as .308 Land Warfare from those who recently received them from Mr. Bulmer.

We will begin testing immediately.  Since we still do not know who the designers of the RBCD/LeMas loads are, we will be unable to conduct interviews.  Likewise, we are unable to inspect the RBCD/LeMas facilities.  As a result, we will be moving directly to an elemental analysis of the RBCD/LeMas BMT loads.  Upon completion, we will be able to state precisely what metals are used in the construction of the LeMas BMT bullets and will be able to fully explain their physical properties-including whether the LeMas bullets are truly “blended metal” and a “non-comparable bullet technology” as repeatedly stated by Mr. Bulmer.  The analysis will be similar to that used in assessing LeMas handgun bullets: www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000630#000000

As I have stated all along, eventually the irrefutable facts about LeMas BMT APLP will be demonstrated and the truth will be indisputably revealed…the clock is ticking and we will report the findings as soon as this phase of testing is complete.

Timeline could be as short as a few weeks to as long as several months.  This testing needs to be fit in around our already full schedules and all of us are extremely busy this time of year.  In addition, some of the analytical equipment needed for this research are shared assets--availability is somewhat limited.  Finally, this is testing is not being funded by the Federal Government.  End result:  answers are likely to be available as early as late December 04 to as distant as early Spring 05.  Sorry, but there are too many factors involved to be more definite at this point.




Wow
I checked the link above:
www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000630#000000
The 45 cal "blended metal" bullet  is nothing more than a lead ball blended with a nylon ball and its all held together with bullsh!t.

DocKGR-
After that analysis why even bother to look further? This is truly snake oil marketing.
I'll bet you got a great gut laugh when you sectioned that bullet!

Rich V
Link Posted: 12/21/2004 9:19:09 PM EDT
[#28]
With the rediculous "heat transfer" crap Lemas is spewing, has anyone asked that if it was true wouldn't the bullet already be body temp or hotter due to powder combustion and barrel friction? Wonder what the guy would say if asked that.

S.O.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 6:45:51 AM EDT
[#29]
Having now read some of the background on the LeMas ‘controversy’ on the tactical forums I have concluded this outfit is a complete fake. They are the ammunition equivalent of the TV infomercials where for “just $19.99 +S&H you get 21st century blended metal super technology smart bullets guaranteed to shoot thru any known obstacle and still vaporize the badguy! Place your order in the next ten minutes and not only do you get the blended metal super technology smart bullets but we’ll double the bone crunching trauma and send the MAGNUM blended metal rounds at no additional cost and throw in a free shammy!”
Personally I would have ignored this company after I had examined the first 45 auto bullet. To Doc KGRs credit he is willing to go the extra mile and examine another product from them. Considering that some hapless ill informed buyer may put his life on the line with this “product” a valid airing of the facts is a good thing.

Rich V
 
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 2:32:14 PM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:
Having now read some of the background on the LeMas ‘controversy’ on the tactical forums I have concluded this outfit is a complete fake. They are the ammunition equivalent of the TV infomercials where for “just $19.99 +S&H you get 21st century blended metal super technology smart bullets guaranteed to shoot thru any known obstacle and still vaporize the badguy! Place your order in the next ten minutes and not only do you get the blended metal super technology smart bullets but we’ll double the bone crunching trauma and send the MAGNUM blended metal rounds at no additional cost and throw in a free shammy!”
Personally I would have ignored this company after I had examined the first 45 auto bullet. To Doc KGRs credit he is willing to go the extra mile and examine another product from them. Considering that some hapless ill informed buyer may put his life on the line with this “product” a valid airing of the facts is a good thing.

Rich V



Hey Rich,
You are missing the point here if you think the published results of Mr. Roberts BMT APLP elemental analysis above will address or explain the operational capabilities and characteristics for the BMT APLP military and law enforcement ammunition.

Folks seem to think that the data Mr. Roberts posted above, which reference the BMT CQB .45acp bullet somehow refutes the fact that the ammunition provides the operational requirements as advertised.  The BMT Armor Piercing Limited Penetration .45acp CQB military and law enforcement bullet is the only handgun ammunition in the world when fired from current duty weapon platforms that provides the ability to defeat both hard and soft armor without living tissue center of mass over penetration. Additionally all of the BMT CQB handgun ammunition provides the operational capability to effectively facilitate both tactical and emergency door lock breeching from duty handgun weapons.

I have also stated that the BMT CQB .45acp ammunition when fired from dedicated handgun weapon platforms, provides primary weapon mission capability form a secondary weapon platform within the CQB environment.

That means for example that the subgun BMT CQB .45acp ammunition when fired from a  Glock-21 with 6.5 inch KKM barrel delivers the 85 grain projectile at 2475 fps and provides more hard and soft armor capability than any 10.5 inch or shorter 5.56 carbine using the 75 grain Hornady TAP ammunition. The resulting comparative live tissue destruction is much greater from the BMT armor piercing CQB .45acp ammunition and additionally provides limited lethal over penetration center of mass probability.

The BMT CQB .45acp 85 grain subgun armor piercing limited penetration bullet design, when fired from a dedicated 10.5 inch subgun weapon platform delivers in excess of 2600 fps and will match or exceed the operational capabilities of many conventional ammunition bullet designs when fired from the M-4 carbines within the CQB environment.

Its pretty amazing that from the thousands of rounds utilized in operational environments around the world, not a single individual has come forward to say the BMT APLP ammunition did not perform as advertised in real armor and real living tissue to include the 5.56 BMT Armor Piercing Limited Penetration ammunition that Mr. Roberts pronounced lacking sufficient penetration unless the target was the size of a small fury squirrel after impacting ballistic gelatin. It seems the continued real world evaluations in armor and living tissue for the BMT APLP ammunition refute the validity of his professional assessments. If Mr. Roberts or folks here at this forum think that his review and posting for spectrum analysis will explain the real world operational capabilities for the BMT APLP military and law enforcement ammunition he will be mistaken again. The many operational BMT APLP ammunition designs will continue to walk forward and walk the walk within the current operational environments around the world.

 
Stan Bulmer
Le Mas Ltd.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 2:38:37 PM EDT
[#31]

Quoted:
Hey Rich,
Blah... blah... blah... snake oil...blah... blah... pot roast... blah... blah... blah... mumbo jumbo... blah... blah... blah.

 
Stan Bulmer
Le Mas Ltd.



I edited it down to the Clif notes version.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 3:09:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 3:15:45 PM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:
You are missing the point here if you think the published results of Mr. Roberts BMT APLP elemental analysis above will address or explain the operational capabilities and characteristics for the BMT APLP military and law enforcement ammunition.


Your misdirection and subsequent silence on the Lightfighter thread ("The LeMas BMT APLP vs. 6.8 mm Challenge") tells all.    You wanted to argue over irrelevant trivia instead of step up to a proper test.

As rgrgordo said there,


The above stated protocols characterized by DocGKR are the accepted logical, chronological statistical method at arriving at the most exact terminal performance capabilities of any bullet configuration, regardless of the composition of that projectile, saving actually getting a human to volunteer as a blocking dummy to see the actual terminal effects. Until we invent the "phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" and along with it, develop a sain, practical, controlled, managable method at arriving at that systems terminal capabilities, every notable ballistic expert on God's Green Earth uses these protocols described by DocGKR as the accepted method to arrive at a baseline of knowledge to arm the shooters in the field. As I said, regardless of the composition of the bullet, unless it is ingested with some brand new alien tecnology delivered from Alpha Centiory that was heretofor unannounced, the baseline protocols won't matter--by this I mean, using the established test criteria, a bullet compared to another bullet will perform under thse protocols in such a manner to allow a tester to compare effectiveness...this was established years agao, by 800 lb brains far more intelligent than anyone on this thread!!! Therefore, I think it would be best to dispense with the "he said she said" documentation of quotes and get down to brass tacks...Stan, will you allow Gary to test these bullets under these protocols--or a tester of your choosing--and answer the questions he included above?


Then you went silent, refusing to consent to proper objective testing.  

-z
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 3:34:33 PM EDT
[#34]
Damn.  You got a .45 to shoot 85 grains 2400+ fps?  That's outstanding.  What kind of pressures are in that case?

Regardless, your dismissal of scientific testing is expected.

Your failure to tell the world WHY your bullets do what you claim is, as always, frustrating.  You brag about your product like a car salesman, when everyone has already heard those claims.  We want you to try to explain WHY and HOW they work.  Do you get it?

I don't know Dr. Roberts, and I don't claim to speak on his behalf.  However, I do know that the guy put in a lot of work to earn the "Doctor" title, and it's generally considered respectful to refer to him as such.  Just a tip.

Later
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 3:38:22 PM EDT
[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You are missing the point here if you think the published results of Mr. Roberts BMT APLP elemental analysis above will address or explain the operational capabilities and characteristics for the BMT APLP military and law enforcement ammunition.


Your misdirection and subsequent silence on the Lightfighter thread ("The LeMas BMT APLP vs. 6.8 mm Challenge") tells all.    You wanted to argue over irrelevant trivia instead of step up to a proper test.

As rgrgordo said there,


The above stated protocols characterized by DocGKR are the accepted logical, chronological statistical method at arriving at the most exact terminal performance capabilities of any bullet configuration, regardless of the composition of that projectile, saving actually getting a human to volunteer as a blocking dummy to see the actual terminal effects. Until we invent the "phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" and along with it, develop a sain, practical, controlled, managable method at arriving at that systems terminal capabilities, every notable ballistic expert on God's Green Earth uses these protocols described by DocGKR as the accepted method to arrive at a baseline of knowledge to arm the shooters in the field. As I said, regardless of the composition of the bullet, unless it is ingested with some brand new alien tecnology delivered from Alpha Centiory that was heretofor unannounced, the baseline protocols won't matter--by this I mean, using the established test criteria, a bullet compared to another bullet will perform under thse protocols in such a manner to allow a tester to compare effectiveness...this was established years agao, by 800 lb brains far more intelligent than anyone on this thread!!! Therefore, I think it would be best to dispense with the "he said she said" documentation of quotes and get down to brass tacks...Stan, will you allow Gary to test these bullets under these protocols--or a tester of your choosing--and answer the questions he included above?


Then you went silent, refusing to consent to proper objective testing.  

-z



Zak, this why I said sleep tight on pg1 (I believe).  We don't need another multi-page thread giving this an internet life. I agree with QS, lets purge all the BS replies from this thread and wait for Doc to report his results.  For a long time I have followed this, its always been the same BS claims and claiming its can be only tested BY my perscribed method versus the accepted norm.

QS: I noticed your several deleted "comments" & the Mods after mine. My intent was, lets wait for DocGR tests and not do what is becoming too typical here of arguing what's already been debated. It's time for the rubber to meet the road, BMT must put up or shut up. If DocGR comes back and says this works and redefines how we need to look at ballistic terminal affects than so be it. Some how, I doubt it. But lets all be patient, this stuff doesn't happen over night.

Edit for typos.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 7:02:46 PM EDT
[#36]
A couple of highlights in this discussion have mystified me for a long, long time. In no particular order:

-If APLP ammunition contains materials that are transparent to X-Ray isn't the whole discussion about fielding it to military personel a mute point? By it's very design, isn't APLP ammunition prohibited under the current rules of land warfare?

-Why is this family of ammunition called 'blended metal' if the elemental analysis indicates a bullet that contains nothing more than lead, a hint of antimony, and a plastic ball?

-Why is AR500 continually focused on in LeMas testing?

-Why is there a bogus password gateway on the LeMas website? Who is LeMas trying to fool? What is the point of this pointless window dressing? Here's the HTML source code so others can see for themselves:

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">
<TITLE>index</TITLE>
<META NAME="Version" CONTENT="8.0.3410">
<META NAME="Date" CONTENT="10/11/96">
<META NAME="Template" CONTENT="C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office\HTML.DOT">
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#800080" BGCOLOR="#000000">

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><IMG SRC="logo.gif" WIDTH=180 HEIGHT=75></P>
<B><FONT FACE="Tahoma" SIZE=6 COLOR="#ffffff"><P ALIGN="CENTER">Le Mas Ltd</FONT><FONT FACE="Tahoma" SIZE=6 COLOR="#ff0000">.</P>
</B></FONT><FONT FACE="Tahoma" SIZE=2 COLOR="#ffffff"><P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER">The Ultimate In Small Arms Ammunitions</P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Tahoma" COLOR="#ffffff"><P ALIGN="CENTER">Access restricted to authorized Military and Law Enforcement personnel.</P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER">Enter Access Code:</P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER">_______________</P>
</FONT><B><FONT FACE="Tahoma" SIZE=2 COLOR="#ffffff"><P ALIGN="CENTER">John Hamilton</B>: 501-960-5847, fax 501-961-1826, e-mail </FONT><A HREF="mailto:[email protected]"><I><FONT COLOR="#ff0000">[email protected]</I></FONT></A></P>
<B><FONT FACE="Tahoma" SIZE=2 COLOR="#ffffff"><P ALIGN="CENTER">Stan Bulmer: </B>509-951-4968, fax 509-465-8951, e-mail </FONT><A HREF="mailto:[email protected]"><I><FONT COLOR="#ff0000">[email protected]</I></FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<I><FONT FACE="Tahoma" SIZE=1 COLOR="#ffffff"><P ALIGN="CENTER">** Last Updated 12.15.03</P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P></I></FONT></BODY>
</HTML>

Link Posted: 12/22/2004 7:26:35 PM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:
Your misdirection and subsequent silence on the Lightfighter thread ("The LeMas BMT APLP vs. 6.8 mm Challenge") tells all.    You wanted to argue over irrelevant trivia instead of step up to a proper test.



You have an interesting perspective that the challenged straight up side by side comparative testing in hard armor and living tissue between the 6.8 SPC and the BMT APLP 5.56 Land
Warfare, and BMT CQB .45acp round for independant observeors to judge was irrelevant trivia.

I assure you it is only the repeatable comparative operational real world performance in hard armor and living tissue that counts in the current operational real world environments. The end users I communicate with don't care whether we provide propriatory construction data to Mr. Roberts or not, they just want rounds that stop armored vehicles, and also make bad guys who keep shooting at them stop as soon as possible.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 7:37:57 PM EDT
[#38]
Once again quoting rgrgordo from the LF thread:


As a government employee involved with the T&E community I have to say that the protocols specified by DocGKR are not only acceptable but are completely unbiased and preferred. They are the norm accepted through an untarnished look at a paticular item.

APLP, I have to say that in order to satisfy those in the community with the highest regard for your product, I would advise you to follow the outlined protocals posted on this forum to the letter. This will be the only way your claims will be validated.



If you have anything substantial to add, respond to the parties in the LF thread.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 9:02:01 PM EDT
[#39]
 This will never be settled as far as I can see.  One side says test gelatin other says warm tissue.
 I guess the military or other users will just have to decide what is what by actual use.
 Either a great marketing gimmick, or a great leap forward in bullet tech?
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 9:07:05 PM EDT
[#40]
tagola
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 9:21:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Another one of those tag things.........
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 10:04:01 PM EDT
[#42]

Quoted:
 This will never be settled as far as I can see.  One side says test gelatin other says warm tissue.
 I guess the military or other users will just have to decide what is what by actual use.
 Either a great marketing gimmick, or a great leap forward in bullet tech?



doesn't say much for your IQ if you can't tell which one it is.

Link Posted: 12/23/2004 8:58:12 AM EDT
[#43]
Live tissue testing is not allowed in the US, and certainly would be torn to pieces in the media. But by no means in gellatin testing considered the only viable scientific benchmark to test ammo. Very thorough, repeatable studies using scientific protocols using live goats, for example, have proven to be an outstanding method of checking ammo effectiveness in incapacitating human beings. Thoracic cavities were then subjected to autopsy which would seem to be more telling than a glob of jello. Since financial motivation has been brought up I would be interested to know what financial motivation certain moderators of this forum may have in allowing and encouraging this behavior. Are the oracles allowed or financially able to duplicate the live tissue tests done in Europe for our military? Also, much has been made about "JAG approved" ammo... "Anti-terrorist operations" do not fall under those guidelines. Operators do not and have NEVER relied upon one weapon, platform, or type of ammo to accomplish their mission. They choose ammo and weapon platform contigent on mission parameters and generally have the training and flexability needed to employ that platform to it's optimum level. Generally speaking, the users could care less what a round does in jello. They like to see real world results. FBI and police protocols, or what you might want for your 3 inch barreled custom build to defend against gangs of zombies with suppresessed weapons without overpenetrating the 1/2in particle board wall that separates your condo from the child care center, are not and never will be the parameters that operators are interested in. Different jobs, different realities. Most of you guys really really really take yourselves way to seriously...
Link Posted: 12/23/2004 9:26:49 AM EDT
[#44]
Link Posted: 12/23/2004 10:11:56 AM EDT
[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Having now read some of the background on the LeMas ‘controversy’ on the tactical forums I have concluded this outfit is a complete fake. They are the ammunition equivalent of the TV infomercials where for “just $19.99 +S&H you get 21st century blended metal super technology smart bullets guaranteed to shoot thru any known obstacle and still vaporize the badguy! Place your order in the next ten minutes and not only do you get the blended metal super technology smart bullets but we’ll double the bone crunching trauma and send the MAGNUM blended metal rounds at no additional cost and throw in a free shammy!”
Personally I would have ignored this company after I had examined the first 45 auto bullet. To Doc KGRs credit he is willing to go the extra mile and examine another product from them. Considering that some hapless ill informed buyer may put his life on the line with this “product” a valid airing of the facts is a good thing.

Rich V



Hey Rich,
You are missing the point here if you think the published results of Mr. Roberts BMT APLP elemental analysis above will address or explain the operational capabilities and characteristics for the BMT APLP military and law enforcement ammunition.

Folks seem to think that the data Mr. Roberts posted above, which reference the BMT CQB .45acp bullet somehow refutes the fact that the ammunition provides the operational requirements as advertised.  The BMT Armor Piercing Limited Penetration .45acp CQB military and law enforcement bullet is the only handgun ammunition in the world when fired from current duty weapon platforms that provides the ability to defeat both hard and soft armor without living tissue center of mass over penetration. Additionally all of the BMT CQB handgun ammunition provides the operational capability to effectively facilitate both tactical and emergency door lock breeching from duty handgun weapons.

I have also stated that the BMT CQB .45acp ammunition when fired from dedicated handgun weapon platforms, provides primary weapon mission capability form a secondary weapon platform within the CQB environment.

That means for example that the subgun BMT CQB .45acp ammunition when fired from a  Glock-21 with 6.5 inch KKM barrel delivers the 85 grain projectile at 2475 fps and provides more hard and soft armor capability than any 10.5 inch or shorter 5.56 carbine using the 75 grain Hornady TAP ammunition. The resulting comparative live tissue destruction is much greater from the BMT armor piercing CQB .45acp ammunition and additionally provides limited lethal over penetration center of mass probability.

The BMT CQB .45acp 85 grain subgun armor piercing limited penetration bullet design, when fired from a dedicated 10.5 inch subgun weapon platform delivers in excess of 2600 fps and will match or exceed the operational capabilities of many conventional ammunition bullet designs when fired from the M-4 carbines within the CQB environment.

Its pretty amazing that from the thousands of rounds utilized in operational environments around the world, not a single individual has come forward to say the BMT APLP ammunition did not perform as advertised in real armor and real living tissue to include the 5.56 BMT Armor Piercing Limited Penetration ammunition that Mr. Roberts pronounced lacking sufficient penetration unless the target was the size of a small fury squirrel after impacting ballistic gelatin. It seems the continued real world evaluations in armor and living tissue for the BMT APLP ammunition refute the validity of his professional assessments. If Mr. Roberts or folks here at this forum think that his review and posting for spectrum analysis will explain the real world operational capabilities for the BMT APLP military and law enforcement ammunition he will be mistaken again. The many operational BMT APLP ammunition designs will continue to walk forward and walk the walk within the current operational environments around the world.

 
Stan Bulmer
Le Mas Ltd.




Dear Mr. Bulmer,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.
From the ‘discussions’ I have read concerning your ammo it would appear you claim some rather revolutionary advancement in ammo performance. It also appears you are reluctant to provide independent and scientifically relevant verification of your ammunition’s performance. The hallmark of valid science is a properly designed experiment that controls for variables and gives reproducible data. The results are then published in a peer reviewed journal with sufficient experimental detail to allow independent replication of the experiment and validation of the result. This protocol of experiment, publication and independent validation is followed in all branches of science and is the only method recognized by the scientific community. Conjecture, hearsay and word of mouth reports do not constitute evidence or proof in a technical or science based field like ballistics. If, as you claimed, have invented a truly revolutionary bullet technology then surly it is to your benefit to have this independently verified. Would you not agree that independent verification of your claims would not only vindicate you but also generate enormous sales of your product?
So the question is why no independent scientific based testing of your ammo?
Since you claim to have sent samples to various police departments and military organizations for testing you can not be worried about loss of intellectual property by supplying ammo for testing. Even if you don’t know why your bullets work you can still test them. For scientific verification one does not need to understand the theory of how something works to demonstrate that it does work under controlled and reproducible conditions.
I am a medicinal chemist with over twenty years experience designing and synthesizing drugs and have seen a lot of pseudoscience and quackery claiming medical cures from “drugs” that have no basis in science. In almost every case the proponent of the cure resorts to claims of “X” number of people cured or individual testimonials of cures but no science or hard evidence.
The reason I was so harsh in my post is because you are following the same path as the practitioners of pseudoscience.  First you make an extraordinary claim then you refuse to provide independent scientific validation of your claims citing only non-verifiable “evidence” such as so and so has had great success in the field with my ammo.
Do you see the similarity? I will suggest to you that anytime someone claims a breakthrough advancement in any field and can not with established theory or by experiment demonstrate the breakthrough your claims will be under suspicion. The responsibility is yours to prove your claims. As I said earlier prove your claims and you will be a wealthy and famous man. If that is not sufficient motivation for you to conduct independent tests then I can only conclude other motivations are at work here.

Regards
Rich V

Link Posted: 12/23/2004 11:34:49 AM EDT
[#46]
Wonder how many times he can fit "operators" "operational" "tissue impacts" "real-world scenarios" and other Bulmer vocabulary favorites in one sentence.  So far I think the record is four "operational"s in one sentence.
Link Posted: 12/23/2004 1:21:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Link Posted: 12/23/2004 10:02:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Link Posted: 12/24/2004 2:20:55 AM EDT
[#49]
Link Posted: 12/24/2004 2:37:40 AM EDT
[#50]
Page / 4
Page AR-15 » Ammunition
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top