I was recently directed to some additional LeMas commentary Unfortunately, there appears to be continued misinformation on this subject.
For the record, our independent private assessment (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888), as well the Congressionally mandated USSOCOM/ARDEC testing was conducted specifically with LeMas ammunition, not RBCD. For example:
As I suggest to all individuals who do not have access to DTIC and have questions regarding the USSOCOM/ARDEC report on LeMas ammunition, I recommended Mr. Cohodas file a FOIA request to attempt to get the data he desires. Contrary to what Mr. Cohodas stated, the report is not a classified or “Secret” document, it merely has an arbitrarily restricted distribution. My characterization of how the USSOCOM/ARDEC LeMas report supports our test observations is quite simple, as I have written: ”Note that the USSOCOM/ARDEC report validates ALL the information we have released publicly to date above.” Recently, a large west coast LE agency had pressure from some individuals within their organization to consider adopting LeMas ammunition--once the training and procurement personnel at the agency reviewed the USSOCOM/ARDEC report on LeMas, all efforts to acquire LeMas ammunition immediately ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in the report.
Mr. Cohodas mischaracterized our comments about LeMas in relation to gel testing vs. field performance, as noted in my comments below about proper terminal performance testing. In addition, Mr. Cohodas exhibits a significant degree of naivety about LE ammunition purchasing when he writes:
For many agencies, nothing could be further from the truth, as adequate testing and research is frequently not conducted and ammunition is often purchased due to availability, cost, unsubstantiated advertising claims, etc… rather than a sober and diligent review of mission requirements and performance criteria. While I am not authorized to distribute the paper, if any credentialed LE officer needs to review the USSOCOM/ARDEC LeMas test results, they are welcome to travel to our facility and read the report there. It is surprising that none of the “Quiet Professionals” at PS have discussed reading the USSOCOM/ARDEC LeMas report and commented on it, as active duty military SOF can easily get a copy and military contractors/vendors can access DTIC and download a copy of the document…” I'm assuming with the great liability exposure that Police Departments have, they would have done their due diligence.”
Given all the wound ballistic data that has been published over the past two decades, I am surprised regarding the continued amount of misinformation being perpetuated about this subject, especially in light of the voluminous results available from CONUS OIS incidents, as well as OCONUS combat results. A variety of equally important methodologies are used for terminal performance testing, including actual shooting incident reconstruction, forensic evidence analysis, and post-mortem data and/or surgical findings; properly conducted ethical animal test results; and laboratory testing--this includes the use of tissue simulants proven to have correlation with living tissue. Some individuals seem to be under the mistaken impression that one of these areas is more important than others--this is not the case, as each category provides important information to researchers. Keep in mind that live animal shots were conducted in the course of the USSOCOM/ARDEC testing and the results were in concordance with the test results we have already reported…
The last several years of OCONUS military operations have provided a tremendous amount of combat derived terminal performance information. The U.S. government gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to form the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in combat the past few years. The test protocol that was found to be correct, valid, and became the agreed upon JSWB-IPT “standard” evolved from the one first developed by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the 1980’s, promoted by the IWBA in the 1990’s, and used by most reputable wound ballistic researchers. The JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data. The whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Physiological damage potential is the only metric that has been shown to have any correlation with field results in actual shooting incidents, based on law enforcement autopsy findings, as well as historical and ongoing combat trauma results. In other words a damage-based metric has relevance to and accurately reflects the real world, while other measures of "lethality" and "incapacitation" are elaborate fantasy games of mathematical calculations and engineering statistics that fail to truly reflect the fact that in the gritty realm of face-to-face combat, incapacitating the enemy is about rapidly inflicting sufficient physiological damage to the enemy’s critical anatomic structures in order to stop that opponent from continuing to be a lethal threat. The FBI BRF, NSWC Crane, USMC, and USSOCOM, as well as large west coast LE agencies like the CHP, LAPD, SJPD, have all used physiological damage based metrics, including the use of static gelatin testing. Folks like Mr. Hinton who choose to ignore these documented and verified facts may not like this, but based on all of this carefully collected, independently validated, real-world derived data, the wounding characteristics of optimal combat/LE/personal defense projectiles are well known.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Odd Job
Bookmarks