what is wrong with Glasers?

tipoc: Sometimes I get the impression this forum is completely humorless. I appreciate your post. :) Things have gone astray here. I would like the discussion closed.
 
If you are going to use an ineffective round in a self-defense situation, you should not have the gun in the first place. Glasers are not self-defense ammo. They are useless for self-defense.
 
You know in some parts if this country it gets cold, people wear heavy coats, leather coats. I wonder if this birdshot would be effective through that kind of clothing?
 
Uhh, the air marshalls used Glasers extensively in the 70s and 80s.
The reason police depts don't issue them is cost. Departmental budgets don't allow for ammo that expensive.
The bicep, humerus, and tricep are tough muscle and bone. The Glaser performed as it should.
They don't dump out the shot until they've already penetrated the body.

A surgeon friend of Massad Ayoob, who actually had experience with Glaser GSWs described the injury from a .38 special Glaser as being the same as cutting an incision, inserting the muzzle of a .410 shotgun 2" into the body cavity, and THEN pulling the trigger.
That, my friends, is a very nasty wound. I've shot ringed loads out of my Judge and they are impressively destructive.

If you don't think that makes a damned impressive wound channel, you have no concept of what projectiles do to bodies and should go back to playing WOW.

I have absolutely no reservations about carrying Glasers or Magsafe in anything .32 caliber or larger.

If Glaser Blue isn't impressive enough for you, get Glaser Silver. It uses #9 shot.
 
On Brassfetcher's website, ballistic gelatin tests show that some Glaser safety slugs are actually more deadly after going through a wall. Apparently, the drywall slows them down enough so that they can't expand, at which point they behave more like a lightweight FMJ.
 
"Gee, how did people EVER defend themselves before the "FBI penetration standards?"

The same way a lot of police did at various times...

Badly, and ultimately fatally, when the ammo that really looked good on paper, or which which was chosen because it was what police had been carrying for half a century, or whatever, failed to do the job asked of it.

Had FBI penetration standards been in place in 1986, the Miami shootout wouldn't even be known to most of us because Michael Platt would have died rapidly from a fatal heart wound, not slowly with a Winchester Silvertip that stopped an inch short of his heart, allowing him to take two FBI agents with him.


The corollary question to yours above is "Just how did people make informed choices about personal protection ammo in the days before the FBI penetration standards"?

The simple answer is... they didn't. They were left to guess.

To be perfectly honest, I'm more than comfortable guessing when I'm playing the lottery.

But I'm not at all comfortable guessing when I'm playing with my life.
 
^^^
This.
Well said, Mike, and right on the money.
The reason police depts don't issue them is cost. Departmental budgets don't allow for ammo that expensive.
Click to expand...
The reason nobody uses them is because these days, enough data exists to deter any objective, thinking person to steer clear of gimick rounds.
Uhh, the air marshalls used Glasers extensively in the 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...
Even Federal Air Marshals, who have a nearly unlimited budget (DHS, and you're paying for it, dearly) gave up on those rounds a long time ago.
And in full disclosure, before Al Gore invented the Internet (God bless him, and may he rest in peace, sooner or sooner still) I bought and used Glaser and MagSafe. Thank God I grew out of it a long time ago, and more importantly, that I never had to use any of those crap rounds to protect myself or my loved ones.

Hint:
When the .gov quits buying $600 hammers with your money, maybe you should ask "why?" and perhaps do likewise. :D
 
Last edited:
aryfrosty

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.
Post #33
Click to expand...
__________________

Superficial defined:
su·per·fi·cial
   /ˌsupərˈfɪʃəl/
–adjective
1.being at, on, or near the surface: a superficial wound.
2.of or pertaining to the surface: superficial measurement.
3.external or outward: a superficial resemblance.
4.concerned with or comprehending only what is on the surface or obvious: a superficial observer.
5.shallow; not profound or thorough: a superficial writer.
6.apparent rather than real.
7.insubstantial or insignificant: superficial improvements.

The wound was superficial by definitions 3, 5, and 7 above. On the other hand, the wound was not superficial by definitions 1, 2, 4, and 6. So both positions on the use of the adjective "superficial" are correct. It only penetrated the skin and muscle. It did not penetrate or break the humerus.

More to the point,
RWK post #28

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.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with RWK's points made in the above quoted post #28.
I think he meant:

"First, "energy transfer" does [not] 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.
(I added the "not")

" . . . twelve inches [of] penetration, with an objective of eighteen inches or more . . ." (added "of" to the partial quote)

". . . the selection of weapons and ammunition is intended to provide a HIGH PROBABILITY OF FAST INCAPACITATION . . ."

This last point is the most critical. All you have in a defensive situation is what you have. You can't say to the threat "uh, wait I'm not loaded for this situation. I was expecting to encounter an average sized male, wearing a T-shirt in an occupied dwelling, in a densely populated city." You have to select which weapon and ammunition you may use with the criteria of covering as many of the reasonable scenarios you may encounter.

In short: Keep your options open.

To elaborate:
Inadequate penetration may allow the threat to continue for such a length of time that you would get seriously harmed or killed. Multiple (6 or more) shallow (3 inches or less) wounds would not predictably cause fast (less than 5 seconds) incapacitation due to blood pressure loss. The real risk of such shallow penetration means that a determined attacker could continue to function even after you ran out of ammunition, and do whatever the attacker set out to do. Pain caused by the wounds may not be felt for as long as a minute, which is sufficient time to do a great deal of damage by a firearm or knife wielding attacker. An attacker who has been shot multiple times who is not losing blood pressure sufficient to cause incapacitation or feeling pain would predictably continue to pursue the course of action which motivated you to use deadly force to stop.

A handgun is a compromise tool.

I submit that all defensive handgun cartridges are underpowered (subjectively, less than full powered .44 mag load). That is why it is taught to shoot at least twice to center of mass. Assess and proceed as needed.

We carry a handgun, not because it is the best tool for self-defense, but because it may be adequate; and it is small and light enough to be tolerated in everyday carry.

Choosing a handgun and the ammunition for self-defense is a personal choice. It should be an informed decision. Learn which factors cause reliable physiological incapacitation. Learn which handguns and cartridges can most often accomplish this goal. Learn which handgun and cartridge load you are competent with, or will practice enough to become competent.

Additionally, each individual has a personal perception of risk and tolerance to risk;as well as, tolerance to how much they will expend to meet their perceived risk. You may have noticed that some people write something to the effect that "I feel perfectly confident that my 'fill in the blank weapon, number of rounds, or such a cartridge' will be sufficient." The fill in the blank is filled with everything you can imagine.

I say perceived risk because it may not be actual risk.

To conclude: Keep your options open.

All you will have when the worst happens is what you bring with you every day.
 
Last edited:
OK


I will put my head on the chopping block again.

I have yet to hear anyone, but my wife’s use of Glaser's in an (actual) gun shooting situation from any posters on here.

I’ve heard Yes/No/maybe the Air Marshals used them. I have heard FBI stats, and seen X-ray’s of gun wounds. I’ve heard of heavy clothing, and the stance of the BG, even heard one guy whom doesn't believe my wife should have a gun.......

It comes down to this…….It worked for my wife, and she now trusts them. Trust is a big thing in weapons, whether you believe it or not.

Nuff said, and last said from me on this thread.
 
I know a guy who used a 130 grain FMJ .38 Special load at around 700 fps to kill an attacker stone dead with one shot. With that sample population of 1, it is a sterling choice for self defense.

I know of a guy who was gut shot with a 12 gauge slug at almost contact distance and who ran off. He was then captured and stood trial. With that sample population of 1, a 12 gauge slug is a poor performer.

The .38 guy can trust the same load to perform that way again all he wants, and the 12 gauge guy can trust the same shotgun load to fail to perform all he wants.
 
It comes down to this…….It worked for my wife,
Click to expand...
No, it comes down to this:
Everything from a BB gun to a .458 has been effective at least once.
Does that make any of them a good choice based upon that one instance? No.
Why? Because the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

A wise man makes wise choices...and most of them will be based upon objective data. I don't base my choices on single instances of anything (water heaters, cars, guns). I buy what has been proven to work. Glasers to not fall into that category.

If one LEA used Glasers, I'd be interested. If they all did, I'd find that compelling.

If none did, I'd wonder why, and be seriously disinclined. There is ample evidence that Departmental budgets are not an issue, as they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer/"stimulus" money to buy whatever they please.

Read this thread
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=439828
to see how an "alcohol enforcement agency" spent several hundred thousand dollars in the last three years buying new and then newer pistols and assault rifles for a ~100 man force...that enforces alcohol sales.

Your .gov has no compunctions spending your money. Some more than others, no doubt, but the principle remains.
 
Last edited:
FAA Sky Marshals, Glaser Silver Magsafe...

I'd want to add a few points on this subject;
1) The "Air Marshals" some members bring up in the 1970s/1980s/1990s were US govt- federal sworn LE officers called Sky Marshals. These highly trained LEOs used S&W model 624 .44spl snub revolvers and were only on high risk flights.
2) The Glaser Silver line is no longer sold or marketed. I think it may be what Corbon now calls the PowRball. ;)
3) Frangible or special purpose loads are not cheap and high quality ammunition may be a major budget issue for any size LE agency.
In the 1990s, author and former US Navy counter terrorist expert/SEAL Richard Marcinko; www.DickMarcinko.com wrote that he used .45acp Magsafe rounds in his HK USP sidearm.
FWIW; my state by law does not allow armed security/PIs/etc to use prefragmented rounds. When I asked a panel member why, I was told it was due to the ammunition design and poor quality control. :(
 
I think that in a large caliber so that you have a big enough payload to be effective...they may be good around the house. They are very destructive to fruit. I would not want to carry them on the street because of unknown variables and I would rather have the versatility of standard high penetration projectiles. But my theory is that with more weight to them, they will penetrate better or at least the 00 buck increasing it's effectivness.

I can make these safety slugs, chrony them, but that is all. I have no way to test penetration. Who can make ballistic gel and reload to test them? I would send some for the testing if someone is willing to test them into gel. I do not want to send ammo though, you must also load the projectiles, seems better that way.
 
RWK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

For another way to look at why energy transfer does not incapacitate, consider that a 100 mph fastball has almost exactly the same amount of energy as a .22 LR shot from a rifle. All of the energy of the baseball is transferred to someone getting hit by a pitch, but it does not incapacitate at all, while a .22 LR fired from a rifle can certainly do so with proper shot placement. What I am trying to say is that both the fastball and the .22 LR projectile have the same amount of energy, so "energy transfer" isn't any indication of efficacy.

Code: 
    1   2
E = - mv 
    2

E: kinetic energy in joules
m: mass of projectile in kg
v: velocity of projectile in m/s

A baseball weighs 145 g (0.145 kg)
100 mph = 44.7 m/s

    1
E = -(0.145)(44.7)(44.7)
    2

E = [b]144.9 J[/b] [i](100 mph fastball)[/i]

A 40-grain projectile weighs 2.6 g (0.0026 kg)
1,080 fps = 329.2 m/s

    1
E = -(0.0026)(329.2)(329.2)
    2

E = [b]140.9 J[/b] [i](.22 LR, 40-grain projectile @ 1,080 fps)[/i]
 
I remember an article that that I thought was informative. Based on actual shootings. Might have been by Ayoob.

A glaser can:

1. be defeated by even a zipper, or fail to perform in soft tissue.

2. perform similar to a standard JHP

3. release it's shot inside the target with absolutely devistating results.
 
A glaser can:

1. be defeated by even a zipper, or fail to perform in soft tissue.

2. perform similar to a standard JHP

3. release it's shot inside the target with absolutely devistating results.
Click to expand...

This to me is the main problem. They are unpredictable. For such an expensive round I would like to know it's going to work.

The idea of a "shotgun in the palm of your hand" is very compelling... look at the popularity of the judge. I think some people realize the superiority of the shotgun for HD purposes, then want to take that power with them in their pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top