Here are some posts from the thread...
This is from Dr. Gary K Roberts
http://www.lemasltd.com/1Shot/bDrGKrebuttal.htm
For LeMas’s comments, please note the link above. We were asked to assess RBCD ammunition for several agencies. At his insistence, Mr. Bulmer of LeMas, Inc--the RBCD military and law enforcement distributor--was present during our testing for that report. We discussed the physiology of wounds and showed him the characteristics of the RBCD projectiles compared to other bullets we shot into the gelatin. We explained everything to him and hid nothing. He unexpectedly took all the remaining unfired RBCD ammunition from the test with him, so no further testing has occurred with that exact ammo.
Several weeks later and without consulting us, RBCD distributed a "refutation" of our testing. I had not seen this supposed refutation of our testing of RBCD ammunition, until a colleague at another facility sending it to me. Perhaps Mr. Bulmer "forgot" to send it to us. I am somewhat perplexed by their stance, as they asked us not to reveal the test results to anyone except the two dozen or so military and law enforcement recipients of our initial report. As part of their rebuttal, Mr. Bulmer produced an amateur video showing him shooting 4-8 lbs "rump roasts" and hams with RBCD ammunition. His "tests" were lacking any scientific methodology. To start with, I am not aware of any correlation with living tissue of shots into cold "rump roasts", cured hams, and other deli meat; no calibration reference was noted in Mr. Bulmer's video. Shooting ANY test media that has not been shown to have a correlation with living tissue is useless in trying to assess a projectile’s effects on a human adversary. The small mass of the meat samples may also be problematic, in a manner similar to when Dr. Fackler showed the fallacy of the Swedes shooting miniature-pigs rather than the 100-200 lbs hogs used in U.S. military testing. Shooting small animals with high velocity varmint cartridges may elicit a dramatic and explosive terminal effect, but it does not provide relevant data on what will happen when shooting a human threat. In addition, there was no witness panel to assess whether any fragments exited the meat, there was no backstop to recover exiting projectile pieces, the shots were not chronographed, the shot meat was not x-rayed to assess the fragmentation pattern, the wound tracks were not accurately measured, the projectiles were not recovered and their physical parameters measured.
LeMas claims that RBCD ammunition cannot be accurately tested in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin, yet states inelastic clay does accurately replicate wounds. This by itself is somewhat suspicious, since EVERY penetrating projectile tested to date by every reputable scientific facility has been shown to produce nearly identical wounds in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin as in living tissue. We have tested a couple of different RBCD designs, some which fragment dramatically with only shallow penetration and others which do not fragment and act like a FMJ with deep penetration. Other test facilities have reported the same results as we noted. We asked LeMas to send additional ammunition samples so we can scientifically shoot 100-200 lbs pigs and assess the veracity of their claims, however, we have yet to see the ammunition.
Instead, few months later, LeMas distributed a report of a deer killed by the RBCD .223 "State Department" load. Unfortunately, the report fails to describe the weight and thickness of the animal, the depth of penetration, and there are no x-rays to illustrate the pattern and extent of fragmentation. When Mr. Bulmer visited us, we emphasized the need for a scale to be included in all photos and that an accurate description of the wound track and analysis of the recovered projectile are all important factors in assessing wounding effects. This advice is continually ignored in RBCD advertising hype. All we have is a picture of shredded meat, similar to what any other fragmenting .223/5.56 mm bullet would produce. Likewise, their pictures of shots into ordnance gelatin contain no scale and do not appear to have been calibrated—no BB’s are visible and no calibration data is provided. Without accurate measurements, I am not even sure if the wound shown in the deer photo was significantly different than the RBCD .223 wound profile illustrated in our initial memo (which is very similar to other .223/5.56 mm 50-60 gr polymer tip ammo). Interestingly, we have not been able to find any evidence that State Department has ever used or issued this RBCD “State Department†load…of course, this could be another of Mr. Bulmer’s statements of questionable veracity, similar to his fallacious claim that the FBI used RBCD ammo for, "Black Ops, Cross-Border" operations. Other "reports" by LeMas of pig hunting have similar flaws.
To truly assess living tissue performance, we would need to shoot projectiles from the SAME lot into both living tissue and gelatin and assess the difference. Most easily, that means shooting 60-80 lbs blocks of gelatin and measuring ALL the terminal performance parameters; then taking the EXACT same ammunition and immediately shooting a large animal, like a 200 lbs hog through the large muscles of the thighs (i.e. no bone fragments) and performing the same analysis, including x-raying the shot animals from both anterior and lateral views, exploring the wounds and measuring the depth of bullet penetration and extent of tissue damage, as well as recording full measurements on the recovered bullets. A comparison against current bullets, such as the JAG approved OTM's, as well as the better performing LE polymer tip loads would also be necessary. As mentioned above, we have offered to do this, but Mr. Bulmer has declined.
Perhaps this is a problem with semantics, but RBCD ammunition FRAGMENTS; despite their claims, it cannot be considered truly frangible, as it does not completely disintegrate into dust against steel plate or other material--the large plastic/nylon center portion always remains intact, along with some larger metal fragments. In addition, because the RBCD plastic/nylon center portion is radiolucent (is not visible on x-ray) on all the bullets we have examined to date, it may be unlawful/illegal for U.S. military units to use, as the U.S. is bound by international treaty expressly forbidding munitions with radiolucent components—the Chief of the International Law Branch, Office of the Army JAG, can provide much greater insight into this area.
Another problem area--the RBCD ammo boxes we have seen to date do not have lot #'s or product ID codes, which makes it difficult to compare results from different test facilities. There is no doubt that RBCD can kill, like any other penetrating projectile. Just like many other light weight, high velocity projectiles, RBCD demonstrates an ability to perforate armor. The problems revolve around LeMas's hyperbole, lack of science, and unethical actions.
RBCD is clearly capable of piercing armor--this is an advantage in some circumstances, however, just getting through the armor is not enough; what a projectile does in tissue after perforating the armor is what determines incapacitation. When Mr. Bulmer visited us, we recommended that RBCD concentrate on this area of their product's performance.
So far, RBCD has made extraordinary claims regarding their bullets terminal performance, yet has offered NO proof. LeMas has claimed their ammunition is being used by many agencies around the world, yet no autopsy results and no AAR’s have been produced to verify their claims. So far, LeMas has only shot blocks of clay, deli meat, as well as a couple of unrepeatable and inaccurately documented animal hunts. RBCD has performed NONE of the necessary measurements to verify their statements--doesn't this seem unusual? Perhaps RBCD ammunition is indeed completely unique and truly cannot be tested in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin—but we will never know for sure, until properly conducted, repeatable scientific measurements comparing RBCD in both calibrated ordnance gelatin and appropriately sized living animal tissue are performed. This whole controversy could be laid to rest with some decent research. NSWC Crane, Picatinny Arsenal, Dr. Martin Fackler, Duncan McPherson, Luke Haag, Kramer Powley and Dean Dahlstrom at RCMP, FBI, or our group could easily perform this testing, but it appears LeMas doesn't want any scientifically accurate data to be gathered. Instead, they use exciting sounding pseudo-scientific terms like, "dramatic micro-fragmentation radial bullet deployment" and offer dramatic, but ultimately meaningless “tests†or RBCD ammunition that have no scientific basis and ZERO real-world meaning.
Remember, we do not care WHAT brand or type of ammo we shoot, as long as it is the BEST we can legally use. RBCD may be able to make great ammo--personally, I would be thrilled if it could provide a substantial improvement over what we are currently using. I just want to see LeMas’s claims independently verified in a precise, scientific manner. Let's see some verifiable facts to back up the hype.
And Stan Bulmer's reply
In response to the posting by Gary Roberts,
My name is Stan Bulmer. I am the part of Le Mas Ltd. that Gary Roberts most often refers to. I
am also the one who dares to challenge the sanctity of his personal relationship with 10%
ballistic gelatin as it would relate to Blended Metal Technology ammunition impacts.
When I first explained to Mr. Roberts in March of 2002, that the Blended Metal ammunition would deploy differently into living tissue
than would be observed into ballistic gelatin, he explained to me such an occurance was impossible. He continues to stake his professinal reputation on that statement, and many other inacurracies concerning both our ammunition and myself.
I don't assume that it is my place to post he said, she said, clutter to the forum here, but
what Mr. Roberts asserts here is not new, and replete with hyperbole and BS. His information about these bullet designs is incomplete and outdated. Mr. Roberts has told these same stories so many times that he cannot remember fact from fiction.
Mr. Roberts has in fact not requested
one single round of ammunition for testing since March 2002 from either myself or Le Mas Ltd.
We provide to any military command, and law enforcement agency digital recordings of our testing and observations with respect to impacts into both armor and real tissue mediums. I am happy to provide any and all information as to what impact these technologies may have for these communities.
The size and descriptions of the non gelatin impact mediums are in fact bigger than a squirrel, and are all in excess of 150 pounds for both handgun and rifle ammunition.
APLP
