# bullets for air marshals



## billc (Mar 12, 2012)

I was just thinking about the Air Marshal service and the bullets they use in their firearms.  Is it true they break up when they hit a hard surface?  Can non-government people get those types of rounds?


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 12, 2012)

Glaser safety slugs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug

Essentially miniature shotgun shells with small shot.  If you hit someone with them, they can create a very, very nasty wound that doesn't have as much penetration as a standard metal bullet.  

They will break up upon impact, or at least lose enough velocity (such as going through drywall), and this is actually useful for people who live in thin-walled apartments.  One of the more popular self defense loads for folks in this situation was a .38 Special or .357 magnum revolver, loaded with 3 Glaser safety slugs, followed by three hollowpoints.  

They are certainly available for purchase by non-LEO or non-military, and are distributed by Corbon ammo:.

http://www.shopcorbon.com/glaser-safety-slug/500/500/dept

If I were still living in a thin walled apartment, my primary weapon would be my trusty Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 3 shells of #8 shot, followed by two shells of Federal Tactical Buckshot, and the secondary would be my S&W 686, using three Glasers and three 125 grain SJHP.


----------



## Haakon (Mar 12, 2012)

Pretty much any gunshop carries them, but they're EXPENSIVE. Last time I bought Glasers several years ago they were running about $3/round. I had them in a 357 magnum when I lived in an apartment.


----------



## chinto (Mar 13, 2012)

yes they are called Glaser safety slugs, or Mag-safe rounds. ... If you ever have to shoot in self defense the round is a great idea, it sounds good to juries.  I had Mag Safe or Glaser Safety Slugs in my weapon.  These instead of something  hostile sounding like Black Talons, or similar.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 13, 2012)

I hope they've done work on them in the past 15 years or so. 

I bought some when they first came out back in the 90's for the 9mm I carried at that time. Bought some fruit & a pork roast. In multiple canteloupes & the pork roast from about 20 feet, all that happened was a glob of itty bitty shot about 1 to 2 inches in. That's it. After that I didn't bother with pre-franged rounds. I went back to & carry still plain ol' Winchester Silvertips or most anything with a Speer Gold Dot.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 13, 2012)

Frangible rounds come in several varieties.  The glasers and magsafes (and "air freedoms" etc.) are essentially loose shot confined in a container "slug" which are designed to fragment in soft tissue and create a large wound area.  They are almost always found to be insufficiently penetrating when using either the FBI minimum penetration depth or the U.S. Border Patrol minimum penetration depth.  For many this means that they will not be sufficient "man stoppers" and thus they avoid them.  Unfortunately, glaser safety slugs will still penetrate multiple walls of standard dry-wall (Box o' Truth tests have glaser blue-tips penetrating 6 sheets of drywall = 3 interior walls).

Then you have Sintered ammunition.  This is typically designed to reduce the occurrence of ricochets and is the only kind of ammo so ranges will permit. When striking a hard surface it will pulverize into dust. Sintered ammo is a metal powder forced together at high heat and pressure so that it not-quite-welds into a solid piece.  There are some sintered rounds intended for use on human targets.  IIRC, they're popular with SWAT snipers (or at least admin decision makers that decide what ammo SWAT snipers must use) and the Czech army experimented sintered 9x18 Makarov ammo for their CZ-82.  I have a box of sintered ammo that I haven't shot yet.  The appearance of the slugs is a little bit "glittery" - kinda like metalic paint that's popular now except it's dull, not shiny.  I expect sintered handgun ammo would go through just as many drywall boards as solid or JHP slugs.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

clfsean said:


> I hope they've done work on them in the past 15 years or so.
> 
> I bought some when they first came out back in the 90's for the 9mm I carried at that time. Bought some fruit & a pork roast. In multiple canteloupes & the pork roast from about 20 feet, all that happened was a glob of itty bitty shot about 1 to 2 inches in. That's it. After that I didn't bother with pre-franged rounds. I went back to & carry still plain ol' Winchester Silvertips or most anything with a Speer Gold Dot.



If I understand you correctly, you used Glaser Safety Slugs to test penetration and got low penetration, right?  That's how they are supposed to work.  They are not designed to penetrate, just the opposite.  They are like little bean-bag rounds, designed to give up all their energy within an inch or two of impact.  The main purpose for these rounds is to avoid overpenetration and killing someone standing behind a bad guy or on the other side of a wall of a burglar, etc.  They're not like jacketed rounds.  Silvertips are great, but they'll go right through a wall.  If that's not a problem for you, then that is indeed what you want, but I'm a bit surprised that you complain that the Glaser did exactly what it's supposed to do.  If that's not what you want, then correct, do not use it, but it's not malfunctioning, that's how it works.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Frangible rounds come in several varieties.  The glasers and magsafes (and "air freedoms" etc.) are essentially loose shot confined in a container "slug" which are designed to fragment in soft tissue and create a large wound area.  They are almost always found to be insufficiently penetrating when using either the FBI minimum penetration depth or the U.S. Border Patrol minimum penetration depth.  For many this means that they will not be sufficient "man stoppers" and thus they avoid them.  Unfortunately, glaser safety slugs will still penetrate multiple walls of standard dry-wall (Box o' Truth tests have glaser blue-tips penetrating 6 sheets of drywall = 3 interior walls).
> 
> Then you have Sintered ammunition.  This is typically designed to reduce the occurrence of ricochets and is the only kind of ammo so ranges will permit. When striking a hard surface it will pulverize into dust. Sintered ammo is a metal powder forced together at high heat and pressure so that it not-quite-welds into a solid piece.  There are some sintered rounds intended for use on human targets.  IIRC, they're popular with SWAT snipers (or at least admin decision makers that decide what ammo SWAT snipers must use) and the Czech army experimented sintered 9x18 Makarov ammo for their CZ-82.  I have a box of sintered ammo that I haven't shot yet.  The appearance of the slugs is a little bit "glittery" - kinda like metalic paint that's popular now except it's dull, not shiny.  I expect sintered handgun ammo would go through just as many drywall boards as solid or JHP slugs.
> 
> ...



I agree.  I still prefer a standard Mossburg 500 for home defense, in 12 gauge, full choke.  The only other realistic option for low-penetration is lower caliber or handloads.  I still find a S&W Model 10 in .38 Special loaded with +P Silvertips to be quite a useful tool indoors.  Not sure why so many have eschewed .38 Special for .357, 9mm, and newer calibers; for police work I quite understand; for home defense, it's overkill and could be dangerous to the innocent.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 13, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If I understand you correctly, you used Glaser Safety Slugs to test penetration and got low penetration, right?  That's how they are supposed to work.  They are not designed to penetrate, just the opposite.  They are like little bean-bag rounds, designed to give up all their energy within an inch or two of impact.  The main purpose for these rounds is to avoid overpenetration and killing someone standing behind a bad guy or on the other side of a wall of a burglar, etc.  They're not like jacketed rounds.  Silvertips are great, but they'll go right through a wall.  If that's not a problem for you, then that is indeed what you want, but I'm a bit surprised that you complain that the Glaser did exactly what it's supposed to do.  If that's not what you want, then correct, do not use it, but it's not malfunctioning, that's how it works.



Bill when initially marketed, they were put forth as indeed as described, except with the intimation of the shot continuing to move into the target, without exiting not clotting (so to speak) near the surface of the impact area. So under that umbrella as presented to me by gun stores, marketing advertising, etc... it didn't do so. 

As far as over penetration, no I'm not worried about it. I own a freestanding home with my neighbors a goodly distance away & on three sides it's distance plus thick-ish woods. a .45ACP (even running +p) doesn't have the same kind of over penetrating issues as say something smaller running +P (or not as some calibers don't need it). Add a nice expanding 230 HP grain warhead & I really don't worry about that. Add to that I no longer have my Sig & haven't modded my Kimber to feel comfortable running +P in it, (I'm running standard pressure rounds) yeah I'm not really worried about over penetration.

I do agree with the shotgun being the premier home defense weapon. For me, no choke & turkey is the preferred load in 2 3/4 or 3 in cases. No magnum loads needed there.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 13, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree.  I still prefer a standard Mossburg 500 for home defense, in 12 gauge, full choke.  The only other realistic option for low-penetration is lower caliber or handloads.


There is *NO WAY* to sufficiently mitigate the chance of wall penetration using any realistic ammunition.  Even sintered, low-power "target" ammo, and small/light calibers such as the .22LR and .25ACP penetrate multiple layers of dry wall.  If your concern is penetration of walls to occupants on the other side (other family members, guests, apartment on the other side, etc.) then you have only 3 options:



be positively certain of your target and your "shooting lane" so that your line of fire will not intersect with occupied rooms or you have a high percentage of hitting your intended target (home invader, etc.)
change the nature/structure of your walls - such as filling them with sand
Don't use guns


That's it.  Period.  

Unless you're shooting a BB gun, it's *GOING* to penetrate multiple walls and that's at least a certain as death or taxes.



> I still find a S&W Model 10 in .38 Special loaded with +P Silvertips to be quite a useful tool indoors.  Not sure why so many have eschewed .38 Special for .357, 9mm, and newer calibers; for police work I quite understand; for home defense, it's overkill and could be dangerous to the innocent.


People use the .357 Magnum over the .38 Special because it has a Marshall & Sannow one-shot-stop rating better than any other commonly available handgun round and that's in conjunction with its design history's intention of being a better man-stopper than the .38 Special.  People use the 9x19 Luger (Parabellum, NATO, whatever) because practice ammo is cheaper than anything else but .22LR, it is the commonly accepted military round, is available pretty much everywhere, every manufacturer has at least one handgun chambered in it and the odds are they have many more than that, because (no matter who the shooter is) there's a pretty good chance of finding a gun chambered in 9mm that fits that specific shooter's needs, and because if the shooter has had any prior professional training, it was probably on the 9mm platform.

I know you're a fan of the shotty.  A lot of folks are, with good reason.  However, there is a growing sentiment that a longarm, or any firearm that requires both hands for effective/efficient use, is less ideal for a home-defense weapon.  The theory goes that, use, room-clearing is done with carbine length weapons, but the average home defender has limited training time and should train with one platform and because their platform needs to cover as many bases as possible, including daily carry, a handgun makes more sense.  This, the sentiment goes, also reduces the need to practice long-arm retention drills and makes room-to-room maneuvering easier.

Not saying that I agree.  To be honest, I don't care.  My feeling is, "use what you are most comfortable with."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

lklawson said:


> There is *NO WAY* to sufficiently mitigate the chance of wall penetration using any realistic ammunition.  Even sintered, low-power "target" ammo penetrate multiple layers of dry wall, and small/light calibers such as the .22LR and .25ACP.  If your concern is penetration of walls to occupants on the other side (other family members, guests, apartment on the other side, etc.) then you have only 3 options:
> 
> 
> be positively certain of your target and your "shooting lane" so that your line of fire will not intersect with occupied rooms or you have a high percentage of hitting your intended target (home invader, etc.)
> ...



I don't disagree with your points.  You're absolutely right, and especially about proficiency with your weapons.

The .38 Special has less one-shot stopping power.  The question is if that matters to me in a home defense situation.  The .38 M&P was designed for a reason, and it satisfied requirements for a very long time.  If stopping power was the only criteria, a cannon would be super.  But there are other considerations.  Cost of the weapon is one; surplus Model 10's are cheap and plentiful, as well as being extremely well-made and easily customizable.  Low felt recoil, and much lower decibel level (which can be very important when fired indoors with no ear protection, the one thing you cannot realistically practice without damaging your hearing).  High reliability when left sitting for a very long time (not that this is desirable to not train frequently). 

Horses, as they say, for courses.  Yes, I am a wheelgun fan in general, but as you know from several conversations we've had, I also have a soft spot for the 1911 Colt .45 ACP, and I'm not married to any one method or design; I'm still of the belief that a high-caliber derringer is a valid self-defense concealed carry weapon.

As to the shotgun used indoors, I'm aware of the drawbacks, and I have spent much time crawling on my belly through houses with a long gun, including a shotgun.  They do have drawbacks.  They also have some advantages, including the ability to be used as a club and a block against a strike.  You know the old saying that an unloaded gun is a stick?  True!  But sticks can be good too, especially long metal ones.

Consider also that both the wheelgun and the pump-action shotgun can be loaded down to any level you like; their actions won't jam or refuse to function if you deliberately choose a lower-powered load.  I used to like to load wadcutters backwards for .38 Special.  I don't handload anymore, but I always thought that was a reasonable low-power / high-expansion round for home defense.  Also unlike (many, not all) semi-autos, you can load different rounds in each chamber of a wheelgun or different loads in the tube of a pump; again, no worries about misfeeding.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 13, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If stopping power was the only criteria, a cannon would be super.


Great!  Another thing I have to buy now.  



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## elder999 (Mar 13, 2012)

While they did use frangible rounds-the aforementioned Glaser Safety Slugs, in .45 caliber,  almost from their invention in the 70's and through the early 90's, at some point they switched to the Speer Gold Dot .*357* SIG round, nonfrangible, same as the Secret Service. They complained about this around 2006, citing too much penetration placing passengers in danger,and wanting to go back to something with less penetration,  but I don't know that they did anything about it-I don't know what they carry, now.


----------



## Buka (Mar 13, 2012)

I like the little blue tipped devils. I alternated rounds in my personal carry, Glasers and whatever else I was into at the time. 
I've carried on a plane a lot, and liked them there. As a cop on the ground, we never used them.
As for stopping power, I never really cared. I just wanted to get their attention. I know some may find that silly, but, hey, to each his own.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2012)

Buka said:


> As for stopping power, I never really cared. I just wanted to get their attention. I know some may find that silly, but, hey, to each his own.


"Stopping Power," however one may choose to define that, seems to be much more important in the non-LEO self-defense/home-defense market.  In short, most cops seem to have a different opinion on how important "stopping power" may be when compared to non-cops.  My *speculation* is that this is driven in equal parts by the perception by "regular joes" that they don't typically have any backup to call upon and that cops are often more occupied with "doing the job" while "regular joes" have the luxury of spending more time planning for hypotheticals which hopefully will never occur.   The Reader's Digest is that I think us non-cops tend to be more interested in one-shot-stop capability more because we tend to believe that we only have ourselves to rely on and because we can spend a lot of time planning for a worst-case scenario.

So, yeah, high-capacity hand-cannons have a lot of appeal for the non-LEO self defense minded market.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## elder999 (Mar 14, 2012)

lklawson said:
			
		

> *<snip!>* The Reader's Digest is that I think us non-cops tend to be more interested in one-shot-stop capability more because we tend to believe that we only have ourselves to rely on and because we can spend a lot of time planning for a worst-case scenario.
> 
> So, yeah, high-capacity hand-cannons have a lot of appeal for the non-LEO self defense minded market.
> 
> ...



The wife and I carry  Glock 29s in the field: 10mm. Because we want the _bear_ to lie down......:lfao:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 14, 2012)

lklawson said:


> So, yeah, high-capacity hand-cannons have a lot of appeal for the non-LEO self defense minded market.



I don't know if I'm LEO or non-LEO, then, since I haven't worked in law-enforcement since the late 1980's.

My criteria must be different from everyone's, I think.  I put a lot of time and thought into weaponry for self-defense, and the answers I came up with seem to be universally scorned by everyone.  I never quite got that; I think my reasoning is solid.  But I'm also comfortable with my choices and reasons for them.

Stopping power is certainly important; there can't be a worse feeling than having to shoot someone in self-defense and they just keep coming at you!  But it just isn't the only criteria, to me.

Concealed carry has a couple of important characteristics to it.  It must be concealed - completely in most states - and it must be carried - meaning if you don't have it with you, it doesn't do you any good.

I know men of slight frame who carry largish semi-autos.  I know because I have seen their weapons print through or peek through their apparel.  Technically, that's a no-no.  One outraged citizen and a cell phone and they could be arrested.  I know several men who do not carry at all times, mainly because there are times when the weapon simply cannot be easily concealed, but also because sometimes it's a hassle they don't' want to deal with, or they think they will be in a 'safe' area, or they're _"just going out for a minute."_  I tend to believe that the best weapon for concealed carry is the one you have with you at all times.  If you can't or won't carry it always outside your home, that might be a tactical error.

I also believe that ease of access and reliability are important as well.  I don't want a weapon that will snag on my clothes as I draw it, nor one that will stovepipe or fail to feed when used.  Now I realize that no one owns a semi-automatic that jams ever, because all of us have perfect lives and perfect guns, but for some odd reason, when I am at the pistol range, I see jams every single time by someone.  Hmmm.  Seems semi-autos jam although of course I realize that YOURS (generic you, not one person specifically) never do.

I believe that most self-defense shooting outside the home is going to happen at very close range, since the average person forced to use a firearm for self-defense will have been engaged by an assailant.  The chances of me, as a civilian, being engaged in a firefight by a fleeing bank robber are staggeringly low.  The chances of me being shown a gun by a mugger and ordered to hand over my wallet, or being confronted in a McDonald's armed robber seem much higher to me.  That informs my requirements for accuracy and my training; point-shooting and instinctive rather than aimed target practice using sight alignment.

Despite one-shot stop statistics, I believe that shot placement, which is ignored in the 'one-shot' stats, is of more importance.   A bullet capable of penetrating to the heart kills instantly if it is placed there.  Head shots often kill as well, despite lower calibers (although people have survived with head shots, so that's no guarantee).

And although I cannot claim it to be fact, my anecdotal evidence is that when bad guys fire their weapons at a victim and the victim fires back, the bad guys tend to flee, rather than engage in a gun battle.  Especially when the scenario is home invasion, the bad guy knows that the homeowner is on ground they know well, and they may have access to an arsenal that the bad guys do not have.

So my self-defense checklist looks like this:

1) Have gun?
2) Carry gun?
3) Practice with gun?
4) Gun easy to conceal?
5) Gun easy to draw?
6) Gun shoot straight?
7) Gun sufficient caliber to reasonable stop a human?

For these reasons, a hand-cannon is not a choice I would tend to make for a self-defense weapon to be carried concealed.  I just don't see myself strapping on an H-Harness and a couple mags or speedloaders every time I go out of the house.  I wore a Sam Browne for years; they suck!  Maybe I just have big brass balls and assume that if I must use a weapon in self-defense, I can employ it effectively even if it is of 'less than' caliber.  Hubris?  Bravado?  Mucho Macho?  No idea.  But I have too many friends who are often without their 10mm or .40 cal semi-autos at various times; seems to me that a derringer in the pocket beats a Desert Eagle in the dresser drawer at home.  Yes, I know, YOU always carry, 100% of the time.  Everybody carries 100% of the time.  Except they don't, and we both know that for a fact.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My criteria must be different from everyone's, I think.  I put a lot of time and thought into weaponry for self-defense, and the answers I came up with seem to be universally scorned by everyone.


Not me.  I'm satisfied with whatever choice you select and am just happy that you are taking proactive steps to your own SD.  In all honesty, I don't care if a 98 lb woman chooses to carry a Kimber Custom .45 or if a 250 lb dude chooses a Jennings .22.  Whatever.   



> I know men of slight frame who carry largish semi-autos.  I know because I have seen their weapons print through or peek through their apparel.  Technically, that's a no-no.  One outraged citizen and a cell phone and they could be arrested.


You're paying attention and know what to look for.  CC folks don't care, nor should they, if they're "made" by people paying attention who know what to look for.  A good guy wants him to be armed anyway and a bad guy will take it as a hint to go look for a different victim.  The other 99% of people out there wouldn't "make" it if you stuffed a full grown attack alligator and a double barreled bazooka down your pants.



> If you can't or won't carry it always outside your home, that might be a tactical error.


If it's "can't" then it's not a "tactical error," it's a fact of life.  When you can't, you can't.  Deal with it.  Have a Plan B or whatever.



> I also believe that ease of access and reliability are important as well.  I don't want a weapon that will snag on my clothes as I draw it, nor one that will stovepipe or fail to feed when used.  Now I realize that no one owns a semi-automatic that jams ever, because all of us have perfect lives and perfect guns, but for some odd reason, when I am at the pistol range, I see jams every single time by someone.  Hmmm.  Seems semi-autos jam although of course I realize that YOURS (generic you, not one person specifically) never do.


I agree.  Autos can jam.  I don't wanna get into a pissing contest over the auto-vs-wheelgun platform wars.  That's been done to death.  I will say that I own (and have owned) revolvers.  I've personally had wheelguns bind up and refuse to turn.  I've had brass stuck in the chamber and refuse to eject on wheelguns, the extractor actually hopping the rim and then clamping back down on the empty brass.  I've had timing problems, misalignment problems, etc.  All that stuff.  Wheelguns are fine.  Well proven technology.  If you, or ANYONE, likes them, then use them.  They're great.  But, except for two issues, I'm not particularly convinced that autos are any less reliable.  The first is dud rounds.  Wheelguns have better recovery from dud rounds, no question about it.  However, if you're running SD ammo from a reputable manufacturer, the incidence of dud rounds should be pretty much 0.  The other issue is "limp wristing."  It happens.  I've found that some autos are way more vulnerable to limp wristing than others.  It's a valid concern but it can be pretty easily addressed with either proper training or with the selection of an auto which is forgiving of loose grips (yes, they exist and are actually pretty common).

Again, just to be clear, I've got nothing against a revolver and wouldn't spend one second trying to argue someone out of a revolver and into an auto, but neither would I try to argue someone out of an auto and into a revolver.  Modern firearms are of high enough quality that most of the early issues that plagued autos have largely been engineered to minimal levels.

Use whichever one you like, are comfortable with, and will train with.



> I believe that most self-defense shooting outside the home is going to happen at very close range, since the average person forced to use a firearm for self-defense will have been engaged by an assailant.  The chances of me, as a civilian, being engaged in a firefight by a fleeing bank robber are staggeringly low.  The chances of me being shown a gun by a mugger and ordered to hand over my wallet, or being confronted in a McDonald's armed robber seem much higher to me.  That informs my requirements for accuracy and my training; point-shooting and instinctive rather than aimed target practice using sight alignment.
> 
> Despite one-shot stop statistics, I believe that shot placement, which is ignored in the 'one-shot' stats, is of more importance.   A bullet capable of penetrating to the heart kills instantly if it is placed there.  Head shots often kill as well, despite lower calibers (although people have survived with head shots, so that's no guarantee).
> 
> And although I cannot claim it to be fact, my anecdotal evidence is that when bad guys fire their weapons at a victim and the victim fires back, the bad guys tend to flee, rather than engage in a gun battle.  Especially when the scenario is home invasion, the bad guy knows that the homeowner is on ground they know well, and they may have access to an arsenal that the bad guys do not have.


Agreed.



> Yes, I know, YOU always carry, 100% of the time.  Everybody carries 100% of the time.  Except they don't, and we both know that for a fact.


No I don't.  I carry as much as I can legally.  But I have to disarm any time I go to my kid's school.  I have to disarm anywhere that's been "Posted."  I work on Base and can't carry there.  I can't even leave it in my car.  When I go to work, I have no choice but to leave it locked up at home.  I understand this and have adapted my personal training to account for this, to help mitigate the fact that there are places and times, common and frequent, that I simply cannot legally carry.

I've also adapted my carry firearms.  It means a lot more training requirements for me but certain firearms are just better for certain seasons or certain events.  Light clothing in the summer sees me carrying my Kel Tec P32 a lot.  Winter lets me carry my modded CZ-52 and I'm a lot more comfortable with a quality JHP in 7.62x25 ability to penetrate winter clothing than a 9mm or my .32.  Some clothing lets me carry a beefier, intermediate sized firearm between my P32 or a full-sized service gun and then I may bring out my P11, PF9, or even my P64.

I've carried wheelguns in the past, too.  They were OK and I didn't feel under-armed.  For me, I'm more comfortable with the auto but that doesn't mean I have something against revolvers.

It's not a Chevy OR Ford decision.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

