How do you choose your SD ammo?
- Thread starter ghbucky
- Start date
Understood, and I found value in the other thread (I’d say posts 31, 33, 45, and 53 do a good job touching on the ballistic implications from people that are lawyers and called in as witnesses in similar such cases). I was asking in earnest, not just trying to be antagonistic (which happens a lot online to be fair). If I hadn’t seen value in your comments I would have ignored them outright. I simply wanted more details, as you provided with the link.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
reynolds357
New member
I have never seen a good shoot go to a jury. I worked a pile of self defense, justifiable homicides. No one was ever charged. D.A. did his job and ruled it justifiable. I did work an interesting case where an old man shot a home invader. Didn't kill him. When the goy that got shot was being sentenced, the judge said "I wish Mr. ----- had learned to shoot better. Your funeral would have wasted less of my time than this trial.".|
You go ahead and do whatever makes you happy. I don't care.
As others have said, Its not a "Good Shoot" until a jury of regular,non-gun folks is convinced its a "Good Shoot" and generally,the bias is toward "We don't like shooting"
But you go ahead.
reynolds357
New member
I think I would rather just move somewhere that has a good D.A.|
You go ahead and do whatever makes you happy. I don't care.
As others have said, Its not a "Good Shoot" until a jury of regular,non-gun folks is convinced its a "Good Shoot" and generally,the bias is toward "We don't like shooting"
But you go ahead.
Last edited:
The Daniel Bias case is a situation where handloads may have complicated the ability to demonstrate how far away the gun was from the victim at the time it was fired.
It is quite difficult to come up with examples like this for reasons that have little to do with the potential issues that can relate to the topic. The following link deals with that specific issue in some detail.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=586732
See the link above for an explanation, from a lawyer, of why it's very difficult to find such citations, even if handloads have played a part in court cases.
Even if they did play a part, the issue of handloads would almost certainly be buried in the case details, not an obvious part of the verdict or normal coverage.
And it's not nearly so much about "increasing liability" so much as it is creating a potential complication for one's defense in a criminal or civil defense.
Finally, it's not something that's likely to become an issue--in fact it's quite unlikely that it would become an issue. The point isn't that the odds are high that it will come into play--the odds are quite small that it will come into play. The point is that it's a risk that can be avoided extremely easily. Given that the whole point of firearm self-defense is about dealing with unlikely situations where the stakes are potentially very high, it seems to me that there shouldn't be any confusion about this topic--which is nearly identical in that respect. It's dealing with an unlikely situation (handloads come into play in a legal defense) where the stakes are potentially very high. For some reason that I don't understand, people who understand the first situation quite clearly sometimes have trouble with the latter in spite of the obvious parallel.
It's not like that at all, or maybe it is, in the sense that nobody I've ever seen actually makes the claim that modifying a weapon "in any way" increases liability. In both cases they are strawmen. They are distorted versions of the actual situation.
Of course. If there are no questionable circumstances at all, why would they go to trial? It's when the are some questions about the circumstances that a trial might result. But the fact that a trial results doesn't mean the shoot was automatically bad. A trial doesn't mean the person is guilty, or they wouldn't need to have trials--as soon as a trial was determined to be necessary they would already know that guilt was established.
1. It is the circumstances of a shoot that make it good or bad. If, for some reason there are questions about the circumstances, or they appear ambiguous, then further analysis may be required and in those situations, even small details could be very important.
2. The statement is based on the idea that all shoots that are good shoots can be immediately determined to be good shoots without a trial. Which is saying that only guilty people go to trial--obviously nonsense.
That's a novel approach to a problem that is so unlikely to occur in the first place. Moving is a better solution than simply not loading your self-defense firearms with handloads?
Look, the topic of handloads for self-defense is pretty nuanced. People who want very simple answers--It's black. It's white. Yes. No. are going to be frustrated or dismissive of the topic. That's fine. The problem is that having that kind of simplistic view of the world doesn't change reality. Where things tend to get sticky is where someone who doesn't want to understand the topic because it doesn't fit a black/white worldview tries to say that the problem doesn't exist. That's simply incorrect.
From a purely practical perspective, if one must have a black/white answer, then I suppose: "It won't matter." may be as close as one can get to satisfactory. More accurate would be: "It's unlikely to matter." Completely accurate is: "It's not likely to be an issue, but fortunately it's extremely easy to totally eliminate that particular risk by simply not using handloads."
Some people won't care about eliminating that particular risk and that's fine--it's their decision to make.
JohnKSa said:
I generally agree, which is why I carry factory ammunition, as I stated. I was simply curious as to what information was out there as my experience with the firearms community in general is many things are repeated as true often just because someone else said it. I already understood the parallel, but I was curious as to how the potential complications had materialized in real life. The other thread that was linked had some interesting discussion on the topic that I found informative, including Spats' comments about GSR that I hadn't considered and then MarkCO's comments from his own experience being a witness in court cases.
When I don't know or I'm curious, I ask, that's my main reason for being here, absent the occasion I actually get to pass on something I personally know or learned. I also understand your quoted comments above aren't just for me, but for anyone else reading, too.
Mannlicher
New member
I may have opined before with regards to this business of hand loads/factory ammo, but my thought are that all my semi auto ammo is factory, simply because I don't load those at home. I can get the performance I want from one of the name brands.
All of my revolver carry ammo is hand loaded. I cannot get what I want from the gun store. My loads are probably faster than factory or with a better bullet, or some combination of that. Accuracy is always good. I have been putting this stuff together for at least 60 years. My loads are reliable and effective. I know my revolver loads take game with no issues.
I have zero concern for lawyers and prosecutors finding fault with my handloads. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a red herring and a subject for arm chair 'experts'. I don't ask for, nor particularly need any forum validation. The passive aggressive virtue signaling gets old.
All of my revolver carry ammo is hand loaded. I cannot get what I want from the gun store. My loads are probably faster than factory or with a better bullet, or some combination of that. Accuracy is always good. I have been putting this stuff together for at least 60 years. My loads are reliable and effective. I know my revolver loads take game with no issues.
I have zero concern for lawyers and prosecutors finding fault with my handloads. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a red herring and a subject for arm chair 'experts'. I don't ask for, nor particularly need any forum validation. The passive aggressive virtue signaling gets old.
You do, of course, realize that the last three sentences of your post (including the one I quoted) are absolutely classic passive aggressive, right?
Also, since this topic has nothing to do with morality or personal character by any stretch of the imagination, bringing up the concept of virtue signaling is a total non sequitur.
Which is fine. Everyone gets to make their own decisions, and in this case the likelihood of your decision coming back to bite you is very small. This issue isn't about spreading the word of a likely pitfall/threat to self-defenders. It's just about informing people of the existence of a particular risk that is quite unlikely to rear its head but that could considerably complicate a criminal or civil defense in certain specific circumstances.
The Rittenhouse trial was somewhat eye opening for me as far as ammunition goes. The prosecutor attempted to go down a rabbit hole regarding the type of ammunition used and I could not help but think "if he had been carrying something other than FMJ that would also have been used against him". His answer of "I don't know, a bullet is a bullet" was about as good an answer as he could have given under that line of questioning.
A google search shows mostly advertisements for CCW insurance with lawyers saying "don't carry handholds" although I did find this one article that discusses loading defensive ammo to save money: https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/reloading/what-you-need-to-consider-handloading-defensive-ammunition
The closing paragraph is one I tend to agree with, to the tune of "worry about the legal ramifications afterwards, at least you survived".
A google search shows mostly advertisements for CCW insurance with lawyers saying "don't carry handholds" although I did find this one article that discusses loading defensive ammo to save money: https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/reloading/what-you-need-to-consider-handloading-defensive-ammunition
The closing paragraph is one I tend to agree with, to the tune of "worry about the legal ramifications afterwards, at least you survived".
reynolds357
New member
O am going to bring up a side note about factory vs handloaded. In the past three years, I have had multiple factory load failures. I had Winchester .25-06 that 4 out of 20 never went boom in any of my 3 rifles. Had 350 legend ammo with multiple primers in backwards. Had 30-30 split a case neck. Watched a Glock 22 get the barrel bulged shut. All that was factory ammo. In the same time, I have had zero handloads failures. (Except in a Taurus G3 that has an undersized chamber, but that don't count)
I have shot over 100,000 rd of factory, new ammunition. The only ammunition failures that come to mind are a few poorly seated rounds that wouldn't chamber. I'd say less than 20 of those total. I have had failures to feed, extract, and eject that I traced to the firearm itself.
The worst ammunition I ever had was "factory reloaded" ammunition. I can't remember the name of the outfit. The powder charges were all over the place to the extent I felt I was shooting differ cartridges (I did check that I wasn't). From what I've seen with others at the range, "factory reloaded" ammunition can be a gamble.
The worst ammunition I ever had was "factory reloaded" ammunition. I can't remember the name of the outfit. The powder charges were all over the place to the extent I felt I was shooting differ cartridges (I did check that I wasn't). From what I've seen with others at the range, "factory reloaded" ammunition can be a gamble.
In the first 1000 round handgun reliability match I attended, reloads did extremely poorly--worse even than the steel-cased Wolf ammo which was worse than any of the brass or aluminum-cased ammo.
It was so bad, in fact, that reloads were not allowed in the second match the following year because when they were used it was way more about the ammunition than it was about the gun--and it was supposed to be all about the guns.
Of course, the quality of ammunition varies, whether it's factory or handloaded.
I think that's something that can get lost sometimes. People tend to form opinions about the reliability of factory ammunition based on the lowest price ammo they can find to shoot at the range and then carry those opinions over to premium self-defense ammo that can cost 10 times the price and generally comes with commensurately better stringent quality control and better quality components.
Anyway, if I were going to list the #1 reason I wouldn't carry handloads for self-defense, it would be what I've personally witnessed in terms of the generally lower reliability of handloads compared to factory self-defense ammo. That said, I'm sure everyone in this thread who handloads makes ammo that is much more reliable than factory and so my observations shouldn't be taken to apply to their ammo.
Back to the OP's question (what this thread is about).
No one is telling anyone they "must" use a particular ammo.
No one is telling anyone they "cannot" use a particular ammo,be it factory loads or handloads.
The question I chose to respond to is "What factors influence my choice"
I can make my choice based on anything I want. You can make yours based on anything you want.
I don't care what you use.
Its silly and stupid to enter some ego arguement over "My way is better than your way" It just does not matter.
There ARE learned people who present a valid legal reason why a person might make the FREE CHOICE to use factory ammo for carry.(Or not)
There is also misinformation about reasons to not carry handloads that are bogus. Example? Handloads are (AFAIK) perfectly lawful for carry. Its bogus to say they are not. Its bogus to say "Handloads label you a gunnut who want dum dum wound channels....blah blah blah.
All that distracts from the legit reason of admissible forensic evidence.
We do folks who are asking about choosing SD ammo a disservice when we clutter the air with BS.
It always come down to you CAN carry whatever you want. You may certainly weigh the factors ,load +P+ handloads with whatever bullet you like and carry them.
There is nothing to get riled up about. No one is trying to take anything from you.
But for Sally Firstgun, the honest info from someone like Spats McGee or Massad Ayoob might help them along and if they ever do use their handgun and face trial, (Very slim chance that happens) the factory load may aid in acquittal.
The Rittenhouse trial was educational.
No one is telling anyone they "must" use a particular ammo.
No one is telling anyone they "cannot" use a particular ammo,be it factory loads or handloads.
The question I chose to respond to is "What factors influence my choice"
I can make my choice based on anything I want. You can make yours based on anything you want.
I don't care what you use.
Its silly and stupid to enter some ego arguement over "My way is better than your way" It just does not matter.
There ARE learned people who present a valid legal reason why a person might make the FREE CHOICE to use factory ammo for carry.(Or not)
There is also misinformation about reasons to not carry handloads that are bogus. Example? Handloads are (AFAIK) perfectly lawful for carry. Its bogus to say they are not. Its bogus to say "Handloads label you a gunnut who want dum dum wound channels....blah blah blah.
All that distracts from the legit reason of admissible forensic evidence.
We do folks who are asking about choosing SD ammo a disservice when we clutter the air with BS.
It always come down to you CAN carry whatever you want. You may certainly weigh the factors ,load +P+ handloads with whatever bullet you like and carry them.
There is nothing to get riled up about. No one is trying to take anything from you.
But for Sally Firstgun, the honest info from someone like Spats McGee or Massad Ayoob might help them along and if they ever do use their handgun and face trial, (Very slim chance that happens) the factory load may aid in acquittal.
The Rittenhouse trial was educational.
reynolds357
New member
That is funny because the world's best pistol shooters shoot reloaded ammo in competition. It is usually tuned in their pistol to just barely make power factor.In the first 1000 round handgun reliability match I attended, reloads did extremely poorly--worse even than the steel-cased Wolf ammo which was worse than any of the brass or aluminum-cased ammo.
It was so bad, in fact, that reloads were not allowed in the second match the following year because when they were used it was way more about the ammunition than it was about the gun--and it was supposed to be all about the guns.
Of course, the quality of ammunition varies, whether it's factory or handloaded.
I think that's something that can get lost sometimes. People tend to form opinions about the reliability of factory ammunition based on the lowest price ammo they can find to shoot at the range and then carry those opinions over to premium self-defense ammo that can cost 10 times the price and generally comes with commensurately better stringent quality control and better quality components.
Anyway, if I were going to list the #1 reason I wouldn't carry handloads for self-defense, it would be what I've personally witnessed in terms of the generally lower reliability of handloads compared to factory self-defense ammo. That said, I'm sure everyone in this thread who handloads makes ammo that is much more reliable than factory and so my observations shouldn't be taken to apply to their ammo.
I have seen what you describe on many occasions. The fact Billy Joe bob with his $225 progressive press and limited knowledge turns out a pile of trash loads is not indicative as to what a "reloader" with proper equipment and knowledge turns out. I will admit myself that I have a Hornaday LNL that turns out awesome .223 ammo, but it turns off jamomatic 9mm. Been back to Hornaday and they "fixed" it. Still turns off jamO stuff. Never had a jam or any malfunction in ammo off my Dillon.
The LNL and the way it's shell plate works can't "bust" the Glock Bulges quite enough to make them run in my race gun. The Dillon can. LNL is bullet proof with pre roll sized brass.
Last edited:
And just because you with your decades of experience and attention to detail can turn out quality ammunition doesn’t mean everyone else will. It goes both ways. We all have to be careful of using ourselves as singular examples of someone engaging in our chosen activity. General observations aren’t a condemnation of everyone, they’re simply a summary of what someone has seen. It doesn’t mean an exception can’t exist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
reynolds357
New member
I think it's hard to beat a 147 XTP in a 9. Faster the better.
reynolds357
New member
One decision you must make is do you prefer barrier blindness.
Will admit to giving consideration to the various gel results. As others have noted reliability is needed. Nowadays accessibility is a major consideration. Have long used Hdy xtp's and Speer gold dots as preferable standards. For my purposes, bullet selection can also be dependent on caliber. Can only think of 2 factory rounds i bought for carry (from Federal and Win), but they have gotten very expensive. Am also making a distinction between custom handloading and reloading.