Reloading Defensive Ammunition?

[Kleanbore]

Simple handloading notes - documentation [will establish what powder and what charge was in the actual rounds that were fired in the course of the event that is the subject of the trial].

You have missed the entire point of Fiddletown's explanation of the rules of evidence. You would need data that were objectively measured, documented, and protected by someone else in a regimented manner. "Simple notes" made by a manufacturer who is himself under suspicion will not (well, can you complete that sentence correctly now?).

Anybody can take that information, duplicate the load I use, and test it under similar conditions, using the scientific method, and the results will mirror the results under dispute.

True, but not without dispute. Again, you have missed the entire point of Fiddletown's explanation of the rules of evidence... there is no reason that "anyone " would do so, because it would not mean anything at all.

Hypothetical fear mongering!

I would describe it as good advice.

I see that Fiddletown has also responded.

Perhaps these responses will prove informative for those who have not had relevant experience in the presentation of critical evidence in an important investigation or trial.

 

[MinnMooney]

Perhaps these responses will prove informative for those who have not had relevant experience in the presentation of critical evidence in an important investigation or trial.

Interesting.

Many of the responses by those who argue for reloads might shed some relevant info about real life rather than the hypothetical & misquoted jurors' statements that have been presented by people just trying to further their ideas.

Most arguments about trials involving convictions caused by factory vs reloads is like arguing whether there is life on other planets. There is absolutely no evidence of either so I say to you, "If you like factory loads because (in your mind) there is less chance of bad things happening in the courtroom then please use any brand, wt., shape and style that you want and do it with self content and peace of mind." I'll do the same while carrying my extremely trustworthy handloads. Thank you for understanding my point of view and allowing me to have the same peace of mind as you.

 

[Bubba613]

There is a risk that use of handloads could be used against me. But I have no reason to believe that using handloads instead of high quality commercial ammunition will improve my chances of a favorable outcome on the street. Therefore, I don't use them for self defense.

And people who do believe their loads are superior will rationally take that risk.
Your other arguments all support the idea that using handloads is fine. Your argument in this paragraph hinges on your belief that you would be better served with factory ammo.
You might be right.
You might be wrong.
But it isn't the odds, it's the stakes, right?
fwiw, there is not a .38spc load out there commercially that I would consider adequate.

 

[Kleanbore]

Most arguments about trials involving convictions caused by factory vs reloads is like arguing whether there is life on other planets. There is absolutely no evidence of either so I say to you, ...

The lack of historical data is meaningless---no reasonable person in his right mind would rely on it. You apparently did not read, or you did not comprehend Post #89. I suggest that you take a look and consider it. The concepts outlined therein (relating to risk assessment and mitigation in the absence of adequate historical data) extend far beyond this limited issue. There are things that can be based on statistics, but an adequate data population is essential. This is not one of them.

Now, a reasonable person may assess the risk and decide to assume that risk unmitigated. If there were a real advantage to using hand loads under factory loads, one would have to make an assessment of that advantage versus the risk.

Perhaps you have done so. Personally, I cannot see any material advantages to using something other than the best factory reloads for carry. For benchrest, skeet, trap, sporting clays, targets, or feeding a 6.5 Mannlicher or an old Sharps, yes, of course--but for possible use against a perpetrator at short range in a one-time encounter, no.

About the risks--the likelihood of trouble is remote, I think, but if the consequence involves losing everything, I won't assume any risk in any endeavor. If the consequence of a failure is so great that its occurrence would be something that one cannot allow to happen, one cannot weigh the cost against the likelihood and base his or her loss analysis on the expected value. Also, one does not rely on expected value if an event is only going to happen once--it will either happen or it won't. You would not bet your home and all of your other assets on a game outcome that seemed almost certain, would you?

 

[nitetrane98]

But Suzi Soccermom and the others on your jury really have no interest in, nor knowledge about guns; and this kind of "inside baseball" stuff is not going to mean anything to them. Haven't you ever tried to explain something technical to someone who had no real interest in the subject -- and watched their eyes glaze over like the Easter ham?

Fiddle,
LOL, in this light I understand your position a lot better.

This discussion has remained remarkably cordial. Actually in full disclosure, I really have no problem using factory ammo, I'm currently carrying DT ammo . It is indeed good enough to do the job.

One thought comes to mind though. The factory ammo fans take great pains to argue to the Nth degree about ways to negate any minute chance of repercussions by using it.

When the reload fans use the same Nth degree logic concerning accuracy, reliability and performance in the making of their rounds (and with prima facie evidence that they indeed worked or we're not having this discussion) it's somehow not worth the risk compared to factory ammo.

 

[devildog32713]

You can duplicate forensics using factory ammo. You can also do it with reloads but it all depends if the jury wants to believe that's what your gun was loaded with. No question on the forensics with factory ammo.

+1 on this, I'm sure you are a great reloader, but in the swing of lawsuits, you are better off with factory ammo, Speer, Remington Golden-Saber, there are plenty of great SD loads from factories.

 

[Deanimator]

fwiw, there is not a .38spc load out there commercially that I would consider adequate.

"Adequate" for WHAT?

I can load a .38 Special round as good for MY purposes as any of the commercial "FBI" loads. I can't load one that's better.

 

[Officers'Wife]

And people who do believe their loads are superior will rationally take that risk.
Your other arguments all support the idea that using handloads is fine. Your argument in this paragraph hinges on your belief that you would be better served with factory ammo.
You might be right.
You might be wrong.
But it isn't the odds, it's the stakes, right?

But you have to remember that should you find yourself in a 'must shoot' situation you have two distinct attackers; the immediate threat and the aftermath of a vindictive legal system.

 

[Bubba613]

But you have to remember that should you find yourself in a 'must shoot' situation you have two distinct attackers; the immediate threat and the aftermath of a vindictive legal system.

"Better judged by twelve than carried by six."

"Adequate" for WHAT?

I can load a .38 Special round as good for MY purposes as any of the commercial "FBI" loads. I can't load one that's better.

Stopping the attack, of course.
Have you seen any commercial FBI loads recently? Even when ammo is relatively plentiful I had trouble getting it.
Factory loads are compromises of various kinds. Typically the compromise is money and the necessity that the round work in all guns chambered for it.
A handloader who knows what he is doing can easily tailor a load for his particular gun and shooting ability that will exceed factory specs.

 

[Kleanbore]

A handloader who knows what he is doing can easily tailor a load for his particular gun and shooting ability that will exceed factory specs.

Yes, a patient handloader can assemble rifle ammunition with a tailored propellant charge, his own primer choice, bullet choice, and seating depth, measuring everything and weighing each charge, using cases that have been fired in his rifle and neck sized only, that will result in accuracy greater than that of factory loads in his rifle, and if he wants it, higher velocity. Except for the velocity part, I used to do that. I've never used any commercially loaded center fire mach ammunition in a rifle. My qualification "in his rifle" may not apply very much to AR type rifles--I just don't know about them

I've never tried to find out, it, but enthusiast friends tell me that they can get somewhat better accuracy from the revolvers at long rage when they shoot from a rest, and higher power.

I cannot see how any of that would apply for self defense. There is no reason at all to ask for better accuracy or power, and I'm not sure what other specifications one would need to improve upon.

If factory handgun loads were not sufficiently reliable (after selecting a load that functions well in a particular semi-automatic pistol) and handloads were measurably more reliable, there might be an issue.

However, I doubt that that is the case, or law enforcement agencies would either be using reloads for carry or demanding better factory ammunition.

I believe that premium factory ammo that works in a particular gun is perfectly suitable for self defense, and I cannot see how I can improve on it.

To the best of my memory, I have had three centerfire factory loads fail in my lifetime. One was a WWII 6.5 Carcano round with the bullet held in loosely by "dimples" on the neck; one was a military .38 Spl round with a full metal jacketed bullet that came in a crate indicating that it had spent some time in the Pacific during WWII. Only the last has any relevance: a new commercial 9mm round that was miss-shaped and that would not eject. I should have seen the problem before loading it, and now I look first.

I have had handloads fail a few times over the decades, but if memory serves I didn't load them myself.

 

[Bubba613]

Accuracy has little to do with effectiveness in defense loads.
And my statement that a well informed loader will beat factory loads every time stands. A good load will have superior characteristics in muzzle flash, velocity, penetration, expansion, recoil, and jacket separation.

 

[Kleanbore]

Accuracy has little to do with effectiveness in defense loads.

That was my point.

And my statement that a well informed loader will beat factory loads every time stands. A good load will have superior characteristics in muzzle flash, velocity, penetration, expansion, recoil, and jacket separation.

I'm not convinced. There are wide variety of factory SD loads available in most chamberings, designed for everything from use with short barrels (low flash, quick burn) to low recoil to high penetration to high penetration with reliable expansion in and through different media. How can one load rounds with better bullet performance if he is going to use factory bullets?

Now, if you are using a 9MM Largo, for example, you have a point. Might be smarter to buy a different carry piece, however.

The more important question is, how much better performance do you have to have than what the FBI, Secret Service, the LAPD SWAT unit, Texas Rangers, and so forth use for very serious business? Do you really think their loads are inadequate in terms of penetration and expansion? I don't. Do you really want anyone to come to the conclusion that the reason you concocted your carry load was to obtain superior velocity, penetration, expansion, and jacket separation than what those organizations use to enforce the law? I most certainly don't. Just could be seen as an indication of state of mind....

 

[Bubba613]

I'm not convinced.

Why am I not surprised?
Tell me what would persuade you.

 

[WILLIAM LAFFERTY]

FIDDLETOWN WRITES

Your notes will probably not be accepted. The judge will consider them to be unreliable. You are the defendant, and your notes still can't establish that the rounds fired were the same as the rounds described in your notes.

On the other hand, the ammunition manufacturer is an independent third party in the business of manufacturing ammunition in large quantities for sale to the public, to law enforcement agencies and, perhaps, to the military of this country, or maybe other countries. The ammunition is manufactured to set standards consistent with advertised and published specifications and subject to written quality assurance protocols.

SEVERAL POINTS:

1. There is no reason for the hypothetical notes not to be admitted. If the testimony is that they are notes composed in the normal course of reloading, I believe it would be error to refuse to exclude them.


2. The bigger question is why get into this at all? Why is it important to have objective tests of how the ammunition was manufactured and how it performs? If I defend myself from a lethal attack with by using a knife, does it make any difference if the knife was traveling at 50 mph or 90 mph or 150 mph when it impacted the criminal's sternum and killed him? Does it matter what the rockwell hardness of the blade was? Does it matter how sharp the knife was or how the edge was put on the steel?

The emperor has no clothes and hasnt had any clothes for a long time. Hand loading or factory loading of the projectile that killed the criminal is irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified. And it is reversible error to admit irrelevant, possibly prejudicial evidence in obtaining a conviction in a criminal case.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There is no reason for the hypothetical notes not to be admitted. If the testimony is that they are notes composed in the normal course of reloading, I believe it would be error to refuse to exclude them....

Because the notes do nothing to establish that the rounds fired were the rounds described in the notes. These are not business records. They were not admissible in Bias.

...The bigger question is why get into this at all? Why is it important to have objective tests of how the ammunition was manufactured and how it performs?...

Because there may be times when it will be desirable to be able to use GSR evidence to help establish or corroborate a point useful in your defense. For example, if you testify that you fired the shot when the alleged assailant was at a distance of X feet; and if there's some dispute on that point, it would be useful to test exemplar ammunition under similar conditions. Hopefully the test results will then show similar GSR traces and be admissible as evidence to support your testimony. But of course, it will only be admissible if an adequate foundation can be laid establishing that the test duplicates in all material respects the event that is the subject of the trial.

You might want to look at post 66 in which Marty Hayes reports that he has been engaged as an expert to do just that sort of testing.

...Hand loading or factory loading of the projectile that killed the criminal is irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified...

Exactly what evidence is relevant and how it may come in will be decided based on the exact circumstances, the exact nature of the prosecutor's case and the exact nature of the evidence the defendant puts forth to try to establish a prima facie case of justification.

 

[BURN]

what if.....

(we can never decide when a situation is going to turn bad)

the only gun you have with you at the time is loaded with a plinking ammo you loaded and you have to shoot somebody?....

in a perfect world we would never have to use a firearm or other weapon for "SD" and if we absolutly had too it would be with a factory gun(no-mods) using factory ammo

but in truth the world is not like that

 

[Frank Ettin]

...what if.....

(we can never decide when a situation is going to turn bad)

the only gun you have with you at the time is loaded with a plinking ammo you loaded and you have to shoot somebody?....

If you are caught unprepared, you will have to make do with what you have at hand and deal with the consequences later.

But if you have choices about what you keep readily available for self defense, those choices could make it easier or harder for you to prevail in the legal maelstrom that is likely to follow. Personally, if I can improve my chances for prevailing in the legal aftermath of a self defense event, without impairing my ability to defend myself, I'm going to be very interested.

 

[BURN]

If you are caught unprepared, you will have to make do with what you have at hand and deal with the consequences later.

But if you have choices about what you keep readily available for self defense, those choices could make it easier or harder for you to prevail in the legal maelstrom that is likely to follow. Personally, if I can improve my chances for prevailing in the legal aftermath of a self defense event, without impairing my ability to defend myself, I'm going to be very interested.

true...but I can "what if" you with scenarios that could happen....asleep at night, in the showere, etc....as people we can be as safe as we want to be but sometimes we just have to live life...

 

[Frank Ettin]

..true...but I can "what if" you with scenarios that could happen....asleep at night, in the showere, etc....as people we can be as safe as we want to be but sometimes we just have to live life...

Sure, so what? We make our choices and live our lives as we want. That involves risks and benefits, and we make our choices.

If I make a choice that gets me into trouble, I'll just have to deal with that. But if there are some choices I can make that might help keep me out of trouble, or help me avoid complications in my life, without interfering unduly with the way I want to live my life, I make them. So I stay out of bad neighborhoods, especially late at night. I keep copies of important business documents. The guns we keep loaded around the house for emergencies are in tough key lock-boxes and are loaded with good quality, commercial JHP ammunition proven reliable in them. I carry a gun when I legally can, and it is loaded with good quality, commercial JHP ammunition proven reliable in it. And so on.

In short, I think about things, plan for what I reasonably can, adopt what risk avoidance strategies I choose and go on with my life.

 

[Kleanbore]

Tell me what would persuade you.

Some sort of objective data set substantiating (1) that current premium factory defense loads in a particular chambering with a particular barrel length have been shown to fall short in terms of their ability to stop persons effectively with well-placed shots and (2) that handloaded ammunition in the same chamberings, fired from the same types of handguns (at least with the same barrel lengths) are proving to be more effective (but see below).

There will not be a lot of real data available, so even a few reports from law enforcement agencies would prove helpful in casting doubt,should the reports so indicate, on whatever factory loads are involved. There will no doubt be no real field information regarding handloads, so comparative test data would have to suffice (ballistic gelatin, for example).

We can exclude reports involving shooting through glass or car doors.

If it turns out that problems with factory loads result from certain bullet designs, that well eliminate those particular data point from the testing of the hypothesis at hand, since (1) other bullets are available) and (2) the handloader will be using factory bullets anyway.

For years in the old days I heard that the old .38 Special 158 LRN load was not an adequate police load, and later on there was a report that whetever 9MM loads the FBI was using at the time were not entirely adequate, though I have also read arguments that the report was flawed. I have also seen criticisms of certain specific loads (Pow'rBall being one of them), but there was no substantiation.

I just haven't seen any credible criticisms of today's premium self defense loads, unless it is a criticism of the chambering (9MM vs 10MM, for example). That doesn't mean there haven't been some, so if there are, let's get 'em on the table.

 

[Kleanbore]

From WILLIAM LAFFERTY:

Hand loading or factory loading of the projectile that killed the criminal is irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified.

Yes, that's true, but that is not the issue.

So--a shooting has occurred, and the shooter effectively admits to having fired the shots by claiming self defense.

It's now up to the charging authority and if it goes further, to later authorities, including perhaps a trial jury, to judge whether or not the use of deadly force was justified.

The shooter will produce whatever evidence he can to substantiate that all of the necessary elements of a self defense claim apply. Depending on what else investigators may have found, in terms of forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, information about the shooter and possible relationships with the person he shot, or anything else about the shooter that may pertain to motive, mens rea, etc., investigators and potentially, prosecutors, will produce their evidence. Each side will try to discredit the evidence produced by the other--again, if it goes that far.

Now, if at any stage from the beginning of the investigation to a possible acquittal, it is determined that the shooting was justified, it doesn't matter whether the shooter used a handgun or a flare gun, as far as justification is concerned, and as you pointed out, hand loading or factory loading of the projectile that killed the criminal is irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified. But again, that's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not it is the shooter who is judged to be "the criminal", and that has to be determined from the evidence. Though the likelihood is probably remote, the use of handloads can influence that determination. There are two ways;

The first, to which Massad Ayoob attaches comparatively little importance in comparison with the second, is the possibility that, in combination with other evidence, the selection of a highly destructive load (and this can of course also apply to certain factory loads or chamberings, as in the Harold Fish case) is seen as indicative of a criminal state of mind, or of a propensity to shoot someone. This would only be important if the evidence of justification were inconclusive in comparison with evidence unfavorable to the shooter. By the way, mock jury simulations have shown that the use of assault-type guns in shootings can reduce a shooter's chances of a finding of justification, in comparison with scenarios in which more "traditional" guns are used.

The second has been addressed numerous times in this string, most recently by Fiddletown:

...there may be times when it will be desirable to be able to use GSR evidence to help establish or corroborate a point useful in your defense. For example, if you testify that you fired the shot when the alleged assailant was at a distance of X feet; and if there's some dispute on that point, it would be useful to test exemplar ammunition under similar conditions. Hopefully the test results will then show similar GSR traces and be admissible as evidence to support your testimony. But of course, it will only be admissible if an adequate foundation can be laid establishing that the test duplicates in all material respects the event that is the subject of the trial.

Depending again on how the evidence produced by the defendant stacks up against potentially contradictory evidence presented by the state, the distance at which the shot was fired may become critical to the defense, for two reasons: (1) it could enter into the judgment of whether the shooter actually had reason to believe that imminent danger existed and (2) the state's evidence showing a difference between the distance involved and what the shooter had previously said it to be could seriously damage his credibility. GSR evidence is routinely used to try to establish shooting distance. The lack of GSR on a subject may indicate a greater distance than the subject has claimed, and test evidence may support his testimony.

So, yes, the load is not at all relevant to whether the shooting was justified --it's just in getting to that determination in combination with all of the evidence that it just might make a difference.

I hope that helps.

 

[MinnMooney]

The lack of historical data is meaningless

cleanboar (post #103)

Yeah, right! Please don't burden me with facts or provable data. Let me conger up some hypothetical cases so I can yell "The Sky is Falling!!".

You apparently did not read, or you did not comprehend Post #89.

cleanboar (post #103)

This statement is just plain rude and not very appropriate to THR. Do you really have that little convidence in your persuasive abilities that you need to resort to belittling other posters.
"Yes." I did read your illustrious post #89 and found it to be arrogant and self-fulfilling.

I've read all 121 posts and found no facts or arguments that have made me change my mind.

I will use reloads for my SD appliances.
I trust them, I practice with them and I sleep better knowing that I've taken every conceivable precaution in creating the most reliable ammo that I know how.
What other arguments do you have?
I'm still looking for one (just one) fact in favor of factory ammo.​

if someone were to come into a room and suggest that the failure of elastomeric seals at low temperatures could result in the tragic loss of a manned spacecraft, one would not respond with "has that ever happened before? Does that really happen in real life? Show me one incident?" if there had only been twenty four launches to date, and only a couple at low ambient temperatures.

cleanboar (post #103)

Oh, please! That statement has absolutely no relevance to this argument. There are thousands and thousands of cases that went to trial where the defendant claimed "self-defense" and no one in this thread has shown one case where the maker of the ammo was the reason for a conviction.
Now, if the defendant had used low temperature elastomeric seals to strangle the attacker and was thereafter convicted of too much sealant or that the sealant was concocted in the defendant's kitchen, THEN your argument would have relavence.

 

[Oyeboten]

How would anyone even know that 'Hand Loads' had been used in a viable SD situation?

There are, and have been, a very wide range of Factory Loads over the decades, as well as small Factory Commercial re-loads, from which a person could have chosen their carry-ammo, whether they still had the Box handy, or additional rounds handy, or not.

 

[Bubba613]

Some sort of objective data set substantiating (1) that current premium factory defense loads in a particular chambering with a particular barrel length have been shown to fall short in terms of their ability to stop persons effectively with well-placed shots and (2) that handloaded ammunition in the same chamberings, fired from the same types of handguns (at least with the same barrel lengths) are proving to be more effective (but see below).

There will not be a lot of real data available, so even a few reports from law enforcement agencies would prove helpful in casting doubt,should the reports so indicate, on whatever factory loads are involved. There will no doubt be no real field information regarding handloads, so comparative test data would have to suffice (ballistic gelatin, for example).

We can exclude reports involving shooting through glass or car doors.

As I said in an earlier post, one can always blame lack of performance on other factors.
That is a high level of proof. If I asked for similar proof that handloads played a part in convictions you would not be able to meet it either.

 

[Deanimator]

Have you seen any commercial FBI loads recently? Even when ammo is relatively plentiful I had trouble getting it.

I haven't seen ANYTHING locally lately. I bought my last batch of carry ammunition (230gr. .45acp Speer Gold Dot) on the internet. I'd buy Remington, Winchester or Buffalo Bore .38 Special "FBI" loads the same way.

The gunstores in the Cleveland area are generally mediocre for everything but holsters, and only one has a good selection of those. Anything I buy I'm going to have to order anyway.

I bought most of what I needed for carry ammunition before the Obama panic. Everything else I handload.