• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Carry your own reloads in your CCW?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is not that hand loads work better or worse than factory loads.
The problem is that after you use your carry weapon in a self defense situation & are sitting in Civil Court because the family of the deceased is suing you for killing their loved one.
The prosecution will use the fact that you were using hand loads against you by saying that you did something to make your loads more deadly. Yea it sounds stupid to me too, but it the jury they are the ones they are trying to convince. And they know nothing about bullets, guns, or anything to do with reloading.
This will sound reasonable to them.
Yes I reload my carry ammo, I use cheap HP 9mm 147 gr bullets with a lower powder load than the max is called for, not the best or highest advertised super killers with a +P load of powder behind it. My loads are consistent & I can hit what I aim at by using them.
Let them put my A$$ in court & see if they can get anything out of that.
 
Instead of defending your "recipe" compared to other recipes, max loads, or super-killers when the more likely issue is "intention," it could be more useful to have an alternative intention to the one the prosecution is asserting. Your magazine was loaded with Black Talons because that's what you use for coyote and cougar defense when you take your dog "Fifi" for a walk. Your grandpa introduced you to USPSA matches and its a past time you always enjoyed with him. Your magazine was loaded with 9 Major because that's what you intended to use at the next match. You shot the plaintiff with 480 Ruger handloads you normally use for whitetail hunting because that's what you had at the time. You had been planning on hunting this next season, not defending your life. There are plenty of defenses to baseless assertions that your handloads are "more deadly" even when the handloads are "+P Super Killers."
 
Spats McGee said:
(Emphasis supplied.) I don't think that Bias proves that 'you shouldn't reload any ammo.' It does, however, demonstrate that the use of handloads in an SD situation can significantly complicate your defense. If memory serves, Daniel Bias was eventually exonerated, but only after he was broke, unemployed, and had spent 3 years in jail. Were there other factors involved? Sure. But the use of handloads led to the crime lab testing the wrong ammo and coming to the wrong conclusions and that certainly didn't help.
Click to expand...

Daniel Bias was not exonerated, he was just convicted of a lesser charge than murder........all because he used handloads. It didn't complicate his defense, it complicated his prosecution. The crime lab , I don't believe, even tested the ammo, because according to Bias, he loaded the shells in the ammo box the cartridge that killed his wife came from, at varying levels from mild to wild and because of not knowing the charge rate, any GSR evidence could be incorrect. The lack of GSR evidence did not convict Bias of a bad shoot, it prevented him from going to jail for murder. Instead, he was sentenced to only 6 years for reckless manslaughter. Still, fans of Bias claimed GSR would have proved his wife committed suicide and he had no part in her death. She had no GSR on her hands...he did. He claimed the gun went off at her temple when he tried to wrestle the gun away from her. Blood spatter showed she did not have her hands on the gun. No, I believe the lack of GSR evidence saved his guilty azz.
 
Let’s stop the babyish variants for your butt.

Just remember if you need an expert it will cost plenty.
 
I am more worried about the ammo being reliable than anything else. I don't want to shoot anyone but if it comes to that, and I cannot find a way out of having to do so, I will use whatever ammo I happen to have available.
 
Well, the thread topic is about ammo that you carry in your CCW. Although I agree to using “whatever ammo I happen to have available”, if it ever comes to that, what I will have available is what I choose to have available, not just “whatever”. Hopefully, everyone who carries, CCW or open, makes a conscious decision on what ammo they carry and don’t simply rely on “whatever is available”. Just MHO.
 
I still use factory HPs in my edc.. bullet setback is a concern for me. I’ve tested oodles and not seen any problems with it, I’m just assuming my ammo is inferior until I have more experience..
 
AK Hunter said:
The problem is not that hand loads work better or worse than factory loads.
The problem is that after you use your carry weapon in a self defense situation & are sitting in Civil Court because the family of the deceased is suing you for killing their loved one.
The prosecution will use the fact that you were using hand loads against you by saying that you did something to make your loads more deadly. Yea it sounds stupid to me too, but it the jury they are the ones they are trying to convince. And they know nothing about bullets, guns, or anything to do with reloading.
This will sound reasonable to them.
Yes I reload my carry ammo, I use cheap HP 9mm 147 gr bullets with a lower powder load than the max is called for, not the best or highest advertised super killers with a +P load of powder behind it. My loads are consistent & I can hit what I aim at by using them.
Let them put my A$$ in court & see if they can get anything out of that.
Click to expand...
Then your lawyer proves otherwise.
 
AK Hunter said:
.... The prosecution will use the fact that you were using hand loads against you by saying that you did something to make your loads more deadly.....
Click to expand...
While that is theoretically possible, I think it's fairly unlikely. And I say that, knowing that is has come up in every 'handloads' thread I've seen in about the past 10 years, and will continue to come up. I think the GSR complication is more likely than the 'deadlier loads' claim by the prosecution.
buck460XVR said:
Daniel Bias was not exonerated, he was just convicted of a lesser charge than murder........all because he used handloads. It didn't complicate his defense, it complicated his prosecution....
Click to expand...
If that's the case, it didn't complicate his prosecution enough to keep him out of prison while his trials dragged on. It did, however, complicate his defense enough that the judge wouldn't set a bond he could make.
buck460XVR said:
The crime lab , I don't believe, even tested the ammo, because according to Bias, he loaded the shells in the ammo box the cartridge that killed his wife came from, at varying levels from mild to wild and because of not knowing the charge rate, any GSR evidence could be incorrect.
Click to expand...
If memory serves, it wasn't that the crime lab didn't test the ammo, it was that they tested the wrong ammo.

In any event, if I ever have to defend myself for an SD shooting, I'd like my defense to be as clean as possible. I don't want to introduce handloads to 'complicate the prosecution,' and then (run the risk of having to) hire experts to untangle that mess.

And for those of you who don't like the Bias case, or don't believe that it applies because suicide was one claim, or for whatever reason, then there's a different case to discuss. State v. George Zimmerman. I've been digging around to try to get trial transcripts, without much luck, but if memory serves me correctly, it was GSR* evidence that finally proved that Trayvon Martin was on top of GZ at the time of the shooting.

*Someone asked earlier about GSR and it only showing whether someone had fired a gun.... No, the kind of GSR I'm talking about are powder burns and tattooing that can happen at close range and can help the crime lab determine distance from muzzle to target.
 
Spats McGee said:
.

And for those of you who don't like the Bias case, or don't believe that it applies because suicide was one claim, or for whatever reason, then there's a different case to discuss. State v. George Zimmerman. I've been digging around to try to get trial transcripts, without much luck, but if memory serves me correctly, it was GSR* evidence that finally proved that Trayvon Martin was on top of GZ at the time of the shooting.

*Someone asked earlier about GSR and it only showing whether someone had fired a gun.... No, the kind of GSR I'm talking about are powder burns and tattooing that can happen at close range and can help the crime lab determine distance from muzzle to target.
Click to expand...

In the George Zimmerman case, reloads would not have made a difference(did you find anything in court documents to see if that even came up?) because that shot was made at PBR. Powder charge would have made very little, if any difference. In the Bias case it was distance that was trying to be determined b powder charge. Wheteher the wife had the gun to her head as Bias claims or whether he shot her from across the room. Distance is where not being able to duplicate loads(and GSR) because of unknown powder charge is the issue. At one time, distance was thought to be an important factor in SD(15' seemed to be the magic number). This was when most places expected folks to retreat if they could first. Then came stand your ground.

There are a multitude of factors that will come into play if and when any of us have to use deadly force to defend ourselves. If and how we decide to defend ourselves should be our choice, as long as it is within the confines of the law. I don't have an issue with how other folks defend themselves, but am always surprised with how much others concern themselves with how I do it. If it's not the ammo I use, it's the gun or the way I carry. Folks need to worry about themselves, not me. Kinda why it's called Self Defense.
 
buck460XVR said:
In the George Zimmerman case, reloads would not have made a difference(did you find anything in court documents to see if that even came up?) because that shot was made at PBR. Powder charge would have made very little, if any difference.
Click to expand...
Probably true. I bring it up just to: (a) show how GSR is used to determine distance; and (b) point out that, had GZ used handloads, he may not have been able to use that evidence. I would also note that, despite years of searches run on Westlaw, I have never encountered a case in which a handloader's records were accepted by a court in dealing with GSR evidence, or it might have muddied the waters considerably.
buck460XVR said:
....There are a multitude of factors that will come into play if and when any of us have to use deadly force to defend ourselves. If and how we decide to defend ourselves should be our choice, as long as it is within the confines of the law. I don't have an issue with how other folks defend themselves, but am always surprised with how much others concern themselves with how I do it. If it's not the ammo I use, it's the gun or the way I carry. Folks need to worry about themselves, not me. Kinda why it's called Self Defense.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not worried about you. Nor am I concerned with what others carry. But I don't want anyone leaving this thread with the idea that it's as simple as 'a good shoot is a good shoot.' It's not that simple. The part that I underlined above skips over a big part of the process of determining whether an SD shooting was 'within the confines of the law.'
 
mdi said:
"So, how about this: How about I name a case in which GSR evidence (which might have been excluded had the shooter carried handloads) was used to exonerate the self-defense shooter?".
Click to expand...
There have been such cases, cited in some of the innumerable threads we have had on this subject.

labnoti said:
As I understand it, the supposed legal advantage of factory ammo is ...if you used handloads, you may not be able to find an expert witness who can testify as to the GSR patterns of your handloaded ammo because nobody can be sure of anything about your handloads unless they take your word for how you made them.
Click to expand...
Much more importantly, the Rules of Evidence would compel the judge to prevent the jury from hearing any such expert testimony.

labnoti said:
The problem I find with this argument is it hinges on your defense team's claim that you used factory ammo. The opposing counsel should cast doubt on this assertion since you are unlikely to have any means to prove that you used factory ammo and that it was unmodified
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the burden of proof here.
 
In the area of urban legends, I heard the main rule against hand loads was some fancy attorney would accuse you of undo pain and anguish by using hand loads and as stated factory loads have all the evidence held by the manufacturer/ In the real world of covid-19 and the apparent lack of factory loads, what are we suppose to do, use our pistol as a club? I .am surprised that this question has not ever come before a court of law and we don't have a more precise answer. I have some friends in law enforcement, maybe they can give me an update.
 
I have been visiting reloading forums since 2006 and this subject rears its stupid head on a regular basis, and there is never a consensus reached (not even close). Every thread is rife with speculation, internet wisdom and forum lawyers (closely related to jail house lawyers). Many phrases like "there are many", "I read...", Mr. Whosit (supposed expert) said.." ad infinitum are tossed around as fact. I still wait for a specific case (cite a case with names, file numbers, etc.) where handloads were the reason for prosecuting a shooter. Not the reason for the shooting, not for the actions taken by the shooter and not the "mindset" of the participants...

No need to reply as I'm done...
 
Kleanbore said:
....

You misunderstand the burden of proof here.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that if you claim to have used factory loads, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show otherwise? But if the prosecution claims you used handloads, the burden of proof is now on you to prove otherwise? It seems to me that if you want to make a specific claim about evidence, the burden of proof is on you, whether you're the defendant or the prosecution.
 
Nature Boy said:
I'm curious. Leave guns out of it for a minute.

Let's say I had a home break in and defended myself against the intruder with a store bought baseball bat. Now, substitute the baseball bat with a piece of hickory I cut from a tree and fashioned into a club that looks a lot like a bat. Is the outcome different from a legal standpoint?

Or is simply that the law and common sense don't necessarily need to co-habitat on the same plane. (ya know, I think I may have answered my own question so feel free to disregard ;) )
Click to expand...
My issue is. Law and common sense are rarely on the same plane.
If your trimming brush which is least likely to put you before a judge? A handgun or the axe in your hand?
I had to make this decision one time.
 
mdi said:
.... I still wait for a specific case (cite a case with names, file numbers, etc.) where handloads were the reason for prosecuting a shooter. Not the reason for the shooting, not for the actions taken by the shooter and not the "mindset" of the participants...
Click to expand...
That's one of the more common red herrings in this topic. Carrying handloads is not illegal, so it cannot be the reason for prosecuting a shooter. Sticking a fork in an electrical socket isn't illegal, either. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
labnoti said:
Are you saying that if you claim to have used factory loads, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show otherwise? But if the prosecution claims you used handloads, the burden of proof is now on you to prove otherwise? It seems to me that if you want to make a specific claim about evidence, the burden of proof is on you, whether you're the defendant or the prosecution.
Click to expand...
The burden of admissibility, generally, is on the proponent of a piece of evidence. The crime lab will likely test rounds like the ones they believe you were carrying. If you claim that you were carrying something different, you will have to convince someone: (a) that you were, in fact, carrying something different; and (b) what it was that you were carrying, so that the crime lab (and your own experts) can do the appropriate testing.
 
Thomasss said:
In the area of urban legends, I heard the main rule against hand loads was some fancy attorney would accuse you of undo pain and anguish by using hand loads and as stated factory loads have all the evidence held by the manufacturer/
Click to expand...
Much like the Super-Deadlier Rounds argument, I'm not too worried about that. It's possible that a prosecutor could make it, and certainly did make it in the Harold Fish case, though that was about caliber, not handloads. Still, I'm much less concerned about that than GSR. It doesn't have the same evidentiary pitfalls.

Thomasss said:
In the real world of covid-19 and the apparent lack of factory loads, what are we suppose to do, use our pistol as a club?
Click to expand...
Nobody has said that.

Thomasss said:
I .am surprised that this question has not ever come before a court of law and we don't have a more precise answer. I have some friends in law enforcement, maybe they can give me an update.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is simply in how cases get reported. There's a fairly particular 'constellation' of events that has to happen for a case to be both 'visible' and useful to us in the big legal databases.
 
What if I shoot and wound, but not kill, the perp? (Please, no comments about my need for more range time. We are, after all, playing what if.) Would it matter what kind of ammo I used, so long as it was legal for me to use it?
 
higgite said:
What if I shoot and wound, but not kill, the perp? (Please, no comments about my need for more range time. We are, after all, playing what if.) Would it matter what kind of ammo I used, so long as it was legal for me to use it?
Click to expand...
From a strictly legal standpoint, ignoring any ethical or moral issues here, a wounded Bad Guy is more dangerous to you than a dead one. Dead Bad Guys don't testify against you. Wounded Bad guys undoubtedly like to tell juries how they were just walking home from choir practice, and how they were 35 feet from the shooter when he opened fire for no reason.
 
I think be best sounding advice that I've read is to find out what the local law enforcement carries and carry that... although I suppose that could just as easily get twisted around to make one look bad as well, even more so in the current climate some places.

The gsr to establish distance in the event that it is called in to question seems to be the big "technical " worry of the of these discussions. Given the variances I've experienced with factory ammo I worry that any testing would be looked at as a constant result and a low charge would look farther away than what it was.

I'm sure there may be some manufacures or lines of ammo that have better qaulity checks and having a low charge would be less likely but it's always a possibility no matter how many one has tested.

Kind of surprising that the gsr can have any bearing at all in a case when in many situations it seems that would be impossible to prove what was used. No guarantee that what was shot is the same as what is left in the mag. A lot of times might not even have the packaging from the purchase of factory ammo.

I might have to do some more reading about this. Wonder at what typical distances this comes into play?
 
Suedenflames68 said:
I think be best sounding advice that I've read is to find out what the local law enforcement carries and carry that... although I suppose that could just as easily get twisted around to make one look bad as well, even more so in the current climate some places.
Click to expand...
There is the WannaBeCop argument that could be made. Truth be told, if I'm ever in a shooting, I might be in particular danger of this one. I've got a ton of friends who are cops, I go to the range with the cops, I carry the same rounds as the cops. That said, I accept that risk (that I might be painted as a WannaBeCop). The police, FBI, etc., all have much larger ammo testing budgets than I do, so I think of it as piggybacking on their ammo choice.
Suedenflames68 said:
The gsr to establish distance in the event that it is called in to question seems to be the big "technical " worry of the of these discussions. Given the variances I've experienced with factory ammo I worry that any testing would be looked at as a constant result and a low charge would look farther away than what it was.
Click to expand...
It is a pretty technical issue. No doubt. And the low charge looking farther away than what actually was is part of that issue. In the Daniel Bias case, it was the difference in GSR from: (a) a suicide shot; vs. (b) some 36 inches away (if memory serves). If you're interested, and it's fine if you're not, I put a link to an article I wrote about it a while back in one of my posts.
Suedenflames68 said:
....I might have to do some more reading about this. Wonder at what typical distances this comes into play?
Click to expand...
Short distances, close enough that you'd get tattooing and GSR around the wound. I don't know exactly how far that might be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Defensive Ammo: Roll your own, or factory?
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
6K
Walkalong
Walkalong
J
  • Locked
How long did it take before your reloads were as reliable as factory ammo?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
JLStorm
J
G
  • Locked
Having complete confidense in your reloads
2 3
Replies
74
Views
2K
Walkalong
Walkalong
Nordeste
  • Locked
How many of you use chronographs to check your reloads?
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Waywatcher
W
T
  • Locked
  • Poll
How many of you carry reloads in your SD guns?
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
5K
BLU
BLU
Back
Top