Does anyone use frangible rounds?

[orionengnr]

Back in 1987, G&A magazine ran an article which convinced me that Glaser, MagSafe, et al were just the thing.

I spent an awful lot of money buying a bunch of those 6-round packs (these days I think they are 8 rounds, woo hoo). Shot them off and had some failures to cycle my SD pistols (S&W 469 and HK P7, two of the more reliable 9mms of that era).

The more I read, the less convinced I was that these were a wise choice.

Back then, they were $3 plus per round. Naturally, back then, I was thinking "you get what you pay for".

Hmmm...not always, and really, almost never. Don't know what they cost today, and really don't care.

These days...yeah, I'll go out on a limb and say that they are a gimmick, made for PT Barnum's favorite kind of people.

You do however, see bullets missing, quite often, and striking pedestrians in police shootings.

Really? Do you? I don't.

 

[hoss1969]

Theohazard.

You miss the op. He asked if anyone carryed them. i responded that I do, what kind and why I choose to. I tried to inform of what my personal results were, and the numbers I was able to personally get recorded by chronograph and standard shooting penetration tests.


Never said they were the end all in ammo. But I'd respect your stand against if you had took the time to try and test instead of just repeat out dated data on a older ammo that is of a completly different material and design.

 

[Theohazard]

But I'd respect your stand against if you had took the time to try and test instead of just repeat out dated data on a older ammo that is of a completly different material and design.

I think you're missing my point. If I took the time to test them like you did, those tests would be just as useless as the ones you did. Those tests aren't good at predicting real-world results in real shootings.

And no, modern frangible ammo isn't all that different than the older designs; it still hasn't been proven to perform as well as JHPs. Period.

Every few years someone comes out with some new, supposedly awesome design that's supposed to be the new end-all and be-all of handgun bullet designs. It's almost always some new type of frangible load that looks nasty in ballistics gel tests, but never seems to actually out-perform traditional JHPs in real-world applications, which is why every single major law enforcement agency in the country uses JHPs.

If you're worried about over-penetration with your handgun, use frangible ammo. If you want your handgun to be as effective as possible at stopping two-legged threats, use JHPs. There is no "magic bullet" when it comes to handguns, no matter how much the makers of rounds like the DRT tell you otherwise.

 

[JD0x0]

Every few years someone comes out with some new, supposedly awesome design that's supposed to be the new end-all and be-all of handgun bullet designs. It's almost always some new type of frangible load that looks nasty in ballistics gel tests, but never seems to actually out-perform traditional JHPs in real-world applications, which is why every single major law enforcement agency in the country uses JHPs.

Oh you mean like this?

http://g2rip.com/
Yep, like most ammo like this, independent tests didn't come close to the manufacture's claims, even in the coveted 'ballistics gel'

 

[willr]

A number of years ago the police dept in Yuma, AZ built a new facility which includded an indoor range. The range was to be used for practice and qualiying for local police. The range required use of frangible bullets. State law required use of issue service ammo or the equivalent for qualifying. Since all service ammo was 230 gr 45acp, the range was totally useless because the heaviest frangible ammo had 185 gr bullets. I guess the conclusion is that frangible bullets are not all they are supposed to be.

willr

 

[AustinTX]

I think you're missing my point. If I took the time to test them like you did, those tests would be just as useless as the ones you did. Those tests aren't good at predicting real-world results in real shootings.

Exactly.

 

[Sharkbite]

I think there are 2 discussions happening here.

"Frangible" is being used for 2 different kinds of ammo.

I think the OP is asking about pre-fragmented defensive type ammo (Glaser type)

A lot of the responses are about compressed powder projectiles designed to reduce ricochet and disintegrate into dust upon impact with steel

While teaching at Valhalla, we used the powdered type exclusively in the shoothouse ( i forget the manufacturer). Good training ammo, but not to be confused with any kind of defensive ammo. Only comes apart when impacting something HARD, like a steel backstop.

I dont have much experience with the "Glaser" type, but on the surface it sounds like a bad idea. In actual handgun fights more rounds MISS then have over penetrated human bodies. Using a round that limits practice (by being hugely expensive) and has ballistics and recoil properties that are vastly different then common training ammo, seems like a recipe for disaster.

 

[Theohazard]

I think there are 2 discussions happening here.

"Frangible" is being used for 2 different kinds of ammo.

I think the OP is asking about pre-fragmented defensive type ammo (Glaser type)

A lot of the responses are about compressed powder projectiles designed to reduce ricochet and disintegrate into dust upon impact with steel

Good point. Just to clarify: in my posts I'm referring to the pre-fragmented defensive type ammo.

 

[hoss1969]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite I think there are 2 discussions happening here. /QUOTE]
Agree I thats why I said its not the same old frag.

 

[Theohazard]

Agree I thats why I said its not the same old frag.

But if we're talking about lightweight pre-fragmented defensive rounds, it is the same old frag. The over-hyped, under-penetrating, and under-performing loads from a few decades ago have been replaced with new loads like the G2 RIP that are also over-hyped, under-penetrating, and under-performing.

 

[AustinTX]

Agree I thats why I said its not the same old frag.

The distinction he's pointing out doesn't do anything at all to support your argument in favor of pre-fragmented defensive ammo. A couple of people were talking about the performance of frangible target ammo, but most of us who used the term "frangible" were just being lazy with our language (myself included) and were referring to the uniformly overhyped and underperforming pre-fragmented defensive ammo.

But if we're talking about lightweight pre-fragmented defensive rounds, it is the same old frag. The over-hyped, under-penetrating, and under-performing loads from a few decades ago have been replaced with new loads like the G2 RIP that are also over-hyped, under-penetrating, and under-performing.

Bingo. Some people's devotion to this stuff goes beyond any rational explanation.

 

[colbad]

Good catch....I was talking about the powdered copper (frang) rounds we use for CQB on metal targets. Some of the other posts make sense now. I know the frang I shot had almost no penetration.