It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blended metal live animal test

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
www.defensereview.com...

here is some live animal test with plenty of pictures (VERY GRAPHIC)


None of the 9mm, .45, or 5.56 Le Mas armor piercing bullet impacts over penetrated thoracic cavity or rear appendages of the animals while conventional duty ammunition did over penetrate the animals.

The Le Mas 5.56 AP bullet thoracic cavity tissue dissection additionally showed the heart of the hog, hard to the touch in areas that appeared not directly hit by the bullet fragments. There was obvious evidence of heart muscle hemorrhagic contusion (a severe bruise) which was not demonstrated from comparative point of impact current military 5.56 rifle ammunition designs. The Le Mas thoracic cavity handgun bullet impacts showed both small and large lung bullae (surface bubbles) that are usually only seen with a blast injury or high velocity rifle bullet fragmentations. The armor piercing, Limited Penetration 5.56 rounds performed as designed. They penetrated the 3/8th inch HAA armor yet still had expected effects in live target tissues (Figures 1-10). It was surprising to me to see the effects the rounds maintained after passing through armor plating. The effects were the same for handgun or rifle rounds; this keeps our military with comparable lethality if the transition to the sidearm is necessary. The overall safety of no passthrough during CQB operations should keep our troops safer during these challenging missions.


the reason for live animal test is that becasue of it's design and fragmentation you really can't get a good reference for RBCD ammunition on balistic gel which make it look sub-standard compared to other ammunition available, while on live tissue the end results are just well, you have to see for your self. I'm sure we all heard the story about the private contractor famous shot in Iraq with 5.56 RBCD ammo to the buttocks from a fair distance with proved to be brutally fatal, I"ll get a link to the story later on so that I dont misquote it.

mod edit:
Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)

[edit on 15-5-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
This is a disgusting article and yet another example of how the military abuses everything and everyone under its control.

Years ago, in an abnormal psychology class in college, I watched a film of the DOD burning a pig in a wheelbarrow with a blowtorch. It was appalling and heartbreaking.

Activities such as this make me ashamed to be a member of the human race.

Weapons are interesting to be sure, but it would be nice if ATS would aspire to a higher standard of decency with respect to this sort of thing.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Biblio, while I believe animal cruelty to be quite repugnant, this test seems to have been conducted both as humanely as possible and by a private firm. The results are quite interesting and scientific, as much so as reports from medical journals. The pictures, while quite graphic, display that the animals didn't suffer long.

Oblivion, thanks for the article.

DE



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
How about ballistic testing on rapists, or molesters? They are locked up till dead, right, they are not even considered to be human. Other wise they would not be in prison, for life. Got to figure out the over crowding right?

Inhumane as it sounds, is an eye for an eye, so blind after all?
That wasn't pushing the line was it?



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Does anyone know the AP capabilities of a blended metal bullet? If they are similar then the military should start using blended metal bullets, you get more bang of the buck and essentially guarantee a one shot kill. If not in rifles then defiantly in handguns, when you resort to your sidearm it usually means that every bullet counts, an instead of a 2 shot cluster you can have 17 fatal rounds.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Does anyone know the AP capabilities of a blended metal bullet? If they are similar then the military should start using blended metal bullets, you get more bang of the buck and essentially guarantee a one shot kill. If not in rifles then defiantly in handguns, when you resort to your sidearm it usually means that every bullet counts, an instead of a 2 shot cluster you can have 17 fatal rounds.


AP is supposed be extremely good, it would go through the hard armor and fragment in the tissue (or drywall in CQB). They had an earlier vid when RBCD ammo first came out where they would put chuncks of meat behind slabs of metal and shoot throught the metal and just destroy the chunk of meat into tiny pieces, do a websearch and ur sure to find some pikcs of the test or a vid. but due to Geneva convention dont expect to see this in wide military use if any.

Biblio, I apoligize for you choosing to click on a outside link with a GRAPHIC WARNING and a detail explaination of the subject. A bit sarcastic, for that I REALLY Do apologize for, but given your sensibilities and still going to link..... Mods if the outside link which I warned about and detailed in the subject is too offensive or violates any guidelines please take the proper actions and do what you must.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oblivions void
but due to Geneva convention dont expect to see this in wide military use if any.


Since when do we follow that?
No, seriously, if your going to kill someone debating about the kind of bullet you’re going to sue is pointless.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
How about ballistic testing on rapists, or molesters? They are locked up till dead, right, they are not even considered to be human. Other wise they would not be in prison, for life. Got to figure out the over crowding right?

Inhumane as it sounds, is an eye for an eye, so blind after all?
That wasn't pushing the line was it?


The term "an eye for an eye" means that the punishment should fit the crime, not that every infraction should be punished with revenge.

In this case though, I'm all for molesters being molested, and rapists being raped. Maybe by molesters. I dunno.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Since when do we follow that?
No, seriously, if your going to kill someone debating about the kind of bullet you’re going to sue is pointless.


good points, it was widely reported that the contractor that used these bullets in Iraq, a former seal, would have been court-martial if he was still in the military. look at the fuss they are making over white-phosphorous and thermo-baric weapons, if we start using these "hyper-lethality" ammo the anti-war/anti US crowd is going to go postal over this. as far as the Geneva conventions, it's obsolete and in need of a serious overhaul, has been for the last 30-50 years and especially in the present day realities of armed conflicts. we are talking about principles that represented a post WW1 realities and most suited to the battlefields of the early 1900s and late 1800s. The limitation in ammunition due to the Geneva convention is almost archaic compare to what is available to SWAT teams and police forces through out the world, and that’s just the beginning of it, and for the last 20 or so years this treaty has served mostly as a tool to be used against us



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Whether the rounds were tested on a slab of meat or a "live" target - the results would be the same. These kinds of "live" tests are more aimed at the marketing of the product than anything to do with scientific analysis.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
well,

it may be cruel, but they must be tested. Would u prefer to test it with a human?

Ok, the pics WERE graphic.

The way i see it, better to kill a few animals and learn how to stop bullets and learn what damage certain ones cause-so we can redesign protective clothing to save our troops



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slaine01
Whether the rounds were tested on a slab of meat or a "live" target - the results would be the same. These kinds of "live" tests are more aimed at the marketing of the product than anything to do with scientific analysis.


that's a part of it, but if you have been following the development of this type of ammunition (i have for last 2 or 3 years) you see that you get a lot of nay-Sayers and the establish/mainstream defense contractors going out of their way to bring down a revolutionary Idea that basically came out of nowhere (not an establish company). From the beginning because of the way they were designed to fragment it was said that they would give sub-par performance in ballistic gel so they started using clay to show the effects, so the nay-sayers brought up the ballistic gel results, so they moved up to carcasses and they found reasons to dismiss this, and then they used some field reports
from private contractors in Iraq and they story goes on, look at similar situation with dragon skin armor. it's been a natural progression to the die-hard naysers, and military history is litter with die-hard backwaters naysers standing in the way, if certain people had their way in 1920s and 30s we would still be fighting now with bolt-action riffles. there is a time when it's needed, we rushed the M-16/Ar-15 weapon system into action with disastrous results, it wasn't until the early 70s that we had a decent M16. The same thing can be said with the plane, the crossbow, assault riffle, machine guns they were all met with heavy resistance from the military/defense establishment.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oblivions void
The limitation in ammunition due to the Geneva convention is almost archaic compare to what is available to SWAT teams and police forces through out the world, and that’s just the beginning of it, and for the last 20 or so years this treaty has served mostly as a tool to be used against us


Yes, it is obsolete and needs a overhaul, we are only limiting an endangering ourselves by continuing to follow it. Great post by the way, one that deserves a WATS.



have voted Oblivions void for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


d1k

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bibliophile
Weapons are interesting to be sure, but it would be nice if ATS would aspire to a higher standard of decency with respect to this sort of thing.


As disgusting as it is it's better this be public then swept under the rug.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by d1k

Originally posted by Bibliophile
Weapons are interesting to be sure, but it would be nice if ATS would aspire to a higher standard of decency with respect to this sort of thing.


As disgusting as it is it's better this be public then swept under the rug.


This sort of 'live' test is nothing new to the defense industry. I remember scrutinizing the Strasberg Tests(sp?) years ago while I was researching the characteristics of different types of ammunition. It was extremely informative and gave real world time-to-incapacitation estimates based on the animal who's bone and tissue structure most closely resemble our own.

Try doing a search on Google for information regarding the tests. Chances are, you won't.

I've even heard people refer to the tests as an urban legend.


I'm glad the author didn't pansy out and presented this information for those of us who'd want to know the results.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
ADVISOR,

Abuse of that biblical metaphor as some kind of license to inflict extremes of mirror punishment is in fact a human not biblical lexis talionis (retaliatory law) effect more often known as 'let the punishment fit the crime'.

Indeed, this rule was originally stated to LIMIT the amounts of vendetta feuding which could go between organized groups vice individuals in a very harsh BCE world.

Mirror Punishment:
In that, if you rape a woman, you or your woman would be raped.
If you hurt a child, your child would be equivalently abused.

Yet under an Eye for an Eye:
THE EQUIVALENT VALUE MUST BE REPARATED. A woman must replace the one who is now spoiled. A child must be given that the cripple you have made can have their labor or fertility replaced.

I have no particular use for rapists or pedophiles but to kill them 'in the name of science' covering for contempt of their existence is an abuse of your own conscience. If they must die, kill them. Don't invent an excuse to make it seem justified for other reasons. That way leads to a psychosis by which you LOOK FOR that other purpose. Rather than weighing justice for it's own sake as you fight the animal urge to make the retaliation be ultimate in every instance which offends you.

Bibliophile,
This wounding is neither worse nor less than what an M1 Garand rifle achieved as far back as the 40's with a 30.06 cartridge. While it is horrific, your own statement that 'weapons are interesting' is hypocritical.

I show you a gun. You are 'interested'. I show you a collection of Ming vases a 1,000 years old which have no interest to you but which you know are 'valuable'. I hide the gun in a finely crafted case with a velvet pull attached to the trigger with the muzzle pointed at the vases. I tell you to pull the rope. You shatter the vases. Are you now upset that the gun fulfilled it's purpose? Or that the vases never had one which you could identify with? Or that a man could trick you into using the gun to destroy that which had extrinsic value? Or that a man could make a weapon by which you could have the opportunity to make such a 'terrible mistake'?

The real answer probably then being that as long as you need fear no punishment for the destruction, you will 'get over it' no matter what vector your guilt takes.

How you beat war is by breaking the psychological disconnect between mechanization or aesthetics vs. actualized FUNCTION of warfare. Something which every generation of soldiers purports to believe in, only after they have seen effects like these 'live firepower demonstrations' exercised on their friends and themselves.

A more dangerous side effect of this brutal honesty about what weapons do to the human body is that of either head-in-sand ostricizing your awareness of them as a function of 'whatever, just don't tell me about it!'. Or worse, a pseudo philosophic attempt to justify the old Shaolin theorem-

Avoid rather than check,
Check rather than hurt,
Hurt rather than maim,
Maim rather than kill...
For all life is precious,
Nor can it be replaced."

Through less than lethal or minimized exposure to lethality of force.

Which fallacy is based on the notion that owning what you cannot make yourself is now justified by not hurting those whom you steal from. Yet a thief is still a thief, even if you cannot touch him. And only by FEARING _his anger_ at any attempt to stop him from taking what he pleases, can you both be safe.

Such is how the world largely sees U.S. now.

I firmly believe _It is the horror of war which makes it's use selective_. But it is the /fascination/ with 'the weapon' as a modis to getting away clean from it's simple-answer tool of first rather than last resort which makes it ultimately horrific.

Because success will mean pointless thievery of self rule over resources and way of life. The very basis of which is the 'right to kill' if it suits you and you are willing to pay the price.

Furthermore, as soon as it becomes 'safe' you find that slaughter's shock value as an inhibitor loses it's efficacy and more and more danger derives, not from the uniformed effectors of war. But those who fight against being controlled without being put at mortal risk. Choosing to strike at those who are not beyond their reach as civillians.

It sucks but there it is.

Either break the bonds of that which attracts you to war by making it /utterly/ inhuman (like a static vase, not a dynamic gun).

Or limit it's acceptability by punishing those who would endorse war 'so long as it is limited in lethality'. Because war SHOULD BE horrific.

Or yield the right to see war for what it is. And be controlled by those who would use your horror against you. Herding you like sheep.


KPl.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

...This wounding is neither worse nor less than what an M1 Garand rifle achieved as far back as the 40's with a 30.06 cartridge. While it is horrific, your own statement that 'weapons are interesting' is hypocritical...


I stated that weapons are interesting. I never said I endorse their use. There is a distinct difference. Save your lectures and your labels for someone who has earned them.

I rescue abused horses. Some of those animals are the victims of botched euthanasia attempts; people shoot them who have no clue where to shoot them. Others are shot by hunters, men, who think it is funny to shoot them while they are standing in a pasture offending no one.

Ha ha. The great white hunter shot another animal that cannot shoot back simply because he can. That is so impressive.

The fact that industry is still working on even more brutal ways to kill, man or animal, is appalling. Do we really need another bullet? No. Do we really need to develop another 10,000 ways to blow up the people who do not agree with us? No.

I am neither a monarchist nor a religious zealot, but I believe Eisenhower should be posthumously sainted or knighted for his statement regarding the military industrial complex. His prescience is astounding.

As a species we have learned NOTHING from our history, so we may as well hurl ourselves into the maelstrom. Frankly, I think the planet would be better off.

[edit on 5/15/2006 by Bibliophile]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
You know, upon reflection, I should have avoided this thread like the plague. The title was a guaranteed trigger for me.

I apologize for posting my views in this thread. This was not the appropriate forum for my opinion on this particular issue.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join