That's flat out wierd.  Was the tested 200 GD the +P variant?  I don't understand how a slower bullet of identical construction can outexpand a faster one.

They aren't of identical construction if you mean the 200 v. the 230.

Yes, 200 vs 230, both Gold Dot.  How do they differ?

What he said.  :)

I have seen live footage of a .45acp 90 grain L/E only bullet design impact the thoracic cavity of a hog that weighed 152 pounds. The bullet passed between the ribs but broke three ribs as it passed between. The top of the heart complex was destroyed, and about a 3.0 inch diameter hole was created through both the onside and offside lung. The center of the bullet impacted and penetrated an offside rib and was contained by the hide on the opposite side of the hog.

That outside part of the bullet that radially deployed as a frangible as it passed through the soft tissue of the lungs shredded the lung tissue with miro fragments with an approximate diameter of 6 inches.

This animal was dead in less than 12 seconds. The amount of external blood loss through the entrance wound for the first 4 seconds would have closely approximated about a 1/2 inch pvc pipe fluid flow at about 10psi.

This round was shot out of a Glock 21 at a muzzle velocity of 2100fps from a distance of 10 yards. The bullet will penetrate 1/8" stainless steel at this distance, and though it did not overpenetrate this animal, it will defeat most 3A level soft body armors.

This particular bullet design would not perform to acceptable 36 degree ballistic gelatin testing protocol standards, yet it will outperform every conventional hollow point bullet desgin that I have seen impact live tissue mediums.

This same type of round was also shot into the cranial structure of a 190 pound hog without over penetration, yet the contained energy of the bullet deployment dispaced both eye balls, and fractured most of the hard bone structures in the skull.

I do not not know of any other .45acp bullet design at any weight, that will defeat both hard and soft armors, yet provide such traumatic soft tissue destruction with little over penetration potential in soft tissue.

This is a fascinating and illuminating topic.  I personally have a Browning HiPower in 40S&W that I keep 155 grn HydraShoks in (because they are the most accurate round I have fired through that very reliable pistol).  But if I were to own a .45, I think I would go with a 230 JHP from one of the premium lines under the theory that if it doesn't expand it will poke a nearly half inch hole all the way through the bad guy.

A 2100 fps 90gr .45 ACP that will defeat IIIA body armor?  I don't believe it.  Can you give a resource for this data?

OK.  If I understand this correctly, a heavier/slower bullet stands a better chance of expanding than a lighter/faster one, all else being equal.  Then why does a .223 40gr ballistic tip round fragment more easily than a 60gr ballistic tip round?  Or am I confusing expansion dynamics with frag dynamics?

Who made that bullet?

Let me guess... would this be the .45 ACP produced by RBCD?  If so I'm not particularly impressed by it's design or terminal performance in REAL testing- though it wins highest marks for marketing hype and for the shooting of uncalibrated, defenseless deli meats.



Sounds about right for most ammo.  I'm slightly skeptical at the 3.0 inch measurement, but photographs could change my mind there.



This sentence doesn't make much sense.  It sounds very scientific though!  Miro[sic] fragments!  Soft tissue of the lungs! (By contrast, is there hard tissue in the lungs?)  "Deployed as a frangible" - It's like a bullet designed by the JPL!  Very scientific!  (Well, except for the phrase "that outside part."  That sounds sorta... well, 8th grade).  Could you translate the sentence into real English?



A.  12 seconds is a long time in a gunfight and I'm not at all certain it has anything to do with how said round might affect a human.
B.  [quiz]What exactly is the flow of fluid simulating the density and viscosity properties of blood from 1/2 inch pvc pipe at 10 psi?  Bonus points if you can identify the density and viscosity of blood.  Bonus points if you can make a guess at how the flow would be changed if the pipe were copper?  More bonus points if you can identify why this isn't relevant to terminal performance.[/quiz]



Is this an average?  What conditions were experienced?  How many shots were taken?  What's the Mean/Median/SD of this data?  Do you have the raw data?  Who performed this testing?  What chrono was used?



And do what afterwards?  Penetration is not enough.  Performance in tissue after defeating armor is what counts.  (Particularly when you are dealing with bad guys who like to hide in stainless steel dumpsters- i.e. the dreaded Alley Zombie.  Don't laugh- they are a real threat in New York.  My cousin saw one once by 95th and... oh nevermind).



Perhaps, but:

A.  What evidence do you have for this assertion.
B.  What performance in tissue can you show after encounters with NIJ Level IIIa armor?



A "magic" bullet that knows the difference between gel and tissue then?  Do you have a citation to the spellbook that was used to bewitch the rounds?  Does Buffy the Vampire Slayer know about this?  Sunnydale might be in for another tough week!  She's pretty smart though.  She'll find the spellbook and fix those magic bullets.  I hope she still makes the cheerleading squad though.  You know, it's tough being the slayer and trying to lead a normal social life... but I digress.



I think you have to get out more and see more hollow point designs in real testing.



Fine, but how does it do on milk jugs filled with cream soda?  Eh?  What about milk jugs filled with GENERIC cream soda instead of A&W cream soda?  (In other words, what's the relevance here?)



I don't know of [b]any[/b] bullet at all that will perform as described.  Not even the 90 grain .45 ACP produced by RBCD with it's cute little plastic insert.  ;)

Perhaps now is the time to disclose to the rest of the forum your personal/financial interest in this round and RBCD, yes?  Or did you think we'd rather enjoy the wool over our eyes enough not to mind?

I rely on coues deer results.  I've taken
them with Georgia Arms Shear Power 230gr
Gold dots, Corbon 200 and 230 +P's, Triton
230, Golden Sabre 230 and 185 +P's, Hydra-
Shoks, and my newest test will be the
Taurus 185gr with the Barnes X copper JHP.
I think if Taurus/Barnes/PMC would crank
this round up to +P it would be quite rude.
I am going to pull the bullets and load
them up to .45 Super (tactical) specs using
.45 Super brass and see what happens.  

My favorite for accuracy/reliability and
stopping whap would probably go to the
Golden Sabre 185+P.

I like the idea of the Ranger Talon, but
haven't tried it yet.  I have used the
original Black Talon in .44 Mag on a poor
unfortunate javelina.  Yuck! Almost didn't
have to clean 'em-turned him inside out
and the bullet (which went thru and thru,
found in a barrel cactus) opened like it
was right out of their ad!  Still have it,
still really sharp too.

I have used .40 Super (HK USP compact-yes,
compact!) on javelina with very good results
nearly as good as the .44 Mag.  I know
this is off track, just thought I'd throw
it in.

So...does this mean that you'll have your resellers stop playing those videos of clay blocks being shot by your ammo?

I sure hope not, because watching one of those videos, and your ammo's uncanny ability to destroy clay, saved my life.

You see...

Just last month, a pair of evil outlaws came knocking on my door.

[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=6016[/img]

They had gotten wind of me having the key to their evil plans... The ability to create more of their evil minions in their bid to take over the planet.

[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=6020[/img]

This is where I thank God for the advent of this incredible ammo, and it's clay destroying powers.  I backed off from the door, and ran for my USP 9mm.  I dumped the mag of the terribly useless Winchester Ranger 127gr +p+ ammo, and slammed home a magazine filled with RBCD ammunition.  Then I racked the slide and went to work on those horrid creatures of doom!

[b]BLAM!  BLAM![/b]

That's all it took, and it was over as quickly as it started.  The lifeless remains of my attacker lay just iniside my peace loving home.

If you have a weak stomach, please turn back now.

[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=6019[/img]

Thank you for your otherwise useless ammo.  It truly saved my life.

Oh man, I dont know what to say. That was either really, really bad, or really, really good. Either way, I dont think anyone can deny that it was really, really funny!

You guys are just too quick for me. If you send me an e-mail I will send live video impacts of what I have described. You have already heard what these rounds do with respect to gelatin impacts, so you can be the judge as to the accuracy of predictions as to how these rounds will deploy into live tissue.

The footage that is recorded is pretty much in real time from two different camera's. If you doubt the validity of the recordings perhaps we can arrange for a live in person demonstration with respecdt to those types of tissue mediums. medium. I did not think it appropriate to send impact and necropsy pictures to the forum.

I did not think that there was too much hyperbole actually in my post. I was actually under the illusion that performance in live tissue was the gold standard from which bullet designs and performance were measured. I was under the impression that real terminal performance was in fact measured in real living tissue. I can provide some of that data if you care to view it for its real world performance at least with respect to live tissue destruction deployment characteristics.

Really enjoyed the gumby movie.

Based upon the advice of Tatjana, Brou and Troy (I have come to trust their advice as solid, verifiable logic and reason), I am going with the Winchester 230 gr Ranger if I can locate it. The next choice will be the 230 gr Gold Dot as it looks pretty darn impressive as well. I appreciate and value all other opinions as well though. I just don't wanna bet my life on some ammo types such as Glaser, Mag-Safe and some of the other underpenetrating loads.

And what's up with those clay figures Brou? LOL. They sure looked hostile enough to justify a SD shooting IMHO!

Also, I am not so sure that I would rely too heavily on animals as a test medium. Animals such as deer and goats may give a good idea of how a bullet will perform, but then again it may not. There is an obvious difference between say a rabbit, a coyote, a deer, an elk, a moose, etc. Some are thin skinned, while some have thick skin and heavy muscle. Each requires it own special bullet requirements to be optimum. I was most interested in ammo that's proven to work on two-legged critters! That seems to be Ranger or Gold Dot, 230 grain versions.

Thanks to all who replied!

-Charging Handle

That's cause we actually pay attention.  And some of us aren't even guys!



I know what your firm's rounds do in gel.  Not much.  The .45 looks about like what I'd expect from an average performing 9mm round.  There are much better, without a doubt.  Live video "impacts" aren't going to tell me or anyone else much- perhaps something about the marksmanship of the shooter.  I know why you fixate on them however.  Consider your post elsewhere on these forums:



Putting aside for a moment the years, nay, decades of legitimate research showing the accuracy of calibrated gel as a testing medium for terminal performance and assuming for the sake of argument (which I do with no small amount of personal pain) that shots into "real tissue" are a good metric, let's see what you're offering here:



It's not appropriate, but not because worse hasn't been posted here but because it won't tell us anything.  Shooting into a side of beef or pork doesn't give us any indication of terminal performance.  Let's assume for just a second that you had some way to measure the consistency of a side of beef.  That you patented this method, that it was a legitimate and mostly accurate measurement.  Shooting just one side of beef and observing it with the naked eye isn't going to tell me anything.  Where are the high speed x-rays to tell me what the temporary cavity/permanent cavity looks like?  Where are the measurements of depth and cavity size?  Where are the competing loads fired into the same beef to show us that your round is superior?

Of course, that's not what you are interested in showing.  What you are interested in showing is a lot of sliced meat because that's more impressive than the average performance your rounds exhibited in gel.  So?  Sliced meat belongs at the deli counter.  All that tells me is that I don't want that meat going into my hamburger.

Don't embarrass yourself by inviting me to an in person demonstration.  I won't sign an NDA and unless you're employing good controlled experiments you're wasting your time and mine.

Thinking argumendo again for a bit, I suppose you could get closer to "live tissue" and away from gel by getting a live human volunteer.  Even then you wouldn't have enough samples for us to say anything about the performance of the round.  You'd have to get at least 20-30.  Even then you'd have to build a time machine and head to 1930s Berlin to conduct them.

This is why we use gel.  But then, why am I telling you this?  You think Gel is ok, why else would it be plastered all over your website to show the exceptional performance of your rounds.  Well, sorta, since there's no scale or measurements to give us even a hint of what the real depths and cavity sizes are- nor any data on conditions or velocity- nor any description of the gel preperation.  Hey, come to think of it, are those standard FBI sized gel blocks?  I don't see any calibration BBs you know...



You're past your quota on hyperbole even without this post.  It's my understanding that your firm has claimed in past that the FBI, the State Department Security Forces (I assume this is intended to mean the contractors that provide protective services) and the U.S. Armed Forces (some undefined Special Forces group as I recall) uses your ammo.  None of these organizations seem to want to admit to using your product- quite the reverse.  Not to mention your rounds contain material that is transparent to X-Ray, and therefore, if I'm not in error, would be illegal and a violation of treaty for the U.S. Armed Forces to adopt.  Perhaps I've misunderstood the situation though?  Would you like to comment or correct my impressions, or shall we leave it there?  I understand there were also some bribery accusations involving some Marines?  Am I mistaken there?  I'm willing to be corrected if I am.



The gold standard is the incapacitating ability of a given round and the reliability of that ability- to incapacitate every time, when it counts.  No round I've encountered under 20mm meets this high standard, but we try to get close.  Your rounds leave much to be desired, even among their peers.  Except perhaps in the deli department.  If they can't do it in the controlled environment of gel, how the hell are they going to do it in the uncontrolled environment of the real world?



The ease with which you interchange "real world performance," "real terminal performance," "real living tissue," and "live tissue destruction deployment" are a good indicator of the problem.  I don't think you really know the meaning of any of these.  I understand that you walked away from the chance to have an independent third party conduct more tests on live hogs to validate some of your claims.  If shooting pork is so useful, why did you decline to permit that experiment?

See, the rejection of the scientific method and the adoption of these clever but meaningless phrases leads us down the path of Dark Ages ignorance- that particular class of insanity where we believe that repeating the same experiment the same way will give us differing results.  This is the realm of the snake oil and health tonic peddler.  The realm where nothing can be disproven- where the experiment can be recast in a fashion favorable to the marketing guru, where wisdom is ignorance or heresy and the neatest special effects win the day.  This is the realm that your firm appears to want to reside in.  To wit:



Brou did a good job laughing at your clay experiments.  Clay as a ballistic research tool has been outdated for decades.  It's not elastic and tends to exaggerate the terminal effects of rounds used against it.  I would want it if Gumby ever attacked me though, that's for sure.  Still, given what we seem to know about your firm it's not surprising that it shows up over and over in your promotional videos.  This is an outstanding way to draw a crowd at a low end gun show.  "Look 'ma.  Dey blow'd up stuff!"  Looks nice on video.  So what?

What's next?  A Banjo with each purchase?  Free kettle corn perhaps?

[i]My views are my own.  Want to change them?  Show me some evidence.[/i]

It doesn't help your case that you snuck in here and attempted to conceal your association with the firm that manufactures/distributes these rounds.  For example:



Sure, you're not lying, I bet you have seen it.  You don't mention your role in that video though.  You don't mention that your firm distributes the round.  You certainly don't sign your name.  You just talk about its spectacular performance and then hope we will ask about this mystery round.  You've done this before on AR15.com too.  To wit:



Well, at least here you mention that you are "interested."

Ignoring for a moment that frangible bullets should break up when they hit AR-500 steel... let me guess... these are also rounds made by/distributed by your firm?

Why not just disclose that instead of trying to snake us all into being interested?

MarcHall;

Which 40 Super ammo were you using?

I have about 700 rounds of the 165 JHP Hi-Vel that I got on the cheap along with 1000 other rounds of 40 Super.  The 165 stuff tumbles and makes a nice sideways keyhole in the target for me. (Out of a Jarvis barrel Glock 21)

BTW the 135 Quick shok stuff is awesome! (haven't experimented with any reactive targets though)

Rob96 asked about the Pow-R-Ball and I was hoping to post the question here myself.

As of late there is little feedback from the streets as far as I have heard,and all that is out there is the results from the Gelatin.

Fed. EFMJ is another matter,as it is a different concept entirely.

Anybody got any scoop?

For the record,I carry Speer Gold dot 230's cuz I'm stuck in the 230gr frame of mind and can't shake it.

Thanks.
S-28

Tatjana,

Here we go, I will try to respond to much of what you said, at least that which I think is appropriate in this forum. If after I have responded, you still desire for me to respond about that which might
not be appropriate, we will see.

I will be honest, that I almost do not know where to start. You obviously possess a quick mind and even sharper tongue, and I honestly do not consider myself your match for words, but thank you for letting me know of your gender. I assume that your closing signature about
“…no secret so close as that between rider and horse”, applies also to
both genders of rider.

My name is Stan Bulmer, on paper I guess that I am either the VP of
Le Mas Ltd., or the president of marketing and sales. You already knew my name from Gary Roberts who provided you much of your information about the bullet technologies that we market, but since you deemed it important for me to let those who view and provide input to this forum to know my name, I am happy to do so.  I think that officially my title is either VP of Le Mas Ltd., or president of marketing and sales. There are pretty much only three of us in our company, so basically you can take your pick.  I am a former Marine Aviator, and a current commercial airline pilot. I have no credentials to speak of that would impress anyone.

My company Le Mas Ltd., is the exclusive distributor for the L/E and Military bullet designs and technolgoies that RBCD manufactures out of San Antonio, Texas.  

Le Mas Ltd. has very few pictures of a clay block impacts on our website, and no pictures of ballistic gelatin impacts. You can view that information on www.lemasltd.com.

But I still enjoyed the hell out of the gumby thing. And I have to be honest that it really is a whole lot of fun to shoot those blocks of clay. I have not yet met a person who did not get the biggest damn smile on their face when they pulled the trigger. I am not sure what real science that clay block impacts provides except that these particular frangible bullet designs penetrate steel but only over penetrate the blocks when they are on the back side of steel armor. Like raw meat or steel impacts, shooting clay blocks does provide some contrast between different bullet design capabilities.

Our website pretty much only has pictures of raw meat impacts cooled to different temperatures, and live tissue impacts of legally harvested deer. We also provide some white paper briefing points that we think are valid based on these technologies, and some aircraft cockpit glass penetrations. We utilize the different temperature raw meats to show how differently the armor penetrating limited penetration frangible bullets respond to different temperature raw meat, kind of like 36 degree ballistic gelatin penetrations that Gary Roberts reported on.

In some ways I suppose the reason why the very same 7.62x39 .30 cal bullet (that killed that deer also pictured on our website, with an exit wound through the offside rib cage big enough to stick your fist through) when fired 1700fps faster in the 300RemUltra case will penetrate  ½” AR-500 Steel, but will not go through 4 pieces of 5/8” thick firecode drywall.

You might find the 10.5” 5.56 APLP S.D. bullet deer impact of interest, then again maybe not. I have tried to read all that you have given input to concerning the ineffectiveness of the various 5.56 bullet designs from such a short platform. Gary Roberts stated on the Tactical Forums website that the RBCD APLP 5.56 S.D. round lacked sufficient penetration performance unless the target was the size of a small furry squirrel. I am no expert by any means, and I know that our rounds do not do to well in gelatin, but those deer sure did die quick, even when impacted in the abdominal area. Later someone told us that deer, sheep, and goats did not count, so someone went and got some big hogs, and those guys died pretty quick too.

By the way the S.D. part of that pictured live tissue impact from the 5.56 APLP round does stand for state department, but the state department has never purchased those rounds, and I am pretty damn sure that we have never stated they did. We named that bullet the state department because it was the first live fire demonstration that we ever put on.

Your mentioned “state department contractor” was unrelated to the naming of that bullet, and your information relating to the contractor thing, as well as the Armed Forces (undefined Special Forces group), FBI, and information source concerning bribery allegations with the Marine Corps are not accurate, or truthful.

Back to the bullet thing, you stated that you “know what our “firms” rounds do in gel. Not much. The .45looks about like what I’d expect from an average performing 9mm round. There are much better, without a doubt. Live video “impacts” aren’t going to tell you or anyone else much- perhaps something about the marksmanship of the shooter”.

Surely you do not want to stand on that statement Tatjana. I offered to show you the necropsy and impact for a .45 bullet design that penetrates 1/8” stainless steel, most soft body armors, and will still instantly incapacitate a 152 pound hog without over penetration, from a thoracic cavity impact, and total death appearing to take place in less than 12 seconds, but you are implying if I understood you correctly, that that live tissue capability would have no meaning unless the bullet works in gelatin.

I think that you would have a hard time convincing the the operators down range, that the current munitions they go to war with should be designed, tested, and procured based on gelatin impacts performance over observable live tissue destruction performance. Come to think of it, was it not that very same rationale that led to the sustained procurement of the M-855 green tip in the first place. And was it not that very same rationale that ignited the race to develop the currently procured heavier 5.56 bullet designs, and is it not the same logic that has already made those heavier 5.56 bullet designs to be pronounced inferior to the now much lobbied for 6.8 bullet designs and weapon platforms.  A few years from now you could just come up with the idea that the 7.62x51 round would work better at killing people than the 6.8 round based on the ballistic gelatin testing of a new .308 bullet design.

Our armor piercing limited penetration rounds do in fact “break up” with impacts to AR-500, its just that it takes a thickere piece of steel to totally defeat the bullets to that extent.

I guess that I am just simple minded, if a bullet will penetrate hard armor, effectively destroy living tissue without over penetration from known distances from a specific weapons platform, I thought this was a good thing. If bullets that are designed to penetrate armor or glass with over penetration into tissue targets and did so that was a good thing. I never did hear of a 36 degree gelatin block try to attack and kill someone.

I think gelatin is a very important and valid scientific measurement for the performance predictions of conventional bullet designs. I also think that our bullet technologies are in fact non comparable in that the traditional ballistic testing protocols will not accurately predict their performance in live tissue.

But to make statements that demonstrated live tissue destruction performance with respect to the lethality of any bullet design is secondary to ballistic gelatin performance seems a bit silly to this horse rider.

We have never stated that our bullets are magic, we have stated that at times they seem to be a bit smarter. Sorry for the long post to the forum, just trying to catch up with Tatjana, I hope not to do this again.

Stan Bulmer
Le Mas Ltd.

You realize that "frangible" bullets should breakup without penetrating "armor," right?  This is contrasted with "fragmenting."

Also, you still didn't answer my question about gel.  I didn't bother to reproduce your "clay is fun" discussion.  Fun, perhaps.  Useful?  Not really.



This is entirely irrelevant information.  There are no testing conditions, no environmental conditions, no control.  It's not an experiment.  It's a hunt- I have nothing against hunting, I used to hunt all the time, but it gives me zero basis for evaluating performance.  It's an isolated event.

The fundamental flaw in your use of these non-standard media for evaluation is based on either your misunderstanding or devaluation of the importance of scientific method.  I simply cannot (will not) bother to argue with someone who fundamentally does not understand the importance or the nature of the scientific method.



I'm supposed to be amazed?



A single deer hit in the absence of other data is meaningless.  Period.  Please, try to get that into your head.



*sigh*

Why do I bother?  I'm talking to a wall.  Hunting trips are great entertainment, they make poor science.  They aren't good predictors of results.

Rat Poison kills rats pretty well.  Humans tolerate it better because they can vomit.  So we are supposed to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of rat poison in humans because we killed a few rats?



Good.  I'm glad to hear this.



You bet I do.



You've not understood.  If you want to prove your claims (that your rounds perform outstandingly in tissue, despite their poor showing in gel) then you should perform multiple shots in gel and multiple shots in tissue under scientific conditions and have it done by a third party.  That would settle the matter.  This should be pretty obvious.

Some video isn't going to do any good without those additional measures.

Look, if what you claim is true, which I frankly doubt, then it would be a VERY important piece of research that showed a disparity between gel testing and performance in tissue.  You could be striking a great blow for the man in harm's way- by causing the methods used by [b]every major arms bearing organization in the country[/b] to be shown inaccurate and forcing a change for the better.

Why wouldn't you want that?



You are, of course, switching the discussion focus.  Comparing controlled gel experiments with uncontrolled "live tissue destruction performance" is just a silly comparison.  I realize you will never understand/accept this.  I can't help you here.



You need to study your history.  M855 performance in tissue or tissue simulant was never a factor in it's selection.  This was the problem.



Sorry, do you have data that suggests this?  Absent that you're just waxing poetic.



Then it's not "frangible."

It is.  You haven't shown this though.  Sorry.  You've shown some novelity deli meat shots.



I never heard of chilled deli meat attacking anyone.  This is a Red Herring.



So let me understand this.

You sneak into these forums.  You pose as a disinterested party to generate interest in your product.  When caught you play dumb.  You then challenge decades of ballistic research, the scientific method and the entire body of understood ballistic physics- claiming that your round defies these quaint "conventional" understandings and then you attempt to switch the focus of the conversation such that >I'm< the one who somehow has to prove something?  To [b]DIS[/b]prove your claims?

Are you for real?



Yeah ok.

The problem is that you've just not demonstrated "live tissue destruction."  You've shown "big holes" in "that carcass."  That's meaningless for comparative purposes- and these are the only purposes that matter.  Shooting deer is not shooting bipeds.

Look, scientific types may seem like lab geeks to you, but just about every piece of technology out there today was developed and tested by a lab geek somewhere.  A century of progress has finally managed to overcome millennia of suffocating ignorance in the sciences.  Why step backwards?  If you want your product to have some credibility- and you want to get the fat funding from the government for more testing and work- you need to do some legitimate research with legitimate researchers.  Period.

You can run at the mouth (keyboard) all you want, but absent that credibility no one worth their ballistic salt is going to pay attention to you and you're going to end up fielding an inferior product.  Why fight that battle?  You're making work for yourself.  Why fight that battle?  Just have the damn rounds tested by an independent party, would you please?  Then everyone will shut up.  Believe it or not, those lab geeks might just be able to improve that product.  Of course, you won't be able to feed a persecution complex then... but that's not my affair.



You really don't understand how this sounds- do you?



No problem.

I'm about to leave for a meeting, so I don't have very long to respond here...

But...YOUR website may not have many gelatin block photos, but the RCBS website does.  PLENTY of them.  And NONE of them have a scale.  Although, it's not really needed, as I can tell by the size of the bullet fragments relative to the block size that penetration was dismal.

Also, I see absolutely NO calibration BB's in any of the blocks, meaning that none of the gel is calibrated.  This makes the gelatin shots absolutely useless for anything other than show...for the uneducated.

Again, opinions vary...
I'm always looking for more information. Could you post a link to the tests you've personally run on this ammo?

It is possible that BMT is a person who knows nothing about what he is talking about.  I do not know him nor even use the ammo that he sells.  However, he has brought up some interesting comments whether or not anyone agrees.  I'm not sure I even agree but I'm happy to look at his information.  I do not see the allegations of "sneaking" into the forum with an agenda that some have claimed.  Maybe that is his goal but I don't see it.  

What I am disapointed to see is that the resident "experts" here have, rather than polite discussion of opinion, have chosen to ridicule someone who has remained polite regardless of the attacks against him.  So if someone disagrees with you, the solution is to attack him and make fun of him?  He does make some interesting comments even if you disagree.  Obviously BMT is worth the time to respond to and ridicule so maybe it would be more worthwhile to discuss various ideas rather than just write him off and make fun of him.  If he is that screwed up, then just ignore him and eventually (unless someone has an interest in what he says) he will go away.  

Ridicule is unprofessional and petty.  I certainly enjoy reading what the local "experts" have to say but this attitude is uncalled for and puts doubt in my mind as to the real ablility and professionalism of the "experts" here.  



(By the way, the word "experts" is in quotes because there is no such thing as an expert in the field of terminal ballistics.  There are too many factors for us to even begin to think that anyone is truly an expert.)

Wow, I can't remember when I last started a thread that generated this much interest and controversy! I must be da bomb! LOL.

ColtRifle, I tend to agree with your statements that it is fundamentally wrong and childish to flame someone or ridicule them. But in this situation I don't think that's the case at all. By "experts" I am assuming you are making direct reference to Troy, Tatjana and Brou. Well, that's alright, I call them experts too. What makes them experts in my mind is their ability not to let tunnel vision set in. They only make recommendations based upon strong, reproducible, scientific results from thorough testing. In this case they are simply pointing out how unscientific and irrelevant the info that BMT has provided really is. It's not about ridicule, it is about protecting the members here (that includes you and I) from bad info. They are providing us a great service and the knowledge gained from such experiences may someday save our lives. I am greatful we have people here with the knowledge to pick apart bad arguments and to demonstrate (sometimes with a bit of humor added just to show how poor an argument is....such as the Brou's clay figure post) and have the courage to challenge them. Troy, Brou and Tat aren't doing this to be smartalecks, or because they have different opinions, they are doing it to protect folks like you and me who may not have a full grasp of what's going on. They are looking out for the board. I say hats off to those folks for all they have done for us here. You guys (and gal) rock!

And in regards to BMT....I don't think he is a bad guy at all. In fact, after hearing he was a former US Marine Corps aviator(?) I actually hold an even higher opinion of him and thank him for his service to his country. But being he is a good guy doesn't make up for poor science. I'm not attacking his character or his intentions. But I believe his testing methods are seriously flawed. That's all.

When buying personal ammo for self defense, I want what is known to work. So if I am to buy ammo from his company, what I need to be convinced of is this: Will the round penetrate to a depth of 12"-18" in gel? If it doesn't I want no part of it. And if doesn't do this gel it won't do it in people....plain and simple. Will this round offer massive expansion while penetrating to those depths? It seems the rounds he is describing do expand very well....but they lack the penetration requirements. You need both good expansion/fragmentation in bullets in conjunction with deep penetration to be effective. He keeps mentioning that their design goal is to have a bullet that doesn't over-penetrate. Translated, that means they have a varmint round. And we know how varmint rounds perform...right?

Now have I ruled out ever doing business with BMT's company? Absolutely not. But what would make me a customer is scientifically sound tests that show what his rounds will do. If the current batch isn't up to snuff in the penetration requirements, re-design the bullet and start over! It's that simple. But if it's my belief that this company refuses to acknowledge they have an inferior product, yet still try to market it as the best....that's what will turn me off to them.

I suggest that BMT have someone with great expertise in wound ballistics test the rounds. Not firing into clay, into sides of beef, into hogs, etc. But controlled, scientific tests performed in a professional manner by experts. And again, if the current bullets aren't up to snuff, make em up to snuff! This will show me they are concerned with the customer and want them to have a round that will perform as advertised. And this data will be hard to dispute at that point. Why? Because it will be done in a scientific manner where the results can always be reproduced.

Is gel everything? Probably not. I tend to base my results for carry ammo on gel tests and street results. But only on people or in gel. I have no value in tests on goats, pigs, cows, etc. It's just not relevant. If a round performs well in gel, it will likely perform well on the street. But take a second look to make sure. What do law enforcement agencies who have had multiple shootings with a given round think of the performance? How has it performed for them? That info combined with gel testing is what ultimately makes me choose or discard a particular ammo. So for now, in my eyes, the best two rounds in handgun calibers are Speer Gold Dot and Winchester Ranger. Why? They are proven on the street and in the lab. When BMT proves his bullets work in the same way, I'll add them to my list. So far he hasn't.

-Charging Handle

No, ColtRifle is quite right to call what I've engaged in "ridicule."  It most certainly was.  I cannot abide non-scientific pursuits of ballistics posing as "fact" or "truth."  I often have a hard time hiding this bias.

No fair!!!!

I wanna be ridiculed by Tatjana!!!

Tatjana,

Just a quick recap here, my reason for making this effort is mostly in response to your first quoted statement.

“You sneak into these forums. You pose as a disinterested party to generate interest in your product. When caught you play dumb.”

I did not want to say this but, although I am sure that I was not playing dumb, I am not so sure that you were not, at least a little. Almost all of your initial  commentary was as if someone had passed you a scripted pre-brief. I can say that because much of what you stated has been passed pretty much word for word to other people, and most of what you commented on was strangely very outdated. Be honest, did someone pass you notes and say go get that guy, were you playing just a little dumb?

You also stated,
“You can run at the mouth (keyboard) all you want, but absent that credibility no one worth their ballistic salt is going to pay attention to you and you're going to end up fielding an inferior product.”

It took over 11 pages to print all of your commentary addressed to me, and it took up 2 pages to print what I had said to you. You are winning the war here I can not keep this pace up.

You also stated,
“You then challenge decades of ballistic research, the scientific method and the entire body of understood ballistic physics- claiming that your round defies these quaint "conventional" understandings and then you attempt to switch the focus of the conversation such that >I'm< the one who somehow has to prove something? To DISprove your claims?”

This is not rocket science here Tatjana, but I will go slow, I will just start out with the simple stuff first. Here comes Blended Metal Technology 101.

1. When the rounds under discussion are fired into 36 degree ballistic gelatin, they pretty much penetrate that medium with little or no expansion.
2. When those same rounds are fired through hard barriers into 36 degree ballistic gelatin they still show little or no expansion.
3. When these same rounds are fired into 36 degree raw meat, they penetrate that medium with little or no expansion.
4. When these same rounds are fired into 80 degree raw meat the bullets show dramatic expansion to the extent very little of that bullet can be recovered.
5. When fired into living tissue these same rounds show a dramatic expansion to the extent that almost none of the bullet particles can be recovered.

Our first goal has been to show that these bullet technologies act different in 36 degree gelatin than they do in either warm raw meat, or warm living tissue. The ballistic experts say that this is impossible. The ballistic experts say that any bullet will act the same way in real tissue that it does in 36 degree gelatin. The ballistic experts are simply full of crap on this particular subject matter. Have I lost you yet here so far.

You stated,
“Why fight that battle? You're making work for yourself. Why fight that battle? Just have the damn rounds tested by an independent party, would you please?”

That sounds pretty funny actually, I do not know what to make of that. It kind of sounds like come on over to the dark side or something, I have heard those statements before also from the same people who said we were full of BS. We should be able to facilitate both qualified and independent testing very shortly.

Hmmmmmmmm.  Over at Ammolab the EFMJ was tested.  The chart shows that the rounds don't seem to have serious problems expanding after heavy clothes.  I don't have an opinion about whether or not this bullet is a good choice but are you sure you will stand by the statement that the bullet has "serious problems expanding when encountering clothed bad-guys."?  

I can't see any calibration BBs in gelatin pictures over in the FAQ either and I spent quite a bit of time trying to find them.

Yep.  I'll stand by it.

Once it was clear who you were, I asked around.  You bet.  I'm clearly not the only one who has had issues with your product or your science.



In fact, it's not any kind of science.



You can repeat the same mantra over and over again.  It doesn't change the message you're sending.



I don't think you really want to get into a metallurgy/armor/penetration discussion with me, particularly not if you start it in this fashion.



If these results were obtained with some semblance of scientific method, I would be interested.  They were not.  They are not repeatable.  They are not verifiable.  They are not science.  They are parlor tricks.  I remain unimpressed.  Sorry.

Admittedly, I have very high standards, perhaps too high, with respect to this sort of information.  Then again, as people in here may or may not be staking their lives on the choices they make, perhaps that's not an awful thing.



Yep.  Some ways back.  You've simply made bald assertions without even a tad of evidence (legitimate or otherwise) to support them.  What you are doing is not research.  It's play.



Perhaps you should take the hint?



I anxiously await the results.

I will be the first to render an official written apology if your claims are actually proven true by an established, independent ballistic researcher.

There's no doubt I come off as a redheaded bitch when someone appears to be trying to pull a fast one on this forum.  This may put some people off.  Frankly, that doesn't concern me.  What concerns me is that good and real science remains the mainstay of ballistic discourse on this forum.  Anything not meeting those standards is going to be subject to some finger pointing by me.

Believe it or not, I'm not inflexible.  Of late the state of the art has me moving off of M193 in favor of the heavier rounds many members have seen discussed here.  The difference is that I insist on real and credible evidence, not special effect, to change my way of thinking.  I haven't seen any in this case.

You have my respect for your military service- a tradition I respect and honor and that I happen to share with you.

You do not have my respect as a ballistic scientist- or what I see as your wiggling out of a very underhanded way of trying to introduce your product to this forum.  That respect has to be earned in the same fashion as your wings.

I look forward to some actual research on your rounds.  Until then I don't think this discussion will be productive.

.45 Ranger SXT +P 230 gr.

Link to tests supporting your position?

Funny, I got to the address BMT gave (www.lemasltd.com) and get a "Directory Listing Denied - This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed." error.  So.....it looks to me as if, in his hurry to change his website so as not to appear a complete idiot, he screwed something up.  Then again, it could just be his hosting company.

Anyone have a website for the other company? (R something or other)

-FOTBR

[url]http://www.lemasltd.com/1Shot/FactorFiction.htm[/url]

I have no dog in this fight.

But I think things are getting carried away

OK, I'll write the web thing off to one of what I've termed "cyber-screwups" where strange things happen and no one really knows why.

-FOTBR

Tatjana, Brou, or Troy,
 I've got a couple of questions about the Federal EFMJ ammo for the .45:  The results on ammolab.com *seem* to show adequate (not exceptional) performance with penetration sitting around 12-13". So.... What's so horribly bad about these?  Why are they considered "gimmick bullets" as I believe Tatjana phrased it?

Not trying to start a royal crapstorm here, but I'm curious as to why there seem to be two drastically different opinions.

Thanks,
FOTBR

I'd like to see this too, as I understand the ammo was produced to address issues with hollowpoints - feeding, clogging with debris and not expanding and the laws in some states (like NJ).

Part of the problem I have is that I often get early copies of work that I can't share for a variety of reasons.  Despite this, I am aware of 3 professional gel tests of various EFMJ rounds that I can discuss generally.  They will eventually be out in the open, in the meantime I will try to summarize the best I can.

The general problem with EFMJ seems to be that constant force has to be applied to the front of the round directly along the axis of travel for proper expansion.  Rounds don't always behave this way when they strike tissue and tend to want to yaw.  Even a little yaw appears to disrupt expansion with EFMJ.  This may explain the high failure rates when it comes to expansion.

The first set of tests showed that Federal's EFMJ 124 grain 9mm rounds had problems expanding in calibrated after encountering 2 layers of denim.  9 of 30 (30%) rounds tested failed to properly expand.  This is far worse than most "premium" or even "average" 9mm JHP.  Contrary to the "buzz," premium JHP is pretty reliable at expanding even v. denim/heavy clothing.  This is because testing (probably led by FBI protocols) has included heavy clothing in gel trials for some time now and manufacturers started paying attention to that performance.

I don't have rights to the copyright on that study, but I understand it's due out in one of the wound ballistics journals presently.

Dr. Gary Roberts also ran tests on EFMJ and (as I recall) was unimpressed.  I'll pick up specific data from this work when/if I can.

A third test I know about placed the 124 grain 9mm EFMJ 5th of 7 rounds tested but noted "reliable expansion" (figures cited were 12-14" of penetration with expansion to .52-.53" against "clothing covered gel.")  Unfortunately, this study lacked details and never described how many rounds were tested and placing 5th with these penetration/expansion figures makes me wonder a bit about the gel calibration.  (They seemed high for the normal JHP rounds that were also tested and beat the EFMJ round).

I understand that there were some design changes to EFMJ since some of the testing but that overall the performance is spotty- sometimes great, sometimes really problematic.

In my view based on the reliable data I have seen thus far, this round needs a lot more work and refinement before I'd recommend it for self defense.

Despite this the marketing effort on this round has been an expensive full court press.  The round gets far more attention than it's performance would otherwise support.

Unfortunately, this has all too often been the pattern in ammunition marketing.  Performance is the LAST criteria for purchase and or design and often actual testing data is never made available.

I'll pull specifics when I can- perhaps this evening, maybe not until tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I'd suggest waiting before adopting this round.

Thanks Tatjana, I understand that sometimes we know things we just can't tell.

However, One thing I've learned (and I don't know much) is that a design that works great for 9mm parabellum might not work well for .40 S&W or .45ACP, and vice versa.

So.....while it appears that the EFMJ doesn't do so hot in 9mm, does the same trend hold for .45?  (Or is this thing I've learned about different calibers not correct?)

Whatever.. Please post a link. Otherwise it is just gas...

This betrays a basic ignorance of the nature of scholarly work in the field.

Exercise for the student:

Post a link to the results of ANY professional full gel study.

(Hint- I don't know of more than [b]one[/b] posted on the web- most are in professional journals and distribution is limited because of the subscription model.  Those that do exist are from non-professional sites that generally don't provide complete or tabulated data about number of rounds shot or pictures of shot gel with analysis).

It is fact.

Sorry you have no faith, but thats your loss.

Somethings are not in the public domain.
And for those who have access it is not up to them to release that info for your edification.  In fact, we have laws against that sort of thing.

[url]http://www.rbcd.net/[/url]

BMT said HIS website didn't have any gelatin photos on it.  The RBCD website, however does.  Notice none have scale, and none have a calibration BB within the gel.

This is what I was referring to as suspect.

You can believe whatever you want.  Like others said before me, links and whole data are not always available.  Check out the IWBA website.  They publish lots of scholarly work, however, none of their work is posted on the web.  You have to PAY for a subscription.  And I'm sure reprinting text from their issues is illegal without permission.

Then again, some of this stuff simply is not public domain yet.  Tatja, Troy and I have seen a great deal of data that we simply CANNOT share.  However, it influences our opinions, and we can pass those on to you.

If you want some of this data, then you need to get into a field where you can see it.  Until then, you'll have to either trust our knowledge of facts, or not.  It's up to you.

Would you have believed that a 100gr 5.56 round existed if we had told you about it but not shown pictures?  At what point does it become "gas"?  When do you choose to believe?

So we should trust you and what you have seen but can't tell, but no one can trust BMT or RBCD?  Sounds like a double standard to me.  What are your connections to the industry?  You claim he is sneaking in here without revealing his connections.  What about you?  I originally thought that you would be an impartial reviewer of various types of ammo.  Now I'm not so sure.  If I was to say that I have seen a test of a certain ammo and the performance was spectacular, the first thing that you would ask is for me to substantiate it.  We'll ask you the same question if you make unsubstantiated claims.  I understand the need to keep things confidential if needed, but don't make a claim as an authority unless you can document it and I haven't seen documentation.

Again, I am not advocating the EFMJ.  I know very little about it and don't use it.  But if you make comments, then you better be expected to substantiate them.  The primary thing that I have seen about the EFMJ is over at Ammolab and it contradicts what you say.