Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/8/2003 5:17:16 AM EDT
And yet another e-mail from Fackler to my friend.... FWIW

Peter,

Have gotten several more inquiries on this blended-metal tech crap. For the convenience of all, I copied the text of my critique of the blended-metal technology bullets which (appeared on pages 42-43 in the last Wound Ballistics Review, Vol 5 # 2) into my email replies.

Thought you might find it useful to have a copy of it in digital format: have copied it below.
Marty

BLENDED-METAL TECHNOLOGY BULLETS: MORE LIGHT, FAST, MYSTERIOUS AND EXPENSIVE BULLETS TO IMPRESS THE FIREARM ILLITERATE WITH IRRATIONAL CLAIMS AND SHOTS INTO CLAY by Martin L. Fackler, MD

Several of our readers called to my attention an article in the Armed Forces Journal International (August 2001, 58&60). Under the heading of "New technologies" I found the article by John G. Roos entitled "‘Meteor’ Round ‘Blended-Metal-Technology’ Bullets Live Up to Hard Hitting Claims."

I found reading this article a bit depressing. This is the sixth time in the past two decades that I recall a new "magic" projectile having arrived, with great fanfare and outlandish claims, to deceive the firearm illiterate. Before reading the article, I predicted that these projectiles would be a very lightweight (they were: 60 gr. in 9 mm Parabellum, 77 gr. in 40 S&W, 90 gr. in 45 ACP) and shot at abnormally high velocities (they were: 2000 to 2150 ft/s at the muzzle) – they always are. And they would be shot into clay, as they usually are (and were in this case), to most graphically preserve their large temporary cavities. These cavities always impress those who lack understanding of wound ballistics.

It was disappointing to see the gullibility of those who should know better: shouldn’t a writer for Armed Forces Journal International express some skepticism at: "Tests of the unique ammunition have demonstrated that when a BMT round strikes soft tissue in a chest cavity, the resulting hydrostatic shock is so severe it destroys brain tissue mass…." A handgun bullet in the chest causing destruction of brain tissue? not only have I never seen that from a handgun bullet, I have never seen it – or any valid reports of it – from even the highest powered rifle wounds of the chest. Yet the writer apparently swallows it all, without so much as a doubt.

The article reported a demonstration at Blackwater Training Center in Moyock, NC. The observers purportedly included two officers from the US Special Operations Command, three weapons specialists from the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, three members of the US Army Marksmanship Unit, a weapons engineer from the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, IN, and a former member of the FBI’s Hostage-Rescue Team.

Shots were fired into "seven-inch blocks of ceramic clay." Anybody who understands the rudiments of bullet testing is well aware that "tests" done using clay are an unmistakeable sign that the sellers of whatever bullet is being tested are either frauds or incredibly stupid. Clay has twice the density of living soft tissue, and it is inelastic – the temporary cavity remains in fully expanded position. This misleads the unwary or gullible about the effect on living tissue, most of which is elastic and absorbs the temporary cavity stretch of handguns bullets and suffers little or no damage from it. Clay’s increased density causes expansion in many soft-point and hollow-point handgun bullets that do not expand in living tissue. The last time I saw a major bullet manufacturer try to mislead purchasers by using clay was in 1987, when the Federal Ammunition Co. had a photograph of a large cavity in a clay block on the cover of its Law Enforcement ammunition advertising brochure. The expanded bullets they showed were expanded to far greater diameters than the same bullets when tested in 10% ordnance gelatin, which produces the same expansion seen in identical bullets recovered at autopsy (or in the operating room) from human bodies.

History keeps repeating itself in the "magic bullet" arena. In the 1970s we had the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and its infamous Relative Incapacitation Index (RII). They rated handguns on the size of temporary cavity the bullet generated. They used the not only unproved, but clearly disproven, theory that the incapacitation a bullet causes in the human body is proportional to the diameter of the temporary cavity it produces. It took two FBI agents killed and five badly wounded, in the "Miami Shootout" of 1986 to correct that fallacy and recognize that the fatal flaw with all the "large-temporary-cavity" handgun bullets was insufficient penetration depth to reliably reach and disrupt vital body structures.

Despite undeniable documentation proving it wrong, the "light-bullet-high-velocity" fallacy reappears every few years. The Glaser Safety Slug, darling of the NIJ, lost its popularity as the RII was relegated to the trash heap. But then came the "THV" (from France, the initials are for very high velocity in French), then the "Thunderzapper," then the two candidates for the "advanced combat rifle" (that shot individual flechettes at about 4000 ft/s), and finally, in 1995, the "Rhino Bullet" (see Wound Ballistics Review V2 #1, 7-8). All have now joined the RII in the "failed frauds" corner of history’s trash heap. The BMT bullets will join them before long.

At the end of the article, Roos implied that all of the "distinguished evaluators" who saw the demonstration were "impressed." If so, that is a very sad commentary on their competence in bullet testing – and indicates a serious need for training in wound ballistics for those whose jobs deal with the use of lethal force.

The lesson here is very simple: those who use clay as a "test" medium to demonstrate bullet effects are purveyors of nonsense. Whether they are frauds or just stupid really needn’t concern us – the effect is the same in either case. Such nonsense needs to be exposed to protect the firearm illiterate. I believe that those who have the knowledge to expose such nonsense have a duty to do so. Yes, it is distasteful to speak out against such things. It is easy to say nothing – this is one reason that the US is becoming a paradise for frauds. Their chances of being exposed are very small when knowledgeable people remain silent.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:58:52 AM EDT
Sure, but don't forget, the BMT bullet wasn't just tested in clay - it also killed warm pot roasts, thereby proving its effectiveness. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 8:17:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 10:17:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: eswanson, Have you ever been attacked by a horde of pot roasts? Well, I have, and let me tell you, when those bad boys come after you, you want to be carrying the BEST ammo for the job! I'll take those blended metal bullets every time! My life is worth more than two dozen pot roasts! [}:)] -Troy
View Quote
No, but back in the day I was set upon by a gang of roving ham shanks. Sadly, the BMT bullets didn't work, I think because it was too cold out, and I had to transition to my secondary weapon, a 1911 loaded with Glaser safety slugs. They made quick work of the offending meats.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 3:34:07 PM EDT
i guess you guys never encountered a pissed off tuna steak, eh? i'll tell you what. nothing short of silver bullets will put those things down. one-shot stops, every time. the bullet usually enters the front, and then magically exits the back, splattering fish everywhere, to my enjoyment. the truly amazing part, though, was that after having been shot by my magical bullets, it was COOKED, and ready to eat!
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 10:29:07 PM EDT
I never met a pot roast that couldn't use a little more tenderizing. Seems a little radical a method to use when the Parson comes a callin though.
Link Posted: 12/11/2003 3:57:24 AM EDT
I personaly find these claims hard to believe, but there are several true operators that won't leave the chopper/sub w/out it. Look on SOCNET.com & Warrior for first hand discussion on these rounds. So, what would I use for varmints(woodchucks) w/ .308. 110gr or is it just to large of a caliber? -Justin
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 11:34:25 AM EDT
socnet.com has no ammo related info
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 12:25:08 PM EDT
It is in the Firearm/knives forum, under "hot ammo". http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=3ad4f2cdf545440fb4e7b575f80931b0&threadid=29807
Top Top