Do you carry with your own reloads?
- Thread starter coop2564
- Start date
- Status
Fiddletown, PA Offices get calls from regular folks wanting to know what the law is on this or that topic- often related to firearms. We answered them directly from the statute and when possible, I emailed them a link to said statute as well as the RSMo search engine- to answer any future questions. That's called a 'public service'.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Oh, that was an embarrassing typo!Sarge said:
Thanks for catching it for me. I've corrected my post now.
Spats McGee
Administrator
No "culpa" there, Sarge. No harm done and no foul.
We have a number of people arguing based on what I believe they think is a common sense analysis of this situation.
It's important to understand that the legal system is not necessarily based on common sense analyses. The lawyers who have weighed in on this thread agree that reloads are a bad idea for self-defense and based that on their knowledge of how evidence is admitted or excluded. What they're saying may not make sense to some who disagree on the basis of a "common sense assessment", but unfortunately that's not the standard that will be applied in court.
Clearly it is possible for a person to make reloads that are as reliable as factory ammunition, but given the evidence I've collected, it appears that reloaded ammunition is not likely to be as reliable as factory ammunition.
It's important to understand that the legal system is not necessarily based on common sense analyses. The lawyers who have weighed in on this thread agree that reloads are a bad idea for self-defense and based that on their knowledge of how evidence is admitted or excluded. What they're saying may not make sense to some who disagree on the basis of a "common sense assessment", but unfortunately that's not the standard that will be applied in court.
The results of the ISHOT1000 matches, and other similar matches suggest otherwise. Admittedly the sample size was small, but in the matches that I have data for, reloaded ammunition had a significantly higher malfunction rate. No entrant using reloaded ammunition finished the match with less than 18 malfunctions. The average malfunction rate for entrants using reloaded ammunition in the first match was 50.2 malfunctions per 1000 rounds fired vs. 8.2 malfunctions per 1000 rounds fired for entrants using factory ammunition.
Clearly it is possible for a person to make reloads that are as reliable as factory ammunition, but given the evidence I've collected, it appears that reloaded ammunition is not likely to be as reliable as factory ammunition.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I'm sure that goes on, and perhaps for the most very basic questions it's adequate; but --Sarge said:
[1] Many real life legal questions can't be properly answered from the statute book. Often review of several statutes and case law is really necessary to fully and accurately address a legal issue.
[2] Often there's really more to the question or the person asking leave out material facts that would have a bearing on the answer. We lawyers, when asked a serious question, are inclined to discuss the question and make sure we have all material facts. Very often additional information I have gotten through that process changed the answer.
[3] When someone asks his lawyer a legal question, his lawyer is ethically and legally responsible for the quality and accuracy of the answer.
[4] Things you tell your lawyer are confidential. Things you tell an LEO are not.
So if someone really wants a good answer to a complex legal question, he needs to ask his lawyer.
Last edited:
Spats McGee
Administrator
I said it, but that was a mis-type. Fingers moving faster than the brain, obviously.acelaw said:
I'm glad my question about admissibility of good reloads was answered. Thank you all.
I have always used factory ammo for defense, and always will (unless in a pinch). I do not have the ability to do all of the testing that the factory and independent labs use to verify performance, and that is the issue for me. Using handloads for defense because they are handloads is not a big deal to me, if it's what I have. I do not fear some massive swing the other way in my court case because of it...that would be irrational.
I'm glad that was answered, but that still leaves the paranoia vs. rational thought untouched. I really don't see how it can be argued that this is a serious issue for the avg. person to lose sleep over. How many people have won court cases and used reloads for defense? Is it really as big of a deal in a court case as this thread would make it out to be (how big of a piece of the avg. case is this issue)? Why is it the person on trial in the first place...is it their conduct? How many cases of SD get a "no file" and never go to court, vs. those that do, regardless of the method of defense used?
Answers to these and many more questions will give you an idea of how likely this issue will become a hindrance to your SD incident. I still feel you should put more emphasis on the events of the incident, rather than the equipment used. That will be the most important issue (goes back to the idea you shoot as a last resort).
I have always used factory ammo for defense, and always will (unless in a pinch). I do not have the ability to do all of the testing that the factory and independent labs use to verify performance, and that is the issue for me. Using handloads for defense because they are handloads is not a big deal to me, if it's what I have. I do not fear some massive swing the other way in my court case because of it...that would be irrational.
I'm glad that was answered, but that still leaves the paranoia vs. rational thought untouched. I really don't see how it can be argued that this is a serious issue for the avg. person to lose sleep over. How many people have won court cases and used reloads for defense? Is it really as big of a deal in a court case as this thread would make it out to be (how big of a piece of the avg. case is this issue)? Why is it the person on trial in the first place...is it their conduct? How many cases of SD get a "no file" and never go to court, vs. those that do, regardless of the method of defense used?
Answers to these and many more questions will give you an idea of how likely this issue will become a hindrance to your SD incident. I still feel you should put more emphasis on the events of the incident, rather than the equipment used. That will be the most important issue (goes back to the idea you shoot as a last resort).
Last edited:
I usually type "reasonable" in there, but not this time because I forgot. Oh well. My "rules" (guidelines I use) are meant to keep me out of questionable territory as much as possible. It is not a guarantee of anything, but it helps a lot more than going the other way, and shooting someone over a hubcap. It would be more realistic for a person to follow these guides to stay out of trouble than it would be to avoid reloads to stay out of trouble. That is my point...priority. Reloads may not help you in court, but they are far from the top of the list of things to worry about when going to court.
Which is worse; a guy who shot someone (using reloads), who was chasing him down with a butcher knife, or the guy who shot the unarmed robber (who he thought was armed, but really had no weapon) using factory ammo? Both can be defensible, but which is easier? Should it go to court, how big of a "footprint" does the reload issue make in the case?
I believe I addressed lying to investigators as a point (see the red text above), as well as one's conduct. Conduct includes a lot of things, not just how you physically reacted to the shooting itself as it unfolded. If you use a broad definition of conduct, it could very possibly include most of what you said here. How was your conduct prior to the shooting itself? Did you voluntarily and willingly get into a verbal match, then a physical fight with the guy before the shooting? Did you make any attempt to deescalate? Did you scream "die mother****er!," or did you scream "drop your weapon!" before pulling the trigger? These points (and more) all add up to to conduct.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Lol, whoops. Thanks for the offer, but I'll stay where I am.acelaw said:
@.357SIG -- Realistically, the odds of this coming into play are small, but the stakes are very high. In order for this issue to come up: (1) there has to be a shooting; (2) using handloads or reloads; (3) at a range where GSR "spatter" could make a difference in court; and (4) that actually winds up in court.
As far as the shooter's conduct (including conduct during the investigation), remember that in this discussion, your conduct automatically includes shooting another human, a practice commonly frowned upon by LEOs. You should also factor the BG's conduct into this. If you wind up shooting a BG, but not killing him, the police will also take his statement. If the shooting happened in your home, he's going to have a hard time explaining his presence there. OTOH, if it happens pretty much anywhere else, I promise that he's not going to tell them that he put you in reasonable fear of imminent death or substantial bodily harm. He's going to tell the police that he was hanging with his buds, minding their own business, and you decided to shoot him for no apparent reason. . . Should you happen to kill him, he will be portrayed in the wrongful death suit as a church-going, choir-singing, God-fearing "good boy," whose gang tats didn't mean nothing.
We have no way of knowing how many shootings do not go to trial. We do not know how many SD shootings using reloads get a "no file." What we do know is that in the few cases in which this has come up, admissibility has been a problem for the guys using reloads. You can't control when or where you might be involved in an SD shooting. You can't control what a surviving BG might say to the police. There's a hell of a lot involved that you cannot control. You can control whether you use handloads. It's a matter of risk-reward assessment..357SIG said:
Spats McGee
Administrator
I didn't say that "self defense" was frowned upon. I do not believe that any officer I have ever met would frown on self defense. I said "shooting another human" is commonly frowned upon. Different kettle of fish. Of all the shootings you dealt with in your time as an LEO, how often would you have believed a shooter claiming self defense? Most officers that I know are fairly skeptical folks.Sarge said:
dwright1951
New member
Yes I carry my reloads in all my guns (except rimfires). Most of my guns have never fired a factory load (except when the factory rounds were given to me or I bought cheap ammo for the brass) I reload for all my rifles, shotguns and handguns and I trust my reloads over any factory loads and each one is loaded and inspected by me for my use. Sure down the road if I have to defend myself or a family member or a friend some lawyer might take offense to my reloads but if the shoot if a good one I don't believe it will matter what kind of ammo I use. And if the shoot is bad then my ass is grass anyway.
OldMarksman
Staff
Of course. The "events of the incident" alone determine (1) whether deadly force will be used, and (2) if it is used, whether whether it is justifiable.
Whether the act ends up being classified as justified, however, will depend upon the evidence. One may shoot as a last resort after having been accosted by violent criminal actors, but if the evidence on his side of the scales of justice comprises only his testimony, and on the other side there is a wounded man whose testimony, along with that of his accomplice, indicates against justification, the investigators may not conclude that the act was necessarily justified. Add in something like an impartial witness who turned after having heard gunfire after having seen nothing leading up to the shooting, and who honestly believes for any of several plausible reasons that the distance was greater than that alleged by the actor, and the actor's credibility will be very much in question, and the strength of his case, weakened. It is at that point that the GSR evidence could make the difference in the charging decision and/or in the outcome of a trial.
None of that stems from the conduct of the shooter before, during, or after the incident.
As Spats McGee points out,
However, when the rest of your life would be at stake in the event, would you really want to make an upfront decision to deny yourself what could be your only possible defense, given that there is no advantage to doing so?
The thing we have to remember is that, if we are forced into an act of self defense somewhere in the out of doors, (1) we will not automatically be seen as the "good guy"; and (2) unless everything happens to have been clearly recorded by security cameras, the people who count--investigators, the charging authority, and perhaps, jurors-- will not have the advantages of an audience watching a movie, with cameras rolling, each meaningful glance focussed upon, and the ability to hit rewind. Everything will depend upon whatever evidence can be brought to bear by the actor and by the state.
And, of course, upon impressions formed about the incident and the participants. If the actor says he fired at pointblank range, the lack of a GSR pattern would indicate otherwise absent test data, and that witness who turneds after the shooting says that the actor's testimony does not match what he say, the impact on actor's credibility could be harmful indeed.
That's very true indeed; unless you are involved in a shooting involving the burglary of your occupied domicile, there may be a pretty long list of things to worry about after the shooting.
Witnesses who might be able to help you may depart from the scene to never return; the assailant's weapon may disappear in someone's hand, or his empty cases, in someone's boot tread; witnesses in the neighborhood may be sympathetic to the assailants; and/or witnesses may be able to recount only what was evident seconds after the shots were fired, which would not include the elements of justification. The actor will need all the help he can get.
Have you given any thought to how you will demonstrate that the shoot was a "good one"?
- Status