Thanks for the post. I have some of this ammunition, in .40 s&w, .357 magnum, and .38 special. The first two or three rounds in my EDC's are RBCD, followed by a Federal Hydro-shok, or the Nyclads for my .38 special.

 

Both Doc Roberts and DoD have raised the BS flag about the claims of LeMas ammo. Their reports, which are available to LE agencies and .mil organizations list the break down of the testing and results. I would not use the stuff.

 

Another test:

The Box O' Truth #38 - RBCD Ammo Vs. The Box O' Truth - Page 1

The idea that a fast-moving bullet will "suck heat" from living tissue, and that this will make the bullet disintegrate, sounds like nonsense to me. The bullet comes to rest upon impact so quickly that there is no time for the bullet to absorb heat from the tissue - not to mention that any heat absorbed from the tissue pales in comparison to the heat generated by firing, and friction with the inside of the barrel as the bullet is shot downrange.

shooterX - you may wish to unseat one of those bullets and cut it open to see what is really inside the jacket - looks like a plain lead tip and a silicone ball behind it (to get the light weight and faster velocity) - not the "blended metal" advertised.

If you do, I'm sure we'd all be interested in the results...

Edit - nowhere in that "American Cop" article does it mention how far the bullet penetrated into the hogs - that tells me something. The fact that the hogs lived for a while after being shot with this super duper ammo - long enough for the medical teams in training to try and save them - also tells me something.

That ultralight/ultrafast ammo can penetrate a ballistic vest is not news - barrier penetration is related to kinetic energy, which increases with the square of velocity. Insert big BUT here...penetration in tissue is related to momentum, which is simply mass x velocity. Ultralight/ultrafast bullets typically underpenetrate, due to their lower momentum energy.

Set up a target at the range, with a picture of an attacker holding a weapon. Note how many of your shots hit the target's forearms. Those shots would need to penetrate the forearms before even reaching the chest - then they would need to reach the vitals deep within the chest cavity. Throw in shots at an angle, and thick clothing, and you can see why 12" of penetration is the minimum.

 

I'm shocked to see this ammo as being featured in a conventional magazine never mind the assertion as made by the author toward penetration of various metals and being compared to that of DPX and Golden Saber as _better_.

I'd read the DoCGKR report a couple of years ago and there is another out there as well IIRC from either DoD or the US Army, I can't off hand recall which it was. Both reports thoroughly debunked the product, it's claims, and the heat sink theory as detailed too.
But then oppositely at the same time there had been a report by a writer as then associated with Blackwater that indicated this stuff was the cats meow, similar to the above linked American Cop magazine article.

- Janq

 

RBCD ammo is all hype and no performance.

 

With all due respect, I find categorical statements without any support unhelpful in sorting out the elements of the controversy.

Some further observations:

• I read DocGKR's report.
• As far as I can tell, the DoD report is restricted to contractors. I'd like some input from someone who has access to this report. Categorical statements such as "it backs up everything DocGKR said" are not very illuminating.
• I would find it difficult to believe that the Florida LE agency mentioned in the article didn't do some form of due-diligence before making their decision.
• None of the detractors have explanations for the observations made by the author. The observations are compelling in spite of the criticisms of marketing hyperbole and it's failure to perform well in tissue simulant like ballistic gel.

My objective is to gain some understanding of both sides of the issue by getting a variety of input so that I can make my own informed decision.

 

The fact that as reported the FL LE switched to this product is quite interesting, as against the results featured in the govt. report (DoD or Army) that I'd read which pretty much matched directly with the findings as featured in DoCDKR's posting.

Possibly this is a new and wholly different product than what was tested two years ago, although the statements and reflections in this article very closely mirror that of the Blackwater person from same time frame.

It's very odd and again I'm stunned to see this manufacturer/product pop back up as a reported item.

- Janq

 

Reading the American Cop article, one thing that seems odd is the author's emphasis on the lethality of the round. He even quotes a surgeon on how difficult it would be to treat a wound from one of these bullets. Frankly, lethality isn't very relevant to self defense. I don't really care if the assailant dies on the operating table hours after I shoot him. I care if he stops trying to kill me right this second.

 

My main concern is/was over penetration, however, after reading some of these articles, and searching for more this afternoon, I will be removing this ammo from my firearms this evening and either replacing the first two rounds with a Glaser or just going back to using HP. I may try and remove the bullet and cut it in half if I can find a tool that'll work. Will let you know what I find is I do this.

Ok got home and pulled one of the .38 specials apart and took a chisel to the copper jacket, just as the information debunked. the jacket was hollow, with a polymer ball inside and topped off with the lead soft point. Don't see how this stuff is supposed to fragment or not over penetrate. Guess I'll use it up at the range and be rid of it. Took all of it out of my EDC's and truck gun. Reloaded with federal hydro-shoks in my XDsc.40, Federal Nyclads in my Colt Det. Spcl, Hornady Critical defense in my S&W 342, and two glassers followed federal 125gr critcal defense in my S&W model 66, my house gun. Here are a couple of pictures.

 

Sorry gues it was only one picture. Ha

 

ShooterX - Thanks for the sleuthing. That tells me all I need to know. The folks at RBCD are a bunch of lying snake oil salesmen. Blended metal my :banned:

Hope somebody sues them into oblivion.

 

Your welcome 10thmtn, wish I hadn't bought this :banned:, oh well.

 

Just in case there are any more believers in this stuff out there - did you happen to cut open the plastic ball? Any "blended metal" hiding in there?

 

No I didn't, but I think we're safe assuming there ien't.:hand5:

 

If you search the threads, seems RBCD has been discussed as far back as '05. ExSoldier was using some of it, anyone else still using this stuff? Do you trust it?

 

We seem to have come full circle. It seems clear that any relation to a common understanding of the definition of "blended metal technology" and the construction of the RBCD bullet is marketing hyperbole at best and a terrible deception at worst. So what? What does that have to do with actual performance? Most of what I buy seems to be promoted this way on all of the media I'm exposed to. And, as a frequent "early adopter," I'm more often than not, disappointed by actual performance.

Trust this ammo?... The Florida LE department does. Why shouldn't we? What do we know that they don't know, or vice versa?

Frankly, I was inclined to dismiss this bullet from further consideration until this LE department endorsement. Now, I'm inclined to dig deeper than just the "conventional wisdom," since the conventional wisdom seems unable to answer this or the following questions.

Author's observation of damage?... What accounts for the profoundly different damage profiles of these bullets verses conventional HP? Is the reported damage, as implied, more likely to "stop" the assailant?

What accounts for the inability of standard tissue simulant to predict the tissue damage observed?

 

Total marketing nonsense.

Randy

 

I didn't see the post claiming that a LE department is using the ammo so these questions may have already been addressed. Who made the claim? Someone from the company? Someone claiming to be from the actual department? Just wondering how the claim was verified.

I understand the rationale that "if a police department uses it, it *must* be good" but that doesn't necessarily have any basis in fact.

As for police departments and the ammo (or any equipment) they use....

Some departments hire independent outside testing organizations and/or consultants who specialize in the area of interest.

Some departments conduct their own testing and that can range anywhere between the most rigid scientific and exhaustive research and performance testing you can imagine to an officer shooting it through water-filled jugs or clods of dirt in his backyard.

Some departments select their ammo solely because another department selected it, regardless if the other department did any testing.

Randy

 

I didn't see the post claiming that a LE department is using the ammo so these questions may have already been addressed. Who made the claim? Someone from the company? Someone claiming to be from the actual department? Just wondering how the claim was verified.

In the OP I linked to an article in the current issue of American Cop Magazine titled "Le Mas Handgun Ammo Rifle-Like Firepower" by Bob Pilgrim.

The article begins as follows:

Recently, it came to my attention the highly respected Coral Gables, Florida police department has, after extensive study and research adopted light weight, high velocity Le Mas SPLP/SRAP (Law Enforcement Military Ammunition Special Purpose Limited Penetration/ Short Range Armor Penetrating) ammunition. The adoption applies across their small arms spectrum for its issue pistols and rifles. After reading their study and examining subsequent positive reports by medical professionals, at the request of American Cop magazine, I attended a live fire medical training demonstration involving this unconventional ammunition.

The demonstration was conducted at DARC training facility (Direct Action Resource Center) near Little Rock, Arkansas and involved military medical personnel training to treat and save battlefield casualties during the “Golden Hour.” The DARC advanced combat emergency medical training program includes the use of anesthetized animals under the care of a licensed veterinarian according to US government protocols. The animals were alive, but felt no pain or discomfort. In addition to thoracic and extremity gunshot wounds, the animals were exposed to other typical tactical traumas that Coalition Forces were experiencing in the two current theaters of conflict. Young men and women responded immediately and worked feverously by employing field or “Ditch” medical techniques. They made every attempt to stabilize, treat and sustain their “patients” for transport to advanced medical care facilities. However, when Le Mas (LM) handgun ammunitions inflicted wounds to either the thorax or an extremity, their valiant efforts proved futile.

 

:wink:

 

:wink:

Clever? Maybe.
Amusing? So, so.
Illuminating the issue? Not!

I'm looking for informed feedback to help me analyze both sides of the issue. I am disappointed in posts like yours. Oh well.

 

I thought the (BS) meter don't lie :hand5:

 

I found it funny.

 

There is no controversy. It is marketing hype and junk science. Really light bullets with a very low sectional density traveling really fast will slow down really fast, especially after expanding. It will not penetrate deep enough to do any real damage. And the explanation about the bullets sensing the temperature or makeup of the target is BS. How does it sense these things? How does the bullet change its behavior as a result? And how does it do this in the milliseconds between firing and impact? The answers are it can't.

 

I have a hard time believing any police department would swallow this nonsense.

 

DocGKR says that Bob Pilgrim, the author of the referenced article, is the pseudonym of a well respected retired FBI agent that he knows personally. M4Carbine.net Forums - View Single Post - More Lemas BS...

I don't think the observations of a man with Mr. Pilgrim's background that even DocGKR respects can easily be dismissed.

 

Howard, I'm running a little slow this morning and don't understand what you mean in your post. Can you elaborate?

Randy

 

There were several statements in this thread that seem to contradict the observations made by the article's author. My point is that these observations should not easily be rejected based on the reference that DocGKR provided.

 

Howard - Man, I respect you from over at the USCCA, but I don't get what you trying to learn here? The folks who make this ammo have been shown to be liars - they lie about what their bullets are made of - as one of the other members here showed when he took the bullet apart.

Over at warriortalk, they ran some of these bullets through chemical analysis - no magic powdered metals, just plain old lead for the most part.

It's just a very fast, very light JSP bullet. No magic - just basic physics. You get a nasty, but shallow wound.

Might it work? Sure. Should you use something that doesn't meet the minimum 12" penetration? I don't. If someone is attacking you, your shots will likely hit their hands and/or arms before even reaching their torso. Penetration is important - second only to shot placement.

Why do folks/departments who should know better use this stuff? All I can say is, when things don't make sense...I suspect you would need to follow the money.

 

I wouldn't use the stuff if it was a magic fairy ray of uber death, just based on the complete and utter LIES (and there is no other word for them) used in their claims and advertising. The makers/manufacturers are beneath contempt, and I won't use anything that they're a part of, period.

 

If he provides you with the information you requested, please share it with us. I have pulled this ammo from my firearms as previously stated, however, I am very interested in hearing more about the article in your OP.

 

Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

by Michael Courtney, PhD, Ballistics Testing Group
and Amy Courtney, PhD, United States Military Academy

The entire paper is very understandable and is well worth reading. Some interesting quotes:

Debates between bullets that are “light and fast” vs. “slow and heavy” often refer to “hydrostatic shock," which describes remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets in addition to tissue crushed by direct bullet impact. Considerable evidence shows that “hydrostatic shock" can produce remote neural damage and rapid incapacitation.

Recommendations

The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12” in ballistic gelatin.[8] Maximizing ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment. Understanding the potential benefits of remote ballistic pressure wave effects leads us to favor loads with at least 500 ft-lbs of energy.

With a handgun, no wounding mechanism can be relied on to produce incapacitation 100% of the time within the short span of most gunfights. Selecting a good self-defense load is only a small part of surviving a gunfight. You have to hit an attacker to hurt him, and you need a good plan for surviving until your hits take effect. Get good training, practice regularly, learn to use cover, and pray that you will never have a lethal force encounter armed only with a handgun.

 

Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

by Michael Courtney, PhD, Ballistics Testing Group
and Amy Courtney, PhD, United States Military Academy

The entire paper is very understandable and is well worth reading. Some interesting quotes:

From another forum written by Dr. Williams:

"DocGKR and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best. Feel free to keep researching and arguing with Courtney, if you like, but in the end you may feel you've wasted a lot of time and energy that could have been used more productively in other pursuits.

Arguing with Courtney is like trying to teach a pig to sing..."