Here's my idea, what do you think? Glasers... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Here's my idea, what do you think? Glasers...


Stevenson
01-25-2012, 17:07
What are everyone's thought on Glasers or other frangibles?

Here is the way my mind works. Feel free to tell me Im crazy...

My thinking is to carry a Glaser in "the hole" then the rest of the mag is full of JHP. My thinking is that no matter how much practice/training, when the %#*+ hits the fan my 1st shot will most likely be least accurate. My thought of making my 1st shot a frangible I might "wing em'" or stun them so I can get a more accurate 2nd, 3rd etc shot off.

Plausible, crazy? Better idea?

Your thoughts?

Tiro Fijo
01-25-2012, 17:49
...Plausible, crazy? Better idea?

Your thoughts?


Take up golf.

cowboy1964
01-25-2012, 18:28
A crappy round is a crappy round, whether it's the first or the last.

pisc1024
01-25-2012, 21:00
I would suggest picking a good JHP and stick with it. There is no need to mix and match rounds in your gun for any reason.

Foxtrotx1
01-25-2012, 21:03
What if your first round hits, but since it's a less effective round, you have to fire 4 "more lethal" rounds, but 3 of those miss?

Berto
01-25-2012, 21:05
I would load up with the ammo you'd use if you only had one shot.
It wouldn't be Glaser.

Shenron
01-25-2012, 21:05
The Glaser rounds are a specialty round and should only be used in very specific situations.

Honestly, the only situation I can think of is if you live in a thin walled apartment complex with your neighbors front door exactly in front of yours. Like I do...

I would not recommend them in anything but a wheel gun, they have a chance to cause cycling problems. I would definitely have a speed loader or two full of JHP's just in case though.

dkf
01-25-2012, 21:27
Rounds such as Glasers, EFMJ and etc go thru walls and can still be lethal. No point to any of them IMO.(Well unless you live in commie NJ)

pisc1024
01-25-2012, 21:32
OP, read this, scroll down to the "discussion"
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Exotic_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

Shenron
01-25-2012, 23:57
Wow, Aint that a B*$#%. There goes that idea.

PghJim
01-26-2012, 14:20
Try starting on page 46 of this magazine. Since it did not fit Roberts bias that slow and heavy is best, not much reals testing besides gel is done. I think the hogs in this article would disagree with Roberts. Just shows hogs have good taste. We need get out of the box sometimes.

http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanCop/ACJA09/

Jim S.
01-29-2012, 20:18
I would tend to think that the first round out would be rather important.
You may not get the chance to screw up the first round and then make up for it.
Practice.
Practice realistic gun fighting and try to become familiar with drawing quickly and getting rounds on target.
I think that if you need to fire multiple rounds while someone is firing back at you then that first one may be the best aimed round of them all.

DocKWL
01-29-2012, 21:16
I would suggest that you read THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=57072), THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887), THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714), and THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56486).

DocKWL
01-29-2012, 21:21
Try starting on page 46 of this magazine. Since it did not fit Roberts bias that slow and heavy is best, not much reals testing besides gel is done. I think the hogs in this article would disagree with Roberts. Just shows hogs have good taste. We need get out of the box sometimes.

http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanCop/ACJA09/

Who told you Dr. Roberts said slow and heavy was best?

You too need to crawl out from under that box.

PghJim
01-29-2012, 21:58
Who told you Dr. Roberts said slow and heavy was best?

You too need to crawl out from under that box.

All you need to do is respond to the article posted about a specific ammunition deemed to be falsely advertised. I have many quotes on your thoughts on this round.

I read every link you have posted and I am sure I missed something. Please boil down your respones on the links. I am not talking about frangable ammo. I am talking about this particular ammo. I did not post a link to a ninja forum, but to a magazine reporting on an actual event.

DocKWL
01-30-2012, 05:52
All you need to do is respond to the article posted about a specific ammunition deemed to be falsely advertised. I have many quotes on your thoughts on this round.

I read every link you have posted and I am sure I missed something. Please boil down your respones on the links. I am not talking about frangable ammo. I am talking about this particular ammo. I did not post a link to a ninja forum, but to a magazine reporting on an actual event.


I would suggest you read my thoughts on the slow/heavy comment HERE (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1396325). Post 16 in a thread in this forum.

As for LeMas, I suggest reading THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888)

PghJim
01-30-2012, 08:49
I would suggest you read my thoughts on the slow/heavy comment HERE (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1396325). Post 16 in a thread in this forum.

As for LeMas, I suggest reading THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888)

Just because you conducted a good smear campaign, does not mean you are correct. You have not addressed the actual observations in the article, and you may want to look at this also. When I say, "out of the box", I mean cold ballistic gel may not work for all ammunition.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11179&highlight=rbcd

By the way, your list of ammo does show a slow/heavy - fast/light bright line. The only light bullets are copper and there are no 115 +p+ 9mm. To think that all of the experience from the ISP and the border patrol mean nothing.

DocKWL
01-30-2012, 09:01
Just because you conducted a good smear campaign, does not mean you are correct. You have not addressed the actual observations in the article, and you may want to look at this also. When I say, "out of the box", I mean cold ballistic gel may not work for all ammunition.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11179&highlight=rbcd

I mean cold ballistic gel may not work for all ammunition.Yes, you are right. LeMas is magic ammunition that defies the laws of physics.

Congress appropriated $1,050,000.00 in the FY03 budget for the government to conduct a comprehensive study of LeMas “BMT” ammunition and evaluate the remarkable claims made by LeMas. A 3 year, multi-agency testing effort was conducted and the results compiled and documented. The long awaited USSOCOM/ARDEC report on LeMas ammo was made available for distribution to authorized organizations in August of 2007. Virtually every single claim made by Mr. Bulmer and Mr. Hamilton regarding LeMas bullet design, manufacture, construction methodology and composition, pyrophoric and thermodynamic properties, behavior in tissue simulant, intermediate barrier capability, terminal performance in tissue were all determined to be FALSE. Hopefully this will put to rest any residual doubts about the fraudulent nature of LeMas "BMT". Note that the USSOCOM/ARDEC report validates ALL the information we have released publicly to date above.Smear campaign? Hardly.

You have not addressed the actual observations in the articleNo? I'm wondering if you read the link I posted.

Interestingly, the LeMas advertising and Mr. Bulmer’s astonishing claims had no support or substantiation other than Bulmer’s meaningless pseudoscientific jargon and some poorly performed demonstrations on clay, deli meats, as well as a couple of unrepeatable and inaccurately documented animal “tests”, that were more akin to senseless butchery than useful testing yielding any valid information. I have personally and publicly provided Mr. Bulmer the correct protocols to use in live animal testing several times, for example as documented in my discussions with him at Lightfighter on 12/9/03 and AR15.com on 2/21/04. We know that Mr. Bulmer was informed on how to conduct live animal testing correctly, yet for whatever bizarre reason, he chose to ignore proper research protocols. LeMas documented their poorly done “animal tests” on video; to avoid a USDA hearing for its illegal treatment and use of the pigs, LeMas Ltd. was stipulated to pay a fine for the following offenses:

• Conducting research on hogs without being a registered research facility
• Failing to appoint an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) prior to conducting research on hogs
• Conducting research on hogs without proper training and without using properly trained staff
• Conducting research on hogs without first engaging an attending veterinarian
• Failing to maintain IACUC records while conducting research on hogs
• Causing trauma and behavioral stress to hogs while conducting research
• Physically abusing hogs while conducting research
• Failing to comply with the regulations in the humane handling, care, and treatment of animals.

PghJim
01-30-2012, 09:13
Interestingly, the LeMas advertising and Mr. Bulmer’s astonishing claims had no support or substantiation other than Bulmer’s meaningless pseudoscientific jargon and some poorly performed demonstrations on clay, deli meats, as well as a couple of unrepeatable and inaccurately documented animal “tests”, that were more akin to senseless butchery than useful testing yielding any valid information. I have personally and publicly provided Mr. Bulmer the correct protocols to use in live animal testing several times, for example as documented in my discussions with him at Lightfighter on 12/9/03 and AR15.com on 2/21/04. We know that Mr. Bulmer was informed on how to conduct live animal testing correctly, yet for whatever bizarre reason, he chose to ignore proper research protocols. LeMas documented their poorly done “animal tests” on video; to avoid a USDA hearing for its illegal treatment and use of the pigs, LeMas Ltd. was stipulated to pay a fine for the following offenses:

• Conducting research on hogs without being a registered research facility
• Failing to appoint an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) prior to conducting research on hogs
• Conducting research on hogs without proper training and without using properly trained staff
• Conducting research on hogs without first engaging an attending veterinarian
• Failing to maintain IACUC records while conducting research on hogs
• Causing trauma and behavioral stress to hogs while conducting research
• Physically abusing hogs while conducting research
• Failing to comply with the regulations in the humane handling, care, and treatment of animals.


That may be true, but it does not say anything about the actual results. I gave you a magazine article with pictures and a link from Professional Soldier with pictures. Please address the results of the studies. He may have violated some animal rights law, but I will take a live hog to cold gel test anytime.

As far as the law of physics, in the article they found the ammunition did not fragment in colder simulant, but did in warmer simulant.

No comment on my slow/heavy remark????

DocKWL
01-30-2012, 09:22
Just because you conducted a good smear campaign, does not mean you are correct. You have not addressed the actual observations in the article, and you may want to look at this also. When I say, "out of the box", I mean cold ballistic gel may not work for all ammunition.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11179&highlight=rbcd

By the way, your list of ammo does show a slow/heavy - fast/light bright line. The only light bullets are copper and there are no 115 +p+ 9mm. To think that all of the experience from the ISP and the border patrol mean nothing.

By the way, your list of ammo does show a slow/heavy - fast/light bright line. The only light bullets are copper and there are no 115 +p+ 9mm. To think that all of the experience from the ISP and the border patrol mean nothing.

To comment on your edit,

I will stay focused on your 9mm. A full nine out of the fourteen loads listed are under 147gr. with the 147gr. being considered as the slow and heavy bullets that cause so much concertation within this caliber. Not bad considering your unsupported claim of, "Roberts bias that slow and heavy is best".

The ISP and USBP seem to be getting along just fine without their 115gr +P+.

NG VI
01-30-2012, 09:35
Post #11, that magazine looks physically retarded. It's the police-oriented advertising garbage brother of the gun rags put out by the same company. Those 'articles' are just essays to get people to pick up the catalog of merchandise being peddled.

And seriously? Their bullets work differently on cold vs warm media? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, metal ballistic projectiles don't work based on warmth, they aren't *****es, it's a physical interaction with whatever material they strike that is happening.

Even if it were true, are you seriously advocating ammunition that performs dramatically differently based on a few tens of degrees of temperature in the object being shot? How reliable a bullet can that possibly be?

That may be true, but it does not say anything about the actual results. I gave you a magazine article with pictures and a link from Professional Soldier with pictures. Please address the results of the studies. He may have violated some animal rights law, but I will take a live hog to cold gel test anytime.


He's incredibly lucky he isn't in prison over those 'tests'.

And for what it's worth, if it isn't well documented and repeatable, it isn't a test.

PghJim
01-30-2012, 09:44
The ISP and USBP seem to be getting along just fine without their 115gr +P+.

The point here is that there is a bright line between slow and heavy and light and fast in your list.

I brought up those two links to see what people thought. I would not call "COPS" a rag, but not a scientific magazine. My problem is that I cannot get anyone to talk about the results, or show me differing live animal results with the same ammo. I do not have a dog in this fight, or a hog. I just want to know what the results seen by two different people actually mean.

NG VI
01-30-2012, 09:50
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888
The LeMas advertising videos are enlightening, as they show high velocity rifle bullet impacts up to between 3000-4000 fps, with significant fragmentation and stretch injuries and wounding effects similar to those described by Fackler for high velocity, early upset, fragmenting projectiles:

1. The bullet fragments in tissue.
2. Multiple fragments spread out radially from the wound tract.
3. Temporary cavitation stretches tissue.
4. The multiply perforated tissue cannot absorb the stretch that would ordinarily be tolerated by intact tissue.
5. The weakened tissue is torn and severely disrupted.

Nothing unusual or groundbreaking; no mysterious temperature sensing; no remote hydrostatic shock…just plain old ordinary physics and physiology at work.


Pretty important piece of information. Dude's 'tests' show exactly the type of results to be expected from a high-velocity, relatively fragile rifle bullet. You don't need compressed platinum powder to achieve those results, ordinary copper and lead have been doing it (probably better) for about a hundred years now.

Honestly, at least the BPW advocates have a real-world analogue to the type of wounding mechanisms their theory espouses (fluid dynamics in a closed system), even if we disagree quite heavily on the true degree of effect that a very small projectile can have on a system as large as the human body.

These people are making Courtney and the BPW guys look positively Einsteinian. And those guys say that a quarter ounce projectile going a pretty unremarkable speed is capable of displacing four, five, six liters of blood so violently that it causes wounds ten to twenty inches away from the actual gunshot wound location.

dosei
01-30-2012, 10:43
What are everyone's thought on Glasers or other frangibles?

Here is the way my mind works. Feel free to tell me Im crazy...

My thinking is to carry a Glaser in "the hole" then the rest of the mag is full of JHP. My thinking is that no matter how much practice/training, when the %#*+ hits the fan my 1st shot will most likely be least accurate. My thought of making my 1st shot a frangible I might "wing em'" or stun them so I can get a more accurate 2nd, 3rd etc shot off.

Plausible, crazy? Better idea?

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you are a liability to everyone around you, and I very much hope that I am never one them. If you can't get the first one on the target, the odds of any subsequent ones getting there get lower and lower with every trigger pull.

PghJim
01-30-2012, 12:21
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888



Pretty important piece of information. Dude's 'tests' show exactly the type of results to be expected from a high-velocity, relatively fragile rifle bullet. You don't need compressed platinum powder to achieve those results, ordinary copper and lead have been doing it (probably better) for about a hundred years now.

That I understood, but these links are talking about handgun rounds. If you really could get a rifle type "varmint bullet" injury from a handgun round, I would think that would be worth looking into. Maybe I should have specified my interest was on the premise that handgun rounds were used.

DocKWL
01-30-2012, 13:14
The point here is that there is a bright line between slow and heavy and light and fast in your list.

I brought up those two links to see what people thought. I would not call "COPS" a rag, but not a scientific magazine. My problem is that I cannot get anyone to talk about the results, or show me differing live animal results with the same ammo. I do not have a dog in this fight, or a hog. I just want to know what the results seen by two different people actually mean.

The point here is that there is a bright line between slow and heavy and light and fast in your list.You will have to show me that line. There is approximately a 250 fps variance between the fastest and slowest cartridge in that list. Bullet mass range from 115 to 124 to 127 to 135 to 147. Little practical difference in velocity or mass.

My problem is that I cannot get anyone to talk about the results, or show me differing live animal results with the same ammo.You do not listen and shun what you do not want to hear. I will link (most likely in vain) the information you wish to discuss. HERE (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34148&page=2) is page two of the thread. Of interest to you will be posts 24 and 29.

John Biltz
01-30-2012, 13:34
That is what I did in the 80s but back then we thought a lot more about Glasers than we do today. Now I just load Gold Dots.
What are everyone's thought on Glasers or other frangibles?

Here is the way my mind works. Feel free to tell me Im crazy...

My thinking is to carry a Glaser in "the hole" then the rest of the mag is full of JHP. My thinking is that no matter how much practice/training, when the %#*+ hits the fan my 1st shot will most likely be least accurate. My thought of making my 1st shot a frangible I might "wing em'" or stun them so I can get a more accurate 2nd, 3rd etc shot off.

Plausible, crazy? Better idea?

Your thoughts?

PghJim
01-30-2012, 14:25
You do not listen and shun what you do not want to hear. I will link (most likely in vain) the information you wish to discuss. HERE (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34148&page=2) is page two of the thread. Of interest to you will be posts 24 and 29.

That is the best we have, that the writer of the article could have been swayed by tests that were possibly rigged. It seems as the tests were described by both the author of the magazine article and the poster in Professional Soldier might they have picked up if it were being rigged.

Heck, it could happen and I could see it. OK, as soon as he briefly turns his head shoot the hog with the 22-250 and he will still think it was a 45 ACP.

Basically you say I will not listen, but all you postulate is how what people have seen, could not have worked. Shoot a living animal with it, then come back and show the results and we would be talking apples to apples. I do not know this guy or even seen his ammo, but if the best you can say was the author saw a test that was rigged, I quess you have contributed as much to this conversation as you can.

NG VI
01-30-2012, 16:10
A single time an animal was killed in an utterly unscientific way, and the bullet's performance is completely non-replicatable nor explainable by the known qualities of ballistic performance, but it's the other guy who needs to prove their position?

Basically, these people are claiming that their incredibly expensive bullets that don't seem to work when subjected to the same repeatable tests every other bullet undergoes. Every other bullet in existence operates basically identically when fired into either properly calibrated ballistic gel or live soft tissue. So why would anyone believe, barring extensive, well-documented, objective, and repeatable testing that the bullet will behave differently in live animals?

There is the preposterous claim that the bullet 'knows' what type of material it is passing through based on heat. If the cartridges are carried into direct sunlight in an Arizona summer, will they crumble to dust? Or is it just when they are flying 2-3000 feet per second that 98 degrees sets them off?

I'm only writing about it in such a derogatory way because the claims are, honestly, retarded. Many people who don't have the benefit of some research into the way bullets work won't know the basics of terminal ballistics. Barring some background in engineering or physics they very well might be taken in by such bull**** artists, with great detriment to their finances and potentially safety.

DocKWL
01-30-2012, 16:29
That is the best we have, that the writer of the article could have been swayed by tests that were possibly rigged. It seems as the tests were described by both the author of the magazine article and the poster in Professional Soldier might they have picked up if it were being rigged.

Heck, it could happen and I could see it. OK, as soon as he briefly turns his head shoot the hog with the 22-250 and he will still think it was a 45 ACP.

Basically you say I will not listen, but all you postulate is how what people have seen, could not have worked. Shoot a living animal with it, then come back and show the results and we would be talking apples to apples. I do not know this guy or even seen his ammo, but if the best you can say was the author saw a test that was rigged, I quess you have contributed as much to this conversation as you can.

You are at least six years behind the power curve in your debate.

We want to make you aware of the wealth of wound ballistics information available to you from sources other than newsstand gun magazines. Our objective is to provide you the knowledge tools you need to fully understand the qualities a bullet must have in order to be reliably effective in stopping a determined homicidal attacker. Chances are, if you’re an average person, your primary (perhaps only) source of information about wound ballistics is what you've read in newsstand gun magazines. Problem is, most newsstand gun magazines are not a credible wound ballistics reference. Why?
Because a few questionable gun-writers (and editors) apparently recognize that magazine articles are the only source of information about wound ballistics for most people. It appears they’ve chosen to prey on a general lack of knowledge about wound ballistics to misinform and invent controversy. Controversy sparks reader interest and promotes sales. Most anyone familiar with the popular media recognizes this.
These discredited authors have been so successful in influencing the popular gun press (including honest editors and authors who don’t know any better) that most information published in newsstand gun magazines about wound ballistics is tainted.
The basics of terminal performance, wounding effects and wounding effectiveness are pretty easy for ordinary people to understand, and this creates a conflict of interest for some gun-writers because there really isn't much to write about.
Instead of sticking to simple facts these particular authors would rather delude you with paragraph after paragraph of mystical concepts such as "energy transfer," "neural shock," "Fuller Index," "one-shot stopping power," "Strasbourg Tests," and "street results." Although this stuff makes for interesting and entertaining reading, it's really nothing more than a bunch of sophisticated junk-science they've invented to ensure they have plenty to write about.
These pseudo-expert 'master psychics' of wound ballistics want you to believe only they (and they alone) possess the clairvoyance to properly interpret and evaluate the factors that make a particular bullet more effective than others. They tell an alluring tale, but these discredited few are actually snake-oil salesmen who've been quite successful in creating a market to peddle their brand of proprietary nonsense.
Having failed to influence law enforcement to any great degree, these gun-writers invented a new controversy: "civilians need personal defense ammo that penetrates the human body less deeply than law enforcement ammunition". Unfortunately, this kind of 'expert advice' can get you or a loved one killed if the shooting situation you face doesn't conveniently fit their stereotypical 'civilian self-defense shooting scenario.'
Wound ballistics is a specialty field that doesn’t receive much exposure outside the few professional disciplines that have a need for valid, scientifically verifiable information about ballistic injury. As a result, the average person isn’t aware this information exists or that it can be easily obtained. Sadly, this situation has allowed junk-science to flourish virtually unchallenged in newsstand gun magazines.
We’ve reprinted a few wound ballistics articles and put together a Suggested Reading list of publications from various sources, which, if you're interested, should help you learn more about the science of wound ballistics. Hopefully, the knowledge you acquire in reading these documents will keep you from being victimized by those unscrupulous few who seek to exploit your ignorance for profit.
Our goal is to instill a healthy attitude of skepticism in you so you're not as willing to believe everything you read. Hopefully, you'll learn enough here such that you'll be able to evaluate the qualifications of so-called ballistics experts.


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

PghJim
01-30-2012, 17:09
Look, I just do not know what to say. Just assume the aritcle writer did not lie for a second, can you explain the wounding by a handgun round. Say you know more than me, which is correct, does not explain what he and the other poster observed. I may be years behind the curve, but I am not sure the curve goes in the right direction. The only thing you two can do is criticize in a fashion that make this seem very personal. When someone says those wounds where caused by XXXX, or even that those wounds as not as severe as they seem because of XXXX, then you will be answering my questions. No matter how many times you say that he is nut case, and he may be, you cannot just ignore what was observed. You know, I do not know terminal ballistics at all, but I can measure the hole in a hog as good as anyone. When you insinuate the article writer as being a nobody, with no knowledge, etc. it does not help your case. He knows what he saw.

DocKWL
01-30-2012, 17:24
Look, I just do not know what to say. Just assume the aritcle writer did not lie for a second, can you explain the wounding by a handgun round. Say you know more than me, which is correct, does not explain what he and the other poster observed. I may be years behind the curve, but I am not sure the curve goes in the right direction. The only thing you two can do is criticize in a fashion that make this seem very personal. When someone says those wounds where caused by XXXX, or even that those wounds as not as severe as they seem because of XXXX, then you will be answering my questions. No matter how many times you say that he is nut case, and he may be, you cannot just ignore what was observed. You know, I do not know terminal ballistics at all, but I can measure the hole in a hog as good as anyone. When you insinuate the article writer as being a nobody, with no knowledge, etc. it does not help your case. He knows what he saw.

This will be as simple as I can make it:

The hogs had to be shot in a particular manner to achieve the results you see. Shot in any other manner, the results are not as spectacular.

NG VI
01-30-2012, 18:12
Handguns wound very simply. The bullet crushes tissue in front of it, though it does not crush all of the tissue in front of it. Due to the elasticity of animal tissues, a body's material will stretch and allow the bullet to slip through while destroying as little tissue as is possible. Because of said elasticity, once the tissue has snapped back in place, the amount of destroyed tissue isn't nearly as large as the length of the wound times the width of the bullet.


This is nothing new for you. Wound ballistics is a heavily, though narrowly, researched field, and just about every single piece of information collected on it is readily, freely available. It's not a difficult discipline to understand, it revolves around very common principles of physics and engineering. The only difficulty people have is a prior belief that there is something special about bullets and guns that makes them less qualified to read and critically think about the concepts described to them. It's a question of insecurity.

And it's misplaced. Anyone with the ability to understand basic physics and engineering concepts can come to have a very strong grasp of terminal ballistics in a fairly short time, at no expense even.

pisc1024
01-30-2012, 18:45
This will be as simple as I can make it:

The hogs had to be shot in a particular manner to achieve the results you see. Shot in any other manner, the results are not as spectacular.




That video seemed to show that the LeMas rounds didn't kill the pigs any quicker than the other rounds.
The fact is that animal testing provides very little in the way of real concrete data for a particular round. So you go out and shoot 10 pigs. In reality you are going to get 10 different out comes from 10 different shots. It really proves very little. About the only thing it could prove in my eyes is the physical performance of the round, like expansion through bone etc.

tsmo1066
01-30-2012, 19:52
All discussion about the relative effectiveness of Glasers aside, I would question the assumption that one's first shot will be the least accurate.

If a defensive engagement extends into multiple rounds being fired, it's a good bet that both you and the attacker will be moving and firing at each other with rounds flying both ways. That's not exactly conducive to improved accuracy.

PghJim
01-30-2012, 21:33
Look, that is just cruel. In the article the hogs were anesthetized. I am just going to drop this and assume someone unbiased has looked at it. I could not watch the whole video, but I assume they did not show the damage as per COPS article and Professional Soldier post. Also, I did not see any of the questionable handgun rounds being used.

Alright - I did watch it all of the way through. The 45 ACP BMT round left a hell of an entrance wound with a lot of blood loss. How deep the round went it does not say.

DocKWL
01-31-2012, 02:21
Look, that is just cruel. In the article the hogs were anesthetized. I am just going to drop this and assume someone unbiased has looked at it. I could not watch the whole video, but I assume they did not show the damage as per COPS article and Professional Soldier post. Also, I did not see any of the questionable handgun rounds being used.

Alright - I did watch it all of the way through. The 45 ACP BMT round left a hell of an entrance wound with a lot of blood loss. How deep the round went it does not say.

A picture is worth a thousand words. It is what you wanted to see. No "massive wound channels", no Hammer of Thor effect (even with the .308), and nothing resembling the pictures in your magazine.

You have learned about LeMas. Now it is best to forget about LeMas.

PghJim
01-31-2012, 09:59
A picture is worth a thousand words. It is what you wanted to see. No "massive wound channels", no Hammer of Thor effect (even with the .308), and nothing resembling the pictures in your magazine.

You have learned about LeMas. Now it is best to forget about LeMas.

As I said at the end, the 45 ACP, which was the round in the magazine, did make quite an entrance hole with lots of blood loss. But enough.

DocKWL
01-31-2012, 15:16
As I said at the end, the 45 ACP, which was the round in the magazine, did make quite an entrance hole with lots of blood loss. But enough.

You witnessed the trauma produced by a lightweight, high velocity, frangible bullet used on a target for which it was not intended. The results were/are entirely predictable.

But of course the postmortem still photos look dramatic. They didn't really show you what happened before excision, did it?