I saw this phrase used in another thread and decided this was worthy of further investigation. It is often stated on these web pages to never use handloads for defensive purposes. The thing I have always wondered is, how does one identify a handload ? I use Remington Golden Sabres for my defense loads. I also buy bulk Golden Sabres from Midway for practice. I can use the same bullet at the same velocity which equal the same recoil and the same point of impact. If I reload the brass from the factory rounds with these bulk bullets and happen to shoot someone, how does anyone know that it was a reload ?
"shade tree attorneys"
- Thread starter 444
- Start date
A darn good question that deserves a darn good answer.
Unfortunately, I don't really have one.
I've wondered that same thing myself, but I've never had the gumption to pose that question here. Maybe THEY would examine the rounds remaining in your firearm and determine that you're handloading hot loads to specifically kill people. Or maybe THEY would get a warrant to search your house and discover your evil homemade ammunition factory of death. Or maybe THIS is all a bunch of crap. I'm betting on the last one.
If some liberal, panty-waist prosecutor wants you bad enough so that he uses you as a stepping stone to his next position of plunder, then I guess it's at least plausible that the scenario you've alluded to could happen. So, maybe the safe route is to use only factory ammo for defensive purposes.
Geez, can you believe that in this day and age we still have to justify our right to use proper force against scumbags to stay alive? I can understand a shooting being investigated to see that everything is on the up-and-up, but not the means of shooting. The only real question to ask would be: Is it a good (justifiable) shooting? Anything else is political grandstanding.
DAL
Unfortunately, I don't really have one.
I've wondered that same thing myself, but I've never had the gumption to pose that question here. Maybe THEY would examine the rounds remaining in your firearm and determine that you're handloading hot loads to specifically kill people. Or maybe THEY would get a warrant to search your house and discover your evil homemade ammunition factory of death. Or maybe THIS is all a bunch of crap. I'm betting on the last one.
If some liberal, panty-waist prosecutor wants you bad enough so that he uses you as a stepping stone to his next position of plunder, then I guess it's at least plausible that the scenario you've alluded to could happen. So, maybe the safe route is to use only factory ammo for defensive purposes.
Geez, can you believe that in this day and age we still have to justify our right to use proper force against scumbags to stay alive? I can understand a shooting being investigated to see that everything is on the up-and-up, but not the means of shooting. The only real question to ask would be: Is it a good (justifiable) shooting? Anything else is political grandstanding.
DAL
MikeFromIowa
New member
Perjury?
I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TeeVee, but the most likely scenario is that the prosecutor would put you on the stand and ask you under oath about the ammunition you used in your "shooting spree". Remember, you are under oath, which doesn't stop some people from lying, but can get you in a lot of trouble if you get caught. Invoking your Fifth Ammendment rights might also not look good in this situation.
--Mike From Iowa
I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TeeVee, but the most likely scenario is that the prosecutor would put you on the stand and ask you under oath about the ammunition you used in your "shooting spree". Remember, you are under oath, which doesn't stop some people from lying, but can get you in a lot of trouble if you get caught. Invoking your Fifth Ammendment rights might also not look good in this situation.
--Mike From Iowa
I am not an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and consistently advise against seeking or taking legal advice from anyone on a web site. That being said, I believe in erring on the side of caution. That applies to use of handloads, or even some factory loads (like Black Talon), in a carry gun, as well as deactivating any safety devices or reducing trigger pulls.
If the question is one of valid self defense, it is not likely that any "evil ammunition" or "unsafe gun" argument would prevail. But if the shooting were not "clean" (an innocent bystander is killed) or there is a civil suit involved (as there usually is today), this kind of argument can be and has been used. A city (Philadelphia) lost a civil suit in a police shooting because the officer had lightened the trigger pull of his revolver making it "easier to kill", even though a police review board and the prosecutor had found the shooting justified.
Self defense in the home against an intruder, even an unarmed one, is usually not questioned. But a person who chooses to carry a gun, legally or illegally, has to bear a lot of the burden of proof that any killing was justified, unavoidable, and did not involve a predisposition to kill("hunting" a victim).
I know that many other "non-attorneys" will flame me, contending that a CCW license gives them the right to shoot anyone, anytime, for any reason, or that no one ever gets in trouble over a self defense shooting. I respectfully submit that anyone feeling that way leave his gun at home or practice wearing steel bracelets and an orange jumpsuit. In most jurisdictions, anyone shooting another person WILL be arrested. In many areas, a charge of murder is filed automatically and the prosecutor may seek the maximum penalty. It will be up to the defense to prove that the defendant fired in self defense, as a last resort, and used the MINIMUM force necessary to stop an unjustified and unprovoked attack. (Yes, non-attorneys, I know a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and need present no defense. Now what cloud cuckoo land did you come from?)
Gung ho gun guys better think all that through before tucking that brand new Glock in the holster and going off to play Robocop wannabee and clean up the mean streets.
Jim
If the question is one of valid self defense, it is not likely that any "evil ammunition" or "unsafe gun" argument would prevail. But if the shooting were not "clean" (an innocent bystander is killed) or there is a civil suit involved (as there usually is today), this kind of argument can be and has been used. A city (Philadelphia) lost a civil suit in a police shooting because the officer had lightened the trigger pull of his revolver making it "easier to kill", even though a police review board and the prosecutor had found the shooting justified.
Self defense in the home against an intruder, even an unarmed one, is usually not questioned. But a person who chooses to carry a gun, legally or illegally, has to bear a lot of the burden of proof that any killing was justified, unavoidable, and did not involve a predisposition to kill("hunting" a victim).
I know that many other "non-attorneys" will flame me, contending that a CCW license gives them the right to shoot anyone, anytime, for any reason, or that no one ever gets in trouble over a self defense shooting. I respectfully submit that anyone feeling that way leave his gun at home or practice wearing steel bracelets and an orange jumpsuit. In most jurisdictions, anyone shooting another person WILL be arrested. In many areas, a charge of murder is filed automatically and the prosecutor may seek the maximum penalty. It will be up to the defense to prove that the defendant fired in self defense, as a last resort, and used the MINIMUM force necessary to stop an unjustified and unprovoked attack. (Yes, non-attorneys, I know a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and need present no defense. Now what cloud cuckoo land did you come from?)
Gung ho gun guys better think all that through before tucking that brand new Glock in the holster and going off to play Robocop wannabee and clean up the mean streets.
Jim
I do not seriously think that anyone here thinks that they can just strap a gun on, and go out shooting people indiscriminately. For one, every juristiction that issues CCW's demands some form of training, and testing. That training usually involves learning the State's "use of force" laws. Secondly, all the people that I know take their CCW very seriously. I know I do. In fact, I pray to GOD that I never have to use my gun at all!! Arizona is an open carry state, and I debated long and hard with myself whether to even get a CCW. The presence of that pistol on my hip has kept me out of trouble more than once, and the gun never left the holster!!!! I am not a Rambo by any means, and I would bet dollars to donuts that I am not alone.
If you don't tell them, how will they know? Of course certain evidence (reloading equipment or a statement of yours to an aquaintence) could strongly suggest that you shot with a handload, but if you keep your mouth shut, they've got no proof.
Suggested reading here: http://www.plusp.com/
I can't get to that web site at work to give you the URL to the specific article, but there was once some interesting commentary there about using handloads for self defense. It basically said that no one has been convicted of any crime where the most prominent evidence of wrong doing was the use of handloads. Same with civil awards. In fact it says that handloads is an issue that is either never or rarely explored by prosecutors or attorneys for a plaintiff.
The link may no longer be valid. I haven't been to that site in a while, and like I said, it's blocked at my workplace, so I can't verify.
Suggested reading here: http://www.plusp.com/
I can't get to that web site at work to give you the URL to the specific article, but there was once some interesting commentary there about using handloads for self defense. It basically said that no one has been convicted of any crime where the most prominent evidence of wrong doing was the use of handloads. Same with civil awards. In fact it says that handloads is an issue that is either never or rarely explored by prosecutors or attorneys for a plaintiff.
The link may no longer be valid. I haven't been to that site in a while, and like I said, it's blocked at my workplace, so I can't verify.
Mike in VA
New member
444, you're mixing metaphors . . .
I belive the term was originally 'shadetree mechanics' and 'barroom or ****house/jailhouse lawyers' indicating a person with working knowledge of a auto repairs or the law, but not enough to hang out a shingle, but whatever.
If you are so unfortunate as to actually have to kill somebody, your gun and ammo will be impounded and tested. They will know whether you were firing Winchester SilverTips or homemade Maxenboomer Vaporizers. The larger point here is that handloads give the opposition an opeining, and lawyers, being exploitive animals by nature, will use the opeing and twist it to their advantage. As Jim pointed out, ammo choice isn't a real issue in a truly righteous shooting, but in anything less than open'n'shut, and certainly the follow-on civil suit, it's an opening and you shouldn't give your enemies an opeining. The conventional wisdom is 'use what the cops use', & save the handloads for the range and hunting. Stay safe, M2
I belive the term was originally 'shadetree mechanics' and 'barroom or ****house/jailhouse lawyers' indicating a person with working knowledge of a auto repairs or the law, but not enough to hang out a shingle, but whatever.
If you are so unfortunate as to actually have to kill somebody, your gun and ammo will be impounded and tested. They will know whether you were firing Winchester SilverTips or homemade Maxenboomer Vaporizers. The larger point here is that handloads give the opposition an opeining, and lawyers, being exploitive animals by nature, will use the opeing and twist it to their advantage. As Jim pointed out, ammo choice isn't a real issue in a truly righteous shooting, but in anything less than open'n'shut, and certainly the follow-on civil suit, it's an opening and you shouldn't give your enemies an opeining. The conventional wisdom is 'use what the cops use', & save the handloads for the range and hunting. Stay safe, M2
Jim Keenan wrote:
Jim, I don't know where you got this idea, but in these forums I've NEVER seen anyone contend that a CCW/CHL license is a license to kill. Here in the "wild" state of Texas, the mandated class you have to take before the license is issued makes it very clear that you WILL have to answer for your every action involving defensive use of your handgun. Even drawing it in the face of perceived danger means there's a good chance the police will become involved, and if it turns out you brandished your pistol without good reason, you're in trouble even if you didn't pull the trigger.
Moreover, someone with an attitude like you described probably wouldn't qualify for a license anyway, because it's likely that attitude will have gotten him a record before.
On the subject of handloads: odds are, if your handloads are made up in new brass with the same brand of factory-standard bullets, they "probably" won't know. Unless you open your big mouth and say something. Then it "might" become an issue in your demonization by the press or the prosecutor.
But, with the improvements in factory loads we've seen in the last 20 years, there's little to be gained in performance by handloading defense ammo. I use +P or +P+ LEO ammo for carry, because I figure using the same ammo police have chosen to defend the public is the most defensible from a PR standpoint in the aftermath of a defensive shooting.
(Jim, I do agree wholeheartedly with your recommendation against taking legal advice from the Internet.)
Jim, I don't know where you got this idea, but in these forums I've NEVER seen anyone contend that a CCW/CHL license is a license to kill. Here in the "wild" state of Texas, the mandated class you have to take before the license is issued makes it very clear that you WILL have to answer for your every action involving defensive use of your handgun. Even drawing it in the face of perceived danger means there's a good chance the police will become involved, and if it turns out you brandished your pistol without good reason, you're in trouble even if you didn't pull the trigger.
Moreover, someone with an attitude like you described probably wouldn't qualify for a license anyway, because it's likely that attitude will have gotten him a record before.
On the subject of handloads: odds are, if your handloads are made up in new brass with the same brand of factory-standard bullets, they "probably" won't know. Unless you open your big mouth and say something. Then it "might" become an issue in your demonization by the press or the prosecutor.
But, with the improvements in factory loads we've seen in the last 20 years, there's little to be gained in performance by handloading defense ammo. I use +P or +P+ LEO ammo for carry, because I figure using the same ammo police have chosen to defend the public is the most defensible from a PR standpoint in the aftermath of a defensive shooting.
(Jim, I do agree wholeheartedly with your recommendation against taking legal advice from the Internet.)
One factor to consider is that powder burns (or the lack thereof) could become an important piece of evidence. If you use factory ammo, rounds from the same lot can be tested to establish things like the maximum distance at which someone was shot. If you use handloads, I expect you'd have a much harder time getting similar test results accepted.
This question was just posed for informational purposes. I agree that there is no point in taking a chance. As I mentioned, I buy "defense loads" for all my handguns when I initally buy the gun. Then I try and duplicate the performace as closely as possible with my practice handloads in most cases even duplicating the bullet. That got me thinking about this issue. For the record, and primarily for Jim; I don't even have a CCW, don't carry concealed, and don't keep a loaded gun in the house or car. In fact none of my guns are ever out of the safe unless I am in the process of going to the range or hunting. I can't even give you a good reason why I buy the "defense" ammo other the vague notion that I may someday have to defend my life which doesn't make much sense because I probably couldn't get to a gun anyway. I probably will get a CCW just because, but I doubt that I will actually carry much.
I am a lawyer in real life, honest.
The potential concern about handloads is that a prosecutor would introduce the evidence to imply to the jury that your self-defense argument is flawed because you, as an evil handloader of ammunition and ballistics enthusiast, were predisposed to seek out a victim to shoot "in self-defense."
Never heard of this argument actually being made in a shooting. I believe that's due to the fact that relatively few people reload ammo. Not an issue for me because I don't reload and am happy with Hydrashocks and Hornady ammo.
Regards,
Ledbetter, Esq.
The potential concern about handloads is that a prosecutor would introduce the evidence to imply to the jury that your self-defense argument is flawed because you, as an evil handloader of ammunition and ballistics enthusiast, were predisposed to seek out a victim to shoot "in self-defense."
Never heard of this argument actually being made in a shooting. I believe that's due to the fact that relatively few people reload ammo. Not an issue for me because I don't reload and am happy with Hydrashocks and Hornady ammo.
Regards,
Ledbetter, Esq.
Forensics examiners will often be able to determine from near-contact distance gunshot wounds and recovered bullet(s):
The manufacturer of the primer;
the type of powder (ball/flake/WW296 *type* vs. Bullseye *type*);
the manufacturer of the barrel;
and the usual caliber/broad velocity range/angle of the shot, etc.
Even if you use the same powder, primer, brass and bullet, the fired case will almost certainly reveal whether it was a reload.
But I don't care because any attorney who has *only* vampire killer ammunition to hang is case on can be EASILY discredited as a grandstanding fool.
However, if you are like the guy whose news footage I saw in the mid-'80s and just lost your temper over some idiotic argument at the poolside, went to retrieve your gun and then claimed to lose all recollection of what happened before that unarmed lounge lizard got perforated, your vampire killer handloads *will* be another nail in your legal coffin.
We are discussing an overblown "problem" with a solution conveniently in favor of the ammo factories' gunrag shills.
Shoot reloads for self-defense with no fear.
The manufacturer of the primer;
the type of powder (ball/flake/WW296 *type* vs. Bullseye *type*);
the manufacturer of the barrel;
and the usual caliber/broad velocity range/angle of the shot, etc.
Even if you use the same powder, primer, brass and bullet, the fired case will almost certainly reveal whether it was a reload.
But I don't care because any attorney who has *only* vampire killer ammunition to hang is case on can be EASILY discredited as a grandstanding fool.
However, if you are like the guy whose news footage I saw in the mid-'80s and just lost your temper over some idiotic argument at the poolside, went to retrieve your gun and then claimed to lose all recollection of what happened before that unarmed lounge lizard got perforated, your vampire killer handloads *will* be another nail in your legal coffin.
We are discussing an overblown "problem" with a solution conveniently in favor of the ammo factories' gunrag shills.
Shoot reloads for self-defense with no fear.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
I was on a jury (Texas) where the late unlamented had been done in by HydraShoks.
The prosecution did try to make an issue of the type of ammo. The defendant testified that he had bought the HydraShoks on the advice of the gun dealer. The gun dealer was called in to testify and corroborated the defendant's statements. IIRC, he stated the HydraShoks helped overcome the low power of the snubbie Model 36.
That issue never arose in the jury room.
For me, personally, I'd point out that I've been handloading for fifty years, for both rifle and handgun. I've not had a fight or involvement with the law for the same length of time. Had I been "hunting", there were many opportunities which could have been taken..."My regret is that this criminal forced me into a position of fear for my life and of not having any other choice."
FWIW, Art
The prosecution did try to make an issue of the type of ammo. The defendant testified that he had bought the HydraShoks on the advice of the gun dealer. The gun dealer was called in to testify and corroborated the defendant's statements. IIRC, he stated the HydraShoks helped overcome the low power of the snubbie Model 36.
That issue never arose in the jury room.
For me, personally, I'd point out that I've been handloading for fifty years, for both rifle and handgun. I've not had a fight or involvement with the law for the same length of time. Had I been "hunting", there were many opportunities which could have been taken..."My regret is that this criminal forced me into a position of fear for my life and of not having any other choice."
FWIW, Art
Cheapo brings up another point. I have read numerous times that ammo manufacturers do not use the same powders as us reloaders. They use what is termed "Canister Powder". I am not well versed in this, but from what I understand, they buy powder in huge quntities and blend powders to achieve the desired burn rate in order to achieve the desired velocity.. In addition they don't nessessarily use the same powder from lot to lot. They buy powder based on price, availability etc. One box of Hydrashocks may not have the same powder as another. But they will have very close to the same velocity. Again, this is just something I have read, although I have read it many times. Therefore, it isn't like someone could identify a given powder and say that is what they use to load Glasers or whatever. Again, this is all just for the sake of discussion and not intended to inflame anyone.
I am an attorney and I have represented a home owner in a criminal prosecution for his killing an intruder with the seventh shot (after six "warning" shots)from a 22 magnum semi auto rifle. The facts in that particular case turned out to be VERY complicated and seemingly unique, as is typical in real world cases. There's always some goofy fact that is too weird for fiction but just dandy for the court room
Having said that, there are a whole host of issues to deal with before you get to the caliber of the gun and the character of the ammo -- store bought v. handload. In virtually every case, the beginning point is the same. Did you act in response to a reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm? Were your actions proportionate to the perceived threat?? This is stated in varying terms in each state, but the core in each case is whether you acted reasonably, given all of the factors.
To illustrate the obvious: you can't shoot somebody with a firearm for throwing rotten eggs on your car; you can shoot someone who is in the process of entering your home and is himself conspicuously armed and threatening. All of the gray is in between Some states require you to retreat, if possible. Some states say your home is your castle and you don't have to retreat -- you can stand and fight.
But the big things the homicide detective are going to look at are: was the BG armed; was he in the process of a burglary or robbery; did he in fact threaten you verbally or physically; had he in fact discharged his gun. From the other end, did you interrupt him and did he retreat, was he still posing a threat when you fired your gun, and -- seriously -- are the entry holes in his front or back.
You may consider this far fetched, but the prosecutor will want to know if you had any prior relationship or grudge with the BG? Is there any evidence that the BG had acted agressively the same day or evening? Do you have a history of agression? All of these questions were answered affirmatively in my client's case. It's always messy and never simple.
If you pass the basic test of reason, I believe the hand load vs. factory ammo question is going to be WAY down the list, and for that matter I think caliber itself will be way down the line of factors to consider. If all you have next to the night stand is a 12 ga with 00, and you are placed in real risk without any provocation on your part, you are entitled to use the available force; the BG should have been more selective in the house he broke into.
This example may break down if you have a bazooka or even a 50 cal rifle next to your bed. It gets hard to persuade that those could ever be "proportionate," but I would not hesitate to defend even that if, for instance, you were shooting your 50 cal at a range and somebody decided they just had to have it and threatened you with their Lorcin 25.
You do not have to believe the sob will not shoot you and voluntarily disarm yourself. If he is pointing his pee shooter at you and you elect not to trust the armed thief, it is his problem that you had a bigger gun. Reason can support the use of the bigger gun if the alternative is disarming yourself in front of a BG with any gun, however small the caliber.
PS The implicit assumption about hand loads in this thread is that they are "hot." As a matter of fact, virtually ALL of the guys I know that hand load are loading for competitive shooting and consistently load the round below specs to reduce muzzle flip. FWIW.
Having said that, there are a whole host of issues to deal with before you get to the caliber of the gun and the character of the ammo -- store bought v. handload. In virtually every case, the beginning point is the same. Did you act in response to a reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm? Were your actions proportionate to the perceived threat?? This is stated in varying terms in each state, but the core in each case is whether you acted reasonably, given all of the factors.
To illustrate the obvious: you can't shoot somebody with a firearm for throwing rotten eggs on your car; you can shoot someone who is in the process of entering your home and is himself conspicuously armed and threatening. All of the gray is in between Some states require you to retreat, if possible. Some states say your home is your castle and you don't have to retreat -- you can stand and fight.
But the big things the homicide detective are going to look at are: was the BG armed; was he in the process of a burglary or robbery; did he in fact threaten you verbally or physically; had he in fact discharged his gun. From the other end, did you interrupt him and did he retreat, was he still posing a threat when you fired your gun, and -- seriously -- are the entry holes in his front or back.
You may consider this far fetched, but the prosecutor will want to know if you had any prior relationship or grudge with the BG? Is there any evidence that the BG had acted agressively the same day or evening? Do you have a history of agression? All of these questions were answered affirmatively in my client's case. It's always messy and never simple.
If you pass the basic test of reason, I believe the hand load vs. factory ammo question is going to be WAY down the list, and for that matter I think caliber itself will be way down the line of factors to consider. If all you have next to the night stand is a 12 ga with 00, and you are placed in real risk without any provocation on your part, you are entitled to use the available force; the BG should have been more selective in the house he broke into.
This example may break down if you have a bazooka or even a 50 cal rifle next to your bed. It gets hard to persuade that those could ever be "proportionate," but I would not hesitate to defend even that if, for instance, you were shooting your 50 cal at a range and somebody decided they just had to have it and threatened you with their Lorcin 25.
You do not have to believe the sob will not shoot you and voluntarily disarm yourself. If he is pointing his pee shooter at you and you elect not to trust the armed thief, it is his problem that you had a bigger gun. Reason can support the use of the bigger gun if the alternative is disarming yourself in front of a BG with any gun, however small the caliber.
PS The implicit assumption about hand loads in this thread is that they are "hot." As a matter of fact, virtually ALL of the guys I know that hand load are loading for competitive shooting and consistently load the round below specs to reduce muzzle flip. FWIW.
jdthaddeus
New member
In Dr. Vince DiMiao's book on forensic study he discusses how to recreat a shooting using the powder burns. According to the type of powder etc, and testing, it can be determined how far you are from the person you shoot. This evidence can backup your story. There are a number of ways a forensic expert can recreate your shooting by testing the cartridge you were carrying. Generally, reloads are not considered as accurate for this forensic study because they never know how much powder you put in each cartridge etc.
With factory ammo, this evidence can more easily be used in your favor, (or against you I suppose, if you were lying about how that shooting went) because the examiners will use that factory ammo to recreate the scene. Reloads cannot so easily be used for evidence because there is no official quality control there and they have no idea if every bullet is the same. IOW, if they want to guage your distance from burned clothing, they take a round and shoot it at some clothing and measure the burns. From this data they can figure out how far you were from the target. If you are using reloads, then it makes it rather sketchy to take some more of your reloads and shoot them and test the burns, because they really don't know if the reloaded cartridges they are testing are exactly the same as the ones you were carrying (was there more or less powder, a difference type of powder etc?). So, feasibly, factory ammo could more easily be used by examiners to recreate the shooting and this could work in your favor (or not?). Personally I would make a batch of defensive ammo and label it clearly if I were going to carry reloads for defense.
As far as people being prosecuted for using "super ammo": Ayoob tends to rant about this, but his case studies are weak. He claims that you will be hung out to dry, but he only gives one or two examples of reloads being brought up in court, and in all cases the shooter (good guy?) got off. So, apparently, even if it were brought up that you carry reloads, there is NO evidence that it will matter. To my knowledge, there has never been a single legal case in history where it worked against the shooter that he was using reloads, and it made him lose his case and be prosecuted.
IMO, this is nothing more than a popular gun shop myth. And, one reason it is so popular is that gun shop owners and ammo companies make money off of convincing you that you have to spend a dollar per bullet for you ammo. It is very common that I hear this myth from gun shop people (among many other myths) and I have to wonder if they don't tell it just to get you do buy some expensive ammo from them.
In one case that Ayoob cites, a man used reloads and the lawyer accused him of making deadly super-ammo. So, they tested the velocity on some of his loads and found that they are at the same velocity as other loads on the market, and it came out as no big deal.
This case study not only shows that it is far from proven that it will be successfully used against you in court if you use reloads, but it also shows that examiners are willing to test reloads and trust that they are the same (how do they know that all the reloads in his magazine were loaded to the same velocity?)
That is my reading on the subject and by no means any expert advice. I carry factory ammo most of the time, but occasionally I carry reloads and have no problem with it.
With factory ammo, this evidence can more easily be used in your favor, (or against you I suppose, if you were lying about how that shooting went) because the examiners will use that factory ammo to recreate the scene. Reloads cannot so easily be used for evidence because there is no official quality control there and they have no idea if every bullet is the same. IOW, if they want to guage your distance from burned clothing, they take a round and shoot it at some clothing and measure the burns. From this data they can figure out how far you were from the target. If you are using reloads, then it makes it rather sketchy to take some more of your reloads and shoot them and test the burns, because they really don't know if the reloaded cartridges they are testing are exactly the same as the ones you were carrying (was there more or less powder, a difference type of powder etc?). So, feasibly, factory ammo could more easily be used by examiners to recreate the shooting and this could work in your favor (or not?). Personally I would make a batch of defensive ammo and label it clearly if I were going to carry reloads for defense.
As far as people being prosecuted for using "super ammo": Ayoob tends to rant about this, but his case studies are weak. He claims that you will be hung out to dry, but he only gives one or two examples of reloads being brought up in court, and in all cases the shooter (good guy?) got off. So, apparently, even if it were brought up that you carry reloads, there is NO evidence that it will matter. To my knowledge, there has never been a single legal case in history where it worked against the shooter that he was using reloads, and it made him lose his case and be prosecuted.
IMO, this is nothing more than a popular gun shop myth. And, one reason it is so popular is that gun shop owners and ammo companies make money off of convincing you that you have to spend a dollar per bullet for you ammo. It is very common that I hear this myth from gun shop people (among many other myths) and I have to wonder if they don't tell it just to get you do buy some expensive ammo from them.
In one case that Ayoob cites, a man used reloads and the lawyer accused him of making deadly super-ammo. So, they tested the velocity on some of his loads and found that they are at the same velocity as other loads on the market, and it came out as no big deal.
This case study not only shows that it is far from proven that it will be successfully used against you in court if you use reloads, but it also shows that examiners are willing to test reloads and trust that they are the same (how do they know that all the reloads in his magazine were loaded to the same velocity?)
That is my reading on the subject and by no means any expert advice. I carry factory ammo most of the time, but occasionally I carry reloads and have no problem with it.
abruzzi: Good post, nice to hear from someone experienced in the field. The loads I bought this whole thing up about, are in fact loaded to duplicate the factory load as closely as possible in every way. Trying to load them hot would defeat the purpose of what I am trying to acheive which is economical practice with my defense ammo. The reloads must recoil the same, shoot to the same POI etc. The loads should perform exactly the same as the factory load if used in self defense. The difference is that I could load several hundred for what a box of 25 factory loads cost.
WalterGAII
Moderator
Denfoote: There are several States, mine being one of them, that don't require any training for CCW.
I know a lot of lawyers. Some of them are my clients. Some of them are my relatives. I would trust my own judgement on issues that are being addressed herein, before I'd trust the judgement of "just any" lawyer.
Of course, I have the advantage of not living in a jurisdiction that's run by effete, pusillanimous DemocRATS. In my locale, one who manages to take the life of a bad guy isn't arrested; generally the gun in question isn't confiscated, and most of the time the shooter gets a parade around the town square.
Now, if you happen to live in a jurisdiction run by some fagarillo like Barney Frank, you might be hung out to dry, regardless of the circumstances. This is a free-travel country. I don't understand why people possessed with the ability to pour piss out of a boot would choose to live in a place like NY, CA, or MA, etc., etc.
I know a lot of lawyers. Some of them are my clients. Some of them are my relatives. I would trust my own judgement on issues that are being addressed herein, before I'd trust the judgement of "just any" lawyer.
Of course, I have the advantage of not living in a jurisdiction that's run by effete, pusillanimous DemocRATS. In my locale, one who manages to take the life of a bad guy isn't arrested; generally the gun in question isn't confiscated, and most of the time the shooter gets a parade around the town square.
Now, if you happen to live in a jurisdiction run by some fagarillo like Barney Frank, you might be hung out to dry, regardless of the circumstances. This is a free-travel country. I don't understand why people possessed with the ability to pour piss out of a boot would choose to live in a place like NY, CA, or MA, etc., etc.
I never had any piss in my boot to begin with.
WalterGAII,
I can tell from the tone of kindness in your post that you sincerely seek answers to your question. Some of us were born here before the 'rats got here, and have family obligations to fulfill before we can move to Georgia and make your life a sheer living hell on earth.
Regards to all,
Ledbetter
WalterGAII,
I can tell from the tone of kindness in your post that you sincerely seek answers to your question. Some of us were born here before the 'rats got here, and have family obligations to fulfill before we can move to Georgia and make your life a sheer living hell on earth.
Regards to all,
Ledbetter