Glaser/Magsafe

[bigger hammer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

did I miss something ?

"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]

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]

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.