Picture

It not the photo this is the drawn picture, and it may not correspond to a reality. About errors write, I will correct. Talifero n (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed Criticism: Use in Automatics

I am unable to find a single first-hand account of poor feeding/jamming in automatic handguns. Every anecdote refers to another, many of which tail back to a single anonymous article that makes vague assumptions about cartridge energy without actually conducting any tests or even comparing loads or energy against standard rounds.

I've removed that part of the criticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.172.37 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is relevant, but the Frangible bullet article says, "Brittle frangible bullets may break during the self-loading cycle of semi-automatic firearms". It also provides a reference.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deadeye Associates

Early references to the Safety Slug, such as the 1975 LEAA police ammo test [1] refer to it being manufactured by Deadeye Associates. Presumably, this was the original name of the company, before Glaser. The September/October edition of American Handgunner ran an article "Handgun Stopping Power" [2] that similarly referred to Deadeye Associates as maker of the Safety Slug. It would be a good addition to the article to include the early company history, if any can be located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Nim (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about inaccuracy

I see no source or review cited with claims that this ammo is inaccurate at greater distances, as stated in the "Performance" section. I added a "citation needed" tag to that. Also this a "pre-fragmented" round not a "frangible" round; I do see that the website called GlobalSecuirty (not a publication by the way), classifies Glaser as frangible, but that is not an accurate classification. Frangible ammo disintegrates upon impact with hard targets., that is the basis for its definition, as frangible ammo is safe to use on hard targets. This ammo has never done this against metal/hard targets, though it ls less likely to ricochet due to impacts deforming the ammo more easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.147.243 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police

I have seen it said that Glasers are only issued to the Police in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.174.102 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, they seem to be available to the public in America but not in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.174.102 (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called a safety slug?

I read the article but I did not see a discussion of why its called a safety slug. Perhaps that should be discussed in the opening paragraph.

As far as I know, all bullets are dangerous and not safe. That's why you are not supposed to point a loaded gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is called safety slug because it is intended to pose far less risks to everyone but the target. BP OMowe (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]