Quoted:

My homie!

Quoted: Your report dated 11 March 2002 titled, does not contain one single WE statement, just “your’ statements. “We” are the researchers dedicated to telling the truth about wound ballistics, including law enforcement, military, and civilian personnel--some whom you met when you visited our facility in 2002; others, both here and elsewhere, you are not acquainted with. I repeat there was no “WE” in your report, just you, but sure get a kick out of seeing you reference “WE” though out your writing. There was no other “some personnel” present besides the one officer who worked for that department present when you tested for publication your preliminary assessment of the Terminal Wounding Effects of the selected RBCD Ammunition.   I mean no disrespect to your question, but first let me say that Gary Roberts has already stated many times on the Internet, to the US government, and law enforcement agencies around the world that the armor piercing 9mm shown above would not fragment when impacting living tissue. Mr. Bulmer, once AGAIN, your ongoing distortion of truth is appalling.  We have continually reported that LeMas/RBCD ammunition is a lightweight, high velocity fragmenting design while also pointing out it is NOT frangible as you falsely claim, as noted on page 2 of our first discussion of LeMas RBCD ammunition, “Preliminary Assessment of the Terminal Wounding Effects of selected RBCD Ammunition”, dated 11 March 2002 which states:  “The RBCD bullets do not appear to be a true ‘frangible’ design, as significant mass is retained after striking a target”. This document also clearly reports the fragmenting behavior of the LeMas/RBCD ammunition tested: Pg 3:  9 mm 60 gr “H” bullet in BG with RW of 39.5 gr, therefore 34.2% fragmentation Pg 4:  9 mm 60 gr “H” bullet through 5mm aluminum plate with RW of 22.7 gr, thus 62.2% frag

Your numbers are kind of correct, but your but you kind of missed the whole picture.

Mr. Roberts please review the recovered 9 mm 60 gr “H” bullet you both photographed and described with the RW of 39.5 and RD as RD = 0.35.

What you recovered from the ballistic gelatin impact was the projectile without jacket. The weight of the 9 mm 60 gr “H” bullet without the jacket or polymer is approximately 41.0 grains. What you really recovered was the actual payload which demonstrated almost no fragmentation or bullet deformation when impacting ballistic gelatin. Yep, that 9 mm bullet core construction fragmented 1.5grains of the total mass when impacting ballistic gelatin at 2006 fps when fired from the Smith and Wesson handgun. You can figure out the percentages of that.  

You then reported the recovered 9 mm “H” 60 grain bullet after penetrating hard 3A armor with greater than full bullet diameter to have RW of 22.7, and RD of 0.32 x 0.35. Although the bullet did lose mass penetrating hard 3A armor, the projectile demonstrated no expansion after penetrating a hard armor into ballistic gelatin with a penetration depth of 9.4 inches. As I remember you were critical that the bullet did not penetrate 12 inches into ballistic gelatin after penetrating what no duty handgun ammunition could penetrate.  

Please provide a list of the currently available duty handgun rounds, armor piercing by design or not, hollow point or not which display no recovered expansion, when impacting ballistic gelatin or penetrating hard 3A armor, which also demonstrate the same type of living tissue fragmentation and with similar tissue destruction shown in the above photos. If you have a hard time coming up with a list, I can help you out; there are none. How does your conducted SEM analysis and published conclusions for of the Le Mas Ltd. Armor Piercing 9mm bullet constructions explain such metallurgical properties? How do you rationalize your published incorrect ballistic gelatin assessment and predictions for the documented live tissue performance of the Le Mas Ltd. Armor Piercing 9mm CQB ammunition? If you do not agree that the performance of the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition documented in those photos are non comparable, please review the documented performance of the M-855 and M-262 impacts. I assured you the “BUTT” shot from the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet was both very incapacitating and lethal in performance, while the accompanying 5.56 impacts were not. I also assure you that the Le Mas Ltd. larger dedicated armor piercing handgun and rifle caliber tissue destructions are even more non comparative.  

Originally Posted By DocGKR : Another example--In the September of 2003 Lightfighter.net thread which you participated in, I posted the following about LeMas/RBCD fragmentation:  “Perhaps this is a problem with semantics, but RBCD ammunition FRAGMENTS; despite their claims, it cannot be considered truly frangible, as it does not completely disintegrate into dust against steel plate or other material--the large plastic/nylon center portion always remains intact, along with some larger metal fragments.” Despite your deceitful and inaccurate comments, the easily proven fact is that from the beginning we have correctly reported LeMas/RBCD fragmentation.

Mr. Roberts, you have not reported much that was accurate at all on a wide variety of subject matters since March 2002. You are incorrect with your above statement for many of the Le Mas Ltd. bullet designs.  Please refer to my last paragraph in my response with respect to your inaccurate ballistic gelatin assessments for predicted fragmentation and comparable tissue destruction.

Once again you stated in your report,
4. “Performance of the 9 mm 60 gr “H” load is described in the accompanying illustrations. 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:”
And, “the RBCD 9 mm 60 gr “H” bullet: Despite hyperbole presented by both the media and bullet manufacturer, wounding effects were noted to be similar to those of other 9 mm bullets which exhibit equivalent recovered diameters and penetration
depths The bullet performed the same when fired through 4 layers of denim.”

Mr. Roberts do you still stand by the validity for these above statements you have made, a simple yes, no, or no comment, will suffice.

Originally Posted By BMT The armor piercing Le Mas 5.56 ammo provides dramatic fragmentation after penetrating soft 3A armor even when fired from short 5.56 barrels.

Originally Posted By DocGKR : Hate to break the news to you, but all 5.56 mm ammo pierces level IIIa armor, even from short barrel carbines…

Mr. Roberts, hate to break the news to you, I didn’t say all 5.56 mm ammo does not penetrate IIIa armor, just said the Le Mas Armor Piercing 5.56 ammunition provides dramatic fragmentation after penetrating soft 3A armor when fired form short barrels.
If you did not get my drift on that statement, you need to do some more comparative live tissue impacts with conventional 5.56 duty rounds after penetrating 3A armor. I am sure you are impressed with the actual rear appendage tissue destructions shown above with the M-855 and M-262, but if you will see even greater lack of comparative performance after penetrating soft armor. You should have already known this fact or have you only conducted impacts through 3A into ballistic gelatin?

Would you like to compare Le Mas Ltd. non ballistic gelatin actual living tissue performance for those conventional hollow point handgun rounds?

Originally Posted By DocGKR : Sure, as long as “the conventional SPEER GOLD DOT, REMINGTON GOLDEN SABER, and WINCHESTER SILVER TIP hollow point bullets” are fired at the same “2225-3000 fps” velocities the LeMas/RBCD are impacting, then you will likely discover similar fragmention patterns and equivalent large shallow temporary cavities.

Wow, I can’t believe you made that statement Mr. Roberts. The above conventional ammunition you reference were designed, tested, and procured solely on ballistic gelatin protocols. The current ballistic gelatin protocols mandate exactly the same type of limited operational capability that is currently provided by those ammunitions. How do you suppose to construct such conventional bullet core material into high velocity projectiles which do not fragment when they impact ballistic gelatin, penetrate hard armor without expansion, but still provide dramatic fragmentation when impacting living tissue? Remember though, as your published scientific SEM analysis implies to the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition, only conventional lead construction materials may be used. But you know that it is not possible to shoot those conventional bullet designs at that velocity so I guess the answer is no, you don’t really want to compare the actual non ballistic gelatin comparative tissue destructions between the Le Mas armor piercing 9mm ammunition and the above conventional duty hollow point ammunition.

Mr. Roberts, the term “Blended Metal Technology” is a registered trademark, marketing nomenclature owned by RBCD.

Originally Posted By DocGKR : So is there or is there not blended metal (as defined by NSWC Crane: www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVSEA/N00164/N0016404R4846/SynopsisR.html, ASM, or any other recognized materials science organization) in the LeMas/RBCD "Blended Metal Technology" ammo????

Mr. Roberts, NSWC Crane referenced the above definitions with the effect of diverting the Congressional mandate for appropriations which were intended to provide dedicated RD&T funding to the US Military for testing of the Le Mas Ltd. ammo. The net effect of the definitions above I believe was to provide rationale to disqualify the ammunition from testing by defining historical bullet constructions which differ from the performance parameters of the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition. I believe you are familiar with those appropriations since I also believe you have provided very opinioned statements as to how Congress was conned into providing such funding. And the beat goes on.

“RBCD does manufacture lead free ammunition. Would you like to place an order for some of those product line samples? As you know the product line is quite extensive. If you would like to purchase various lead free rifle bullet designs which demonstrate superior armored glass penetration capability just let me know. I also have various lead free hollow point open cavity handgun armor piercing ammunition designs available that provide unique operational capabilities with velocities up to 3500 fps when fired from a carbine barrel.”

Originally Posted By DocGKR : Oh, we’d love to get some more of the LeMas/RBCD ammo--when and where can we get it?

Send an e-mail to me, and I will provide the lead free ammunition for you to purchase, I have heard you have a lot of money.

Gary Roberts wrote, Yes, we are aware that LeMas/RBCD does produce some lead-free ammunition--we have SEM’d and XRF’d some of it; the problem is that YOU stated; “ALL RBCD munitions use lead free components” and this is simply NOT true.  Most LeMas/RBCD loads use simple lead/antimony cores and traditional swaged copper jackets. members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/LeMas_leadfree_claim.jpg Although typical of your deceptive BS, why did you fraudulently claim that ALL LeMas/RBCD ammunition is lead-free?

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.

Originally Posted By DocGKR : Despite your ludicrous claims, our body of research clearly stands on its own merit--our findings have repeatedly been verified by other test facilities and validated in officer-involved shootings and in combat.  Unlike you, I have NO financial interest in the success or failure of LeMas/RBCD or any other product, company, or commercial entity involved in any weapon or ammunition programs, including the 6.8 mm. Let’s see--I want our troops to have the best possible landwarfare legal munitions; as far as I can tell, you are a salesman peddling an unproven product, using deceptive, fraudulent claims. Exactly who is the biased person in this equation ??? Your body of research with respect to the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition will fall on its own merit. I am familiar with some of the L/E shootings with the RBCD ammunition, primarily the .40cal bullet. The data that has been presented to me was not the Le Mas Ltd. military / law enforcement armor piercing .40 cal CQB bullets. I know that RBCD has a better civilian .40 cal bullet now. With respect to your claimed performance for the Le Mas Ltd. Short Range Armor Piercing ammunition in combat, I call bullshit on that. For some strange reason I doubt you are the go to guy for information to be passed too. However I can tell you that every week folks who took “your body of work” which predicted the real world operational capability for the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition get to pull the trigger for themselves and increasingly doubt your professional credibility on many subjects. I don’t think your pipelines for data are near as good as you think they are for quite sometime now, but I never fail to reference your published Mas Ltd. related “body of work”, when folks get to pull the trigger for themselves. Originally Posted By DocGKR : Inquiring minds want to know : --What are the names of the engineers who are designing the LeMas/RBCD BMT bullets and loadings? --Where can we contact these individuals --Where are the LeMas/RBCD BMT bullets made? --Where are the LeMas/RBCD BMT loads assembled? --Can we visit the LeMas/RBCD BMT production areas? --Are the LeMas/RBCD BMT bullets actually made of “blended metal” as defined by NSWC Crane: www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVSEA/N00164/N0016404R4846/SynopsisR.html, ASM, or any other recognized materials science organization? --What chemical elements are actually present in LeMas/RBCD BMT bullets? --How does the bullet construction and loading methadology differ between the LeMas/RBCD BMT and conventional bullets? --What are the measured pressures of the various LeMas/RBCD BMT loadings? --What are the accuracy results from the various 5.56 mm LeMas/RBCD BMT loadings at 100, 200, 300 and 500 yards? --Are the LeMas/RBCD BMT loads likely to meet the requirements to be declared legal for landwarfare use by the JAG? Come on Stan, let's finally have some truth and factual information instead of your usual lies and deception.

Mr. Roberts, I do not consider you the go to source to provide any of the answers for the questions stated above. I will remind you that the government has signed MOA’s, and both direct and associate members of the TIPT and US Military personnel TIPT are legally held to those agreements. You pushed the limits once with the inaccurate information David Difabio quoted you to have shared with him from the TIPT Tampa briefings, and your many historical slanderous comments regarding falsely alleged illegal activity, and on going investigations as recently as 9 months ago concerning Le Mas Ltd. or me are full of shit.

The pressures for the Short Range Armor Piercing Le Mas Ltd. 5.56 NATO ammo are just fine, as are the Le Mas Ltd. 9mm CQB handgun ammunition. Interesting that one test facility showed the 9mm ammo pressure to be below NATO specs, and another showed the pressure to be 3 times the case structural limit but the ammo functioned fine from all duty weapons without signs of pressure. Of course the ammunition optimized for performance in a dedicated weapon system must be pressure tested in that weapon system. If you were to pressure test the above Le Mas Ltd. 5.56 SRAP bullet designed to optimize performance from short barreled 1/7 twist barrels, you could certainly expect to see over pressure signs in a much longer non ported test barrel with very degraded bullet stability. We make sure to communicate that information to our clients. Of course some folks don’t listen to that type of data. I remember you stating to me that it was impossible for a bullet design to act differently in ballistic gelatin then it would in living tissue. I can tell you that as hard as I try to prove you right, the SRAP 5.56 ammo does in fact have sufficient penetration to kill targets larger than a small fury squirrel.

.

Are the penetration values you listed based on gelatin tests, or animal tests?

The reason I ask, is because the rounds fail to FRAGMENT in gel, but fail to PENETRATE in live animal tests.

What I see, is that the penetration depths listed are from gel tests, while the reported wound channels are from animal tests.

Which one is it?

Quoted: Are the penetration values you listed based on gelatin tests, or animal tests? The reason I ask, is because the rounds fail to FRAGMENT in gel, but fail to PENETRATE in live animal tests. What I see, is that the penetration depths listed are from gel tests, while the reported wound channels are from animal tests. Which one is it?

If you are addressing me, what you are saying is correct about depth of gelatin penetration depths. If you are asking if the AP 9mm CQB rounds over penetrated the tissue target, they did not, although ballistic gelatin impacts would have predicted that they should over penetrate both with respect to appendage and thoracic cavity impacts. I did not post AP 9mm CQB thoracic cavity impacts, however the comparative performance is as demonstrative as the appendage impacts.

BMT,
what i've always wanted to know is why you try to baffle everyone with bullshit. why not just say "we have found that a lightweight bullet at high velocity will penetrate hard objects and still fragment in tissue" a lot of people already know that. hell thats why M193 is so effective. but from day one you played the snakeoil salesman and tried to make a 40yr old proven concept sound like the latest scientific discovery.

all that BS about how the bullet is programmable and knows the difference between cold armor plate and warm living tissue. in typicaly fashion you reply with very long posts that ramble on with quotes and gross overuse of polysyllabic adjectives in an attempt to make everything sound impressive. 1 question answered in as few words as possible is all i ask.

how do you explain that your proprietary blended metal turned out to be a run of the mill lead ball in a copper jacket with a hunk of nylon in the base. please explain how this qualifies as cutting edge technology.

Quoted: BMT, what i've always wanted to know is why you try to baffle everyone with bullshit. why not just say "we have found that a lightweight bullet at high velocity will penetrate hard objects and still fragment in tissue" a lot of people already know that. hell thats why M193 is so effective. but from day one you played the snakeoil salesman and tried to make a 40yr old proven concept sound like the latest scientific discovery. all that BS about how the bullet is programmable and knows the difference between cold armor plate and warm living tissue. in typicaly fashion you reply with very long posts that ramble on with quotes and gross overuse of polysyllabic adjectives in an attempt to make everything sound impressive. 1 question answered in as few words as possible is all i ask. how do you explain that your proprietary blended metal turned out to be a run of the mill lead ball in a copper jacket with a hunk of nylon in the base. please explain how this qualifies as cutting edge technology.

Is that near Japan?

When is the .177 caliber lead free 5000fps ultra armor piercing fragmenting bb load going to hit the market?

Quoted: BMT, what i've always wanted to know is why you try to baffle everyone with bullshit. why not just say "we have found that a lightweight bullet at high velocity will penetrate hard objects and still fragment in tissue" a lot of people already know that. hell thats why M193 is so effective. but from day one you played the snakeoil salesman and tried to make a 40yr old proven concept sound like the latest scientific discovery. all that BS about how the bullet is programmable and knows the difference between cold armor plate and warm living tissue. in typicaly fashion you reply with very long posts that ramble on with quotes and gross overuse of polysyllabic adjectives in an attempt to make everything sound impressive. 1 question answered in as few words as possible is all i ask. how do you explain that your proprietary blended metal turned out to be a run of the mill lead ball in a copper jacket with a hunk of nylon in the base. please explain how this qualifies as cutting edge technology.

Your grasp of the subject matter is amazing. When you can figure out what "primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform is", your post might be worth my time to respond.

BMT,

Why do you feel the 12" minimum FBI spec is unwarranted for military/LE/self defense ammo?  Do you feel you have an insight that they lack which leads you to believe lesser penetration standards are acceptable?

Also noone ever answered my qustion about what happened to the proposed BMT/DrGKR combined gelatina nd live tissue tests that were going to be done.

Quoted: BMT, Why do you feel the 12" minimum FBI spec is unwarranted for military/LE/self defense ammo?  Do you feel you have an insight that they lack which leads you to believe lesser penetration standards are acceptable? Also noone ever answered my qustion about what happened to the proposed BMT/DrGKR combined gelatina nd live tissue tests that were going to be done.

You are making broad statement assumptions again, but since you were not such an asshole this time, I will respond I think the 12 minimum FBI spec is a very valid requirement for conventional duty ammo.

The Le Mas ammo is not conventional duty ammo. Is you think that the Le Mas armor piercing ammo is conventional duty ammo look at the impact pictures again. Show those pictures to any SME MD who is familiar with conventional duty ammo performance in tissue, and ask him to venture an assessment based on that data. After you do that, please reference that the same AP 9mm CQB round penetrated ballistic gelatin 18.1 inches with no expansion or bullet core fragmentation when impacting either bare gelatin, and no bullet core material expansion into  gelatin after hard armor penetration. Then you can again tell me that the Le Mas Ltd. AP 9mm CQB bullet construction is no different than current duty handgun ammunition. You are then invited to explain the historical significance about how ballistic gelatin was specifically designed to accurately assess and predict performance in living tissue from the Le Mas Ltd. BMT ammunition.  

Gary Roberts can speak for himself on your latter question. He would not accept the terms of my challenge for only side by side armor and living tissue impact comparisons. He demanded additional conditions and data unrelated to just side by side operational performance comparisons that I am not willing to provide him.

Quoted: Quoted: BMT, what i've always wanted to know is why you try to baffle everyone with bullshit. why not just say "we have found that a lightweight bullet at high velocity will penetrate hard objects and still fragment in tissue" a lot of people already know that. hell thats why M193 is so effective. but from day one you played the snakeoil salesman and tried to make a 40yr old proven concept sound like the latest scientific discovery. all that BS about how the bullet is programmable and knows the difference between cold armor plate and warm living tissue. in typicaly fashion you reply with very long posts that ramble on with quotes and gross overuse of polysyllabic adjectives in an attempt to make everything sound impressive. 1 question answered in as few words as possible is all i ask. how do you explain that your proprietary blended metal turned out to be a run of the mill lead ball in a copper jacket with a hunk of nylon in the base. please explain how this qualifies as cutting edge technology. Your grasp of the subject matter is amazing. When you can figure out what "primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform is", your post might be worth my time to respond.

M-193 ball will in fact not provide hard armor penetration through 3/8 inch AR-500 no matter how long the barrel length. In fact that round will not penetrate 1/4 inch AR-500 but from a short distance and the Le Mas SRAP 5.56 round will penetrate 1/4 inch AR-500 at over 70 meters when fired from a 12 inch barrel. Although the M-955 and M-993 will penetrate more armor than the Le Mas Ltd. ammo, the M-993 and M-995 over penetrate almost every target they impact with very poor tissue destruction or incapacitation probability.

You did yet explain the term "primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform." No more responses from me to you until you do.


Have you heard anyone who has actually fired the ammo into gelatin, cold raw meat or cold cadavers, warm raw meat, armor, and living tissue not say that the rounds act differently in those mediums? Don't you find that strange? Although many of the Le Mas Ltd. rounds do in fact perform similarily in both ballistic gelatin and tissue, many do not. However to keep things simple for you, lets just stick to the AP CQB round shown above.

BMT,

Sorry for not addressing you directly before, but the question here is this:

Will the ammo reach required penetration depths in tissue, as well as in gel, despite the fragmentation of the ammunition?

In other words, massive wounds in tissue looks great. Deep penetration in gel looks great.

However, if the rounds behave differently in tissue than in gel, it stands to reason that the penetration depths listed on your site, which refer to gel penetration do not line up with the wound channels listed on your site, which refer to tissue .

In order to accurately describe the effects of this ammunition, the penetration depths should refer to tissue, not to gel, given the differences in behavior of the round in either media.




Another point I'd like to address is the warm tissue / cold armor debate. I understand your claim, but if human tissue is 98 degrees, then would the ammunition lose its armor penetration capability against armor which has had time to heat in the sun?

If not, then I believe heat is not the reason that you get fragmentation.

Originally Posted By BrandonP Another point I'd like to address is the warm tissue / cold armor debate. I understand your claim, but if human tissue is 98 degrees, then would the ammunition lose its armor penetration capability against armor which has had time to heat in the sun? If not, then I believe heat is not the reason that you get fragmentation.

BrandonP,
Are you trying to confuse the issue with facts?

Quoted: You did yet explain the term "primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform." No more responses from me to you until you do.

Is this a pomise?  If so, I promise not to answer, ifin it keeps your garbage outta here.

Well I'd like to think that I'm wrong here...

It seems shiesty that somebody would list penetration depths in gel (which are good), and fragmentation in tissue (which is also good), when they say time and time again that the round behaves differently in both media.

I'm curious as to the penetration depths in real tissue, because apparently firing the round into gel doesn't accurately reflect its wounding potential.

Quoted: BMT, Sorry for not addressing you directly before, but the question here is this: Will the ammo reach required penetration depths in tissue, as well as in gel, despite the fragmentation of the ammunition? In other words, massive wounds in tissue looks great. Deep penetration in gel looks great. However, if the rounds behave differently in tissue than in gel, it stands to reason that the penetration depths listed on your site, which refer to gel penetration do not line up with the wound channels listed on your site, which refer to tissue . In order to accurately describe the effects of this ammunition, the penetration depths should refer to tissue, not to gel, given the differences in behavior of the round in either media. Another point I'd like to address is the warm tissue / cold armor debate. I understand your claim, but if human tissue is 98 degrees, then would the ammunition lose its armor penetration capability against armor which has had time to heat in the sun? If not, then I believe heat is not the reason that you get fragmentation.

BrandonP,

No disrespect intended, but I don’t care how the Le Mas AP ammunition looks in tissue. I only care about the degree of efficiency a particular Le Mas bullet design incapacitates to “0” mission capability with a single round impact to either appendage or center of mass. Conventional bullet designs create very little incapacitation probability when impacting living tissue appendages.

Currently procured duty ammunition is designed, tested and procured based on ballistic gelatin performance. The infamous “Miami Shootout” aftermath effectively gave way to the current Ballistic gelatin 12-18 inches minimum bullet penetration depths considered appropriate for current conventional duty ammunition. It is the very same mantra for adherence to ballistic gelatin protocols that restricts current duty handgun and rifle conventional bullet designs the capability to efficiently incapacitate human targets from either appendage or torso impacts. Please review the above comparative photos and gelatin based reported prediction for the AP 9mm CQB ammunition performance in living tissue by Gary Roberts. Until the technology from which small arms projectiles is advanced beyond the limitations of the current ballistic gelatin protocols for bullet design, no significant scalable increases to incapacitation probabilities will exist. The fact of the matter is that a bullet design technology which can deliver both hard armor penetration and effective single round incapacitation from either appendage or torso impacts does indeed demonstrate a scalable advancement in lethal force small arms applications over the currently existing ballistic gelatin protocol compliant duty ammunitions.  

You are mistaken that Le Mas Ltd. advertises written wound dimensions that you reference. What RBCD might advertise for the performance of their product line is no concern of mine. The tissue documentation I provided above in this thread is Le Mas Ltd. data not RBCD data.

Quoted: BrandonP, No disrespect intended, but I don’t care how the Le Mas AP ammunition looks in tissue. I only care about the degree of efficiency a particular Le Mas bullet design incapacitates to “0” mission capability with a single round impact to either appendage or center of mass. Conventional bullet designs create very little incapacitation probability when impacting living tissue appendages. Currently procured duty ammunition is designed, tested and procured based on ballistic gelatin performance. The infamous “Miami Shootout” aftermath effectively gave way to the current Ballistic gelatin 12-18 inches minimum bullet penetration depths considered appropriate for current conventional duty ammunition. It is the very same mantra for adherence to ballistic gelatin protocols that restricts current duty handgun and rifle conventional bullet designs the capability to efficiently incapacitate human targets from either appendage or torso impacts. Please review the above comparative photos and gelatin based reported prediction for the AP 9mm CQB ammunition performance in living tissue by Gary Roberts. Until the technology from which small arms projectiles is advanced beyond the limitations of the current ballistic gelatin protocols for bullet design, no significant scalable increases to incapacitation probabilities will exist. The fact of the matter is that a bullet design technology which can deliver both hard armor penetration and effective single round incapacitation from either appendage or torso impacts does indeed demonstrate a scalable advancement in lethal force small arms applications over the currently existing ballistic gelatin protocol compliant duty ammunitions.   You are mistaken that Le Mas Ltd. advertises written wound dimensions that you reference. What RBCD might advertise for the performance of their product line is no concern of mine. The tissue documentation I provided above in this thread is Le Mas Ltd. data not RBCD data.

Never, have so many letters, been used to construct so few words, for the puzzlement of so many.

"When you can figure out what "primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform is", your post might be worth my time to respond."

Maybe when you can tell us what "blended metal technology" means, it might be worth our time to listen.

Quoted: Your grasp of the subject matter is amazing. When you can figure out what "primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform is", your post might be worth my time to respond.

Hey Stan...
 nice attempt to deflect my question with a personal attack. i know exactly what your made-up catch phrase means but this isnt about my reading comprehension abilities or whats on my DD214 or a travel log of all the shithole countries where i have used a "secondary weapon platform" in a "primary mission role". this is about you systematically and repeatedly dodging a direct and pointed question. so again i ask you:

how do you explain that your proprietary blended metal turned out to be a run of the mill lead ball in a copper jacket with a hunk of nylon in the base. please explain how this qualifies as cutting edge technology?

please no jibber-jabber, pictures of hams, or personal insults.

ya know...i dont even know why i made that last post. Stan obviously wont answer when pinned down with a direct question. he knows his product is a sham and his marketing is comprised of crafty double talk. theres just nothing special about a lead ball and a plastic filler all wrapped up in a copper jacket and he knows it. to my knowledge he has not addressed the sectional analysis of his magic bullet and as long as he can deflect the critical thinkers he might be able to spew enough horseshit to land himself a juicy gov't contract. and thats the big score.

how many of you guys on this thread would like to hear this question answered? chime in.

DvlDog, people have been asking Mr. Bulmer the same pointed questions for literally years. And while we have seen just about every excuse under the sun, none of these outstanding questions have been anywhere NEAR satisfactorily answered by Bulmer.

Instead he provides things like photos full of excised tissue without scale or reference for the general public to try and translate. And when questioned, he tells you to take these photos to a MD SME and ask them what they think. As if any QUALIFIED "SME" would comment on a photo without even so much as scale...

Quoted: ya know...i dont even know why i made that last post. Stan obviously wont answer when pinned down with a direct question. he knows his product is a sham and his marketing is comprised of crafty double talk. theres just nothing special about a lead ball and a plastic filler all wrapped up in a copper jacket and he knows it. to my knowledge he has not addressed the sectional analysis of his magic bullet and as long as he can deflect the critical thinkers he might be able to spew enough horseshit to land himself a juicy gov't contract. and thats the big score. how many of you guys on this thread would like to hear this question answered? chime in.

I don't really care, being an engineer i have made up my mind about the technical aspects of this ammo long ago, being a guy who has had 50 years of experience detecting bullshit i have long ago made up my mind about bullmer... i'm just here for the entertainment value

Hey!  We specifically didnt try to "figure out what primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform is", in hopes that we wouldnt be worth your time, and you wouldnt respong with your filth anymore.

Quoted: Quoted: Your grasp of the subject matter is amazing. When you can figure out what "primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform is", your post might be worth my time to respond. Hey Stan...  nice attempt to deflect my question with a personal attack. i know exactly what your made-up catch phrase means but this isnt about my reading comprehension abilities or whats on my DD214 or a travel log of all the shithole countries where i have used a "secondary weapon platform" in a "primary mission role". this is about you systematically and repeatedly dodging a direct and pointed question. so again i ask you: how do you explain that your proprietary blended metal turned out to be a run of the mill lead ball in a copper jacket with a hunk of nylon in the base. please explain how this qualifies as cutting edge technology? please no jibber-jabber, pictures of hams, or personal insults.

The only pictures of "hams" posted by me in this thread were of comparative rear appendage impacts for the AP 9mm CQB bullet, M-855 and M-262 5.56 NATO ammunition.

Many of the Le Mas CQB handgun bullet designs create both greater tissue destruction and incappitation probability than the M-855 or M-262 5.56 rifle bullets. The initial subject matter of this thread addressed the effective "butt shot" lethality of the Le Mas ammunition. I believe I was even "invited" to "get my ass in here" to respond to that subject matter. I showed the comparative rear "ham" live tissue destruction performance with the same AP 9mm CQB bullet Mr. Roberts testified would demonstrate less tissue destruction than any conventional handgun hollow point bullet would create. His ballistic gelatin based prediction was dramatically incorrect in many aspects. If anyone who reads this thread after reviewing the posted tissue destructions believes that Mr. Roberts professional assessment for predicted performance of the AP 9mm CQB bullet in living tissue was indeed accurate, please step forward.


With respect to your repeated question "how do you explain that your proprietary blended metal turned out to be a run of the mill lead ball in a copper jacket with a hunk of nylon in the base. please explain how this qualifies as cutting edge technology?", are you asking me to say that the inaccurate gelatin based predictions for performance in living tissue can be explained by SEM analysis? If so, the answer is no, there is no "run of the mill lead ball bullet constructions", armor piercing or not I am aware of that will impact gelatin with neither bullet core expansion or appreciable bullet core fragmentation, yet dramatically fragment when impacting living tissue. If you are asking if the SEM analysis published by Mr. Roberts can delineate why the identified Le Mas AP 9mm handgun bullet construction materials perform as they do, the answer is no. SEM analysis will not discriminate or provide explanation for such non comparative performance between ballistic gelatin, living tissue, and hard barriers. If you doubt the validity of what I say, please feel free to demonstrate or document any currently existing handgun bullet design composed of the SEM identified Le Mas AP 9mm CQB bullet construction materials anywhere in the world which duplicate its performance.

Surely you don't expect me to delineate proprietary information as to why both SEM analysis and ballistic gelatin fail to functionally explain or demonstrate why the Le Mas ammunition function as it does.

Quoted: Surely you don't expect me to delineate proprietary information as to why both SEM analysis and ballistic gelatin fail to functionally explain or demonstrate why the Le Mas ammunition function as it does.

Why not?

If it's proprietary, then why isn't it patented? You must have some protections in place to prevent others from utilizing your super-dee-duper bullet construction. Or are you telling me that I can buy some of your ammo, reverse-engineer it, and apply for a patent/start selling it myself?

Quoted: Ah, the topic that keeps on giving. I think I'll send out up to date links to these threads for Christmas next year instead of the "Panty of the Month" memberships.

You gotta admit - it WAS kinda getting boring around here.

...so I'm supposed to take ONE contractor's word for it, that these bullets magically explode when they hit Hadji?

Sorry, but until you can explain the magical nature of these bullets that causes the target to be reduced to 0 viability with an extremity shot, I don't see how they escape the usual requirements for ammunition: penetration and expansion/fragmentation.

Unless there's organophosphate nerve agent in those bullets, I don't see how an extremity hit would do that in any way shape or form.

What kind of penetration are we talking here? And if it's inadequate, as I suspect with ANY high velocity low weight ammunition, then why do you say it reduces people to "0" mission capability?

Do they look at the gaping shallow wound and say "holy blowjob batman! I'm all sorts of messed up!"...?

Is it just me or does this guy talk like a damn martian? I am educated enough and I still can't understand most of the wordy shit that he comes up with.

BMT,

Nobody takes you seriously because you dance around the question and explain simple things in as many words as possible. If you talk like a damned human being people will listen. Also, there are quite a few "bullshit words" that one would only hear on a late night infomercial.

I agree that it sounds like BS, it works tho. I have shot many liveing things with fmj, hp, sp, and then I got this stuff because it sounds like it's fake, but my buddy swore on it, well I can't explain it but it does work as they say, I've seen it with my own eyes, and I can't explain it.

its a lightweight bullet at a high velocity. it isnt magic, and theres nothing proprietary about it. what IS proprietary is the unique brand of bullshit being used to repackage a 40yr old concept as the latest and greatest innovation.

i think i would like to have seen the "oh shit" look on stans face when Doc Roberts posted the sectional analysis online. kinda like when the curtain got pulled back on the wizard of oz.....

Jeebus, I cannot believe I missed another thread with LeMas Thread.  Looks like someone picked out the shotgun pellets out of the poor dead animal this time at least.

The last archived Bashfest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question still stand from the last thread.:

There are many factors which determine the extent to which the BMT bullet designs penetrate various impact mediums as non fragmenting projectile, or dramatically deploying frangible bullet design. Recorded impacts of BMT military and law enforcement bullet designs into calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin show very little expansion or fragmentation. Yet recorded impacts from the same military and law enforcement bullet designs demonstrate dramatic fragmenting and frangible bullet deployments when penetating live tissue mediums. Show me reports, not some dead goat. Reference to the temperature of a partiuclar impact medium as it would affect whether BMT APLP bullet designs penetrate mediums as FMJ, or frangible bullet designs is signifigant only to the extent that the resulting heat energy transmission rates during penetration increase or decrease the projectile temperature to signifigant levels. The same bullet which will penetrate hard armor without expansion, but deploy as a dramatic frangible bullet design which will not penetrate beyond 4 sheets of 5/8" firecode drywall demonstrates this same type of heat energy transfer rate phenomena that can be observed between gelatin impacts and live tissue impacts. BMT APLP bullet penetrations into freshly killed raw meat when cooled to temperatures which approximate calibrated 10% gelatin show very little expansion or fragmentation, yet when impacting both live and recently killed warm live tissue mediums demonstrate dramatic fragmenting and frangible bullet deployments. It is the very same type non comparable ballistic gelatin performanceWTF?!?! which allows for the same BMT APLP bullet design to perform as both a passive armor penetrator and limited penetration frangible munition which provides multi mission capabilities from a single weapon platform. Stan Bulmer Le Mas Ltd." www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/

I can't wrap my head around all this. I have founds tons of the same crap over and over again talking about "heat-energy transfer" and how heat effects the bullet and that metal armor actually cools down the bullet while hitting live tissue allows the bullet to heat up and relicate the conditions in which the ammunition was manufactured. I always wondered why my hacksaw blade melted when disposing of bodies, but started icing up when cutting barrels off of guns.

What are the temp ranges that your ammo works best in?  Will land extremity shot in cold weather be ineffective because one's arm or leg is below body temperature?  Will it work at all in cold temps due to the bullet cooling during flight?  If it gets really really warm out will the bullets disintegrate in the magazine?  How long does it take for the bullet to decide if it is warm enough?

Also, how come there are NO bullet Fragments in those pictures?  Looks like you shoved an M-80 into that poor goats ass.

Quoted: Ah, the topic that keeps on giving. I think I'll send out up to date links to these threads for Christmas next year instead of the "Panty of the Month" memberships.

brouhaha,

Haven't seen a recent post by you, welcome back. Seems like, different day & same sh*t from BMT.  Makes you really wish you had the power to make some people JUST disappear, never to be heard from again.

Quoted: Surely you don't expect me to delineate proprietary information as to why both SEM analysis and ballistic gelatin fail to functionally explain or demonstrate why the Le Mas ammunition function as it does.

Surely you don't expect anyone to accept a few poorly documented meat shots as definitive proof of the efficacy of your ammo without scientific, repeatable, independant testing.

Fantastic claims require fantastic proof, and are normally rightly condemned as snake oil without that proof.  You don't have to provide it, and we don't have to believe it.  Funny the way that works, no?

Still waiting on an independant and SCIENTIFIC test using test and control groups in a callibrated and repeatable medium, not meat shots and hearsay.  I won't hold my breath.  I'm sure this whole thread is working fine for him, all he needs is some sap to read all this and try it out and he's made another sale.  Maybe some flashy photoshopped pics like Extreme Shock has and he could sell two boxes of ammo!  At least they show on their web page how poorly their rounds act in Callibrated Gel.

Gunshot wound pictures don't mean crap without some kind of reference point.

Not enough of the animal is shown, measurements of the cavity (depth and diameter) are not shown.

You're right, they're very poorly documented. All of those anti-penetration high-velocity rounds seem to inflict very similar wounds.

Well, here's my first and, perhaps, my last post on AR15.

There are a few reasons why this is my first post here. First, I will be completely open and tell you that I am a layman when it comes to weapons and ammunition. The only gun I own is my great-grandfather's Savage 99, which I haven't shot for a few years. (I might hit BMT up for a Kimber when he starts to make some money through Le Mas, if he doesn't get mad at me for writing this).

There are also reasons why this might be my last post. First of all, the post has been inspired by watching a few minutes of Senator Kennedy during the Alito hearings. I'm going to make a few comparisons to Kennedy and I doubt that is going to make many friends around here.

Because of my contact with BMT, I have occassionally followed some of these Le Mas threads on AR15. They can be entertaining. During the Alito hearings, however, I heard something that compaired the testimony of the Judges that work with Alito to the crap coming out of Kennedy and his cohorts. This comparison stated that because these Judges actually worked with Alito and truly knew him, their testimony was more important than whatever Kennedy was doing to please his interest groups. Hearing this thought prompted me to write on AR15 since I know BMT.

Most of the people here who give BMT so much grief don't know him or the ammunition that is being discussed. And, like the way Kennedy, for his own personal gain, has done everything to tear down Alito, at least one person here, a certain dentist that I haven't met, seems to have similar motives (perhaps power, contracts, constituents, etc.) to distort, lie, twist, spin, even slander in order to discredit BMT.

Unlike most of you, I know BMT. I have spent many hours with him. Because of this, I have first-hand knowlege of a few things. I thought it might be helpful for me to share them.

First, those of you who continue to say that BMT uses smoke and mirrors or hires Industrial Light and Magic to create fake photos, fake video footage, falsified x-rays, made up data, or to fake live comparison shoots in front of journalists, officials, and experts, are looking increasingly more foolish. Unlike some of you here who make up tales of firecrackers and shotgun blasts, I have first-hand knowlege of how many of these comparison shoots were actually conducted. I can say with certainty that they are being done with integrity. I believe these photos are an excellent way for BMT to display the results of these comparison shoots to those of you who aren't able to attend one.

Second, many of you here, including the Kennedy-like character mentioned above, create at least one impossible standard for BMT. You say, in effect, "give away all of your intellectual property and then I will believe you." It is the same when Kennedy says, in effect, to Alito, "Tell me you will always decide cases the way I want you to decide them and then I will vote for your nomination." Alito can't do that. And BMT can't detail all of his intellectual property. Even with decent intellectual property laws like we have in this country to protect patents, etc., there are many, many reasons why it would be foolish for companies to divulge all of their intellectual property. And, pertaining to intellectual property, there is another standard mentioned in this thread that I don't understand at all. Some of you seem to believe that intellectual property isn't important or isn't valuable if it is similar to, or even derives from, technologies that have already existed. I can't think of one single example of intellectual property that has been created in a vacuum.

Third, BMT is smart. He isn't one to brag so he may get mad at me for saying these things, but how many of you fly, as the captain, jet airliners? How many of you are actively inventing and selling high-tech products? I could go on about several illustrious things that BMT has accomplished during his lifetime, but it will suffice to say that his intellect and resume are impressive to everyone who, like me, actually knows him.

Fourth, yes, BMT talks this way in real life, too (I'm really risking that Kimber with this point). Some of his definitions and terminology have sounded hyperbolic. He has often apologized for the times when his exhuberance about the technology he is working with has caused him to say things that ended up being hyperbolic. There are many things that have contributed to people on AR15 making fun of the way BMT expresses himself. For one thing, like I said before, BMT is smart. He's not the only person whose intellegence, at times, gets in the way with his or her communication. However, the main reason people make fun of it is probably because someone here has some self-interest in discrediting BMT and often likes to twist meanings, argue about the semantics of marketing terms like "blended metal," or try to distort the use of a phrase like "lead-free components." Unfortunately, the way BMT talks and these personal attacks have led to people saying things like "magic bullets" in a derisive way (when I watch the comparison tests, having some understanding of all that is going into them, including the velocities, bullet materials, etc., I have often wondered if these bullets aren't really magic). The last thing I can say about how BMT talks is that he tries to correct mistakes that he has made. There's a certain Kennedy-like character in these threads who, as far as I can tell, has never apologized for his hyperbolic statements regarding the effects these bullets in certain rodents, let alone apologize for his lies and slanders.

Fifth, when cornered, people around here call for more scientific data. I hope BMT doesn't get mad when I say this (once again, I'm risking that Kimber), but I think BMT has been a bit gun shy (no pun intended) about getting more independent tests after the Kennedy-like character around here, who was supposed to be impartial and independent, would not look at anything besides geletin impacts and then went beyond that to go out of his way to discredit, lie, distort, and even slander BMT and his products. That said, BMT has still continued to gather a good amount of scientific, measured, independent testing regarding this ammunition during the last few years. But some of you will never be happy because you may not see the data you want to see from strictly traditional geletin impacts or from the Kennedy-like character that so many of you seem to follow without question. However, the data will continue to come in.

Finally, (and I could go on with more points but I doubt more than one or two of you have read this far), I believe that regardless of what people do to promote their self-interests at the expense of others, BMT has a great future ahead of him. I wish him and his family the best. Alito will most likely be confirmed. And BMT will most likely land some large contracts for the technologies that he represents (and he might even buy me a Kimber when that happens). I say this not only because I believe in these products and their benefits, but also because, unlike most of you, I have first-hand knowlege of BMT's capacity and integrity.

Quoted: Well, here's my first and, perhaps, my last post on AR15. There are a few reasons why this is my first post here. First, I will be completely open and tell you that I am a layman when it comes to weapons and ammunition. The only gun I own is my great-grandfather's Savage 99, which I haven't shot for a few years. (I might hit BMT up for a Kimber when he starts to make some money through Le Mas, if he doesn't get mad at me for writing this). There are also reasons why this might be my last post. First of all, the post has been inspired by watching a few minutes of Senator Kennedy during the Alito hearings. I'm going to make a few comparisons to Kennedy and I doubt that is going to make many friends around here. Because of my contact with BMT, I have occassionally followed some of these Le Mas threads on AR15. They can be entertaining. During the Alito hearings, however, I heard something that compaired the testimony of the Judges that work with Alito to the crap coming out of Kennedy and his cohorts. This comparison stated that because these Judges actually worked with Alito and truly knew him, their testimony was important than whatever Kennedy was doing to please his interest groups. Hearing this thought prompted me to write on AR15 since I know BMT. Most of the people here who give BMT so much grief don't know him or the ammunition that is being discussed. And, like the way Kennedy, for his own personal gain, has done everything to tear down Alito, at least one person here, a certain dentist that I haven't met, seems to have similar motives (perhaps power, contracts, constituents, etc.) to distort, lie, twist, spin, even slander in order to discredit BMT. Unlike most of you, I know BMT. I have spent many hours with him. Because of this, I have first-hand knowlege of a few things. I thought it might be helpful for me to share them. First, those of you who continue to say that BMT uses smoke and mirrors or hires Industrial Light and Magic to create fake photos, fake video footage, falsified x-rays, made up data, or to fake live comparison shoots in front of journalists, officials, and experts, are looking increasingly more foolish. Unlike some of you here who make up tales of firecrackers and shotgun blasts, I have first-hand knowlege of how many of these comparison shoots were actually conducted. I can say with certainty that they are being done with integrity. I believe these photos are an excellent way for BMT to display the results of these comparison shoots to those of you who aren't able to attend one. Second, many of you here, including the Kennedy-like character mentioned above, create at least one impossible standard for BMT. You say, in effect, "give away all of your intellectual property and then I will believe you." It is the same when Kennedy says, in effect, to Alito, "Tell me you will always decide cases the way I want you to decide them and then I will vote for your nomination." Alito can't do that. And BMT can't detail all of his intellectual property. Even with decent intellectual property laws like we have in this country to protect patents, etc., there are many, many reasons why it would be foolish for companies to divulge all of their intellectual property. And, pertaining to intellectual property, there is another standard mentioned in this thread that I don't understand at all. Some of you seem to believe that intellectual property isn't important or isn't valuable if it is similar to, or even derives from, technologies that have already existed. I can't think of one single example of intellectual property that has been created in a vacuum. Third, BMT is smart. He isn't one to brag so he may get mad at me for saying these things, but how many of you fly, as the captain, jet airliners? How many of you are actively inventing and selling high-tech products? I could go on about several illustrious things that BMT has accomplished during his lifetime, but it will suffice to say that his intellect and resume are impressive to everyone who, like me, actually knows him. Fourth, yes, BMT talks this way in real life, too (I'm really risking that Kimber with this point). Some of his definitions and terminology have sounded hyperbolic. He has often apologized for the times when his exhuberance about the technology he is working with has caused him to say things that ended up being hyperbolic. There are many things that have contributed to people on AR15 making fun of the way BMT expresses himself. For one thing, like I said before, BMT is smart. He's not the only person whose intellegence, at times, gets in the way with his or her communication. However, the main reason people make fun of it is probably because someone here has some self-interest in discrediting BMT and often likes to twist meanings, argue about the semantics of marketing terms like "blended metal," or try to distort the use of a phrase like "lead-free components." Unfortunately, the way BMT talks and these personal attacks have led to people saying things like "magic bullets" in a derisive way (when I watch the comparison tests, having some understanding of all that is going into them, including the velocities, bullet materials, etc., I have often wondered if these bullets aren't really magic). The last thing I can say about how BMT talks is that he tries to correct mistakes that he has made. There's a certain Kennedy-like character in these threads who, as far as I can tell, has never apologized for his hyperbolic statements regarding the effects these bullets in certain rodents, let alone apologize for his lies and slanders. Fifth, when cornered, people around here call for more scientific data. I hope BMT doesn't get mad when I say this (once again, I'm risking that Kimber), but I think BMT has been a bit gun shy (no pun intended) about getting more independent tests after the Kennedy-like character around here, who was supposed to be impartial and independent, would not look at anything besides geletin impacts and then went beyond that to go out of his way to discredit, lie, distort, and even slander BMT and his products. That said, BMT has still continued to gather a good amount of scientific, measured, independent testing regarding this ammunition during the last few years. But some of you will never be happy because you may not see the data you want to see from strictly traditional geletin impacts or from the Kennedy-like character that so many of you seem to follow without question. However, the data will continue to come in. Finally, (and I could go on with more points but I doubt more than one or two of you have read this far), I believe that regardless of what people do to promote their self-interests at the expense of others, BMT has a great future ahead of him. I wish him and his family the best. Alito will most likely be confirmed. And BMT will most likely land some large contracts for the technologies that he represents (and he might even buy me a Kimber when that happens). I say this not only because I believe in these products and their benefits, but also because I have first-hand knowlege of BMT's capacity and integrity.

I have no personal interest in the success or failure of these bullets. I want the best ammo I can carry. That said, I don't like gimmicks.

If this ammo is truly the best, then I'd buy it in an instant.

However, SEM doesn't lie. The bullets are lead and antimony, copper jacket with a nylon core. There's nothing blended about these bullets whatsoever.

That doesn't mean they don't work, but what I'm wondering is WHY they work. If you're going to publish pics of dead animals as proof, you need to have measurements in there: depth of wound, diameter of the wound, etc. "Pictures ain't sh-t", and this is coming from a research scientist: if you want to be taken seriously, your data must be irrefutable at the time it is published.

And BTW, if it's patented, he isn't giving away his intellectual property.

I don’t know much about the field of ballistics, and I’ve followed various threads on various boards about this ammo, and it usually turns out the same as this discussion.

There has to be a standard to compare ‘A’ to ‘B’. 10% ballistic gelatin has been the standard medium for ammunition. No one has said that it duplicates exactly how bullets will react in flesh. It’s only a standard that can be measured and the results interpreted, AND DUPLICATED. Online you can find test of bullets and compare the results in a standardized test.  

I seek information from credible sources. I do not have the resources or knowledge to test all of the various designs, metallurgy, or velocity of all the ammunition available to civilians.

However, it seems impossible to me that a bullet can “sense” temperature differences and reacts differently in cold and warm tissue. Does the bullet become more effective shot from a hot barrel than a cold barrel? What about the temperature of the air?

Where are the published results of all this testing of these bullets?  IF this design is so cutting edge and does everything Stan says it does, then why hasn’t Sen. Kennedy been all over the President Bush about this?  Surely Kennedy wouldn’t pass up such an opportunity to hammer the President about the safety of our young men and women.

Quoted: If this ammo is truly the best, then I'd buy it in an instant.

I'm not an expert in these areas, but I think the data (and I know many tests and some magazine articles have discussed quite a few measurements about penetration depth, etc.) is showing that for many tactical purposes this ammo is truly the best.

However, SEM doesn't lie. The bullets are lead and antimony, copper jacket with a nylon core. There's nothing blended about these bullets whatsoever.

I think you are arguing the semantics of what the marketing term "blended metal" means. I don't believe BMT has ever said that it has to mean a certain combination of alloys or elements in certain parts of the ammunition. If I recall, someone else brought up that requirement. BMT hasn't wanted to publicly discuss (most likely for good reasons) much about the processes or elements of the bullet design.

And BTW, if it's patented, he isn't giving away his intellectual property.

Intellectual property can include much more than patents and, indeed, not all intellectual property can be covered by patents. I know very little about BMT's intellectual property or how he is protecting it. And, since he doesn't want to delve into that on these boards, I don't think I should approach it. However, companies often go through great lengths to protect manufacturing procedures, licenses, agreements, knowlege of particular markets or manufacturing process, contacts, etc., etc., even though we have decent patent laws and protections in a country like this.

Quoted: Surely Kennedy wouldn’t pass up such an opportunity to hammer the President about the safety of our young men and women.

Oh, but please remember, Senator Kennedy's friends are proponents of "safer bullets."

Quoted: Quoted: If this ammo is truly the best, then I'd buy it in an instant. I'm not an expert in these areas, but I think the data (and I know many tests and some magazine articles have discussed quite a few measurements about penetration depth, etc.) is showing that for many tactical purposes this ammo is truly the best. Link to these articles? The only penetration tests of these rounds I've seen are GEL tests, which, according to BMT, are NOT accurate depictions of the round's performance in tissue. However, SEM doesn't lie. The bullets are lead and antimony, copper jacket with a nylon core. There's nothing blended about these bullets whatsoever. I think you are arguing the semantics of what the marketing term "blended metal" means. I don't believe BMT has ever said that it has to mean a certain combination of alloys or elements in certain parts of the ammunition. If I recall, someone else brought up that requirement. BMT hasn't wanted to publicly discuss (most likely for good reasons) much about the processes or elements of the bullet design. How is it semantics? It's false advertising. Call them jacketed soft points, call them nylon core jacketed soft points, or call them what they are: high speed, light weight bullets. How do these bullets' fragmentation (or frangibility as it has been falsely called) mimic the method in which they are made? This claim has been widely reported, and there has yet to be any evidence behind it. Why doesn't he want to discuss the process? It's nylon, lead, antimony, and copper. The secret is out. Uh oh. hock.gif And BTW, if it's patented, he isn't giving away his intellectual property. Intellectual property can include much more than patents and, indeed, not all intellectual property can be covered by patents. I know very little about BMT's intellectual property or how he is protecting it. And, since he doesn't want to delve into that on these boards, I don't think I should approach it. However, companies often go through great lengths to protect manufacturing procedures, licenses, agreements, knowlege of particular markets or manufacturing process, contacts, etc., etc., even though we have decent patent laws and protections in a country like this.

Completely dodging the real argument here. Everybody knows what's in the friggin' bullets, that's no mystery. What IS a mystery, is why BMT claims that these bullets perform any differently than regular JSP's at high velocity.


Replies in italics.  

But basically, my point is this: nobody cares about the manufacturing PROCESS. Unless there's fairy dust in these things, undetectable by SEM (yeah right), then there is no way that these are different from any other high velocity light weight round.

I understand that you are defending your friend, but there is NO convincing evidence out there that these bullets are in any way unique.

The animal tests are laughable at best. I'm a research scientist, and if I used, as proof, pictures like that without measurements, NOBODY would publish my data.

One contractors assessment of an ass-shot Hadji is NOT reliable proof of ammunition performance.

A gang banger in my area was shot in the ass by a 9mm. The round caught a series of arteries and vessels, exiting the gang banger's eye socket.

Does this mean that 9mm ball is magical eye-popping-via-ass-shot ammo?

It's false advertising. Call them jacketed soft points, call them nylon core jacketed soft points, or call them what they are: high speed, light weight bullets. How do these bullets' fragmentation (or frangibility as it has been falsely called) mimic the method in which they are made? This claim has been widely reported, and there has yet to be any evidence behind it. Why doesn't he want to discuss the process? It's nylon, lead, antimony, and copper. The secret is out. Uh oh. hock.gif

I think, because of the things that I mentioned in my first post, that you have too much animosity towards BMT to objectively look at anything demonstrated or said. Why assume that a company (with many, many different products) that uses the term "Blended Metal Technology" is somehow using that term to sell you snake oil. You admit to knowing about legitimate ways in which that term may have come about at Le Mas, but yet you have to call BMT a liar.

But basically, my point is this: nobody cares about the manufacturing PROCESS. Unless there's fairy dust in these things, undetectable by SEM (yeah right), then there is no way that these are different from any other high velocity light weight round.

I think my point is that this ammunition actually does act differently from other high velocity, light weight rounds. And it acts very differently from other rounds currently used for the tactical purposes for which these rounds have been designed. And while you claim to say that you don't care about the process or the materials, you continue to ask for more information about the process and the materials, which I have argued may simply be intellectual property.

I understand that you are defending your friend, but there is NO convincing evidence out there that these bullets are in any way unique.

Well, I would argue that there is quite a bit of evidence that these bullets behave in a unique way, even if you don't find that evidence convincing. You can argue that it doesn't meet the tactical requirements you are looking for, but it seems to me that saying that they are in no way unique is quite a stretch, even with the limited data that may be available to tyou.

The animal tests are laughable at best. I'm a research scientist, and if I used, as proof, pictures like that without measurements, NOBODY would publish my data.

I don't think BMT was using those photos as part of proof made for a scholarly journal. It was simply something for the folks here to take a gander at.

I think my main point in posting here, as someone who knows BMT, is that there seems to be a lot of animosity towards him. There's a heck of a lot of speculation about his character. These things seem to keep even normally level-headed people from being able to maintain much objectivity.

Quoted: Still waiting on an independant and SCIENTIFIC test using test and control groups in a callibrated and repeatable medium, not meat shots and hearsay.  I won't hold my breath.  I'm sure this whole thread is working fine for him, all he needs is some sap to read all this and try it out and he's made another sale.  Maybe some flashy photoshopped pics like Extreme Shock has and he could sell two boxes of ammo!  At least they show on their web page how poorly their rounds act in Callibrated Gel.

I have never made an ammunition sale to anyone from who posts on AR15 that I am aware of.

The only meat shots posted on this thread used test standard testing methods for identical control groups with the Le Mas AP 9mm, M-855 and M-262. Some parts of the US government have spent tremendous efforts with much ballistic expert input to standardize such things as impact distance from which to measure and assess ammunition lethality. Although I am not sure if the results of that multi month long study were to agree upon 5 yards or 5 meters, the distance for the shown impacts was just 5 yards American units of measurement. The results were not hearsay as the data in the photos clearly demonstrates. Did you doubt the included documentation of tissue destruction recorded for the M-855 and M-262 5.56 impacts into the same medium.

The Le Mas Ltd. AP 9mm round penetrated 18.1 inches of gelatin, If you are unhappy with that depth of penetration, please speak to Mr. Roberts as it was his scientific data not mine.  

I have never advertised the BMT Le Mas Ltd. short range armor piercing measured depths of penetration in non gelatin tissue anywhere. Although Le Mas Ltd. has conducted limited ballistic gelatin studies with our ammunition, I have also never posted that data anywhere, as I don't think it as valid performance indicator from which to predict the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition incapacitation probabilities in living tissue.

If you believe Mr. Roberts incorrectly predicted gelatin based live tissue destruction performance for the AP 9mm bullet, maybe he can explain why the round acted so non comparatively than conventional hollow point handgun bullets in gelatin and living tissue. Most bullets that I am familiar with which expand or fragment in ballistic gelatin, also expand or fragment when fired into ballistic gelatin at higher velocities. I certainly don't know of any existing conventional bullet constructed with conventional bullet core materials that would not expand or fragment into ballistic gelatin, but then demonstrate dramatic fragmentation when impacting living tissue, or warm raw meat for that matter.

Sometimes only estimations for measured tissue destructions can be utilized with the Le Mas ammunition due to lack of identifiable or none existing organ structures. I can post such an example of this type dilemma on Monday perhaps for some of the Le Mas Ltd. SRAP 5.56 ammo. I will look forward to your input as to how you would measure and quantify such data. Sometime field expedient attempts to estimate approximate comparative permanent tissue destruction can be made visually, such as the diameter of one's pinky finger, to dimensions of one or two clenched fist. Although such field expedient means for providing comparative measure might not be considered articulate, they are indeed comparatively valid.

I tried to remove this post, as too much has been stated that I did not read. Maybe not much purpose in any further postings as someone who I do not know the identity of seems to be provding information that I have not been able too with much better communication skills.  

pmerch ...I know many tests and some magazine articles have discussed quite a few measurements about penetration depth, etc. BrandonP Link to these articles? The only penetration tests of these rounds I've seen are GEL tests, which, according to BMT, are NOT accurate depictions of the round's performance in tissue.

BMT I have never advertised the BMT Le Mas Ltd. short range armor piercing measured depths of penetration in non gelatin tissue anywhere. Although Le Mas Ltd. has conducted limited ballistic gelatin studies with our ammunition, I have also never posted that data anywhere, as I don't think it as valid performance indicator from which to predict the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition incapacitation probabilities in living tissue.

Oops, I guess I've caught myself discussing data that only a few were priveleged to observe. By the way, I also got to observe some discussions with the independent lab that was conducting the tests at the time. It was all quite fascinating, especially when taken in context with the comparative tests using tissue. I thought that data was going to be published. Sorry about bringing it up, Stan. I'll shut up now.

Quoted: It's false advertising. Call them jacketed soft points, call them nylon core jacketed soft points, or call them what they are: high speed, light weight bullets. How do these bullets' fragmentation (or frangibility as it has been falsely called) mimic the method in which they are made? This claim has been widely reported, and there has yet to be any evidence behind it. Why doesn't he want to discuss the process? It's nylon, lead, antimony, and copper. The secret is out. Uh oh. hock.gif I think, because of the things that I mentioned in my first post, that you have too much animosity towards BMT to objectively look at anything demonstrated or said. Why assume that a company (with many, many different products) that uses the term "Blended Metal Technology" is somehow using that term to sell you snake oil. You admit to knowing about legitimate ways in which that term may have come about at Le Mas, but yet you have to call BMT a liar. But basically, my point is this: nobody cares about the manufacturing PROCESS. Unless there's fairy dust in these things, undetectable by SEM (yeah right), then there is no way that these are different from any other high velocity light weight round. I think my point is that this ammunition actually does act differently from other high velocity, light weight rounds. And it acts very differently from other rounds currently used for the tactical purposes for which these rounds have been designed. And while you claim to say that you don't care about the process or the materials, you continue to ask for more information about the process and the materials, which I have argued may simply be intellectual property. I understand that you are defending your friend, but there is NO convincing evidence out there that these bullets are in any way unique. Well, I would argue that there is quite a bit of evidence that these bullets behave in a unique way, even if you don't find that evidence convincing. You can argue that it doesn't meet the tactical requirements you are looking for, but it seems to me that saying that they are in no way unique is quite a stretch, even with the limited data that may be available to tyou. The animal tests are laughable at best. I'm a research scientist, and if I used, as proof, pictures like that without measurements, NOBODY would publish my data. I don't think BMT was using those photos as part of proof made for a scholarly journal. It was simply something for the folks here to take a gander at. I think my main point in posting here, as someone who knows BMT, is that there seems to be a lot of animosity towards him. There's a heck of a lot of speculation about his character. These things seem to keep even normally level-headed people from being able to maintain much objectivity.

There's no animosity whatsoever. If the bullets work as well as it's claimed, then I'll use them. However, until I see convincing evidence of this, I refuse to believe it.

Skepticism leads to good, intelligent decision making.

It's not assumption that the term "blended metal" is false. If there was a blend of metals in there, I'd buy that it's blended metal technology. If it's the proportion of lead to antimony, or the way that it's put together that makes the difference, then that's fine.

The ammo is unique in that it actually DOES behave differently in gel and tissue, but the results aren't impressive, at least from what I've seen. If those cavities are excised in such a fashion that the wound is created after sufficient penetration, then the ammo is good and I'd love to buy some. However, we need information, not just pictures of blasted animals.

You may know him, which explains your support for him and his product. I'm sure he's a great guy, but he's a salesman at the same time. And just like how, in the supplement industry, nothing works as well as anabolic steroids despite the claims, until I see proof I will remain skeptical.

Quoted: pmerch ...I know many tests and some magazine articles have discussed quite a few measurements about penetration depth, etc. BrandonP Link to these articles? The only penetration tests of these rounds I've seen are GEL tests, which, according to BMT, are NOT accurate depictions of the round's performance in tissue. BMT I have never advertised the BMT Le Mas Ltd. short range armor piercing measured depths of penetration in non gelatin tissue anywhere. Although Le Mas Ltd. has conducted limited ballistic gelatin studies with our ammunition, I have also never posted that data anywhere, as I don't think it as valid performance indicator from which to predict the Le Mas Ltd. ammunition incapacitation probabilities in living tissue. Oops, I guess I've caught myself discussing data that only a few were priveleged to observe. By the way, I also got to observe some discussions with the independent lab that was conducting the tests at the time. It was all quite fascinating, especially when taken in context with the comparative tests using tissue. I thought that data was going to be published. Sorry about bringing it up, Stan. I'll shut up now.

Bulmer refers to his 9mm ammo penetrating 18" of gel, in an independent test, in the post above.

Okay, can I buy a box of 9mm to go hog hunting with?

If I can't buy it, then why have the discussion?

Quoted: Okay, can I buy a box of 9mm to go hog hunting with? If I can't buy it, then why have the discussion?

 

I've used their 45 115gr on hogs with pretty damn good damage and penetration, I still don't understand how it could have that much damage just from a high speed fragmenting ball