Has anybody tried Mag Safe Ammo?

[Vanzpp]

The first paragraph I will mostly agree with.The Hydrashock is an old school hollowpoint with a good street record and the Magsafe couldn't compete with it.I would expect better performance from todays improved hollowpoint designs.

While cops with street experience may have spoken favorably of it(in the past) I doubt they use it for personal self defense use or for duty use.

I am more worried about underpenetration than overpenetration because todays hollowpoint designs work very well(as opposed to many years ago where most of your favorable comments about magsafe etc...came from).

Believe me, I'm not trash talking hollow points. They can be very effective. The one thing that frangible ammo does NOT do better than hollow points is penetrate intermediate barriers like auto glass, car doors, etc. I have yet to see a manufacturer like Magsafe or any other frangible load claim that their rounds are equally effective against intermediate barriers as more traditional HPs. Any such claim would be pretty hard to back up.

The reason I carry Magsafes in the summer months (and the old Federal LE +P+ load in the winter) is because I'm convinced that fragmentation has to count for something re:stopping power. The Federal load is a light, fast 115 grain round that sheds its jacket into little bits of shrapnel upon hitting its target and penetrates an average of about 10 inches in gel. However, if I remember correctly from the Marshall and Sanow studies, it has about a 90% one shot stop ranking. That's far better than the heavier 147 grain 9mm loads that have deeper penetration.

I think the case was made for me when M&S spoke of the old .38 special LRN that was the standard police revolver load in the 60s and 70s. That load became known as the "widow maker" because the cop would empty the entire cylinder into the bad guy with no immediate effect. As a result, the cop was killed. However, the .38 LRN could typically get 20+ inches in gel. But it was a lousy stopper. Lighter, faster HP loads are much more effective even though they penetrate much less.

Bottom line: I believe in the effectiveness of light, frangible loads that might not penetrate as much as HPs but fragment and create a large stretch cavity. However, I'm not trying to convert anybody. Modern HPs have also been proven to be very effective.

[JFootin]

Good points, Vanzpp. The Strasbourg Tests that they cite, using live French Alpine goats (don't they have PETA over there?), showed that MagSafe's weakest .380 load incapacitated goats better than any other load, including 9mm, 10mm, .45acp and .40s&w in every brand, and even the best man stopper of all time - Remington's .357 Magnum 125 grain JHP! Now, that's amazing!

Remember the video story about the police officer who was shot many times at close range with .45acp ammo and survived? So higher bullet weight and diameter aren't universally more effective (I wonder if those were FMJ rounds, though?). The recently quoted survey of shootings proves this out, too.

But MrS and his referenced articles do bring up some good points about forearms getting in the way and taking all of the damage from the Magsafe round, while conventional bullets can be powerful enough to go through a forearm and still render a fatal blow to the torso. But then, one is going to keep firing, right? And the first one of the Magsafe rounds (even in .380 caliber) to the COM is proven by the tests to stop the bad guy quicker.

We all understand that they won't penetrate car doors or windows too well. But how many 9mm rounds can do that reliably, anyway? Don't you need a bigger caliber for that? But doesn't that kind of penetration expose us to unintended consequences and liabilities? We CCW people are not police officers. We are not going to aggressively go after bad guys, but just seek to defend ourselves from immediate harm.

He makes another comment about accuracy, but with no report or evidence showing that the rounds are not accurate. He points out that MagSafe don't say anything about accuracy, but then I don't remember much talk about accuracy from other manufacturers, either. They talk about penetration, expansion, speed and impact force - and so do MagSafe. I don't see why they would be less accurate because of the frangibility because that doesn't happen in flight. The bullets are much lighter in weight, but move much faster (up to 2000 fps in 9mm). I think the .22 long rifle round proves the accuracy of that combination.

He discounts the endorsements from respected experts, saying they are a few years old, but wouldn't those experts have spoken out if their opinion had changed since then? So, I don't think it is valid to dismiss all of the experts simply because you don't agree with them.

There are pros and cons. Other pros are no ricochets, no overpenetration, lower recoil. And the fact that one is using safety ammo in an incident could help to avoid legal complications. A big con is the price.

Interesting discussion.

[Vanzpp]

But doesn't that kind of penetration expose us to unintended consequences and liabilities? We CCW people are not police officers. We are not going to aggressively go after bad guys, but just seek to defend ourselves from immediate harm.

BINGO!

I suspect that's why most LEO's (to my knowledge) don't carry frangible ammo for duty use. The ability to penetrate barriers might be necessary for a cop. For a civilian who is supposed to AVOID trouble at all reasonable costs, however, barrier penetration can be a liability.

[Vanzpp]

Hey, Jfootin..Check this ammo out.http://rbcd.net/


This is light and fast on steroids. But hiow they're able to do it with standard pressures is beyond me...

[JFootin]

Wow! These are some specs!

Caliber Weight Speed / Impact Power
9mm 60 gr. 2010 fps / 539 flbs

Caliber Cavity Diameter Penetration
9mm 7" 9"

There are no prices or availability on the website. I think I'd stick with the Mag Safe, which is well known and carried by many large ammo dealers.

[TucsonMTB]

There are no prices or availability on the website. I think I'd stick with the Mag Safe, which is well known and carried by many large ammo dealers.

Good call, Mr. JFootin!

Not only is this ammunition not commercially available, but testing indicates that the performance "data" provided by the distributor is probably false.

The second link below includes some pictures of the projectiles cut in half to expose their construction. The cross section cuts were performed by a group asked to evaluate the ammunition. They also describe their disappointing experience with the supplier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBCD_Pe...note-Roberts-2

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888

[JFootin]

Sounds like they're a bunch of crooks!

[Vanzpp]

Good call, Mr. JFootin!

Not only is this ammunition not commercially available, but testing indicates that the performance "data" provided by the distributor is probably false.

The second link below includes some pictures of the projectiles cut in half to expose their construction. The cross section cuts were performed by a group asked to evaluate the ammunition. They also describe their disappointing experience with the supplier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBCD_Pe...note-Roberts-2

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888

Great info. Thanks!

It's impossible to get those specs with "standard" pressures. I find that claim to be very dubious!

I'll stick to the Magsafes.

[Vanzpp]

There are no prices or availability on the website. I think I'd stick with the Mag Safe, which is well known and carried by many large ammo dealers.

That's what I like about Magsafe. They list the exact gun with barrel lengths when they list the specs.

I get suspicious when the barrel lengths aren't listed. The only way to get the specs listed on the RBCD site is to use overpressured rounds or really long test barrels!

[Vanzpp]

Here's another

http://www.glockpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1873

[ltxi]

mag-safe/frangibles work well at close quarters with no subject clothing issues and inside pressurized aircraft. Otherwise not.

[JFootin]

mag-safe/frangibles work well at close quarters with no subject clothing issues and inside pressurized aircraft. Otherwise not.

What basis do you have for this statement? Have you read an article that says this specifically about MagSafe ammo, or is it just your opinion about frangible ammo in general?

MagSafe does not market their bullets for use on aircraft, and even thick clothing will not stop them.

Here are some quotes from their website:

Elite forces are outfitted with MagSafe, from Navy SEALS to the Royal Hong Kong Police anti-gang units, from big-city undercover narcs to guards at some of America's meanest prisons.

No, heavy clothing will Not defeat MagSafe Ammo. We test MagSafe by shooting through intermediate barriers: up to 12 layers of Levi material; many layers of T-shirt material; through leather cowboy boots, clipboards, cigarette packs, wallets, credit cards, tennis shoes and anything else an attacker might be wearing. You can't wear enough clothing to stop a MagSafe round.

No, MagSafe won't hit a wall and go "splat" and drop to the floor. To be very lethal, ammo needs some penetration.

[Vanzpp]

Here's Robert Boatman on frangible ammo. Interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/user/azmorgan.../1/eAjh59bPs_o

He doesn't mention Magsafe by name, but the computer animation included in the video is obviously a Magsafe round.

[JFootin]

Looks pretty effective to me! He says that accuracy is not as good, but he was hitting those watermelons at SD distance with no problem. He made a good point about having another mag full of normal rounds if a situation warrants it. That's probably a good idea anyway; because, if the situation isn't handled with the first 7 rounds, time to pull out the Gold Bond +p.

[Mr. S]

Good points, Vanzpp. The Strasbourg Tests that they cite, using live French Alpine goats (don't they have PETA over there?), showed that MagSafe's weakest .380 load incapacitated goats better than any other load, including 9mm, 10mm, .45acp and .40s&w in every brand, and even the best man stopper of all time - Remington's .357 Magnum 125 grain JHP! Now, that's amazing!

Remember the video story about the police officer who was shot many times at close range with .45acp ammo and survived? So higher bullet weight and diameter aren't universally more effective (I wonder if those were FMJ rounds, though?). The recently quoted survey of shootings proves this out, too.

But MrS and his referenced articles do bring up some good points about forearms getting in the way and taking all of the damage from the Magsafe round, while conventional bullets can be powerful enough to go through a forearm and still render a fatal blow to the torso. But then, one is going to keep firing, right? And the first one of the Magsafe rounds (even in .380 caliber) to the COM is proven by the tests to stop the bad guy quicker.

We all understand that they won't penetrate car doors or windows too well. But how many 9mm rounds can do that reliably, anyway? Don't you need a bigger caliber for that? But doesn't that kind of penetration expose us to unintended consequences and liabilities? We CCW people are not police officers. We are not going to aggressively go after bad guys, but just seek to defend ourselves from immediate harm.

He makes another comment about accuracy, but with no report or evidence showing that the rounds are not accurate. He points out that MagSafe don't say anything about accuracy, but then I don't remember much talk about accuracy from other manufacturers, either. They talk about penetration, expansion, speed and impact force - and so do MagSafe. I don't see why they would be less accurate because of the frangibility because that doesn't happen in flight. The bullets are much lighter in weight, but move much faster (up to 2000 fps in 9mm). I think the .22 long rifle round proves the accuracy of that combination.

He discounts the endorsements from respected experts, saying they are a few years old, but wouldn't those experts have spoken out if their opinion had changed since then? So, I don't think it is valid to dismiss all of the experts simply because you don't agree with them.

There are pros and cons. Other pros are no ricochets, no overpenetration, lower recoil. And the fact that one is using safety ammo in an incident could help to avoid legal complications. A big con is the price.

Interesting discussion.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...-load-of-crap/

http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...crepancies.htm

Read these thoroughly.
Then talk to me about Marshall and Sanow.