THe Dove
BOOMER SOONER!!!
I gotta admit I carry factory ammo while concealed, but I practice and shoot only my reloads because of cost savings.
The Dove
The Dove
liability for reloads in self defense ? TX
- Thread starter chuwee81
- Start date
- Status
1SOW
Member
Hollow points are 'safer' when shooting at steel targets. Shoot and load what you practice with. Some may have a little more powder than others for accuracy at longer ranges.
45crittergitter
Member
If you're talking about the Bias case, I didn't get that impression from my reading of the four trials. He may well have been guilty, but it wasn't obvious at all.
However, whether or not a "good shoot" has ever been railroaded by handloads is really not the issue. The issue is whether one could be, and whether the $20 savings on a box of ammo is worth the possibly $100,000 it may cost you in legal fees if the forensic evidence isn't there to keep you out of court and jail.
Nicodemus38
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 583
teh main principle for "dont use reloaded ammo" in your self defense weapon when your out on a date is based on the two following pieces of knowledge.
1. powder burns will be different from your home loads and what the police will buy off the shelf to test your handgun with.
although you may use the same 148 grain wadcutter, same federal marked case, but different powder, it wont burn the sheet of paper they shoot the factory federal ammo at in the lab.
that means when the factory ammo creates a 12" solid circle of residue 2 feet from the muzzle in the lab, and the "victim" has only a 6" ring, they assume you shot from a distance of 4-6 feet away, and that would crap on your defense of "he was trying to stick his tool in me, so i shot him in the chest"
2. alot of people will cut corners to reload ammo, that makes them a hazard to themselves and anyone within the blast radius when there handgun or shotgun or rifle fragments upon firing.
1. powder burns will be different from your home loads and what the police will buy off the shelf to test your handgun with.
although you may use the same 148 grain wadcutter, same federal marked case, but different powder, it wont burn the sheet of paper they shoot the factory federal ammo at in the lab.
that means when the factory ammo creates a 12" solid circle of residue 2 feet from the muzzle in the lab, and the "victim" has only a 6" ring, they assume you shot from a distance of 4-6 feet away, and that would crap on your defense of "he was trying to stick his tool in me, so i shot him in the chest"
2. alot of people will cut corners to reload ammo, that makes them a hazard to themselves and anyone within the blast radius when there handgun or shotgun or rifle fragments upon firing.
ljnowell
Member
A right handed woman held a pistol 24-30 inches from her head with her left hand and shot herself in a forward angle from behind and above with her left hand? The GSR isnt why he was convicted. This not an example of a good shoot and someone in trouble because of handloads.
link:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
guessing you dont reload, huh?
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I see no advantage to using handloads for self-defense. As long as good factory self-defense ammunition is available why would you even want to take a chance on it being an issue?
As long as Federal Hydra-Shocks are available, that's what I'll carry.
As long as Federal Hydra-Shocks are available, that's what I'll carry.
ljnowell
Member
I have handloads that are incredibly accurate in the firearms I would carry them in. I also know that each and every primer has an anvil in it, that each case is charged uniformly and that the crimp is perfect on them. I can trust my ammo more than I can the manufacturers.
Even with that aside, the money savings are more than just saving 20 dollars on a box of ammo. I can afford to practice every time I go shooting with the exact same ammo I would use for self defense. Every time. I can also afford to keep a larger amount of it on hand, and I can make sure that I have some ammo, even when its scarce.
Times are-a-changing in the gun world. I quit overpaying for factory defense ammo.
orrwdd
Member
Accuracy of the ammo is not an issue at self-defense ranges (10 yards).
The money you save on carrying reloads would be greatly offset by a lawsuit if one of your rounds shoots through or richochets into a bystander.
S**t happens.
Bill
The money you save on carrying reloads would be greatly offset by a lawsuit if one of your rounds shoots through or richochets into a bystander.
S**t happens.
Bill
Senior, if a ricochet or shoot-through hits an innocent, it's won't matter who loaded the round.
There are lots of valid arguments against carrying handloads, but I've yet to see any case law where it was a problem for the shooter.
It's been a while since I read it, but seem to recall coming away with the impression the GSR testing was to prove/disprove guilt. I don't recall any mention of self-defense or charges brought because of handloads.
There are lots of valid arguments against carrying handloads, but I've yet to see any case law where it was a problem for the shooter.
It's been a while since I read it, but seem to recall coming away with the impression the GSR testing was to prove/disprove guilt. I don't recall any mention of self-defense or charges brought because of handloads.
ljnowell
Member
Thats my point exactly. The evidence proved him guilty, the handloads had some effect on the GSR testing, but still not to the extent that it was made out to be. They conceded that the light loads didnt leave as much GSR, but for his story to have been true the woman, who was right handed, would have had to use her left hand to shoot herself at the wrong angle, and held the gun two foot or so from her head. Also I dont think was mentioned in Ayoobs article is that why, if she fired the shot was there no residue on her hand?
ljnowell
Member
Accuracy isnt, but reliability is. Also, if you shoot an innocent bystander handloads wont matter. Again, its all based on nothing.
Roccobro
Member
Wow! That is some faulty logic right there...
Justin
Grump
Member
I've read about this from Sam Booya's first writings in the American Handgunner, researched it using Lexis or Westlaw or both over at least two different time periods, debated Mas on-line, and even had the privilege of discussing it with him face-to-face two years ago.
Load choice appears to have been an issue--SO FAR--only in criminal prosecutions, one I know of for the alleged murder of, defended as alleged suicide by, the wife (and the rest of the evidence there is mixed), and another being a workplace multiple murder case. Neither one had anything to do with self-defense.
Me, I'll use reloads because that's what I have, and I believe I could provide meaningful assistance to counsel if needed to keep any ammo issues down to two hours of legal fees and 30 minutes of trial time, if the six hours of evidence motion work doesn't pan out.
So far, the courts in SD cases still seem to be recognizing that if lethal force is legally justified, the choice of which lethal force is largely irrelevant.
Load choice appears to have been an issue--SO FAR--only in criminal prosecutions, one I know of for the alleged murder of, defended as alleged suicide by, the wife (and the rest of the evidence there is mixed), and another being a workplace multiple murder case. Neither one had anything to do with self-defense.
Me, I'll use reloads because that's what I have, and I believe I could provide meaningful assistance to counsel if needed to keep any ammo issues down to two hours of legal fees and 30 minutes of trial time, if the six hours of evidence motion work doesn't pan out.
So far, the courts in SD cases still seem to be recognizing that if lethal force is legally justified, the choice of which lethal force is largely irrelevant.
Grump
Member
"1. powder burns will be different from your home loads and what the police will buy off the shelf to test your handgun with.
although you may use the same 148 grain wadcutter, same federal marked case, but different powder, it wont burn the sheet of paper they shoot the factory federal ammo at in the lab."
That example, which I believe is drawn from a reversible error and travesty of evidence law from the Bias case, is itself based on what should be inadmissible evidence. GSR testing of ammo should be admissible ONLY if it is from exactly the same ammo from the same gun, or can be provably similar to the actual load(s) used.
although you may use the same 148 grain wadcutter, same federal marked case, but different powder, it wont burn the sheet of paper they shoot the factory federal ammo at in the lab."
That example, which I believe is drawn from a reversible error and travesty of evidence law from the Bias case, is itself based on what should be inadmissible evidence. GSR testing of ammo should be admissible ONLY if it is from exactly the same ammo from the same gun, or can be provably similar to the actual load(s) used.
massad ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 374
One point that has been missed here is that in all the many threads in the many forums on this, NO ONE has ever found a case where a court DID accept the defendant's word as to what was in the defendant's gun, if gunshot residue testing became a critical issue to determine distance.
Anyone interested in the matter should use the SEARCH function for the many long and involved discussions on the topic here.
Anyone interested in the matter should use the SEARCH function for the many long and involved discussions on the topic here.
Do those discussions include reference to cases where use of handloads was used by the prosocution? I'm interesting in reading anything beyond opinions. We already have enough of those.
- Status
Similar threads
