glazers

[slojim]

what do you think of these? The guys at the gunshop obviously were hypnotized by them, the each said exactly the same thing, word for word, about them.
plus- if they work as advertised, and you are on target, they will not overpenetrate, and they will make a big hole. If you are off target, you won't hurt someone you can't see, behind a wall, etc.
minus- at the cost, you can't practice with them, other than a few test shots. So your carry and practice ammo may shoot diferently. And, BG ducks behind a door/ table/ shooting at you from a car, you won't get through.
Supposedly, they are in wide use, and I don't really plan on having to shoot through stuff, heck, I don't plan on shooting anywhere but the range, and I hope that holds true, but...

 

[Tropical Z]

Their cost is too high for me,but if i had some in my handgun i would definitely make sure the third round at least was a FMJ.

 

[longeyes]

I went through the same internal debate. I've decided to use both Glasers and Magsafe pre-frags in the revolver I keep at home. But I'm going with a mix & match approach: Glaser, Magsafe, Federal hollow-points (.38 Spl +P). I think having hollow-points in reserve might be the prudent strategy, just in case. (By the way, I won't use either type in my semi-autos because I'm not convinced of their feeding reliability and have no way to test it given the price of these rounds. I know others are very comfortable with that, though.)

 

[Mike Irwin]

I simply don't buy it.

I think Glasers, and other rounds, really are a solution to a problem that for the most part doesn't exist.

Among the problems I see with Glasers, Beehives, Magsafes, etc.,

1. They're too expensive. You should always shoot a quantity of a particular round through your carry gun BEFORE depending on the round to function in your gun.

At $20 for 6 cartridges, I'm afraid most people won't even bother to test the ammo in their gun, it's simply too expensive.

2. Heavy clothing can SEVERELY interfere with the ability of these rounds to do their job. I'm a firm believer in penetration. If you can't penetrate the target's vital organs, you're going to have a seriously hard time stopping a determined agressor.

Even on lightly clothed targets penetration remains problematic.

3. Much of the effectiveness claimed by rounds such as these seems to stem from the "Strasbourg Goat Tests," which proclaimed the Glaser the most effective round available.

That's fine if you're attacked by a herd of goats, but there's no definite proof that these tests ever took place, just the "a friend of a friend's uncle's brother's boss' husband's next door neighbor's priest was at these tests, and said that XXXX bullet blew the goat right out of its skin! It's what I carry now!"

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm going to stick with hollowpoint or hardball ammo with a proven street track record (yes, I do give SOME creedence to Marshall & Sanow, but just for general trends) and which Fackler testing have shown to have good penetration.

 

[Al Thompson]

Mike's goot it.

I have some experiance with Glasers, both the blue tips and the old black tips. The point of impact is way out of alignment with the sights. (like 18 inches at ten yards) The muzzle falsh was horrible and one lot of .44 Mag Glasers hit the target sideways.

Have zero experiance with Magsafe.

You have to shoot a decent number of the rounds for functioning (even if you only load one in the chamber) and to check point of impact.

Too much money, too little advantage.

Giz

 

[slojim]

Thanks. I didn't expect someone to tell me they would be off 18" at 10 yards. Anyone else have an experience like that? or was it perhaps some bad ammo? I know when I shoot the reloads sold at the range, my accuracy/precision suffer, but not that much. If they are that bad, that negates all advantage, expansion doesn't matter if you can't hit your target, not to mention the possibility of sailing right by and hitting someone you didn't see or intend to hit.

 

[MADISON]

Glazers are composed of...

Glazers are composed of SHOT inside plastic. There are records that indicate they will penitrate SUMMER CLOTHING. In the winter you need other ammo to be sure of penitration of WINTER CLOTHES.

 

[Jager1]

If you are going to use Glasers for HD, why not spare yourself the expense and use a shotgun loaded with low-brass birdshot if penetration is an issue?

The same people who advocate Glasers will likely argue against using conventional handloads.

The same people who advocate alternating ammunition type will likely argue against handloads.

Is there really a difference based on case history (absent)?

It all boils down to personal choice.

If you see a need for these in your HD environment, it is your call to make.

Give me a 230 grain Gold Dot or Hydra-Shock out of a 5" barrel.

I lean with Mike. If adequate penetration is not achieved, you may have to dance with the guy or dodge the conventional ammunition he brought to the party. Not a pretty picture.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Madison,

I wasn't too clear in my comments about penetration.

I'm not really worried about the Glaser penetrating the clothing that the potential agressor is wearing.

I'm a LOT MORE worried about how far the Glaser will penetrate into the agressor.

Yes, the two are related, because the heavier the clothing generally the worse the penetration.

I've not seen a lot of information on how far Glasers and their cousins will penetrate into human tissue/ballistic gelatin (even lightly clothed), or how reliably they will penetrate. But the data that I have seen leads me to believe that the chances of getting enough penetration to consistently reach vital organs is very, very iffy.

 

[traitorjack]

out of curiosity, I shot a piece of 2x6 twice: once with a glaser blue tip and once with a Win SXT, side by side, both .45, at about five yards. in my single observation (I won't even say experiment) they produced IDENTICAL holes through those 2 inches of seasoned lumber. take that for what it's worth, if anything ...

 

[Jim March]

In my tests of Glaser "silver label" .38+P from a snubbie, they grouped quite accurately and at point of aim at 15 yards.

I have a habit of loading the first two at bat in this load, followed by three Winchester 158 +P LSWC-HP and a pair of speedloaders full of that 158.

The Glaser "Silver labels" use larger shot pellets than the blue label, and should "punch deeper" than the Blues.

Magsafe sells a .38+P Defender (steel shot) that's supposedly got a powder charge "tuned" for snubbie performance, pulling over 1,600fps from a 2" tube. I saw these years ago, haven't seen any since...I've had my eye open, and was planning on testing a couple. If what Magsafe is saying about the "tuning" of their load to 2" tubes is correct, it may be a better performer in my gun.

Given the same energy levels, I would expect the large lead shot of the Silver Glasers to have the edge in penetration of all these suckers.

In a slidegun, they're WAY too expensive to do proper 200-round reliability tests. You could load the first shot "up the spout" in one of these and then run a good conventional defensive round stacked in the mag. You'd still have to fire three or four to see where they're going to print but that's a more reasonable proposition.

If they work in your gun, they do have a record as stoppers and if they hit a wall, one can reasonably hope they'll break up into non-lethality. If that first one or two rounds just isn't doing it, you can hope bystanders will have hit the deck and it's slightly safer to start throwing something more solid around.

Jim

 

[Al Thompson]

Very interesting Jim. I shelfed the Glasers several years ago when they didn't work. I did not try the Silvers. I will soon though.

Thanks!

Giz