MagSafe? Glaser Blue?

[Rbarfell88]

I've been doing some research on wound channels and ballistics and have come across a lot of good reviews on "safety slugs" such as MagSafe and Glaser Blue. I love the theory behind these loads and it seems like there is a lot of good data to back it up as well. The idea is for 100% of the round's energy to be transferred to whatever you chose to shoot at (thug, mountain lion, alpine goat?) and to not over penetrate meaning that there is still significant energy to be delivered into whatever is behind the target. It's also a plus that you don't have to worry as much about collateral damage to innocent bystanders. I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with these rounds (good or bad) and would be willing to weigh in. I have a few packages of both of these rounds for my Kahr 9mm but haven't had a chance to fire them yet.

Thanks

[CrazyLarry]

I have heard that they only work well in the larger calibers. I have not heard feedback on the smaller ones.

Lots of ballistics exports (both published and forum freaks) hate them and call them junk. Lots of others have used them successfully. They were carried by US Air Marshals for some time. Extreme Shock and their Air Freedom round.

My only comment is that with ammo like the Glaser Safety Slug, shot placement is even more critical than with a JHP round.

[Rbarfell88]

Why do you say that about shot placement? I know that's the most important thing in any critical engagement but I would think shot placement is slightly less of a factor with all of those lead bb's going everywhere once they're inside.

[chrish]

Most of the reviews (gel, denim + water jugs, etc) show that they do not always penetrate well enough. Heavy clothing and the like could prevent them from bringing down the intended target because the round (or pieces of the round) never reach anything vital. So that's where the shot placement argument comes in, and/or a big/heavy bullet w/ enough umpf behind it to penetrate. If I have to count on it, I want it to be a reliably expanding JHP like the Winchester PDX1, Federal HST, or similar round. Just my 2 cents.

fwiw, i went thru a phase where i had serious concerns about mainstream/standard rounds penetrating walls, penetrating an attacker and causing damage elsewhere, etc. but in the end, i decided the risk of NOT stopping an attack w/ a round like what you are referring to was MORE of a danger than the former.

it's a real issue, i agree, in the heat of the moment of a home invasion...will you be sure where everyone is, will you be sure to hit your target, or will your chosen SD round enter a neighbors house if you miss. all VERY real concerns and not to be taken lightly. choose well.

btw...I have no direct experience w/ ANY round on either side of this topic. and hope not to. ever.

[Longitude Zero]

Federal Air Marshals dumped Glasers decades ago. Insuffecient penetration. Here is a news flash, if the skyjacker is holding a hostage then you shoot thru the hostage to get to the skyjacker. In reality hostages are EXPENDABLE!

The reality is if another terrorist takes over an airliner the passengers have little time to regain control before the military dumps the plane. Fact is passengers lives compared to the damage the plane can do are virtually worthless.

[JFootin]

Been there, done that. Here is a thread I started to investigate MagSafe ammo. I came to the conclusion that I am not going to plunk down a lot of money for a handful of bullets, knowing it would take a lot more of them expended at the range to prove the round for carry. There's way too much well proven conventional SD ammo on the market at affordable prices. JMHO. YMMV.
http://kahrtalk.com/showthread.php?t=7607

[wyntrout]

At $3 or more a pop, I don't see many people even test firing them to see if they RELIABLY work in their weapon of choice. One or two shots... necessitating buying several 6 round or so packages gets to be very expensive.

I'll stick with my buck-or-so-a-bullet-on-sale Speer Gold Dots... short barrel version for 9mm and .45... Buffalo Bore GD for the P380.

Wynn

[Rbarfell88]

Thanks JFootin! I read that whole thread and there are certainly a lot of haters out there and sadly some good points to be made against safety slugs. Did you ever get around to actually shoot some of your MagSafe ammo after you CM9 got fixed? If so, what did you think about the accuracy/feedability of the ammo?

[CrazyLarry]

my comment about shot placement was due to the poor penetration of the round and the fact that they don't perform well with in-direct/glancing shots.

I do not carry them any more as they are too $$$ and other ammo has proven to be more practical to practice with as well as carry.

[JFootin]

Thanks JFootin! I read that whole thread and there are certainly a lot of haters out there and sadly some good points to be made against safety slugs. Did you ever get around to actually shoot some of your MagSafe ammo after you CM9 got fixed? If so, what did you think about the accuracy/feedability of the ammo?

My gun was never broken. I never bought any. I just wanted anyone who had to share their experiences with the rounds.

[Rbarfell88]

My apologies JFootin, must have been another guy who posted.

[Rbarfell88]

I finally got around to testing my MagSafe and Glaser Blue ammo. Glaser is trash! I have had over 1000 rounds through my CW9 (everything from junk target ammo to high end personal defense rounds) and have NEVER had a failure to feed, stovepipe, or any other problem. Within the 36 rounds of Glaser Blue that I shot I had one fail to ignite and one that didn't actuate the slide and chamber the next round. I fired 32 MagSafe rounds (Baby Glock rounds, 50gr.) and they all performed flawlessly in my gun. I will say that they have significantly less recoil than any ammo I've fired through my CW9 but the fireball with every shot was enormous. As a matter of fact, the guy in the next lane over at the range came over and asked what I was shooting because he could see and feel the difference in my MagSafe ammo. That said, I don't think I'll carry MagSafe and opt for Corbon +P 125gr. or Gold Dot +P 124gr. I have done some research into frangible ammo since starting this thread. Most modern writings on the topic (after the rounds had been around for many years) discourage their use unless you live in a thin walled home with children in neighboring bedrooms or next door neighbors through your apartment walls. I have to worry about neither and in any case would use my 12ga. loaded with some 2 3/4" 00 buckshot if anyone decides to break into my place. Thanks again to JFootin for pointing me to his old thread as it was informative and gave me a place to start, specifically looking more into Ayoob's writings.

[Rbarfell88]

My interest has been peaked about DoubleTap Bonded Defense +P 124gr. rounds for my CW9. They're incredibly hot loads (1295 fps/462 ft. lbs. out of a G19) with the expansive Gold Dot round (test expansion to .70" in 10% ballistic gelatin) out front to do the dirty work. Anyone have any experience with them? I'm thinking they're gonna kick like a mule on steroids but will be well worth the bruise in the web of my hand.

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_37&products_id=120&osCsi d=gtfbiiqdj1vm8fn3e4kkebfl75

Thanks

[Longitude Zero]

With heavy recoiling ammo follow up shots become questionable. Rarely is a gunfight solved by the first shot only.

[Barth]

Been there, done that. Here is a thread I started to investigate MagSafe ammo. I came to the conclusion that I am not going to plunk down a lot of money for a handful of bullets, knowing it would take a lot more of them expended at the range to prove the round for carry. There's way too much well proven conventional SD ammo on the market at affordable prices. JMHO. YMMV.
http://kahrtalk.com/showthread.php?t=7607

+1
Following State and Federal LEs lead in ammo selection just makes sense.
Conventional high tech bullets have low flash fast burn gunpowder,
expand at low velocities, and are bonded for light barrier penetration.

I'd take Speer GDHP 124 +P 9mm over any exotic, and unproven, design.