Choosing carry ammo based on what police carry?

[Bacchus]

I recently took a CCW class where the instructors emphasized using the same round that the local police department uses--their logic being that the choice would be easy to defend if a CCW holder used his/her weapon and ended up in court.

Anyone else heard of this before?

How would you find out what ammo the local PD carries--call them directly and ask?

 

[Smoke]

I don't base any decision concerning guns, ammo choice or self defense on the local police.

1. If you saw our local PD you'd understand.
2. Different situation, LEO vs me.
3. Sometimes it's a matter of "Lowest bidder"
4. Many choose their own ammo.


There are numerous people that have researched the issue and in no case has the ammo used ever been brought up in trial. Its an internet issue.

Smoke

 

[Sleuth]

NO reason to use what the PD uses. If it is a justified shooting, the kind of ammo used does not matter. If it is an unjustified shooting, using a PD type gun and ammo will not help.

In a fight, I want every advantage on my side - best training, best gun, best ammo, best holster! (And please note the order I put those in!)

 

[Standing Wolf]

I wouldn't even consider what the local police are using, nor am I likely to turn to the local cops for fashion tips.

 

[444]

Yes, I have heard that argument made and I think it holds some water providing you are satisfied with the ammo chosen by the local PD. I personally wouldn't carry the ammo just because the local PD carries it, but if I liked the ammo and they local PD carried it, I would see that as a plus.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Bacchus, just how many cases did your instructor cite to you where using the same ammo as the local PD made a difference? None is my guess as it is a gun myth.

Why do you have to defend the gun or ammo in court used in a shooting if you are a law abiding ccw person? It isn't the gun or the ammo that is going to cause you harm. What is going to cause you harm in court is if you shot somebody when you did not have the legal right to do so.

Smoke is right, police don't always use the best ammo. I know of two department that actually use powered down or less penetrative ammo. In one case, it is with the handguns. They want all the cops in the department to be able to handle the issued ammo. How is that for stupid reasoning? In the other case, the SWAT team uses 40 gr. .223 round ballistic tip rounds. Their idea is that such a round is NOT likely to over penetrate walls and harm non-combatants on the other side. They know of and are aware that the rounds don't penetrate people very far but don't have a lot of concern as they work as a team with lots of shooters and in full armor.

Ask yourself if you really want the same ammo as the local cops. The wants, needs, and decision making process that went into purchasing ammo for your local police department probably are not the same wants, needs, and decision making process that you will make. Police depts may choose ammo based on potential liability concerns and not so much about how well the ammo will stop suspects. There is a big chance that the ammo selected came from the lowest bidder that could deliver ammo to the specifications of the department. Also, cops tend to have much more and immediate help available. If you are involved in a shooting and are calling (or having someone call) 911 during the battle, the police may come relatively quickly, maybe not. If a cop is involved in a battle and radios in that an officer needs assistance, depending on the department, number of officers, and location, then the call may literally be answered by every available LEO for miles.

Say you do decide to go with the ammo the LEOs use. What LEOs are you going to mimick? Will it be the PD for the town you are in, the county sheriff's office, constable, dog catcher, the PD of a nearby major city, state police, game warden, FBI, Treasury Department, DEA, INS, or some other group listed under Homeland Security? How would you go about justifying that you went with the ammo of one LEO group over another if that were a court issue? After all, they don't all use the same ammo, guns, etc. So you see, picking the same ammo as some LEOs isn't any sort of safeguard against prosecution. That is all just garbage.

So let's say you state in court, or your lawyer somehow makes it known for the court that you use the same ammo as the local cops. Then the opposition could turn the statement around and direct his lines of inquiry and rationalization that obviously a man such as yourself who takes the time to learn what the cops are using and uses the same deadly bullets that you obviously are some sort of cop wannabe who dished out your own vigilante justice.

This last scenario is pretty much as stupid as the original notion that you should use the same ammo as the local cops. They are both based on the same sorts of logical, just from opposite ends of the data manipulation continuum. Either they are both justified or they are both not justified.

There is nothing wrong with using the same guns, ammo, or other gear as the local cops so long as you are making decisions about those items in regard to how they fit your situation as Bacchus the CCW guy. Hey, it may be that you are fortunate and your local PD chooses the best performing ammo out of the most reliable and accurate guns. If that is the case, then following their lead might be a really good idea, but not because of how it will turn out in court.

 

[orangeninja]

The only way that would work is if...

...you were a police officer and got into a shooting off duty using a similar make and model of the gun you train with on duty. That would demonstrate a consistancy and adequate proficiency to most in a jury. Ammo type that you carry on and off duty most likely wouldn't come up....but if it did...pass that buck onto the dept.....albiet, you're fired.

 

[444]

Well as I understood their reasoning, it was just one less problem you might encounter. I would imgaine that this argument or the argument about using handloaded ammunition are the result of someone sitting down and trying to think of any argument that could be used against them in court. Appearently one thing they came up with was the idea that someone might try to say that you were purposely using some kind of super ammo and because of this super ammo a person is now dead. Trying to explain ballistics, powders, bullets, velocties etc. would be a waste of your time. In fact, if you buy into this to begin with, it might hurt you since you carefully planned what ammo you were going to use, implying that this was all but premeditated. Well, if this ever did come up, you could say that you chose your ammo based on what the local police department uses.
Whether or not this has ever actually come up in a real court case, I don't know. How would I know ? And, I don't really care. Because, if it only came up once in history and it came up at my trial, I would like to have all my ducks in a row. Most experts on the subject agree that shooting someone in self defense is a legal nightmare, whether or not it was justified mainly due to the civil trial. This is why you have to defend the gun or ammo in court used in a shooting if you are a law abiding ccw person. If the shooting is justified, you don't have to worry about the criminal end of things, but you probably will have to deal with the civil trial sure to follow.

Again, as I stated before, I wouldn't buy a particular brand of ammo JUST because the local PD used it. But if I happened to like that brand of ammo, I would consider it a plus if they did.
Personally, I think most of this ammo stuff is hype. In real use, against real humans, I think you would be hard pressed to find a difference in it.

 

[JohnKSa]

Sounds reasonable. As Double-Naught-Spy pointed out, you have a lot of local law-enforcement agencies in a typical area--you could canvas them and pick the one you liked best.

If you don't like any of the choices, then I wouldn't worry too much about picking something else. It's not all that likely to come up at a trial, IMO.

 

[Ala Dan]

In most cases, the ammo that we were issued
Winchester-Western "Black Talons" is no longer
available to the general public; except at high dollar
"black market" prices.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Bacchus]

Very interesting points by all.


444's got it right, with the idea being that the ammo choice would be easy to justify--if it's right for them, it's right for me, too.

But it appears that the PDs may not put their ammo through vigorous testing and or that the ammo may not even be available to the public, so it's probably a moot point anyway.

 

[Diggler]

Do you think that the LEOs that use the Winchester Ranger SXT's have made a good choice? The expansion on those just look NASTY.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All-

Diggler- as far as "choices" go, the average
patrol officer through rank and file has little or no control
over the ammo they are issued. In Alabama, purchases
of ammunition in large quanities requires the department
to follow whats called "the state bid law". And most govt'
types are trying to save the almighty dollar! Case in point,
what you and I think is best in order to save our bacon;
may not be the same as what city hall sees?

As an example, every year our department passed out a
bid sheet to all suppliers. In October of each year, the
city would go over all proposals; and finally settle on what
they deemed the least expensive. Some times we were
issued W-W "Black Talons", other times we received a lot
of Federal "Hydra-Shok's, etc. When I left the department
in May of 97, they had progressed to issuing Speer "Gold
Dot's". In talking with fellow LEO's on duty and in the
street's; that is a trend that they hope the city will continue.

With that said, in my experience the W-W Ranger SXT ranks
in the class of excellent performers. I'm not allowed to discuss
actual police shooting's; but I did witness one whereas a
9m/m 147 grain Ranger SXT penterated a perps skull, near
the base of his neck and it separated his head into two
halves!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Sean Smith]

Use cop ammo, and you will be portrayed as a cop wannabe vigilante.

Any choice you make can, in theory, be turned against you. There also happens to be NO evidence that the choice of gun OR ammunition ever influenced the outcome of a trial concerning an otherwise justified self-defense shooting.

 

[buzz_knox]

There also happens to be NO evidence that the choice of gun OR ammunition ever influenced the outcome of a trial concerning an otherwise justified self-defense shooting.

Given that juries are not required to explain their findings, it is impossible to extrapolate from this statement and others like it, including the absence of case law, that choice of gun or ammunition may not influence an outcome.

 

[sm]

Good points made by all.
I used to assist with CCW with a fella that advocated using cop ammo, JHP ammo and never using reloads, some years ago.

More recent assisting with another group that has also closed down and closed the private range the cop ammo was not implied, however using JHP and Never reloads were touted.

Me...gun has to be reliable with ammo for said gun. POA/POI is important as well. Find what works for you and your gun.

I kept my opinions to myself while on "his" time...in private I expressed my thoughts and suggested the person research for themselves. Instructors sometimes ...well CYA coes to mind.

Lowest bidder, liability, good old boy machine...
Not a fan of the .40, but we had two LEO with the HK have stuck cases we had to unstick while they were practicing for re-qual's. I swear the "armorer required trigger job approved by dept" had to be 16 #'s ....they couldn't shoot worth a flip. Now we let them shoot 1911 styles and BHPs...walla! Eyes opened and the heavens parted...they HAVE to carry the issued firearm...have since change to 1911 platform for personal / HD use.

Many LEO that "have to but don't like - don't recommend or suggest" dictates of dept. policy for a reason. IMO

 

[Sleuth]

Double-naught - nice post. Covers all the bases.

I have killed in the line of duty. The type of equipment used never came up in the civil suit. Choose ammo that will be best for your circumstances, and foget about what the cops carry.

 

[Sean Smith]

buzz_knox,

The people offering the theory are the ones that have the obligation to provide evidence to back their claims up. Nobody is asking for absolute proof, just ANY evidence at all in support of their position. Somebody can't provide nothing more than idle speculation without evidence and expect to be taken seriously by anybody with a brain.

Can anybody even cite a case where the brand of ammunition used in an apparent self-defense shooting was even discussed by the prosecution?

 

[Brigrat]

The answer is:

Nobody really knows, because its never came up in court. Maybe it is a good idea, maybe it isn't. Massad Ayoob (sp) is one of the individuals pushing this theory, and it does get some support from others in the industry. But in the long run, this is a very small part of the things that are considered before deciding to prosecute you. If you have your ducks in a row before you get in a deadly force situation, then your ammo choice really shouldn't matter. Study what works well, buy a lot of what you choose, practice regularly, understand the laws in your area, and don't worry about the small stuff like what a particular Dept. uses. Some dept.'s make good choices when it comes to ammo, some don't. It's your call!

 

[444]

The problem isn't whether or not it has ever been brought up before, the problem is that it could be brought up. It is just one more thing that could cast some doubt; just like anything you did or said.

I am not a lawyer and I would appreciate it if anyone that is chime in to correct me, but this is the story I have gotten from a shooting school in regard to civil lawsuits following a defensive shooting:

A lawyer sees that a defensive shooting has taken place. He researches the people involved. He looks at all your assets including future wages. Using myself as an example, I own a house, a new pickup, have some money put away for retirement, and have at least 10 more years to work, but I could work for 20. Add all that up and my "assets" run into the millons. So the lawyer finds some relative of the guy that got shot. It might be an ex wife or an illegitimate child neither of which has seen this guy in 20 years; it doesn't matter. He approaches them and says he wants to sue the shooter on their behalf and the guy is worth millions. They don't have to pay anything, but if they win, they could get a substantial amount of money. Obviously they agree to go along with it. So, you have to hire an attorney to defend yourself. Your attorney advises you to settle out of court. You are in the right, you were justified, but the legal fees alone would be more than what you might be able to settle for out of court. And if it goes to court you always run the risk of a sympathetic jury. They look at your "assets" and see that you are worth millions. If they award a $500,000 judgement against you, you won't miss it, afterall, you are a millionaire. So, you end up agreeing to pay $100,000 or $50,000 or whatever just to avoid the legal fees that might be that much alone.
Now if it actually went to court, again, the jury might look at it and say, yeah he was right in shooting the guy. The guy shouldn't have been in his house (or whatever), and he was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by the police. But, this isn't your normal guy. This guy owned guns and was using this state of the art ammo. He was looking for trouble. So, I am going to vote to award a sizable amount of money.......................................
Keep in mind as you work your way through this, that you don't actually have millions. You might even be having trouble paying your bills. But, if you make 50k/year and can work another 20 years, that is a million. In a decent sized city, owning a home worth 250k isn't anything to brag about and it wouldn't be out of the question for family with two incomes to have a house worth 500k. Especially if you live somewhere where real estate prices are rapidly rising. Here where I live, you can buy a tract home in the first phase and by the last phase you might have made 50k if you could sell the house. Even a single wage earner family that has bought and sold a few houses over the years and made some money on each one might easily own a 500k house. You might have some money set aside for the kid's college tuituion, life insurance policies, retirement account, cars, boats, whatever. On paper, if you were able to liqidate everything all at once for as much as the market would bare, you are worth millions. This can't really be done, but this isn't about reality. The lawyer knows he isn't going to get millions from you, it just sounds good on paper. But, if he can get you to settle out of court, he stands to make a pretty decent chunk of money for doing very little.

"Nobody really knows, because its never came up in court."
How do you know it hasn't ?

 

[Sean Smith]

The problem isn't whether or not it has ever been brought up before, the problem is that it could be brought up.

Well, no kidding. ANYTHING could be brought up. That "argument" could be used to support any position at all. So it proves exactly... NOTHING.

So does anybody have ANY actual evidence to support this point of view, or not?

 

[cratz2]

I've heard that... If I'm not mistaken, I might have even read it in a Mas Ayoob article at one point. The idea being that if you did have to use your gun against a human threat, you would be less likely to be painted as a horrible maimer that used the meanest, cruelest bullets available.
The question that leads me to is... if they issue LEO-only Rangers in my area would it be better "or more PC-friendly' to carry the same ammo or would I be painted as a Rambo type that carried ammo that isn't intended to be used by us mere mortal civilians?

Either way, I don't really worry about that too much.

 

[El Tejon]

Don't make me come up in here with a big, ol' can of "it depends."

Bac, yes, that is one school of thought. However, the more important consideration, at least to this tilecrawler, is "WHY" you choose a certain ammunition.

He's a little something I picked up in my LEO daze, write this down: THE JURY ALWAYS WANTS TO KNOW WHY. Be ready to present a logical, reasonable answer to: why did you have a gun? Why did you go in there? Why did you shoot him? Why did you use that pistol or that ammo.

Prepare for Problem #2 just as you train for Problem #1. Prepare to explain your actions and your selection of gear.

[scene: Superior Court XL II, THRland, the honorable El Tejon presiding]

Madam Persecutor: "You vile, eeevil gun nut. How dare you shoot poor little Cledus "Ra-Ra" Lee Longstreet Lee. Why did you use such eeevil ammunition of death."

THR Defendant in the dock: "Well, ummm, it's what the cops carry, I guess."

Persecutor: "So, you're a Batman, huh? Trigger happy cowboy in a silly hat and pointy elf shoes? I'll bet you went to gunfighter school to learn how to kill women and minorities faster and more brutually? Isn't it true you're a mad dog killer and selected the most eeevil bullet you could find?"

THR Defendant: "No, ma'am, I based this choice on several factors that I learned about in my safety classes. The first factor being safety. I choose a hollowpoint as it is more likely to be contained in the threat, like Mr. Lee, and reduce the chance of injury to bystanders. As well, hollowpoints are less likely to ricochet and hurt bystanders. Thus, out of concern for others I chose this ammunition. . . .[und so weiter]"

Hon. El Tejon, Judge: [bangs gavel] "Alright, I've heard enough. Judgment for Mr. THR based on insufficient evidence. I'll see the hot looking newsbabe in my chambers. Bailiff, go light the candles and put on the Norah Jones album."

 

[Mil Novecientos Once]

Last summer I asked a couple a cops what was their duty ammo. They just didn't know. One of them took one bullet from a spare mag and stared at it for a couple of seconds, then said: "err......take a look, it says Fiocchi 9mm":banghead: The other cop realized that he had Hydra-Shocks.

BTW the first cop is from my hood and we are high school classmates. Nowadays he is shooting IPSC and became a gun nut.

 

[WYO]

CCW courses are designed to be taught to a wide spectrum of people whose only common thread is that they want a permit to carry a concealed firearm. The types who frequent these forums spend tons of bandwith debating caliber and ballistics, and there still is never a consensus on this type of stuff. I don't think it's a bad thing thing for an instructor with a limited amount of instruction time to suggest that people consider carrying what the local PD carries. It certainly beats alternatives, such as (a) recommending going to Wal Mart and buying the cheapest stuff you can find; (b) spewing a bunch of gunspeak that the non-expert cannot comprehend; (c) making a suggestion based solely on the instructor's personal preference; (d) recommending that the person go into some exhaustive research project, etc.

Also, while I'm sure there are price considerations that affect some PD purchasing decisions, PDs generally are worried about the same things the CCW people are concerned about, performance, liability, and the ability of the "average" officer to use the common ammo.

So, while I agree with El Tejon that "it depends," there certainly is some logic to it.