Old_Grouch
Member
Ah, yes. Barbecue ammo to go with a barbecue gun.
I generally buy mixed lot range brass so what I get is a total crap-shoot.
I sent this email to S&W
- Thread starter Smaug
- Start date
- Status
I generally buy mixed lot range brass so what I get is a total crap-shoot.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 5,040
I have the fortune to interact with a lot of gun owners, some who aren't legally able to drink, to those who've been retired for 20+ years. I can tell you that those under the age of 35 have little interest spending money on a revolver, if they do want one it's usually one of two types: a snub in .38,.357, or 9mm OR a cheap single action .22 like Heritage or the Ruger Wrangler.
If someone uses handloads outside the home while carrying, it's certainly going to raise eyebrows, but inside the home I can't see what legal arguement a prosecutor can make to a jury to sway them.
"This sadistic elderly homeowner was just waiting in his bed, pretending to be asleep for the poor, innocent groups of teenagers to enter his home without permission at 2AM and he stocked up on his own homemade ammunition to maximize the killing ability of it because he intended to murder them."
I don't think it matters one bit what you use to defend yourself inside your home. As long as you had a legal justification for using deadly force, it's ridiculous to think someone handloading some .38 Special is suddenly guilty over someone using a .50 BMG Barrett with factory ammo. What's next? A homemade spear vs a factory made spear is proof of intent to commit homicide?
In todays gun purchasing climate, S&W can probably easily sell everything that they current catalog. Some, non current mainstream revolvers may sit on the shelf until that special customer comes along.Among other things, S&W would have to pay inventory tax on the un-sold inventory (Thank you Jimmie Carter).
When demand slackens, S&W may be will to entertain making small runs of revolves that would fit in their "Classic" line. It would keep their workers going, if properly marketed, the production run would be just enough to satisfy demand, and we get some examples of old, now discontinued favorites.
I have a Model 14-8 (38 Special), a Model 24-6 (44 Special), and a Model 22-4 (45 ACP) revolvers, all part of the "Classic" line built in the 2000's.
While early Model 14's and Model 1917 revolvers (pre-dating the Model 22) are relatively available, early Model 24's are not easy to find. The "Classic" line filled that niche for me.
I've since found some used revolvers from the original production runs to fill out my collection. Still no Model 24's though. I have obtained some Model 624's (44 Special).
My holy grail S&W revolver is a 32 S&WL K-frame, but that will probably be a forlong hope.
When demand slackens, S&W may be will to entertain making small runs of revolves that would fit in their "Classic" line. It would keep their workers going, if properly marketed, the production run would be just enough to satisfy demand, and we get some examples of old, now discontinued favorites.
I have a Model 14-8 (38 Special), a Model 24-6 (44 Special), and a Model 22-4 (45 ACP) revolvers, all part of the "Classic" line built in the 2000's.
While early Model 14's and Model 1917 revolvers (pre-dating the Model 22) are relatively available, early Model 24's are not easy to find. The "Classic" line filled that niche for me.
I've since found some used revolvers from the original production runs to fill out my collection. Still no Model 24's though. I have obtained some Model 624's (44 Special).
My holy grail S&W revolver is a 32 S&WL K-frame, but that will probably be a forlong hope.
CoalTrain49
Member
That's some funny stuff right there. Are you doing night clubs yet?
OP
OP
Smaug
Member
Watch the video with an open mind and then you’ll understand.
Ayoob has probably seen more shooting cases than anyone but USCCA lawyers.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
There's a moral here somewhere. Don't carry hand loaded ammo when you leave the house. Especially in NJ.
Mr. Ayoob knows that powder residue has more weight in court than anything else. Lots of attorneys also know that now. That's a pretty standard test these days to determine where the shot was fired in relation to the shooter and the receiver of the shot. To determine that, as he pointed out, one needs to be able to test the ammo. That only leaves commercial ammo because a lab can reproduce the residue properties. They can't do that with hand loads.
Most of Mr. Ayoob's stories are from his recollections of incidents in the last century. After watching the video I thought about a couple of boomers swapping Vietnam war stories. Do these guys ever retire or do they just keep making YT videos and speaking at conventions until they drop over dead?
Last edited:
I guess I do not underetand how a prosecutor could say a hand loaded 38 Special would be more deadly than a factory 460 S&W Magnum round.
But then there is the ambition of the procecutor to consider.
In my opinion, once your case hits the court, all reasonablist goes out the window.
But what do I know.
But then there is the ambition of the procecutor to consider.
In my opinion, once your case hits the court, all reasonablist goes out the window.
But what do I know.
Or just buy a Ruger LCRx 3", comes in 357 and 38 P+. Then you can shoot full house rounds and not have it go all loose and floppy....
Another option is the J-frame slayer, an LCR 1⅞" in 357 and 38 P+
Attachments
Last edited:
OP
OP
Smaug
Member
It would not be about hand-loaded 38 Spl being more deadly than 460 Mag. It would be about what the shooter's INTENT was when he decided to carry hand-loads in his gun instead of factory loads in his gun. If a person carries factory ammo marketed as being for self defense, it's hard to argue with that. Also, as Ayoob points out, even when the shooter is right and wins his case, he has had to spend his life savings to win and not go to jail; meanwhile, the prosecution lawyer got rich grasping at straws. Why introduce things that lawyers are going to argue about for $350/hour? I'd rather have things that they would look at and dismiss as NOT being a possible chink in the armor.
Yep, LCRx in 38 is on my wish list.
I have one in 38; I love it. Wife hates it; kicks too hard, even with regular 38 Spl ammo. That's OK though, not all of my guns have to satisfy her; just one of them. (she likes my S&W 19)
Old_Grouch
Member
One bit of advice I've heard along these lines that makes a lot of sense to me is to find out what type of ammunition your local law enforcement agencies use.
If your local PD or SO uses, as an example, Hornady Critical Duty and that's what you used as well the prosecutor would likely have a hard time making the case that your ammo choice was due to a desire to inflict the maximum pain, suffering, and physical damage possible.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,104
Even when using factory ammo, the cost will be the same....expensive. In modern times, with Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground, most D.A.s aren't even going to consider taking a SD shoot to trial unless there is something suspicious. The use of hand loads is not anything suspicious as it is a common thing for handgun owners to do. The "prosecution lawyer" or more properly referred to as the D.A., is generally a employee of the state or county and gets paid a salary, not by the hour.
Powder residue may have a part in a SD shoot or nuttin' at all. It does not carry more weight than everything else. A Clean SD shoot is not defined by distance. There are times when even factory ammo will not leave PR on the corpse of the BG. Labs can and do reproduce residue properties of handloaded ammo. They did so in the Daniel Bias case that Ayoob has used as his prime example for 30 years. It was the defense that used the argument, that the lab did not produce the same "powder puff" load the the defendant claimed his wife shot herself with. The argument over the use of handloads did not convict Bias, but acquitted him. Turned a Murder charge into Manslaughter, because of reasonable doubt. Using Ayoob's example, we have just as good of chance of handloads helping us as hurting us. 30 years and how many SD shootings and yet, not one mention of handloads making the shoot bad? The use of handloads making a good SD shoot bad, is about as realistic as Ayoob's rug.
OP
OP
Smaug
Member
buck, I’m taking Ayoob’s advice over yours here.
Old_Grouch
Member
That depends on the jurisdiction. Here we don't have DAs. We have State's Attorneys.
So?
He still CANNOT come up with a single case, not ONE, where a handload was an issue in a SD shooting.
Pure speculation, to the point of fear mongering.
I'll bet ammunition companies love his opinions.
UncleEd
Member
Shucks, let everyone carry what they like.
For me I'll carry factory produced ammo.
Sure the ammo companies can be guilty
of some outlandish hype.
But they have testing equipment a handloader
does not. And they have a long history
of load development and bullet design.
Give the ammo companies their due.
The reliability of the ammo companies
products also can be factored in for
choosing. This includes their "target"
run-of-the-mill offerings to their
speciality loads, sometimes developed
in conjunction with law enforcement
desires or military needs.
The average or even above average
handloader will never have the background
ammo companies possess in the area
of defensive/offensive development and
extensive testing of a given load/bullet.
For me I'll carry factory produced ammo.
Sure the ammo companies can be guilty
of some outlandish hype.
But they have testing equipment a handloader
does not. And they have a long history
of load development and bullet design.
Give the ammo companies their due.
The reliability of the ammo companies
products also can be factored in for
choosing. This includes their "target"
run-of-the-mill offerings to their
speciality loads, sometimes developed
in conjunction with law enforcement
desires or military needs.
The average or even above average
handloader will never have the background
ammo companies possess in the area
of defensive/offensive development and
extensive testing of a given load/bullet.
OP
OP
Smaug
Member
He actually did mention one case; went into detail about it too. The fact that the defendant shot the attacker with handloads meant that the powder residue was not admissible in court, even after the lab tried to duplicate his handloads. The defendant wound up winning the case but that part of the trial cost him tens of thousands of dollars.
Having been involved in a couple of contentious court cases in the last 10 years, I can well imagine how that would be possible.
If you really don’t want to believe it, it’s no skin off my back and I hope it works out for you in the end.
He actually did mention one case; went into detail about it to
Can you cite this "case"?
OP
OP
Smaug
Member
Watch the video.
I did, what case are you referring too?
You stated he went into "detail" about it.
If so, surely you can cite the "case" specifically.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,104
Yeh....I'd like to hear too.
In all the years that Ayoob has been preaching this, he has constantly cited two cases. The Bias case which was a murder or suicide. The other was a rogue cop that used his handloads instead of department ammo. Neither had anything at all to do with SD/HD. In the video, Ayoob mentions the Zimmerman case(first time I ever heard him mention it), probably because his repertoire needed to include at least one SD shoot of some kind to validate it. Thing is Zimmerman shot his attacker at muzzle to shirt distance. Where even the lightest of handloaded powder puff loads would have left powder burns(PR). Seemed to be a very minute detail that was never mentioned before in the past. Ayoob wants folks to believe that somehow magically, handloads do not produce PR or it is not able to be duplicated. Both are false. Folks also somehow believe that there is some kind of data base out there that has every type of commercial ammo out there; shot thru every available firearm at every possible distance that lawyers just open the file and present. If your case goes to the point of where PR needs to be admissible in court, labs will conduct tests with your ammo, with your gun at various distances. This is whether you used factory ammo or handloads. Odds are they will first test the rest of the ammo in said gun after the shoot. This is what they did in the Bias case, and the evidence supported the D.A.s claim that the wife was shot from across the room(of which the angle of the bullet in the back of her head supported too). Bias' attorneys argued that there were no cartridges left in the gun, or the box containing the rest of the handloads, that matched the cartridge that killed the wife. Somehow Bias magically created a handload that produced no residue or powder burns, when a gun is pushed against a head. This is what left "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors....not the lack of PR evidence.
My apologies to the OP, this thread is going way off topic. I personally am done with the handloads debate.
CoalTrain49
Member
I wasn't clear about the powder residue statement. If distance has any bearing on the case like the Michael Brown shooting, powder residue is important. May or may not be introduced as evidence as you suggest.
Earlier I made the statement that I didn't believe hand loads made a difference except for the reliability factor. I don't buy into the self defense ammo argument either. It's labeled self defense but a jury could have some fun with those high velocity hyper expanding bullets also.
Mostly it's just ammo companies marketing ammo and individuals marketing themselves. If Mr. Ayoob was a defense attorney with a track record I would be more inclined to believe his shtick. The last thing I'm going to worry about in a SD shooting is the ammo I used.
Last edited:
None of the cases mentioned were civilian self defense cases.
eddiememphis
Member
It will change when there is a ban on magazine fed firearms.
- Status