Defensive Ammo: Roll your own, or factory?

[ljnowell]

AS USUAL AND IN TYPICAL FASHION THESE THREADS ALWAYS END POORLY!

I feel a lock being closed fairly soon on this one...

Yeah go figure. It seems according to some no one should ever bother carrying a gun, it's just too risky.

 

[CoalTrain49]

If the shooting was defensive in nature it shouldn't be any different than using one of your custom built knifes to defend yourself. The onus is not on you to prove that you didn't load that ammo specifically to shoot someone, the onus is on the prosecution or the one who is making that assertion. If reloads is all you ever shoot then I think that would be darn near impossible to prove.

I don't give it a second thought. I load my own SD ammo.

 

[herrwalther]

I use factory ammo. I believe there is some credence to using factory to protect against an overzealous prosecution, even though there have been no cases to show handloaded ammunition was made an issue.

Second reason is I only handload rifles right now. Haven't gotten into pistol calibers yet.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I only shoot my hand loads (as does my Wife) now for range or SD - we always shoot and practice with exactly what we carry. I trained with cops and local attorneys...the local county prosecutor was a student of mine at one time.

I'm not worried that if I have to use my gun in SD it'll go badly because I build my own ammo. I may be naive but none of the cops or prosecutors I have ever discussed this with indicated that it would likely be a factor. Of course a victims family may make an issue of it (sue me) but this is simply something we'll have to deal with if we defend our lives using lethal force. I'm gonna get sued...I'm already over that.

I'll use my own for SD and take the risks others think I may be incurring. It's an informed choice.

VooDoo

 

[emptybrass]

So, I just got back from the range and startEd reading this thread. I have been reloading for only a year and have less than a couple of thousand rounds under my belt. I carried my 380 to the range today which is my CC carry and used reloads and factory rounds. I had an unusual grouping on one target and called the range officer over because he has been reloading for over 20 years. When I asked him had he ever seen groups where the reloads were very tight and the factory rounds were all over the place, he said yes and that is the reason he only carries his reloads for SD. I will start working up some Hornady hollow points during my next reloading session. My lesson learned for the day is that it does not matter what happens in the court room if I miss.

 

[bluetopper]

A justified shooting is a justified shooting.

 

[Sam1911]

A justified shooting is a justified shooting.

Well, that's circularly true, however, there is NO such thing as a "justified" shooting until the District Attorney and/or a jury say it is.

This whole discussion centers around giving yourself the best chance that they will do so.

 

[buck460XVR]

AS USUAL AND IN TYPICAL FASHION THESE THREADS ALWAYS END POORLY!

I feel a lock being closed fairly soon on this one...

Which is too bad. Threads like this do help to educate and much of the info if presented correctly, may help those without a opinion already. The question comes down to, do you think that handloaded ammo will turn a real case of SD into a murder charge any more than a trigger job, custom firearm, hours of range practice, tactical training or the use of factory ammo and laser sights that are constantly advertised to be BG killers in most common firearm mags?

The reason these threads get closed is because some folks have closed minds. Their way/opinion is the only correct way/opinion and those that think differently are then called some derogatory names or belittled. No different than many other threads/subjects here. If folks can acknowledge that other folks are entitled to their own opinion and that choice and opinion has no influence on others, than these threads could possibly continue to be a source of info without being closed. Pretty simple.

 

[OneSevenDeuce]

Indeed. In dealing with hypothetical situations, especially considering there is so little precedent here, opinions can take on the appearance of dogma. I can tell everyone this, however. I certainly have learned a lot I wouldn't otherwise know, thanks to a couple specific members.

 

[Spats McGee]

A justified shooting is a justified shooting.

Actually, a more accurate statement would be that "a justified shooting is a justified shooting after the police, prosecutors, and perhaps a judge and jury have decided that it's a justified shooting." While I'm sure we all want to be on the side of the angels, a person who shoots another does not get to decide if said shooting was justified.

. . . .I'll use my own for SD and take the risks others think I may be incurring. It's an informed choice.

I don't presume to speak for the other posters, but that's all I'm trying to achieve by participating in this thread: to make sure that those who read the thread are given a reasonably accurate picture of the issues involved in using handloads. If one chooses to carry handloads after gaining some understanding of the issues, that's their call to make.

. . . . The question comes down to, do you think that handloaded ammo will turn a real case of SD into a murder charge any more than a trigger job, custom firearm, hours of range practice, tactical training or the use of factory ammo and laser sights that are constantly advertised to be BG killers in most common firearm mags?

Actually, from the legal perspective, these present a variety of different issues and legal pitfalls. I view them this way:

• handloads -- evidence issue (see above)
• trigger job -- not so much a SD issue, but could be an issue in a potential negligence case
• custom firearm -- depends on how it's customized (Punisher grips = image problem; Night sights -- I don't see a problem)
• hours of range practice -- in theory, could be a "wannabe cop" argument used to sway the jury, but I don't see that one as holding too much water
• tactical training -- see "hours of range practice" above
• laser sights -- Off the top of my head, I don't see a problem

We all have to make risk/reward assessments in life. All of us who carry firearms have, at some level, made a determination that the reward (potentially increased safety) outweigh the risks (having to shoot someone, possibly being prosecuted or sued, and the various hassles that go with carrying). Otherwise, we wouldn't carry. Unfortunately, when it comes down to handloads, very few folks really understand the legal risks or how to mitigate them.

For what it's worth, which is next to nothing, I don't handload, but that's because I don't have a place to set up a handloading bench. When I get a place, I have every intention of handloading. (I've been saving my brass for a couple of years now.) My plan: work up a load that mimics the performance of my chosen carry load, and practice with that. I still want to be able to subpoena a neutral third party to testify as to the components used in my carry load, should the need ever arise.

 

[Potatohead]

This done drifted into the legal forum. I need to get our lawyer to interpret.

 

[buck460XVR]

.

If one chooses to carry handloads after gaining some understanding of the issues, that's their call to make.

Exactly...and their choice should not justify nor contradict the validity of the choice made by others. One needs to make the correct choice for them. Folks need to realize that choice, if different than their own, does not make their choice wrong.

.
Actually, from the legal perspective, these present a variety of different issues and legal pitfalls. I view them this way:

• handloads -- evidence issue (see above)
• trigger job -- not so much a SD issue, but could be an issue in a potential negligence case
• custom firearm -- depends on how it's customized (Punisher grips = image problem; Night sights -- I don't see a problem)
  [*]hours of range practice -- in theory, could be a "wannabe cop" argument used to sway the jury, but I don't see that one as holding too much water
• tactical training -- see "hours of range practice" above
• laser sights -- Off the top of my head, I don't see a problem

I doubt that any of those examples I gave would influence a decision of a good shoot, just as with the use of handloads. As for the example in red, seems this was the prosecution's main assertion in the most highly publicized SD case in history and was shown, not to hold water with a jury.

 

[Spats McGee]

If one chooses to carry handloads after gaining some understanding of the issues, that's their call to make.

Exactly...and their choice should not justify nor contradict the validity of the choice made by others. One needs to make the correct choice for them. Folks need to realize that choice, if different than their own, does not make their choice wrong.

The problem, though, is that I see a great number of folks arguing to support their particular choice when it's obvious that they don't really understand the issues involved. While some may consider this "just a matter of opinion," I'd suggest that not all opinions are equal. I'm not disparaging anyone else's opinion or choices in this matter by saying that. I am saying that this isn't "a matter of opinion" in the same way the choice of what color to paint the living room is. I don't tell my mechanic how to fix my transmission, and he doesn't tell me how to write a federal motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

I don't much care whether anyone else carries handloads or factory loads. I won't be the one to have to defend someone else's choice, either as a defendant or their counsel.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Exactly...and their choice should not justify nor contradict the validity of the choice made by others. One needs to make the correct choice for them. Folks need to realize that choice, if different than their own, does not make their choice wrong.

Well said and thank you.

One of the reasons I hang out online here at THR is to gather perspective and information about such things so I *can* make in informed choice. Drives me *NuTs* when some folks get their hackles up trying to convince me that there is only one way to see or do anything and do it properly or correctly. I like discussion and options.

That said, I am assuming that folks who have made the choice to arm themselves and have bought the training and the gun and the holster and the CCL and the ammunition have also considered the legalities of their choices if they should have to use that weapon to defend their lives. We live in a litigation based society and someone sues someone all the time. As others have pointed out a life or death situation that results in a shooting can take place in seconds....police, prosecutors, attorneys, and a judge and jury can take months to decide if the shooting is justified and everything you can do to protect yourself from the implications of impropriety may save you from an unjust conviction of the use of deadly force after the smoke has cleared. What may seem to be a justifiable shooting in that instant may not look at all like a justifiable event 2 weeks later to an impartial person who has an agenda and was not there at that moment but smells or perceives that you might have screwed up and they can spank you for it.

I always assumed that folks who carry concealed have thought about this in depth and have an attorney who is experienced and willing to take one's case and defend the defendant in a competent manner. It's not enough to have the gun in my world or the will and skill to use it justifiably. We should be making active choices/informed choices about what's gonna happen if we have to pull the trigger. It's possible, no matter how probable, that folks after the fact will have the opportunity to scrutinize not only our ammunition but all the mods we may have made to our weapons, our holsters and peripheral gear, motives, training, opportunities and all that stuff. After the fact. I'm not trying to instill paranoia. I'm saying I have spent hours - days cumulatively - examining the possibilities and facts. I have made an informed choice based on discussion of the risks with my personal attorney, police officers including Sheriffs and deputies, and even prosecutors as well as other knowledgeable folks such as congregate at THR.

My only advice is to spend a bunch of time thinking about what you are doing, why you are carrying, and be at peace with the choices in all your gear, tactics, strategies, training and the counsel you have received.

VooDoo

 

[buck460XVR]

The problem, though, is that I see a great number of folks arguing to support their particular choice when it's obvious that they don't really understand the issues involved. While some may consider this "just a matter of opinion," I'd suggest that not all opinions are equal.

This is what many folks here suggest. That other's opinions do not have the same merit that theirs do. i.e.....me right, you wrong. Or, your opinion does not have the same merit as mine because it's obvious I know more than you. Any conclusion not based on fact or proof, is just an opinion or theory. When it comes to the use of handloads changing the outcome of a SD verdict, there is no proof, one way or the other. None. Nowhere. Unlike transmission problems. While the mechanic may have better knowledge than you on the cause of the failure in your transmission, odds are, you still know what vehicle is best for you and your family, based on your families needs and preferences. Just because the mechanic knows how to fix your transmission, doesn't make him a better or safer driver than you either. As a home builder I can suggest to customers what to use in their home. In the end, they still get what they want and it makes them happier, more comfortable and generally just as safe. I believe at some point the judicial system whether on a state of federal level, will address this "grey" area of handloads and SD/HD.


I always enjoy these types of discussions as they do inform. BTDT with handloads vs factory for SD/HD threads many a time. For the most part tho, over a period of decades, the arguments for and against have not changed one eyota, nor has any concrete evidence for or against been presented. Kinda like the chicken vs the egg thingy.

For those interested, here's a link to a study given on another forum as to how juries may react to the use of different firearms and the relationship they have to whether a shoot is justified or not.
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/MeyerTJESep2009Volume21No5.pdf

 

[Spats McGee]

The problem, though, is that I see a great number of folks arguing to support their particular choice when it's obvious that they don't really understand the issues involved. While some may consider this "just a matter of opinion," I'd suggest that not all opinions are equal.

This is what many folks here suggest. That other's opinions do not have the same merit that theirs do. i.e.....me right, you wrong. Or, your opinion does not have the same merit as mine because it's obvious I know more than you. Any conclusion not based on fact or proof, is just an opinion or theory.

In some cases, it might be "just an opinion or theory." In others, it's an "opinion or theory" based on many years of experience in that particular field. IOW, some of those "opinions or theories" are educated opinions and theories, and some are not.

When it comes to the use of handloads changing the outcome of a SD verdict, there is no proof, one way or the other. None. Nowhere.

Wrong. For starters, there are the rules of evidence and the body of caselaw that surrounds them. Then there's the Daniel Bias case, which is relevant.

. . . .I believe at some point the judicial system whether on a state of federal level, will address this "grey" area of handloads and SD/HD.

It probably will, and maybe it even has, in some unreported case. I, however, do not care to be the test case.

 

[Sam1911]

Wrong. For starters, there are the rules of evidence and the body of caselaw that surrounds them. Then there's the Daniel Bias case, which is relevant.

I think it would be fair to say, however, that when all the details are finally understood, when the common knowledge fallacies about this issue are laid aside and the actual nugget of meat is observed (as illustrated, at least in a tangential, suggestive way, by the Bias case, which did not offer an definitive "answer" to these questions, by any stretch) the point becomes such a fine and unwonted one that it is not unreasonable to determine that any number of other factors shall be considered of greater weight when making choices.

. . . .I believe at some point the judicial system whether on a state of federal level, will address this "grey" area of handloads and SD/HD.

It probably will, and maybe it even has, in some unreported case. I, however, do not care to be the test case.

I'm not sure how the courts could rule "on the handloads issue" in a broad way except as has been suggested before, by eliminating the idea of GSR as admissible and illustrative in court, due to its perceived deficiencies as a concrete, conclusive, and incorruptible medium of evidence.

 

[41 Mag]

Right, wrong, or indifferent, "IF" I am pressed into defending my family, friends, or anyone else for that matter, the situation is already not looking good.

In that situation, I am not going to stop and think, "oh me, oh my, did I put the factory or handloaded ammo in the gun".

Preaching about what is going to happen if you use this or that or the other round in a SD situation is like saying, "hey if you fill your gas tank up before you go on a road trip, your likely to die a fiery death when you get rear ended in the traffic leaving town. Of course if your driving a Pinto, well your odds go up substantially.

As the old adage goes, "IF" you pull the trigger, your automatically looking at $100K right off the bat. If not in attorney fees to get yourself out of jail, to defend you from the wrongful death suit that will surely be following along shortly.

Personally, in a situation where I am "FORCED" to defend myself, it will be with handloads only. I do not, and have not purchased factory ammo for much of anything in over a decade, and don't plan on starting. I have used enough of my own handloads in hunting with all of my handguns that I am VERY respectful and confident of what the outcome will be on the receiving end, if I am fortunate enough to prevail.

The thing is, and something that is usually not discussed in all of this, is in most situations the fellow who intends to do you or your loved ones harm, already knows what he/she is going to do. The best you can usually hope for is to be able to actually be able to defend yourself.

I have been robbed at gunpoint. Fellow walking across a street, broad daylight, in a crosswalk, simply veered right over to my car window. As I watched the approaching traffic to make a left turn, he shoves a revolver right in my cheek and says give me your wallet. From the outside looking in, he was simply leaning over talking to me as I sat at a stop sign, from the inside looking out, nothing but muzzle from my perspective.

I more or less cut my teeth on handloading, and have been at it for over 40years. Not but a youngun compared to some here. That said I have studied the ballistics hard and heavy through the years and learned plenty enough about what it actually takes to make this thing do that. I cast my own bullets nowadays as well, and have found renewed interest in finding out what they can and will do in the hunting realm. In the short few years I have been doing this, I have more than enough confidence that anything I make with my own equipment will easily do anything I ever need to get done, IF I am forced to use it and IF I have the time needed to do so. At that point I will not be concerned about the aftermath, only being there to find out what happens. Some make it through, some don't, I'll worry about it then.

 

[Spats McGee]

Wrong. For starters, there are the rules of evidence and the body of caselaw that surrounds them. Then there's the Daniel Bias case, which is relevant.

I think it would be fair to say, however, that when all the details are finally understood, when the common knowledge fallacies about this issue are laid aside and the actual nugget of meat is observed (as illustrated, at least in a tangential, suggestive way, by the Bias case, which did not offer an definitive "answer" to these questions, by any stretch) the point becomes such a fine and unwonted one that it is not unreasonable to determine that any number of other factors shall be considered of greater weight when making choices.

It is indeed a very, very fine point, and I think it's fair to say that the odds of it making or breaking a case is so slim as to border on miniscule. Nonetheless, it exists. Given the odds of the GSR/handloads issue actually rearing its head, choosing handloads is not unreasonable, in and of itself. What I do think is unreasonable is simply declaring that "a good shoot is a good shoot," in the absence of actually understanding the problem.

I'll also be the first to admit that if one is faced with an axe-wielding maniac bent on doing the family harm, then one must first survive the situation, regardless of what kind of ammo is in the gun. "Handloads for SD" is an avoidable (potential) problem, though.

 

[Sam1911]

Certainly true!

 

[GLOOB]

Most people don't consider a gun reliable until they've fired at least 200 rounds. That's a lot of expense to try out a factory HP.

And once it's proven, you need to stock up because if they ever stop making it, you will need to start all over with new ammo.

And when the DA asks why you are using super lethal Black Talon rounds from the 80's, which have been "banned," then you will wish you were shooting cheap reloads.

I fully agree reloads MAY affect admissibility or the credibility of certain forensic evidence. But whether that is going to hurt or help your case is impossible to predict. Just as factory GSR or ballistics may help clear you, might it also not work against you?

 

[Dano86]

I carry factory loads in all of my SD firearms. I do not carry handloads mainly because I dont want to ever have to be up on the stand and have a defense attorney rip apart every choice you made in those hand loads from primer to bullet choice. (I deal with Defense attorneys a lot and some of the things they will try and get a Jury to believe is laughable, and unfortunately sometimes they are successful)

Plus none of my handloads have ever been tested by the FBI, therefore I will pay the $10 extra for factory loads that have passed the FBI's tests, been published, and someone else can explain why they used 3.6 gr of powder, rather than 3.5 gr, to an 85 year old Juror who has never been within 5 feet of a pistol.


but to each his own, just make sure you cover your 6 as best you can.

 

[grubbylabs]

I really hope this is open later when I get home as I have a question about how the case you all are referring has any thing at all to do with a self defense shooting. But typing on my phone is painful.

 

[Spats McGee]

I don't have time to answer all of the intervening posts, but . . . grubbylabs, the rules of evidence don't change with the type of case. They remain constant whether the case is an SD shooting, a car wreck, breach of contract, or what have you.

 

[grubbylabs]

Ok the Bias case was at its simplest, a case about the death of Mr Bias's wife. It could neither be proved to be an actual homicide or a suicide. The reason given for this is that GSR evidence to prove one way ore the other is subject due to Mr. Bias having the gun loaded with rounds containing random charges. As well as the local supply of ammo to that gun was also loaded with random charges, all of which seem to have been low charges.

Now when I read the case for the first time about a year ago I took from it that his main problem with his reloads was that the charge weights were inconsistent and the lab was unable to obtain a credible charge weight to base their GSR testing on. Thus he could not prove that she held the gun and the prosecution could not prove that he held the gun.

So if we all are using consistent charge weights (+\- .2 -.3 grains any way) a lab should be able to determine with some credibility GSR tests and information based on your hand loads.


Second, if most states have legislation preventing you from being subject to a law suit post a self defense shooting why are people still whining about that. If the authorities over the case decline to press charges and rule it a justified homicide the bad guys family, friends, or whoever else are going to have a hard time suing you for any thing. If the authorities over the case decide to press charges, you have much more to worry about then the welfare of your bank account.