Ballistic gelatin test results : .40S&W Glaser Safety Slug 115gr Blue (interior wall)

[Brass Fetcher]

This file is a little bit too big to post to THR, but you can find it here :

http://www.brassfetcher.com/A%20comparative%20look%20at%20the%20performance%20of%20the%2040S&W%20115gr%20Glaser%20Blue%20Safety%20Slug%20against%20Bare%20Gelatin%20and%20Interior%20Walls.pdf

It's a summary of ballistic gelatin testing that I did, to try to get an idea as to how much safer an innocent person on the other side of an interior wall would be, in the event of missing the intended target with a Glaser Safety Slug.

3 gelatin shots are bare gelatin (as a baseline)
3 gelatin shots are with an interior wall placed 18" in front of the bare gelatin block.

All shots are from a Glock 23, from 10 feet distance.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Any thoughts/comments?

 

[gbelleh]

I missed this post before. Interesting results.

 

[SG1]

Interesting report. So the tests were conducted with 1 piece of 1/2" drywall set 18" forward of the gel? I wonder what similar tests would show if there were two pieces of 1/2" dry wall set 3 1/2" apart (inside to inside) to simulate an interior wall of a typical home (barring any insulation, wiring, studs, etc.). I was under the impression that the Glaser safety slugs were known to penetrate a layer of drywall, but would not pass through the second layer (on a stray shot).

Very nice data collection. Thanks for sharing your findings.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

The interior wall actually was two pieces of 1/2" gypsum board on a 2x4 frame.

One thing that I would say, is that the wallboard does appear to knock about 20% off of the penetration of the 2 shots that had the low impact angles (one round hit the bare gelatin and the other round hit the wallboard) ... and increased the penetration depth of the bullets that hit at higher impact angles.

 

[highorder]

It appears to me that Glasers are unpredictable, inconsistent, and will still cause fatal injuries to people behind an interrior wall.

Taking a shot when rule #4 is broken (an innocent in the line of fire) is an awful choice to have to make. However I would still choose ammunition with proven terminal performance in that situation. Misses are dangerous. No matter what steps you take to protect from them, they can be deadly.

 

[MICHAEL T]

It appears to me that Glasers are unpredictable, inconsistent

Add inaccurate These are the very reasons I stopped using them and went back to a good HP

 

[highorder]

Add inaccurate These are the very reasons I stopped using them and went back to a good HP

I didn't want to sound like I was piling it on...

 

[WhippingBoy]

There you have it. Guns don't kill people, it's the jackets on the bullets that kill people.

It's amazing that the jacket kept going regardless of what the blue slug did.

 

[highorder]

It's amazing that the jacket kept going regardless of what the blue slug did.

It's the only part of the projectile that has any significant mass.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

It's amazing that the jacket kept going regardless of what the blue slug did.

It was still full of lead shot.

Nice work JE223!

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Thanks Shawn!

It seems to me, that the indication of 'success' with the tested bullets was the absence of the blue tip and most of the jacket inside of the wound track. On the shots that did not penetrate very deeply, these pieces were literally spit back out the entrance hole while the gelatin was bouncing around, post-shot.

On the deep penetrating shots, the blue tip and jackets were usually more than apparent in the photos.

 

[wally]

Inadequate penetration in all regards. You need to carry rounds you can afford to practice with.

--wally.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok, as nearly as I can tell from the block labels the first 3 shots are the control shots and the last 3 shots are taken through the interior wall barrier. If that's correct then it seems that the shots through the interior wall model actually penetrated more deeply (average of 9.1") than the control shots (average of 7.7"). Interesting...

Why are there barrier numbers on all the block labels if only some of them actually were shot through barriers?

 

[RoostRider]

Hmmpfff.... If I ever have enough money to shoot Glasers enough to be proficient with them, this will still be a good argument against them...

Nice work on the study though.... Why the study JE223? Just curious? College course? Work related?

 

[Brass Fetcher]

John,

The 'name' of each shot goes something like '40 Barrier 5' , '40 barrier 14' etc ... basically, the title just indicated that the shots were part of a barrier shoot, whether the shot was against a bare gelatin block baseline or against the actual barrier. Confusing yes. Intentionally confusing, no.

RoostRider,

I did this study to attempt to shed some light on the performance of this ammunition against a barrier everyone has always assumed it would stop in - interior walls. I'm of the opinion that, thankfully, there is not a lot of civilian self-defense shooting going on and on the same note, the situation for LE in America is not like that of a true third-world country. Yet. So the amount of real-world shooting data available for this type of ammunition being fired, missing the target, going through a wall and then striking an unintentional target behind that is ... pretty scarce if such a scenario has ever occurred at all and been recorded as such.

It's a lot better, IMO, to notice effects like this on the test range than it is to be mistakenly tossing bullets into your neighbors living room if things ever went hot.

 

[TT]

Can someone direct me to a cite of a manufacturer (either Glaser or Cor Bon) claiming that Safety Slugs will stop or break up in wallboard? I know MagSafe makes that claim, but I've never seen such a claim for the Glaser.

 

[JohnKSa]

Let's take a step back. Before anyone does that, perhaps you could direct us to the post on this thread where someone says the manufacturer of the Glaser rounds claims they will break up on wallboard.

 

[AKElroy]

Can someone direct me to a cite of a manufacturer (either Glaser or Cor Bon) claiming that Safety Slugs will stop or break up in wallboard? I know MagSafe makes that claim, but I've never seen such a claim for the Glaser.

I was never under the impression Glaser made such a claim either. I always understood their position was to limit OP on the opposite side of a human analogue. They do appear to inflict a substantial wound channel without excessive penetration. I do not think I would have much faith in any round that FAILED to penetrate 2" of drywall.

I do not use them, partly for cost, but I also feel that lighter HP's can perform a similar roll, and the lower cost allows practice with the chosen defensive round. I keep 115 +P JHP in my 9's.

 

[TT]

JohnKSa: Before anyone does that, perhaps you could direct us to the post on this thread where someone says the manufacturer of the Glaser rounds claims they will break up on wallboard.

I was asking in reference to JE223’s comment- “I did this study to attempt to shed some light on the performance of this ammunition against a barrier everyone has always assumed it would stop in - interior walls.” And also because the general tone of the thread seems to be that Glasers are supposed to stop in interior walls. Sorry, it is not kosher to ask that question?

 

[Brass Fetcher]

TT,

Ask 10 shooters what they think the Glaser Safety Slug is designed to do. I think that you will find that the majority of them believe that the rounds are designed to reduce the liability to the people not intentionally being shot at, on the other side of the wall.

This test was an attempt to take a quick look at the issue of the tested ammos interaction with the tested wallboard and gelatin.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Can someone direct me to a cite of a manufacturer (either Glaser or Cor Bon) claiming that Safety Slugs will stop or break up in wallboard? I know MagSafe makes that claim, but I've never seen such a claim for the Glaser.

MagSafe SWAT is the only MagSafe load advertised as disintegrating in sheetrock.

In essence Glaser performs as FMJ when it encounters sheetrock.

 

[JohnKSa]

Sorry, it is not kosher to ask that question?

Well, given that no one said anything about manufacturer claims, it's not a particularly relevant question.

The test wasn't to refute manufacturer claims, the purpose is clearly stated in the quote you included in your post. The purpose is to demonstrate that a common assumption made about Glaser ammunition is incorrect. i.e. "...everyone has always assumed it would stop in..."

 

[TT]

JE223: Ask 10 shooters what they think the Glaser Safety Slug is designed to do. I think that you will find that the majority of them believe that the rounds are designed to reduce the liability to the people not intentionally being shot at, on the other side of the wall.

Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to run down your testing, I think it’s a very valuable contribution to the forum. Just pointing out that the Glaser round was never designed to stop or break up in wallboard, so it is ignorant to bash the round for failing to do so.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

I believe I used the term 'reduce the liability'.