Do you carry handloads or factory ammo?

[beatledog7]

If I am forced to defend myself and shoot an attacker, what exactly would the DA be trying to prove by subpoenaing my ammo stocks and my load book? That my homemade round was intentionally more powerful than factory ammo? That it was by design more lethal than factory ammo? That making my own ammo means I'm looking for a fight?

Look at how factory SD ammo is advertised. The ads talk about extreme stopping power and reliable expansion and such, but they're very careful to avoid saying anything like, "Your best bet when stopping an attack is your top priority, or "Proven bad guy killer." But stopping an attack is only assured when you manage to kill the attacker, and everyone knows that. Stopping the attack--rendering the attacker permanently inert--is what SD ammo is all about.

Here's how I see it. Factory SD ammo is clearly designed, tested, and marketed for one purpose--to kill. Every ammo maker claims (in a sideways, lawyer-approved manner) that theirs is the best at performing that task. And they should know, because they make and market millions of rounds of this ammo to people whose intent is to protect themselves from worst case scenarios. That is, to kill if they have to.

So how can my handload be shown to be more lethal than factory SD ammo, either in reality or by intent?

 

[Dnaltrop]

While I can appreciate the content of the case, the only reason it was brought up was the adamant, and easily contradicted declaration of this sort of prosecution as "myth"...

It was not my intent convert the discussion into the guilt or innocence of the indivudal, or to turn this into a "I'm better than Ayoob and I'm happy to tell you so" thread.

I really could care less as the guilt or innocence in a case by case basis, and if it came to it, I wouldn't stop an attacker and say " one second, I need to advance my revolver, I don't want to shoot you with my buck n' ball handload"

Thanks for the reasoned and verbose dissent however, Too rare nowadays with the wealth of discussions held at an inflammatory level and turned from their topic.

It's not the lethality of the handload Beatledog, it's the ability to reproduce that specific load should your day in court come during an election year.

I trust my handloaded ammo more than an elected official. I wouldn't want to mix the two.

 

[jmorris]

With factory ammo it's not trust in people you have but trust in machines. Some, like a pacemaker people trust with their life. Others, like the computer you are sitting are much more likely to fail.

I carry both factory and handloads.

 

[beatledog7]

It's not the lethality of the handload Beatledog, it's the ability to reproduce that specific load should your day in court come during an election year. (emphasis added)

Dnaltrop, please tell me why that matters. I can demonstrate what load was in my SD forearm at any given moment, and I have complete data for every load I've ever done; therefore, I can recreate the subject load at the drop of a hat (provided I have the exact components still on hand).

But the question remains: why does this matter?

 

[Dnaltrop]

As I said in the 2nd post here.

You're hoping that the elected official is going to accept that your personally documented loads are exactly what they are, and accepting all the legal entrails that go with such an animal. At this point, if it's not an open and shut case, and they aren't taking your word on the quality of your innocence, why would they trust your writings?

I'd rather the Prosecutor be faced with the prospects of challenging say... Winchester and THEIR lawyers over any possible incongruities between the GSR evidence, and my version of events.

Even with the odds of your shooting being termed "suspicious" being low. ( I'm going to stick to the ideal that not ONE of our members would intentionally shoot another being without the reality of the situation being 100% in their favor) Given the state of gun hysteria in many jurisdictions, between the blatant harassment of Open carriers, the spin doctoring fast and the furious, gun violence blamed on ownership and not societal ills, I find no compelling reason to offer even the slightest weakness in my armor to people who play to the public eye, and look for a sacrificial lamb to build a record on.

 

[beatledog7]

A lot of lawyers have a propensity to seek wins in court rather than seek the truth, and they will often go to any length to achieve a win. As a gun owner, I understand. I'm still gonna use the best ammo for the job.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Agree on that with you neighbor, 100%.

I'd rather be an innocent, bankrupt man in federal prison than have my wife loading my ashes into an artillery shell before my time.

 

[BigN]

I don't shoot factory loads, not because I don't trust them but what would be the point in making custom ammo if you don't use it?

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I think the liability is a stretch. If someone is trying to kill me, I can legally kill him with my bare hands, a shovel, a nice wooden chair that I made with my own hands, or any other practical means.

As long as you can prove that it's self-defense you should be alright. (all things being equal, including lawyers)

But even if this wasn't the case, if a factory squib load gets me killed the outcome of the trial doesn't matter to me. Staying alive should be first priority and I'm starting to think my handloads will do that job better, even if the margin is ever so slight.

 

[GLOOB]

While I can appreciate the content of the case, the only reason it was brought up was the adamant, and easily contradicted declaration of this sort of prosecution as "myth"...

Then the question is, why did you bring up THIS case? Surely there's a better one? The best one I know of is the Harold Fish case. Even here, the existence of reloads was significant only because it completed the picture that the prosecution was trying to paint. Grumpy old man with an itchy trigger finger shooting a dog and subsequently its enraged owner using a 10mm with handloads. He may have been looking for trouble. Even without the handloads, the picture remains of a guy carrying a hammer and looking for a nail. If a handgun is your first solution to an unarmed recently bereaved dog owner, then you have bigger issues than what kind of ammo you're shooting. Fish won the appeal, anyways.

But if these cases are the very best-of-the-best examples, then it's REALLY not something I'll be losing any sleep over. I could give a rat's derrier what [gun guy of your choice] has said on the matter. The reason these are the best examples is because there are so few. So if you feel the need to carry a life raft in the desert, then be my guest. It might save your life, but the rest of us will just take our chances.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Just the first link at hand to disprove another's absolute declaration of "fact" Gloob. If you want to insert the Fish case, so be it. A duck is a duck. GSR remains an avenue of attack on your innocence, or the key that could set you free.

The point remains that the minutia of the cases themselves, and their final dispositions aren't germane to the specific issue of depending on your local prosecutor's office to be your Shining Knight at the fore of your personal legal defense.

 

[gunsablazin]

I did not hit the poll, but I will say this. I carry Speer GDHP in my .38, I believe it is the best SD round currently on the market for a 2" .38. I would not hesitate to carry my own reloads, but I use them for plinking and practice, and see no need to work up my own HP loads when there are so many great ones to choose from at the store.

 

[GLOOB]

GSR remains an avenue of attack on your innocence, or the key that could set you free.

True. But handloads produce GSR, too. The cases where the difference comes into play is absurdly small. You might as well worry that the one shot you take with a factory round would be faulty and underpowered, leaving less than the expected residue. Heck you could even drown in the desert. I totally agree I'd rather have a life raft than not, should I ever need it. But I am not going to start carrying one around with me because an expert has warned me that is, in fact, theoretically possible to drown in the desert, then shown me two cases where it (arguably) ALMOST happened.

I have also never gotten a flu shot. Yes, I might get the flu. I might die. But it's not worth the time for me to get one in order to avoid that remote possibility.

If I were an LEO, I'd never carry handloads. But I'm not. If I ever shoot/beat/stab/club anyone, it won't be as a profession. It'll be as a hobby.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Actually that flash flooding can be quite nasty... You're making me miss my motorcycle days. need a trike roadster.... but I digress.

http://www.uccs.edu/~geogenvs/ecg/pdffiles/Parkerchapter.pdf

People carry varying levels of insurance on their cars, homeowners or renters insurance.

lets just write the different schools of thought off as the same theory.

And yes, you'd be absolutely as happy as you could be if I T-boned you in an intersection. Unfortunately for you I don't run reds and have great ABS sorry, I like my rates low.

 

[357 Terms]

I didn't vote. I carry reloads but not because i don't trust the workers.
I have loads that produce low flash and shoot to point of aim, and are also 1/3 cheaper.
Legal liabilities is not an issue with me, since it hasn't been for anyone in a SD shooting.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There's a lot of material on this topic. See --

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=618021

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=583690&page=1

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=616638


And to respond to a number of points specifically raised in this thread --

So if someone that chooses to carry a blackpowder revolver for self defense is automatically guilty of murder because (s)he loaded the ammunition?....

No, but if expert opinion testimony based on gunshot residue (GSR) testing would be material to support your legal position, that testimony will not be admissible into evidence. I'll be expanding considerably on this point a little later.

...Try TN V Garner. If deadly force is authorized, the manner in which it is delivered is of no consequence.

As I pointed out to you on 12 April 2011, in this post, Tennessee v. Garner says no such thing:

If you are a lawyer, you should be aware of TN v Garner which ruled that when deadly force is authorized the manner in which it is delivered is of no consequence. ...

Yes, I'm familiar with Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985). But you don't really understand the case.

[1] First, in Garner, a Memphis police officer shot and killed a fleeing suspected burglar. He claimed his shooting was justified under a Tennessee statute providing, "f, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

[2] The father of the dead suspect sued under 42 USC 1983 for violation of his son's civil rights. This is how most police use-of-force cases are brought. The use of force to effect compliance with an order of a police officer (e. g., an officer shouting, "stop, you're under arrest) is a seizure under the 4th Amendment and thus subject to constitutional strictures.

[3] The trial court granted summary judgement in favor of the officer. The father appealed and the case went first to the Circuit Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court for trial. Ultimately, the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court, which affirmed the Circuit Court and thus allowed Garner to proceed with his suit.

[4] The Supreme Court essentially ruled that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional is this circumstance insofar as it was applied to authorize the use of deadly force to apprehend a non-violent, fleeing suspect.

[5] Nowhere in the majority Supreme Court decision does the Court say anything to the effect that, "... when deadly force is authorized the manner in which it is delivered is of no consequence."...

...I've testified in more self defense cases than Mr Ayoob....

We have no good way to test that claim. But I do know absolutely that you were never the vice-chair of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). He has been the only non-lawyer to hold that position. So it appears that professional criminal defense lawyers think he knows a few things about forensic evidence.

...I'll add my 2 cents on the Bias case, once again. That case was going to trial, anyways. The guy had powder residue on his hands. She had none on her hands. She had a bullet hole in the back of her head. Doesn't matter what the gun was loaded with. He was going to face prosecution and an expensive defense either way. If you think a little GSR on her head would have avoided a trail, you gotta be crazy. Even if you believe 100% the defense's GSR testing of the handloads,...

Okay, I guess the time has come to discuss Bias and why you don't know what you're talking about.

[1] The case of Daniel Bias deals with the admissibility into evidence of GSR test results. It was not a self defense case. But that doesn't matter for our purposes. What is significant to us in Bias is a matter of the rules of evidence, and those rules and their application are the same in all types of cases.

Daniel Bias was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, killing his wife. He claimed she committed suicide. Part of the prosecution's case was that test firings of commercial ammunition bearing the same headstamp as the round fired showed GSR deposits on the target at the distance from which Bias claimed his wife shot herself. There was, however, no GSR "tattooing" on Bias' wife's body, and the prosecution argued that showed that Bias' wife was shot at a greater distance than (1) Bias claimed; and (2) was compatible with suicide.

Bias claimed that the gun his wife used to shoot herself with was loaded with very light handloads he prepared for her self defense use. They were very light because Bias' wife was sensitive to recoil.

Test firings by an expert engaged by Bias of ammunition that Bias claimed matched the loading of the round that killed his wife showed no GSR deposits on the target at the critical distance. However, the judge would not allow those test results to be entered into evidence on the grounds that there was insufficient foundation to establish that the ammunition tested did indeed match the death round.

[2] The lesson for us from Bias is that if we fire a gun in self defense and it becomes necessary or desirable to our legal defense to look to GSR test evidence to help corroborate our story, e. g., our distance from the alleged assailant when we fired, we might be out of luck if we used handloaded ammunition.

That might not come up in every self defense case, but we have no way of knowing in advance if it might come up in ours, if we're ever unlucky enough to be in that position. But it does come up as shown in this post elsewhere on this board.

[3] And I can also show you a case in which a defendant, because he was able to introduce expert testimony based on GSR test result established his claim of self defense and thus avoided a criminal conviction.

In about 1990, police Corporal Randy Willems of he Davenport, Iowa PD was able to successfully show he shot his accuser in self defense, and thus win acquittal, because he used factory ammunition and was able to introduce into evidence expert opinion based on GSR testing that supported his story. Here's what Massad Ayoob said about that case, as quoted by Bartholomew Roberts in this post on TFL (emphasis added):

Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems

A man attempted to disarm and murder Corporal Randy Willems of the Davenport, IA Police Department, screaming “Give me your (expletive deleted) gun, I’ll blow your (expletive deleted) brains out.” Willems shot him during the third disarming attempt, dropping him instantly with one hit to the abdomen from a department issue factory round, Fiocchi 9mm 115 grain JHP +P+. The subject survived and stated that the officer had shot him for nothing from a substantial distance away. GSR testing showed conclusively that the subject’s torso was approximately 18” from the muzzle of the issue Beretta 92 when it discharged. Randy was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting at trial in 1990. Two years later, Randy and his department won the civil suit filed against them by the man who was shot.

I use this case when discussing handloads because it is a classic example of how the replicability of factory ammunition, in the forensic evidence sense, can annihilate false allegations by the “bad guy” against the “good guy” who shot him. The records of State of Iowa v. Corporal Randy Willems are archived in the Iowa District Court in Scott County, Davenport, Iowa. Those from the civil suit, Karwoski v. Willems and the City of Davenport, should be at the Iowa Civil Court of Scott County, also located in Davenport, Iowa....

[4] The result in Bias is consistent with basic evidentiary principles.

Say you may want to introduce GSR evidence to corroborate your story about how the event took place.

You therefore engage an expert to conduct tests reproducing the circumstances of the event. You want the test results to validate your story of how things took place. If you're claiming self defense, you're hoping that your expert witness can take ammunition which can be established to be substantially identical to the ammunition you shot the alleged attacker with under conditions replicating the shooting as you have contended it took place and produce GSR similar to the GSR produced at the scene. And that will, you hope, allow your expert to testify that in his opinion the shooting took place as you had described it.

That can only work, and you can get the sort of expert testimony you need in your defense, if the judge can be satisfied that the ammunition tested by your expert was substantially identical to the ammunition with which you shot the guy you claim attacked you.

If you used handloads, the only evidence you can offer to support the claim that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the ammunition used in the claimed self defense event will be your testimony to that effect. Your testimony on that point would be suspect because you are vitally interested in the outcome and there can be no independent corroboration of your claim as to what was in the ammunition you used to defend yourself with.

On the other hand, if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, the you could show that Federal Cartridge Company manufactures large quantities subject to certain quality controls to a certain degree of uniformity. In addition, Federal Cartridge Company is a non-involved third party making ammunition for sale to the general public. That would most likely establish an adequate foundation to secure admission into evidence of GSR test results of exemplar Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition in support of your expert's opinion.

It's all about being able to perform a test under conditions that a judge can be convinced mirror the event sufficiently to permit an expert to draw valid conclusions about the event from the test results.

It's not the lethality of the handload Beatledog, it's the ability to reproduce that specific load should your day in court come ...

Dnaltrop, please tell me why that matters. I can demonstrate what load was in my SD forearm at any given moment, and I have complete data for every load I've ever done; therefore, I can recreate the subject load at the drop of a hat (provided I have the exact components still on hand).

See the discussion, above. As the interested party, your handloading data will not be accepted by a court as establishing that the ammunition tested was the same as the ammunition fired in the event.

...But the question remains: why does this matter?

It mattered to Marty Hayes' client (see [2], above). It mattered a great deal to Randy Willems (see [3], above). Will it matter to you? There's no way to know. But if it would and you used handloads, you'll be out of luck.

...As long as you can prove that it's self-defense you should be alright...

However, the admissibility of expert testimony based on GSR testing could be important to proving it was self defense. It apparently was to Marty Hayes' client (see [2], above). It absolutely was to Randy Willems (see [3], above).

...The best one I know of is the Harold Fish case. Even here, the existence of reloads was significant only because it completed the picture that the prosecution was trying to paint. Grumpy old man with an itchy trigger finger shooting a dog and subsequently its enraged owner using a 10mm with handloads....

You're still off base. First, Fish didn't shoot a dog. He fired one shot to scare two apparently aggressive dogs.

But in any case, he wasn't using handloads. What bothered the jury was that he used hollow points. And what we should learn from that is that a jury can consider such factors and it can taint how they view the evidence.

...If I ever shoot/beat/stab/club anyone, it won't be as a profession. It'll be as a hobby....

So you consider shooting people to be your hobby? A DA would have a lot of fun with that.

...it boils down to where you justified in taking a human life to prevent the demise of another. If it's a "yes", nothing else matters. Period.

And let's get rid of this "a good shoot is a good shoot" nonsense. The point is that you will not have the final say on whether or not your use of lethal force was justified. Other people will be deciding that. So if you think you were justified but the DA and/or grand jury disagree, it's not a "good shoot" unless your trial jury decides that it was.

Not all self defense cases are easily resolved. It depends on what happened and how it happened and a lot of factors that will not be in your control. Consider --

This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

Mark Abshire in Oaklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.

 

[Tallinar]

Thanks for re-posting that stuff, fiddle.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Loading your own ammunition will not make you a criminal in a self defense case

OK lets assume this is always, 100% true, no exceptions....,

It does not mean that you won't be persued in a civil case, AND in my case I use issued ammunition, or store bought ammo of the exact same type, as the department for which I work uses, so that when off duty if I use lethal force with a firearm, they cannot kick-me-to-the-curb with the legal claim, "He used unauthorized [handloaded] ammunition, which is a violation of rule number [ ], so the County is not liable".

Using issued factory ammo means the government pays for my lawyer, and for civilians who chose to use the same ammo as the local cops for SD, you can bet a county attorney will file a legal brief to fight any attempt to argue that such ammunition is inherantly more lethal..., for it would leave the local government open to a flurry of lawsuits from past shootings and in future shootings.

LD

 

[beatledog7]

For some of us, then, it comes down to why we carry a firearm at all and what tools we choose to trust.

Rhetorically:

If the idea of carrying handloads for self defense makes Mr. Smith fear being portrayed by the DA and then seen by a judge/jury as some kind of trigger happy looney--itching to shoot somebody--then why doesn't carrying factory-made "lethal" hollowpoints or carrying a gun in the first place make Mr. Smith feel that way?

If Mr. Jones carries a .44 Magnum instead of a .380, is he not also going to be seen as a trigger happy looney? After all, his gun is far more "lethal" than it needed to be, so he must be all about killing somebody.

If Mr. Brown drew and fired any firearm with any sort of ammo in what he considered to be a no options SD scenario, and he now faces an antigun jury or even a jury that's supposedly on the fence, he's probably going to jail. Neither the ammo details from his load book nor the testimony of lawyers from Remington or Speer would seem likely to serve to convict or acquit him. He shot somebody, and that's all such a jury would be able to see.

Rhetorically, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Brown might want to consider choosing a knife, or a pointed stick. Or some nice pepper spray.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Moderators: with his permission, of course, can we make fiddletown's post #41 a sticky? Seems like this subject keeps coming up, and the whole ball of wax is right there, in one post.

As to the OP: I am an "emerging" handloader. I got into it for hunting, not SD. For hunting, I found that I could NOT duplicate the velocity of a certain factory load for my gun (for this hunt velocity was critical), and the factory load had acceptable accuracy, so I went with it. Worked great on the hunt.

I would not be suprised to see the same issue arise with SD loads if I tried them.

I have thought about (since I am a .41 Mag fan) handloading SD ammo for that, since almost all factory .41 Mag ammo is for hunting. But handloading would only get me a slower bullet, not a lighter one (.41s seem to bottom out at 175 grain), and I would lose the possibility of using GSR data in my defense.

So: I can carry factory loaded 175 Silvertips...or I can carry something besides a Model 58 for SD. No hardship.

 

[RhinoDefense]

The bottom line is no one has been convicted in a self defense shooting for using handloads.

 

[Dnaltrop]

You're obsessed with the end result neighbor...which has no bearing on the real issue.

It's not the destination, it's the very expensive journey....

 

[beatledog7]

If I had to endure that very expensive journey, I'd be in a great position to write a book about the experience. Then come speaking engagements, talk shows...

I'd be ok.

 

[RhinoDefense]

If you are worried about the possible expense of defending yourself in a shooting, why even carry a gun or resist your attacker in the first place?

Carrying a firearm for protection brings certain things with it, like the possibility of you having to use it and the possibility of a legal battle costing you money. If you aren't willing to accept those possibilities, yet carry a firearm for protection, you need to have a sit-down with yourself. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[beatledog7]

Carrying a firearm for protection brings certain things with it, like the possibility of you having to use it and the possibility of a legal battle costing you money. If you aren't willing to accept those possibilities, yet carry a firearm for protection, you need to have a sit-down with yourself. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Rhino, I could not agree more. See my post #44.