Do you still buy factory ammo?
- Thread starter ZWCoffindaffer
- Start date
- Status
Posted by Shaq:
The really serious issue has to do with the rules of evidence. Should a defendant happen to need to introduce gunshot residue pattern evidence to counter something like unfavorable eyewitness testimony regarding the distance of the shooting, the use of handloads would create a problem and most probably prevent test data and expert witness testimony pertaining thereto from being admitted.
The reasons are technical and legal and rather arcane, and people make a living teaching and advising others on the subject, but they are real. Their applicability extends far beyond the world of ammunition and gunshots and murder trials, and the subject has gone to the highest court more than once.
What's the risk? One cannot tell in advance. If the only gun I had was an old .38 WCF or .41 Long Colt, and the only ammunition I had had been hand loaded, I would most certainly carry the gun before leaving it at home.
But given the choice, I will carry premium grade factory ammunition.
That may come up, but not only regarding handloads. Some nasty-sounding commercial loads or a really powerful handgun could bring in the same argument. It would pertain to state of mind, but I think it could be countered effectively.
The really serious issue has to do with the rules of evidence. Should a defendant happen to need to introduce gunshot residue pattern evidence to counter something like unfavorable eyewitness testimony regarding the distance of the shooting, the use of handloads would create a problem and most probably prevent test data and expert witness testimony pertaining thereto from being admitted.
The reasons are technical and legal and rather arcane, and people make a living teaching and advising others on the subject, but they are real. Their applicability extends far beyond the world of ammunition and gunshots and murder trials, and the subject has gone to the highest court more than once.
What's the risk? One cannot tell in advance. If the only gun I had was an old .38 WCF or .41 Long Colt, and the only ammunition I had had been hand loaded, I would most certainly carry the gun before leaving it at home.
But given the choice, I will carry premium grade factory ammunition.
Posed by Duvel:
Now, you are most unlikely to find such a case. There are a number of reasons:
But that does not tell us a thing regarding the rules of evidence or how GSR pattern data might be needed or used in a particular case.
The risk is probably pretty low, but the potential consequences are extremely severe.
In law, it doesn't matter one whit what kind of situation might have been involved. The rules of evidence are there.
Now, you are most unlikely to find such a case. There are a number of reasons:
- There really aren't many trials inoilving defensive shootings in the first place;
- Of those, it is very unlikely that many of the shooters, if any, happened to use handloads;
- If there were any, the issue would have been important only if the details of the case were such that the defendant had a need to introduce his or own GSR test data to counter unfavorable testimony or other evidence;
- No one compiles all of the court testimony from all of the criminal and civil trials in the country, so the only way we would know about it would be from an epxert witness who happened to decide to publish something about it;
- And he or she would likely only do so in the event of a conviction that seemed to hinge on that issue.
But that does not tell us a thing regarding the rules of evidence or how GSR pattern data might be needed or used in a particular case.
The risk is probably pretty low, but the potential consequences are extremely severe.
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,256
I have a vague recollection of it. I think it might be where I get my brass for reloading
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
When did distance become an issue with whether or not a SD shoot is good or not? Does one need to be within 5 feet of the threat in order for the shoot to be deemed legitimate? That's about the maximum distance, under ideal circumstances, where GSR is deposited on the victim by most SD firearms. It is within this distance the GSR deposited on the victim can be used to detect approximate distance from gun to victim, when the exact same ammo is shot from the same firearm. The infamous Daniel Bias case that is the poster child for Ayoob's insistence upon using factory ammo was not a SD shoot but a murder. Bias claimed his wife committed suicide, while most of the evidence and the DA claimed he shot her. Thus determining whether she held the gun to her own head as Bias claimed or whether she was shot from a few feet away by Bias, as the DA claimed, was an important part of the case. GSR evidence was ruled invalid because Bias' attorney claimed the ammo used in the revolver the night of the killing was loaded in various amounts of powder charges, thus distance could not accurately be determined. This did not convict Bias, but actually acquitted him at first. So there is more evidence that using handloaded ammo will get you off than convict you. Hmmmmmmm.
If one wants to use this case as an example of why not to use handloaded ammo for SD, one needs to say you should never use handloaded ammo, because distance cannot be determined in the case of an accidental shooting case, or as in the Bias case, a murder/suicide case, as well.
GSR is used much more frequently to convict folks when it is deposited on the shooter than when deposited on the victim. In that case, handloaded/factory won't make a difference. If one wants to claim handloaded ammo will make you a killer and not just someone trying to protect themselves, they should also claim that a trigger job, after market sights/parts or taking tactical training makes you a psycho killer instead of a victim too.
Dang...I got sucked into this again!:banghead:
ljnowell
Member
Please, please, would a moderator just lock this. The anti-handload zealots have once again hijacked an otherwise good thread in their religious belief that, even though it's never happened, handloads will convict you.
May as well lock this thread too, because it will never come back from it.
Heck add that discussion to list of banned conversation, it would be for the best of the forum.
May as well lock this thread too, because it will never come back from it.
Heck add that discussion to list of banned conversation, it would be for the best of the forum.
Zendude
Member
I hand load for target practice. However I buy factory SD loads because I get a dud fairly regularly (maybe 1 in 50 or 100) with my hand loads. With the inexpensive loading equipment I use, it's easy to seat a primer a little bit off or just get a bad bulk primer.
Really amazing. You're sittin' at your computer, posting in a forum & a spaceship lands right next to you. Then little green aliens emerge, take over your mind & force you to read posts that annoy you.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
Seems one of the moderators is one of those anti-handload zealots and is involved with this discussion as well. Still, folks have been relatively respectful of each other in the discussion of pro/con handload use, and it may be of some informational value to those that are new to the topic and have yet to make an objective decision.
Posted by buck460XVR:
Let's look at that another way. There have been precedential rulings regarding the admissibility of fingerprints, fiber samples, polygraph test results, and other things. It makes absolutely no difference whether the case at hand has to do with murder, rape, kidnapping , conspiracy to defraud, or providing classified information to another country. The rules apply.
But that's not the issue.
It may enter in to a discussion of ability and opportunity in some incidents, but that's not the point at all. The issue may arise when testimony regarding distance is contradictory, and may harm the defendant's credibility. That credibility is crucial.
See the above post on this. It just doesn't matter what the case is about. What matters is the admissibility of evidence.
Let's look at that another way. There have been precedential rulings regarding the admissibility of fingerprints, fiber samples, polygraph test results, and other things. It makes absolutely no difference whether the case at hand has to do with murder, rape, kidnapping , conspiracy to defraud, or providing classified information to another country. The rules apply.
Do you have a basis for knowing the judge's reasons? Regardless of what they may have been, the prosecution, or the plaintiff in a civil case, could have, and would have been expected to, challenge the admissibility of test data and related expert witness testimony on the basis of the verifiability and custodial trail of information relating to the ammunition.
True.
In a case that is not clear, the prosecution could use all kinds of things to try to establish state of mind. And one more time, if it is the ammunition that they would like to mention, there have been some kinds of factory loads that would seem to a juror to be at least as vicious as handloads.
But that's not the issue.
I buy 9mm and .45acp in bulk, even though I own a good reloading setup. At this point in my life, the time spent is more valuable than the money saved. I'm still picking up the majority of my brass, stockpiling for when that equation changes.
Only time Ive bought factory loads is when the del is too good to pass up like when Nosler had 300 BLK Varmageddon on sale for $8 a box. Bought a case. Or when I had to buy 5.7X28 ammo to get the brass. Picked up 5K rounds for $13 box of 50.
I have no issue SD shooting with handloads. I don't know where you people are that have prosecutors hassling people for legit SD cases. Doesnt happen here.
I have no issue SD shooting with handloads. I don't know where you people are that have prosecutors hassling people for legit SD cases. Doesnt happen here.
Posted by buck460XVR:
It is simple, prudent, risk management. It takes absolutely nothing to mitigate that risk, in most cases. But the consequences of not being able to do so could be severe.
On more time, if all I happened to have at hand were handloads, I would certainly not leave my gun at home rather than carry them.
I happen to have taken an extensive course on the subject of the admissibility of what was than referred to as scientific forensic trace evidence, and I am rather familiar with how the relevant SCOTUS rulings would apply to handloads.
I also have something of an appreciation, through classroom training and from real experience, of how witnesses may remember having seen something other than what happened, and testify very convincingly on their belief.
There is a lot to that subject, but the key point, in my opinion, is that in a shooting incident, witnesses are much less likely to have seen and recognized what led up to the indigent--which would be very important to a lawful defender--and more likely to remember only what may have looked like a cold-blooded shooting. Importantly, they may not also remember correctly just where the shooter had been standing, or that he had move off line--or for that matter, where the attacker had been standing.
That's where the forensic evidence could become dispositive.
Actually, there are several moderators here and on another board, and several well known members, who have posted about the risk of not being able to have a jury see potentially important exculpatory evidence, in the unlikely event that it might prove necessary.
It is simple, prudent, risk management. It takes absolutely nothing to mitigate that risk, in most cases. But the consequences of not being able to do so could be severe.
On more time, if all I happened to have at hand were handloads, I would certainly not leave my gun at home rather than carry them.
I happen to have taken an extensive course on the subject of the admissibility of what was than referred to as scientific forensic trace evidence, and I am rather familiar with how the relevant SCOTUS rulings would apply to handloads.
I also have something of an appreciation, through classroom training and from real experience, of how witnesses may remember having seen something other than what happened, and testify very convincingly on their belief.
There is a lot to that subject, but the key point, in my opinion, is that in a shooting incident, witnesses are much less likely to have seen and recognized what led up to the indigent--which would be very important to a lawful defender--and more likely to remember only what may have looked like a cold-blooded shooting. Importantly, they may not also remember correctly just where the shooter had been standing, or that he had move off line--or for that matter, where the attacker had been standing.
That's where the forensic evidence could become dispositive.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
....and if it is pertinent, that would be good information to have and to pass on to others. That's kinda why I come to forums and get involved in conversations like this....... to gain information and knowledge. No legitimate reason for someone, if they have pertinent information, to not willingly pass it on and inform others. This is how some of us make our risk management decisions. Not by emotion or by whether or not someone else does it one way or the other, but from facts that are pertinent and relative to our scenarios.
Folks can surmise and guesstimate all kinds of conclusions. No one knows what prejudice 12 of our peers may have. How many of us actually figured O.J. would walk? How many jurors would think that handloads within published specs would be more destructive than commercial SD ammo touted and advertised as being the most deadly? How many would actually consider the shooter the victim, instead of the dead BG? How many would consider the mere carrying of a SD weapon an indication of wanting to shoot someone, just to watch them die?
Again , folks need to make their decisions on fact, not just on the speculation of others, especially those on a ammo makers payroll. Either way they go, I personally respect their decision, because in the long run, it is their life and the lives of those close to them that is in the balance. IMHO, ammo choice is no different than firearm/mag capacity choice and will not be any more of a factor to making a shoot good or bad in the eyes of my peers.
I buy 9mm FMJ all the time, online, in bulk. It is fine for practice and pretty cheap to shoot. I have a bunch of import steel case 9mm and it works just fine in my guns. I can't reload it but I have 1000's of brass in 9mm already so I am not too worried about it. I do reload but only in limited volumes and don't currently have the time or inclination to load a lot. It's something I am learning slowly so that I won't be out in the cold if/when we have another banic
ljnowell
Member
THe Dove
BOOMER SOONER!!!
I think the only center fire ammo that I have purchased in the past 23 has been 7.62x39 and 7.62x54r. Haven't bought a round of factory other than those and some rim-fire cartridges.
The Dove
The Dove
Posted by buck460XVR:
There are two issues at hand. The first has to do with the admissibility of test data from exemplar specimens, and the other, with the admissibility of GSR pattern data to estimate distance.
The latter was still not in question when we last went into this some years ago. I haven't kept up with it.
I'll try to explain the former in simple terms. It is not specific to ammunition--the relevant rules of evidence actually resulted from high court decisions that came out of appeals of civil cases involving pharmaceuticals. But they apply, nonetheless. They even apply to the admissibility of computer-generated financial records.
The following is summary level, couched in layman's terms, and based on the meaning of the rules and not on the underlying legal principles per se.
The short answer: if you want a judge to admit evidence that is based on the testing of exemplar specimens of something (the defendant's ammunition, here)
Ammunition manufacturers and drug makers, beer brewers, makers of insecticides, processors of foodstuffs, makers of x-ray machines, and makers of aircraft engines and fuel additives, use procedures and controls that will ensure all of that. That's simply because of the importance of the safety and effectiveness of their products.
It is not really because of the technical nuances of rules of evidence, except to the extent that it might have to do with the design and testing of the corporate systems of internal controls..
But the hanslader simply cannot maintain independent, verifiable records about his own product--no judge would accept his attestation about what was in his ammunition.
So, test data from factory loads would be admissible (as long as GSR pattern data remain admissible).
Data from handholds would not be admitted. That means that they jurors will not even know about their existence, much less what they might have indicated.
But we've gotten of topic again. The issue has do with the admissibility of evidence.
And that can be important.
I hope this helps.
I have tried to do that in the past. The problem lies in trying to summarize and explain a very technical eight hour law course, the understanding of which really required some knowledge of manufacturing engineering, quality control, software design, and/or other things; and a few kilograms of copyrighted small-text paper handouts.
There are two issues at hand. The first has to do with the admissibility of test data from exemplar specimens, and the other, with the admissibility of GSR pattern data to estimate distance.
The latter was still not in question when we last went into this some years ago. I haven't kept up with it.
I'll try to explain the former in simple terms. It is not specific to ammunition--the relevant rules of evidence actually resulted from high court decisions that came out of appeals of civil cases involving pharmaceuticals. But they apply, nonetheless. They even apply to the admissibility of computer-generated financial records.
The following is summary level, couched in layman's terms, and based on the meaning of the rules and not on the underlying legal principles per se.
The short answer: if you want a judge to admit evidence that is based on the testing of exemplar specimens of something (the defendant's ammunition, here)
- the stuff will have to have been made using certified procedures and methods, on calibrated equipment, by trained persons who do not have a stake in the case;
- the same rules apply to lot acceptance test data;
- the same rules apply to material handling, packaging, labelling and shipping;
- and very importantly, the records and data involving all of that measurement, calibration, testing, labelling, and so on must have been maintained from the outset in a manner in which there can be no question about their independence and validity or about the possibility of their having been lost, changed, mixed with other records and data, and so on and so on.
Ammunition manufacturers and drug makers, beer brewers, makers of insecticides, processors of foodstuffs, makers of x-ray machines, and makers of aircraft engines and fuel additives, use procedures and controls that will ensure all of that. That's simply because of the importance of the safety and effectiveness of their products.
It is not really because of the technical nuances of rules of evidence, except to the extent that it might have to do with the design and testing of the corporate systems of internal controls..
But the hanslader simply cannot maintain independent, verifiable records about his own product--no judge would accept his attestation about what was in his ammunition.
So, test data from factory loads would be admissible (as long as GSR pattern data remain admissible).
Data from handholds would not be admitted. That means that they jurors will not even know about their existence, much less what they might have indicated.
They won't even know about how the ammo performs.
The facts are that firearm choice and appearance, the name of the ammo, the kinds of charts the defender had in his folder, and a lot of other things can sway an impartial jury. We know that from jury simulations and from interviews with real jurors.
But we've gotten of topic again. The issue has do with the admissibility of evidence.
And that can be important.
I hope this helps.
TimSr
Member
I had to buy some factory 38's for my concealed carry class a couple years ago. I was shocked at the price. First time since the early 90's when I bought because I needed brass.
I've reasoned that I should not load 9mm, but I'd feel like i'm committing adultery if I stuck factory ammo in my gun.
When it comes to hunting or self defense, when I want the best possible ammo, there is no question that ammo I desire will come from my loading bench.
I do sometimes buy 12 guage for shooting clays, as its a pain to load that many with little to no cost savings.
I've reasoned that I should not load 9mm, but I'd feel like i'm committing adultery if I stuck factory ammo in my gun.
When it comes to hunting or self defense, when I want the best possible ammo, there is no question that ammo I desire will come from my loading bench.
I do sometimes buy 12 guage for shooting clays, as its a pain to load that many with little to no cost savings.
Posted by TimSr:
There was a time when I could obtain smaller groups on paper from a bench with handloaded rifle ammunition, but the difference would have been meaningless in the real world.
Do you seriously believe that the best premium factory ammunition might prove ineffective for hunting or defense?
There was a time when I could obtain smaller groups on paper from a bench with handloaded rifle ammunition, but the difference would have been meaningless in the real world.
And let's look at a couple of court decisions addressing the issue.Kleanbore said:
It's a question of under what circumstances would an expert, for the purposes of conducting scientific tests and forming an opinion, rely on the assumption that if a group of widgets he can examine (e. g., a quantity of handloaded ammunition in the defendant's workshop) have certain specifications, some widgets not subject to examination (the ammunition fired in the incident which is the subject of the trial) would have the same specifications. It might be one thing to make that assumption when the widgets were all made by a commercial manufacturer selling widgets to the general public and using set quality control protocols. It might be another thing to make that assumption when the widgets were all made by an individual who is personally interested in the outcome of the tests for his own use, and the connection between the widget tested and the widget in the case is thus made by the claims of that individual.
Consider whether Daubert (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)) or Kumho Tire (Kumho Tire v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)) make it easier to support that sort of assumption under the second set of circumstances:
- Both address the role and scope of the trial judge's discretion to allow or exclude expert opinion testimony based primarily on Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (held in Daubert to supercede Frye in federal court).
- Neither involved exemplar testing as the bases of the experts' opinions at issue.
- In Daubert the Supreme Court in effect ruled that the trial court applied too strict a standard by excluding opinions of some eminent experts. The opinions of those experts were based on certain data developed through experiment, and it contradicted another expert's opinion based on epidemiological data.
- But the Court in Daubert still noted (at 597):
- The Court in Daubert also noted (at 591):
- This seems to suggest that even under Daubert, if an opinion is based on exemplar testing to be relevant and admissible it must be shown that the exemplar is the same as the thing in the case and the conditions of testing sufficiently mimic the events of the case.
- But the Court in Daubert still noted (at 597):
- In Kumho Tire, the Court upheld the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony. The issue concerned the manner of the plaintiffs' expert's examination of an allegedly defective tire. The defendants objected on the grounds that the plaintiffs' expert's methods were unreliable. The trial court agreed, and the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's exercise of its discretion to exclude the expert's testimony.
- While this does not involve exemplar testing, it does suggest that it would he proper for the trial court to consider the reliability of an expert's conclusion that an exemplar tested was sufficiently like the thing in the case to support his opinion.
- And the Court in both cases notes that if expert opinion is admitted it is still subject to vigorous cross examination and challenge. Thus any the less solidly an exemplar tested is validated as matching the thing in the case, the less useful the expert opinion is likely to be.
SouthernDawg
Member
I always buy and keep some factory ammo on hand because 9 times out of 10 my 15 yr old Daughter and her boyfriend are with me at the range. Although I let her shoot my mid range loads. I won't let her shoot my hotter loads with lighter bullets because my 40 is way too snappy for her. Her Boyfriend shoots nothing but factory ammo when he is with us!
- Status
Similar threads
