Why Glaser/Magsafe rounds present problems for self-defense use (Graphic Content)

[briandg]

If you actually buy into the story that a glaser is a guaranteed death sentence to anyone hit with it, (I agree that those are brutal rounds that will leave a real bruise), there is nothing in the world safe about shooting them in a crowded area. Nobody can guarantee that he's going to hit object of his wrath. If a shot misses, it's totally in God's hands. Knowing my history, I am fully aware that if I fired a glaser bullet and missed, even if it had to travel over a mile, that bullet would eventually land in a nun's forehead.

It takes real ego to buy rounds based on the perceived safety factor that they will not exit the target and injure a bystander, while you also increase the very real danger that those rounds present to the same bystander if you miss your target.

[Lee McNelly]

We may not want to kill the --b just leave him w a weather indicator for the rest of his days and let the dr get some practice

[Glockstar .40]

@bart my strategy is to hit with the 1st shot everytime. all im sayin is that its easier said than done.

and with the world we live in where good people like us who actually might try to stop someone else whos getting attacked, can get sued and even thrown into prison for doing the RIGHT thing! it might look better to the jury if someone took the precautionary steps to buy some glasers even if they do take out a bystander. im not gonna argue whether or not they will kill with 1 shot or whether they will go through a wall of sheet rock. because just about anything that is fired from a gun going that fast can do either.

and although some glasers might go through a wall some haven't.....thats why their is a market for frangible ammo. because they can LESSEN (not always) the chance of penetration.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Glockstar, I'm just pointing out your reasoning isn't consistent. On the one hand, you are saying that bystanders are such an important issue, you are willing to accept serious limitations on effectiveness. However, you're also saying that if for whatever reasons (misses, ineffectiveness, etc.) you haven't solved that problem in 3 rounds, you are no longer concerned about bystanders enough to accept those limitations.

If bystanders are important enough for you to risk your own life, why does that stop at three rounds. Or alternatively, if you don't trust Glasers enough not to back them up with Hornady Critical Defense, why not just use Hornady

[jhenry]

This subject is one of the ones that just won't die. I am continually astounded the folks keep arguing about it.

[B.N.Real]

Nice to see it in print.

Way before the op started this thread,I read the stories of 380 Glasers that left wounds that looked like the guy was shot with a shotgun but then I also read alot of very concerned comments about terminal performance and the police never adopted this round as a defacto safety round so I was less then enthused about them.

And Glasers have the highest premium cost of any round you can buy so practicing with them for accuracy and reliability is hideously expensive.

I'll stay with my jhp's in +p thanks-WAY more cheaper,more accurate and consistent.

[Glockstar .40]

@bart na i trust em they are just too expensive to fill 2 13rd mags and also CD isnt gonna break apart when it hits someone (i.e the criminal) frangible would or at least it should if it does its job. so i guess my reasoning would be that i have the best of both worlds IF the bullets do their job

i'm just puttin my strategy down. it doesnt have to be anyone elses. if you dont like it, its ok you wont hurt my feelings.

(on a serious note) i dont think their would be a market on these rounds for so long if they normally dont do what their supposed to do. these are but a few instances of who knows how many. Given some time I could probablly find on the internet how Hornady CD didnt do its job either. but i think ill still choose to trust em imho

[Glockstar .40]

oh and if I havent hit in 3rds then everyone is screwed

[Nanuk]

I too thought Glasers were the magic bullet 25 years ago. Now I want consistent penetration and tend to like heavy for caliber bullets. My exception to that is the 40, I like 155's for more velocity.

Glockstar, your logic is slightly flawed. Do the glasers hit at POI with your gun? Do they hit at the same POI as the ammo in your gun? My experience is that they do not have the same POI which is going to make a difference. Also your supposition that once drawn down you are gonna be shaking like a leaf is not accurate either. Everytime I have been drawn down on someone, I was dead steady, It save me from having to shoot a few people.

[shortwave]

Do they hit at the same POI as the ammo in your gun?

Mine didn't!

Years ago, a friend of mine gave me 4-5 boxes of Glaser 185grn(I think,been a long time). They hit high compared to 185grn JHP's and reg. ball ammo. Maybe just that particular pistol as I only shot them out of one.

Has that been the experience of others?

[KyJim]

I believe the Glaser Safety Slugs use either six or 12 shot. I ran across a very informative thread showing extensive ballistic gelatin test results from shotguns with various size shot. http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=109958.

The author recommend #4 buckshot as the small size shot from a shotgun due to those results. If anyone is seriously considering carrying a pre-fragmented round, you should look at these results. Then, it's your decision.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by shortwave

Has that been the experience of others?

Yes, when I was working myself through the same process that Glockstar .40 is just starting on, I carried and shot Glasers, though I only loaded the first two as Glasers. My experience is that Glaser's have a different POI from JHP or FMJ of the same weight and caliber. I've also noticed (last time I used them over a decade ago) that they tend to group more erratically than JHP or FMJ as well - probably something to do with the difficulty of consistent manufacture of the peculiar bullet they use.

Originally Posted by Glockstar .40

(on a serious note) i dont think their would be a market on these rounds for so long if they normally dont do what their supposed to do.

OK, now I know you are either a young pup or relatively new to firearms. Having been into shooting for awhile now, I can assure you that there is no shortage of firearms products that don't do what they are supposed to do but sell well. Some of them are still getting sold today a mere 30 years after I discovered their primary use was to separate the gullible from their money.

i'm just puttin my strategy down. it doesnt have to be anyone elses. if you dont like it, its ok you wont hurt my feelings

Like I said, I've been there. You can read posts where I make similar arguments with the same logical inconsistencies to people on this very forum about 10 years ago. I was wrong. I was just trying to nudge you in a direction you will probably figure out on your own eventually.

Originally Posted by KyJim

The author recommend #4 buckshot as the small size shot from a shotgun due to those results.

You seem to be implying that because #6 or #12 shot out of a 12ga shotgun at close range is iffy, that it might not be a great choice to use much less shot and fire it out of a pistol bore?

[KyJim]

I also have a bone to pick with advertising Mag Safe rounds: "MAGSAFE SWEPT THE STRASBOURG TESTS." http://magsafeonline.com/magnum_performance.html

Essentially this is a claim relating to a supposedly "secret" test of incapacitation times of various rounds on goats. Setting aside the issue of whether there really was a Strasbourg Goat Test, this advertisement misstates the results. According to a publicly released version, the conclusion stated:

[I]t was concluded that the most effective ammunition available for an unobstructed lung strike is the high velocity type which uses pre-fragmented or fragmenting projectiles or those types that cause immediate expansion on impact.

See http://www.thegunzone.com/strasbourg.html#nb4 for discussion and http://www.thegunzone.com/goats/strasbourg.pdf for test summary (emphasis added).

So, if you're going to use this ammo, make sure you have the assailant present a profile to you that gives you an unobstructed lung shot.

[Nanuk]

The whole fallacy of the Strasbourg tests.....

Even if it did occur, it is similar to shooting someone eating a big mac. Sorry, I have hunted enough and seen enough people shot I want something wayyyyy more than it takes to kill a grazing goat. The out of control people I have dealt with had very little in common with grazing goats.

Any of the glaser or magsafe bullets are not going to consistently penetrate enough to get the job done. I know that they cause a devastating wound, but we may not be able to surgically place the shot. Depending on the attacker and the situation, it may work to get them to break off an attack. In the end I believe it is just marketing. Why are they still for sale? PT Barnum said it best " There is a sucker born every minute".

[Glockstar .40]

young pup? hahaha na man and im not ancient either. i turn 31 next month.i dont claim to know everything about firearms bullets or ballistics but im not new to them either. maybe when i know as much as you i will change my mind....until then i'll keep a couple glasers in my mag im not tryin to sound like a die hard glaser fanatic (cuz im not). but for me its what i have right now and at 3$ a pop im not just gonna throw them out or shoot them into a paper target

and what do you mean theres not a shortage on firearm products that dont do what their supposed too? you mean thos zombie max rounds dont really kill zombies?? great i just bought me a box too

[briandg]

When and if I argue in a thread, like this one, it will be because of two things.

First, the person who makes a statement that is incorrect is possibly endangering himself. The person who swears that a .22 lr pistol is the ultimate defense pistol because of size, sound, expense, so forth, is endangering his own life. That's all there is too it. He is taking an enormous chance of being killed by an armed opponent because he is choosing an inferior and unproven weapon system.

I don't want him to die. I will suggest that he change his mind, try to explain, and remind him that as a "good guy," I don't want to see him possibly throw away his own life.

The other reason to argue against bad ideas is to keep them from spreading.

People could argue that changing from the 1911 to the 9mm was a stupid idea. I'm not going to debate that. But, thousands of people argued valid points, that the .45 was better, and that going to a fmj 9mm was a step down in power.

This is the same argument that people would raise if millions of people dropped their nines for a .380, or even a .32.

We, as experienced and capable shooters have a moral responsibility to keep others from making ill advised decisions that will affect the outcome of combat situations negatively, possibly resulting in the death of a good guy.

So, I have a moral obligation to suggest:

no bird shot.
no glasers.
no 32 acps.
no slingshots.
No fmj
No cap and ball revolvers.
no H and H express rifles.
No bb guns.
and so on.

combat is a broad and complicated subject, but there are many proven principles, and for every proven principle, there are a thousand pounds of poop. Every passing minute brings more poop on the scene, such as a guy deciding that aiming at the bad guy's feet will confuse him so badly that he'll quit shooting.



So, because I want you guys to survive, I will say that the glaser has a lot of potential problems, and I will say that it would be better to carry proven defense rounds such as hornady extreme. I'm not going to lay out the thirty years of accummulated wisdom behind that decision, it is incumbent on the listener to either trust or distrust me, and to listen to other voices who also point out things like NOT A SINGLE LE AGENCY ISSUES THOSE THINGS.


It is incumbent upon everyone to criticallyh and carefully examine every bit of nonsense heard, , before believing it, just like penis pills.

[KyJim]

You seem to be implying that because #6 or #12 shot out of a 12ga shotgun at close range is iffy, that it might not be a great choice to use much less shot and fire it out of a pistol bore?

You infer correctly, sir!

[Shotgun693]

Ok, I have 35 years in Law Enforcement. I have no first hand experience with cases where a Bad Guy was shot and then the bullet continued on to hit a 'innocent bystander'. I'm sure it happens but I firmly believe that it's so rare that I no longer worry about it or equip for it. It's probably better to use your money for more practice so as to avoid misses. I do know of times when misses have caused problems.

[briandg]

I agree, and have said the same thing many times.

Blow through is a nonissue, imo. maybe the chances of hitting a bad guy in the body and having the bullet blast right through him are 1-100, the chances of going through and killing someone are 1-1,000.

How many missed shots go flying downwind in a gunfight, compared to all those that connect? In a gunfight here, IIRC, only one out of 20 got the bad guy.

So, if we do grant that glasers are just as deadly as a chunk of plutonium, it seems even nuttier to consider firing 19 misses into the crowd of innocent bystanders behind the bad guy, just to keep one out of twenty shots from going through the BG and maybe hurting someone else.

Worry about hitting the target rather than a bystander, instead of worrying about the very minimal chance that a bullet will pass through and injure someone else.

[Ben Towe]

Hype sells. Just look at television commercials. Quibids? Snuggies? The Miracle Meatloaf pan thing? The list goes on. I'll pass on the Glasers...

[Mike Irwin]

"Ok, I have 35 years in Law Enforcement."

Good friend of mine has been Federal LEO in Washington, DC, and the surrounding areas for almost 27 years and he has never seen nor heard of such an incident, either.

[Willie Sutton]

Like all things, tools are best when they are employed to exploit their strong points and not their weak points... knowig the strengths of a tool and the weaknesses of a tool allows you to pick and choose.

Outside the house I carry either Keith SWC's (revolver) or Cor Bon HP's (automatics). But the bedside revolver is a bit different... two Glasers followed up by 4 Keith SWC's in a .38.

Why? Neighbors living 30 feet and two thin walls away.....

Note that this revolver does not leave the house.


The Glaser might not be the cats meow for shooting someone, but... I'll accept the defecit in order to reduce the liklihood of shooting my neighbors house thru my walls. It's a strategic decision. With 2 Glasers in a row followed up by a few SWC's, what's the downside? Shoot once, twice... damned high chance it'll be over by then. Miss? Neighbors kids not found dead in their cribs... and if two don't work then the SWC's are behind the Glasers.


Right tool for the job, actual mileage may vary. I'd think that apartment dwellers and those with neighbors close at hand might consider this.




Willie


.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

With 2 Glasers in a row followed up by a few SWC's, what's the downside?

The downside is that 2 Glasers may be less likely to stop an attack than a single SWC if you do not get an unobstructed lung shot. The other downside is that as noted in the first post, Glaser's don't always stop in drywall either.

if you are going to use Glasers keep in mind that the Blue version uses #12 shot. For comparison, a less-lethal beanbag round uses #9 shot in a sack because they are trying to avoid penetration. The Glaser Silver uses #6 shot, which even out of a 12ga only penetrates about 5" of bare jello; but it is a step up from #12 shot.

If your plan is to base your defense around weapons that won't penetrate two 5/8" sheets of drywall, a firearm is the wrong tool to be using.

[Willie Sutton]

I respectfully disagree... I'm *sure* the first two Glasers will distract anybody in the world shot in the face with them long enough for me to shoot them a third time with a SWC if they keep at it. I don't plan a lung shot... I plan to do exactly what Jeff Cooper taught me to do in my 250 course way back in the early 80's when we discussed shooting folks with other than a .45 Automatic. His advice was "aim for the eyes and shoot early and often". I'm just guessing that being shot in the face with a Glaser would fairly ruin almost anyones day. It would surely distract *me* were I so shot...


Now: I'm equally sure that due to the layout and construction of my house, that *any* miss my from my bedroom will impact my neighbors house, on the side where they sleep. What's the downside to that? Uhh... rather a lot. I happen to like the 12 year old kid that would be right in the line of fire.

Thus my decision.

Opinion is what makes a horse race interesting. The bottom line is that there are no absolutes, and that every choice is a unique one (for better or worse).


"If your plan is to base your defense around weapons that won't penetrate two 5/8" sheets of drywall, a firearm is the wrong tool to be using.'


That's a pretty, uhh... "Absolute" point of view, with all due respect. Did you bother to read the loadout order of my cylinder? Have any recent experience with hard cast Keith SWC's? Have any idea how quickly I can slew the chamber two clicks to have them indexed up for the first 4 shots? Or pull the trigger three times?


Uhh... <sigh>..



Willie

.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Willie Sutton

I respectfully disagree... I'm *sure* the first two Glasers will distract anybody in the world shot in the face with them long enough for me to shoot them a third time with a SWC if they keep at it.

If you have the skill and the training that you feel confident you are going to be shooting them twice in the face with the first two shots, then pretty much any round will do so long as it penetrates the skull. So about the only thing less likely to do that than Glaser Silver are: blanks, Simunitions, snakeshot, and Glaser Blue.

Now: I'm equally sure that due to the layout and construction of my house, that *any* miss my from my bedroom will impact my neighbors house, on the side where they sleep. What's the downside to that? Uhh... rather a lot.

Which is another puzzling aspect of your strategy. You feel that penetration is enough of a problem that you are williing to accept the limitations of Glasers, even though they don't always work at limiting penetration in light barriers; but then right behind the Glasers you have hard cast SWC loaded? Isn't that pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from Glasers in terms of trying to limit penetration?

That's a pretty, uhh... "Absolute" point of view, with all due respect.

It is a pretty common sense point of view. Drywall isn't a substantial barrier. It is 5/8" of powdered gypsum backed by paper. If I told you I lived in a Japanese house with sliding rice paper doors and it was absolutely imperative that no rounds left the room I was in, would you recommend I use a firearm for defense? Yet people have this unrealistic expectation that drywall is going to stop bullets.

Did you bother to read the loadout order of my cylinder?

I said ""If your plan is to base your defense around weapons that won't penetrate two 5/8" sheets of drywall, a firearm is the wrong tool to be using."

Clearly, that isn't your plan since both of the rounds (Glaser and hard cast SWC) you have loaded in your firearm will zip right through two sheets of 5/8" drywall with little trouble. So I am not sure why you think how your cylinder is loaded is relevant.

The point is that drywall isn't a substantial barrier. It won't stop bullets. If it did, we'd use drywall plates in armor and save all that weight. People who think that switching to Glaser is going to change that have an unrealistic expectation of what to expect from drywall and if they really can't afford to put a round through drywall, they need to look at other methods of defense.