Defensive Ammo: Roll your own, or factory?

[buck460XVR]

. 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.

If you read my statement, I said the outcome of a SD verdict. No one has ever been able to show any proof of a instance where handloaded ammo turned a good SD shoot into a murder trial. The Bias case had absolutely nuttin' to do with SD, so that makes it's relevance just another opinion. IMHO, the lack of GSR evidence didn't convict an innocent person as folks are claiming it will do to someone using handloads for SD, but kept a murderer from being convicted of that crime.

 

[Spats McGee]

. 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.

If you read my statement, I said the outcome of a SD verdict. No one has ever been able to show any proof of a instance where handloaded ammo turned a good SD shoot into a murder trial. The Bias case had absolutely nuttin' to do with SD, so that makes it's relevance just another opinion. IMHO, the lack of GSR evidence didn't convict an innocent person as folks are claiming it will do to someone using handloads for SD, but kept a murderer from being convicted of that crime.

This is what tells me that you do not understand the legal issues involved. The GSR/handloads issue is an evidentiary problem, governed by the rules of evidence. The rules of evidence are constant across different types of cases. They do not change based on the kind of case at bar. So it does not matter one whit whether the case was about homicide, suicide, drug charges, a car wreck, or a negligent discharge that hit somebody's grandmother's china cabinet. The rules governing the admissibility of the evidence remain the same.

. . . . . 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.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that your lab guy will get to testify. Remember, you're talking about having your expert testify as to conclusions, based in information created by, and provided to the expert by, the handloader, who may well be a defendant.

. . . .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.

Yes and no. First of all, not every state has that kind of civil protection. Second, for each state, you've got to look at the precise statutory language. For example, one state might require that a SD shooting "be found justified." Well, if the prosecutor never files charges, the plaintiff's attorney will argue that the shooting was never "found justified" by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

[buck460XVR]

This is what tells me that you do not understand the legal issues involved.

That's another opinion based on the theory, "my opinion is right because I obviously know more than you". The exact reason I stated in the beginning of this thread as to why these types of threads get closed.


I understand the legal issue and the point about the " evidentiary problem, governed by the rules of evidence. My point is it's never been an issue with a SD case. Simple. Should be easy for most folks to understand. You make the statement " 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." But in the next statement, " "Handloads for SD" is an avoidable (potential) problem, though.". Sounds very much like a politician.

My point today as it has been for years, is that because that risk is so small and miniscule, that I'll take than miniscule risk to use ammo I practice with everyday, ammo I know is accurate, will function well in my firearm, and ammo that will perform terminally the way I want. This opposed to the greater risk to myself and loved ones because I don't. The risk that I will die today in a car accident is much greater than the risk of being convicted of murder in a SD shoot because I use handloads. Still, I'm going to get in my car and drive. I obviously don't understand what I'm doing.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

For example, one state might require that a SD shooting "be found justified." Well, if the prosecutor never files charges, the plaintiff's attorney will argue that the shooting was never "found justified" by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Spats makes good sense on this you guys - know the laws in your jurisdiction and ask a competent attorney (pay a competent attorney to help you make these decisions) about your State. It's not a one size fits all decision.

The Police and the local prosecutor might decide that there is not sufficient justification to prosecute you and that in their opinion a shooter was justified in using deadly force, had the proper licensing and training, and all his ducks are in a row as far as they are concerned.....they have better fish to fry and a case load that makes them disinclined to pursue prosecuting the shooter.

However a civil court and a civil lawsuit by the victim or his family may view that or present that in a completely different light. It may not be as simple as "Well, they never arrested me or pressed any charges in the shooting so it's ruled as justified/SD" I'm not trying to make it complicated but it *is* complicated. This is a case (carrying "custom" modified personal protection pieces) where bumper sticker solutions are not appropriate. This decision and the mindset accompanying it will require a lot of thought and information.

Remember that I carry my hand loads for SD. But it's not a "I ain't skeered" kind of proposition. Bumper sticker bravado is not our friend in these decisions and I thank Spats and others for taking that tack.

VooDoo

 

[buck460XVR]

know the laws in your jurisdiction and ask a competent attorney (pay a competent attorney to help you make these decisions) about your State. It's not a one size fits all decision.


VooDoo

I agree. Carrying responsibly means more than just plunkin' down your money and gettin' your permit. You need to know the "stand your ground'' and "Castle Doctrine", laws in your state, not just what Billy-Bob posts on the internet. You need to know what to do and what to say if you ever need to use your carry piece. You travel with your carry piece outta your state, you need to research their laws also. You also need to accept the consequences of your actions, intentional or not, everytime you holster your carry piece. It is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. Regardless of the outcome and any court action taken after an SD shoot, your life will forever be changed, and odds are, not for the better.

 

[RussellC]

Spats makes good sense on this you guys - know the laws in your jurisdiction and ask a competent attorney (pay a competent attorney to help you make these decisions) about your State. It's not a one size fits all decision.

The Police and the local prosecutor might decide that there is not sufficient justification to prosecute you and that in their opinion a shooter was justified in using deadly force, had the proper licensing and training, and all his ducks are in a row as far as they are concerned.....they have better fish to fry and a case load that makes them disinclined to pursue prosecuting the shooter.

However a civil court and a civil lawsuit by the victim or his family may view that or present that in a completely different light. It may not be as simple as "Well, they never arrested me or pressed any charges in the shooting so it's ruled as justified/SD" I'm not trying to make it complicated but it *is* complicated. This is a case (carrying "custom" modified personal protection pieces) where bumper sticker solutions are not appropriate. This decision and the mindset accompanying it will require a lot of thought and information.

Remember that I carry my hand loads for SD. But it's not a "I ain't skeered" kind of proposition. Bumper sticker bravado is not our friend in these decisions and I thank Spats and others for taking that tack.

VooDoo

Bingo. I have both factory defense loads and hand rolled....I have some 115 grain Speer gold dots in 9mm that have 4.8 grains of HP-38....Hodgon shows recommended max of 5.1. It seems odd to me that someone would make much more hay from their use than they would the Hornady Critical Duty +P 135 grain ammo I also use, which has the disclaimer on the box "For Law Enforcement Use Only", or the .45 caliber Hornady 230 grain Critical Duty rounds in my .45 carry gun.

Who knows, many on a jury have no idea about bullets and having polled every jury I've ever argued in front of, win lose or mis-trial, I have found in many instances they came to their conclusions in the damndest of ways. Many times they miss the boat entirely. So, not only does this stuff vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even in the SAME jurisdiction with cases with very similar facts different results happen...yes you can appeal, (civil or criminal) but check with your local Attorneys how much that is going to cost you!

Russellc

 

[RussellC]

I agree. Carrying responsibly means more than just plunkin' down your money and gettin' your permit. You need to know the "stand your ground'' and "Castle Doctrine", laws in your state, not just what Billy-Bob posts on the internet. You need to know what to do and what to say if you ever need to use your carry piece. You travel with your carry piece outta your state, you need to research their laws also. You also need to accept the consequences of your actions, intentional or not, everytime you holster your carry piece. It is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. Regardless of the outcome and any court action taken after an SD shoot, your life will forever be changed, and odds are, not for the better.

Bingo #2!

Russellc

 

[RussellC]

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

This is a healthy opinion. You know the risks, thought about it, and realize the possible consequences. Mis reading of a statute and then assuming it will be uniformly applied to a misguided analogy is a recipe for disappointment. You however seem to realize this, have made a well thought through decision on what your course would be in a life or death situation, know there could be risks to it (which there always will be) and have made a decision base on it all. Bravo.

Russellc

 

[RussellC]

Whenever the issue of handloads/reloads comes up, almost invariably, issues related to other firearm modifications gets brought up. These are two (largely) unrelated issues. May none of us ever have to face a jury from the defendant's chair, but if any of us do, we won't be able to count on having 12 "gun people" sitting in the jury box. As Sam points out, member GEM has done pretty significant research on what effect weapon appearance has on juries. If I remember GEM's research correctly (& while I think I do, I will invite him to correct me), juries have either a negative reaction (or at least less of a positive reaction) to "evil looking weapons" like the AR, when compared to something blued-and-wood, even when the caliber is the same. (Think AR vs. Mini-14 Ranch Rifle). Another example might be comparing a basic, parkerized GI model 1911 to a 1911 with death's-head grips. The prosecutor (or plaintiff's attorney, in the civil case) may not need to say a thing about it. The jury will get to see the pistol and can draw its own conclusions. That's the same problem with ammo like "R.I.P. Ammo," from the makers of "D.R.T. . . . " Were I plaintiff's lawyer suing an alleged SD shooter, I could make some hay with a picture of that Extreme Shock ammo. I'd have a much harder time getting the jury riled up with something like Speer Gold Dots or Remington Golden Sabers.

That, however, is a distinctly different legal problem from handloads. The issue laid out above is one of jury perception. The handloads problem is an evidentiary one. If I'm ever in an SD shooting using handloads and subsequently charged or sued (God forbid), the jury may not ever get to hear the GSR expert that I would like to have testify on my behalf, because the basis for the expert's conclusions would have to be drawn from the defendant's (my) own reloading records.

Appellate cases. . . . The other aspect that seems to come up a lot in these discussions is the "show me the cases" argument. Mind you, given the Information Age in which we live, that's not an entirely unreasonble argument. However, IMNSHO, it partially rests on a flawed idea. Looking for a story reported on the internet is one thing, but if we're talking about finding reported cases that offer some guidance, it's important to understand a little bit about lawyers and the reporting system for cases. A large part of what we (lawyers) do is predictive in nature. Were I to get a case that is identical in every regards (save the parties' names) to a case already decided by SCOTUS, that case is a slam dunk, either for me or against me. That doesn't happen. The case presented to the lawyer will differ in some ways (some minor, some major) to the cases that are already out there. The lawyer's job is then to look at cases similar to "the one at bar" and then try to predict what will happen if the one on his desk goes to trial.

Now, when trying to make these predictions, we (again, lawyers) have to look at: (a) black-letter law (statutes, regulations, etc.); and (b) caselaw. The former is pretty self-explanatory. The latter, though, involves looking at the reported cases of precedential value. Not every case is prosecuted or tried. Of those, not ever case is appealed. Of those that are appealed, not every one results in a published decision. Of those that result in published opinions, not every one results in a discussion of the issues that I need discussed . . . .

With all of that said, if the only thing we need is an internet article on a case where ammo or handloads became an issue, googling Harold Fish or Daniel Bias ought to turn something up. OTOH, if what we're looking for is an appellate court decision that offers some guidance on whether the testimony of a GSR expert, working from the defendant's reloading records, is admissible in court, here's a brief outline of all the things that have to happen before we will be able to find it:

1. There has to be a shooting;
2. The shooter has to have used handloads or reloads in the shooting;
3. The shooter must be prosecuted or sued civilly;
4. There must be a difference of opinion on the distance at which the shooting occurred;
5. That difference of opinion must be subject to resolution by GSR evidence;
6. The defendant has to have a GSR expert to testify (the Crime Lab guys will be testifying on behalf of the State);
7. The defendant's GSR expert has to use the defendant's own reloading records as a basis for his opinion;
8. The State (or the plaintiff's lawyer) has to object to the admission of the expert's testimony;
9. The decision of the court on the issue of the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony has to be appealed (more often that not, this will mean that the evidence is excluded and the defendant appeals);
10. The appellate court has to issue a ruling and an opinion on the issue of the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony; and
11. The appellate court has to publish the decision in some way that allows us to find and read it.

It is a very particular "constellation of events" that could lead to handloads presenting a problem, which means that the odds of handloads presenting a problem in any particular case are pretty slim. In order for them to present a problem, at least steps 1-5 (above) have to come into play. Nonetheless, if that problem does come into play, the stakes are very, very high.

Extremely well put. You just cant count on anything until its over. Having the case law on your side is a big plus, but you are very likely to get more mileage out of it in a conversation with the prosecutor than in front of a jury of 12.

Russellc

 

[Spats McGee]

I understand the legal issue and the point about the " evidentiary problem, governed by the rules of evidence. My point is it's never been an issue with a SD case. Simple. Should be easy for most folks to understand. You make the statement " 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." But in the next statement, " "Handloads for SD" is an avoidable (potential) problem, though.". Sounds very much like a politician.

If you understand the legal problem, then please explain why it makes a difference, for evidentiary purposes, that Bias was not an SD case.

That's another opinion based on the theory, "my opinion is right because I obviously know more than you". The exact reason I stated in the beginning of this thread as to why these types of threads get closed.

Well, I had 3 years of law school and roughly 11 years as a practicing litigator. As a matter of fact, I do know more than your average internet denizen about legal proceedings and the rules of evidence. As I mentioned earlier, not all opinions are equal. I would be willing to bet that your opinion on how to properly reload a 9mm round is worth more than mine. As I have never reloaded a 9mm round, my opinion is worth about the same amount as the electrons necessary to post it to the internet. My legal opinion is considerably better-informed than my opinion on the mechanics of reloading.

My point today as it has been for years, is that because that risk is so small and miniscule, that I'll take than miniscule risk to use ammo I practice with everyday, ammo I know is accurate, will function well in my firearm, and ammo that will perform terminally the way I want. This opposed to the greater risk to myself and loved ones because I don't. The risk that I will die today in a car accident is much greater than the risk of being convicted of murder in a SD shoot because I use handloads. Still, I'm going to get in my car and drive. I obviously don't understand what I'm doing.

Apples and oranges. I don't disagree with your final assessment that the benefits of carrying your handloads outweighs the risks associated with doing so. That's your decision to make. However, the legal arguments that you've posted here and in other threads are just plain faulty.

Carrying responsibly means more than just plunkin' down your money and gettin' your permit. You need to know the "stand your ground'' and "Castle Doctrine", laws in your state, not just what Billy-Bob posts on the internet. You need to know what to do and what to say if you ever need to use your carry piece. You travel with your carry piece outta your state, you need to research their laws also. You also need to accept the consequences of your actions, intentional or not, everytime you holster your carry piece. It is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. Regardless of the outcome and any court action taken after an SD shoot, your life will forever be changed, and odds are, not for the better.

On this, buck, I entirely agree with you.

 

[grubbylabs]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that your lab guy will get to testify. Remember, you're talking about having your expert testify as to conclusions, based in information created by, and provided to the expert by, the handloader, who may well be a defendant.

So the authorities lab is not going to find the same thing when they test my hand loads? Are they not going to test my hand loads? I would think they would in hopes of lending credibility to their case.

Taking all this into consideration

There has to be a shooting;
The shooter has to have used handloads or reloads in the shooting;
The shooter must be prosecuted or sued civilly;
There must be a difference of opinion on the distance at which the shooting occurred;
That difference of opinion must be subject to resolution by GSR evidence;
The defendant has to have a GSR expert to testify (the Crime Lab guys will be testifying on behalf of the State);
The defendant's GSR expert has to use the defendant's own reloading records as a basis for his opinion;
The State (or the plaintiff's lawyer) has to object to the admission of the expert's testimony;
The decision of the court on the issue of the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony has to be appealed (more often that not, this will mean that the evidence is excluded and the defendant appeals);
The appellate court has to issue a ruling and an opinion on the issue of the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony; and
The appellate court has to publish the decision in some way that allows us to find and read it.

If these circumstances don't arise then why is any of this a concern?

 

[Spats McGee]

Extremely well put. You just cant count on anything until its over. Having the case law on your side is a big plus, but you are very likely to get more mileage out of it in a conversation with the prosecutor than in front of a jury of 12.

Russellc

Thank you, and you are absolutely right.

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

This is a healthy opinion. You know the risks, thought about it, and realize the possible consequences. Mis reading of a statute and then assuming it will be uniformly applied to a misguided analogy is a recipe for disappointment. You however seem to realize this, have made a well thought through decision on what your course would be in a life or death situation, know there could be risks to it (which there always will be) and have made a decision base on it all. Bravo.

Russellc

Russell, that's the same impression I had of VooDoo's post. He understands the risks and has made an informed assessment. . . . as we all should.

 

[Spats McGee]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that your lab guy will get to testify. Remember, you're talking about having your expert testify as to conclusions, based in information created by, and provided to the expert by, the handloader, who may well be a defendant.

So the authorities lab is not going to find the same thing when they test my hand loads? Are they not going to test my hand loads? I would think they would in hopes of lending credibility to their case.

Well, we've all kind of skipped a step here. Obviously, the particular rounds that you fire in SD will be gone. Bullet deformed (if it can be found), powder burned, etc. So the lab will have to test "exemplar evidence" which ordinarily has to be substantially identical (or maybe substantially similar? I'll have to look) to the rounds fired. That means getting some records from someone to show the composition of the rounds fired. In the case of handloads, those will have to come from the SD shooter's (the defendant's) own records. That makes them somewhat suspect, as nobody in the world has a bigger motivation to fudge those records than the defendant. Remington or Speer, on the other hand, has no such motivation. As part of the trial (civil or criminal) process, I can subpoena their records on how their rounds are constructed, and those records do not suffer from the same problem.

The end result is that there's a danger of the SD shooter/defendant hiring an expert to test rounds, but then the expert never gets to testify as to his findings, because the other side argues that his or her tests are based on unreliable data.

Taking all this into consideration

There has to be a shooting;
The shooter has to have used handloads or reloads in the shooting;
The shooter must be prosecuted or sued civilly;
There must be a difference of opinion on the distance at which the shooting occurred;
That difference of opinion must be subject to resolution by GSR evidence;
The defendant has to have a GSR expert to testify (the Crime Lab guys will be testifying on behalf of the State);
The defendant's GSR expert has to use the defendant's own reloading records as a basis for his opinion;
The State (or the plaintiff's lawyer) has to object to the admission of the expert's testimony;
The decision of the court on the issue of the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony has to be appealed (more often that not, this will mean that the evidence is excluded and the defendant appeals);
The appellate court has to issue a ruling and an opinion on the issue of the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony; and
The appellate court has to publish the decision in some way that allows us to find and read it.

If these circumstances don't arise then why is any of this a concern?

As I've said, the odds of this becoming an issue in any one particular case are exceptionally slim. That doesn't mean that the odds are utterly non-existent, though. Once you understand the problem, if you choose to carry handloads, that's your call. It's not illegal to do so. The odds of getting struck by lightning are pretty slim, too, but I don't play golf in a thunderstorm.

 

[grubbylabs]

Well, we've all kind of skipped a step here. Obviously, the particular rounds that you fire in SD will be gone. Bullet deformed (if it can be found), powder burned, etc. So the lab will have to test "exemplar evidence" which ordinarily has to be substantially identical (or maybe substantially similar? I'll have to look) to the rounds fired. That means getting some records from someone to show the composition of the rounds fired. In the case of handloads, those will have to come from the SD shooter's (the defendant's) own records. That makes them somewhat suspect, as nobody in the world has a bigger motivation to fudge those records than the defendant. Remington or Speer, on the other hand, has no such motivation. As part of the trial (civil or criminal) process, I can subpoena their records on how their rounds are constructed, and those records do not suffer from the same problem.

The end result is that there's a danger of the SD shooter/defendant hiring an expert to test rounds, but then the expert never gets to testify as to his findings, because the other side argues that his or her tests are based on unreliable data.

I understand what your saying about not trusting the shooter since he/she is the one with everything to loose, but if the remaining rounds in your firearm and every other round that you have are all the same, not to mention your load books all show you loading the same data, is it not going to be kinda hard for the prosecution to prove other wise?


Maybe I am alone in this, but I don't have random loadings of bullets around my house. Not to say I don't have a lot of loaded ammo, but I only have a few profiles and I cast all of my hand gun bullets, and once I develop a load for that bullet that works, that's all it gets loaded for.

 

[Spats McGee]

I understand what your saying about not trusting the shooter since he/she is the one with everything to loose, but if the remaining rounds in your firearm and every other round that you have are all the same, not to mention your load books all show you loading the same data, is it not going to be kinda hard for the prosecution to prove other wise?

The proponent of evidence bears the burden of showing that said evidence is admissible. IOW, if you want it in, you've got to show it meets the relevant criteria. You would have to show that the rounds are all the same. The prosecution doesn't have to prove otherwise.

 

[grubbylabs]

So how do they prove any GSR type of evidence without testing your stuff? The basis for your premise is that the GSR evidence does not add up or is not able to be proved. How can they prove any thing without testing your stuff?

 

[RussellC]

The proponent of evidence bears the burden of showing that said evidence is admissible. IOW, if you want it in, you've got to show it meets the relevant criteria. You would have to show that the rounds are all the same. The prosecution doesn't have to prove otherwise.

True every single piece of evidence requires the proper foundation to get into evidence, otherwise it will never pass proper objection. I've studied evidence for 3 years of Law school and 23 years of practice, and it can be a difficult and esoteric concept to put into practice.

Rules and caselaw change, and your Judge may have a different perspective on interpretation. This is a profession after all! I dont get the least upset with those on line who argue with me. If it wasnt for general misunderstanding of the law, I would be unemployed! Little chance of that

Russellc.

 

[grubbylabs]

And to think of how many people on this very forum asked why I am looking for qualified legal council involving this matter. And then proceed to laugh at me and poke fun.

I view it as the same reason I carry I gun, I don't ever want to have to use either one, but if I have to , I want to be prepared.

 

[joneb]

I load my CCW with reloads, I can't afford to practice with SD ammo so why would I choose it?

 

[41 Mag]

Certainly the crux of the previous 5 pages as well as the "THE DEFINITIVE THREAD" which was posted on the first page for the most part deals with what can or cannot be tested or entered into evidence which may or may not support the defendant's claim as to what actually happened.

As mentioned I load all of my own ammo, when I do, and I am sure many others do as well, I load at least a box full be it 20 or 50 rounds depending on rifle or handgun. If I am testing loads however that might mean I am only loading a small percentage of those, but I doubt seriously that anyone including myself would have those test loads in a SD condition. In most cases I also use factory made bullets, not always, but in most cases. The Gold Dot in my main go to bullet and is also loaded by several ammo manufacturers. I do not load wild or exotic loads, and I list my data right on the lables of the boxes. Once tested for reliably and accuracy, I usually load and keep at least a hundred or so on hand sitting on the shelf. As for my cast loads, well about the same thing. When I pour a bullet I pour pounds of them at a time. I usually load them the same way, 50 or 100 at a time and have plenty siting on the shelf ready when needed. I never load anything into my firearms that I might use for a SD situation, that I would not consider fully tested for accuracy and performance. Luckily I have plenty of actual live test media to try them on in the form of feral hogs. While they might not be a two legged perpetrator, they do give a great exapmle of what this, that, or the other bullet can and will do when fired from X firearm with Y load. Granted I do not go out with 3.8gr loads of Bullseye for this type of testing, but neither do I load anything I would possibly use for SD with that type load either. I am also fairly confident that most anyone else wound't either.

So "IF" one has a tested load, to which one has been practicing with, usually there are some of the exact same loads left in the box which was loaded with that particular powder, bullet, primer, and brass. The only thing I can wrap my head around is when using mixed range brass for this situation. Even then however if you have said box, with the same load, powder, bullet, and primer, yet mixed brass, and happened to use it in a SD situation, you should still have extra rounds which could duplicate the initial data.

In both this and the other linked thread from above, there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the fence. The bottom line is "IF" you load your own ammo, do "YOU" have complete faith and conviction, that it will do the job needed if used for a SD situation? The other side is the same question for factory loads?

Regardless of how many links are posted, and how many different folks argue about eitherr side of the coin, the bottom line will never be realized until the fact of the issue comes to light, and you "DO" have to use deadly force to defend yourself. In the split second of time in which this happens nothing else will matter until after the event is over, and as mentioned above, it WILL be a life changing even, for sure and certain. At that point you will ahve already accepted the risk either way, and made the decision to use that force. When the dust settles the only thing that will really matter, depending on where you live, is whether you were justified in the cause. After that then you can worry about the ammo.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm going to beg the group's forgiveness for adding one last comment here, because I think it's important and I think it keeps being overlooked.

Well, we've all kind of skipped a step here. Obviously, the particular rounds that you fire in SD will be gone. Bullet deformed (if it can be found), powder burned, etc. So the lab will have to test "exemplar evidence" which ordinarily has to be substantially identical (or maybe substantially similar? I'll have to look) to the rounds fired. That means getting some records from someone to show the composition of the rounds fired. In the case of handloads, those will have to come from the SD shooter's (the defendant's) own records. That makes them somewhat suspect, as nobody in the world has a bigger motivation to fudge those records than the defendant. Remington or Speer, on the other hand, has no such motivation. As part of the trial (civil or criminal) process, I can subpoena their records on how their rounds are constructed, and those records do not suffer from the same problem.

The end result is that there's a danger of the SD shooter/defendant hiring an expert to test rounds, but then the expert never gets to testify as to his findings, because the other side argues that his or her tests are based on unreliable data.

I understand what your saying about not trusting the shooter since he/she is the one with everything to loose, but if the remaining rounds in your firearm and every other round that you have are all the same, not to mention your load books all show you loading the same data, is it not going to be kinda hard for the prosecution to prove other wise?


Maybe I am alone in this, but I don't have random loadings of bullets around my house. Not to say I don't have a lot of loaded ammo, but I only have a few profiles and I cast all of my hand gun bullets, and once I develop a load for that bullet that works, that's all it gets loaded for.

The proponent of evidence bears the burden of showing that said evidence is admissible. IOW, if you want it in, you've got to show it meets the relevant criteria. You would have to show that the rounds are all the same. The prosecution doesn't have to prove otherwise.

These last few posts have hidden within them the BIGGEST chunk of food for thought to come out of the Bias case (even though the exact events we're predicting did not actually happen in that case).

If you are in a shooting and it goes to trial, and there is SOME reason for the prosecution to think that gun shot residue evidence will be important to proving or disproving the opposing claims about what happened, YOUR HANDLOADS WILL BE TAKEN AND TESTED. In fact, if you look at what really happened in the Bias case, all of his various handloads were tested, other ammo was tested, other handloads were made up and tested, and none of them supported his claim.

The state labs will accept the ammo they find as exemplar testing materials pertinent to the case, and the prosecution will get that data entered as evidence.

We all would like to think that the evidence collected will show that we acted exactly as we said we did -- i.e.: in perfect compliance with the legal principles of self defense. We trust the state labs (who DON'T work for the prosecution, but for the people/court) to do their jobs professionally and without any bias (no pun intended).

BUT HERE'S THE CRUX OF THE MATTER: IF you end up feeling that the labs were wrong, or missed something, or were (heaven forbid) slanted against you, you may want to have your own expert forensic testing done and those results entered into evidence.

In this situation, where you are going outside of the state's crime lab and chain of evidence, to try and have your own hired experts prove something different from what the crime lab found, THEN your handloads may not be considered credible. If you used factory ammo, your hired experts could get the records from that lot number of Federal JHPs (or whatever) and test it and the court would find no reason to distrust the veracity of those results. If your hired experts are testing your reloads there might be some way that false results may be produced by using the ammo you made yourself.

(Exactly how is quite a mental exercise to puzzle out, but suffice it to say that the rules of evidence may not be sufficiently appeased by this, subject to the ruling of the judge.)

So, understand that the most truly compelling argument against using handloads for self-defense comes down to this point (editing the list given above):

1) There has to be a shooting;
2) The shooter has to have used handloads or reloads in the shooting;
3) The shooter must be prosecuted or sued civilly;
4) There must be a difference of opinion on the distance at which the shooting occurred important to proving or disproving the truth of the self-defense claim;
5) That difference of opinion must be subject to resolution by GSR evidence;
6) The State Crime Lab will test whatever ammo remains of what was used, what else was found on site/at the home, and possibly other ammo they buy or make themselves to try to reproduce the GSR patterns found at the scene.
7) The defendant must disagree with those findings and feel other testing will prove him/her validated.
8) The defendant has to have a GSR expert to testify on his/her behalf.
9) The defendant's GSR expert has to use the defendant's own reloading records and/or ammo tested as a basis for his opinion;
10) The State (or the plaintiff's lawyer) has to object to the admission of the expert's testimony;
11) The court must rule against the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony. (more often that not, this will mean that the evidence is excluded and the defendant appeals)

By the time you're at step four or five, this is a pretty unusual case. By the time you get to step 7 or 8, we've pretty much just got the Bias case to look at and it is not a perfect test case, in that had Daniel Bias used factory ammo, and his own experts had been allowed to test it and submit findings, he'd have been damned by those findings anyway.

Again, I do apologize for the coda but I hope it sums things up well and gives us a worthy answer to this question when it comes up in the future.

 

[Walkalong]

A great way to close this out Sam.