Glasers for Mouseguns?

[Pistolenschutze]

What is your impression of the Glaser Safety Slug ammo by Corbon in terms of its effectiveness? Marshal and Sanow seemed to think highly of them, and of course, Corbon touts them no end, but that is to be expected since they are expensive as hell (about a buck and a half a pop!) and Corbon makes ammo to make a profit. More specifically, I'd like your opinion on the use of these rounds in the so-called mouse guns chambered for very marginal cartridges like the .25 ACP and .32 auto. Do you feel they would increase effectiveness of these calibers sufficiently enough to justify the cost of the ammo? Obviously, one would have to test fire a few of them through the intended weapon to make certain they cycle properly. But assuming they do (Corbon says they will cycle in all autos), would they likely increase the effectiveness of these small auto pistols as deep cover self-defense guns or BUGs? Appreciate your input.

[Mike Irwin]

If I want to cause a traumatic FLESH wound with a mouse gun, I'll choose a prefragmented bullet.

If I want to actually have a chance of punching a hole deeply enough to reach and disrupt vital structures, I'll go with either hollowpoints or FMJs.

[omegapd]

I carry MagSafes in my little .25 with a few FMJ near the end. I'm not sold on a HP working well in this puny caliber...

Like Mike said above, a nasty looking flesh wound is better than a bullet that doesn't get any penetration. At least the BG will know he's been hit.

[gb_in_ga]

I'm not in favor of Glasers or other similar ammo in any caliber. While it is true that they will make a nasty wound and will dump their energy quickly (if that is important to you), it is also true that they will consistently underpenetrate, failing to damage vital tissues. So, what you end up with is a nasty shallow wound that fails to incapacitate in most cases. I still feel that in the "pure" mouse gun calibers -- say .32 ACP and below, that you are better off with FMJ's for the penetration. With the "edge rounds" like .380 ACP and 9x18 Mak, it is a toss-up between premium JHP's and FMJ's, and with just about everything else you really need to be using a premium JHP. Snub revolvers are a whole 'nuther thing...

[kymasabe]

I have a "marginal" caliber, (my .380) and use Hydro-Shoks in it. I'll occasionally carry my little PT-22 and there's no sense in using hollow points in that thing so we just use High Velocity .22LR.

I tried something similar to the Glasers with my 9mm, Magsafes, and wasn't impressed. Cool fragmentation but didn't leave a large enough wound channel in testing. I'm not sold on them so use JHP in my 9mm.

[Shawn Dodson]

Here's my logic: Mouseguns got their name because they fire small caliber bullets. Small bullets produce small bullet holes, which is why mouseguns have the reputation they have for being inferior.

Glaser for mouseguns: a small caliber bullet that fragments and produces smaller holes and penetrates less. Doesn't make sense to me.

[C Philip]

I have to disagree with you, Omegapd. I believe what Mike Irwin was trying to say is that it's better to have penetration to a vital organ and have a small wound channel than have a large surface flesh wound that doesn't have a chance of affecting a vital organ. I agree with Mike Irwin here, I would not use glasers in such a small caliber. I would choose a FMJ or good JHP with sufficient penetration to go through the sternum and reach the heart or go through the skull.

[RJay]

I think every one should go back and read the posting about " everything you know about guns" again. Glassers do not leave a nasty flesh wound, thats ridiculous. They make a nice little hole just like any other bullet. They will pentatrate about 4 to 6 inchs and then fragment. Thats what does the damage. If you think they fragment on impact then do this test, take a double sheet of drywall and standing behind it have some one shoot a ,32 glasser blue tip at you. Please make a will first.

[kymasabe]

Again, while I have no experience with Glasers, I did try Magsafes. They had some problems with the rounds cycling sub-compact 9mm's so had to manufacturer a special rounds just for the Glock 26 and other sub-compacts. That didn't instill alot of confidence in the reliability of the round. I checked out the ballistic reports and the gelatin pictures and all that stuff. yes, they fragment and break into 4 or 5 pieces and head off into different directions, the idea being that they have a greater chance of doing more damage. I was interested in their ability to break apart upon striking a hard object (wall/road/car) and not ricochet. But, never felt comfortable with them and decided to stick with trusted, reliable hollow points. At least I know with expansion I'll have a wound channel almost 3/4" across. That's a pretty big, pretty jagged hole and I'd imagine more likely to stop an attacker.
Whatever you pick, you have to bet your life on. That's what it comes down to, forget the fancy promotional talk and hype. What will you trust your life and family's life to in an emergency. No frangible ammo for me, thank you anyway. There are alot of great self defense rounds out there: Federal Hydro-Shoks, Speer Gold-Dot, Rem Golden Sabres, Corbon DPX, Win Silvertips, and some others.

[Mike Irwin]

"Like Mike said above, a nasty looking flesh wound is better than a bullet that doesn't get any penetration. At least the BG will know he's been hit."

Uhm...

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, Omegapad.

I'm saying that it's the height of insanity to pick a round that's specifically designed to fragment instead of penetrate.

That's true of any gun, but doubly so the small caliber handguns.



"They will pentatrate about 4 to 6 inchs and then fragment."

And in many cases, that's the equivilent of a flesh wound in that there is insufficient penetration to reach vital structures deep inside the body.

You don't anchor somone intent on doing you harm by blowing a hole in fat and muscle. You stop them by disrupting major organs, blood vessels, etc. Prefragmented bullets have shown themselves to be incapable of doing that CONSISTENTLY, especially under adverse conditions.

I know, the old saying goes "The human body isn't 12, 14, 16, or 18 (pick a number, any number) thick!"

No, if the individual you're shooting at is standing stock still and facing you, he/she isn't. But does anyone here actually expect an attacker to present a perfect B-72 target pose?

Or are you going to pick ammunition that's capable of punching a forearm or bicep and deeply into the chest where it's going to actually do something effective?

By all means, pick whatever ammunition you want, and whatever ammunition makes you feel happy.

But just don't delude yourself as to the ammunition's capabilities or the conditions under which you're asking the projectile to perform.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

Or are you going to pick ammunition that's capable of punching a forearm or bicep and deeply into the chest where it's going to actually do something effective?

OK, please bear in mind I am not necessarily advocating Glasers. Hell, I carry Gold Dots or HydraShoks in my, shall we say, "serious handguns." What I'm trying to ascertain is whether Glasers might offer some minimal additional benefit over available FMJs or hollow points in the really marginal calibers like the .25 and .32. Obviously, if one has it available, a round which will punch a bigger hole and penetrate adequately is far more desirable. In the mouse gun calibers though, this is just not likely to happen very often. Given that, would one be better off with the Glaser if the only weapon available is of the "gray furry rodent" variety? I do note from the ballistic data that the Glaser produces almost twice as much muzzel energy as the FMJ in the .25 ACP (101 foot pounds as opposed to 63). Certainly, I realize that is by no means the only measure of effectiveness, but it is a means of comparison. If a mouse gun were as effective as a .45, it would be a 1911.

[riverkeeper]

I could be mistaken but a few years ago I decided the Glasers were not even good enough for my 44 mag much less my 38 -- bg's around here wear heavy coats much of the time. penetration!

[RsqVet]

Who has the money to test Glasers in a Semi???

Most "professionls" or gun writes / instructers reccomend about 200 rounds of you chosed carry ammo through your carry gun....

If we cut that even by 1/4 to 50 still who has that kind of money to put that many glassers down range??

I have never met someone who carries a magazine of glassers, a few who have one (offten old, scratched, possibly set back and something I would not trust) as their first chambered round, however for the most part any of the good JHP's hout there will serve your needs better and at much lower cost.

In revolvers I guess it's fair enough to give them a try if you want but again there are so many good JHP's why the need to go there?

As others have mentioned in the sub 380 caliber wepons penetration becomes a big factor so some chose to go FMJ and that probibly is not a bad idea for some of the small guns / calibers.

[Mike Irwin]

"OK, please bear in mind I am not necessarily advocating Glasers."

OK.

"Obviously, if one has it available, a round which will punch a bigger hole and penetrate adequately is far more desirable."

In my opinion, the SINGLE most important criteria with ANY caliber is penetration. You must be able to penetrate into vital structures. Unless you get lucky and hit the brain or the spine (tough targets under the best circumstances), your best chance at bringing someone down is to punch a hole in a major blood vessel, the lungs, the heart, etc.

If a hollow point won't give adequate, consistent penetration into those vital structures, then it's time to either find a hollowpoint that will, move on to FMJs, or move on to another caliber.

"In the mouse gun calibers though, this is just not likely to happen very oten." As a general rule, FMJs show the best consisten penetration capabilities in the small calibers. In .32 there are some hollowpoints that show excellent expansion combined with penetration; with the .25 it's a lot iffier.

Let's face it, handguns, even the big bores, aren't exactly positive stoppers. There's absolutely no reason to handicap yourself even more by choosing expensive ammo that's really solution in search of an answer.

[OBIWAN]

In general penetration and expansion are important

Glasers do neither very well

So.........................

[Laz]

Some years ago I decided to try some Mag-Safe .25s in a little Beretta 950. This was in the days when Joe Zambone still owned and ran Mag-Safe (rest his soul). I shot a cantaloupe from about 4-5 yards and found my face and front covered with cantaloupe bits. I was impressed but there are very few cases of cantaloupe attack around here. I believe a bit more in penetration but the frangibles do a number on fruit and stuff.

[Mike Irwin]

"I was impressed but there are very few cases of cantaloupe attack around here."

Good to know if you're trying to take down the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown...

[Webleymkv]

Modern .32ACP and .380ACP bullets seem to expand about as reliably as the larger calibers. Where major calibers are superior is in their penetration. A prefragmented round wouldn't seem to help this problem. My solution when I carry my .32 is to mix S&B 73grn FMJ with Winchester 60grn Silvertip JHP. Also, Magsafe at least has had some quality control issues with a few calibers. Their 7.62x25 ammo was blowing primers in the review I read of it (of course velocities were over 2200 fps out of a CZ 52).

[Mikeyboy]

Here is some links regarding penetration of regular ammo and a 9mm glaser rounds. A 9mm glaser round went thru 6 boards of sheetrock. Isn't failure to penetrate walls the reason why I would spend so much money on glasers?? To be fair even the Glaser website admits that any projectile will penetrate sheetrock, glaser are meant to stop hitting something more solid like a wood stud or a door. Second link same website, water jug test, glaser round goes thru some clothing and enters a 1 water jug, and tears it apart, but fails to exit. However the Third link mentions various bullet wounds cause by glaser rounds. Nasty, Nasty wounds, If and this is a big IF, the bullet penetrates. In some circumstances Glasers were more lethal than a regular round, and in some less lethal but a wound regardless. I rather take a FMJ bullet in the stomach than a Glaser. The problem with Glasers in pocket calibers I think are bone penetration with a bullet hitting shoulders or even the skull. In a hostage situation I rather have a HP .380 instead of a glaser .380 and that is knowing that if the glaser was to pentrate the skull , it would do significantly more damage to the brain than a HP, The Glaser might just fracture the guys skull, give him a gaping, bloody wound and put him in a world of hurt, but not kill him. I think glasers are a good thing, just understand, as with every bullet, they have their good points and their bad. If you know what they are you can use that bullet effectively.


http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot4.htm

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot13.htm

http://yarchive.net/gun/ammo/glaser_ss.html