[twobitshooter]

Has anyone heard of MagSafe (http://www.magsafeonline.com/) ammo? Appearantly it's made of shot, or something... Any thoughts? I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere in this forum, and their website isn't very informative.

[Ron James]

Mag safe and Glasser have been around a long time. some people like them , some hate them. You should get a lot of reponse on this one.

[jonnyc]

Shot encased in plastic, wrapped in the bullet jacket. They hit hard and fast, with little penetration. Some swear by them, I have no use for them.

[Billy_H]

Thin hollow case filled with shot and epoxy. From all I've heard they are designed to penatrate a few inches before releasing the shot inside...and play all hell inside. They are also low weight and high velocity with a low recoil. Basically they are designed to stop an attacker without overpenetrating.

I carry them and know a few others that do as well. I mix them up with Gold Dots. I have heard and seen pictures of some pretty impressive personal tests, but do plan on conducting my own in the near future.

[OldBillThundercheif]

MagSafe rounds apparently use a little bigger shot than the Glasers. I have no idea if this makes them penetrate any better, but it seems like it would. Having the shot encapsulated in epoxy probably helps a little too.

I have 6 MagSafe +P .38 rounds floating around in my range-bag somewhere waiting for their chance to explode a mellon or something simmilar. I forgot about them until just now...

[Manedwolf]

Magsafes are pre-frags stuffed with glue and shot...and sometimes a lot of glue and very little shot. Check the ballistics and read on the quality control issues.

And keep in mind that NO leos, federal agents or any other professional government agency issues them.

From all ballistic tests I've seen, they'd likely make a messy and shallow wound on bare skin, and possibly not even get through thick clothes. The wound channels made by the scattering shot would be too small to stay open in tests I saw.

[JohnKSa]

As of this very moment, there is no published hard evidence that instant incapacitation can be achieved using a handgun without hitting the CNS UNLESS the "shootee" is psychologically predisposed to stop hostilities upon being shot.

In the former case, the prefragmented rounds severely reduce the chance for an instant stop and in the latter, they are irrelevant.

"Magic" bullets don't exist...

[C-grunt]

From what I have heard and read, the rounds will leave a very nasty wound. BUT the wound will be very shallow and wont penetrate bone. So a shot to the chest of the BG will not likely make it to the heart, lungs, liver, or much of the major blood vessels.

[Lonestar]

Out of most of the test I seen Glaser breaks up more cleanly than Magsafe.
http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/32acp/gel32acp.htm

The problem I have with Magsafes and Glaser rounds is that they DO NOT stop when they hit sheetrock. Most test (see the www.theboxotruth.com) show that a glaser round and the Extreme Shock frangible round will still go thru 4 to 6 layers of sheetrock so what is the point.

[Crosshair]

If I am shooting someone, I want the most lethal ammo I can legaly use. You might as well use shotshell loads since that is all this ammo is. As mentioned above, nobody in LEO uses it and for good reason.

[Odd Job]

@ JohnKSa

"Magic" bullets don't exist...

You obviously haven't heard of LeMas then :p

@ All

I have seen only one gunshot wound where prefragmented ammunition was used (can't say if it was Glaser or Magsafe). The guy was hit on the posterior aspect of his upper arm. His triceps muscle was extensively damaged, but the bone was intact (the humerus). Some of the fragments struck the man's flank/lower chest area on the side, but none of them penetrated the thoracic or abdominal cavity.
My opinion is to stay away from that ammunition for self defense purposes.

Edit: check this thread too:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=226721

[Ohen Cepel]

I think they are fine for revolvers. However, for ammo that I plan to bet my life on I want to shoot the actual load a lot to be sure it functions well in my weapon.

I'm not going spend the money it would cost me to trust that it functions in my weapon.

I would rather have ball ammo that works than a jammed "magic bullet".

[RyanM]

Magsafe = poop. http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number3/article432.htm

[JohnKSa]

You obviously haven't heard of LeMas then...I hadn't until then. I did a quick internet search and realized that LeMas is the new name of RBCD.

It's always a GREAT sign when a fledgling company marketing a "technological breakthrough" product with performance claims bordering on magical, changes its name. Right? :rolleyes:

[jibjab]

Magsafe and alike, sounds like a load of fairy dust to me :scrutiny:

[Fredhead]

If internet info is all the data one has,
Federal EFMJ's got to be the best.

[mdao]

I hadn't until then. I did a quick internet search and realized that LeMas is the new name of RBCD.

It's always a GREAT sign when a fledgling company marketing a "technological breakthrough" product with performance claims bordering on magical, changes its name. Right? :rolleyes:

Not really a name change. LeMas is just the name of RBCD's MIL/LEO distribution arm. Course, the claims are junk. (http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001189)

[Crosshair]

Fredhead

If internet info is all the data one has,
Federal EFMJ's got to be the best.

EFMJ bullets look to have great potential. The only issue I currently see with them is the cost compared to "regular" bullets. Will they be able to make them cheap enough, yet reliable enough, for the high-volume market? More testing is needed IMHO, (Or mabee they did and I don't know about it.) but compared to LeMas :barf: the EFMJ bullets are a sound design, we just have to see if that translates into good real world performance.

/Hopes they offer EFMJ's to the reloader.

[Lonestar]

Ryan, looking at you link I would not call Magsafe Poop per se. I thought the Magsafe would fail to penetrate the rack of ribs, but some of the fragments penetrated as deep as a hydroshok:eek: I don't know if I should be impressed with perfromance of the magsafe or disappointed with the performance of the hydroshok.:uhoh:

A baseball sized hole in in the first block of Jello representing your arm and 7 or 8 pellets past your rib cage and 3 to 5 inches in your chest sounds pretty significant.

[RyanM]

Baseball sized temporary cavity. The actual hole would be less than 3/4" wide, from the looks of it. So you've got a hole in your arm the same size as it would be from a regular JHP, and then a few holes in your chest that are smaller than the holes that'd be made by a pellet gun. Not very impressive at all. Also, Hydra-Shoks are poop. They regularly fail to expand after passing through heavy clothing, and just aren't that good or consistent altogether. There are far better loads on the market now.


And someone said EFMJ have the best numbers? I missed that one. What are they smoking? EFMJ's "on paper" numbers are the worst of any ammo in the same price range out there. They fail to expand when fired through heavy clothing 1 or 2 times out of every 5 shots, and when they do work, they have a smaller expanded diameter and less penetration than bullets of the same caliber, weight, and velocity.