Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/18/2005 8:30:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 3:54:19 PM EDT by Zhukov]
I've had a hard time putting this together. There's very little hard info available, and assembling it into something coherent is even more difficult. Before this can be tacked, it will need many rewrites and I welcome any input you guys might have.

Exotic Ammo FAQ


This FAQ will attempt to cover some of the facts behind the new types of "wonder" ammo which always come up every couple of weeks on the ammunition forum. In the same vein, Glaser Safety Slugs have been around for years.

PRODUCT OFFERINGS
(Popular Calibers only to reduce amount of data)

RBCD
www.rbcd.net

Special Application Ammunition, "Designed for law enforcement personnel to penetrate automotive safety glass and metal body panels while, still maintaining the desired expansion, penetration and energy transfer in tissue, without over penetration..."
32 ACP  	37 gr.  TFSP  	1815 fps /   271 flbs
380 ACP 45 gr. TFSP 1500 fps / 283 flbs
9mm 60 gr. TFSP 2010 fps / 539 flbs
357 Sig. 60 gr. TFSP 2410 fps / 774 flbs
38 Spl. 60 gr. TFSP 1705 fps / 385 flbs
357 Mag. 60 gr. TFSP 1975 fps / 520 flbs
40 S&W 77 gr. TFSP 2100 fps / 754 flbs
10mm 77 gr. TFSP 2420 fps / 1015 flbs
45 ACP 90 gr. TFSP 2036 fps / 828 flbs
45 ACP 115 gr. TFSP 1650 fps / 700 flbs
223 Rem. 37 gr. TFSP 3880 fps / 1337 flbs
223 Rem. 43 gr. TFSP 3800 fps / 1379 flbs
308 Win. 112 gr. TFSP 3650 fps / 3314 flbs
308 Win. 124 gr. TFSP 3600 fps / 3570 flbs
30-06 Spf. 112 gr. TFSP 3650 fps / 3314 flbs
300 Win. 112 gr. TFSP 3800 fps / 3560 flbs
300 Win. 130 gr. TFSP 3720 fps / 4050 flbs
300 Rem UM 130 gr. TFSP 4075 fps / 4795 flbs
50 BMG 500 gr. TFSP 3870 fps / 17796 flbs
50 BMG 200 gr. SMBTSP 5900 fps / 19329 flbs

Personal Defense/Home Security, "Designed for the demanding environment of an urban situation where innocent bystanders are in close proximity...."
32 ACP  	37 gr.  TFSP  	1815 fps / 271 flbs
9mm 60 gr. TFSP 2010 fps / 539 flbs
357 Sig. 60 gr. TFSP 2410 fps / 774 flbs
38 Spl. 60 gr. TFSP 1705 fps / 385 flbs
357 Mag. 60 gr. TFSP 1975 fps / 520 flbs
40 S&W 77 gr. TFSP 2100 fps / 754 flbs
10mm 77 gr. TFSP 2420 fps / 1015 flbs
44 Spl. 110 gr. TFSP 2030 fps / 1007 flbs
44 Mag. 110 gr. TFSP 2430 fps / 1445 flbs
45 ACP 90 gr. TFSP 2036 fps / 828 flbs
45 ACP 115 gr. TFSP 1650 fps / 700 flbs
223 Rem. 37 gr. TFSP 3880 fps / 1337 flbs
243 Win. 78 gr. TFSP 3700 fps / 2280 flbs
270 Win. 110 gr. TFSP 3525 fps / 3036 flbs
7mm Rem. 108 gr. TFSP 3800 fps / 3207 flbs
7.62X39mm 112 gr. TFSP 3100 fps / 2391 flbs
7.62X39 Sabot 37 gr. TFSP 3700 fps / 1216 flbs
308 Win. 112 gr. TFSP 3650 fps / 3373 flbs
30-06 Spf. 112 gr. TFSP 3650 fps / 3374 flbs
300 Win. Mag. 112 gr. TFSP 3800 fps / 3595 flbs
300 Rem. UM 112 gr. TFSP 4100+ fps / 4256+ flbs
30/378 Wby M 160 gr. TFSP 4300+ fps / 6571+ flbs
50 BMG 500 gr. BMTSP 3500+ fps / 16036 flbs
50 BMG Sabot 200 gr. BMTSP 5900+ fps / 13918 flbs

RBCD Performance Plus TPD Ammunition
9mm TPD 	50 gr. 	TPD 	2300+fps / 590+ flbs
38 Special TPD 50 gr. TPD 1850+fps / 418+ flbs
40 S&W TPD 70 gr. TPD 2320+ fps / 790+ flbs
45 ACP TPD 80 gr. TPD 2375+ fps / 1002+ flbs

Dangerous Game / Big Game Ammunition, "Designed for the ultimate hunting experience - flatter trajectory, longer range....." (No bullet weights listed on website)
223 Remington            3800+ fps   1350+ flbs
270 Winchester 3500+ fps 3000+ flbs
308 Winchester 3600+ fps 3500+ flbs
30-06 Springfield 3600+ fps 3500+ flbs
300 Winchester Mag. 3700+ fps 4000+ flbs
300 Remington Ultra Mag. 4000+ fps 4700+ flbs


LeMas, Ltd.
www.lemasltd.com/

NO PRODUCT LISTING AVAILABLE

Cor-Bon
Makers of both the Glaser Safety Slugs and Pow-R-Ball ammunition
www.corbon.com/

Glaser Safety Slugs, "Pre-fragmentation allows maximum energy dispersal upon contact with inanimate objects. In other words it doesn't explode it disintegrates releasing all of it's energy on the target. The Glaser's composite design uses a special thin-wall jacket and precision compressed lead shot core with a soft plastic tip. This patented design provides an optimum balance between penetration and expansion, resulting in controlled disintegration."
               Weight   (FPS)  Energy  Barrel
9mm+P 80 1650 484 5
38 Spec. STD 80 1500 400 6
38 Spec +P 80 1650 484 6
357 Mag. 80 1800 575 6
40 S&W 115 1550 613 4
10mm 115 1650 695 5
44 Magnum 135 1850 1026 6
45 ACP +P 145 1350 587 5
.223 Rem 45 3430 1175 24
7.62X39 130 2300 1527 24
.308 130 3000 2597 24
30-06 130 3100 2774 24

Pow-R-Ball, (Plastic Ball over conventional lead hollow point) "The lead bullet core is shaped into a specially designed cavity. Upon entering the target, the softpoint cap promotes controlled expansion of the bullet. The resulting classic mushroom shape dumps all the available energy into the target. Complete energy transfer promotes superior stopping power."
  9mm(+P)    100gr   1475fps   483ft.lbs
.357mag 100gr 1600fps 568ft.lbs
.38spl (+P) 100gr 1400fps 435ft.lbs
.40S&W 135gr 1325fps 526ft.lbs
10mm 135gr 1400fps 588ft.lbs
.45ACP (+P) 165gr 1225fps 550ft.lbs

Extreme Shock
www.extremeshockusa.com/

NyTrilium Air Freedom Rounds, "Tungsten-Nytrilium Fragmentable Explosive Entry Air Freedom Round. The AFR round disintegrates when it hits hard targets such as many interior walls and airplane skins, but retains astonishing stopping power on organic targets."
.357mag   85gr   1738fps   570ft.lbs
.357SIG 85gr 1340fps 339ft.lbs
.38spl 85gr 1586fps 475ft.lbs
.40 S&W 100gr 1450fps 467ft.lbs
.45 ACP 125gr 1200fps 400ft.lbs
.45 GAP 125gr 1305fps 473ft.lbs
9mm 85gr 1531fps 442ft.lbs

NyTrilium Handgun Rounds (Fang Face & Personal Defense), "...The compressed Tungsten-NyTrilium™ Composite fragments upon impact, leaving a wound channel of catastrophic proportions. The expansive fragmentation characteristics of the ExtremeShock rounds transfer the bullets energy in a far faster time span than conventional hollowpoints. The resulting stopping power is utterly devastating. E-Shock rounds are engineered to expend maximum energy into soft targets, turning the density mass into an expanding rotational cone of NyTrilium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system. "
.32 ACP PDR   60gr    830fps    92ft.lbs
9mm FFR 124gr 1182fps 385ft.lbs
.357mag FFR 124gr 1498fps 168ft.lbs
.38spl FFR 124gr 1185fps 387ft.lbs
.40 S&W FFR 165gr 1125fps 464ft.lbs
10mm FFR 165gr 1209fps 535ft.lbs
.45 ACP FFR 185gr 1150fps 543ft.lbs
.44mag FFR 185gr 1675fps 1152ft.lbs

Nytrilium Handgun Rounds (Silver Savior), " The Silver Savior™ - Exposed Nose Explosive Entry Controlled Penetration Round. It is a non-Hollowpoint version of the Fang Face AntiTerrorist Round for Locales and Countries where Hollowpoints are Prohibited."
9mm     SS  124gr   1182fps   385ft.lbs
.45 ACP SS 185gr 1150fps 543ft.lbs
.44mag SS 185gr 1675fps 1152ft.lbs

NyTrilium Subsonic Ammunition, "The lethality of the Extreme Shock round is beyond description. In the magazine of a capable operator it can be the difference between victory and defeat. Lead-free, with all the advantages of the Advanced NyTrilium composite it is regarded by many as the most effective CQB round on the market today."
.308     SW  150gr    980fps 
5.56mm C 127gr 975fps
5.56mm Sub 127gr 975fps
.50cal SW 675gr 975fps
7.62x39 SW 150gr 946fps


DISCUSSION

In summary, all of the above rounds have the same common traits: Very light weight projectiles pushed to very high velocities (The Extreme Shock Subsonic ammo seems to be an exception; they appear to be "normal" weight bullets loaded to subsonic velocities).

I have thought long and hard about how to present a FAQ on these controverial types of ammunition. The problem is that there is so little available in the way of hard data that being objective is a very difficult proposition. Let me start by saying that I am an adherent of the Dr. Martin Fackler school of wound ballistics, which may be summed up by the phrase "slow, heavy bullets are better than fast, lightweight bullets." This is certainly an oversimplification, but describes the basic premise fairly well. The bullets made by these companies go directly counter to this idea. But why are slow, heavy bullets better?

Please refer to my collected posts of scanned Fackler articles in the ammunition forum for some background reading. I consider myself to be a very logically thinking person, and my beliefs are rooted in the scientific method.

The most important points can be summarized in his article entitled "The Ideal Police Bullet."
Those factors are as follows:
1) The only reliable means of stopping the aggression of a determined adversary is by disrupting vital body structures.
2) The heart and major blood vessels are the vital structures of the torso.
3) Bullets penetrate by crushing the tissue they hit.
4) Ideal penetration depth is between 30cm and 50cm in 10% ordnance gelatin at 4deg C.
5) Provided that they reach the necessary penetration depth, those bullets with the largest expanded diameter are the most effective.

I'll be writing this FAQ and analyzing the information with these criteria in mind. In particular, examine the RBCD webpage, which actually show shots into ballistic gelatin (can't verify it was properly calibrated, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt). There is no ruler provided for scale, but by analyzing the stated size of the block, you can tell that penetration depth is usually well below the required minimun of 12".

Even if you don't believe the "men in white lab coats", ask yourself this: You're in the African plains, being charged by a LARGE ANGRY animal. You have your trusty .375H&H by your side. Would you want a slow, heavy bullet which can penetrate deeply enough, or would you want or lightweight fragmenting bullet? Why is it that bullet companies do not produce the latter in calibers which are used to hunt dangerous game? Why would you want your personal defense ammunition to perform any differently?

The current state of wound ballistics can pretty accurately describe what a bullet can and can't do. It is my firm belief that the companies which produce these wonder-bullets would trumpet their results if they had firm data in hand which supported their marketing claims. That is one of the primary reasons - even without any other kind of information - which would make me distrust the claims of the various manufacturers.

So far, there has been nothing but obfuscation. Extreme Shock has a glitzy website, but does not actively promote their wares on internet discussion boards. RBCD/LeMas has distinguished itself by appearing on several internet discussion boards and taking their advertising a step further. The LeMas "Blended Metal" hoax stands out in particular. After analyzing the composition, it was found to be nothing more than soft lead over a nylon ball. Note that when Stan Bulmer (BMT on Arfcom) is involved in a discussion about his products, you will invariably see the following behavior:
1) Long-winded claims of product superiority using language that makes even mundane terms sound exiting and more ominous. You'll see repeated use of terms such as "dedicated handgun weapon platforms" (a handgun?), "primary weapon mission capability form a secondary weapon platform within the CQB environment" (huh?), "tissue destruction" (it makes a hole).
2) People ask valid questions expecting an answer.
3) BMT conveniently ignore any question which he might not have a good answer for, but will selectively respond to posts which allows him to further his wares.

The LeMas website looks very official, asking you to enter an access code to proceed. The access code is only availble to "authorized Military and Law Enforcement personnel." This further hints that LeMas must be potent stuff indeed. Amusingly, the HTML code of the LeMas webpage shows NO sign of you being able to enter ANY kind of code, nor does it have links to take you anywhere else. Sound like a reputable company to you?

Some questions you might want to ask yourself before buying exotic ammo at it's exorbitant prices:
1) Why aren't large ammunition manufacturers such as Remington, Winchester, Hornady, Nosler, etc. producing this kind of ammo?
2) Why hasn't there been widespread community support for this kind of ammo?
3) Why are the ammunition manufacturers of exotic ammo not more forthcoming with scientific data?

Could itbe that they know that their product doesn't live up to its claims, but that there's a tidy profit to be had by preying on the general public, which is unfamiliar with wound ballistics but responds well to glitzy marketing?


WEBSITE ARTICLES

The following links point to articles which discuss this ammo around the web. Some are more objective than others; you can draw your own conclusions. I've included them here for completeness and to allow you to read some of the discussions and articles which are available.

The first article in particular has pointed out that LeMas ammo appears to be able to detect changes in ambient temperature within the space of a few milliseconds, and is able to either fragment in "warm" tissue, or retain armor piercing capabilities in "cold" media.

Le Mas Ltd. Blended Metal Technology Ammo vs. ADS Transparent Armor: AFJI Video!
by David Crane

Le Mas Ltd./RBCD Armor-Piercing 'Smart' Ammo for Counterterrorism Applications
by David Crane


Next we come to a series of discussions on the website TacticalForums.com. Most notably, Dr. Gary Roberts, a widely renowned wound ballistics expert, is a contributing poster there.

UPDATE: Doctor Roberts forwarded me a ink to an article in which he shows the performance of the Extreme Shock ammo:
Topic: Extreme Shock Handgun Ammo

The article summarizes:

From a Glock 17 the 9 mm 85 gr "Air Freedom" load offered:
Bare Gelatin: vel=1598 f/s, pen=3.9" to 5.5", small fragments
Denim: vel=1596 f/s, pen=14.6", rd=0.42", rl=0.48", rw=56.6 gr
Wall: vel=1587 f/s, pen=6.7", small fragments

From a 1911 the .45 ACP 185 gr "Nytrillium Fragmentable JHP" gave:
Bare Gelatin: vel=1117 f/s, pen=5.5" to 9.0", small fragments
Denim: vel=1120 f/s, pen=9.3" to 12.2", small fragments
Wall: vel=1110 f/s, pen=20+", rd=0.42", rl=0.57, rw=181.1 gr

Looking at the penetration ability reveals performance commensurate with a lightweight/high velocity type of load: Shallow penetration and probably a very large, superficial wound well below the minimum penetration depth requirement of 12".

This is borne out by reading the article from TacticalForums I provided above showing the 9mm Air Freedom round. (Picture credit goes to DocGKR on TacticalForums):


Please compare that to the 12" minimum penetration requirement.


SEM Analysis of the LeMas/RBCD 45acp Bullets on Ammolabs.com
SEM Analysis of the LeMas/RBCD 45acp Bullets on TacticalForums.com
By Doctor Gary K. Roberts

Topic: Best in .45ACP on TacticalForums.com

Topic: The LeMas BMT APLP vs. 6.8 mm Challenge on TacticalForums.com

Here are a few more links to articles which discuss this ammo:
lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=7206084761&m=823107126
www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVSEA/N00164/N0016404R4846/SynopsisR.html
64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000630.html
www.ar15.com./forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=149017&page=1

Here are some excerpts from discussions on AR15.com. "BMT" is Stan Bulmer, one of the LeMas progenitors. If you have access to the archive server, you can access them by searching on the thread title.

"Good discussion on Lemas ammo"

BMT, 6/21/04
Quietshooter, not quite sure what you are talking about. The 9mm and .45acp BMT handgun rounds that Gary Roberts tested in calibrated gelatin penetrated over 16 inches. The live tissue comparative impacts we have conducted as recorded on the Le Mas Ltd. Paradigm CD in both armor and soft tissue destruction performance between the BMT 9mm and .45acp ammunition, and the 9mm Golden Saber and .45acp Golddot bullet were illustrative to say the least. Although the conventional hollow point bullet ammunition did over penetrate the 125-150 pound hogs and the BMT ammunition did not, both heart and lung tissue destruction's and corresponding incapacitation rates were much greater with the CQB ammunition.

We have made many advancements since March 2002, we now have .45acp 85 grain bullet designs that exceed 2475fps when fired from the Glock-21 and will defeat 1/4" steel. Some folks have reported that this ammunition will also perform very effectively as a primary breaching capability from a handgun platform. For applications within the CQB environment the BMT .45acp 85 grain CQB bullet has more energy and armor capability from the Glock-21 than many short barreled 5.56 weapons which utilize conventional bullet designs. Some law enforcement personnel have found that the short barreled HK-53 weapons they use with the 75 grain TAP ammunition will not reliably penetrate soft barriers. The BMT .45acp 85 grain subgun platform ammunition can deliver in excess of 2600fps.

The short barrel burn BMT 5.56 Land Warfare Armor Piercing Limited Penetration ammunition from a 12" 1/7 barrel will deliver 3450fps and will also defeat 3/8" AR-500 steel. I will challenge any 5.56 or 6.8 conventional bullet in the world to match the performance in both armor and live tissue from this weapon platform 0-250 meters. IIRC the new XM-8 weapon system's are manufactured with a 12 inch barrel.

BMT, 6/24/04
1a) The .45acp BMT L/E will penetrate 1/4" stainless steel, as the .357sig, 10mm will, but not AR-400 or any AR-500. The only round handgun round that has penetrated any AR steel was the 9x23 CQB bullet which penetrated only 3/16" AR-500 up close from a subgun length barrel. The fastest handgun bullet we have is a 37 grain 10mm hollow point that does 3500fps from a 15 inch barrel and 3000fps from a 5 inch 1911. 1/4" steel is hard enough to penetrate. There is no handgun duty round I know of that will penetrate even 12 guage steel when fired from a subgun. There are dedicated European AP bullet designs that will not penetrate 1/4" steel, and deliever poor tissue destruction and great over penetration in living tissue. The .45acp bullet discussed here has never over penetrated a live tissue medium unlike conventional hollow point bullet designs whose penetration depths in gelatin were much less with no capablity to penetrate hard armors.

1b) The 9mm and .45acp rounds Gary Roberts tested in gelatin penetrated over 18" into calibarated ballistic gelatin IIRC. Both handgun and rifle bullet fragmentation descriptions into living tissue after armor penetration are dependant on what type of barriers are penetrated and the corresponding available energy of the projectile when impacting tissue. We have not done live tissue handgun fragmentation studies after penetrating either hard or soft armor. We do see fragmentation into live tissue after hard armor (AR-500) penetrations with the rifle rounds and is most prolific with the Land Warfare bullet designs. Both high speed digital film and recovered projectiles into soft armor show the ability of these rounds to penetrate what are
non penetrable armors to non dedicated AP bullet designs intact. Those pictures are available on the website that was mentioned at the start of this thread. I do not know of simple lead bullet constructions that can penetrate such hard armors in tact, yet also provide immediate fragmentation through out live tissue thoracic cavities. Unlike most conventional bullet designs, we believe many of our bullet designs do not soley rely on yawing or destablization to facilitate fragmentation. We believe that the bullets also fragment from stabilized trajectories during penetration for some of our bullet designs which have been optimized to bleed particulant during live tissue penetration. We have this hypothesis based on trapping the rounds during various stages of fragmentation. The lateral and linear dimensions of bullet fragmenation patterns for these same types of rounds can also be viewed on different websites.

There have been 9mm and .45acp ballistic gelatin studies done after penetrating soft barriers for depth of penetration which I was only verbally debriefed on. The performance IIRC was measured at 8-10 inches of penetration when fired from duty T/O handguns. Since we have many bullet designs and performance capabilities based on the specific weapon platforms and bullet design, I do notknow the what the higher performance ammunition would be in the same calibers, but would expect the penetration depths in gelatin to be even greater for specific or dedicated platforms and ammunition. Fragmentation or expansion descriptions are different for most bullet designs after penetration with respect to either hard and soft armor. Some of the CQB bullet designs are optimized for one type of barrier penetration but not another. We have CQB rounds with identical velocities, lvie tissue destructions, and hard armor capability, but are resistant to penetrating soft barriers.

2) The resulting fragmentation patterns or lack there of when impacting cold and warm raw tissue mediums is unique to these bullet designs. Lots of folks with PHD's are trying to figure out why. The rounds operationally perform as advertised. The efforts to show different fragmention patterns when impacting warm and cold tissue, were never advertised than anything other than a comparative impact medium to demonstrate this phonemena, as conventional bullets fragment or expand similarily in either warm or cold tissue, and they also perform similarily in live tissue and ballistic gelatin. No one who has duplicated impacts with the military and l/e rounds into cold and warm raw meat has refuted our observations to my knowledge. Folks may not like the claim that ballistic gelatin will not accurately access or predict the performance in live tissue for these bullet designs, but no ballistic expert who has conducted gelatin only impacts would have predicted the observed effectiveness for these rounds in live tissue. The live tissue comparative impacts we have conducted and provided for folks to view show a dramatic comparison between coventional bullet designs and the BMT rounds.

To discuss the manufacturing process and mechanisms believed to be responsible for the phonomena's observed on a public format would be a vilation of confidentiality and propriatory informtion, as are any exchanges of the same information with any DOD or federal agency who also requests the same types of information on these ammunition designs. So to wrap up the answer to your last question, the rounds perform as advertised, if their observed operational capabilites require ballsitic theory first before observed performance is validated, the dog is wagging the tail.

Not a single person to my knowledge who had fired this ammunition into armor and live tissue with the exception of R&D 50 caliber ammunition, has stated the ammunition did not perform as advertised.

[Personal observation] These posts are indicative of how these ammo manufacturers push their wares. There is repeated use of very technical sounding terms, which don't have much meaning but attempt to impress upon the uneducated masses the superiority of the poster's knowledge. Also note that the claims that their ammo doesn't work in ballistic gelatin, going counter to all scientific knowledge.




"LeMas Elemental analysis to begin"

DocGKR, 12/7/04
Last week, FedEx delivered boxes of current production RBCD/LeMas .223 Urban Warfare and .223 Land Warfare loads, as well as .308 Land Warfare from those who recently received them from Mr. Bulmer.

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

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

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

While the distortions perpetuated by politicians and the media try to obfuscate the issue, the term "assault rifle" has a specific definition--a shoulder fired carbine, using an intermediate cartridge, firing from a closed bolt, capable of using a large capacity detachable magazine, and having select fire capability. Unlike Diane Feinstein and other of her ilk, professionals know and understand what an assault rife is (and is not) and use the term appropriately.

Likewise, don't let LeMas's hyperbole distract you from using or understanding the term, "blended metal", as delineated above, when it is an appropriate and correct description.

Keep in mind, true "blended metal" bullets have fared very well in testing. For example, the JAG approved, 5.56 mm Powell River Laboratories (PRL) 87 gr bullet used a "blended metal" powdered tungsten-tin core with copper jacket, offering outstanding terminal performance and long range accuracy-it's main problems were high cost, limited production capability, and inconsistent quality control. See: Fackler ML: Tungsten Frangible Bullet Wounds in Pig: Exam by Autopsy and X-Ray. Wound Ballistic Review. (4)3:33-34, Spring 2000.

A good description of the differences between true blended metal and conventional construction bullets can be found at: www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVSEA/N00164/N0016404R4846/SynopsisR.html

The description of standard swaged, lead-core, jacketed bullets is outstanding, as it provides a perfect definition of conventional bullet construction:

"Conventional lead core, full metal jacket rifle projectiles, such as those used by the US military, consists of a gilding metal jacket and a lead core. The gilding metal used in the jacket typically consists of cupronickel, cupro-zinc, cupro-tin or in some cases pure copper. The projectile core is not pure lead. The core typically consists of lead mixed with antimony or tin. The hardness and brittleness of the lead core is controlled by the amount of antimony or tin added. The lead used in the core is melted and the desired amount of antimony or tin is added to the molten lead."

The description of "blended metal" projectiles is also very good, as it accurately defines what "blended metal" bullets actually are and how their construction differs from conventional bullets:

"Within the past 10-15 years, many different manufacturers have developed projectiles which utilize cores manufactured with materials other than lead, using processes other than melting. The base metals used in these formulations are usually a very fine powder. Copper, tungsten, and brass are examples of some of the base powdered metals used to date. These powdered metals are mixed with a binder such as tin, zinc, or a polymer such as nylon. Once the powdered metal(s) and binder(s) are mixed, they are pressed or molded into the final projectile core form, and in some cases sintered. The description of a blended metal technology projectile would then be any projectile manufactured from a mix of powdered metals and binders which are blended and then pressed or molded into the desired form or shape."


QS, quoting Pat Rogers. 3/14/05:
"Good grief!
You are the 4th person who has commented on this.
It is a rumor, and totally false!

To put it in perspective. I write only about those subjects that i have intimate knowledge of, and/ or have personal experience with. I am not a ballistics guy- therefore i say very little about ballistics except in generalities.

I am extremely skeptical of any of the claims made from that company, for a great number of reasons.
I have voiced that skepticism several times in different forums.
I have never said anything complimentary about that company, its products or its owners.

I have never written any article about that ammo (or any other ammunition)."


Tactical Forums, Topic: Best in .45 ACP

DocGKR , 5/30/2002 dicussing: RBCD Performance Plus (90/115gr TFSP), Magsafe's 68gr Super SWAT

You both quote velocities and kinetic energy, in what we can only imagine is a futile attempt to justify your juvenile assertions. Unfortunately, as clearly illustrated in the relevant scientific literature for nearly 20 years, neither velocity nor kinetic energy are mechanisms of wounding or physiological incapacitation. So why would Magsafe or RBCD be a good choice as a duty load? Tell us, how deeply do they penetrate, how much tissue is crushed and stretched, how is the terminal performance of these loads after first penetrating an intermediate barrier? How have these loads performed during scientific testing by respected researchers, such as the FBI or U.S. military? Better yet, describe the autopsy results from officer involved shootings using these loads. How have these loads done in actual use with "Super SWAT" teams, like U.S. military units tasked with CT missions, FBI HRT, or LAPD D-Platoon? OOPS, how silly, none of these units use these loads--could they have good reasons why they do not issue the Magsafe or RBCD loads? Probably not, since you two obviously have far more real world operational experience than best tactical units in our nation.............

The RBCD loading has not shown itself to be superior in any way when the testing is performed with established protocols using calibrated ballistic gelatin.The wound profile of the 45 caliber RBCD TFSP created in the gelatin is actually very similar to the profile of the full metal jacketed 9mm NATO loading with a long thin permanent crush cavity.The only remarkable capability of this ammo is that it is highly penetrative of almost all brands of Officer issued safety equipment; this is not an asset to the patrol officer and should in fact be viewed as a significant safety hazard.

You state, "...that is going to dump all it's energy inside you"; energy dump is a meaningless and inane term--it is NOT a physiological mechanism of wounding or incapacitation. Read the body of scientific literature discussing this topic; how deep does the projectile penetrate, how much tissue is crushed, what is the magnitude of tissue stretch--these are some of the most critical parameters in assessing the physiological terminal performance potential of a projectile, yet in your comments, you persist in focusing on irrelevancies and are ignoring what is important. This is distracting and wastes all of our time.


COULD THEY WORK?

A common theme in all these wonder-bullets is their light weight, high velocity design. Taking this into consideration, I won't make a blanket statement that they couldn't work in certain scenarios. For this information, please refer to the Fackler article "A Reconsideration of the Wounding Mechanism of Very High Velocity Projectiles - Importance of Projectile Shape". It can certainly be argued that very high velocity does have a quality all of its own, but the bullets in question don't quite have the velocity required to cause the massive tissue destruction shown in the article, nor do they have the correct shape to be shot out of a gun and be aerodynamic enough. Please read the article and see wehat you think. If you were to shoot someone and have an unobstructed shot at a torso, even the large, superficial wound these rounds would produce would probably be sufficient. There's no doubt that they'd cause some nasty wounds when extremeties are hit. But please don't confuse this with reliable performance when less than ideal factors are taken into account.
Link Posted: 10/18/2005 3:13:51 PM EDT
I am going to be the first to applaud you on this "wonder bullet faq". I think it's a good idea to prove/disprove as many of these as possible, and than make the data/reviews easily accessible. Some of us need a good laugh. Thanks for all the hard work on all your faqs on ARFcom.
Link Posted: 10/19/2005 9:12:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2005 5:11:56 PM EDT by DevL]
I want to see the 127 grain Extreme Shock subsonic .223 round put up against TTI and EBR and subsonic .22lr and I would put my money on the Extreme Shock round having the best terminal effectiveness while being the only round that will cycle your 5.56 weapon reliably.

I dont like the company but would like to see more testing of their subsonic offernings in .223 and .308 vs others.
Link Posted: 10/19/2005 11:07:54 AM EDT
Bump. Updates to list bullet data from manufacturers websites.
Link Posted: 10/19/2005 11:31:41 AM EDT
Excellent post Zhukov, even if it is about rounds I would rarely ever trust for my own personal self defense purposes.

That said, I'm w/ DevL and will look foward to the info on the 127grn. ES.

Much obliged for your efforts,
Mike

tagged!
Link Posted: 10/19/2005 1:21:11 PM EDT
Cool.

One question you forgot to address:



How many times did you bust out laughing while preparing this FAQ?
Link Posted: 10/19/2005 1:24:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Cool.

One question you forgot to address:



How many times did you bust out laughing while preparing this FAQ?



I lost it at "E-Shock rounds are engineered to expend maximum energy into soft targets, turning the density mass into an expanding rotational cone of NyTrilium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system. "

Link Posted: 10/19/2005 3:00:32 PM EDT
The elemental analysis of the blended metal rounds was completed and posted. You may want to include the results in the above article.
Link Posted: 10/19/2005 3:43:26 PM EDT
Z, two things. It's Pat ROGERS, not Roberts....and quoting David Crane as a credible source about anything doesn't help YOUR credibility....
Link Posted: 10/19/2005 3:45:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2005 3:47:13 PM EDT by Zhukov]

Originally Posted By modog:
Z, two things. It's Pat ROGERS, not Roberts....and quoting David Crane as a credible source about anything doesn't help YOUR credibility....



I quoted someone else, so they get the credit for that blunder. Oops.

Second of all - David Crane has certainly not distinguished himself as a rational person. Do you happen to have some more info on this quack? I only presented his stuff in the interest of completeness.
Link Posted: 10/20/2005 6:40:11 AM EDT
Tag
Link Posted: 10/20/2005 10:52:14 AM EDT
I wish someone would just create a webpage or forum sticky thread or SOMETHING that lists the best self-defense ammo for each caliber, with a few simple references or standardized test results to back it up.

It gets so damn confusing...

I've got Federal HST, Winchester Ranger, IMI Black-Talon, Federal Tactical JHP, +P this, +P that, etc, etc, and I am not even sure what the best is to put in my carry gun.

- rem

Link Posted: 10/20/2005 11:13:35 AM EDT
Ben Thomas shoots Hajji in the ass and now everyone wants LeMas products....
Link Posted: 10/20/2005 11:56:50 AM EDT
are some of those uranium enriched?
Link Posted: 10/20/2005 11:58:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By remedy:
I wish someone would just create a webpage or forum sticky thread or SOMETHING that lists the best self-defense ammo for each caliber, with a few simple references or standardized test results to back it up.

It gets so damn confusing...

I've got Federal HST, Winchester Ranger, IMI Black-Talon, Federal Tactical JHP, +P this, +P that, etc, etc, and I am not even sure what the best is to put in my carry gun.

- rem




www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=162042
Link Posted: 10/20/2005 4:17:32 PM EDT
Sweet, thanks man!


Originally Posted By Zhukov:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=162042


Link Posted: 10/20/2005 4:21:51 PM EDT
OK, I had a few minutes to check over some of the websites mentioned. At the "ExtremeShockUSA.com" website, in the testimonials, I found this:

Dear Extreme Shock,
I have been having problems on my farm lately with deer doing large amounts of crop damage. I recently had the opportunity to test your Extreme Shock 357MAG Air Freedon round in my 2" revolver on one of the deer. I have to admit, I was skeptical that this ammo would do everything you promised, but after dropping a large body deer with one shot and opening it up to see the damage don, you have made a believer out of me! This is, without a doubt, the most powerful and safest ammunition on the market because there was no exit out of the deer. Now all my guns are loaded with Extreme Shock ammo!
Chad


This has to be completely fabricated. Someone drops a large deer with a 2" revolver in one shot?? First of all, out of 2" you have a range of like 15 feet or something rediculous short... Gimme a break, this can't be real. $8.00 for 5 rounds of .40cal is a bit on the insane-price side... what a joke!

- rem

Link Posted: 10/20/2005 4:54:04 PM EDT
What puzzles me most is that after years and years of those guys selling ammo they are still in business.
Link Posted: 10/20/2005 5:02:12 PM EDT
excellent job, how long did it take you to put that together?

Link Posted: 10/20/2005 6:03:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keiler:
What puzzles me most is that after years and years of those guys selling ammo they are still in business.



I think the answer is fairly simple. Look at their prices - it doesn't take a large volume of sales to make a decent ammount of money for a small-time operation. The occasional sale they make to the unsuspecting probably suits them just fine. They're probably very happy living on the fringe in relative darkness, so that their products aren't subjected to any unneccesary scrutiny.
Link Posted: 10/20/2005 6:05:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SavageSlackie:
excellent job, how long did it take you to put that together?




Thanks. I've been sitting on it for a looooong time. The most difficult part was trying to find a format to put it in. It's starting to resemble a little more what I had in mind. Unfortunately, I couldn't be unbiased when I wrote it.
Link Posted: 11/16/2005 7:19:59 PM EDT
Bump
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 9:07:31 PM EDT
Tag.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 8:09:53 AM EDT

David Crane has certainly not distinguished himself as a rational person. Do you happen to have some more info on this quack? I only presented his stuff in the interest of completeness.


The old,"This Just In: The USMC Chooses Glock's G37 in .45GAP As The Handgun To Replace All M-9s and M1911s" was just too damned funny. In his next The Defense Review article, he retracted it, but only after some complaints from Glock and the USMC.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 2:59:06 PM EDT
Wow!!! Great job!

Thanks for all the hard work!
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 4:20:07 PM EDT
I like everything about it except for one thing - I don't think the Cor-bon Pow'R'ball belongs there.

The rest of those are basically crappy frangible's. Pow'R'ball is just a way of making a 'round nosed' hollow point bullet, similar to what Federal is doing with it's 'Expanding FMJ'. Basically targeted at guns that won't reliably feel HP's.

I just don't think it belongs.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:20:38 PM EDT
Because of all the confusion and misleading information about ammo is why I stick to Standard production ammo with proven ballistic data. no exotics for my 1911 just plain old 230 FMJ.

Keep up the good work Z
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 1:21:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mdripley:
Because of all the confusion and misleading information about ammo is why I stick to Standard production ammo with proven ballistic data. no exotics for my 1911 just plain old 230 FMJ.

Keep up the good work Z



If you cant decide which is the best you might as well go for the worst!
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 3:28:31 PM EDT
BTT

Link Posted: 1/7/2006 10:16:25 AM EDT
Wisht I read this b/f buying all that RCBD
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 10:32:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zhukov:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Cool.
One question you forgot to address:
How many times did you bust out laughing while preparing this FAQ?



I lost it at "E-Shock rounds are engineered to expend maximum energy into soft targets, turning the density mass into an expanding rotational cone of NyTrilium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system. "



Sounds like something straight from BMT.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 1:26:07 PM EDT
Thanks Z!!!!!

Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:38:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:04:32 AM EDT
I know most , or atleast alot of people don't believe in the whole frangible ammo idea. But after hearing the story of a person i know having to defend himself with his 45 and a glasier saftey slug..........they sound pretty good , not a maricle round , but a good round.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 7:38:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
I know most , or atleast alot of people don't believe in the whole frangible ammo idea. But after hearing the story of a person i know having to defend himself with his 45 and a glasier saftey slug..........they sound pretty good , not a maricle round , but a good round.



Is the "glasier" one of those ice-bullet things? Shoot him in the ass and his innards are blown out through the top of his head and no evidence is left because the bullet melts?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 9:26:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:18:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Ben Thomas shoots Hajji in the ass and now everyone wants LeMas products....



Ben Thomas "tore him a new one..."
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 2:42:24 AM EDT
So what did DocGKR find? Was the BMT actually blended metal or not? i looked around and cant seem to find the answer?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:28:45 PM EDT
Excellent information, Zhukov.

Thanks.
Top Top