what is wrong with Glasers?

R

Rifleman1776

New member
When I choose to use my Redhawk .44 mag. for home defense I choose Glaser blue tips for the ammo I loaded. (never used, fortunately)
The reason I choose it was/is my understanding it will not penetrate walls and possibly harm others on the other side, or even in the next house.
I have never seen a post here that stands up for the Glasers. I would like to see comments from those who have first hand knowledge about this ammunition. Thanks.
 
"The reason I choose it was/is my understanding it will not penetrate walls..."

NOT guaranteed.

Did you actually test them?

Or are you relying solely on advertising claims made by the seller?

They also have serious issues with stopping folks.

Shallow surface wounds are not as good at stopping as deeper damage.
 
^ She was lucky that the bad guy "stumbled away." He clearly survived and therefore could have continued his assault on your wife if he was sufficiently determined and/or drugged. Yes, they stopped the threat in that situation, but wounding a bad guy and causing him pain won't always work. The FBI recommends 12" minimum penetration in ballistic gelatin in order to maximize the chances of hitting vitals. Glasers will not reach even close to 12." They are also expensive and therefore difficult to purchase enough to sufficiently practice with.

Over-penetration is over-hyped. Better too much than not enough. If you're worried about the bullet passing through the bad guy and hitting someone else, think about how many missed shots there are in the average police shoot out. Having a low penetrating round won't help when you miss the target.
 
Glasers

Glasers will NOT penetrate wallboard or any solid surface at all. Guaranteed!
They were developed for the Sky Marshal's Service becuase they were designed to not penetrate an aircraft skin if fired in it. My riding partner and I had access to a wrecking yard and we tried both blue and silver and found that they will not penetrate auto sheet metal. They won't even fracture a plastic grille. They will shatter side glass, but so will a BB. They will fracture a windshield but won't penetrate it. They are not designed to penetrate like hardball or even hollow points. They won't penetrate heavy clothing. In my opinion they are good choices for home defense. I have a Smith M325NG with silvers loaded up beside my bed, and my favorite "grab-n-go" is a Sig P238 loaded with 8 70 gr "Extreme Shock" rounds. www.extremeshock.com. Same weight as Glasers in the caliber. Some like them, some don't.
 
Let's begin with a few unquestionable facts:
a) Lord forbid any of us ever have to employ a firearm for self-protection
b) However, if we are compelled to do so, the ONLY relevant goal is to immediately stop the threat
c) Rapid adversary incapacitation results only from wounds to the central nervous system or to organs that cause rapid blood loss and unconsciousness
d) Glaser rounds are specifically designed to wound superficially -- they are engineered NOT TO PENETRATE
e) Failure to penetrate adequately makes it quite likely the criminal's vital organs will not be damaged or destroyed, even by a well-aimed shot
f) Therefore, Glasers are unlikely to achieve the paramount objective ("b" above)
 
Glasers

d:
1: Glasers are NOT designed to wound superficially. Rather they are designed to immediately transfer all of their energy to a target, (bad guy), and incapacitate by this transference. Glasers, properly used, will immediately stop the threat.

A homicide I worked in the late 1970s was of a 250# male stopped immediately and killed by .22short to his heart.
Fluke? Sure. But it worked and, to be sure, the 100# female who shot him gave him 3 more in the same general area. I have seen .22 shorts stopped by a 1/4 inch sheet of panel board.
In 1980 an area Officer and his shift mates were "quick drawing" in their squadroom using those plastic "push in" bullets over an empty case with only a primer. One penetrated an officer's thorax and passed his heart and was recovered from his back. He lived. And, yes, I was working that night and no, I wasn't the former officer who shot him. It was the next town to ours.
 
My key problem with these very specialized rounds is that the high cost prohibits most from practicing with them. When means you don't know how they handle, how they feel, and if your gun actually likes them. More important for a pistol (I won't keep my 45 ready with anything I've not sent 100 down the range - I want no doubts that second round is going to chamber) than a revolver, but I have had rounds prevent the cylinder from rotating or fail to extract and thus prevent a quick reload, or simply have a high miss-fire rate.

The technical aspects of Glasers strike me as a bit of a sales pitch but maybe as good as they claim. But I won't pay to put a hundred down range so I won't use any.
 
RWK

g) it works

My wife is snuggled up on the couch drinking a cup of tea, the BG is in prison, the revolver is still loaded with Blue tips.

I've read all the reports on penetration, cavity size......

Personally the only report that counts, is the incident report my wife was able to sign, after using Glasers.
 
Last edited:
They won't penetrate heavy clothing.
Click to expand...
That is just the beginning.
Take a look at a picture of someone who is poised to shoot at you. If you want to reach his vitals, you may have to penetrate his forearm or upper arm before you hit his chest. That is where Glasers will fail. You "may" blow a large, shallow hole in his forearm, while he continues to pump rounds into your chest.

Glasers and other frangible rounds are crap, pure and simple. If they were worth the asking price, at least one LEA would use them. And no, Air Marshalls do not not use them--that is another Internet fallacy.
 
Last edited:
I have been very underwhelmed by Glasers.

As far as one or two good outcomes goes, it would be pretty easy to point to a positive outcome for just about every bullet type made. Does that make them all the bees knees. Nope. It is also pretty easy to point to failures with different bullet types, that does not make them all poor performers either. Repeatable testing and real world use that shows the ability to reach vital areas means something. The ability to do it through heavy winter clothing means something. The ability to penetrate bone means something. The ability to be used frequently (cost) means something. Glasers also won't shoot through auto glass or a car door worth doodely squat.

I have carried the things as a duty round on aircraft, and I have no use for them really.
 
Rifleman, corbon makes a good 165 grain jhp.44 mag defensive load that uses flash suppressed powder and is loaded down a little (165 grain at 1300 fps if I remember correctly) http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=435081. Federal's powershock 180 grain jhp is popular for self defense also but is loaded a little hotter and would probably go through walls or whatever else it hit. I think the corbon self defense 165 grain load is the way to go. You can always step that down to jhp .44 special defensive loads too, like speer gold dot http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=620298 those are reportedly very effective. Sorry to steer off topic, but just trying to give you alternatives to the safety slug that has had little love over the years.
 
Glasers will NOT penetrate wallboard or any solid surface at all. Guaranteed!
Click to expand...
False. 9mm Glasers go through 6 sheets of dry wall. Here is a test to prove it.

Also, don't you think the above quote contradicts this one?
Glasers are NOT designed to wound superficially.
Click to expand...
So they won't even penetrate a wall board yet they also don't wound superficially. :rolleyes:

Rather they are designed to immediately transfer all of their energy to a target
Click to expand...
Energy transfer means nothing if it doesn't hit vitals.

...and incapacitate by this transference.
Click to expand...
Again, transferring energy to superficial tissue will not reliably incapacitate a foe.
 
What their website says, "Glaser Safety Slug works exactly as it was designed to do over 30 years ago."

It's a carry over from a time when terminal ballistics test results were not so widely available and only JHP's traveling over 1400fps would reliably expand.

Bird-shot is not recommended in 12 gauge shotguns, and you are basically shooting a mini-version of that using a handgun with Glaser ammunition.

Anything can work but you always want to stack the odds in your favor. Best handgun you can afford and best ammunition you can afford.

Let alone putting the standard 100 rounds reliability run of ammunition through a semi-automatic pistol if that is what you are using - that would be about $180 with Glaser Safety Slugs. Compared to much better ammunition backed by the experts and many real life examples, which would be around $50-70.
 
I compromise: I keep the first two chambers of my .357 loaded with Glasers, the rest with premium self-defense ammo. The odds of needing to fire more than a few times are basically zilch during a personal assault or a break in, but in case more shots are called for, they might as well be doozies.
 
Air Marshalls DO NOT carry Glasers. Penetrating a aircraft skin is a non existant problem... in fact most airplanes all though pressurized, and fairly "leaky". You would need a VERY large hole in the side to has a catastrophic failure.

Glasers are garbage. I don't worry about the bad guy being able to live after trying to hurt me, if I am firing, I am making sure the odds are stacked in my favor to be the only one walking away alive. Why waste the tax dollars keeping another scum bag alive in prison?
 
"Penetrate" the more wholes, the faster the bleeding. (sorry just had to say that) I believe there"s to much worrying about going through other walls, in the "heat of the moment" you would be surprised how many won't even hit "BG"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top