Would someone, anyone please list a case where a good shoot (Self Defense) case went down the drain because of the use of reloads. Not some case that you thought you heard at the water cooler, or from Uncle Sid that he heard at WalMart or a buddy that has been repeating a million times? Just the Facts Please!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reloads
- Thread starter buckey
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Its hard to prove a negative. I suggest you reword your question.
"Are there any SD claims where ballistics results,such as powder residue,helped make the SD case more solid"
I can't say for sure,but maybe Trevon Martin/Zimmerman.
With reloads,the ballistic lab has no repeatable ammo to pull off the shelf and test.
Ballistic evidence that may clear you would not be admissible.
Proof your attacker was at belt buckle distance might be important,vs 8 feet away.
I believe the ballistics helped Officer Wilson at Ferguson.
Its not about a "Good Shoot" going down the drain over reloads. There probably (maybe) is not the dread prejudice against the crazed reloader who creatd "more deadly"ammo, with his darn hollow points because most LEO's use hollow points.
When there are no witnesses,or hostile witnesses (like Ferguson) admissible hard evidence may corroborate your story.
Remember,by pleading self defense,you are confessing to a homicide.
Juries might generally take a dim view of that. The task is convincing them you were justified in shooting.
You may need all the help you can get.
FWIW,I have great confidence in my reloads,and actually,if my 1911 was loaded with 200 gr cast SWC's, I suspect I could defend myself,with "Target loads"
I was convinced by reading Massad Ayoob.
But you do whatever makes you happy.
"Are there any SD claims where ballistics results,such as powder residue,helped make the SD case more solid"
I can't say for sure,but maybe Trevon Martin/Zimmerman.
With reloads,the ballistic lab has no repeatable ammo to pull off the shelf and test.
Ballistic evidence that may clear you would not be admissible.
Proof your attacker was at belt buckle distance might be important,vs 8 feet away.
I believe the ballistics helped Officer Wilson at Ferguson.
Its not about a "Good Shoot" going down the drain over reloads. There probably (maybe) is not the dread prejudice against the crazed reloader who creatd "more deadly"ammo, with his darn hollow points because most LEO's use hollow points.
When there are no witnesses,or hostile witnesses (like Ferguson) admissible hard evidence may corroborate your story.
Remember,by pleading self defense,you are confessing to a homicide.
Juries might generally take a dim view of that. The task is convincing them you were justified in shooting.
You may need all the help you can get.
FWIW,I have great confidence in my reloads,and actually,if my 1911 was loaded with 200 gr cast SWC's, I suspect I could defend myself,with "Target loads"
I was convinced by reading Massad Ayoob.
But you do whatever makes you happy.
Last edited:
9MMand223only
New member
Bucky, you wont get it.. All you will get is "theorycraft"
all those arguments are illogical HIBC. And also, they are against written local and federal law.
The bottom line is, when "deadly force" is authorized. Deadly force is deadly force. This is very simple.
testing bullets is totally a stunt, if it ever happened, because that is NOT the question. The question, is WAS DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED OR NOT.
its so simple, so many people forgot, totally, what the legal question was.
"Agencies often have policies limiting the force used to be equal or one step higher on the continuum to the force they are opposing. A civilian's use of deadly force is generally justified if he or she reasonably believe that he or she is or other innocent lives are in imminent danger of death or serious injury."
HiBC, I am sorry, but I think you have been fooled at some point in your life about reloads and deadly force. It doesn't matter what you kill somebody with if they warrant it, as long as what you kill them with, is legal. it is not illegal to reload bullets, or carry reloaded bullets, this the entire premise is defeated. For example, you cannot carry out deadly force with a shoulder fired rocket launcher or a Tank.
Carrying legally, deadly force authorized, thus legal firearm, with legal bullets is OK, and that is undisputed, until they make it illegal to make or carry reloads or guns or both.
This is without question, there is no debate, and to say reloads could get you in trouble in a case where deadly force was authorized is nothing but fear mongering, legally false, and absurd.
all those arguments are illogical HIBC. And also, they are against written local and federal law.
The bottom line is, when "deadly force" is authorized. Deadly force is deadly force. This is very simple.
testing bullets is totally a stunt, if it ever happened, because that is NOT the question. The question, is WAS DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED OR NOT.
its so simple, so many people forgot, totally, what the legal question was.
"Agencies often have policies limiting the force used to be equal or one step higher on the continuum to the force they are opposing. A civilian's use of deadly force is generally justified if he or she reasonably believe that he or she is or other innocent lives are in imminent danger of death or serious injury."
HiBC, I am sorry, but I think you have been fooled at some point in your life about reloads and deadly force. It doesn't matter what you kill somebody with if they warrant it, as long as what you kill them with, is legal. it is not illegal to reload bullets, or carry reloaded bullets, this the entire premise is defeated. For example, you cannot carry out deadly force with a shoulder fired rocket launcher or a Tank.
Carrying legally, deadly force authorized, thus legal firearm, with legal bullets is OK, and that is undisputed, until they make it illegal to make or carry reloads or guns or both.
This is without question, there is no debate, and to say reloads could get you in trouble in a case where deadly force was authorized is nothing but fear mongering, legally false, and absurd.
9 and 223,actually,on some points I agree with you.
But you totally misinterpreted my post. I was not talking about bullet performance. I don't care what bullet or cartridge you use,or the ballistic gelatin tests.
All of the factors you got your panties in a wad about have nothing to do with my post. I'm not talking about how "politically correct "the load is. I never suggested in any way that a reload was less legal to defend yourself with.
Its not. Reloads are LEGAL to defend yourself with.
IMO,you strained pretty hard to get that interpretation.
Try reading it again. Factory loads will blow just as big,deadly,and messy of a hole as any handload. That has NOTHING to do with my post. Nothing.Use a 500 S+W,,nothing to do with my post.
Chill. Clear your mind. Start over. Lose your agenda rant.
I'm talking about the forensic evidence of ,for example,the unburned powder on the dead guy's shirt.
If the forensics lab can buy a box of factory loads identical to yours,and test them out of your gun,they can testify in court how close he was to the shooter. That MAY prove you are telling the truth,if the witness says the guy was 20 feet away,on his knees and begging for his life.
If the powder residue says he was 18 inches away when you shot him,he was an immediate threat and the witness is lying.
Because the forensics lab cannot go to to the store and buy your reloads,they canot provide evidence admissible in court from your reloads.
And you can't prove the witness that said the guy was 20 feet away,on his knees and begging for his life was lying.
But you go ahead and carry reloads.
I'm not the one with a problem in my logic
But you totally misinterpreted my post. I was not talking about bullet performance. I don't care what bullet or cartridge you use,or the ballistic gelatin tests.
All of the factors you got your panties in a wad about have nothing to do with my post. I'm not talking about how "politically correct "the load is. I never suggested in any way that a reload was less legal to defend yourself with.
Its not. Reloads are LEGAL to defend yourself with.
IMO,you strained pretty hard to get that interpretation.
Try reading it again. Factory loads will blow just as big,deadly,and messy of a hole as any handload. That has NOTHING to do with my post. Nothing.Use a 500 S+W,,nothing to do with my post.
Chill. Clear your mind. Start over. Lose your agenda rant.
I'm talking about the forensic evidence of ,for example,the unburned powder on the dead guy's shirt.
If the forensics lab can buy a box of factory loads identical to yours,and test them out of your gun,they can testify in court how close he was to the shooter. That MAY prove you are telling the truth,if the witness says the guy was 20 feet away,on his knees and begging for his life.
If the powder residue says he was 18 inches away when you shot him,he was an immediate threat and the witness is lying.
Because the forensics lab cannot go to to the store and buy your reloads,they canot provide evidence admissible in court from your reloads.
And you can't prove the witness that said the guy was 20 feet away,on his knees and begging for his life was lying.
But you go ahead and carry reloads.
I'm not the one with a problem in my logic
Last edited:
This is without question, there is no debate, and to say reloads could get you in trouble in a case where deadly force was authorized is nothing but fear mongering, legally false, and absurd.
The link provided by TX Nimrod to Massad Ayoob's writing about some cases should show you that saying reloads could get you in trouble is neither fear mongering, false, or absurd.
The point you seem to be missing is the point shown in the linked cases. The question wasn't about whether or not reloads are legal, the question was about how reloads complicate the chain of evidence and how they can alter the EXPECTED forensic test results, where there is some dispute between what the defendant (you) say happened, and what the prosecution says happened.
Do remember that when you become the defendant, ALL your statements, AND your records are in question. Your records of what load it was don't prove anything to the court. Your ammo might be evidence, not allowed to be "destroyed" in testing. There's no "proof" that what you SAY was in the gun is what was in the gun when fired. Things like that cast doubt, and doubt of YOUR story aids their story.
There are things that go on in court that make a big difference, nuances of language, how trained experts speak, and what exactly they mean is shaped by what questions get asked, and not asked, which affect what the jury HEARS.
And its not quite like it is on TV, but that is what the jury is expecting, which further confuses things.
Go watch MY COUSIN VINNEY, for a comical, but good example of how actual valid factual evidence is given, but it IMPLIES something else to the jury.
One example (not from that movie) is about "ballistic matching" a fired bullet to a specific gun. General public believes it can be done, but you will virtually never find a true expert who will say that in court. They'll state caliber, size, weight, all the verifiable things, and they'll tell you about how it was fired from a barrel with a certain twist and depth of rifling, again, all verifiable physical things.
Then they will state expert testimony that the rifling is consistent with being fired from a Colt, or whatever brand. Consistent with, NOT "was fired from the gun in evidence" but "consistent with being fired from the gun in evidence, People's exhibit A "
A small nuance of language that most people would miss the significance of, and one the Prosecutor certainly won't point out.
We argue endlessly about how a small fraction of an inch bullet diameter and a few feet per second difference in speed "make a difference" that matters. How is so difficult to understand that choosing to use handloads as defensive ammunition won't also, possibly make a difference if you wind up in court?
Just because its not illegal doesn't mean its a good idea. Lots of things in that group, not just defensive ammo...
Frank Ettin
Administrator
This has been discussed to death. See this thread and this thread.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.