Blended metal bullets - Magnificent or Magic?

LeMas' John Hamilton makes minced meat at Blackwater using RBCD ammo

Anyone who follows firearms couldn't have missed the controversy swirling around the blended metal bullets sold by Le Mas Ltd of Arkansas (access to their website is now restricted, requiring an access code).

Le Mas has demonstrated these bullets at the Shootout at Blackwater, where manufacturers show off their products to potential military buyers.

Here's the seemingly magic claim:

"What makes this "blended metal" frangible ammo worthy of note is its ability to cut through most hard mediums, such as steel plates, yet not penetrate soft targets such as tissue or even several layers of wallboard (August 2001, August 2002 AFJ)."

The debate really heated up after this Armed Forces Journal article.

When indepdendent tests showed the bullet to be less than spectacular in gelatin, Le Mas produced video clips showing the round all but destroying warm pot roasts, and stated the temperature difference in the two mediums made the difference. Some, thinking of how hot a bullet is and how fast it goes through a roast, labelled that "junk science." They attributed the demonstrated meat damage to high speeds. (The older among us recall the early 5.56mm demos.)

A Dec. AFJ editorial entitled A Better Bullet offered an interesting postulate as to why the military had not yet taken the bait and bit the bullet hook, 14 months after $1 milllion was appropriated for testing blended metal bullets:

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.

The Moscow Times even picked up an American journalist's twisted view of the situation.

An e-mail purportedly from Dr. Fackler debunks the manufacturer's claims.

I especially like this observation:

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.

The controversy continues. We're all looking for a "magic bullet" and that includes the military. Those companies which can convince the military (and/or the consumers) they have one stand to make LOTS of money