As I previously posted regarding defending my apartment, I came to realize that penetration is a risk of injury to other tenants. So I've been considering using Glaser safety slugs, AKA frangible rounds. I understand that these are low penetrating, basically small buckshot rounds. My question is twofold: one, does caliber make a difference with frangibles (stupid question I know, but it matters as to my caliber choice), and will frangibles still reliably create a disabling wound? The low penetration is a double edged sword; on the one hand I need to penetrate enough to stop the bad guy, but not enough that I blow through three walls and possibly kill my neighbors. Age old bullet dilemma, I know. How much penetration is just enough for my needs? Forgive the ignorance of these questions. I've still not had any experience with handguns.
Does caliber matter when firing frangibles?
- Thread starter Kylaen
- Start date
- Status
Caliber always makes a difference, but strangely, people generally focus on the aspect of caliber that makes the least difference (terminal effect) while paying much less attention to the aspects of caliber that make the most difference (shootability, capacity, etc.). (That's assuming we're talking about the context of service pistol calibers/commonly recommended self-defense calibers.)
Regardless of what you put in them, handguns won't reliably create a disabling wound. My advice is to find a premium self-defense round and shoot enough of it through your pistol to insure that it functions properly and is accurate. Those are two benefits of premium self-defense ammo that aren't always present in the more exotic rounds on the market. Then get some good training and practice with your pistol enough to be able to hit consistently with it. Forget about trying to find ammo that won't penetrate enough to be dangerous and at the same time will penetrate enough to be dangerous. The best way to prevent unwanted penetration is to hit your target.
Edarnold
Member
My understanding is that the Glaser load is the choice of Air Marshals, for obvious reasons. Shooting in the confined space of an aircraft cabin, excess penetration is unacceptable. I have not heard any fact-based criticism of the terminal effects of the Glaser round: it creates a very severe wound due to the shredding effect of the core load of shot. Having a fist-sized portion of your anatomy reduced to hamburger is going to be a serious deterrent to a home invader: having several such wounds is likely to be incapacitating.
In the context of the situation presented, at the engagement ranges than occur inside an apartment the accuracy of the load is irrelevant. The failure of multiple solid hits with 'premium' self-defense loads to stop a drugged or determined attacker is well known: Michael Brown for a recent example. The Glaser will not do any worse than the 'reliable' conventional ammunition in stopping a threat, but it will reduce the hazard of collateral damage to neighbors.
Obviously, if you have the steely nerves and unerring aim possessed by many posters to this forum, a .22 rim fire will be sufficient to make the CNS shot that will stop an attacker. For the rest of us, a .40 caliber would seem to be optimal for the Glaser round, offering more terminal damage with only a little less magazine capacity. Personally, my home defense in a townhouse is trusted to a 12 gauge pump shotgun with #2 shot, which I consider optimal for my situation. Your opinion may vary.
In the context of the situation presented, at the engagement ranges than occur inside an apartment the accuracy of the load is irrelevant. The failure of multiple solid hits with 'premium' self-defense loads to stop a drugged or determined attacker is well known: Michael Brown for a recent example. The Glaser will not do any worse than the 'reliable' conventional ammunition in stopping a threat, but it will reduce the hazard of collateral damage to neighbors.
Obviously, if you have the steely nerves and unerring aim possessed by many posters to this forum, a .22 rim fire will be sufficient to make the CNS shot that will stop an attacker. For the rest of us, a .40 caliber would seem to be optimal for the Glaser round, offering more terminal damage with only a little less magazine capacity. Personally, my home defense in a townhouse is trusted to a 12 gauge pump shotgun with #2 shot, which I consider optimal for my situation. Your opinion may vary.
dbmjr1
Member
I shot milk jugs, years ago, with Glasers in both .45 and .357.
The .45's wouldn't penetrate the back side of the milk jug of water.
The .357's would go into the second milk jug, but not through it.
Either round caused the first milk jug to 'explode' violently, causing me to think there's going to be one heck of a wound cavity.
My advice would be to use the .357 Glasers in a quality revolver.
The .45's wouldn't penetrate the back side of the milk jug of water.
The .357's would go into the second milk jug, but not through it.
Either round caused the first milk jug to 'explode' violently, causing me to think there's going to be one heck of a wound cavity.
My advice would be to use the .357 Glasers in a quality revolver.
highlander 5
Member
Back in the 80s in Boston shot a a stick up artist in his store with a 380 loaded with Glaser rounds. The jeweler hit the thief in the chest/stomach and the round did a significant amount of damage and I remember a quote from the news article " Where's the shotgun the BPD asked of the jeweler".
WestKentucky
Member
I don't have experience with frangible, but I have seen firsthand what happens when a bullet fragments heavily on impact. I actually prefer that effect unless I'm hunting something that would eat me. The fact that a frangible load is considered safer for your neighbors is another big plus too.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Re: frangible rounds
Rounds that penetrate deeply and hit something vital are what is most important in self-defense ammunition. You want the other guy to STOP quickly and not have to wait for him to bleed out -- because if the bad guy is bleeding out he's still able to hurt or stop you! The best way to cause a STOP is to hit the other guy's head or spine (the Central Nervous System) or the heart -- but even a heart hit gives the other guy up to a minute to send you his final response. Some frangible rounds may not penetrate deeply enough to do a stop if you miss a head shot.
I've not heard much about the real-world effectiveness of frangible round -- and that's what is missing in this discussion. The lack of that evidence is probbly because civilians aren't involved in a lot of shoot-outs, and because relatively few gun owners use frangible rounds. The real-world effectiveness of frangible rounds used in self-defense situations may actually be quite high, but we have no evidence of that, yet.
There are examples/evaluations of several different frangible rounds on YOUTUBE and some look pretty awesome in gel tests and in tests using pork ribs and pork shoulders -- and the results seem to be mixed. (Using pork ribs and pork shoulders are a good human tissue simulation, but that tissue media is NOT calibrated (as is FBI Ballistic Gelatin) and you just don't know how much you can depend videos using that sort of test materials.
Frangible rounds probably won't hurt your neighbors, but they may also not STOP the bad guy who is trying to stop you.
Rounds that penetrate deeply and hit something vital are what is most important in self-defense ammunition. You want the other guy to STOP quickly and not have to wait for him to bleed out -- because if the bad guy is bleeding out he's still able to hurt or stop you! The best way to cause a STOP is to hit the other guy's head or spine (the Central Nervous System) or the heart -- but even a heart hit gives the other guy up to a minute to send you his final response. Some frangible rounds may not penetrate deeply enough to do a stop if you miss a head shot.
I've not heard much about the real-world effectiveness of frangible round -- and that's what is missing in this discussion. The lack of that evidence is probbly because civilians aren't involved in a lot of shoot-outs, and because relatively few gun owners use frangible rounds. The real-world effectiveness of frangible rounds used in self-defense situations may actually be quite high, but we have no evidence of that, yet.
There are examples/evaluations of several different frangible rounds on YOUTUBE and some look pretty awesome in gel tests and in tests using pork ribs and pork shoulders -- and the results seem to be mixed. (Using pork ribs and pork shoulders are a good human tissue simulation, but that tissue media is NOT calibrated (as is FBI Ballistic Gelatin) and you just don't know how much you can depend videos using that sort of test materials.
Frangible rounds probably won't hurt your neighbors, but they may also not STOP the bad guy who is trying to stop you.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
Glaser is junk. It produces shallow wounds. It may or may not fragment when it hits drywall - more often than not the jacket is pressed into the plastic ball in the nose and it behaves like FMJ.
MagSafe is also junk.
If you're concerned about reducing wall penetration then I suggest you buy a shotgun and load it with birdshot. It also will produce a shallow wound but it creates more wound trauma than a Glaser or MagSafe handgun bullet.
MagSafe is also junk.
If you're concerned about reducing wall penetration then I suggest you buy a shotgun and load it with birdshot. It also will produce a shallow wound but it creates more wound trauma than a Glaser or MagSafe handgun bullet.
Use the Caliber/ bullet you think will stop your attacker the fastest.....worry about everything else later.
sure shooting through a wall and injuring someone would be horrible.........but you know what sucks more?.....being killed by your attacker because you shot him with birdshot and it didnt stop him in time.
sure shooting through a wall and injuring someone would be horrible.........but you know what sucks more?.....being killed by your attacker because you shot him with birdshot and it didnt stop him in time.
Edarnold
Member
Keep in mind that the people offering advice here to forget about the neighbor's will not be sitting beside you in court if an incident occurs, and there is collateral damage. Talk is cheap, civil actions are expensive.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Edarnold said:
Very true. Civil suits are a real concern in almost any situation. But, in some states, the state law protects those who use lethal force from civil suits, if the force was used in a "legal" manner, when there is inadvertent or unintended collateral damage. That is the case here in NC. You probably need to know whether it is true in your state, as well. But, as someone else noted, if frangible ammo doesn't work as claimed, a civil suit is the least of your worries.
Anyone here who has credible evidence of frangible ammo's real-world effectiveness should share it with us. The claims may be right, but FBI Ballistic gel results seem inconclusive... and some frangible rounds don't do well in gel!
I'd use a good frangible ammo round if I was sure it worked as claimed. But, until someone shows me a better mousetrap (read "self defense ammo") that actually works, I won't be beating a path to their door.
Last edited:
1. You have to live to be prosecuted. If you pick some "magic" ammo on the basis of advertising that says it's very effective on bad guys but won't even shoot through a wall and end up dead as a result, you won't need to worry about what happens next.
2. The bad guy is presumably shooting as well, and it's highly unlike that he picked his ammo out of consideration for your neighbors. The best thing you can do to keep your neighbors safe is to neutralize the attacker as rapidly as possible (to keep his number of shots to a minimum) while missing as little as possible (to minimize the chance of your bullets flying around the neighborhood.)
Spend your money on training, practice and premium self-defense expanding ammunition that will penetrate 12" to 18". That's the best way to prevent injury to your neighbors, and also the best way to prevent injury to yourself.
Walt Sherrill
Member
JohnKSa:
You may already understand this, but I'm not sure others do...
While do you have to live to be prosecuted, CIVIL SUITS don't involve prosecutors. Prosecutors are only involved when a criminal law is broken; civil suits are a totally different animal. In many states (probably most), a claimant could bring a civil suit even if the shooting was considered absolutely proper (i.e. a GOOD SHOOT) under criminal law, and the defendant (the shooter) was not prosecuted! A neighbor who was accidentally harmed as a result of the shooting can seek restitution from the person who caused him or her harm.
In the infamous NYC case, in which Bernhard Goetz shot four assailants in a subway, he was prosecuted for attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except for one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm, for which he served eight months of a one-year sentence. (He could have been charged for that even if he hadn't used the gun!) In 1996, the family of one of the men shot, left paraplegic and brain damaged as a result of the shooting, obtained a civil judgment of $43 million against Goetz. (I don't know how that affected Goetz financially, but I suspect it has been difficult.
I agree with your underlying point -- it's better to be alive to face a criminal or civil suit than dead -- if for no other reason than a claimant in a civil suit can still go after your estate.
As I wrote earlier, I'm not sure that the frangible rounds being discussed here actually do what they're supposed to do. If they do, great and I'd be willing to use them. I've not seen evidence that such is the case.
You may already understand this, but I'm not sure others do...
While do you have to live to be prosecuted, CIVIL SUITS don't involve prosecutors. Prosecutors are only involved when a criminal law is broken; civil suits are a totally different animal. In many states (probably most), a claimant could bring a civil suit even if the shooting was considered absolutely proper (i.e. a GOOD SHOOT) under criminal law, and the defendant (the shooter) was not prosecuted! A neighbor who was accidentally harmed as a result of the shooting can seek restitution from the person who caused him or her harm.
In the infamous NYC case, in which Bernhard Goetz shot four assailants in a subway, he was prosecuted for attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except for one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm, for which he served eight months of a one-year sentence. (He could have been charged for that even if he hadn't used the gun!) In 1996, the family of one of the men shot, left paraplegic and brain damaged as a result of the shooting, obtained a civil judgment of $43 million against Goetz. (I don't know how that affected Goetz financially, but I suspect it has been difficult.
I agree with your underlying point -- it's better to be alive to face a criminal or civil suit than dead -- if for no other reason than a claimant in a civil suit can still go after your estate.
As I wrote earlier, I'm not sure that the frangible rounds being discussed here actually do what they're supposed to do. If they do, great and I'd be willing to use them. I've not seen evidence that such is the case.
Poor choice of words on my part. My meaning would have been clearer had I said: "You have to be alive to be taken to court."
However, that said, 'prosecute' is actually a fairly general term which simply means to institute legal proceedings against someone. While it is true that civil suits do not involve prosecutors, it is also true that a civil action can correctly be called a prosecution.
https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-dictionary/civil-prosecution
http://www.citruscollege.edu/stdntsrv/studentdean/ab1088/Pages/CriminalandCivilProsecution.aspx
Walt Sherrill
Member
The term "prosecute" can be used in a lot of different ways, but it's almost never used when talking about civil cases. But I'll accept your point -- that you meant starting a legal process.
My main point was one that many don't seem to understand -- that even if the round in question WAS effective against a bad guy, you can still lose your butt -- even if it's a GOOD SHOOT. That was my reason for mentioning Bernhard Goetz. I agree with you that it's better to live to face the consequences, and some rounds may be more effective than others.
A frangible round isn't really a fail-safe round. That round can still hit a bystander if you're struggling with an assailant, or if you just miss -- pressure/stress can make even the coolest shooters miss. More importantly, not all self-defense shootings take place in the home.
My main point was one that many don't seem to understand -- that even if the round in question WAS effective against a bad guy, you can still lose your butt -- even if it's a GOOD SHOOT. That was my reason for mentioning Bernhard Goetz. I agree with you that it's better to live to face the consequences, and some rounds may be more effective than others.
A frangible round isn't really a fail-safe round. That round can still hit a bystander if you're struggling with an assailant, or if you just miss -- pressure/stress can make even the coolest shooters miss. More importantly, not all self-defense shootings take place in the home.
Last edited:
- Status