Ruger and Glasers

[Julie L Wiant]

I own a Ruger GP100 .357 mag with a 6in barrel & a laser site for home self defense. It's loaded with glaser blue tips & was told how GREAT this ammo is. BUT, after reading many posts about how ineffective it would be on a LIVE target, such as a big man, I'm now not sure what would be the SAFEST ammo for MY LIVING CONDITIONS. I'm in a city with apartments/houses right on top of each other & I'm afraid of a through & through that could harm my neighbors if I had to shoot someone. I also have 158gr HYDRA-SHOKS-jacketed hollow points & Federal 38 special personal defense ammo that are 110gr high energy-low recoil hollow points with a metal jacket. MY URGENT QUESTION is..."What would you guys recommend I keep it loaded with to protect against a through & through wound yet be powerful enough to stop a big man?" I am an excellent marksman even when I'm shaking like a leaf so I'm not likely to miss. Thank you in advance for your help & opinions!

 

[Chindo18Z]

Julie: The simple truth of the matter is that any handgun bullet capable of reliably & lethally penetrating a human body... will also penetrate stick construction walls (studs, drywall, insulation, siding).

This includes pre-fragmented rounds like Glasers, MagSafes, etc.

In other words, any load you choose is going to go through walls if you miss. Therefore, it's best to use some form of expanding bullet that is controllable (in terms of recoil management). Through and through wounds from .38 Special isn't nearly the issue you might think (more on that further down).

You'll simply have to identify the ideally safest possible direction you could fire from, while using a pre-identified defensible location in the house. Sectors of fire...Where can I shoot? Where can't I shoot? Of course, you have no guarantee over the conditions of a life and death struggle and might have to fire from wherever you happen to make a stand. Which means you need to be accurate...to minimize errant rounds through your neighbors' living spaces.

Job One is to win the fight. What might happen to an over penetrating bullet is a valid concern...but not so much if you don't survive. Do the best you can (and get as much practice as you can).

You are already on the right track with a heavy framed .357 using .38s. Firing .38s out of a heavy 6" weapon takes care of the recoil management part. After that, the trick is to identify an effective load that delivers terminal effect. Almost anything made by the major manufacturers will work (including what you already have). Using .38 will pretty much eliminate collateral damage from through and through wounds...the bullet is going to tend to not make it through the other side of a flesh target. If it does, it isn't going to have much energy left for additional wall penetration.

I use .38 Special +P 158 Lead Semi-Wad Cutter Hollow Points (LSWCHP +P; the so-called "FBI Load") in my .357 Home Defense 4" revolvers, but that's a personal preference. I know it works. It delivers adequate penetration and expansion. It's controllable for fast followup shots. Any version is good (Remington, Federal, Winchester, etc.).

I'm also partial to anything that has a Speer Gold Dot JHP bullet attached to it.
http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/detail.aspx?loadNo=23720*
*Note that this is Speer's 125gr +P .38 for standard (long barrels)...not the 135gr load designed for expansion out of snub nosed barrels.

I like to use middle weight bullets for given calibers. If I deviate from that...I go with a heavier bullet. In .38/.357, 158 grains is the middle-weight gold standard. I worry more about under penetration than over penetration with .38 Special. The cartridge has never been a ball of fire in terms of velocity or deep penetration...especially in light weight bullet configurations...even the "+P" versions.

For me, 158 gr +P .38 is at the appropriate weight/velocity threshold. Most anything lighter or slower isn't. I've bounced enough lightweight or low velocity .38 loads off of various target medium to appreciate that the round is not a great penetrator. YMMV.

However, there are a couple of good, modern, medium weight .38 Special loads out there in the 135 -145 grain range (e.g.,Winchester Silvertip 145 gr .38 Special). They also have enough mass, velocity, and reliable expansion to do the job required:

http://www.midwayusa.com/Product/13...357-diameter-145-grain-silvertip-hollow-point

Out of the three loads that you already own:

1. For pure terminal effect, I'd go with the 158gr Hydra-Shok (.357 I assume?) . However, you'd be better off going with any factory 125gr SJHP .357, as the 158 is going to be the round that DOES over penetrate. 125s SJHPs have a better track record for staying in the body (and are a reliably effective bullet). Full house .357 at 158gr are probably not the round for you in an apartment situation. They will likely go through a target with enough remaining oomph to also penetrate walls. Also more difficult to control for followup shots.

2. If through and through wounds are really the thing you are most concerned about...go with the 110s. It's doubtful they will make it through a human body. Early versions of 110 (back in the 80's & 90's) didn't work that well on the street. Modern versions are supposedly much better. I don't use 'em, but some folks are happy with the lighter bullets.

3. Shoot the Glasers up for practice, but lose them for actual home defense. I once went through a Glaser phase (back in the '80s), but they really don't perform well in comparison to modern hollow points. They have been around for decades, but there is a reason that armed Police, Security, and Military organizations do not use them. If they performed as advertised, their use would be universal. They don't...and they aren't.

If you are inclined to go with a completely new load, I'd recommend the Winchester Silvertip I linked to.

 

[skt239]

I would stick with the Federals.

 

[DocRx]

Load it with the Federal 38spl 110gr JHP Personal Defense Ammo. At close range, or within confinements, they should stop anyone, especially with a double tap in the COM. Good luck, hope you never have to use it, but at least you have it-most don't!

 

[Old Fuff]

I have somewhat the same problem, but at least the walls are brick. My present choice is either a Taurus ultra-light .38 Special snubby (that is normally a pocket-carry gun) or an old 1950's Colt Detective Special. Both are loaded with .38 Special 148-grain, mid-range wadcutters. Velocity is in the 625 FPS range, which close up is good enough. I won't hurt a neighbor unless I miss and the bullet goes through a window, and I'm confident the bullet will go deep enough into the target to do what's necessary.

I agree with Chindo18Z's observation concerning usual urban building construction, and suggest that bookcases located in certain places can be your friend.

 

[sidheshooter]

I think Chindo covered it. In a 6" barrel, the generally accepted short answer is "anyone's FBI load" (158 grain Lead Semi Wadcutter Hollow Point, in .38 special with the +P designation). They'll all work out of that gun.

I am a fairly die-hard revolver person, and I've got somebody's version of this in all my .357/.38 revolvers at the moment.

If you want to have less penetration in flesh and blood, then the standard 110 gr in .357 looks good (as opposed to .38 special; I'm not really a fan of the light .38s-with the possible exception of the corbon all-copper DPX rounds that have been trying to do an admirable job of swimming upstream through decades of street-proven "FBI load" track record, across tons of shootings. I've never shot the DPX myself, being more of the "why goof with the FBI load" camp...)

The 110 in .357 was once adopted by the US Border patrol, in part because of over penetration and crowded shooting concerns, or so I've read. The generic winchester white box version is a cheap way to check this ammo out yourself.

I'll try to find a link to the test results (including FBI data-the agency, not the .38 loading) that mention the .357 158 hydra-shok, but suffice to say that it is very penetrative. I personally wouldn't use this round for HD when the silvertip 145 and various 110s in .357 are available.

That said, I have numerous boxes of both silvertip 145 and WWB 110 .357 in stock, and I still just use the old 158 +P .38 round. Once you get out past 3-4" of barrel length, it hits pretty hard, and it will be a pussycat in terms of recoil, blast and flash in a 6" GP100.

Save the .357 for the woods, IMHO. And save the glasers for next Fall's pumpkin season.

 

[Haywood]

I would like to add to what others have said. If you are using a 6", the 38+P load will be good.

 

[bigfatdave]

Chindo covered it quite well ... I'll just add in that you can look up performance of various ammunition on brassfetcher and the box o' truth (google those phrases for the websites)

Glasers do NOT perform either of the functions they claim to - they DO go through walls, and they DO NOT cause involuntary stops in violent felons.
That applies to anything frangible, with the possible exception of serious rifle rounds.

Frangibles are junk
Overpenetration is of less concern than ineffective ammunition
Generally a LE or FBI load is best, providing 12"+ of penetration with good expansion. Legitimate loads get tested with freely available results, junk like Glasers and ExtremeShock do their own testing and are vague about the results when questioned.

 

[Vigilantis]

A lighter bullet will have less momentum, so it will stop quicker on impact, all else being equal. Hollowpoints also stop sooner than fmj's or sp's, because they use up some of their energy on bullet expansion, again, all else being equal.

I think your best bet is probably Hornady's 110 grain Critical Defense load in .38 Special. Speer's 135 grain Gold Dot .38 Special load would also be an excellent choice, the police around here have been carrying Gold Dots for years in various calibers and love 'em.

 

[suemarkp]

Lead round balls will have lower penetration, especially if soft lead (and they will probably expand in diameter if soft lead). Most people think 000 buck out of a shotgun has plenty of penetration on a person, it shouldn't know any difference if fired form a revolver. There used to be a 357 load with 3 lead round balls. This is the same size as 000 buck. I'm not sure if it is still around, but it could be hand loaded if not.

The argument that military or law enforcement doesn't use a round should not be a disqualifying reason. They have different needs, and not shooting through walls is generally NOT one of their requirements. They typically are going to want ammunition with plenty of penetration so they can shoot people behind barriers. The multi-ball rounds are generally shunned by law enforcement. They balls all don't have the same impact point. At longer ranges, you could have a rather large pattern and miss your target (and have multiple projectiles that could hit an innocent). Short range home defense where wall penetration is an issue is a "specialty" situation. I do agree though that most rounds that are sufficient to penetrate a person are going to penetrate at least one house wall, and perhaps two or more.

 

[bigger hammer]

If you can guarantee good hits in the upper chest then modern HP's are your best bet. Since you can't, I'd suggest carrying one Glaser in a revolver and one or two in an auto (due to its larger mag capacity). I doubt that the folks here who say that these rounds won't stop a man have much real world experience.

I have only one incident and if I'd been carrying only HP's, I doubt that I'd have survived. I was involved in a self defense situation and had to shoot my attacker to save myself. It was a terrible shot, I was ducking, blocking, backing up and shooting all at the same time. I had let my attacker get too close and he was swinging a heavy object at my head. He was facing about 45 degrees to his right, and the round hit him about an inch to the right of his belly button. Due to the angling of his body, it only penetrated a few inches, at most, under his skin. It travelled roughly parallel to the surface of the skin. Had I been using conventional HP's, more than likely, the bullet would have exited, after passing harmlessly through some fat. Even if it had expanded perfectly, there aren't any vital organs or large blood vessels in that area. Instead the Glaser upset completely and the pellets spread throughout his upper body, causing widespread trauma. One pellet went into his thigh and perforated his femoral artery, causing him to bleed out. One pellet missed his aorta by about 1/4" The shock he felt from the round stopped him in the middle of his swing. I doubt that a HP would have done that.

I've done a bit of testing on wallboard, and in my experience it never penetrated more than one layer. Since walls are two layers I consider it to be a good choice for self-defense, where others are in the home.

I don't recommend that you carry more than one or two of them because they may not make it through a heavy or thick jacket. If they get stopped you'd want to have rounds that will make it through that clothing.

 

[pbearperry]

I truly believe if someone was skilled to the point that they could always hit his target in the throat,Glazers would work wonderful.The bad guy would most likely fold up like a Boy Scout knife.

 

[Chindo18Z]

bigger hammer: I doubt that the folks here who say that these rounds won't stop a man have much real world experience.

You'd be wrong.

I never said Glasers wouldn't stop a man. However, I do say that they can't be relied upon to do so with the consistency of a modern conventional hollow point.

It's the old shotgun bird shot load for self defense argument. It can work. It might be devastating. But more often...it doesn't and it isn't. Because it won't deliver consistent lethal performance at all reasonable engagement ranges and angles of incidence. Which is why (again), cops and soldiers carry buckshot instead.

You are one of the very few success stories with the round. But, I'm sure you know that as well.

I am curious as to Glaser caliber in your incident? Honest question. I've always thought the largest and fastest version might have a lot more going for it (Glaser .44 Magnum). Never yet heard of a Glaser shooting with that caliber. It's the only one I think I'd chance using today. I used to religiously carry either a 9mm or .45 ACP Glaser up the spout back in the day. First round in the chamber and all that. I just don't have that faith in them anymore. Glad your round worked for you.

suemarkp: The argument that military or law enforcement doesn't use a round should not be a disqualifying reason.

When I referred to "...armed Police, Security, and Military organizations do not use them", I was referring to the fact that pre-fragmented rounds do not have a reliable institutional track record. Are they lethal? Sure. Do they work as consistently well as modern hollow points? Not even.

If they did...every police agency on the planet would have adopted them and still use them today. They don't. Every Tier One CT/Hostage Rescue outfit on the planet would use them as well. They don't (although they tested them extensively... and discarded them... back in the 80's).

Those organizations, fielding weapons numbering in the thousands or even millions (in the case of an army), want the same thing you want: When the gun goes bang, that the other guy falls down. Everything else is secondary.

The old 200 grain Lead Round Nose .38 of bygone years is lethal. I've seen folks shot with it. It's still a terrible choice for a defensive round. Lethal, but not reliably so. Police departments eventually abandoned it in favor of more reliable expanding ammo...after years of compiled data showed the new rounds to be far superior.

Then again, according to expert jello testers on the internet, 5.56 M193 55gr isn't a good anti-personnel round...although I happen to know different.

Nobody wants to get shot with anything. And any bullet can work. As long as you get a hit on the vitals. For that, I want something that goes deep and penetrates bone. YMMV.

 

[jeepnik]

Eons ago when Glasers came out, I did a few tests of my own. Using .380s, .45 acps, and .38 spl, I made some wall mock ups consisting of two sheets of wall board separated by 2x4's. Others were the same but with rolled insulation between.

I placed a sheet of plywood behind it about 6 inches and proceded shoot them. All of the rounds fired broke up before or when they struck the second sheet of wall board. The .380's didn't even penetrate the second wall board on the sections with insulation.

What did manage to exit the second sheet of wall board was just the fragments of the round. While you might get peppered, and it certainly would cause an eye injury, I was fairly certain that unless something very unusual happened, injury would be minor.

I was living in an apartment at the time, and decided right then and there that when in an apartment or hotel room, I would use prefragmented rounds. I still do. Well in hotels, as I now live in a single family home with lath & plaster interior walls and stucco exterior walls.

No, I never tested them on windows. But nothing is perfect, and the Glasers were certainly one heck of alot better than any solid bullet when you have neighbors in close confines.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

I doubt that the folks here who say that these rounds won't stop a man have much real world experience.

Chindo18Z: You'd be wrong.

Then you should be able to tell us of dozens of shootings with Glasers where they failed, right?

Chindo18Z: I never said Glasers wouldn't stop a man. However, I do say that they can't be relied upon to do so with the consistency of a modern conventional hollow point.

Nothing out of a handgun gives "consistency at stopping a man" no matter the caliber or type of bullet. At times, even rifles and shotguns fail. If you need guarantees, accurate artillery is a good choice. But it's a little hard on the furniture and neighbors. Best you can do is stack the deck.

Chindo18Z: You are one of the very few success stories with the round. But, I'm sure you know that as well.

There are few recorded instances of shootings with them, due to their expense and misleading discussions like this, using arguments that don't apply, that turn people away from them. And so, not many people use them. But those anecdotes that can be found, talk about, as with my experience, near-instantaneous stoppages. In my case the guy was taking his second swing at my head with a heavy object. He had started his swing when I fired. He stopped MID-SWING after a hit where your favored round, a HP would have done nothing.

Let's not be mistaken here. The round is not perfect and so I only recommend that the OP carry one round of this ammo in case his opponent is wearing clothing that will defeat it. I don't recommend a full magazine or revolver filled only with them. But I think that having the first round is a good way to go.

Chindo18Z: I am curious as to Glaser caliber in your incident? Honest question. I've always thought the largest and fastest version might have a lot more going for it (Glaser .44 Magnum).

Charter Arms bulldog. .44 Spl., 3" bbl. Nowhere near the power or velocity of the .44 magnum.

Chindo18Z: When I referred to "...armed Police, Security, and Military organizations do not use them", I was referring to the fact that pre-fragmented rounds do not have a reliable institutional track record. Are they lethal? Sure. Do they work as consistently well as modern hollow points? Not even.

Sure worked well for me. Second shot wasn't necessary.

Chindo18Z: If they did...every police agency on the planet would have adopted them and still use them today.

Not necessarily. They're much more expensive than HP's and money is a big concern for LE agencies. Police also often face people wearing clothing that would stop them. Police often have to shoot through walls, car doors, windows and windshields. The Glasers are specifically marketed NOT to penetrate them. Police have a vastly different problem than home defense with others in the house.

Chindo18Z: They don't. Every Tier One CT/Hostage Rescue outfit on the planet would use them as well. They don't (although they tested them extensively... and discarded them... back in the 80's).

Those organizations, fielding weapons numbering in the thousands or even millions, want the same thing you want: When the gun goes bang, that the other guy falls down. Everything else is secondary.

Glaser ammunition if far more expensive than anything else available, prohibitively so for the "thousands of millions" of weapons that they field. You're wrong, "everything else is NOT secondary." The situation is not the same and your use of their testing is nowhere near the same problem that a person engaged in home defense faces.

Chindo18Z: The old 200 grain Lead Round Nose .38 of bygone years is lethal. I've seen folks shot with it.

Nonsense. It's lethal SOMETIMES. But it's a horrible fight stopper and it's a hazard to anyone standing downrange, even with a hit. Lethality is not an issue in the home defense situation. Quickly stopping the fight is.

Chindo18Z: It's still a terrible choice for a defensive round. Lethal, but not reliably so. Police departments eventually abandoned it in favor of more reliable expanding ammo...after years of compiled data showed the new rounds to be far superior.

Apples and oranges. Glasers are far more effective at stopping fights than RN lead .38 bullets.

Chindo18Z: Nobody wants to get shot with anything. And any bullet can work. As long as you get a hit on the vitals. For that, I want something that goes deep and penetrates bone. YMMV.

There are no guarantees with any bullet that comes out a handgun. Rifles and shotguns are only slightly better.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Then you should be able to tell us of dozens of shootings with Glasers where they failed, right?

Nice straw man. Conversely...You should be able to tell us about dozens of shootings with Glasers where they worked...right?

Actually there are dozens of threads scattered about the internet concerning Glasers...with all the usual (and very limited) recycled autopsy photos, x-rays, and enumerated incidents (including yours I'm sure). But, after all these years, there are simply not that many documented cases of Glasers (or MagSafe) being used period...much less successfully. I know it and you know it.

The fact that you shot someone with one isn't a trend. It's a single point of data. You were simply damn lucky. I've been lucky myself. I'll take lucky over good any day.

I once advocated carrying Glasers or MagSafe as a first round. After watching folks limp away from torso hits with .30 caliber rifle fire (and continue to fight), I discarded the theory of using non-penetrative handgun bullets. I once thought it was a good idea. I don't any longer.

But it's (200gr LRN .38 Special) a horrible fight stopper

Wrong. Pretty damn effective each time I saw folks hit with it. You've subscribed to internet wisdom on this one. On the 2 separate occasions I witnessed 200 gr RNL hitting flesh, it instantaneously stopped the fight. In fact, it apparently matched the track record of your Glaser (everyone fell down, everyone quit fighting, some of them died, some of them lived). In one instance, 5 people were laid out like bowling pins. Nobody was struck by a ricochet or an over penetrating round. In point of fact, none of the rounds penetrated through and through. Hmmmm...an admittedly pretty poor round, but employed with excellent shot placement.

Charter Arms bulldog. .44 Spl., 3" bbl. Nowhere near the power or velocity of the .44 magnum.

That is very interesting to me. Considering that all Glasers have fairly hot velocity, I'd expect the largest caliber to be the most effective. It's my gut hunch that the bigger payload does make a difference. I've always wondered if the round would have developed a better street reputation if a major police force back in the 80's had used them out of .44 or .45 Colt revolvers. Of course, I don't believe that Glaser ever made the round in the Long Colt, but a number of departments used S&W 25s back in the day. Just a pet theory I've had that the .44 Magnum version probably works well...but that no one has used it in a documented self defense shooting.

Hopefully the OP will get something out of this discussion (which has drifted far afield).

 

[bigfatdave]

I have to wonder if gas injection played a role as well, was it a contact or near contact shot, bigger hammer?

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

I doubt that the folks here who say that these rounds won't stop a man have much real world experience.

And then you responded,

You'd be wrong.

The clear insinuation here was that you had much "real world experience" with Glasers, and their ability be effective in a self defense situation. And so quite naturally I wrote in a quest for this information,

Then you should be able to tell us of dozens of shootings with Glasers where they failed, right?

Now you respond to my question ...

Chindo18Z: Nice straw man.

Not at all. You hinted that you have much personal experience in the situation under discussion. Turns out, you have none. If you had any, you'd have presented evidence to back up your opinion as I've done and will do again in this post.

Chindo18Z: Conversely...You should be able to tell us about dozens of shootings with Glasers where they worked...right?

I'm not the one making a claim that I have such information. That would be you. In any case I have my own personal experience, where following your advice would have probably resulted in my death, so I tend to feel rather strongly about it! There's also this news story where a Glaser stopped a fleeing crook (who subsequently died) with a single shot ... http://www.lvrj.com/news/42844117.html

I can't recall any shooting reports where the type of ammunition was discussed save some that occurred when LAPD made the change from the RN lead bullets to HP's. And so such stories either way, would be extremely difficult to document. I have had quite a few conversations with quite a few MD's who work at the LA County Coroner's office, a fairly busy location for gunshot victims. A number of them had done autopsies on people shot with Glasers and every one of those MD's told me that they'd rather be shot with HP's than the Glasers. One of them described the superficial appearance of the GSW this way, "It looked like a rat had been feeding on the body." They've seen first-hand, many shootings with each kind of ammunition. I realize that this is far from a scientific study, nonetheless, that's what they told me. One other thing I learned during the time that I spent with these people and at their office, it's impossible to tell what a bullet, any kind of bullet, will do once it enters the human body. On one occasion a bullet (of any type) will cut through a bone and on another it will ricochet off it, and go in an entirely different direction.

Chindo18Z: Actually there are dozens of threads scattered about the internet concerning Glasers...with all the usual (and very limited) recycled autopsy photos, x-rays, and enumerated incidents (including yours I'm sure).

I doubt that my incident is among the ones "scattered about the Internet." I've only seen it discussed once in a discussion on the Net and I was the source. It was in another thread about Glasers, on this forum. I've not seen the other things you mention, can you post links to them please. They would seem to support me, rather than you, so I understand if you don't want to.

Chindo18Z: But, after all these years, there are simply not that many documented cases of Glasers (or MagSafe) being used period...much less successfully. I know it and you know it.

Rarely is the type of ammunition that was used in a shooting incident mentioned. And the fact that Glasers are so expensive is one reason that they'd rarely be used. Another is that they're not carried by LE. That is both a cost concern, and a political one. Most discussions of shootings focus on the incident itself, the tactics, and the guns carried. Only rarely is the type of ammunition mentioned.

Chindo18Z: The fact that you shot someone with one isn't a trend. It's a single point of data. You were simply damn lucky. I've been lucky myself. I'll take lucky over good any day.

I agree that I was "damn lucky." But I disagree that it was "simple." I thought long and hard about how to load my personal carry gun. At work I was mandated as to what to carry but in this gun, which I also carried on-duty, as my backup, I could choose anything I wanted. I chose purposefully to load the first round a Glaser, and the rest HP's. Had I been fully loaded with HP's there's no doubt that I'd not be around to write this.

Chindo18Z: I once advocated carrying Glasers or MagSafe as a first round.

That's what I think is the best option for people who have a choice as to what they carry. The fact that you've changed your mind doesn't necessarily any growth on your part, just a change of opinion. And from what you tell us, it's an illogical change.

Chindo18Z: After watching folks limp away from torso hits with .30 caliber rifle fire (and continue to fight), I discarded the theory of using non-penetrative handgun bullets. I once thought it was a good idea. I don't any longer.

Makes no sense to me. There is no relation between being hit by a Glaser and being hit by a ".30 caliber rifle." In fact, logically, since the ".30 caliber rifle fire" was ineffective with "torso hits" you should be opposed to their use!

Regarding the ineffectiveness of the .38 RN lead bullet you write,

Chindo18Z: Wrong. Pretty damn effective each time I saw folks hit with it.

How many times was that? (NOTE: later we find out that it's twice!) It's interesting that my personal experience is meaningless but that yours is highly valuable to this discussion. Lol. I've also had many conversations with MD's who work in ER's treating gunshots. One of those ER's was in Inglewood, reputed in the 1960's and 70's to be the second best place to learn about treating gunshots. (The first, being in Vietnam). Universally, they supported the effectiveness of the HP when compared to the RN .38 bullet. Universally, they said that they'd rather be shot with the RN .38 bullet than the HP and that they'd rather be shot with the HP than the Glaser.

Chindo18Z: You've subscribed to internet wisdom on this one.

You're wrong on this. My investigation on this and my subsequent decision to carry (as I've described) occurred long before the Net was around.

Chindo18Z: On the 2 separate occasions I witnessed 200 gr RNL hitting flesh, it instantaneously stopped the fight.

Before such a statement has any meaning to this discussion we have to know where the rounds impacted. I'd bet that virtually any round would have stopped the fight where these rounds struck. (NOTE: later on, my point here is proved).

My case is notable because with virtually ANY other round, my shot would have been a complete failure.

Chindo18Z: In fact, it apparently matched the track record of your Glaser (everyone fell down, everyone quit fighting, some of them died, some of them lived). In one instance, 5 people were laid out like bowling pins. Nobody was struck by a ricochet or an over penetrating round.

In fact there are quite a few cases of this happening with the .38 RN lead bullet. The fact that the round over-penetrated is what's important, NOT that "nobody was struck ..." The last is just good luck, not something that one should count on.

From this site http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-18/local/me-1244_1_hollow-point-bullets After a year-long study by the LAPD (who were carrying .38 revolvers with 158Gr RN lead bullets

... The report also showed, however, that a substantially higher percentage of solid-nosed bullets passed through suspects, potentially risking innocent bystanders.

From the same source,

Between June, 1986, and December, 1987, the LAPD recorded a total of 163 bullet hits, of which 50% passed through the subject ... [this was when they were using the RN lead bullets].

Chindo18Z: In point of fact, none of the rounds penetrated through and through. Hmmmm...an admittedly pretty poor round, but employed with excellent shot placement.

Your statement about "employed with excellent shot placement" makes my point. It makes little difference what kind of ammunition, or the caliber (within reason) is used if "excellent shot placement" occurs. It's when the placement is NOT "excellent" that the Glaser is a better choice. And since we know that "excellent" shot placement is the exception rather than the rule, ESPECIALLY for the first round fired in these encounters, I think that carrying the first round as a Glaser is a distinct advantage.

In my situation the shot placement was horrible, a screw-up that I'm completely responsible for. Yet, even with that, the shock delivered by the Glaser stopped my attacker, not only "in his tracks" but mid-swing with a heavy object that was coming towards my head.

The OP is concerned with penetrating walls in an occupied dwelling if he misses, as he should be. I'd not call that "excellent shot placement." lol

 

[bigger hammer]

Bigfatdave: I have to wonder if gas injection played a role as well, was it a contact or near contact shot, bigger hammer?

Excellent question Dave. No, it was not a contact shot or near it. There was 2'-5' between my muzzle and where the bullet entered. I had my gun "sucked" back, near my torso in a "retention position."

 

[Chindo18Z]

The fact that you once defended yourself with a firearm is commendable, but (to me) unremarkable.

When I mentioned experience (after you mentioned doubting that others in the thread had any), I was referring to mine, which I suspect might be quite a bit more extensive than your single episode. In fact, after reading your words, I'm pretty sure of that.

My introduction of 200gr RNL into the discussion was merely to emphasize that all calibers and loads are potentially lethal...even marginal ones. Of course RNL is a poor load...but even poor loads work some of the time.

My reference to .30 cal rifle wounds was actually an affirmation of a comment you alluded to. There are no magic bullets. I've seen human beings absorb unbelievable battlefield trauma and drive on. If solid rifle and machine gun hits can fail to put people down (seen it), I'm certainly not going to handicap myself by carrying non-penetrative handgun ammo. My point was that handgun calibers suck. Evidently, so does your reading comprehension.

I came into this thread to offer my advice to the OP, not go round and round with you. If you ever decide to write a book about Glasers, I'd willingly buy it as a reference (I'm serious), but I still won't use the round. Nor recommend that anyone else do so.

Tit for Tat is usually a debate death spiral technique and indicative of ego issues. As I'm starting to fall into that trap...I'll simply say that I'm done with this one.

But, thanks for the feedback.

 

[Jaymo]

In one of Massad Ayoob's articles in the 80s or 90s, he related what was told to him by a surgeon who had operated on someone who had been shot with a .38 special Glaser.
The surgeon told him that the wound was like you had made an incision in the torso, inserted the muzzle (of a .410 shotgun) 2 inches INTO the incision, and then pulled the trigger.
Yeah, sounds like a really wimpy round to me. (Insert sarcasm here)
That's why I still carry them in my EDC pieces.

Don't believe me? Ask Mas. He's a member here and he wrote the article. Based upon his description, it's a pretty nasty wound.

As far as the Box O'BS goes, according to them, a 20 gauge shotgun with buckshot is an inferior HD tool

Concerning birdshot, my dad went out on a call in the 1960s.
A man worked at a gas station and was dating a divorced woman.
He was carrying a case of motor oil (in cans, not modern tupperware) out to the pump aisle at work, when her ex-husband walked up and shot him with a shotgun loaded with birdshot.
Guess what the birdshot pellets did?
No, they didn't stop due to the case of oil he was holding in front of him.
They went through the case of oil, and his torso, killing him very quickly.

Birdshot or buckshot, at close range either hits as a solid mass.

I love how everyone on the internet is a SWAT cop, CIA assassin, Green Beret, Force Recon, Navy SEAL, etc.
I wonder how many of these online gun experts are smartass 13 year olds and 40 year old virgins playing Dungeons and Dragons in their grandmas' basements?

 

[bigger hammer]

Chindo18Z: The fact that you once defended yourself with a firearm is commendable, but (to me) unremarkable.

Actually, I defended myself with a firearm, thousands of times. I only had to fire it twice though. I'm not so sure that either time it was "Commendable." But the fact that one of those times completely negates your experience, opinion, and comments is, I think, quite remarkable.

Chindo18Z: When I mentioned experience (after you mentioned doubting that others in the thread had any)

Clearly untrue, but let's just call it an error and a debate tactic. I NEVER said that I doubted that others in the thread did not have experience. What I DID SAY was this, "I doubt that the folks here who say that these rounds won't stop a man have much real world experience." Clearly I limited it to those people who say that Glasers won't stop a man. My experience, and the one news story that I cited where they were mentioned, is clear, Glasers WILL "stop a man." And sometimes they'll do it with very poor shot placement. I'd never count on it for that purpose, but in my situation it IMMEDIATELY stopped an attacker, it doesn't get any better than stopping the swinging of a heavy object, MID-SWING.

Chindo18Z: I was referring to mine, [referring to "real world experience"]which I suspect might be quite a bit more extensive than your single episode.

That might be your main problem in this exchange. You ASSUME that your experience trumps mine, but you have no idea of what mine is! That seems a bit presumptuous! If my entire life was my "single episode" you might have a point. Since it's not, your point is absurd. There's no need to print my resume for this discussion, but suffice it to say that I have a pretty good database of personal experience, education and training, to draw from.

Chindo18Z: My introduction of 200gr RNL into the discussion was merely to emphasize that all calibers and loads are potentially lethal...even marginal ones. Of course RNL is a poor load...but even poor loads work some of the time.

Your initial statement on this was, "The old 200 grain Lead Round Nose .38 of bygone years is lethal." It would be accurate to say that "The old 200 grain ... is SOMETIMES lethal." But that's not what you said. Your statement was absolute, and like most absolute statements, is false.

Chindo18Z: I'm certainly not going to handicap myself by carrying non-penetrative handgun ammo.

As I've shown, it's hardly a "handicap." In fact, in some situations, albeit rare ones, it may be an advantage. Having my first round a HP would have been a handicap in my incident, and it would be in many shootings, where the hits are not well-placed. In the OP's situation a poor shot that misses or exits an intruder could have disastrous consequences, placing her family at risk. Since such things occur in many shootings, having at least one round of Glaser, as I've suggested, might be a good idea.

Chindo18Z: My point was that handgun calibers suck.

If that was your point, you could have made it in your first post. But you didn't. In fact, that point wasn't even apparent until just now. I've said it repeatedly, starting with my second post in this discussion.

Chindo18Z: Evidently, so does your reading comprehension.

Now you're just being rude. I can always tell when I've won an argument. The other side turns to personal attacks, like this one.

Chindo18Z: I came into this thread to offer my advice to the OP, not go round and round with you.

And yet, here you are, doing just that. Your point was based on opinion with nothing to back it up (at least you've failed to support it when asked to do so, several times). Mine is based on personal experience and that of dozens of MD's who work in ER's and those who have done hundreds of autopsies.

Chindo18Z:
but I still won't use the round. Nor recommend that anyone else do so.

I knew from the start that you'd never change your mind, no matter what evidence was presented. I wasn't writing for you, rather I was providing material for the OP to make up her mind as to what to carry.

Chindo18Z: Tit for Tat is usually a debate death spiral technique and indicative of ego issues. As I'm starting to fall into that trap...I'll simply say that I'm done with this one.

My first post was directed towards the OP. YOU started the "tit for tat," that you now decry, but now, after a personal attack, you run off. I'll suggest that it's YOUR "ego issues" that brought you here. If you're unable or unwilling to carry on with your side of the discussion and have to duck out, that's fine with me.