Frangible ammo

This is where you can talk about all equipment issues; firearms, ammunition, magazines, care & repair, holsters, gun cases, etc.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Frangible ammo

Post by Petrovich »

Has anyone tried it?

I watched some videos at the fusion technology website. I don't know if I'm sold on this stuff or not.

They shoot at a piece of cardboard, with a metal catcher behind it. The cardboard is punctured, but the catcher is full of 'sand' from the bullets.

That only proves to me that the bullet punctures cardboard and disintegrates when it hits metal. It does hit the metal too because you can hear the ping. Did I miss something?

I like the idea of 'safe' ammo, but would this stuff stop a badguy?

I did see the pics of what it does to tissue, but that was exposed tissue. How does it react to clothing or other obstacles? Judging from the pics, this stuff is extremely devastating to tissue and would certainly result in a very grisly display.

What would a jury think about using this stuff I wonder?

Has anyone loaded any of this stuff??? The bullets are competitive in price to other high-end projectiles, so cost isn't an inhibitor.
Brian_Horton
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:20 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Post by Brian_Horton »

I personally don't care for frangibles. I think that they do not penetrate deep enough to effectively incapacitate a bad guy. A nasty looking surface wound is still just a surface wound. This stuff is also totally ineffective if you have to fire through a tough barrier like automotive sheet metal or automotive glass. There may be a time when I have to fire from inside my car or at someone inside a car and I don't want the car body or windows stopping the bullet and turning into "sand".

This is just my opinion and it is based on lots of reading from both sides of the arguement. I can certainly understand where the proponents of frangible ammo are coming from, but I would not be comfortable with carrying it myself. There in is the most important thing. YOU, not the magazine writer or self proclaimed internet guru, have to trust and be comfortable with your carry ammo and know and understand its strengths and weaknesses.
When the goin' gets tough, the tough go cyclic.

Happiness is a crew served weapon.
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Post by SMMAssociates »

My understanding is that this stuff probably will make a mess out of bare skin (or skin under light clothing) at very short ranges, but probably wouldn't be worth much against something like the average winter coat.

In short, penetration and wound channel size are the critical elements in stopping an assailant, and this stuff just doesn't have it.

A zillion (major technical term) little holes may seriously annoy (and seriously injure at short range) somebody, but I don't think it'll stop them.

Regards,
Stu.

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)

יזכר לא עד פעם
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

I kinda developed the same impression as you two have.

It is probably indispensable in certain applications...say for example as an air marshall on an airplane.

In terms of general use it probably isn't the best choice.
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Post by SMMAssociates »

It's probably just as worthless on an airplane, although you really wouldn't need to worry about penetration....

You can blow a window out of a heavy jet and not really do more than inconvenience somebody. The whole decompression thing is based on a loss of cabin pressure due to equipment failure (i.e., compressors quitting) or major structural issues.

Something like the "Glaser Safety Slug" (sort of a beanbag) would make more sense to me. Although "less lethal" (we don't say "non lethal" or "less than lethal" anymore) is going to be less effective under aircraft protection conditions, it's also going to have lower penetration (useful in those cattle car "coach" sections) and really hurt the BG.

I don't know what the aircraft security folks are carrying, but I'd load a couple Glasers, and then a couple Hydra-Shoks or something similar.

You really don't want just a noisemaker....

About 35 years ago a friend of mine got involved in a dispute with much larger guy who was doing construction work a couple blocks from "downtown". Somewhat stupidly, he emptied a tear gas gun into the big guy's face. When the construction guy realized that he'd not been shot, he chased him most of the way downtown. With today's laws & such, you don't unholster unless you're prepared to STOP the BG, and have accepted that he's likely to get dead in the process.

Kinda like the legendary swords where, once drawn, if you don't kill somebody with them, the gods will get really cranked off.

(We shoot to STOP, and hope that we won't have to shoot at all, but the point is the same.)

Regards,
Stu.

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)

יזכר לא עד פעם
Brian_Horton
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:20 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Post by Brian_Horton »

Petrofergov wrote:I kinda developed the same impression as you two have.

It is probably indispensable in certain applications...say for example as an air marshall on an airplane.

In terms of general use it probably isn't the best choice.
Yes, I would say you are right. It fills a specialized niche in the world of ammo. We have to carry the best ammo we can find for all the potential situations that we might be in.
When the goin' gets tough, the tough go cyclic.

Happiness is a crew served weapon.
Brian_Horton
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:20 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Post by Brian_Horton »

SMMAssociates wrote:It's probably just as worthless on an airplane, although you really wouldn't need to worry about penetration....

You can blow a window out of a heavy jet and not really do more than inconvenience somebody. The whole decompression thing is based on a loss of cabin pressure due to equipment failure (i.e., compressors quitting) or major structural issues.
A little OT, but as an aerospace engineer that is one of the biggest pet peeves I have with Hollywood. If you knock out a window at 35,000 feet it isn't going to suck people out of the airplane, even if the cabin pressurization systems fails too.
When the goin' gets tough, the tough go cyclic.

Happiness is a crew served weapon.
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Post by SMMAssociates »

A little OT, but as an aerospace engineer that is one of the biggest pet peeves I have with Hollywood. If you knock out a window at 35,000 feet it isn't going to suck people out of the airplane, even if the cabin pressurization systems fails too.
Brian:

I think that if the cabin pressurization system fails, the effect of a blown window would be even less :twisted: .

But you're right - that's what I was alluding to. Hollywood <> Reality....

Assuming just penetration of the aircraft fuselage, if you can carry it, you can fire it, without regard to Hollywood decompression. You do want to be careful about sending that stuff towards the flight deck, but that's another issue.

Didn't know you were in aerospace.... I'm a computer geek and sometimes rent-a-cop. Armed programmer....

Regards,
Stu.

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)

יזכר לא עד פעם
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

SMMAssociates wrote:
Kinda like the legendary swords where, once drawn, if you don't kill somebody with them, the gods will get really cranked off.



Regards,
Those were ghurka swords. The guys who used them were reknowned for their ferocity. Each ghurka had two little knives attached to the sheath...."they were for the eyes".

Yes, if the sword was unsheathed it had to draw blood or the gods got testy. The solution was simple, though. The soldier simply nicked himself with it.
User avatar
Glock and dagger
Posts: 3091
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Findlay

Post by Glock and dagger »

I use gold dots for a reason. Sandbags are not a suitable alternative.
I'm Glock and Dagger and I approved this message.

"If it deprives just one citizen of their God-given rights, it's not worth it."
-evan price

FOOTOS... the Fresh Fighter
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

The problem with frangible ammuntion is that somebody's liable to get an eye put out....
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

tommcnaughton wrote:The problem with frangible ammuntion is that somebody's liable to get an eye put out....
That's funny. :D
Post Reply