Carry your own reloads in your CCW?

[GEM]

I have a loaded mag with my SD EDC ammo at matches. Leave it in the car and retrieve after the match is over. We reload under SO supervision by way.

 

[Jesse Heywood]

I was one who followed the teachings of Masad Ayoob and carried only factory ammo. But one incident changed my opinion. Our former DA thought she had an open and shut case. Charged a local homeowner when he shot a miscreant who was breaking into a vehicle. Defense was that entry to the vehicle allowed entry to the house via a remote. Jury ruled not guilty and the now-former DA said she learned a lesson and would not prosecute any similar cases. (She now chases ambulances.) I then decided that since I live where the citizenry believes that is favorable to self defense that I can use reloads.

This decision depends on your locality. If you live in an area that does not believe in gun rights, your opinion will be different.

 

[labnoti]

Ok, if a person starts with factory ammo, do they have to be able to prove that the factory ammo the had in their carry weapon was not modified to get any legal benefit from having loaded factory ammo? What is sufficient proof that they did not modify the factory ammo?

If they don't have to prove that they didn't modify the factory ammo, what's to stop them from pulling the bullets and modifying the ammo? Whether they did modify or not seems dubious since they own a bullet puller and a reloading press. Exactly how is the factory ammo benefiting their case again?

 

[Insignificant bill]

What

Yes, the outcome may be very different. But that difference can only be illustrated if I include guns in the comparison.

In your 'baseball bat vs. homemade club' scenario,' the club or bat is unlikely to be destroyed during the encounter. If you then need an expert to recreate the conflict, said expert can get access to the actual weapon to do whatever tests are necessary.

In the event of a shooting, assuming that the shooter's gun and ammo function properly, the ammo is effectively destroyed. The powder is burned, the projectile may or may not be recovered. If you then need an expert to recreate the conflict, the information on loading has to come from somewhere.

Scenario 1: You carried factory ammo and can subpoena the factory's records on loading. The loader, the factory, is a disinterested third party, and it doesn't care about the outcome of the case.

Scenario 2: You carried handloads and want your expert to rely on those. The loader is (potentially) a defendant in a murder case, who is very much interested in the outcome of the case.

Which scenario do you think will get more of a fight out of the prosecutor in terms of letting the evidence in?

But the origin of the ammo could play a role in determining whether you are found to have been justified.

Yes, the outcome may be very different. But that difference can only be illustrated if I include guns in the comparison.

In your 'baseball bat vs. homemade club' scenario,' the club or bat is unlikely to be destroyed during the encounter. If you then need an expert to recreate the conflict, said expert can get access to the actual weapon to do whatever tests are necessary.

In the event of a shooting, assuming that the shooter's gun and ammo function properly, the ammo is effectively destroyed. The powder is burned, the projectile may or may not be recovered. If you then need an expert to recreate the conflict, the information on loading has to come from somewhere.

Scenario 1: You carried factory ammo and can subpoena the factory's records on loading. The loader, the factory, is a disinterested third party, and it doesn't care about the outcome of the case.

Scenario 2: You carried handloads and want your expert to rely on those. The loader is (potentially) a defendant in a murder case, who is very much interested in the outcome of the case.

Which scenario do you think will get more of a fight out of the prosecutor in terms of letting the evidence in?

But the origin of the ammo could play a role in determining whether you are found to have been justified.

But what you said was:

(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.

As far as 'being afraid of carrying reloads,' I don't think of it as being afraid. I think we all understand that there are certain risks associated with, well, everything. We make certain risk-reward-mitigation assessments in our daily lives. Think about driving. Maybe I could shave 2 minutes off my commute to work by taking Street X, but it's narrow and people like to park on both sides.
Risk: Street X is crowded and I could hit one of those cars, a door could get opened in front of me, or someone might step out from between those cars.
Reward: 2 minutes shaved off of my commute
Mitigation: Taking Street Y takes me 2 extra minutes, but it avoids all of the Risks.

So we balance all of these things in deciding whether to take Street X or Street Y. Personally, I take Street Y. Firearms are dangerous. They have certain inherent risks associated with them. And yet everyone on TFL does something with them. We accept the risks, we mitigate them by practicing The Four Rules, and we enjoy the rewards.

For me, carrying handloads gets an assessment that looks something like this:
Risk Point #1: Using handloads could make an already complicated defense even more complicated and require the use of additional experts at civil and criminal trials. Thus, potentially $$$, maybe in the tens of thousands to pay those experts.
Risk Point #2: It's not just about the nature of the risk; it's also about the probability of that risk materializing. For some people, the whole issue is moot because the probability of it occurring is pretty low. It all revolves around the use of GSR evidence to establish shooting distance. If that's not a factor in a particular shooting, it's not going to matter whether the shooter used handloads. Unfortunately, SD shooters don't get to choose the time and circumstances under which they'll have to shoot. And as we've seen in the past, even if the Bad Guy is killed, there may be unreliable eyewitnesses who are all too happy to give their unreliable statements.
Reward #1: Performance -- I carry factory ammo from a reputable manufacturer and have tested it in my gun. While those tests are not a guarantee of future performance, my factory rounds have proven accurate and reliable so far. Thus, the reward from carrying handloads is minimal.
Reward #2: Cost -- Handloads are (or at least can be) cheaper. But we're talking about a couple of boxes for testing and a couple of boxes for carry per year. Even if we take the cost of handloads to be $0 (which they're not), we're looking at maybe $100 per year? So Reward #2 might be $100 per year saved by carrying handloads. That's much less than the cost of expert witnesses.
Mitigation -- Carry factory ammo. That's pretty easy mitigation.

Taking that as a whole, I view carrying handloads as "low probability of occurrence, high stakes ($$$ that I don't have to experts), minimal reward, easy mitigation." I choose to mitigate that risk.

Thus the reason to have a good attorney.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Ok, if a person starts with factory ammo, do they have to be able to prove that the factory ammo the had in their carry weapon was not modified to get any legal benefit from having loaded factory ammo? What is sufficient proof that they did not modify the factory ammo?

If they don't have to prove that they didn't modify the factory ammo, what's to stop them from pulling the bullets and modifying the ammo? Whether they did modify or not seems dubious since they own a bullet puller and a reloading press. Exactly how is the factory ammo benefiting their case again?

.
I would use what ever saves your life.

 

[Spats McGee]

I’m just on the sidelines, thanks for all the interesting reading! Me personally, I try to carry factory ammo in my EDC, but there are times , like coming back from a shoot where I’ll just have my competition gun and a loaded mag. God forbid something should happen at that time, but I’m not going to be thinking about the ammo in the gun at that point, it’ll be threat assessment and shot placement.

There are all kinds of scenarios in which one might not have a choice as to what one uses. By all means, if Jason Voorhees lumbers in out of the woods while you're shooting Stage 3 of an IDPA match, shoot to stop the threat.

Ok, if a person starts with factory ammo, do they have to be able to prove that the factory ammo the had in their carry weapon was not modified to get any legal benefit from having loaded factory ammo? What is sufficient proof that they did not modify the factory ammo?

If they don't have to prove that they didn't modify the factory ammo, what's to stop them from pulling the bullets and modifying the ammo? Whether they did modify or not seems dubious since they own a bullet puller and a reloading press. Exactly how is the factory ammo benefiting their case again?

I don't know of any reason (or cases) in which an SD shooter / defendant had to prove that they did not modify factory ammo. The only time I could see that coming up is if the State (or plaintiff) claimed that the shooter had done so, and the claim needed to be refuted.

....Exactly how is the factory ammo benefiting their case again?

Neutral, third-party record keeping, to be used in the presentation of GSR evidence.

....Thus the reason to have a good attorney.

I've got that covered.

 

[AJC1]

A lawyer will use anything they can find that they believe will help their case. Are you a "gun nut" because you reload, even if those loads were not used. Did you ever post a picture at the range where you shot a human siloette? What and how you post on social media can become a huge piece of your case. To get a yes no answer is unrealistic in a situation as dynamic as a courtroom.

 

[mmb617]

Thus the reason to have a good attorney.

Whether a person is judged to be guilty or not IMO depends more on the attorney than it does on any evidence. A good attorney can often get an obviously guilty man off, while a poor attorney if against a good DA may fail to free an innocent man. It's sad that the law works that way but there are numerous examples that tell me that is indeed the way it goes.

 

[Jim Watson]

If the bad guy survives & disputes your version of events, then you could need GSR evidence to back your version. If you used handloads, you may not be able to use that evidence.

You carried factory ammo and can subpoena the factory's records on loading.

If this is your incentive to carry factory ammunition, better save the box it came in so you can state the lot number on that subpoena. The factory does not always use the same components even for a single URL.

My incentive to carry handloads is that my recoil tolerance has declined a lot with wear on nerves and joints over the years; my second shot of full power .45 ACP is likely to be a flinch. I load .45s way down and enter them as USPSA Minor or IDPA ESP just to be able to use the guns and reloading gear.
One of the gunzine writers, Petty, maybe, touted the .45 Lite, which I poo-poohed at the time. I understand now.
Too bad no factory loads it.
There are lighter midrange loads and heavier Major loads that I have worked with.
Mostly, though, I just carry a 9mm.

 

[higgite]

I don't know of any reason (or cases) in which an SD shooter / defendant had to prove that they did not modify factory ammo. The only time I could see that coming up is if the State (or plaintiff) claimed that the shooter had done so, and the claim needed to be refuted.

What would there be to refute? Wouldn't the State (or plaintiff) have to offer proof that you had modified factory ammo, rather than just making a baseless claim? If you had not tampered with your factory ammo, where would they get proof that you did? Without a requirement for proof to back it up, they could claim anything. Innocent until proven guilty?

 

[labnoti]

I don't know of any reason (or cases) in which an SD shooter / defendant had to prove that they did not modify factory ammo.

So it would seem that a person could start with factory ammo, pull the bullet, change the charge mass, and reseat the bullet, and they would not have a legal disadvantage compared to someone who could not prove that they did not do the same.

 

[mdi]

"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?". I'm not a forensic scientist nor an attorney, but I would think GSR would only tell if a person has fired a gun and not the use of a "killer ammo" (but Abby Sciuto would be able to tell what powder, age of the powder, exact powder charge in .1 grain, bullet type and composition, manufacture of the primers, and age of the shooter, time of day and season from a scrap of cloth worn by a witness). All the concerns I've read is that handloads used in SD shootings can be considered "extra lethal, meant for extreme damage and quick death" by prosecutors and the "blood thirsty" shooter meant only to kill, not merely protect themselves and/or family. My statement was show me a case where handloads were cause for prosecution and/or lawsuit...

 

[GEM]

My statement was show me a case where handloads were cause for prosecution and/or lawsuit...

That makes no sense. The cause for prosecution or lawsuit is that someone was shot. The other issues contribute to the case.

I wish people would understand that the load, appearance, etc. become part of the narrative and are not causal to the charges.

 

[nofendertom]

You just know the Prosecutor will say to the jury of uninitiated soccer moms---That he refused to use factory ammo, not even what the police use, he had to make his
own more powerful ammo, more deadly...etc.

 

[Rule3]

My goodness, this is no longer reloading it is just a rehash over and over of the Hand-loads vs factory for SD.

Just go to the sticky thread and be done with it.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...f-handloads-in-self-defense-shootings.821474/

 

[higgite]

My goodness, this is no longer reloading it is just a rehash over and over of the Hand-loads vs factory for SD.

Just go to the sticky thread and be done with it.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...f-handloads-in-self-defense-shootings.821474/

See post #12 in this thread.

 

[Millamber457]

question ? isn't self defense ammo intended to stop the threat/kill them, does it really matter ? I use zombie brand extermination ammo ... thats kinda being blatant about it . Where with out premium bullets hand loaded can be claimed target ammo

 

[Insignificant bill]

The purpose is to stop the threat. Shoot to wound is a fallacy that a good attorney will get across. Use whatever ammo you think will protect you.

 

[Rule3]

See post #12 in this thread.

I did and gave you a like, now you have two!

 

[Horskinator]

I have this thought.... How would they know it was a reload?

5th Amendment says I do not have to say it is or is not a reload. It is their job to prove that moot fact and the costs to do so would be high and not worth it if a firearm was used in a self defense situation.

If they are going after the ammo as opposed to the result of the use of a firearm there are bigger problems. When my firearm comes out it is the last resort and my mission is to eliminate the threat that would be committing an offense as allowed by law.

 

[labnoti]

As I understand it, the supposed legal advantage of factory ammo is in a case where you shoot someone who was threatening at a close distance. You want to claim that they were at "three feet." The prosecution is asserting they were fifteen feet away and therefore somehow not a threat. Your defense team uses gunshot residue as evidence that they were in fact about three feet away. Your defense team claims you used "Winchester Super X" ammo and can call an expert witness to testify about the GSR pattern of this ammo at 3 feet versus 15 feet. On the other hand, 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. To me, it seems far fetched, but the "what if brigade" will always say its the stakes not the odds.

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. If they can show that you own reloading equipment and/or possess the knowledge, your claim to using factory ammo without any proof is just as dubious as your claimed handload specifications would be. You are better off making your argument based on the practical limitations of the cartridge, irrespective of the load specifications. For example, .380ACP isn't going to produce powder burns at 7 yards no matter how you handload it. If your claims aren't so specific that you need a particular factory recipe to validate them, then your claims will be believable. If your claims are so specific that you need that one and only factory cartridge to validate them, then you better also have proof this is the only cartridge you could have used.

 

[MikeInOr]

I can easily afford to practice with the 9mm and .45 acp Gold dots I reload and pretty much always clear the magazine (fire off the magazine loaded with my carry Gold dot reloads) before continuing to practice with even less expensive FMJ or plated reloads. I couldn't afford to put so much "Defense ammo" at the .50 - $1 each the factories want for their fancy ammo. In this way I know my carry ammo (my reloads) function perfectly with MY carry weapon every time I go to the range.

Bottom line: I think that my reloads are better than factory self defense ammo, for me at least.

The only thing I really do different for my carry reloads v.s. plinking reloads is I plunk test each carry round in a case gauge. Carry reloads = Got dots plunk tested. Plinking ammo = FMJ or Plated not plunk tested.


Anyone that is so worried about carrying reloads the answer is simple - your likelyhood of being prosecuted for shooting someone in self defense will be eliminated if you don't carry anything at all! Problem solved!

 

[jmorris]

I look at it like this, the guns I shoot most are with my reloads, so most guns ai have are loaded with reloads (some one couldn’t buy factory ammunition for it they wanted to). So, if I needed a firearm to save my or a loved ones life, would I find a different tool to help me do so or would I unload a firearm and then try to find some factory ammunition to put in it before proceeding to save lives?

I am sure there are folks that would answer that question differently than I do and that’s OK, for them.

 

[GEM]

I've shot enough quality factory SD ammo to be reasonably sure they work. I've seen lots of folks reloads go belly up at matches. My SD guns when put into SD mode have factory. The idea that I have to reload in an oncoming gun fight is silly. Only at a match or the range is the gun loaded with target ammo.

But as I said this is the same old argument:

1. My reloads are better than factory
2. My shoot will be good so ammo won't be a factor
3. If I go to court, the jurors won't be swayed by any discussion of my ammo or technical issues with GSR, etc.

On, and on and on.

 

[labnoti]

If you don't care for the arguments favoring handloads, do you have an argument defending the use of factory ammo? I made the assertion, "If your [defense team's] claims are so specific that you need that one and only factory cartridge to validate them, then you better also have proof this is the only cartridge you could have used." What advantage do you have carrying factory ammo without the ability to prove in court it is what you claim it to be?