Reload Carry Ammo?

[GRIZ22]

If the type of ammo you used in a SD situation is being scrutinized you've got bigger problems.

What's the difference if you use your super velocity handloads or designer hyper velocity ammo like Buffalo Bore? If someone is shot, they're shot and it really doesn't matter much what they've been shot with unless they've been shot with some explosive round.

FWIW I carry factory loads.

 

[GW Staar]

The last time I carried factory ammunition, it was .22 lr. I have never used a CCW against a human or even drawn one against a human, if I ever did need to save my or one of my family members lives from one, I wouldn’t go off in search of factory ammunition, if I had time to do that a firearm wouldn’t be the right solution anyway. I’d use what I had save lives, hammer, F350, reload, wouldn’t matter.

Totally Agree. What would I add to that? We owe it to ourselves, our family, and bystanders to practice and become proficient with any firearm we carry. If you can afford to buy a year supply of Factory Gold Dots, then great. If not, carry what you practice with. Don't practice? Don't carry.....you might hurt somebody you don't intend to.

I don't want to shoot anybody.....I don't know of anyone normal....especially including handloaders that do. But if it ever becomes a life or death situation, and you have to........I think the last thing you will be thinking about is whether you have handloads in the gun. And from the experiences of other normal people who have been forced into such an experience, I'd say what you have most to worry about is how you deal with the aftermath.....aquitted or not.... I hear sleep is harder to come by.

IOW's, the best idea is to avoid it. Stay away from situations and places where it becomes more likely. Stay vigilant and observant everywhere you go.....and make your own castle well lit and as empregnable as you can.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

what you have most to worry about is how you deal with the aftermath

Also what you do before, where you go, who you associate with, etc.
The two beers you had shortly before a SD shooting would probably be a bigger issue than the ammo used.

 

[stillquietvoice]

You are correct, and educated decisions are made on basis of fact, not conjecture, not anecdotal evidence. So far, that is heavily in favor that the use of handloads is a moot point when it comes to SD/HD. Ev

Often times jury's only get partial information. Most don't shoot or reload. Educated decisions are only made with all of the information on a subject.

 

[jmorris]

So far, that is heavily in favor that the use of handloads is a moot point when it comes to SD/HD.

Yep, the number of SD cases that found the defendant guilty because they used handloads is fewer than people that have won the lottery despite never buying a ticket.

I’ll just worry about the sky falling on my head instead.

 

[GravelRider]

The expense issue something of a red herring. If you can afford the reloading set up, you can afford a box or two of factory SD ammo for carry. The idea that if you practice with your handloads, you won't be able to hit a target with factory says more about your shooting ability than the ammo.

You're comfortable carrying a particular ammo that you've only shot a box or two through your carry gun? I won't carry a weapon/ammo combination unless I've fired at least 500 problem-free rounds through it. If we're talking defense ammunition, that's 25 boxes of ammo, not one or two.

For me, it's not about accuracy with handloads vs factory, it's about reliability with my particular gun and that particular ammo.

Nobody claimed that you should.

In at least one well-known case (Daniel Bias), the use of handloads led to the exclusion of evidence.

I think that's a fair assessment, and certainly one you're welcome to make. That said, it would not be a fair assessment to claim that the exclusion of evidence is 'hypythetical' or that "it can't happen here." Not saying you claimed the latter, but someone almost invariably will in these discussions. I read the situation with handloads as being a low-probability, high-risk situation. IOW, there's a very low probability of it happening, but if it does, the risk is high. I choose to spend a few extra dollars for factory ammo to avoid that risk. When I finally do get set up to reload, my goal will be to tune a practice load to mimic my carry load, and shoot the bejeebers out of that.

Thanks for citing the case. I'll read up on that a bit more.

 

[Spats McGee]

But....what you won't say, for some reason, is that the use of factory ammo may have had him in jail for life.

Unless he really did murder his wife and cleverly used the use of handloads to keep evidence out, all while his lawyer just pretended to try to get the evidence in, I don't see how it would have. And now I feel like I'm writing a bad mystery novel...

.... A questionable SD/HD shoot is going to leave us broke regardless. Knowing what your local laws about castle doctrine, stand your ground and SD/HD definitions have shown to be important in keeping the question of a good shoot/bad shoot easily defined. It has not been shown anytime, anywhere that the use of handloads has blurred that definition.

I'm sure we'll all try not to get into a questionable SD/HD shoot, but the reality is that that is a decision that will be made after the fact, by people other than the shooter. If want to risk having evidence excluded which might support your version of events, you are certainly free to do so. I'll pass.

....Again, what does distance have to do with SD/HD? Is there a law in any state/area that states you must be within a certain distance in order for it to be considered a good shoot? Does being outside the range of GSR make for a bad shoot? No. Does being inside that range automatically make it a good shoot? No.

It goes to whether the threat was imminent, and whether the SD shooter's actions were reasonable. It's not an automatic pass/fail test, and I suspect you knew that. If the bad guy survives, as they sometimes do, his story just might differ from yours. Go figure. GSR can be used to establish the distance from muzzle to wound. In fact, it was used to do so in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.

. . . . You are correct, and educated decisions are made on basis of fact, not conjecture, not anecdotal evidence. So far, that is heavily in favor that the use of handloads is a moot point when it comes to SD/HD. Everything else is just that, conjecture and anecdotal.

The Daniel Bias case may be one of very few cases that have been reported, but there's a very large gap (with a lot of pitfalls) between charges being brought, and a reportable appellate decision on the use of handloads being produced. Some, including you, may think that the Daniel Bias case is an outlier, but it is not. It is consistent with the principles behind our evidentiary rules.

Unlike some here, I am not telling anyone what they should use. I am saying it really does not matter. Others insist it does without any form of proof. I'm saying use what works for you and what you feel comfortable with. If you feel that the use of handloads may cause you problems, than use factory. I'm not gong to chastise and claim it's just an "uneducated decision".

I've mostly given up really telling people what they should and should not carry. What I won't do is pretend that the use of handloads cannot possibly make a difference in the outcome of the case.

The fact that the poll in this thread is almost 50/50 shows that many others feel the same way. The fact that the majority of folks in the gun world do not reload anything, much less their SD ammo, means that factory ammo will always be in more guns that handloads. Just how it is.

Two quick items: (1) I don't make my legal assessments based on polls, no more than anyone else would make a decision that is in their area of expertise based on a poll of random people who work in other areas; and (2) I didn't think the availability of factory ammo was really at issue.

Often times jury's only get partial information. Most don't shoot or reload. Educated decisions are only made with all of the information on a subject.

While theoretically true, there's a whole body of law on how we decide what information and evidence juries get. (At trials, it always seems like somebody wants to testify about what Aunt Gertha told him about what Uncle Bob said in 1976 about Joey being a liar, and that's how we all know that Joey stole Cousin Mike's car....)

 

[AJC1]

Hand loads vs factory is a minor point in the bigger picture, and arguing total trial outcomes on one factor is crazy. Did the guy post on Facebook that he was ready to smoke an intruder. Did the shooter retreat if and as much as possible. Do they have a bunch of siloette targets hanging in their garage. Were they reasonably in fear for their life???? All bigger factors. As with any choice in life do what your willing to pay the consequences for. I dont carry and I target shoot a lot. If I shoot someone in my home with a target round because that's all I have would be reasonable in my case. If you carry every day and shoot someone in public that case is not what I would experience or he prepared for. To many variables.

 

[Walkalong]

I don't understand practicing with 1 kind of ammo & carrying something different.
I want to train with & carry the exact same ammo.

Therefore I carry my reloads.

Some folks like to load practice ammo that mimics the recoil of their factory carry ammo. I used to do that, but have decided it isn't real important to always shoot what you carry or an equivalent. I do sometimes, but not always. Familiarity with the weapon is more important in my mind.

 

[Trey Veston]

Some folks like to load practice ammo that mimics the recoil of their factory carry ammo. I used to do that, but have decided it isn't real important to alway s shoot what you carry or an equivalent. I do sometimes, but not always. Familiarity with the weapon is more important in my mind.

I believe that's generally true for most folks, but with snub-nosed revolvers, the differences can be dramatic.

I remember when my ex-wife acquired a S&W 642 and was practicing with mild .38 Special rounds and then I loaded it with .357 Magnum defense loads and she touched one off and nearly dropped the gun. She refused to shoot it with the actual defense loads.

 

[GEM]

I asked this before, how many of you are such crappy shots that you can't hit a target with various standard ammo rounds. OMG, it's 115 grain, everyone take cover. OMG, I missed with a 135 gr round, if only it was 124 gr. Also, the idea you have to run 500 rounds of factory to determine its reliability is silly. I shoot a reliable Glock that and have run enough (not 500) SD factory rounds. I use rounds that many professionals run in Glocks and they run.

It's well know that snubbies are hard to shoot with magnum rounds. So what - we are talking about somebody loading a 124 gr round as compared to a factory 124 gr or 114 gr. The handloader then claims that they can't hit a cow at one yard with factory. Not that you should shoot a cow. I agree with Walkalong that being competent pulls more variance that the contrived situation of the snubby - not a gun for the casual user anyway. Last, if you know snubbies, you know that magnum loads for SD are BS - there are much better and controllable SD rounds. Putting a magnum in one is seen as a touch naive. They are for larger revolvers.

 

[Walkalong]

Good point, yes, my wife's aluminum framed snub .38 is a handful with full power stuff. I started her on WCs though. That said, once you know what to expect, how important is it to always shoot full power ammo? I got past that a long time ago, but then I have a lot of rounds downrange in pistols.

 

[GEM]

I agree. Unlike most snubby shooters - I took snubby class with an expert. I've shot my snubby repeatedly in IDPA and special short range SD matches quite a bit. Usually shoot WWB 130 gr. So I have hundreds of rounds down range with it. Guess what, I can make the head shot at a distance in a one shot only to stop a suicide bomber scenario. Back in October, I put 200 rounds through one and most were through a single about 3 by 3 hole at 7 yards.

If you take your wife to the square range just to shoot a few rounds with a snubby, that's not due diligence. But I'm a get training and practice zealot.

 

[GravelRider]

Also, the idea you have to run 500 rounds of factory to determine its reliability is silly. I shoot a reliable Glock that and have run enough (not 500) SD factory rounds. I use rounds that many professionals run in Glocks and they run.

What makes it silly? Because you've determined it is? You do what you want with your gun. If I fire one box of 20 rounds through without fault, that means I have a 5% or less chance of a failure with that gun/ammo combination. If I fire 100 rounds, that number becomes 1%. 200 rounds is 0.5%, and so on and so forth. I feel comfortable at 500 or more rounds fault-free (≤0.2% possible failure rate).

 

[Insignificant bill]

Often times jury's only get partial information. Most don't shoot or reload. Educated decisions are only made with all of the information on a subject.

That's why a good attorney is imperative.

 

[AJC1]

That's why a good attorney is imperative.

Paul Harrell would agree, and having one on retainer

 

[IlikeSA]

I typically carry 3 rounds of factory ammo (hollow points) and 3 rounds of hand loads (hard cast SWC). I may be out fishing in the morning and at a restaurant in the afternoon, and I don't want to constantly be changing my ammo out. In addition, I may need to penetrate a window, door frame, heavy bone or lots of fat/muscle/gristle, and the hard cast can do it whereas the hollow points are merely possibles. I get that these have different POI of a couple of inches at 25 yards, but all will connect with a chest sized target at 25 yards, whether its bear sized or man sized.

 

[Skeptic13]

I reload my carry ammo. I don't reload them super hot. It is just a normal load. I have shot around 500 rounds that I have reloaded and am comfortable shooting that load. I have not had any malfunctions. I couldn't afford to shoot that many factory premium carry rounds. Most factory hollow points run 45 cents or more per round. I reload for about 16 cents a round.

 

[stillquietvoice]

about is how you deal with the aftermath.....aquitted or not.... I hear sleep is harder to come by.

True sleep is more difficult, dreams, images, his face, blood pools. ......

That's why a good attorney is imperative.

Speak to him or her before talking to law enforcement officers.
If you call 911 NEVER say YOU SHOT someone, ITS AN ADMISSION of guilt that has been taped and WILL be used AGAINST you.

Say someone has been shot the call attorney.

 

[Kleanbore]

Has anyone ever seen any proof that someone involved in a shooting was even questioned about the ammo used ?

If there is a death, the type of ammunition used will be recorded. No need to ask the defendant.

How many people do you know that have had to pay an expert in a trial because the use of reloads in a self-defense shooting caused it to be a questionable shoot?

I don't think that the use of reloads will ever cause a "shoot" to be questionable.

The problem is, if it is questionable due to gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence and testimony (a common situation), and if the defendant's case would be helped by the admission of expert testimony regarding GSR pattern testing (not common, but it has helped in the acquittal of a few people who used factory ammunition), the rules of evidence would prevent that testimony from being admitted if reloads had been used. That could tip the scale.

By the way, expert witnesses are brought in--and paid well--in all kinds of use of force trials--Zimmerman's, for example.

Again, what does distance have to do with SD/HD?

Just part of piecing together the evidence, and corroborating and refuting testimony.

I am saying it really does not matter. Others insist it does without any form of proof.

I'm saying that it can.

Proof? First, the state routinely introduces relevant GSR data; woe be the defendant who cannot counter it with his own if he needs it . Second, test data from reloads do not meet the Daubert Standard, which came about after some SCOTUS cases of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharrnaceuticals. The Frye standard used in some states would present the same problems. The prosecution will move to have the evidence excluded; the judge will be bound to agree. The jury will never know about it.

Unless one has studied that in some depth under legal and scientific experts, one would be advised to not quibble about it.

Yep, the number of SD cases that found the defendant guilty because they used handloads is fewer than people that have won the lottery despite never buying a ticket.

That's because it is not a crime to use handloads--period.

That's why a good attorney is imperative.

That's true--but the best attorney in the world cannot create evidence that was not gathered, or use evidence that the jury is prevented from knowing.

It's a question of whether the gain would exceed the risk.

I see no gain.

But I understand the risks. The likelihood of occurrence is less than remote, but the potential consequences are extremely severe.

A poll? Listen to those who understand the subject.

When someone asks whether there has been "an SD case in which....", it is evident that he or she does not understand how the law works.

 

[Insignificant bill]

And personally I'm not worr

If there is a death, the type of ammunition used will be recorded. No need to ask the defendant.

I don't think that the use of reloads will ever cause a "shoot" to be questionable.

The problem is, if it is questionable due to gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence and testimony (a common situation), and if the defendant's case would be helped by the admission of expert testimony regarding GSR pattern testing (not common, but it has helped in the acquittal of a few people who used factory ammunition), the rules of evidence would prevent that testimony from being admitted if reloads had been used. That could tip the scale.

By the way, expert witnesses are brought in--and paid well--in all kinds of use of force trials--Zimmerman's, for example.

Just part of piecing together the evidence, and corroborating and refuting testimony.

I'm saying that it can.

Proof? First, the state routinely introduces relevant GSR data; woe be the defendant who cannot counter it with his own if he needs it . Second, test data from reloads do not meet the Daubert Standard, which came about after some SCOTUS cases of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharrnaceuticals. The Frye standard used in some states would present the same problems. The prosecution will move to have the evidence excluded; the judge will be bound to agree. The jury will never know about it.

Unless one has studied that in some depth under legal and scientific experts, one would be advised to not quibble about it.

That's because it is not a crime to use handloads--period.

That's true--but the best attorney in the world cannot create evidence that was not gathered, or use evidence that the jury is prevented from knowing.

It's a question of whether the gain would exceed the risk.

I see no gain.

But I understand the risks. The likelihood of occurrence is less than remote, but the potential consequences are extremely severe.

A poll? Listen to those who understand the subject.

When someone asks whether there has been "an SD case in which....", it is evident that he or she does not understand how the law works.

If you have acted within the law a good attorney will introduce the fact that the legal ammo used is not relevant.

 

[Insignificant bill]

True sleep is more difficult, dreams, images, his face, blood pools. ......



Speak to him or her before talking to law enforcement officers.
If you call 911 NEVER say YOU SHOT someone, ITS AN ADMISSION of guilt that has been taped and WILL be used AGAINST you.

Say someone has been shot the call attorney.

I have prepaid legal. The only thing I would tell the police is there has been a shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you have acted within the law a good attorney will introduce the fact that the legal ammo used is not relevant.

It is not relevant .

That is obvious.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

 

[Spats McGee]

We may not think it's relevant. You may wind up with a prosecutor (or a plaintiff's attorney) &/or judge who thinks otherwise.

And personally I'm not worr
If you have acted within the law a good attorney will introduce the fact that the legal ammo used is not relevant.

Therein lies the rub, now doesn't it? What if the GSR evidence is to be used to determine whether you "acted within the law?"

 

[jmorris]

That's because it is not a crime to use handloads--period.

Should be the #2 post in every “Handloads for SD” thread.