Glaser/Magsafe


PDA






9mmforMe
November 20, 2010, 07:12 PM
Does anyone use these rounds for self-defense? The gelatin tests always look impressive, but thats just gelatin.

If you use this ammo...how does it work for you in your semiauto? reliable?

With a revolver (or semi), have you ever had any hangfires?

How is the accuracy?

I haven't seen these around for quite some time, but know they still has a devoted following. Heck its hard to find any ammo in Bloomington IN. What has your experience been and would you use this round for SD?

If you enjoyed reading about "Glaser/Magsafe" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
orionengnr
November 20, 2010, 09:40 PM
No.
It is a gimmick (overpriced crap). Plenty of info available...do a search.
If you can find one LEA that uses it, I will reconsider my position. Or more likely, not.

That does not include Federal Air Marshalls, who may or may not use it under the mistaken belief that it will not puncture an aircraft fuselage...as if a .357/.40 hole will cause explosive decompression. It won't, except in Hollywood.

Whether our government has figured that out yet or not...hmmm. I wouldn't count on that. There are an awful lot of things our government hasn't figured out yet. I have pretty much had a front row seat to a lot of that, and have for the last 35 years or so... ;)

LawofThirds
November 20, 2010, 09:43 PM
They are crap. The gelatin isn't impressive. They have a lovely tendency to leave shallow, messy surface wounds that barely reach 4".

So if you're hoping your attacker will die in a week to massive infection after killing you and running, they're the perfect self defense round.

bigfatdave
November 20, 2010, 09:54 PM
Crap, crap, and crap sandwich on a crap bun.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting with real ammo
The stuff is too rare and expensive for real reliability testing
The marketing is playing up a baseless fear
Possible benefits of a light/fast projectile are negated by weak penetration

Honestly, I'd use cheap plinking FMJ before gimmick frangible ammo, and I'm a die-hard JHP proponent for anything that isn't a mousegun.

9mmforMe
November 20, 2010, 10:09 PM
Can I interest you guys in some Thunder Zap? lol


Seriously, I was just wondering if there was anything redeeming about the ammo...and it seems opinions are not that high of the stuff. I must admit I used to carry the blue glasers in my .38 snub years ago. When I decided to try a cylinder out at the range I was greatly disappointed with accuracy, keyholes all over the place. I went back to a 115gr JHP that very day.

Shadow 7D
November 21, 2010, 02:13 AM
The basic issue is anything that "wont penetrate...."

Won't penetrate, period
bout the same as using birdshot Sometimes horrible,
sometimes it just puts your friend into the hospital and gets you mocked on late night...(cheney)

BTW, I thought airmarshels used the clay/bronze frangible stuff or fangface???

bigfatdave
November 21, 2010, 06:04 AM
BTW, I thought airmarshels used the clay/bronze frangible stuff or fangface???

That's some good marketing from EXTREME SHOCK!!!!
The myth persists, somehow.

Apex29
November 21, 2010, 10:36 AM
My conclusion is that, after having read about glaser all these years, is that if it's summertime and the intruder is naked, then it has a chance of working. But if said intruder has several layers of thick clothing, it's not going to penetrate very far.

HOWARD J
November 21, 2010, 11:00 AM
I use them in my 25 auto--they feed fine--you would need to be shot at very close range to be a stopper.
Wife worked 46 years in the emergency room---all folks shot with glasers died---if they stopped the guy I have no idea/////////////////

frankge
November 21, 2010, 09:53 PM
my wife got them with her 442 airweight - I switched them for Golden Sabers +P

Ultra
November 21, 2010, 10:19 PM
I mentioned that I heard that Glasers couldn't penetrate to a friend who just bought some. So he suggested we use some 3/4 inch plywood I had laying around to test it. Well I know it isn't scientific but it went through without a problem...

Centaur 1
November 21, 2010, 10:41 PM
I used to not worry too much about clothing, after all it's just soft material. Recently I was testing the functionality of some .380 reloads in my LCP. They're the 105 gr swc with 3 gr of unique. The first one penetrated through the hard cover of an old textbook and 500 pages before it stopped. I wanted to run a magazine of them through the gun before I loaded up a bunch of them. Since I was making some unwanted noise in the garage I grabbed a bag of dacron pillow stuffing to shoot through. It seemed like a good idea since we see people in the movies shooting through pillows to muffle the sound. It worked good and it helped reduce the noise, but when I was done there weren't any holes in the textbooks. That bag of fluffy fibers stopped the bullets. I bet those glaser rounds wouldn't make it through a winter coat after seeing this.

9mmforMe
November 21, 2010, 11:32 PM
Ultra,

What was the caliber/weight of the glasers you shot? Were they the Blues? Silvers? We you able to recover anything?

Shadow 7D
November 22, 2010, 05:48 AM
BOX O TRUTH .COM
they tested them, and FAILED. like real bad
if it can be stopped by a wall, well.....
I wouldn't put my life on the line with those.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot4.htm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot23.htm

Some damn good reading, there another sight that does ballistic gel, but I forget that one.

HOWARD J
November 22, 2010, 06:25 AM
Why do you call penetrating 6 drywall sheets a failure.
Would you like to get hit by one.
BTW- when they hit soft tissue they don't stay together--the little pellets spread like a
shotgun shell-all over inside your body////////////////////////////// :eek::eek:

Al Thompson
November 22, 2010, 06:44 AM
all over inside your body

Uh, no. Check Brassfletcher's web site - shallow penetration.

The GSS I fired were junk. The new stuff may be better, but modern JHPs are still way out in front when compared to Glasers.

HOWARD J
November 22, 2010, 06:54 AM
I don't want to get hit with either one.
I use Hydra-shok in my 9 mm
Stay safe/////////////////

Shawn Dodson
November 22, 2010, 11:12 AM
Glaser wound photo and x-rays - http://firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/102000/JohannesburgTraumaUnit.htm

Shadow 7D
November 22, 2010, 05:57 PM
damn it Shawn, why do you always have to come and shine the light of FACT on a good ol argument....

this is like the 4th one you have spoiled with those facts and evidence

bigfatdave
November 22, 2010, 07:20 PM
I mentioned that I heard that Glasers couldn't penetrate to a friend who just bought some. So he suggested we use some 3/4 inch plywood I had laying around to test it. Well I know it isn't scientific but it went through without a problem...

Well, when I'm being attacked by a 3/4" thick lumber monster, I'll remember that.
What matters is performance in meat, and they are crap for that.
Adding in that they don't do the claimed "won't penetrate walls" makes it even more amusing to see the price for the stupid little blister packs of 6 "magic man-killing but non-wall-penetrating" rounds.

Why do you call penetrating 6 drywall sheets a failure.

because the whole point is not penetrating walls!

Having evaluated this particular line of Safety Slug against standardized barriers and ballistic media, a
few conclusions may be made. First, the penetration of the tested round against a bare gelatin block is wholly
inadequate when viewed in light of the FBI minimum penetration depth of 12î in calibrated ballistic gelatin.
This is exacerbated by the fact that the tested block was out-of-calibration, in that a steel BB impacting at 590
ft/sec is to penetrate to 8.5cm in a ëperfect blockí. Due to the multiple sub-projectiles of the tested bullets, a
correction procedure was not undertaken to determine the penetration depth that this ammunition would achieve
in an ideal block. In any case, the penetration would be less in an ideal block, due to the lower-than-standard
viscosity of the tested block.

Perhaps the point of greatest interest is the failure of the bullet to reduce penetration when fired through
interior walls, as might occur in the event of a complete miss during a defensive shooting event inside a
structure ñ lethality of the round is actually increased by the presence of an intervening interior wall.
I'll leave it to everyone else curious to open a new tab, go to google.com, and type in "brassfetcher glaser" to get the large report.
The stuff doesn't do either of the things it claims to do!

Full Metal Jacket
November 22, 2010, 07:30 PM
Does anyone use these rounds for self-defense?

no.

don't waste your money on this highly inconsistent and overpriced garbage. get yourself some good quality jhp's :)

Ultra
November 26, 2010, 09:36 AM
Caliber was 38. Don't know if it was blue or silver and the bullet was not recovered.

scaatylobo
November 26, 2010, 11:29 AM
Shawn Dodson = thank you.

I have carried them for over 30 years and do a GSS/HP/GSS/HO/GSS/HP in magazines as well as in a cylinder.

Best of both worlds imnsho.

mljdeckard
November 26, 2010, 02:34 PM
No. They are basically lead fragments mixed with frozen bubble gum crammed into a shell casing.

I cannot understand, even a little bit, the notion of mixing loads in any gun you are trusting to save your life. Note in the above provided link, it said they didn't penetrate far enough into the chest cavity to incapacitate. Now, you are looking at someone trying to get into your car door, you are boxed in, and you need to shoot through the door. Are you going to try to remember which bullet is next to fire, and if it's the wrong one, are you wasting the others until you get to it? Can you keep track when you are fighting for your life? What if your attacker is wearing leather?

Just because you have been doing it for a long time doesn't mean it's a good idea.

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 02:49 PM
I've seen firsthand the effectiveness of the Glaser in a .44 Spl. The attacker was swinging a heavy belt buckle on a belt at the victim's head. The shot was horrible. It was fired from waist level with the gun pulled back into the victim's waist area to prevent his attacker from grabbing it. If it was any other type of ammunition it would have exited after doing only slight damage.

The attacker was standing at a 45 degree angle to the victim and the round struck about an inch to the (victim's) right of his navel. The victim was blocking the belt buckle and ducking at the moment that he fired the shot. I'm sure that any standard HP or FMJ would have travelled through about 4" of skin and fat and then exited a few inches in front of the victim's right hip.

But the Glaser upset and the pellets spread out in a spectacular fashion. One of them missed the aortic arch by less than an inch and one of them travelled down into the attacker's femoral artery, which it penetrated. The attacker literally "froze" (meaning that he halted his swing) in mid swing. He staggered away, about 20', collapsed and later passed away.

I don't think that any other round would have stopped him given that poor shot placement and the angle involved.

mljdeckard
November 26, 2010, 03:03 PM
Um, no.

Even if it happened to work in this case, do you REALLY think it's a valid defense plan to use ammo hoping that if you don't get a good shot, one of the fragments will travel and perforate a major blood vessel? That's the plan? In a world where bizarre things can and will happen, this one is pretty bizarre. This is like saying you won't wear your seatbelt because you know a guy who jumped out of his car before it went off a cliff, and if he had been wearing his seatbelt, he wouldn't have been able to. Doesn't mean seatbelts aren't the best plan.

I once watched a .22 enter below my friend's ribcage in front, exit out his back, and walked out of the ER with two stitches and a bandaid. The bullet skimmed the outside of the chest cavity and exited. Doesn't mean I plan on it happening again.

Shadow 7D
November 26, 2010, 04:07 PM
No deckard

what you learn is
when using VERY questionable ammo, shoot for soft parts
and what he forget to mention is the guy probably died from SEPSIS
the gut bacteria got out and got to play

really a VERY bad death.

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 04:30 PM
Mljdeckard wrote,
Even if it happened to work in this case, do you REALLY think it's a valid defense plan to use ammo hoping that if you don't get a good shot, one of the fragments will travel and perforate a major blood vessel? That's the plan? [Emphasis Added]

I must have missed the part of my post where I said that my plan was to "hope" that I'd not "get a good shot and that one of the fragments would perforate a major blood vessel." Can you point it out please?

The fact that one of the pieces of shot perforated a major blood vessel had little or nothing to do with the fact that the swing of the belt buckle was stopped "mid swing." That had only to do with the fact that the attacker died as a result of his wound. IMO the fact that the swing of the belt was stopped "midswing" was because shock was transferred to the attacker faster than if he'd been shot with a HP bullet.

I was merely responding to those who said that Glaser ammo is no good and that it wouldn't result in a stopping shot. I think that my firsthand experience trumps their theories. Had the shot been better placed I have little doubt that the result would have been about the same.

To directly answer the OP's questions: Yes, I'd use them for self defense but only for the first one or two rounds. I wouldn't count on them to penetrate heavy clothing such as a thick down or leather jacket. Never had any hangfires in my revolvers. I've carried them in both a Charter Bulldog in .44 spl and a .38, J frame. Accuracy was acceptable within self-defense standards.

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 04:31 PM
Shadow 7D wrote,
what he forget to mention is the guy probably died from SEPSIS
the gut bacteria got out and got to play


Quite the leap to a conclusion that turns out to be false. Death occurred within an hour or two, NOT from "SEPSIS" as you assumed.

Shadow 7D
November 26, 2010, 05:27 PM
OK, but see here is the thing
the stop was...

WAIT FOR IT

PSYCHOSOMATIC
look up the word, same reason people fall over after getting shot
(stopping power, knock down power and the related cow pocky)

the Physics of the bullet are such that it doesn't work that way.

Anywho, David used a sling against Goliath, doesn't mean I recommend that VERY effective weapon

in standard testing, those rounds fail, on many accounts, some of which they are designed to do. If they were 'great man stoppers'

I am sure we would see many agencies using them, and not on the turn thingy pushed with a bunch of hyperbole and hardsell.

OH, btw, 7 years as a combat medic. that is a non life threatening wound, unless your buddy got lucky (and HE DID) that if you miss the big blood vessels, and the blood filled organs (spleen, liver)

they die of sepsis, sometimes in less than 24 hours

Shawn Dodson
November 26, 2010, 06:23 PM
A few years ago I was testing a few bullets using water-filled cardboard milk cartons. When I'd finished I had a few milk cartons left over and a guy who'd been watching me approached and asked what I was doing. I explained that I was testing terminal performance. He asked if he could test a .44 Magnum Glaser Blue cartridge. Since I was done and cleaning up I said "sure". I set up the remaining milk cartons and let him have at it. The first milk carton exploded dramatically. When we went up and inspected the results we discovered that none of the shot penetrated into the second milk carton.

One water-filled milk carton approximates 2.5" penetration.

Shadow 7D
November 26, 2010, 06:49 PM
if the guy isn't fat, you might make it to his intestines = sepsis
next

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 07:57 PM
Shadow 7D wrote, OK, but see here is the thing
the stop was...

WAIT FOR IT

PSYCHOSOMATIC
look up the word

Excellent advice. From this site, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychosomatic

Psychosomatic: [sahy-koh-suh-mat-ik, -soh-]

–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a physical disorder that is caused by or notably influenced by emotional factors.
2. pertaining to or involving both the mind and the body.

So you think that this man stopped his attack "midswing" because of "emotional factors?" Or that it had something to do with his "mind and ... body?" Please explain.

Shadow 7D wrote, the Physics of the bullet are such that it doesn't work that way.

Who said anything about physics? I think it was because the pain of getting shot was more severe than a conventional HP would give. I think it's because the wound was spread over such a large area of his body, activating nerves in a much larger area than a conventional HP would. From high in the chest to mid thigh he received trauma. No HP is capable of that.

Shadow 7D wrote, in standard testing, those rounds fail, on many accounts, some of which they are designed to do. If they were 'great man stoppers'

I have no idea of what "standard testing" means and neither does anyone else because there is no such thing. Rather there are MANY standards, none of them accepted by everyone.

What we have here is one incident where the round worked superbly and a conventional HP would probably have failed to stop the action soon enough for the victim to have survived. I'd never suggest that one should base his carry policy on one incident but it does shoot down (pun intended) the theories of those who talk about how worthless this ammunition is.

Shadow 7D wrote, I am sure we would see many agencies using them, and not on the turn thingy pushed with a bunch of hyperbole and hardsell.

I doubt it. They cause a very ugly (in appearance) wound that most LE agencies would have a hard time justifying given the horrid press that they'd get. Heck it's only recently ("recent" being a relative term) that some went to HP ammo from 158 gr. round nose lead bullets fired from .38 revolvers.

Shadow 7D wrote, OH, btw, 7 years as a combat medic. that is a non life threatening wound, unless your buddy got lucky (and HE DID) that if you miss the big blood vessels, and the blood filled organs (spleen, liver)

they die of sepsis, sometimes in less than 24 hours [Emphasis Added]

As a former cop of 30 years who has seen hundreds of shooting victims and several dozen autopsies, I'll disagree that this was a "non life threatening wound." The artery was punctured internally and the bleeding continued unabated and unseen until the attacker had bled out. Perhaps if the punctured artery had been diagnosed (all but impossible given that the wound was about a foot away from the puncture) the "big city" paramedics (who probably have seen as many GSW victims as you have) could do nothing to save him. The (also "big city") ER doctors (who likewise, have probably seen as many GSW injuries as you have) that opened him up did not see it either. The injury was not discovered until the autopsy

Nonetheless you jumped to a conclusion that was wrong. The perforation of the femoral artery in this case was just a matter of luck (bad luck for everyone involved). But it had nothing to do with the "midswing stop." That was due, IMO, to the massive amount of pain and shock delivered to the attacker in a faster amount of time than a conventional HP round would have delivered.

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 07:58 PM
Shawn Dodson wrote,
The first milk carton exploded dramatically. [Emphasis Added]

Thanks for helping to make my point. There's more to stopping someone than just penetration.

Shadow 7D
November 26, 2010, 10:09 PM
I will say this again
there is no SUCH THING
as a wonder round, there are rounds that perform certain things better than others
I don't think bird shot is a good Idea from the RESEARCH
but what you use, is yours, have fun, I prefer what the cops use.

BTW, second definition, Guy stops from 1.) shock of BEING shot(mental, not physical btw) this is also getting inside his OODA, he didn't expect to be shot

brain and body stop to process that
pain isn't really involved, research on pain actually has found that there tends to be a delay, kinda weird.
Second, second definition - mind goes, 'I'm shot, oh no, what do I do now, - - wait, they fall over in the movies'

rarely do people just drop, and when they do (not stumble, not fall from balance, just drop) they often get back up when shot. Even the walking dead, and I exclude apricot shots, but you don't take those with glasers.

Erik M
November 26, 2010, 10:19 PM
They are fun to shoot watermelon and the like with.

Would I use it as my carry ammo, trusting my life to it? no.

Shawn Dodson
November 26, 2010, 10:47 PM
bigger hammer writes: Thanks for helping to make my point. There's more to stopping someone than just penetration.

OMG, it really stopped that water-filled milk carton! LOL

Seriously, a bullet must damage vitals critical to immediate survival to compel a determined attacker to stop.

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 10:49 PM
Shadow 7D wrote, I will say this again
there is no SUCH THING
as a wonder round [Emphasis Added]

Great Straw Man argument, but since no one in this discussion has made such a statement, it's really meaningless.

Shadow 7D wrote, there are rounds that perform certain things better than others
I don't think bird shot is a good Idea from the RESEARCH [Emphasis Added]

Except that a Glaser is nowhere near the same as "birdshot."

Shadow 7D wrote, but what you use, is yours, have fun, I prefer what the cops use.

The cops, of course have all the answers right? They're not affected by politics, what the press might say about their actions, doing favors for vendors who treat them right, and/or tests that may or may not be right.

Shadow 7D wrote, BTW, second definition, Guy stops from 1.) shock of BEING shot(mental, not physical btw) this is also getting inside his OODA, he didn't expect to be shot

While the attacker might not have expected the victim to pull the trigger, he knew full well that he was armed. He'd assaulted the victim once before with a deadly weapon (an empty fifth liquor bottle) and backed down because he got a gun pointed at him. On this occasion the victim pointed the gun at him again, and told him to stop advancing or be shot.

But whatever happened to your argument that ... "wait for it" ... this stop was "PSYCHOSOMATIC?"

Shadow 7D wrote,
pain isn't really involved, research on pain actually has found that there tends to be a delay, kinda weird.

Again you defer to research. I've conducted dozens of interviews with shooting victims. EVERYONE of them mentioned THE PAIN as why the reason that they stopped their actions. These interviews were conducted on victims and suspects alike. NOT ONE OF THEM mentioned a delay of the onset of the pain.

Shadow 7D wrote, Second, second definition - mind goes, 'I'm shot, oh no, what do I do now, - - wait, they fall over in the movies'

You're free to refer to the movies if you like. I prefer to stay in real life.

Shadow 7D wrote, rarely do people just drop, and when they do (not stumble, not fall from balance, just drop) they often get back up when shot.

Yes, I know. Not sure what this has to do with this discussion though. As I said in my initial post, "The attacker literally "froze" (meaning that he halted his swing) in mid swing." AFTER the "freeze" he staggered away. I said nothing of the attacker "drop[ping]" or "back[ing] up."

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 10:51 PM
Erik M wrote,

Would I use it as my carry ammo, trusting my life to it? **** no.

To each their own. In this case, it saved the victim's life when a conventional HP, the kind that you seem to favor, probably would have gotten him killed (an assumption, I admit). I suggest carrying the first round, a Glaser, and the rest conventional HP's.

scaatylobo
November 26, 2010, 10:51 PM
Those with LEO background and with actual ER experience = all saw and see the Glaser as a viable round ?.

I was LEO for 26 years and I am the one that carries GSS & HP alternately in certain guns [ snubs ] and even in pistols.

Its my life and I feel safe doing this,as do those that went in harms way and those that SAW THE RESULTS.

Do as y'all please,but follow the bouncing ball to get the REAL words to the song !!.

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 11:17 PM
Shawn Dodson wrote,
Seriously, a bullet must damage vitals critical to immediate survival to compel a determined attacker to stop. [Emphasis Added]

The operant word in your statement is "compel." Do you consider that a person who "volunteers" to stop his attack because he's afraid or is in pain to have been "compelled?" Some will and some won't.

There are several ways that a bullet can stop a "determined attacked." A person can have a gun pointed at him and volunteer to cut off his attack. Here the word "volunteer" means that he stops of his own volition rather than face the consequences. It can happen several ways.

A person can be shot at and missed and volunteer to cut off his attack. He stops because he's afraid that the next round won't miss.

A person can be shot in a non-lethal area and because it hurts volunteer to cut off his attack.

Similarly a person can be shot in a lethal area and because it hurts, volunteer to cut off his attack.

A person can be shot in the pelvis (considering for these purposes that it breaks) and unable to continue his attack (depending on his weapon of choice.) If that weapon is a firearm he may continue the attack or he may, because he's down, volunteer to cut off his attack. If his weapon is an edged weapon (or fists/boots, etc.) his attack is over because he can no longer approach his victim.

A person can be shot in a lethal area and because of blood loss, he passes out. That removes the voluntary nature of the stop and moves into the compelling region.

A person can be shot in the brain/CNS area and because there is no more communication between the brain and the body, cut off his attack. This too removes the voluntary nature of the stop and moves into the compelling region.

bigger hammer
November 26, 2010, 11:18 PM
scaatylobo wrote, Did you notice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those with LEO background and with actual ER experience = all saw and see the Glaser as a viable round ?.

Please try not to confuse this discussion with facts OK? They just conflict with the "research" and the opinions. LOL

doc540
November 26, 2010, 11:28 PM
I carried them for years (even talked with Joe by phone) until I read a single post on the internet that caused the scales to fall from my eyes.

Look carefully at the pictures shown in the link already posted:
http://firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/102000/JohannesburgTraumaUnit.htm
(note the text: "He also caught a few fragments in his chest wall (see the X-Rays) but they didn't penetrate deeply enough to cause him a haemothorax or pneumothorax."

What it reveals is the fact of Glaser/MagSafe weakeness:

Any obstruction can cause them to expend most of their energy..

Think about it: car window, elbow, belt buckle, forearm, anything can cause them to fragment too early to cause enough subsequent damage to stop an attack.

I have a handful of them lingering in my misc. parts box.

Now I carry Barnes Bullets loaded by CorBon DPX.

Shadow 7D
November 26, 2010, 11:38 PM
btw, they are bird shot compressed into a jacket, that's what and why they do what they do. Read the box, it says so in the description, the difference between the colors is the size of BIRDSHOT

Shadow 7D
November 26, 2010, 11:46 PM
They are sold as exotic ammo
at least they aren't EXTREME SHOCK
but still fall in the 'wonder' round, in that many people who carry them make claims, like
I think it's because the wound was spread over such a large area of his body, activating nerves in a much larger area than a conventional HP would. From high in the chest to mid thigh he received trauma. No HP is capable of that.
where is the straw man?
actually I take that back, cyanide tipped exploding rounds, where did I leave that box again?

Any who, besmirch me I'm done, thought about them, thought about bird in a shoty (lead BB-T turkey loads are still call every once and a while) but lastly I'm
PLACEMENT PLACEMENT PLACEMENT sort of guy...
and I hope to have the penetration to reach that which must be touched.

Owen Sparks
November 26, 2010, 11:58 PM
An ER doctor in my town went out and bought Glazers for every pistol he had after treating someone shot in the chest with one. The damage was so extensive that the victim did not survive.

mljdeckard
November 27, 2010, 12:02 AM
But even if I fire a bad shot, I am much more confident of the damage and penetration that will be caused by premium JHP ammo.

bigger hammer
November 27, 2010, 12:49 AM
doc540 wrote, I carried them for years (even talked with Joe by phone) until I read a single post on the internet that caused the scales to fall from my eyes.

Look carefully at the pictures shown in the link already posted:
http://firearmsid.com/Feature%20Arti...TraumaUnit.htm
(note the text: "He also caught a few fragments in his chest wall (see the X-Rays) but they didn't penetrate deeply enough to cause him a haemothorax or pneumothorax."

What it reveals is the fact of Glaser/MagSafe weakeness:

Any obstruction can cause them to expend most of their energy..

Think about it: car window, elbow, belt buckle, forearm, anything can cause them to fragment too early to cause enough subsequent damage to stop an attack.

Initially I didn't look at your link because I know about the Glaser's weaknesses. And so should you since you carried them at one time! But now I'm glad that I did. This fella was shot in the elbow and he didn't know who had fired the shot. It's completely possible that he was standing and was shot from the rear. In this case a conventional HP probably would not have opened up much, if at all, and it's quite likely that there would have been ABSOLUTELY NO INJURY except to the elbow NO MATTER what type of bullet he'd been shot with. Of course it's impossible to predict what path a bullet will take but in all likelihood a bullet with more penetration would have exited out the inner surface of his arm and hit someone or something else.

I've already written "I wouldn't count on them to penetrate heavy clothing such as a thick down or leather jacket." If anyone said to throw away all the rest of your ammo and start carrying Glasers, you might have a point. But those of us who carry them are doing so on the first−round−only or at least alternating them with conventional HP's.

BTW I've personally done testing on the effect of a Glaser v. a car windshield. It removed it much more effectively than either FMJ's or conventional HP's allowing for an almost unimpeded path to following rounds. The FMJ and the HP's merely punched a hole in it, leaving it mostly intact for the following rounds. The following rounds are not diverted as much as the first round but still it's nowhere near as clear as after a Glaser hits it.

doc540 wrote, Now I carry Barnes Bullets loaded by CorBon DPX.

A great round. But in the incident described, I doubt that it would have stopped the attacker "midswing" as the Glaser did. Just an assumption, I realize. But more than likely the HP would have exited after penetrating several inches of fat and skin and not done any more damage. The pain might have made the attacker stop but that's him volunteering, not me compelling.

bigger hammer
November 27, 2010, 12:51 AM
Shadow 7D wrote, btw, they are bird shot compressed into a jacket, that's what and why they do what they do. Read the box, it says so in the description, the difference between the colors is the size of BIRDSHOT

Now I'm wondering if in your rather consistent FAIL in this argument you're purposefully trying to mislead people or if you're just ... well let's say "uninformed."

There's a VAST difference between a simple birdshot load and birdshot contained in a Glaser round, as to its terminal ballistics.

bigger hammer
November 27, 2010, 12:52 AM
Shadow 7D wrote, They are sold as exotic ammo

Please direct us to an ad from Glasers that calls it "exotic ammo." And BTW who cares about the marketing? They certainly are far different, in design, than the standard FMJ or HP. Is that "exotic" and if so, what difference does it make?

Shadow 7D wrote, at least they are EXTREME SHOCK

No idea what this means from a marketing standpoint. But in the incident I've previously described I think that's the only reason that the attacker stopped.

Shadow 7D wrote, but still fall in the 'wonder' round, in that many people who carry them make claims

Nonsense. I certainly DID NOT call it a "wonder round." Since you make this claim can you please point out where anyone in this discussion has said this? Sounds like that same Straw Man argument again.


Shadow 7D wrote, where is the straw man?

When you wrote this, "I will say this again ... there is no SUCH THING as a wonder round." you insinuated that someone made such a statement and that you're now decrying it. Since no one has made any such statement, it's a Straw Man argument.

Shadow 7D wrote, Any who, besmirch me I'm done, thought about them, thought about bird in a shoty (lead BB-T turkey loads are still call every once and a while) but lastly I'm
PLACEMENT PLACEMENT PLACEMENT sort of guy...

This paragraph is not very clearly written but I think you're comparing bird shot in a shotgun to the Glaser ammo. AGAIN, it seems that you're purposefully trying to mislead but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let it go with the assumption that you're merely uninformed. AGAIN, anyone who tries to make this comparison is waaaay off base.

Shadow 7D wrote, and I hope to have the penetration to reach that which must be touched.

Based on the shooting incident described in this thread you're wrong. It's NOT essential to "touch" any vitals to stop an attacker.

The shooter in that incident certainly wishes that his placement had been better. But given the fact that he did not want to shoot his attacker and he waited too long to fire, forcing him to duck, cover his head with his off arm and shoot all at the same time, the placement was as good as it could be. I'm a big fan of placement being the single most important concern at the time of a deadly force incident too. But it's not always possible. In fact, if you look at actual shooting incidents rather than spending all your time in "research" you'll discover that in real gunfights many rounds miss and many strike non−vital areas.

BTW I'm wondering how many gunfights you've been in where you shot someone with a HP in order to survive?

bigger hammer
November 27, 2010, 12:53 AM
mljdeckard wrote, But even if I fire a bad shot, I am much more confident of the damage and penetration that will be caused by premium JHP ammo.

If you'd have fired the "bad shot" as happened in the incident I described, you'd get nothing much but over−penetration. Place a pencil at a 45 degree angle to your body, about an inch to the right of your navel. You'll see that the penetration carries it through the top layer of skin, through some fat (depending on the size of your belly, of course) and then out of another layer of skin roughly in front of your hip. Nothing vital there. Of course, it's impossible to predict with any certainty the path that a bullet will take but in this area there are no bones to deflect it and (depending on the size of the belly) little muscle to open up the HP either.

gatopardo
November 27, 2010, 01:03 AM
You won't regret using it, I've shot some into wood and the effect is impressive.
You'll feel sorry for the fella getting shot, the bleeding would be fatal and the bullet will stop right there, as long as you hit the target, that is.

mljdeckard
November 27, 2010, 02:06 AM
I'll say again, you using that one incident to justify them is like a person who survived a car accident because they were able to jump out, and saying that if they had worn their seatbelt, they wouldn't have been able to. Just because it worked THAT TIME, it doesn't mean seatbelts aren't the best idea.

bigger hammer
November 27, 2010, 02:23 AM
mljdeckard wrote, I'll say again, you using that one incident to justify them ...

Since I'M NOT using any "one incident to justify" the use of Glasers the rest of your post is immaterial. I'm simply saying that in that one incident the use of conventional HP's would probably have resulted in the death or serious injury of the person assaulted. That single incident is not the justification for their use. Rather the high level of shock they deliver combined with the very minimal chance of over penetration or richochet is the justification. The incident cited is just an example of these things.

scaatylobo
November 27, 2010, 08:01 AM
"Since I'M NOT using any "one incident to justify" the use of Glasers the rest of your post is immaterial. I'm simply saying that in that one incident the use of conventional HP's would probably have resulted in the death or serious injury of the person assaulted. That single incident is not the justification for their use. Rather the high level of shock they deliver combined with the very minimal chance of over penetration or richochet is the justification. The incident cited is just an example of these things. "

I repeat,did I miss something = as I am under the impression that ANY who saw REAL effects and who carry in the "line of duty" are likely to be those that are knowledgeable in what to use as they believe they are betting their lives on performance.

I get the idea that you are being 'baited' and its all a game to those who like to argue.

DT Guy
November 27, 2010, 09:19 AM
Glasers are sufficiently different from most SD ammo that the actual tactical applications of the firearm change. While going from FMJ to HP can change penetration and expansion to a degree, going from solids to Glasers changes the use of a sidearm in a much more fundamental way; like going from buckshot to slugs in a shottie, for instance.

Are there circumstances where a Glaser will outperform a solid? Certainly. Do those circumstances represent the majority of how YOU will deploy the weapon? Nobody knows but you.

I personally have carried Glasers on duty (in a BUG) when I was an LEO, with the thought that the BUG's tactical application would be very short range, non-barricaded shooting at a threat that had disarmed me. For that particular application, Glasers seem to offer an advantage. For a 20 yard shot at an aggressor half-hidden behind a doorjamb, they would (IMHO) not.

Since it's hard to predict where and how we'll use an SD weapon, choosing ammo that works within a more limited scope can be problematic. That's why I would not carry Glaser today, if I were still an LEO; too many variables to predict, and other ammo can do better in too many of the foreseeable situations.

Does that mean Glasers can't work? Not at all. If I had a frontal shot across a hallway at a lightly clothed attacker, I could see them offering an advantage. I'm just not sure I can get that guy to take off his leather jacket in time....


Larry

Sam1911
November 27, 2010, 09:59 AM
Well, that's about enough data and opinion on both sides of the debate for anyone reading this to inform their own decision.

About the most you can say with certainty is that:
a) getting shot with anything really sucks; and,
b) most knowledgeable folks DON'T trust these alternative bullets and can find data and examples to support their distrust; and,
c) some knowledgeable folks DO trust these alternative bullets and have their own data, examples, etc. to back up the trust they place in them.

Read, study, make up your own mind ... and ...

Remeber, this is THE HIGH ROAD. Discuss, debate, raise points and offer counter-points -- but do so with respect and civility, as gentlemen.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glaser/Magsafe" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!