TP needs help.......

[TriggerPuller]

.......with a picture. I got a SATCOMM call at 3 am from a friend in Kuwait(he is with BW) and said that the picture of 8 BW contractors on a roof in Najaf that has been posted everywhere on the net is one of my closest friends with the others on his team. I saw this picture but didnt pay much attention to the faces. Can someone please post it here for me. BTW he is the same guy that shot that Iraqi insurgent with the LeMas ammo! Thanks

TP

[Seoulstriker]

Hmmmm... I'll try to dig it up. :)

[farmgirl]

This one?

http://www.hpphoto.com/servlet/LinkPhoto?GUID=3f593e3d-7435-5699-7333-8c501f9268d2&size=

[Seraphim]

The guy next to the other man in the blue cap looks like one of my friends.

[Seoulstriker]

this one?

http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/pzavisla/hostedmilitaryimages/rooftop.jpg

[wholagun]

so these are not mercinaries? I remember the tread about them got locked by the mods cause people kept talking **** about them...

[Seraphim]

this one?

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=579120


Hes handing out some 203 badness. woot

[farmgirl]

hey seoul... is the the entire picture? Do you know if there are any more close ups that include the guy with the anchor tattoo? He's a friend of TP's... that's what he's looking for.....

[Seraphim]

So your telling us Popeye is his friend. I'll start a fund for spinache, so he can kick some more ass. Those pics are in one of the daily photo threads, I would help search but Im not on broadband at the moment.

[Seoulstriker]

hey seoul... is the the entire picture? Do you know if there are any more close ups that include the guy with the anchor tattoo? He's a friend of TP's... that's what he's looking for.....


that's all i got, farmgirl. it's most likely in a larger resolution format, but I don't know where to start looking for that one. it's not shot by the military, but by some news agency.

[farmgirl]

hey seoul... is the the entire picture? Do you know if there are any more close ups that include the guy with the anchor tattoo? He's a friend of TP's... that's what he's looking for.....


that's all i got, farmgirl. it's most likely in a larger resolution format, but I don't know where to start looking for that one. it's not shot by the military, but by some news agency.


okay... thanks... :D I'll check with He219... or I'll see if I can find anything on APphotos... I have access to that through school.

[Obergefreiter]

[quote="TriggerPuller BTW he is the same guy that shot that Iraqi insurgent with the LeMas ammo! Thanks

TP[/quote]

This is BS. (The ammo that is)

[ibstolidude]

[quote="TriggerPuller BTW he is the same guy that shot that Iraqi insurgent with the LeMas ammo! Thanks

TP

This is BS. (The ammo that is)[/quote]
What insight do you have on the ammo that gives you this opinion?

or is it just that an opinion?

[farmgirl]

[quote="TriggerPuller BTW he is the same guy that shot that Iraqi insurgent with the LeMas ammo! Thanks

TP

This is BS. (The ammo that is)[/quote]


Actually.... TP is pretty familiar with that ammo, and I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you about it. However, saying it's "BS" isn't really the way to go about getting the information. He's seen pictures showing first hand what it can do, and I'm quite certain that he doesn't think that any BS is involved. Just sayin'

[Obergefreiter]

Give me a bit to dig it up.

[shrek]

A better bullet
Blended-metal ammo rates realistic testing

During a mid-September firefight north of Baghdad, Ben Thomas recorded the first known kill of an adversary with a relatively new type of ammunition. The former Navy SEAL, now a security consultant with a private corporation contracted by the U.S. government, was traveling with three colleagues when they were ambushed by an estimated eight to 12 “bad guys.”


Blended-metal in action



Streaming video of blended-metal bullet technology
taken at the 2003 Shoot-out at Blackwater.
Click here to download free streaming video player.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read a story from the December 1, 2003 issues of the Military Times regarding the blended-metal bullets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read coverage from the Shoot-out at Blackwater.

What Thomas says about that single bullet’s performance should have Pentagon officials scrambling to test the ammo. But they’re not. In fact, when word of the engagement reached an influential member of the military’s weapons-testing community, he mistakenly surmised that Thomas was an active-duty serviceman and, via an e-mail exchange, threatened Thomas with court-martial for using unapproved ammunition, the former SEAL told AFJ.

During a telephone interview last month, Thomas said the bullet he fired struck one of the attackers in the upper left quadrant of the buttocks, killing him immediately. Under most circumstances, a 5.56mm bullet striking a person’s buttocks wouldn’t be expected to create a fatal wound. The shot was made at a distance of about 110 meters, Thomas said, using a standard M4 carbine with a 14.5-inch barrel.

I’ll spare the details, but when Thomas and his colleagues later examined the body they couldn’t believe the destructive effects caused by that 5.56mm round. Thomas said he has shot people with various types of 5.56 ammo used by special operators — regular Green Tip, Black Hills Mk 262 and tracer — but has never seen any wound from a 5.56mm round that evidenced the destructive energy released by that bullet.

The ammo that Thomas used was a so-called “blended-metal-technology” round, manufactured by RBCD of San Antonio and distributed by LeMas Ltd. of Little Rock, Ark. For the past four years, RBCD has been featured during AFJ’s annual “Shoot-out at Blackwater” training center (August AFJ), where the ammo’s unique performance has impressed most of the special operators observing its effects. Designed to release maximum energy in soft tissue, the “armor-piercing limited penetration” ammo will bore through hard targets, such as steel and glass, but will not pass through a person or even several layers of drywall.

Considering the ammo’s effects, you’d think the special-operations community would be beating a path to RBCD’s door. Congress attempted to make that happen by including just over $1 million in last year’s defense budget to test “blended-metal” ammo; however, 14 months after lawmakers appropriated those funds, not a dime has been spent.

Officially, at least, military officials say RBCD ammo is no more effective than other types now in use and, under some conditions, doesn’t even perform as well. That line flows from tests conducted a few years ago in which RBCD ammo’s effects were observed in ballistic ordnance gelatin, the standard means for ammo testing. Stan Bulmer, president of sales and marketing for LeMas, responded that standard tests in ballistic gelatin fail to demonstrate the performance of the new technology in RBCD ammo — an RBCD bullet’s destructive capabilities are most apparent in living tissue. Tests using live animals would clearly show its unique effects, Bulmer said. But despite his appeals and the funds for testing provided by Congress, the military refuses to retest the ammo in live tissue.

Some observers are convinced that Special Operations Command officials’ refusals to test RBCD ammo stem from work that’s well underway at that command. For some time, the special-operations community has been conducting work on a new 6.8mm round to replace the 5.56mm. If a 5.56mm round proved to be as effective as larger 6.8mm ammo, the rationale for new ammo and a new weapon would disappear.

Thomas isn’t interested in any of the reasons that might be keeping RBCD ammo from reaching U.S. special-operations forces, but he is convinced that its use would save soldiers’ lives. An adversary hit by a blended-metal bullet — even if struck in an arm or leg — would be in no condition to continue the fight, he said.

The former SEAL’s experience with RBCD ammo should be reason enough for Pentagon officials to insist that Special Operations Command immediately begin realistic testing of the blended-metal ammunition. Further foot-dragging by the command should trigger a congressional inquiry.

[Obergefreiter]

1st example- http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000630.html

The person here is well known for his research on ammunition.

Add to that the false front door on their web site.

2nd example - Letter from Dr. Martin Fackler about the ammo:

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.


If you do not know who Fackler is please step aside from the arguement.

LeMas was to "prove" his ammo at the STOT show. They backed out of the show. They stated that they already had peer review. This information has not been released.
Instead they released "Over 500 CD's" to the military and Law Enforcement. Note that this is CD, not DVD. (video)

There are two pending Federal trade commision complaints on false advertiseing against them. (I do not have an update on this info)


There is a little more info, but this is about the best of it. If you do not believe the Facler info and the rest, you won't believe the rest of the info anyway. The bullet turned out to be nothing special in design, and mostly a scam to get people to buy it.

[TriggerPuller]

Give me a bit to dig it up.Look I dont want to get into it about the ammo again.The guys at Tacticalforums.com have there own agenda,they say they dont, I use it my team uses it and we can use any ammo we want. It works thats all I know Ive seen it not just on pigs either. If you have a suicide bomber truck coming at you it will go through any armor glass and go right into an engine.
This thread is about a picture no need for hostilities. Also the guys at the Blackwater shootouts can attest to it!

TP

[Obergefreiter]

I am not a member of tactical forums. I only posted that for the picture. I see that you have made up your mind truth be damed, so I will leave it with that.

Fackler says it is BS, it is BS. If it was so great, the Army would be chomping at the bit to get ahold of it since they are getting short on ammo.

No 5.56 round is going to do this. My opinion, I could care less, I hate the round. (5.56 as a military round)

I have said my piece, I won't hijack this thread anymore on a pointless arguement.

[Seraphim]

I am not a member of tactical forums. I only posted that for the picture. I see that you have made up your mind truth be damed, so I will leave it with that.

Fackler says it is BS, it is BS. If it was so great, the Army would be chomping at the bit to get ahold of it since they are getting short on ammo.

No 5.56 round is going to do this. My opinion, I could care less, I hate the round.

I have said my piece, I won't hijack this thread on a pointless areguement.

The Army cannot use that type of round.

[TriggerPuller]

Obergerfreiter, one of theose SF officers(24 yrs active duty) at the shoot is the one who turned me onto it and got me in touch with the owner.I have recently turned one of the Mods here onto it. I personally dont like ANY of the "scientific" tests in clay or gelatin either but there is more data on it in real world situations besides Ben T's. It is a delicate subject right now about this stuff I agree. I dont believe in "magic" bullets either but I know that I want what works when the **** hits the fan and this stuff does!!
Please dont take this as a flame just a personal obsevation from experience from seeing and using it! If you have not used it there is no reason for you to try to slander it until youve given it a try. take care

TP

[Obergefreiter]

The Army can not use it. Yet another reason for their "sales pitch" to the Army to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'll step out of this for real now. I promise. We can start this in another thread if you want.

[TriggerPuller]

I am not a member of tactical forums. I only posted that for the picture. I see that you have made up your mind truth be damed, so I will leave it with that.

Fackler says it is BS, it is BS. If it was so great, the Army would be chomping at the bit to get ahold of it since they are getting short on ammo.

No 5.56 round is going to do this. My opinion, I could care less, I hate the round. (5.56 as a military round)

I have said my piece, I won't hijack this thread anymore on a pointless arguement.I understand where you are coming from but the Army has just put aside over 1 million to test it as we speak. There is a lot of politics involved here I know and Iam always willing to listen when it comes to wanting the best equipment but the truth is in the field not in a lab. Nothing wrong with a civil conversation between two men even if our opinions differ. Once again take care

TP

[Obergefreiter]

I would be glad to debate this in another thread so as to not continue to hijack this one.

We can do ti tomorrow. I have to go to work in 30 minutes.

:( :( :( :( :( :( :(