Tagged for entertainment purposes.

Hey, it's cheaper than a pay-per-view movie!

viator

Doc R and brouhaha,

I have access to some .45, 9mm, and 5.56 LeMas ammunition. This is the AP loading, not the civilian RBCD ammo.  This ammo was sent to a contractor for his use direct from Bulmer himself.

It's in original factory packaging.  If you are having trouble getting some to test, let me know.  I think I can secure a few boxes.

For the record, I think it's all bullshit myself.  

Drop me an IM if you want.

'dog

Quoted: Doc R and brouhaha, I have access to some .45, 9mm, and 5.56 LeMas ammunition. This is the AP loading, not the civilian RBCD ammo.  This ammo was sent to a contractor for his use direct from Bulmer himself. It's in original factory packaging.  If you are having trouble getting some to test, let me know.  I think I can secure a few boxes. For the record, I think it's all bullshit myself.   Drop me an IM if you want. 'dog

Modog,
I am skeptical of your claim that I sent ammo direct to the person you claim. Make sure you know whether the ammo was optimized for a specific weapon platform which might have been requested by the client. Pay particular attention if the handgun ammunition was built for subgun or a particular brand of after market ramped barrel. Every one I send ammo to is fully briefed on such data. Except for a few trolls here and there that end up with Le Mas military/law enforcement ammo, those that receive ammunition are fully briefed on the particular bullet design and which weapons should or should not be utilized per their requirments and don't blindly pass the ammunition around.

Quoted: Quoted: Doc R and brouhaha, I have access to some .45, 9mm, and 5.56 LeMas ammunition. This is the AP loading, not the civilian RBCD ammo.  This ammo was sent to a contractor for his use direct from Bulmer himself. It's in original factory packaging.  If you are having trouble getting some to test, let me know.  I think I can secure a few boxes. For the record, I think it's all bullshit myself.   Drop me an IM if you want. 'dog Modog, I am skeptical of your claim that I sent ammo direct to the person you claim. Make sure you know whether the ammo was optimized for a specific weapon platform which might have been requested by the client. Pay particular attention if the handgun ammunition was built for subgun or a particular brand of after market ramped barrel. Every one I send ammo to is fully briefed on such data. Except for a few trolls here and there that end up with Le Mas military/law enforcement ammo, those that receive ammunition are fully briefed on the particular bullet design and which weapons should or should not be utilized per their requirments and don't blindly pass the ammunition around.

Stan,

I know when and who you sent it to, and what weapons it was "intended" for.  I personally received it and reshipped most of it to him at his FOB.  

Have a pleasant evening.

Popcorn: check!
Beverage: check!

Quoted: Popcorn: check! Beverage: check!

It really won't matter, because old Stan will obfuscate the living shit out of anything that Doc finds out about it.  

Stan, admit it.  You're really a marketing bot, aren't you?  "Stan Bulmer" is sort of like Ed Bartles or Frank Jaymes, right?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Doc R and brouhaha, I have access to some .45, 9mm, and 5.56 LeMas ammunition. This is the AP loading, not the civilian RBCD ammo.  This ammo was sent to a contractor for his use direct from Bulmer himself. It's in original factory packaging.  If you are having trouble getting some to test, let me know.  I think I can secure a few boxes. For the record, I think it's all bullshit myself.   Drop me an IM if you want. 'dog Modog, I am skeptical of your claim that I sent ammo direct to the person you claim. Make sure you know whether the ammo was optimized for a specific weapon platform which might have been requested by the client. Pay particular attention if the handgun ammunition was built for subgun or a particular brand of after market ramped barrel. Every one I send ammo to is fully briefed on such data. Except for a few trolls here and there that end up with Le Mas military/law enforcement ammo, those that receive ammunition are fully briefed on the particular bullet design and which weapons should or should not be utilized per their requirments and don't blindly pass the ammunition around. Stan, I know when and who you sent it to, and what weapons it was "intended" for.  I personally received it and reshipped most of it to him at his FOB.   Have a pleasant evening.

Roger that, I know who you are now.

There is quite a bit you think you know that you do not with respect to specific subject matters, if you did you would not be talking smack. That shipment which was forwarded by you not me to the destination was quite some time ago. I think you requested some ammo from me direct a little over 2 years ago, and I declined to provide it to you. I think I was right not to do so. There are working folks all around you who are up to speed and hands on, have you not been a part of the information pipeline? If I had your job I would not want to piss in my own wheaties.

I'll pass the word to folks you said hello here on AR15.

Have a pleasant eveining yourself.

Quoted: Quoted: Roger that, I know who you are now. There is quite a bit you think you know that you do not with respect to subject specific subject matters, if you did you would not be talking smack. That shipment which was forwarded by you not me to the destination was quite some time ago. I think you requested some ammo from me direct a little over 2 years ago, and I declined to provide it to you. I think I was right not to do so. There are working folks all around you who are up to speed and hands on, have you not been a part of the information pipeline? If I had your job I would not want to piss in my own wheaties. I'll pass the word to folks you said hello here on AR15. Have a pleasant eveining yourself. You know - everyone can have a bad day trying to say what they mean, but I've read this several times and still cant figure out what you were trying to say. Who shipped what to whom? Will modog been shunned by his peers for posting on Arfcom? Why'd he piss in his Wheaties? Out of personal curiosity: Is your ammo for sale to the general public?

PM to be sent

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Doc R and brouhaha, I have access to some .45, 9mm, and 5.56 LeMas ammunition. This is the AP loading, not the civilian RBCD ammo.  This ammo was sent to a contractor for his use direct from Bulmer himself. It's in original factory packaging.  If you are having trouble getting some to test, let me know.  I think I can secure a few boxes. For the record, I think it's all bullshit myself.   Drop me an IM if you want. 'dog Modog, I am skeptical of your claim that I sent ammo direct to the person you claim. Make sure you know whether the ammo was optimized for a specific weapon platform which might have been requested by the client. Pay particular attention if the handgun ammunition was built for subgun or a particular brand of after market ramped barrel. Every one I send ammo to is fully briefed on such data. Except for a few trolls here and there that end up with Le Mas military/law enforcement ammo, those that receive ammunition are fully briefed on the particular bullet design and which weapons should or should not be utilized per their requirments and don't blindly pass the ammunition around. Stan, I know when and who you sent it to, and what weapons it was "intended" for.  I personally received it and reshipped most of it to him at his FOB.   Have a pleasant evening. Roger that, I know who you are now. There is quite a bit you think you know that you do not with respect to subject specific subject matters, if you did you would not be talking smack. That shipment which was forwarded by you not me to the destination was quite some time ago. I think you requested some ammo from me direct a little over 2 years ago, and I declined to provide it to you. I think I was right not to do so. There are working folks all around you who are up to speed and hands on, have you not been a part of the information pipeline? If I had your job I would not want to piss in my own wheaties. I'll pass the word to folks you said hello here on AR15. Have a pleasant eveining yourself. www.btammolabs.com/images/cloak.jpg

That movie made me want a suppressed Uzi when I was a kid...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Doc R and brouhaha, I have access to some .45, 9mm, and 5.56 LeMas ammunition. This is the AP loading, not the civilian RBCD ammo.  This ammo was sent to a contractor for his use direct from Bulmer himself. It's in original factory packaging.  If you are having trouble getting some to test, let me know.  I think I can secure a few boxes. For the record, I think it's all bullshit myself.   Drop me an IM if you want. 'dog Modog, I am skeptical of your claim that I sent ammo direct to the person you claim. Make sure you know whether the ammo was optimized for a specific weapon platform which might have been requested by the client. Pay particular attention if the handgun ammunition was built for subgun or a particular brand of after market ramped barrel. Every one I send ammo to is fully briefed on such data. Except for a few trolls here and there that end up with Le Mas military/law enforcement ammo, those that receive ammunition are fully briefed on the particular bullet design and which weapons should or should not be utilized per their requirments and don't blindly pass the ammunition around. Stan, I know when and who you sent it to, and what weapons it was "intended" for.  I personally received it and reshipped most of it to him at his FOB.   Have a pleasant evening. Roger that, I know who you are now. There is quite a bit you think you know that you do not with respect to specific subject matters, if you did you would not be talking smack. That shipment which was forwarded by you not me to the destination was quite some time ago. I think you requested some ammo from me direct a little over 2 years ago, and I declined to provide it to you. I think I was right not to do so. There are working folks all around you who are up to speed and hands on, have you not been a part of the information pipeline? If I had your job I would not want to piss in my own wheaties. I'll pass the word to folks you said hello here on AR15. Have a pleasant eveining yourself.

In the immortal words of Mr. Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.  At least until the SEM and spectrometry reports come back.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Doc R and brouhaha, I have access to some .45, 9mm, and 5.56 LeMas ammunition. This is the AP loading, not the civilian RBCD ammo.  This ammo was sent to a contractor for his use direct from Bulmer himself. It's in original factory packaging.  If you are having trouble getting some to test, let me know.  I think I can secure a few boxes. For the record, I think it's all bullshit myself.   Drop me an IM if you want. 'dog Modog, I am skeptical of your claim that I sent ammo direct to the person you claim. Make sure you know whether the ammo was optimized for a specific weapon platform which might have been requested by the client. Pay particular attention if the handgun ammunition was built for subgun or a particular brand of after market ramped barrel. Every one I send ammo to is fully briefed on such data. Except for a few trolls here and there that end up with Le Mas military/law enforcement ammo, those that receive ammunition are fully briefed on the particular bullet design and which weapons should or should not be utilized per their requirments and don't blindly pass the ammunition around. Stan, I know when and who you sent it to, and what weapons it was "intended" for.  I personally received it and reshipped most of it to him at his FOB.   Have a pleasant evening. Roger that, I know who you are now. There is quite a bit you think you know that you do not with respect to specific subject matters, if you did you would not be talking smack. That shipment which was forwarded by you not me to the destination was quite some time ago. I think you requested some ammo from me direct a little over 2 years ago, and I declined to provide it to you. I think I was right not to do so. There are working folks all around you who are up to speed and hands on, have you not been a part of the information pipeline? If I had your job I would not want to piss in my own wheaties. I'll pass the word to folks you said hello here on AR15. Have a pleasant eveining yourself. In the immortal words of Mr. Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.  At least until the SEM and spectrometry reports come back.

If said ammunition receives elemental analysis, BMT will be unwilling to lend efficacy to such tests as it it was obtained through improper means of acquisition.  

Mr. Bulmer writes:

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.

News to me; I thought it was pilots that made the big bucks…but we will take you up on the offer for more ammo to test.

Now to address some of the rest of the stuff that has come up while I have been working this week.

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

Pmerch, It is laudable that you want to support your friend, however, your information is incorrect.

“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.”

As seen from the examples below, on several occasions over the past five years, Mr. Bulmer has claimed LeMas ammunition is lead-free, constructed using blended metals, and offering “smart”, “programmable”, and unique sensory abilities.

From Army Times quoting Mr. Bulmer:  “APLP ammo is manufactured using a so-called ‘blended-metal’ process.”

From LeMas advertising:  “As a final note, all RBCD munitions use lead free components”

From AFJI quoting Mr. Bulmer:  “Platinum is one of the many metals used in the manufacturing of RBCD ammunition.”

From LeMas advertising:  “Blended Metal Technology utilizes manufacturing processes that facilitate the homogeneous blending of multiple metal compositions.  BMT payloads offer the user munitions that are ‘smart’ bullets.”

From SOCNET discussion with Mr. Bulmer and LTC Raper:  “…the jacket receives 5-8 different metals inserted as a payload (may be compressed powder, not exactly sure about that), including platinum, in some loads.”

From LeMas advertising:  “This technology is best described as ‘blended metal programming’.  It is not just another ‘shiny new bullet’ but a projectile payload, pre-programmed to sense varying rates of deceleration…Upon arrival in soft target medium the payload de-programs and, only then, expends 100% of its retained energy in the form of micro-fragments.”

From AFJI quoting Mr. Bulmer:  “These are virtually lead-free, blended-metal bullets they’re made from various metals with the ability to go through different types of armor, glass, metal, and body armor and not deploy.”

From Defense Review: “Calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin literally pulls heat away from the Blended Metal Technology (BMT) bullet as the bullet passes through it. This results in the BMT bullet remaining intact, and not going frangible like it would in living tissue. Live/living tissue, with its much higher temperature, has a totally different effect on the Le Mas/RBCD BMT rounds. A living body's heat is the necessary mechanism for the LeMas/RBCD Blended Metal Technology (BMT) SPLP bullet to deploy as it was designed to do.”

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

Does it matter what the ammunition is made of?  Yes--especially in light of international treaty obligations, environmental factors, basic scientific honesty, and simple truth in advertising.

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

Mr. Bulmer writes:

I don’t know the date of what you are posting as none of the current Short Range Armor Piercing Le Mas Ltd. ammunition product lines have been advertised as lead free. Neither have the Land Warfare, or the no longer marketed for quite some time Urban Warfare. None of the handgun CQB ammunition products have ever been advertised as lead free.

The above quote is not truthful, as the Bulmer/LeMas claims of blended metal, lead-free, “smart” construction illustrated above were made several times over the past five years when both the State Dept/Urban Warfare and Land Warfare loads were being heavily marketed to DOD and LE agencies.  Likewise, the LeMas 9 mm and .45 ACP handgun loads were being offered as lead-free, blended metal projectiles.  Far from not being marketed for, “quite some time”, the so called LeMas Urban Warfare loads were still being touted in the LeMas promotional CD’s distributed at the 2004 SHOT show…

That LeMas video is also enlightening, as it shows high velocity rifle bullet impacts up to between 3000-4000 fps, with significant fragmentation and stretch injuries and wounding effects similar to those described by Fackler for high velocity, early upset, fragmenting projectiles:

1. The bullet fragments in tissue.
2. Multiple fragments spread out radially from the wound tract.
3. Temporary cavitation stretches tissue.
4. The multiply perforated tissue cannot absorb the stretch that would ordinarily be tolerated by intact tissue.
5. The weakened tissue is torn and severely disrupted.

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

The incessant misinformation, deliberate obfuscation, and wanton disregard of basic physics and physiology by LeMas and Mr. Bulmer strains credulity:

AFJI quotes Mr. Bulmer: “…when a BMT round strikes soft tissue in a chest cavity, the resulting hydrostatic shock is so severe it destroys brain tissue mass”  yet, like most of his other assertions,  Mr. Bulmer offers no proof or evidence to support this fantastical claim.  

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

DvlDog superbly captured the essence of the debate earlier in this thread:

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.

Ultimately, the veracity of LeMas and Mr. Bulmer in particular is untenable due to their numerous distortions, prevarications, and unsupported statements, along with their deliberately vague answers to legitimate questions about their product.

Just curious what would happen if you shot a piece of metal sitting in the sun and it was 98deg F, same as the human body.  How would this 'smart bullet technology' know whether it should penetrate like an AP or vaporize like a varmint HP?

Won't the bullet fired out of a weapon at high velocity be a lot hotter than 98 deg F anyways (heat from powder combustion, friction in barrel, deceleration in target media, etc)?  If so, how would it utilize the heat of the human body to determine whether to penetrate or vaporize?

Sounds very skeptical to me.   I agree with the M193 analogy above.

I think I'll be sticking with my 5.56mm 75gr TAP for now.

I'll say the same thing I said that last time I read several pages of BMT discussions.  

I am NOT a ballistics expert, I have virtually no scientific training.  

I have been a police officer for nearly twenty-two years.  I have heard some real whoppers in my day.  Whenever I read anything written by Stan, my BS-o-meter goes off the scale.  Aside from the obvious attempt at baffling everybody with mumbo jumbo, he artfully avoids direct answering of any questions posed.  His threads are full of answers to questions asked signifigantly earlier about non related topics, mixed with partial answers to current questions, salted with lots of complex sounding catchy phrasing.  All designed to distract the reader from seeing the truth.

Stan, you sir, are a snake oil salesman and a feather merchant.  If your junk works like you claim you would be proud to do a head-to-head fully documented, scientifically measurable test, In full view of everybody.  When you step up to that plate I MAY begin to believe your blathering, in the meantime, try to talk like a person instead of trying to bedazzle me with your new thesarus.

'0' mission capability my ass.

Damn!  All we need is that Courtney guy to show up to complete the 3-ring circus.

I'm far from having the ballastics experience that you have, DocGKR. But it is easy for me to see even in posts like this, where you are at least trying to sound professional (unlike your post that got this and other threads started), that you have more than just an axe to grind with BMT.

Quoted: Pmerch, It is laudable that you want to support your friend, however, your information is incorrect. “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.” As seen from the examples below, on several occasions over the past five years, Mr. Bulmer has claimed LeMas ammunition is lead-free, constructed using blended metals, and offering “smart”, “programmable”, and unique sensory abilities.

I believe an unbiased person, which I don't claim to be, can easily see your malice even in these points. My argument is that while BMT can have some enthusiam for his technologies, you should be a bit more objective to maintain your credibility as an expert in your field.

From Army Times quoting Mr. Bulmer:  “APLP ammo is manufactured using a so-called ‘blended-metal’ process.”

As all the fair-minded people have stated, there could be a "process" that caused Le Mas to come up with the "Blended Metal Technology" marketing term. There are also other rounds.

From LeMas advertising:  “As a final note, all RBCD munitions use lead free components”

I believe the SEM shows lead-free components. Since when is polymer "not" a lead-free component? But maybe I'm playing with words here, too. By the way, Le Mas has completely lead-free rounds.

From AFJI quoting Mr. Bulmer:  “Platinum is one of the many metals used in the manufacturing of RBCD ammunition.”

Even SEM is not going to determine everything that was "used in the manufacturing of RBCD ammunition." It can only determine the elements that are actually part of the final ingredients of the round.

From LeMas advertising:  “Blended Metal Technology utilizes manufacturing processes that facilitate the homogeneous blending of multiple metal compositions.  BMT payloads offer the user munitions that are ‘smart’ bullets.”

I haven't seen this quote. However, if this statement is not true of some rounds (I understand that you have performed SEM on only one round), perhaps it is a very early quote before the "marketing" caught up with the "manufacturing and technology." My bet is a statement like this, if it truly came from Le Mas, must have come out very early in the gathering of the principal players, including Mr. Bulmer. This type of thing has happened in other companies that I would not go around defaming (unless I had some special interests in trying to destroy them). Even with the hypothetical idea that all of the Le Mas rounds do not actually end up with "multiple metal compositions," then I am wondering why you have about ten points on this post instead of just this one.

From SOCNET discussion with Mr. Bulmer and LTC Raper:  “…the jacket receives 5-8 different metals inserted as a payload (may be compressed powder, not exactly sure about that), including platinum, in some loads.”

You are stating that you know, for a fact, that there is no "platinum, in some loads." Once again, your SEM was of one round.

From LeMas advertising:  “This technology is best described as ‘blended metal programming’.  It is not just another ‘shiny new bullet’ but a projectile payload, pre-programmed to sense varying rates of deceleration…Upon arrival in soft target medium the payload de-programs and, only then, expends 100% of its retained energy in the form of micro-fragments.” From AFJI quoting Mr. Bulmer:  “These are virtually lead-free, blended-metal bullets they’re made from various metals with the ability to go through different types of armor, glass, metal, and body armor and not deploy.”

Le Mas has lead-free ammunitions and some virtually lead-free ammunitions. Are you saying that they don't?

From Defense Review: “Calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin literally pulls heat away from the Blended Metal Technology (BMT) bullet as the bullet passes through it. This results in the BMT bullet remaining intact, and not going frangible like it would in living tissue. Live/living tissue, with its much higher temperature, has a totally different effect on the Le Mas/RBCD BMT rounds. A living body's heat is the necessary mechanism for the LeMas/RBCD Blended Metal Technology (BMT) SPLP bullet to deploy as it was designed to do.”

I think Le Mas has made some statements that science has not yet shown if it is the heat or not that causes the unique behaviors in some of their rounds.

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

But, unlike you, these research facilities maintain some independence. They do not claim that Le Mas marketed the all particular rounds to be lead free, which is different from saying that they use some "lead-free components." These other researchers don't make other false claims and lie about the Le Mas products at every opportunity. They don't do everything they can to find something wrong, acting like Senator Kennedy during the Alito hearings. They are objective. They don't get involved in attempts to publish reverse engineering of the technology. I have been privy to some contact between Mr. Bulmer and top research facilities. What I have seen is respect shown to Mr. Bulmer.

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

I believe, with all respect, that you are being untruthful (either that or you are uneducated about how you stretch and twist words). (Once again, for you to be credible in my eyes, you need to maintain some objectivity.) My knowledge is limited, but from what I know, Le Mas has only recently announced lead-free ammunition. You are the only one that has gone around telling people that "Le Mas claimed for years that their bullets aren't made out of lead." As you state and somewhat admit, Le Mas has not marketed some rounds as soon as they found out that the rounds were not ready for some international treaties.

That LeMas video is also enlightening, as it shows high velocity rifle bullet impacts (...snipped...)

Yes, and the video shows the velocity of the bullets, the weapons used, etc., and the capabilities are unique beyond what you state.

AFJI quotes Mr. Bulmer: “…when a BMT round strikes soft tissue in a chest cavity, the resulting hydrostatic shock is so severe it destroys brain tissue mass”  yet, like most of his other assertions,  Mr. Bulmer offers no proof or evidence to support this fantastical claim.

Actually, brain trauma is something that high-speed footage and autopsies have been investigating.

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

Yes, some rounds were found to be illegal for use in international armed conflict. My point would be that Le Mas markets many rounds. They have improved on some of the rounds you mention above and have since developed new rounds.

DvlDog superbly captured the essence of the debate earlier

Actually, with all due humility, I thought I captured some of the essence of the debate when I compaired you to an infamous politician.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't appear as if Le Mas is going away anytime soon and their excellent products continue to advance forward. I would hope that when you are presented with a non-lead bullet, for example, or a bullet designed for certain international treaties, that you could approach Le Mas with some objectivity. At this time, however, I seriously doubt that you could do that. From what I see, you would bring up 5-year-old marketing to attack a completely unrelated round and then you would make fun of the way Stan talks. (You probably do this to protect your credibility. Although, maybe you act this way to provide periodic favors to some special interest groups. Then again, perhaps acting like an ass is a way for you keep your popularity on a few Internet bulletin boards.)

I thought you were only going to post that one time?

DocGR,
I was going to responed point by point, but BMT's (Stan's) and "supporters"" responses make this thread as assine as all prior threads related to BMT ammo. Your responses have been very measured, but BMT doesn't recognize his posts meaningless BS. When you (DocGR) find the equivalent of a Intel P2/3/4 and power source ( or AMD) in his ammo, maybe ......... there maybe some credibilty to BMT's claims maybe be valid..

Quoted: I'm far from having the ballastics experience that you have, DocGKR. No doubt.  Doc can at least SPELL 'ballistics'. But it is easy for me to see even in posts like this, where you are at least trying to sound professional (unlike your post that got this and other threads started), that you have more than just an axe to grind with BMT. You're accusing DOC of trying to sound professional and you're defending Bulmer??  If you check Webster's, under "trying to sound professional" you'd see a picture of ol' Stan. I haven't seen this quote. However, if this statement is not true of some rounds (I understand that you have performed SEM on only one round),  Not for long. huge amount of prevarication snipped

I think his metal source is the lot that the T2 got melted in.  Thats why only selected indivuduals can get it.  If too much is located in one place, whammo, a small killer robot forms and stabs you in the foot.

pmerch you have a lot to learn and really need to get your facts straight.

As all the fair-minded people have stated, there could be a "process" that caused Le Mas to come up with the "Blended Metal Technology" marketing term.

Get real. The term “blended metal” is not just a “marketing” term; it has factual meaning.  You can look-up the U.S. military definition at:   www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVSEA/N00164/N0016404R4846/SynopsisR.html. The American Society of Metals (ASM) has a nearly identical definition, as do other recognized materials science organizations. The U.S. military has previously purchased and used ammunition made using blended metals.  In fact, we have previously tested it in gelatin and Dr. Fackler wrote a paper discussing the terminal performance of these true blended metal rounds in living tissue (Fackler ML: Tungsten Frangible Bullet Wounds in Pig: Exam by Autopsy and X-Ray. Wound Ballistic Review. (4)3:33-34, Spring 2000).  Fair-minded people expect a bullet described as being made using “Blended Metal Technology” to actually be made using blended metals and not just be a relabeled, misnamed bullet made using conventional construction methods.  All of the LeMas ammunition testing I am aware of to date, both at our facility and elsewhere, has demonstrated that NONE of the LeMas ammunition is made using Blended Metals; all are produced using conventional methods, and all but one contain lead.

I believe the SEM shows lead-free components. Since when is polymer "not" a lead-free component? But maybe I'm playing with words here, too. By the way, Le Mas has completely lead-free rounds.

 

Just what part are you not understanding?  LeMas stated that ALL, not just some, of their ammunition uses lead-free construction.  Now pay attention here:  this is NOT a true statement.  It is in fact false advertising.

I haven't seen this quote. However, if this statement is not true of some rounds (I understand that you have performed SEM on only one round), perhaps it is a very early quote before the "marketing" caught up with the "manufacturing and technology." My bet is a statement like this, if it truly came from Le Mas, must have come out very early in the gathering of the principal players, including Mr. Bulmer. This type of thing has happened in other companies that I would not go around defaming (unless I had some special interests in trying to destroy them). Even with the hypothetical idea that all of the Le Mas rounds do not actually end up with "multiple metal compositions," then I am wondering why you have about ten points on this post instead of just this one.

First off, you are mistaken.  While we have publicly published the results of one SEM test, we have completed XRF and SEM testing on a dozen LeMas loads. NONE of the projectiles were made using blended metals; only one did not contain lead.  Please note that our results are in congruence with testing from other facilities.  

You are wrong when you hypothesize that this must be an “early” quote.  It is in fact from relatively recent LeMas statements to the U.S. military:



As the purported unique composition has been one of the primary advertising gimmicks used by LeMas to market their ammunition and try to differentiate it from “conventional” munitions, it deserves a significant amount of attention.  This is not “hypothetical”; as demonstrated above, it is a fact that LeMas repeatedly made false and inaccurate claims about their ammunition composition and construction.

You are stating that you know, for a fact, that there is no "platinum, in some loads." Once again, your SEM was of one round.

Again, none of the dozen loads we have tested contain platinum or any other exotic metals, nor have any of the samples tested by other facilities of which I am aware.

Le Mas has lead-free ammunitions and some virtually lead-free ammunitions. Are you saying that they don't?

No, we are saying that LeMas loads are not ALL lead free as the LeMas advertising falsely promised; almost all that have been tested contain lead.

I think Le Mas has made some statements that science has not yet shown if it is the heat or not that causes the unique behaviors in some of their rounds.

You are kidding, right?  Talk to a physicist or engineer about thermodynamics.  Duncan MacPherson, the man who not only literally wrote the book (MacPherson D: “Bullet Penetration--Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma”. Ballistic Publications; El Segundo, 1994) on the physics of projectile injuries, but is also very accomplished in the field of heat energy transfer rates has shown the heat transfer mechanism hypothesized for RBCD ammunition is physically impossible.

But, unlike you, these research facilities maintain some independence. They do not claim that Le Mas marketed the all particular rounds to be lead free, which is different from saying that they use some "lead-free components." These other researchers don't make other false claims and lie about the Le Mas products at every opportunity. They don't do everything they can to find something wrong, acting like Senator Kennedy during the Alito hearings. They are objective. They don't get involved in attempts to publish reverse engineering of the technology. I have been privy to some contact between Mr. Bulmer and top research facilities. What I have seen is respect shown to Mr. Bulmer.

Really?  What “top research facilities”?  The well known leading wound ballistic research facilities we have discussed this issue with are all just as disgusted with the misinformation and outright lies promulgated by LeMas and in particular Mr. Bulmer as we are.  The main difference is that we did not sign any NDA’s with LeMas and are thus free discuss our separate research on independently obtained LeMas ammunition.  Please accurately document any “false claims” we have made regarding LeMas, so far everything you have tried to accuse us of has been WRONG!

I believe, with all respect, that you are being untruthful (either that or you are uneducated about how you stretch and twist words). (Once again, for you to be credible in my eyes, you need to maintain some objectivity.) My knowledge is limited, but from what I know, Le Mas has only recently announced lead-free ammunition. You are the only one that has gone around telling people that "Le Mas claimed for years that their bullets aren't made out of lead." As you state and somewhat admit, Le Mas has not marketed some rounds as soon as they found out that the rounds were not ready for some international treaties.

If LeMas only recently announced lead-free ammunition, then why have the been proclaiming since 2001 that all their ammunition is lead-free?  Woops, that is because they were lying…

Yes, and the video shows the velocity of the bullets, the weapons used, etc., and the capabilities are unique beyond what you state.

And this statement is based on what?  Your voluminous wound ballistic research, perhaps your extensive experience performing trauma surgery on high velocity fragmenting rifle wounds, years of armor engineering?

Actually, brain trauma is something that high-speed footage and autopsies have been investigating.

Isn’t that nice.  Unfortunately, Mr. Bulmer made a statement of fact, in other words that his comment was proven--not that it is vaguely under investigation.  Please reference any evidence, perhaps something like an MRI, to support such a claim.  None of the neurosurgeons here have ever seen or even heard of such a thing, nor have any remote effects ever been demonstrated in the wound ballistic or neurological literature.

Yes, some rounds were found to be illegal for use in international armed conflict. My point would be that Le Mas markets many rounds. They have improved on some of the rounds you mention above and have since developed new rounds.

Please get it right--ALL the LeMas ammunition reviewed to date has been declared illegal for unrestricted land warfare, including the deceptively name LeMas Landwarfare rounds.  Of the dozen LeMas loads we have tested, only one could conceivably pass JAG legal review given current international treaty interpretations.

Actually, with all due humility, I thought I captured some of the essence of the debate when I compaired you to an infamous politician.

If you are going to attempt an analogy, at least have the courtesy to pick something more applicable--perhaps a comparison to Kenneth Starr or Sam Ervin…

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't appear as if Le Mas is going away anytime soon and their excellent products continue to advance forward. I would hope that when you are presented with a non-lead bullet, for example, or a bullet designed for certain international treaties, that you could approach Le Mas with some objectivity. At this time, however, I seriously doubt that you could do that. From what I see, you would bring up 5-year-old marketing to attack a completely unrelated round and then you would make fun of the way Stan talks. (You probably do this to protect your credibility. Although, maybe you act this way to provide periodic favors to some special interest groups. Then again, perhaps acting like an ass is a way for you keep your popularity on a few Internet bulletin boards.)

Responding to your inaccurate whining and nonsensical drivel is a waste of my time and is not fair to my family or patients; I think this about finishes my response to your garbage.

Hmmmmm, would this qualify as OWNAGE?

Why yes, I think it does

Quoted: [quoteNo, we are saying that LeMas loads are not ALL lead free as the LeMas advertising falsely promised; almost all that have been tested contain lead.

OK, where did Le Mas ever say that all their loads are lead free? I've done some research on this and as far as I can see, YOU are the only one who has ever said this, not Stan or anyone else at Le Mas. And you have said this so often that many fair-minded people are thinking this is what Le Mas has actually said.

You have to do more than just bring up your old point of a document that says they contain some "lead-free components." And I'm not going to let you bring up the JAG requirements or international treaties, either. Please tell me why you have said over and over again, in every single post, that Le Mas claims that all their loads are lead free. I'll argue against a few of your other points, later, because I think that some are worse than this lie that you perpetuate. (And, when I say you lie for your own self interest and your interest groups, I mean no disrespect to your patients or your family.)

(p.s. Thanks for excusing the "ballastics" typo and all other typos, which are common in this kind of communication. Also, excuse me for still being here, but I actually want to get to the bottom of this.)

Quoted: Quoted: [quoteNo, we are saying that LeMas loads are not ALL lead free as the LeMas advertising falsely promised; almost all that have been tested contain lead. OK, where did Le Mas ever say that all their loads are lead free? I've done some research on this and as far as I can see, YOU are the only one who has ever said this, not Stan or anyone else at Le Mas. And you have said this so often that many fair-minded people are thinking this is what Le Mas has actually said. You have to do more than just bring up your old point of a document that says they contain some "lead-free components." And I'm not going to let you bring up the JAG requirements or international treaties, either. Please tell me why you have said over and over again, in every single post, that Le Mas claims that all their loads are lead free. I'll argue against a few of your other points, later, because I think that some are worse than this lie that you perpetuate. (And, when I say you lie for your own self interest and your interest groups, I mean no disrespect to your patients or your family.) (p.s. Thanks for excusing the "ballastics" typo and all other typos, which are common in this kind of communication. Also, excuse me for still being here, but I actually want to get to the bottom of this.)

Quoted:

Posted on page two of this thread by DocGKR.

Justin

Pmerch:

Dude.

You are HUNG UP on the argument about "lead-free" and who said what during which year about whose bullet and how it's all just a big misunderstanding.

You make it appear as if you are entertaining the possibility that these bullets are sensitive to heat and perform uniquely in certain temperature conditions.

You've made it clear that Bulmer is your dad/brother/nephew/all-of-the-above, so please, find something new to argue about or move on.

Your desperate pleas here define the term "reaching."  I think Post #8 should be either an apology, admission to defeat, or farewell message.

Anyone checked if pmerch = BMT?
Somehow it feels weird. Hard to explain.

Tapas: check!

When you can figure out what "primary mission capability from a secondary weapon platform is

I'm only a simple retired SF Soldier...  not a rank genius, but that statement infers getting your pistol to do to the 'target' what your rifle does to the 'target', when you have to transition... i.e., getting 5.56mm M855 or Mk 262 Mod 1 performance from your M92 or Mk 23.

Of course, head shots will do that (ain't seen any armored faces lately) if the 'target' is wearing a IIIa vest.

Meanwhile, if this stuff works then I, simple Soldier that I am, would expect that the manufacturer would (after taking steps to protect patented and proprietary information and perocesses) aggressively accept any testing in order to validate its effectiveness.  This would increase sales.

Like I have said, saying that you use lead-free components is not the same as saying that all loads are lead free. What the Doc has been saying for years is that Le Mas has somehow gone around telling everyone that their bullets, most of which contain lead and some of which have mostly a lead load, are all lead free. Since Le Mas has never done this, the Doc's actions make me question his credibility.

And, once again, Le Mas can show some enthusiam for their products (and, to their credit, they have backtracked on a few things and they discuss their products differently today). The Doc shows no signs of objectivity, however, which is generally required of an expert, and he has never backtracked on any of his outlandish claims (like the one about a certain rodent). And he has never backtracked, as far as I can see, on some of his slanderous lies.

I was around during some of the early years, when the folks at Le Mas were exhuberant about what the bullets were doing. They weren't faking tests and faking comparison shoots, like people here claim, but they were excited about all the data that they were seeing. They weren't going around lying about the bullets not having lead, like the Doc claims. Unfortunately, however, their exhuberance led to a few possible mistatements by people of integrity (which have been blown out of proportion, mostly by the Doc). On the other hand, the Doc hasn't shown much integrity to me because I believe he has, in a calculated way, made up lies about Le Mas, such as telling everyone the Le Mas went around for years saying that their bullets had no lead. He has made up stories about legal issues. He has only published and talked about things in an attempt to discredit Le Mas. He has many reasons to do this. Once again, I see no objectivity or even much credibility in much of what he says.

And, by the way, while I think BMT is smart, I doubt he is smart enough to invent and impersonate someone like me. Besides, I'm quite sure he's not extremely happy about everything I've said. However, I believe someone besides BMT should set a few of the facts straight. Right now I'm simply focusing on the fact that it is a lie to say that Le Mas has gone around telling everyone that all of their rounds have no lead. Not only is it a lie, but it seems to stretch the credibility of someone who is claiming to be an objective expert.

Quoted: Quoted: Like I have said, saying that you use lead-free components is not the same as saying that all loads are lead free. WTF else could it possibly mean? "ALL RBCD munitions use lead free components" That means ALL MUNITIONS ARE LEAD FREE.

Naah, Bulmer's just bragging over his lead-free brass casings and primers.  They count as components, just like antimony and lead count as "blended metal".  You just need to beat yourself up more with the thesaurus 'till it all makes sense.

Quoted: Quoted: Like I have said, saying that you use lead-free components is not the same as saying that all loads are lead free. WTF else could it possibly mean? "ALL RBCD munitions use lead free components" That means ALL MUNITIONS ARE LEAD FREE.

With all due respect, Brouhaha, perhaps you have drunk the punch. Many of the components, even in the round with a published SEM, actually ARE lead free. Like I said in an above post, polymer is lead free and it is a component of the round in that SEM. Copper is lead free. While it may be an asinine statement to say that these bullets have lead free components, it is not a lie. I don't want to get into why there would be an asinine statement on this sheet. I could guess that their technologies do not rely on the leaded components that you saw in the SEM. That would make this statement less asinine.

Please tell me that, as a moderator and respected person here at AR15, that you are smart enough to understand the difference between a lead load (as seen in the round under SEM) and a lead-free component.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Like I have said, saying that you use lead-free components is not the same as saying that all loads are lead free. WTF else could it possibly mean? "ALL RBCD munitions use lead free components" That means ALL MUNITIONS ARE LEAD FREE. Naah, Bulmer's just bragging over his lead-free brass casings and primers.  They count as components, just like antimony and lead count as "blended metal".  You just need to beat yourself up more with the thesaurus 'till it all makes sense.

We have a winner!!!


Just a line of marketing crap meant to confuse and mislead is all that is .  Every manufacturer can claim the same thing if they wanted to.  

I betcha his proprietary blend of magic powder is also lead free, but contains platinum.




ETA:  Nice of you guys to continue ignoring my questions from a couple pages ago.  I guess it is easier to try and call into question Doc's integrity than explain Sci-Fi physics.  

I cannot believe people are following L. Ron Bulmer around.  He must attract Mall-Ninjas or something.

Allergic to peanuts?

Buy Leakycow's sammiches that use Peanut-free components!!!

...


Whaddaya mean you got sick because there's peanut butter in my sammich..??  The bread is a peanut-free component and so is the jelly.

*************************************************

That's bullshit marketing, and you know it.

Quoted: Are you saying that this is merely a word game? The majority of readers, when shown the statement "ALL RBCD munitions use lead free components" would infer that the ammunition contains NO lead. Your interpretation appears to be that "ALL RBCD munitions use lead free components" simply means that "RBCD ammunition is made of components, some of which are lead free." Well, it doesn't take a genius to realize that "ALL RBCD munitions use lead free components", as all ammunition manufactured today uses some components (primer cup, case, jackets, etc.) that are lead free.

What I'm saying is that what appears to be an asinine quote at the bottom of this sheet is not the same as Le Mas going around telling everyone that none of their payloads have lead in them. It would be insane for Le Mas to tell people that all of their payloads are lead free. It would not, however, be insane for the Doc, because of his axe to grind and special interests, to go around telling everyone that Le Mas has always claimed that all of their loads have been free of lead.

My point of view may be biased, although I really don't have any interest one way or the other (not even a Kimber) and I rarely run into BMT these days (although I think he still has my number and he may call me and tell me to shut up). However, I think the most insiduous thing here is not the asinine statement on the Le Mas sheet that may have something to do with their technology. The most insidious thing is that someone, because of special interests, is making up lies to make it appear that the other person is lying. The most insidious thing is when someone portrays themselves as an objective expert in their field while they are discrediting themselves by doing everything they can for their own special interests.

Quoted: My point of view may be biased, although I really don't have any interest one way or the other (not even a Kimber) and I rarely run into BMT these days (although I think he still has my number and he may call me and tell me to shut up).

If you want, I'll call you and tell you to shut up, that is if Stan doesnt want to.

However, I think the most insiduous thing here is not the asinine statement on the Le Mas sheet that may have something to do with their technology. The most insidious thing is that someone, because of special interests, is making up lies to make it appear that the other person is lying. The most insidious thing is when someone portrays themselves as an objective expert in their field while they are discrediting themselves by doing everything they can for their own special interests.

You silly goose, you're talking about Stan.

Quoted: Allergic to peanuts? Buy Leakycow's sammiches that use Peanut-free components!!! ... Whaddaya mean you got sick because there's peanut butter in my sammich..??  The bread is a peanut-free component and so is the jelly. ************************************************* That's bullshit marketing, and you know it.

And actually, you are proving my point. Leakycow's sammiches (what's a sammich?)would not say that they use peanut-free components in order to attract people who are allergic to peanuts. That would be peeing in the Wheaties (or whatever it was that BMT brought up a while ago). If the point was to distract people who are allergic, Leakycow's would say that their sammiches are free of peanuts and are not made around anything that uses peanuts. However, Leakycow's might say that they use Peanut-free components if they were simply trying to impress people who are complaining that their sammiches are 100% made out of peanuts and aren't anything special.

And besides, I didn't even say it wasn't "bullshit marketing." I do think there is probably a context where the apparantly asinine statement of "lead free components" makes some sense on that document. In any case, I doubt it actually would mislead people around here (you don't give AR15.com members enough credit) and I don't think it rises to the level of the lie that the Doc has been claiming for a couple of years now. I think this lie was something that the Doc made up to please himself and his special interests. Let's have him prove me wrong.

Quoted: And actually, you are proving my point.

Here's the big difference.  Leakycow's sammiches (sandwich, man!) wouldn't put this out in print:


eta:  And let me add that I wouldn't even dance around with semantics in advertising my sammich.  I would NOT say "I use blended condiment technology" when all it is is PB & J.  I would NOT say "I use peanut-free components" to describe the bread and ziploc baggie.

You sound like a well-meaning guy, but you are revealing yourself to be the biggest apologist and PR man since that moron in Bagdad proclaimed that the Americans weren't anywhere near there.  Hitler could've used you around 1944.

Quoted: However, I think the most insiduous thing here is not the asinine statement on the Le Mas sheet that may have something to do with their technology. The most insidious thing is that someone, because of special interests, is making up lies to make it appear that the other person is lying. The most insidious thing is when someone portrays themselves as an objective expert in their field while they are discrediting themselves by doing everything they can for their own special interests. You silly goose, you're talking about Stan.

Last I checked, Stan has portrayed himself as someone who not only works for Le Mas, but as someone who markets for Le Mas and has some interest in the company. Once again, my main point in all of my ranting is that the Doc is not in any way objective, as he portrays himself, and some of you may be getting bad information from the Doc.

Quoted: Quoted: However, I think the most insiduous thing here is not the asinine statement on the Le Mas sheet that may have something to do with their technology. The most insidious thing is that someone, because of special interests, is making up lies to make it appear that the other person is lying. The most insidious thing is when someone portrays themselves as an objective expert in their field while they are discrediting themselves by doing everything they can for their own special interests. You silly goose, you're talking about Stan. Last I checked, Stan has portrayed himself as someone who not only works for Le Mas, but as someone who markets for Le Mas and has some interest in the company. Once again, my main point in all of my ranting is that the Doc is not in any way objective, as he portrays himself, and some of you may be getting bad information from the Doc.

Translation:  Crapping on the Doc is easier than backing up the claims.

pmerch,

You are either too biased, obtuse, or disconnected from reality to objectively comprehend factual evidence.

Since 2001, LeMas has made repeated statements, both verbally and in print, purported to be factual representations about the composition, construction, and physical characteristics of their ammunition. Let’s review that one more time:  As shown by the documented evidence, LeMas made the false statements about their product, not us.  We simply reported what we have discovered, just like we did with Zylon….  

Enthusiasm is great; lying is not.  Mr. Bulmer and LeMas crossed that line.  Scientific evaluation, not just at our facility, but by several other research organizations have all come to the same conclusion based on irrefutable XRF and SEM analysis--LeMas lied, falsely advertised, and misrepresented their product.  Period.  You want to take bets on which way a consumer fraud judge would see this?

Let’s review your limp whining about rodents; I made the comparison between varmint rifle ammunition and the misnamed LeMas 5.56 mm 39 gr State Department load (note:  the Dept of State has never use this load) shortly after testing it, as LeMas 5.56 mm ammunition uses high velocity, lightweight, fragmenting bullets with early upset and significant stretch--the same ideal characteristics exhibited by all good varmint loads, including those used for shooting small furry creatures like squirrels, prairie dogs, coyotes, etc…  I am sorry if you have a problem with this fact, as it is an accurate comparison.  

We have not made up any stories about legal issues, only accurately reported what has occurred; DOD JAG reviewed the physical characteristics of the LeMas ammunition and declared it illegal for U.S. military and government contractors to use in international armed conflict.  If you have a problem with that, take it up with DOD JAG, as this ruling originated with them, not us.

Again, please accurately document any “false claims” we have made regarding LeMas, as none of your feeble complaints so far has any validity.  Likewise, your innuendo and trash talking regarding “special interests” is hogwash. I have been well vetted by appropriate government investigative agencies the past few years and was found to have NO ties to industry or any other “special interest”.  The only “special interests”  my research colleagues and I serve are military personnel defending our nation, law enforcement officers guarding our communities, and ordinary citizens.  On the other hand, Stan has pretty much proven himself to be a self-serving meretricious charlatan.

We have not needed to make up anything to disparage LeMas; as the forensic and physical evidence amply demonstrates, LeMas managed to discredit themselves without any outside help...

Quoted: Translation:  Crapping on the Doc is easier than backing up the claims.

For me, yes. I'm not here to back up the claims. While I can say with certainty that Le Mas doesn't doctor photos, hire special effects people for his videos, lie about velocities, use firecrackers or shotgun blasts on pigs, and they don't tell people for years that their bullets with lead don't have any lead in them --  while I can say those things and many more, I haven't been on all the shoots or worked with all the experts. I haven't been in the design labs.

However, BMT has continued to be part of the testing and development of their rounds. I think it was actually nice of him to come to this thread and post those photos (to work on backing up the claims, like you are requesting), even though he knew most of you would just follow the Doc and crap on him for doing it.

Quoted: Quoted: And actually, you are proving my point. Here's the big difference.  Leakycow's sammiches (sandwich, man!) wouldn't put this out in print: members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/LeMas_leadfree_claim.jpg eta:  And let me add that I wouldn't even dance around with semantics in advertising my sammich.  I would NOT say "I use blended condiment technology" when all it is is PB & J.  I would NOT say "I use peanut-free components" to describe the bread and ziploc baggie. You sound like a well-meaning guy, but you are revealing yourself to be the biggest apologist and PR man since that moron in Bagdad proclaimed that the Americans weren't anywhere near there.  Hitler could've used you around 1944.

That analogy is friggin' perfect man.

I mean the blended condiment and peanut-free components part, not the Baghdad/Hitler reference. ;)

BTW, the lead-free thing is grossly misleading.

If you've got peanuts in a product...shit, if your product is manufactured in the same facility in which peanuts are even processed, you STILL need to list that on the container.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Translation:  Crapping on the Doc is easier than backing up the claims. For me, yes. You guys just see that? I think it was his credibility.  Man, that thing went flying.

Just like the ultra lightweight Garand bandoliers...we're going to have to send out a search party.