Ok, from what I've heard/read using handloads for personal protection is a big no no. I'm not going to name names of who has said/wrote this suffice to say I'm not going to try it and find out. However, I got to thinking could that also apply to custom handguns? By custom I'm not talking a title of a model i.e. Kimber Custom II, I mean Caspian or Lone Wolf something that was build out of parts to make a full gun. My thoughts is a prosecutor might try to convince the jury that I, the owner, made or had this gun made with the sole intention of killing the person that was intending to kill me that I most likely never knew before hand. Could this be a possibility or am I just getting worked up for nothing? Thank you.
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.
Custom Handgun just as bad as Handloads for protection?
- Thread starter Nero45
- Start date
A couple of years ago I went to a workshop presented by the the county district attorney, a prosecuting and defense attorney and several police officers.
The question came up regarding hand loads and self defense. They were pretty clear that it makes no difference contrary to what you see in movies.
They all were in agreement as to what you need to do after a shooting:
1. Keep your mouth shut. The one thing that does send people, (even innocent people) to jail or prison is that they talked without the presence of an attorney.
2. The police just want to finish the paperwork. They will tell you anything in order to do that - even lie.
The question came up regarding hand loads and self defense. They were pretty clear that it makes no difference contrary to what you see in movies.
They all were in agreement as to what you need to do after a shooting:
1. Keep your mouth shut. The one thing that does send people, (even innocent people) to jail or prison is that they talked without the presence of an attorney.
2. The police just want to finish the paperwork. They will tell you anything in order to do that - even lie.
Lost Sheep
New member
Basis in theory, but not borne out in facts
If deadly force was justified, the question of what the bullet was is generally not a factor. There just isn't any case law to speak of.
That said, I have factory loads for self defense. I don't want to be the case that gets to be the test case.
Now, in a civil case where the AMOUNT of bodily harm to someone who survives a shooting might be an issue, THERE is something (in my opinion) to be worried about. But not that much. Again, case law just isn't there. But individual juries assessing an amount of damage can do strange things.
Rather than what a custom gun says about me, I would be more worried about the skull and crossbones scrimshawed on my grips and the phrase "Widowmaker" engraved on the left side of my barrel and "Kill 'em all and let God sort'em out" on the right, the swastika on my forehead and the devil horns tatooed above my ears.
OK, I got carried away just a little on that last paragraph.
Bottom line is, a justifiable use of force is justifiable. Anything else is just nuance compared to that first threshold.
Lost Sheep
In Criminal cases, to even get near the question of "Did the shooter use handloads and what does that say about his state of mind or intentions?" you have to get past the question of "Was deadly force justified or not?"Nero45 said:Ok, from what I've heard/read using handloads for personal protection is a big no no.
If deadly force was justified, the question of what the bullet was is generally not a factor. There just isn't any case law to speak of.
That said, I have factory loads for self defense. I don't want to be the case that gets to be the test case.
Now, in a civil case where the AMOUNT of bodily harm to someone who survives a shooting might be an issue, THERE is something (in my opinion) to be worried about. But not that much. Again, case law just isn't there. But individual juries assessing an amount of damage can do strange things.
Rather than what a custom gun says about me, I would be more worried about the skull and crossbones scrimshawed on my grips and the phrase "Widowmaker" engraved on the left side of my barrel and "Kill 'em all and let God sort'em out" on the right, the swastika on my forehead and the devil horns tatooed above my ears.
OK, I got carried away just a little on that last paragraph.
Bottom line is, a justifiable use of force is justifiable. Anything else is just nuance compared to that first threshold.
Lost Sheep
Is it just me or did everyone miss the OPs actual topic? Custom handguns not handloads.
I have wondered the same thing myself. I hear all the time about the ammo, but why is the same not true for the gun. Sya you improve the trigger pull on it, isn't it just as feasible for a attorney to talk about how the gun was altered to INCREASE IT"S KILLING POWER or if you remove the loaded chamber indicator are you not altering the gun TO MAKE IT MORE DEADLY (in the lawyers eyes
I have wondered the same thing myself. I hear all the time about the ammo, but why is the same not true for the gun. Sya you improve the trigger pull on it, isn't it just as feasible for a attorney to talk about how the gun was altered to INCREASE IT"S KILLING POWER or if you remove the loaded chamber indicator are you not altering the gun TO MAKE IT MORE DEADLY (in the lawyers eyes
The keyword in most responses is LAWYER.
In reality, there should not be any difficulty with carrying/using a firearm that you are comfortable and skilled with. As it stands, the dog poop lawyers and court system will go to any length to make a dollar off any situation good/bad, right/wrong that they can devise.
I carry a stock pistol with factory made ammo as a concession to the disgusting legal processes that may follow use of this equipment.
In reality, there should not be any difficulty with carrying/using a firearm that you are comfortable and skilled with. As it stands, the dog poop lawyers and court system will go to any length to make a dollar off any situation good/bad, right/wrong that they can devise.
I carry a stock pistol with factory made ammo as a concession to the disgusting legal processes that may follow use of this equipment.
A lawyer will bring up anything he can think of !!! How about 'it was the full moon !
A good shoot is a good shoot and those facts will win the case .
First get good training , you'll be much less likely to screw up.
Second get a very good criminal defense lawyer -- NOT your family lawyer !
A good shoot is a good shoot and those facts will win the case .
First get good training , you'll be much less likely to screw up.
Second get a very good criminal defense lawyer -- NOT your family lawyer !
That could depend on locality and the proclivities of a DA. I live in a state where your statement would likely apply, but I wouldn't take my chances in a place like New Jersey or Maryland.Bottom line is, a justifiable use of force is justifiable. Anything else is just nuance compared to that first threshold.
View from an old guy who watches
Criminal Charges:
The standards for a proper self-defense shoot is pretty simple: "Would a reasonable person in the same circumstance believe the assailant presented a threat of death or great bodily harm?"
The exact wording is probably different from place to place, but that's the gist of it nearly everywhere. There may be some jurisdictions that demand 'retreat', but those are local and must be dealt with individually.
Notwithstanding political pressures - like those currently going on in Florida - prosecutors generally have enough to do without seeking out flimsy cases to prosecute. (There can be exceptions, no guarantees in life.)
So, essentially, be careful, observe all the laws involved, and follow a 'reasonable' course of action. (Which is another whole discussion I won't address now.)
Civil Charges:
This is the tricky part. No matter what the circumstances of the event, some of the 'survivors' of the late lamented will sue for 'wrongful death', 'deprivation of company', pain, suffering, and possibly frostbite if they can find a sleazy enough attorney.
The arguments about 'special ammunition' and 'special weapons' may be used - typically in lieu of facts - by the plaintiff attorney. It is only successful if the jury is gullible enough to believe such claptrap.
One attorney attempted to argue - in a wrongful death suit - the respondent (the man who successfully defended himself from deadly force) had accidentally shot the late lamented; and was therefore guilty of negligence. The respondent offered the argument of reasonable defense to a deadly threat and no 'accident' was involved.
I confess I do not remember how the verdict went. I'm thinking the respondent prevailed; the jury believed no accident had occurred. However, it depends on how the jury 'feels' about the evidence and arguments presented.
Of course, the respondent still had the expenses of defending himself. A counter suit was pointless, the 'plaintiff' didn't have enough money to pay attention and the ambulance chaser who represented the plaintiff was irresponsible. Or perhaps just not responsible for the costs involved.
All of this points up the need for serious tort reform rather than concern over ammunition or custom made firearms.
Criminal Charges:
The standards for a proper self-defense shoot is pretty simple: "Would a reasonable person in the same circumstance believe the assailant presented a threat of death or great bodily harm?"
The exact wording is probably different from place to place, but that's the gist of it nearly everywhere. There may be some jurisdictions that demand 'retreat', but those are local and must be dealt with individually.
Notwithstanding political pressures - like those currently going on in Florida - prosecutors generally have enough to do without seeking out flimsy cases to prosecute. (There can be exceptions, no guarantees in life.)
So, essentially, be careful, observe all the laws involved, and follow a 'reasonable' course of action. (Which is another whole discussion I won't address now.)
Civil Charges:
This is the tricky part. No matter what the circumstances of the event, some of the 'survivors' of the late lamented will sue for 'wrongful death', 'deprivation of company', pain, suffering, and possibly frostbite if they can find a sleazy enough attorney.
The arguments about 'special ammunition' and 'special weapons' may be used - typically in lieu of facts - by the plaintiff attorney. It is only successful if the jury is gullible enough to believe such claptrap.
One attorney attempted to argue - in a wrongful death suit - the respondent (the man who successfully defended himself from deadly force) had accidentally shot the late lamented; and was therefore guilty of negligence. The respondent offered the argument of reasonable defense to a deadly threat and no 'accident' was involved.
I confess I do not remember how the verdict went. I'm thinking the respondent prevailed; the jury believed no accident had occurred. However, it depends on how the jury 'feels' about the evidence and arguments presented.
Of course, the respondent still had the expenses of defending himself. A counter suit was pointless, the 'plaintiff' didn't have enough money to pay attention and the ambulance chaser who represented the plaintiff was irresponsible. Or perhaps just not responsible for the costs involved.
All of this points up the need for serious tort reform rather than concern over ammunition or custom made firearms.
I choose to carry a custom made 1911 in .45 acp ...and I have no reservations about it .../ if it gets confiscated, then it does...
What will matter most ...is the situation ..and your actions ( if you ever have to use the gun ) ...
who made it / or whether you custom ordered it / custom triggers, etc - is way down the list...but yes, it might be a factor....all the more reason to think this stuff thru before you decide to carry a weapon ( and the civil issues as well as the criminal issues ) ...but strictly speaking a custom gun vs a stock gun ...will make very little difference in my opinion.
What will matter most ...is the situation ..and your actions ( if you ever have to use the gun ) ...
who made it / or whether you custom ordered it / custom triggers, etc - is way down the list...but yes, it might be a factor....all the more reason to think this stuff thru before you decide to carry a weapon ( and the civil issues as well as the criminal issues ) ...but strictly speaking a custom gun vs a stock gun ...will make very little difference in my opinion.
Custom modifications, defense-carry rounds....
To answer the member post, no: I don't think a custom or customized handgun will raise red flags or create serious legal problems, IF the owner uses common sense & good judgement.
Some gunsmith work or custom features like to remove the trigger guard or a magazine safety(on a Hi-Power semi auto) or to tape down a 1911a1 grip safety wouldn't be smart in 2012.
If you have a top pistolsmith do the service work or do things that enhance the firearm's safety(like a DA only action) could be defended in open court.
As posted, I agree that using handloaded or reloaded ammunition is not a smart idea for protection/carry guns.
I don't know what "movies" the TFL member is bringing up but I could see lawyers or the media using the ammunition as a motive or sign. True or not, that is the legal & law enforcement system today.
An example would be the Harold Fish(AZ vs Fish) case. The jurors were told by "legal experts" how Fish used Federal Hydra-Shoks & a single action 10mm; neither of which were in use by any sworn LE agency in the US at the time.
To answer the member post, no: I don't think a custom or customized handgun will raise red flags or create serious legal problems, IF the owner uses common sense & good judgement.
Some gunsmith work or custom features like to remove the trigger guard or a magazine safety(on a Hi-Power semi auto) or to tape down a 1911a1 grip safety wouldn't be smart in 2012.
If you have a top pistolsmith do the service work or do things that enhance the firearm's safety(like a DA only action) could be defended in open court.
As posted, I agree that using handloaded or reloaded ammunition is not a smart idea for protection/carry guns.
I don't know what "movies" the TFL member is bringing up but I could see lawyers or the media using the ammunition as a motive or sign. True or not, that is the legal & law enforcement system today.
An example would be the Harold Fish(AZ vs Fish) case. The jurors were told by "legal experts" how Fish used Federal Hydra-Shoks & a single action 10mm; neither of which were in use by any sworn LE agency in the US at the time.
The fact is this: anytime you are forced to use a gun to defend yourself there is a chance of legal problems and any choice of guns and/or ammunition could conceivably be used to portray you in a negative light.
Where the real issue lies is at what point does the legal risk outweigh the benefits of a particular gun/ammo choice. For me, personally, handloads have too high a risk/benefit ratio in most cases given the current quality of premium factory ammo. Likewise, there are very few guns which I'd feel the need to modify beyond a set of aftermarket grips before relying on them for self-defense.
That being said, if you feel that a Wilson Combat, Ed Brown, or Les Baer is the best tool with which to defend your life, get the appropriate model and carry it. Likewise, I wouldn't worry too much about a gun that's been accurized, had the trigger smoothed (though not lightened significantly), dehorned, or had a different set of sights installed is likely to be problematic. However, I don't really think that a 1lb trigger, grips with a skull and crossbones, or engraving that reads "goblin smoker" or some such nonsense is a particularly wise idea.
Where the real issue lies is at what point does the legal risk outweigh the benefits of a particular gun/ammo choice. For me, personally, handloads have too high a risk/benefit ratio in most cases given the current quality of premium factory ammo. Likewise, there are very few guns which I'd feel the need to modify beyond a set of aftermarket grips before relying on them for self-defense.
That being said, if you feel that a Wilson Combat, Ed Brown, or Les Baer is the best tool with which to defend your life, get the appropriate model and carry it. Likewise, I wouldn't worry too much about a gun that's been accurized, had the trigger smoothed (though not lightened significantly), dehorned, or had a different set of sights installed is likely to be problematic. However, I don't really think that a 1lb trigger, grips with a skull and crossbones, or engraving that reads "goblin smoker" or some such nonsense is a particularly wise idea.
Like baccusboy, I had the same concerns about carrying an expensive pistol in the very unforunate case I ever had to use it to protect myself or family. Now I shoot my high priced stuff at the range and bought a G19 for carry. Glocks aren't as appealing as one of my high end 1911's but I can get several Glocks for the same price. Everyone has heard of Glocks, but some greedy lawyer could make a senseless case about a pistol made by some manufacturer few people have ever heard of. It's possible even the incenuation could do harm in some jurors uneducated mind. Just my thoughts.
Just get a good, dependable handgun that is common and can be easily replaced. One that you have no sentimental attachment to. I am a cop and we will confiscate the weapon even in a clear cut case of self-defense and you can bet we will confiscate it if there is either a death or injury. It's evidence.
Once the case is investigated (and we will investigate because gosh people lie to the cops. Can you believe that?) and if the prosecutor decides not to press charges or the prosecutor does take it to court and you are found not guilty by a jury you will get your weapon returned. But that might be awhile.Meanwhile the badguy that you might of put down might have friends who want payback. It's possible. So your Glock or Ruger is sitting in the evidence locker. YOu can go get yourself another Glock. And your $12,000 dollar Super Duper Plantinum Combat Custom Tackdriver is still in your safe.
Also just go with modern, high quality factory produced "self-defense" ammo that is made by a well known and reputable company like Federal or Winchester or Hornady or Remington or Black Hills or Corbon or so on and so forth. Why? Because it's made by a reputable company with (hopefully) a good record for dependable ammo.
We're talking something that is meant to be used in a real life and death type of situation. Why play around with custom loads? Unless you're Elmer Keith most of us don't have the type of resources necessary to really test a new design of bullet. The ammo companies do. As a police officer I carry Federal's HST. I don't feel undergunned.
As far as law suits go. Well anybody can be sued by anybody else. It's a reality. That Sword hangs over my head everytime I put on my uniform and go to work. It sucks, but hey it's America.
Once the case is investigated (and we will investigate because gosh people lie to the cops. Can you believe that?) and if the prosecutor decides not to press charges or the prosecutor does take it to court and you are found not guilty by a jury you will get your weapon returned. But that might be awhile.Meanwhile the badguy that you might of put down might have friends who want payback. It's possible. So your Glock or Ruger is sitting in the evidence locker. YOu can go get yourself another Glock. And your $12,000 dollar Super Duper Plantinum Combat Custom Tackdriver is still in your safe.
Also just go with modern, high quality factory produced "self-defense" ammo that is made by a well known and reputable company like Federal or Winchester or Hornady or Remington or Black Hills or Corbon or so on and so forth. Why? Because it's made by a reputable company with (hopefully) a good record for dependable ammo.
We're talking something that is meant to be used in a real life and death type of situation. Why play around with custom loads? Unless you're Elmer Keith most of us don't have the type of resources necessary to really test a new design of bullet. The ammo companies do. As a police officer I carry Federal's HST. I don't feel undergunned.
As far as law suits go. Well anybody can be sued by anybody else. It's a reality. That Sword hangs over my head everytime I put on my uniform and go to work. It sucks, but hey it's America.
Last edited:
My .45 is over $1,200, and I honestly am beginning to question if it's a wise idea to carry a gun more expensive than a Glock or M&P for self-defense if I might lose it to the police.
If, God forbid, I ever have to use any firearm to defend myself to the point that the police are collecting it as evidence, the last thing that I am going to be thinking about is how my "nice pistol" is rusting away in an evidence locker. Not to mention that $1,200 is not even a down payment on the "vacation tab" that you will be footing for the services of a good attorney.
In my opinion, life is to short to compromise on a firearm. I carry what I shoot well and enjoy carrying. From Ruger to Wilson Combat and in-between.
The odds are that I will never need to use one in a defensive role; however, if I ever do need to, I want one that I know works very well in my hands. I have carried factory loads and reloads, have carried stock and customized guns.
And having sat on several juries, one just never knows what any particular juror is going to "attach" themselves to issue wise. Nor does one really have a clue as to any particular attorney's strategies beforehand.
As has been mentioned previously, was it a self-defense situation that a reasonable person would say likely had cause of fear of serious bodily injury or death. I believe that is the question.
Hammerhead
New member
According to an article in Handloader magazine last year no one has been prosecuted or sued for using hand loads to legitimately defend themselves.
IIRC there was a case where one guy was sued for using excessive force for using a 10mm. They claimed it did excessive damage beyond what was required. Don't know how it came out. Doesn't seem to be much logic there because a 10mm is puny compared to a 12 gauge load of buck shot.
I can't imagine a custom gun would be the deciding factor in whether or not you get sued or prosecuted.
IIRC there was a case where one guy was sued for using excessive force for using a 10mm. They claimed it did excessive damage beyond what was required. Don't know how it came out. Doesn't seem to be much logic there because a 10mm is puny compared to a 12 gauge load of buck shot.
I can't imagine a custom gun would be the deciding factor in whether or not you get sued or prosecuted.