billnourse
New member
Hornady Critical Defense is my choice for self defense. Reloads for pratice and hunting.
Bill
Bill
Concealed Carry Ammo - Factory Rounds or Your Reloads?
- Thread starter Mike-Mat
- Start date
- Status
I don't reload ... I use Hornady Critical Defense rounds in both my main carry guns, a Kahr PM9 and a Kimber UCII .45 ... reliable, accurate and seem to expand well in every test I've read .. I have no experience in actual SD shootings, but have often read that reloaded SD ammo can cause problems in the courtroom ...
Motownstan
New member
They can try whatever they want, but did anyone every go to trial in a SD case because they used hand loads?
I think it would be just as easy to show advertisements for Golden Sabers, Critical Defense or whatever expanding bullet and say you really wanted to kill somebody.
nefprotector
Moderator
I load mine up with factory loads. Usually Corbon, Buffalo Bore +P+.
Seriously? If a lawyer is being paid to sue you he will try anything. ANYTHING!
When you're facing a jury, you're facing members of the public - you depend on public opinion. It's not supposed to work this way, but it does - people get convicted or acquitted on public opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if they describe JHP as being "so deadly it's banned in the military" and FMJ as "military grade ammunition specially chosen for it's armour piercing ability". People who don't shoot and don't know anything about guns will swallow that crap. Maybe not in Texas, but it's not the same everywhere. I know people who would believe that.
If you can say you just used what the cops use, then that is as far as the argument can go. If you can get a store clerk or a certified trainer to swear that you asked their advice and this is the type they reccommended, better again. Why? Because everyone on the jury will think to him/herself: "That's what I would have done."
Just my $0.02
I have duty guns, CC guns and farm/hunting guns. Each has their 'regular' load along with whatever I use for just general shooting. Sometimes the categories overlap and often times, those guns are stoked with reloads.
If I'm just shooting or working around the farm, I'm not stopping to reload if I need to run into town for a half hour. I ain't shooting anybody that don't make me shoot them. I ain't afeared of no liaryers.
If I'm just shooting or working around the farm, I'm not stopping to reload if I need to run into town for a half hour. I ain't shooting anybody that don't make me shoot them. I ain't afeared of no liaryers.
State of NJ v. Daniel Bias.
It is discussed at length beginning on page four of this long thread on the same subject from last year.
Uncle Buck
New member
I was in the camp of "No such thing as a lawyer worried about how my bullets are reloaded."
Now I am in the camp of "Factory loaded for self defense."
After doing some reading, it has come up in court cases. Why would I want a prosecutor or the defendant's lawyer hyping on my reloads? "I bought them at Wally-World" is a lot easier than explaining my reloading.
That being said: If I am out target shooting, or working around the farm, my pistols are loaded with home rolled. If I was put in a situation, and I hope I never am, where I needed to shoot someone, what type of cartridge I have in my gun would not be a show stopper.
My guns in the bedroom and office are loaded with factory ammo.
Now I am in the camp of "Factory loaded for self defense."
After doing some reading, it has come up in court cases. Why would I want a prosecutor or the defendant's lawyer hyping on my reloads? "I bought them at Wally-World" is a lot easier than explaining my reloading.
That being said: If I am out target shooting, or working around the farm, my pistols are loaded with home rolled. If I was put in a situation, and I hope I never am, where I needed to shoot someone, what type of cartridge I have in my gun would not be a show stopper.
My guns in the bedroom and office are loaded with factory ammo.
MikeNice81
New member
I keep factory loads in my firearms. I don't reload and it is partially because I don't feel like facing any extra scrutiny. In NC if you shoot somebody, much more likely than not, there will be a grand jury. Even if the grand jury says it was self defense you can still be pulled in to civil court.
That is when I want to be able to say my gun was loaded with the same brand of bullet that many/most police forces use. If I can tell them I use XYZ bullet because the cops use it, and I shoot a .38spl because the potential for a shot continuing through and harming a civilian is minimalized, I feel that at least 50% of the battle is won. It shows that I thought things out in a reasonable and responsible manner. If I show that kind of care before the shooting I probably didn't rush in to the decision to fire a shot.
I'm not saying that it will win the case. I'm just saying that I feel it would show a history of responsible action.
(I am not saying that .38spl is the sole responsible choice. I say carry what you can shoot well and what you feel comfortable will get the job done. A .38spl or .380 works for me. Your Milage May Vary)
That is when I want to be able to say my gun was loaded with the same brand of bullet that many/most police forces use. If I can tell them I use XYZ bullet because the cops use it, and I shoot a .38spl because the potential for a shot continuing through and harming a civilian is minimalized, I feel that at least 50% of the battle is won. It shows that I thought things out in a reasonable and responsible manner. If I show that kind of care before the shooting I probably didn't rush in to the decision to fire a shot.
I'm not saying that it will win the case. I'm just saying that I feel it would show a history of responsible action.
(I am not saying that .38spl is the sole responsible choice. I say carry what you can shoot well and what you feel comfortable will get the job done. A .38spl or .380 works for me. Your Milage May Vary)
andy416mag
New member
Always always carry Factory in your defensive firearms. Reloads will get you in court they will try and say that you were just making ammo to kill someone.
my CCW is a S&W 640 in 357.
I usually use any of the 100-125 grain SJHP rounds from any of the major manufactures.
I do shoot reloads but that is more for targets or hunting (obviously with a different 357 for hunting) , for protection I shoot factory ammo because I was told that it can make a difference if I am ever sued.
I usually use any of the 100-125 grain SJHP rounds from any of the major manufactures.
I do shoot reloads but that is more for targets or hunting (obviously with a different 357 for hunting) , for protection I shoot factory ammo because I was told that it can make a difference if I am ever sued.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that you are likely to face two lausuits; Criminal and Civil. You may prevail on the first and not the second. Do Y'all remember the O.J. trials?
Faced with a potential problem on your use of reloads is just not worth it. Why take that chance or leave that resilution to a court? ...
Be Safe !!!
Faced with a potential problem on your use of reloads is just not worth it. Why take that chance or leave that resilution to a court? ...
Be Safe !!!
A current thread in the General Discussion area links to an article with some relevant info:
Page 16 (text in [] added by me):
Now, if they can try something like that, you think the prosecution lawyer would have looked at the reloads and said to himself "Oh but that's OK, reloaded ammo is perfectly normal" ?
Judge for yourself.
Page 16 (text in [] added by me):
Now, if they can try something like that, you think the prosecution lawyer would have looked at the reloads and said to himself "Oh but that's OK, reloaded ammo is perfectly normal" ?
Judge for yourself.
Factory only for me, though I enthusiastically use reloads in practice.
A lot of times when this is discussed or argued online, people don't seem to understand where the argument comes from. It's very easy to build up a straw man that you don't even realize is a straw man, and then knock it down as the silliness that it is. But I think when we understand why the advice is actually given, that can make a big difference in how we understand the issues in play.
A foundational point: I don't believe anyone who has done the research actually believes that anyone would be convicted FOR using handloads. There isn't a jurisdiction in America where handloading is illegal and there sure aren't any laws on the books anywhere that I'm aware of where it says that using a handload sends you to jail. So if you want to understand the deal, get that idea out of your mind because it just isn't the source of this advice and it just isn't going to happen.
Sometimes people say something like, "Well, as long as the shooting itself is justified, that's all that matters." And that's absolutely true. But... The cops and prosecutors don't just walk up on a situation and sign off on it. First they have to find out what happened. Investigators investigate. They might be sympathetic, they might be hostile, but in either case their jobs require them to get the facts and then compare those facts against the law of the land. And if any part of the facts are even slightly muddy or ambiguous, they will keep looking until they find more information. Further, the way the system is set up, it often happens that the investigators spend most of their time and most of their energy looking for "inculpatory evidence" (that is, evidence that would tend to prove someone's guilt) than they do looking for "exculpatory evidence" (evidence that would tend to prove innocence). This isn't malicious; it's simply the way the system works. Cops and prosecutors get paid to find criminals and bring them to justice. That's the job. So when you hear someone say, "As long as the shooting itself is justified," that person has just skimmed right past the most important concept of all: the shooting isn't justified until the cops and prosecutors say it's justified.
Of course, if you commit murder and get tried for murder and convicted of murder, that's one thing. But if you reasonably and vigorously defend your life in a somewhat muddled or confusing set of circumstances, and someone dies as a result, that's when you end up in court and that's when all of this comes into play.
As one example of a muddled or confusing circumstance (handloads weren't involved, but ambiguity certainly was), read the defendant's statement at the conclusion of the first Harold Fish trial: here, then poke around that site until you get an understanding of the case. THIS is what a self-defense case looks like in court. Is it pretty? No. There are lots of good, gun-carrying people serious about self defense who (even today!) think Harold Fish was guilty of murder. Why do they think that? Because the man was tried and convicted in a court of law. But there are also lots of people who’ve looked at the facts in the case who think the man should never have been charged at all, let alone convicted—that it was a clear, simple case of fully justified self defense. And yet he has gone through hell trying to clear his name. THIS is what self defense looks like when it gets to court!
Another example of a similar furball was linked by divil in the post above. An ugly mess indeed.
Does it always look like that? Nope. Sometimes things go perfectly and everyone understands that the defender simply did what they had to do and that's the end of it.
But sometimes it does look like that. Sometimes the circumstances are muddy. Sometimes there's a prosecutor up for election and needing to make a name for himself. Sometimes the attacker's family has enough political pull to get a huge furball going and keep it going. Whatever. Sometimes it looks like that.
You don't know in advance what kind of circumstance you might end up in. If you have a nice clear case, it can still go south. If you've got an ambiguous or questionable one, it can go a lot further south a whole lot faster. Either way, the only smart thing to do is to be prepared to deal with either type of situation. Just as you carry a firearm to defend your life in the gravest extreme, it’s worthwhile to arm yourself with knowledge so you can defend your freedom in the worst circumstances.
And that brings us back to handloads. Okay, it's true that a malicious prosecutor can make a big deal out of your "killer" handloads. That's obvious. But it's equally obvious that there are things you can say in response to that: you can say it's about the money, you can say it's convenience, you can say your pistol was tuned to be most accurate with custom ammunition, you can say they were light loads rather than heavy ones. Whatever. But the point is, the prosecutor can bring it up at trial.
Think of the trial as a sort of seesaw: if there's enough weight on one end of the scale, you get convicted. If there's enough weight on the other end, you go free. Then realize that every single thing the prosecutor puts on his end of the scale is something your attorney has to knock back off the scale--and that's before your attorney can add any weight to your own side. So your attorney can spend a whole lot of time and energy swatting away at pesky issues on the prosecution side without ever giving the jury any reason to set you free.
Sometimes attorneys have bad days, and miss knocking one of those weights off the scale. Sometimes they don't realize it's there. Sometimes they see it, but they don't know how "heavy" the thing will be when the jury looks at it. Whatever it is, when it gets into the trial, it also goes into the jury room. And no matter how heavy the evidence on your own side is, the more stuff there is piled on the other end of the scale, the easier it is for the jury to say, "Well, we can't quite tell what the facts are, but we can see what kind of person the defendant is! Look at this, this, this, and that--he's not a good person, let's convict him based on our gut feelings." And nobody in the entire system can second guess a jury. They debate in private and make their decisions based on everything they've been shown.
All of that adds up to, it is absolutely to your advantage to keep unnecessary stuff out of the jury room. Every single little issue that makes you look worse to the jury can absolutely affect the final outcome. So it might just be in your best interest to cut off that line of attack by using factory loads, or even by using loads that the police themselves use. That makes knocking that weight off the scale a simple, two-sentence move that requires no effort from your lawyer and no work for the jury to understand. It’s a slam dunk.
But I don’t think any of that is the deciding factor for me. I love shooting reloads because I’m a cheapskate. It’s all I shoot in practice and if I had to shoot only factory ammunition I sure couldn’t shoot as much as I do. But I won’t carry handloads for defense, for this reason: I want my attorney to have every possible advantage at trial.
One of the advantages that factory loads give the attorney at trial is this: the opportunity to introduce physical, forensic evidence that can prove the distance between me and the attacker if necessary. When you use a factory load, you’ve got the opportunity to call up the factory and ask for an exemplar of the same product run as the one you used. Your people can test it, note the gun powder residue patterns, the ballistic factors, all of that. It can be introduced into court and it’s unimpeachable.
But when you use handloads, that evidence simply won’t be available to you. Even if you keep absolutely perfect and pristine records (you should!), it’s extremely unlikely that the judge will allow you to manufacture evidence for your own trial. Your handloads won't be admitted at trial because you have manufactured or created the evidence yourself.
What about the rounds left in the gun? Couldn’t they test those? Those are unambiguously part of the crime scene and obviously they are what you used. So couldn't they use those for ballistic testing? Sure, they could—but they won’t. Firing the rounds to test how they behave destroys the rounds. That would be “destruction of evidence” and it’s every bit as unlikely as them allowing you to manufacture evidence to clear yourself. Either which way, if you need that ballistic or residue evidence, but it isn’t available, that’s one less thing you can give the jury to help them set you free.
Anyway, that’s the basis of the advice. To me it seems pretty compelling, but of course it’s your choice. Personally, I want to be readily prepared to deal with the worst self defense situation, and not just the easy ones.
pax
PS-- I'm not an attorney and this is simply my researched, layman's understanding of how it works.
A lot of times when this is discussed or argued online, people don't seem to understand where the argument comes from. It's very easy to build up a straw man that you don't even realize is a straw man, and then knock it down as the silliness that it is. But I think when we understand why the advice is actually given, that can make a big difference in how we understand the issues in play.
A foundational point: I don't believe anyone who has done the research actually believes that anyone would be convicted FOR using handloads. There isn't a jurisdiction in America where handloading is illegal and there sure aren't any laws on the books anywhere that I'm aware of where it says that using a handload sends you to jail. So if you want to understand the deal, get that idea out of your mind because it just isn't the source of this advice and it just isn't going to happen.
Sometimes people say something like, "Well, as long as the shooting itself is justified, that's all that matters." And that's absolutely true. But... The cops and prosecutors don't just walk up on a situation and sign off on it. First they have to find out what happened. Investigators investigate. They might be sympathetic, they might be hostile, but in either case their jobs require them to get the facts and then compare those facts against the law of the land. And if any part of the facts are even slightly muddy or ambiguous, they will keep looking until they find more information. Further, the way the system is set up, it often happens that the investigators spend most of their time and most of their energy looking for "inculpatory evidence" (that is, evidence that would tend to prove someone's guilt) than they do looking for "exculpatory evidence" (evidence that would tend to prove innocence). This isn't malicious; it's simply the way the system works. Cops and prosecutors get paid to find criminals and bring them to justice. That's the job. So when you hear someone say, "As long as the shooting itself is justified," that person has just skimmed right past the most important concept of all: the shooting isn't justified until the cops and prosecutors say it's justified.
Of course, if you commit murder and get tried for murder and convicted of murder, that's one thing. But if you reasonably and vigorously defend your life in a somewhat muddled or confusing set of circumstances, and someone dies as a result, that's when you end up in court and that's when all of this comes into play.
As one example of a muddled or confusing circumstance (handloads weren't involved, but ambiguity certainly was), read the defendant's statement at the conclusion of the first Harold Fish trial: here, then poke around that site until you get an understanding of the case. THIS is what a self-defense case looks like in court. Is it pretty? No. There are lots of good, gun-carrying people serious about self defense who (even today!) think Harold Fish was guilty of murder. Why do they think that? Because the man was tried and convicted in a court of law. But there are also lots of people who’ve looked at the facts in the case who think the man should never have been charged at all, let alone convicted—that it was a clear, simple case of fully justified self defense. And yet he has gone through hell trying to clear his name. THIS is what self defense looks like when it gets to court!
Another example of a similar furball was linked by divil in the post above. An ugly mess indeed.
Does it always look like that? Nope. Sometimes things go perfectly and everyone understands that the defender simply did what they had to do and that's the end of it.
But sometimes it does look like that. Sometimes the circumstances are muddy. Sometimes there's a prosecutor up for election and needing to make a name for himself. Sometimes the attacker's family has enough political pull to get a huge furball going and keep it going. Whatever. Sometimes it looks like that.
You don't know in advance what kind of circumstance you might end up in. If you have a nice clear case, it can still go south. If you've got an ambiguous or questionable one, it can go a lot further south a whole lot faster. Either way, the only smart thing to do is to be prepared to deal with either type of situation. Just as you carry a firearm to defend your life in the gravest extreme, it’s worthwhile to arm yourself with knowledge so you can defend your freedom in the worst circumstances.
And that brings us back to handloads. Okay, it's true that a malicious prosecutor can make a big deal out of your "killer" handloads. That's obvious. But it's equally obvious that there are things you can say in response to that: you can say it's about the money, you can say it's convenience, you can say your pistol was tuned to be most accurate with custom ammunition, you can say they were light loads rather than heavy ones. Whatever. But the point is, the prosecutor can bring it up at trial.
Think of the trial as a sort of seesaw: if there's enough weight on one end of the scale, you get convicted. If there's enough weight on the other end, you go free. Then realize that every single thing the prosecutor puts on his end of the scale is something your attorney has to knock back off the scale--and that's before your attorney can add any weight to your own side. So your attorney can spend a whole lot of time and energy swatting away at pesky issues on the prosecution side without ever giving the jury any reason to set you free.
Sometimes attorneys have bad days, and miss knocking one of those weights off the scale. Sometimes they don't realize it's there. Sometimes they see it, but they don't know how "heavy" the thing will be when the jury looks at it. Whatever it is, when it gets into the trial, it also goes into the jury room. And no matter how heavy the evidence on your own side is, the more stuff there is piled on the other end of the scale, the easier it is for the jury to say, "Well, we can't quite tell what the facts are, but we can see what kind of person the defendant is! Look at this, this, this, and that--he's not a good person, let's convict him based on our gut feelings." And nobody in the entire system can second guess a jury. They debate in private and make their decisions based on everything they've been shown.
All of that adds up to, it is absolutely to your advantage to keep unnecessary stuff out of the jury room. Every single little issue that makes you look worse to the jury can absolutely affect the final outcome. So it might just be in your best interest to cut off that line of attack by using factory loads, or even by using loads that the police themselves use. That makes knocking that weight off the scale a simple, two-sentence move that requires no effort from your lawyer and no work for the jury to understand. It’s a slam dunk.
But I don’t think any of that is the deciding factor for me. I love shooting reloads because I’m a cheapskate. It’s all I shoot in practice and if I had to shoot only factory ammunition I sure couldn’t shoot as much as I do. But I won’t carry handloads for defense, for this reason: I want my attorney to have every possible advantage at trial.
One of the advantages that factory loads give the attorney at trial is this: the opportunity to introduce physical, forensic evidence that can prove the distance between me and the attacker if necessary. When you use a factory load, you’ve got the opportunity to call up the factory and ask for an exemplar of the same product run as the one you used. Your people can test it, note the gun powder residue patterns, the ballistic factors, all of that. It can be introduced into court and it’s unimpeachable.
But when you use handloads, that evidence simply won’t be available to you. Even if you keep absolutely perfect and pristine records (you should!), it’s extremely unlikely that the judge will allow you to manufacture evidence for your own trial. Your handloads won't be admitted at trial because you have manufactured or created the evidence yourself.
What about the rounds left in the gun? Couldn’t they test those? Those are unambiguously part of the crime scene and obviously they are what you used. So couldn't they use those for ballistic testing? Sure, they could—but they won’t. Firing the rounds to test how they behave destroys the rounds. That would be “destruction of evidence” and it’s every bit as unlikely as them allowing you to manufacture evidence to clear yourself. Either which way, if you need that ballistic or residue evidence, but it isn’t available, that’s one less thing you can give the jury to help them set you free.
Anyway, that’s the basis of the advice. To me it seems pretty compelling, but of course it’s your choice. Personally, I want to be readily prepared to deal with the worst self defense situation, and not just the easy ones.
pax
PS-- I'm not an attorney and this is simply my researched, layman's understanding of how it works.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Pax nailed it - you add a legal risk factor for dubious tactical advantage.
This is something that most folks never even think about. I recall seeing one instance where this factor played an important part in a trial.pax said:
The decedent's wife was charged with her husband's murder. He committed suicide using his own lightly loaded handloads. The prosecution used as their primary evidence the fact that testing with factory rounds produced a much different powder burn profile than was found on the victim. I can't recall how the trial ended but without the ambiguity introduced by the use of reloads it's unlikely that it would have even gone to trial in the first place.
Stevie-Ray
New member
I use only factory ammunition. I'd personally love to use my own reloads, since I trust them more than any factory stuff. But, I know in a SD shooting, if I have to go to trial, the prosecutor will use anything and everything he can against me. This is just one more thing I need not worry about. It helps also, that the 230 gr. HydraShoks I use are spooky accurate in my carry weapon.
- Status