What is the difference?

[HANDLOADER]

Due to my earlier post in this section on handloads vs. factory I have not obtained any knowledge on why I should not use a handload. I have looked over similar court cases given for examples and came to conclusion that if they wanted to they can call your ammo "KILLERS AMMO" so if you run this chance why bother worrying if the load is yours or the factorys? If you use Federal or winchster SD ammo they can count it as killing ammo and not "DEFENSE AMMO" what ever the difference is I do not know. But apperantly the court dose. So if they can call it what they want then why worry about what you use then? It is only going to be used in a sitituation where I have a large amount of evidence that my life or the life of my family is in great threat. The threat meaing possible death from the BG. So would I not want a load that I had full faith in then? I am just looking for some common sense answers where we don't have to dance through the maze of smoke trying to find the answer. And the question still stand "Why not use a handload when the court can still count either a handload or a factory load as a round that was designed just for the purpose of causing harm".

GOD BLESS

Handloader

 

[Z-Michigan]

There are various theories, but the ones I find convincing are those stated by Massad Ayoob, who's a member here and a well known shooting author. He has apparently served as an expert witness in many cases and, IIRC, his experience has been that when the person uses handloads, it creates issues relating to verifying the evidence on distance of shots and other such things that may be relevant when a shooting isn't 100% clearly rightful. I think if you search "Ayoob" and "handloads" you will probably find his comments.

 

[mljdeckard]

Clint Smith says he is worried about a LOT more things before they get down to what kind of ammo you used. Ayoob says don't use handloads. Pick an expert.

If I were a prosecutor, (and I one day hope to be,) trying to stick you for an iffy self-defense shooting, (as I very much hope to avoid doing,) the only way I could see using handloads against you would be if it was part of a pattern of negligence.

A: You used a handload in a defensive situation, resulting in a death. In your home were found anti-government literature, weapons damaged by improper loading techniques, and you were sued five years ago for negligence which resulted in someone's injury. Oh yeah, that handload is going to get mentioned.

B: You used a handload in a defensive shooting, resulting in a death. In your shop were found two decades' worth of reloading manuals, journals, and printouts of online corrospondence where you shared info with other shooters, advising them to be cautious, follow the rules, and don't do anything illegal or stupid. The other shooters at your local range can't recall you ever doing anything unsafe or illegal. Your neighbor recalls an incident last year when one neighbor was mad when another neighbor's dog was behaving dangerously, and the first neighbor threatened to start shooting into the second neighbor's yard, and you talked to both of them and convinced them not to do anything illegal or stupid. (In our local news today, a neighbor re-deposited their dogs poop back onto their porch from their lawn, and she repeatedly stabbed him.) You don't drive fast through the neighborhood. Your boss says you always wear your safety glasses and make sure everyone else does too. It doesn't sound to me like I'm going to be able to use that handload as a piece of the negligence picture. It would have made absolutely no difference in your case whether you used a handload or a factory load, the result would have been the same.

I'll have to use your heroin habit against you. (JOKING, for those of you with the sense of humor of a parochial school nun.)

 

[Aguila Blanca]

An attorney on another forum has mentioned numerous times that you won't find reference to that cited in any court citations, because citations only come out of appeals. And the type of ammunition used is not usually the subject of an appeal, so it won't show up in the record of the appeal proceedings.

In other words, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of ansence."

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let me put it this way:

[1] I practiced law for over 30 years. I'm also an NRA certified instructor (Basic Handgun, Personal Protection In the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home and Shotgun). I won't use handloads for self defense.

[2] It's not about the ammunition per se. It's about how certain factors, like handloaded ammunition, putting "Punisher" grips on your gun, walking around wearing a "Kill Them All and Let God Sort it Our" T-shirt at the mall, or other "gun nut" stuff can be used to attack your character and credibility. This is important because if you're in trial at all, somebody in authority thinks it wasn’t a “good shoot.” Your testimony might be crucial to establishing that your use of lethal force was justified. So the prosecutor in closing argument paints a vivid word picture for the jury of you in your workshop in the small hours fiendishly concocting super lethal “bullets.” If the jury can be convinced by the prosecutor that you're a junior Rambo wannabe, they just might not be inclined to believe your story, and SuzySoccermom, as she decides whether to believe you about how you had to shoot that nice gang member, is wondering why ordinary, store bought ammunition wasn’t lethal enough to satisfy your perverted blood lust.

[3] Of course, if one is unlucky enough to be on trial, the use of handloads could be only one, perhaps small, factor. But personally, I'd rather avoid any of these sorts of "wild cards" altogether. Even though I may have an explanation, I know from experience that the less I have to explain, the better off I am. I can easily limit what I have to explain without impairing my ability to defend myself. I think good quality, commercial JHP ammunition would be perfectly satisfactory. And if someone wants to question my use of JHPs, I can point out that’s what the local police use.

[4] This is just what I do and why, based on my training and experience in the legal profession. Each of you may, of course, make his or her own choice.

[5] And mljdeckard, welcome to the practice of law. It's an interesting and challenging profession. However, you may not want to be so quick to decide how you might handle things in the future. There's much to learn and an element of real artistry to successful trial advocacy, criminal or civil. When you find yourself in trial, you will use whatever you have in whatever manner you have decided is to your best advantage, as long as it's within the rules.

[6] And HANDLOADER, as I see it, there's no good, common sense answer without having "to dance through the maze of smoke", because it's all about the tactics lawyers use in trial; and there's sure a lot of smoke there. It may not be pretty and may go against our notions of how things ought to be and justice served. But it is a fact of life.