[sandy4570]

I am just curious about the effectiveness of cast lead bullet launch out from WW2 era bolt action rifle using 12 grain -14 grain of Unique powder. Is this the same power level as the .357 Magnum out from lever action carbine? How about the stoping power? overpenetration in urban area like apartment wall?

[lycanthrope]

What caliber?

[Sleuth]

Overpenetration will be a problem, in any rifle caliber.
BTW, I shoot 173 Lead over 9g Unique in both 30-40 Krag and 30-06 - soft shooting at accurate at 100 yards.
Consider lightweight varmet bullets if you MUST use a rifle.

[Art Eatman]

A .30-'06 or an 8mm Mauser, loaded with around 20 grains of 2400 will give a muzzle velocity around 1,900 ft/sec with a 170-grain lead bullet. That's not just a whole lot less than a .30-30.

That sort of bullet, even loaded down to 1,200 to 1,400 ft/sec, will still have a good bit of penetrating punch, given the small diameter and reasonalbly high sectional density. However, hitting the intended target before the bullet gets to a wall oughta reduce any problems...

Art

[Dave Markowitz]

It would work, but I'd be very concerned with overpenetration.

If restricted to a milsurp bolt gun and handloads, something like a 110 or 125 grain JSP or JHP loaded to about 2000 FPS would be better, IMO. Less likely to overpenetrate, and gives terminal ballistics similar to a .357 Mag rifle.

[Gator]

At the trial:

DA: "Your Honor, I would like to call the courts attention to the extreme malice aforethought exhibited by the defendant. The defendant was not content to simply shoot this poor, underprivileged victim of society, he went out of his way to manufacture his own deadly "Crook Killer" bullets. Using a special metallurgical compound he concocted in his basement arms laboratory he lovingly created the bullet that shattered the victim’s life and family. No police force in the country would dare use such viscous bullets as the defendant concocted. Such ammunition is even outlawed by the Geneva Convention as too cruel and inhumane to be used on the battlefield. The prosecution will bring forward expert testimony on ballistics and self defense to prove that by manufacturing this extraordinarily deadly ammunition the defendant acted in a murderously cruel and reckless manner."

And that's just the opening statement....

[Dave R]

Just for argument's sake, the defense counsel's rebuttal...

The defendant's hand-loaded ammo operates at half the power of commercial ammo. It cost him less than 1/3 of what commercial ammo costs. The bullets do not expand when they hit flesh, as commercial bullets are designed to do. Hence, they create a much cleaner wound channel.

The prosecutor is correct. No police force would use these bullets. That's because they were designed for recreational shooting, not for killing. Had the perpetrator been shot with commercial ammo, the only possible difference in the result is that he would have died sooner.

[Gator]

The DA might respond:

"Do you expect these good people of the jury to believe that your client went to all the time and trouble of assembling his own special ammunition, rather than go to any sporting goods or gun store and pick up a box of bullets? Isn't the ammunition that is so readily available, where any child can get it it, good enough for your client? Did he melt and mix his deadly alloy, braving toxic fumes to do so....hand weigh each carefully prepared measure of explosive powder, risking life and limb just handling such dangerous material......assemble his components of destruction into thier final murderous form, JUST TO SAVE A FEW DOLLARS?. 'I think not counselor'".

Dave,

Of course your argument makes perfect sense, however these things are not always decided by sensible, or knowlegable, people.

[Doc]

most competent lethal force experts concur that it isn't worth the legal effort (read: EXPENSE!!) to shoot non-standard ammo for home defense. The marginal improvement (in any regard) is not worth the difficulty in court. the only mods (modifications) which are WORTH fighting for are changes to the weapon or ammo which REDUCE the likelihood of malfeasance, including accidental discharge, accuracy and penetration.

[Art Eatman]

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has been shooting his own handloads for over fifty-three years. What other ammunition would you expect him to use?"

:D, Art

[sandy4570]

Thank everyone for the information and legal ramification idea .My load are mostly .30 caliber and .303(.308 Nato, 7.7 Japanese, 7.5 Swiss, and .303 Enfield) with about 12 grain of Unique it will go about 1400 fsp. I have to agree with Gator 's idea because I live in very Liberal area and these people probably don't care much about reduce load or full power load and with twist of word by the DA ,who will create my charactor as an ex-military gun nut who couldn't got his hand on the late assualt rifle because they were baned but he still went out of his way and obtain another military rifle that he might recieved some triaining while in the service , then created a deadly bullet using lead which is poison substance to take a life of another human being. Well, this is very scarely.

[Cosmoline]

Not THIS nonsense again!!

For the umpteenth time, the type of bullet used in self defense has no bearing on a criminal case where self defense is the issue. The only way it might be a problem is the difficulties in recreating the exact cartridge, and that can be addressed with good record keeping and load checking on your part.

If your life was in imminent peril, it doesn't matter whether you used a .22LR or a big axe to defend it. The issue is whether the peril was there, not what you used to stop it.

[Quartus]

most competent lethal force experts concur


I know that Ayoob posited this in an article one time. I'm unaware of any other source that holds this position, nor any data to back it up. I suspect it has grown in the telling and re-telling.


Got references?

[uglygun]

Big differences between criminal charges that might be filed depending on the outcome of whether a defensive shooting was justified for lethal force or not and those sorts of civil cases that might spring up where they revolve around the concepts of wrongful death.


While a lot of us might have little to worry about when it comes down to what we use in for defensive shooting so long as we are repsonsible and truely justified in using it, in the end justified is justified and there should be little fear of being held under criminal charges. We can never say what might happen when the poor victim's family winds up being without their soul source of income and they look towards your bank account to provide for future hardships they might have to endure.


The success of such civil cases and whether or not they are allowed to even be filed probably depends heavily on the social and political attitudes of the various states.


In the states where such type of suits are likely to happen, not only would it be wise to choose "friendly" ammo made by manufacturers as opposed to being handloaded, it would also probably be wise to use friendly looking firearms as opposed to black/evil/tactical looking firearms. Less there to focus on and make the defendant look like they were sitting at home waiting to shoot themselves an intruder, militant gun nut(AR15 in tactical guise)or ordinary citizen(weathered and socially friendly Remington 870) you be the judge?


I don't neccesarily follow this advice but I can't help but see the logic in it, especially living in Kalifornistan. One would be hard pressed not to see the reasoning behind the above argument.

[Cosmoline]

Even if evidence of bullet type were admissible in a self defense case, why is there this notion that factory ammo is somehow more "PC" than handloads? Lord, I'd hate to have to defend "Bee safe" Safety slugs on the stand! "Not too safe, are they?"

Anyway, the whole thing is bogus. There are a million things to worry about other than ammunition. If you don't want handloads because you're worried about a dud primer, fine. But don't run around thinking it makes any difference in a self defense case--criminal or civil. It won't. When and where you shoot are a whole lot more significant.

Are there holes in the dead guy's BACK, for instance? That could be a problem to a self defense case. Thus spraying fifteen rounds from a 9x19 might not be such a great idea. Where was the bad guy? Was he trying to run away, or run toward you? What was in his hand? THESE are the issues that might come up. Whether or not your bullet killed him "extra dead" just isn't at issue. In a self defense case you ADMIT killing him dead from the outset, so the matter of what ammo you used to kill him would never be before the jury, unless it had a technical bearing on the angle of the shot or the distance.