what is wrong with Glasers?

Just a few comments...

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.
Click to expand...

There is only one load that I can see that Glazer offers in the .44 Mag and that is this one...

http://www.shopcorbon.com/Glaser-Safety-Slug/44-Magnum-135gr-Glaser/04200-04400/500/Product

It features a 135 gr. bullet (loaded with either the #12 or #6 shotshells) going at 1600 fps from a 4" barrel so they say. They push it this fast so as to try to get some penetration from the tiny slugs. This will make quite a loud noise and quite a flash. It is also the case that it will quite possibly penetrate through your walls.

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

You may want to go with the 44 Spl.

It is not guaranteed with any round that a miss won't penetrate a wall and go on to hit another person (out my way this happens several times a year in fact and usually with 9mm). It is a mark of seriousness that you'd give some thought to this and try to minimize the chance of it. Of course one of the best ways is to practice so as to lesson the chance of a miss.

The other way is to choose a round that is less likely to do this but still have a good chance of stopping an attacker. I'd suggest you take a closer look at the 44 Spl.

tipoc
 
c. philip: Thank you for the definitive post that gave me the information I was looking for.

kozak6: My choice of .44 mag. was dictated by budget. I would like to be able to buy whatever guns I feel would fit certain needs and wants but that is not possible. I have what I have and make the most of it.

The current Glaser site does not state it will not penetrate walls. It does state there is reduction of ricochet and thus offers some safety margin over conventional projectiles.

My question has been answered. Now, I have decisions to make. Thank you.
 
There are two main issues with Glasers, Magsafes, Extreme Shock and other frangible ammunition: penetration and cost.

Glasers penetrate much more shallowly than most JHP's do and they do not reliably meet the FBI penetration standards. While the penetration of Glasers may be adequate assuming a straight-on frontal shot on a small-to average sized individual, those criteria cannot be guaranteed in the real world. The reason that the FBI penetration standards are seemingly deeper than necessary is because they're also taking into account performance when the BG is shot at an oblique angle, shot through an extremity or intermediate barrier, or is a very large individual. Also, as was pointed out in an above post, a miss with a Glaser can still penetrate most interior walls (it might be different if you live in an older house with more solidly constructed walls).

The other issue is cost. Frangible ammo is quite expensive and most of us like to shoot at least a few rounds of our chosen ammo through our gun to ensure reliable function. While a revolver is inherently less sensitive to ammunition than a semi-automatic, it's still a good idea to shoot at least 20-50 rounds through it in order to at least make sure that the sights are properly adjusted. Because Glasers are extremely light for caliber, they will likely shoot much lower than the sights are regulated for unless you've adjusted them. Also, it's usually a good idea to periodically shoot your carry ammo or at least something similar in order to stay familiar with the recoil characteristics. Due to their cost, shooting an adequate number of Glasers is usually prohibitively expensive, particularly to people with a limited budget.

If you're worried about overpenetration and cost, you might want to look at the CCI Blazer .44 Special loading. This loading uses the excellent Speer 200grn Gold Dot bullet but because it is loaded in Blazer aluminum cases it costs about the same as regular LRN .44 Special ammo. This will penetrate significantly less than a full-power .44 Magnum (and have much milder recoil) but will still have adequate penetration for self-defense use (the performance will be on par with a good .45 ACP JHP).
 
In an unobstructed full-frontal shot, Glaser Silver (not the Blue that uses #12 dust) will create a nasty but shallow wound. Number 6 birdshot simply does not have the sectional density for adequate penetration in human flesh. Don't even bother wasting your time contemplating the Glaser Blue that uses #12 dust.. You cannot rely on hydrostatic shock to incapacitate when using handguns▬or rifles for that matter..

Sure, Glaser's advertising claims are decisive, but enter heavy winter clothing, drugs, their price, inaccuracy, night blindness from not using flash-suppressed powders, sketchy reliability (yes, even in revolvers!), not to mention they're EXTREMELY loud indoors compared to other duty cartridges and there's no comparison with standard duty ammunition like Ranger-T, Gold Dot, Golden Saber, & HST

$30 for six cartridges? Gimme a break, it ain't that good...


:rolleyes: ← this is for the guy whom suggested using Extreme Shock ammo
 
Webleymkv : Thank you for the well reasoned response.
As far as aiming is concerned. I believe an in-home confrontation would be a fairly close ranges and just pointing or front sight only aiming would be how I would use the gun. I'm not looking for Xs at 25 yards.
I do reload so what I do next will be adjusted at the loading bench.
 
My question to the OP is that, Can you afford the high price of these specialty ammunition to practice and become proficient and and fire enough round to know that it will function with your handgun? I can’t.
 
pesta2: the gun is a double action revolver, a Ruger Redhawk. I am confident it will function quite well. At the close in-home possible use aiming practice would be redundant.
 
aryfrosty . . .

In #8 you said: "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."

I apologize, but I respectfully disagree, for a few substantial reasons:

First, "energy transfer" does kill or disable; the generally accepted fact is only a central nervous system hits or major blood loss from an internal organ will cause rapid incapacitation. Damage to the heart, the liver, and so forth that result in massive and comparatively immediate blood loss requires the projectile both to reach the applicable organ AND to damage it extensively. "Energy transfer" simply does not do this.

Second, in large part this is why highly reputable performance protocols for handguns -- and their rounds -- require significant penetration. For example, the FBI's post-Miami standard mandated twelve inches penetration, with an objective of eighteen inches or more (for specific, relevant details, please see: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf).

Third, the unusual examples you cite (in #8) are based on EXTREMELY small sample sizes (like a single incident), which renders them analytically invalid. Certainly, a .22 short can often be lethal if fired with great precision; however, the selection of weapons and ammunition is intended to provide a HIGH PROBABILITY OF FAST INCAPACITATION, NOT A “RARE MIRACLE.”

If the Glaser/energy transfer concept were proven and authoritative, law enforcement agencies would widely accept this round, due to its potentially reduced lethality (combined with desired efficacy). Does any standard agency (even the Sky Marshals) mandate Glasers, or similar frangible loads? If not, doesn't that STRONGLY suggest that they are -- as I indicated in my previous post (#7) to this thread -- unsuitable.
 
Last edited:
Way back in the day a Jennings J-25 was my 'tackle box gun'. I had one magazine loaded with FMJ and one magazine loaded with Glasers - usually had the Glasers in the gun but without one in the chamber. At the time I considered Glasers as 'better than .25 auto hollowpoints' and can't say for sure if I was right or wrong. I'm glad I never had to use either.

I've never considered Glasers for any other caliber as I never felt the need to result to 'ballistic trickery' with my 9mm, .40 or 45 auto pistols.
 
Webleymkv : Thank you for the well reasoned response.
As far as aiming is concerned. I believe an in-home confrontation would be a fairly close ranges and just pointing or front sight only aiming would be how I would use the gun. I'm not looking for Xs at 25 yards.
Click to expand...

You really should fire at least a few at the range as I think the variance might suprise you. Until recently, I loaded my S&W Model 36 with 135grn Speer Gold Dots. While they shot within an inch or two of POA at 15 yards, they shot 6-8" low at 30 yards because my sights are regulated for 158grn bullets. That large a variance was caused by 23grn in bullet weight. Your Glasers are 135grn bullets while standard weight for a .44 Magnum (and most likely the weight that your revolver's sights were regulated for from the factory) is 240grn, that's a difference of 105grn! While the difference in POA vs POI might not be great enough for you to miss your target entirely at common SD range, it may be enough that you won't hit the part of the target you're aiming at (could turn an upper chest shot into a lower chest or upper abdomen shot). If you're going to use such light bullets, you really need to readjust your sights for them.
 
Boy, there sure is a lot of misinformation in this thread. I swage my own (Safety Slugs), they're one of the easiest bullets to make because there is few steps in production. I have made and shot at least a thousand of these in 45acp in original configuration and heavier configurations.

SS's penetrate wood and drywall very well for weight. They tend to close in on themselves when penetrating medium hard objects.
They are no good on sheet metal or car doors.
They are impressive on pork.
They do not fail on clothing! :rolleyes:
They did not only make surface wounds. The 140's obviously would not penetrate as well as heavier ones but were pretty respectable.
I found them to be extremely accurate.

That said, I do not think they would be a good general purpose SD round. They are very neat and fun to play around with, and to show off at the range with, but general purpose they are not. I do get better results with heavier payload SS's. Instead of using a blue vplastic tip, I use a single 00 Buck and bring the weight to 200 gr.

I havent loaded any into 454 Casull yet, but I will this summer after I pick up a new cannelure wheel, it should be interesting.
 
That was a good story...

I can only add that that was, again, not a superficial wound. That was an arm shot and I hypothesize that the recipient of that wound was immediately out of the fight. As I said earlier...Some like them-some don't. IF anyone still doesn't like them no you can argue with the xrays and the photo of the wound.
 
Didn't realize the responses would be so passionate.
My questions have been answered.
I didn't mean to start a 'WD-40 is Martian fish oil' type debate.
Thank y'all for your replies.
 
Arm shots

If you want to call the round ineffective, you may. If the Glasers were designed to penetrate you'd be right. They aren't intended to penetrate. Your argument demonstrates that logic has no place in your decisions. I am curious to know if you have ever been shot? If so then I will cede your position of saying that wound wouldn't take the BG out of a fight.

If not, go back to whatever your day job is and don't quit.
 
"Never say never"....

If you read over any of the Glaser Safety Slug or prefragmented handgun round posts, you'd see that I put out details about the round. ;)

A Magsafe or Corbon/Glaser Safety Slug(blue) in .44spl would do very well for home defense in my humble opine.

Some forum members put down frangible or "exotic" loads with valid issues but for large caliber handguns(.44magnum, .44spl, .45LC, .50AE, etc) a Glaser, Magsafe, etc is a smart choice.

CF
 
Sorry, but Glaser Blue (#12 shot is about as big as this period→ .) does not have the sectional density or momentum, and lacks adequate penetration for self-defense scenarios. Obviously you should never take the shot if you're not sure of what's behind your target and rely on your ammunition to do your job of being prudent.

Since one cannot guarantee an unobstructed full-frontal shot or if obstacles are encountered, frangible ammunition has too many drawbacks to be considered an adequate self-defense/home-defense load
 
Didn't realize the responses would be so passionate.
My questions have been answered.
I didn't mean to start a 'WD-40 is Martian fish oil' type debate.
Thank y'all for your replies.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say it's not Martian Fish Oil!?! Yeah sure, and Hoppe's #9 has nothing to do with Yaks either!

tipoc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top