Reloading Defensive Ammunition?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I started carrying I was in LE but couldn't find ammo better than my handloads. I heard about possible court issues but wanted the best I could get. Several years later, even tho my reloading skills improved, factory ammo started using better bullets and my carry ammo came off the shelf. These days, it still does.
I've spent a bit of time in court and know that anything can happen there. It's silly to try to predict what a jury or even a judge will decide about your ammo choice many months after it does it's job, I just want to be available to present my case if required. The old line about being tried by twelve rather than carried by six has a valid point. Most folks don't understand guns very well, let alone the intricacies of reloaded vs factory loaded defense ammo. Have seen less complicated issues totally blow away a jury. Mas is a gifted writer but IMHO lacks credibility. The case he cites backs up his point but makes little sense IRL. He has the knowledge and writing ability to write an article to support almost any position the editors assign. Good for him, bad for us.
I'll always carry the best ammo I can get. Some day that may be handloads, today, for me, it's factory loads. It's my job to survive the gunfight, will leave the court battles to my attorney.
 
Mas is a gifted writer but IMHO lacks credibility.
Click to expand...
What person, who is in both the shooting industry and in court appearances and time spent in the room has MORE credibility?

Who?
 
I believe in using whatever is most reliable.

Right now, the most reliable is handloads because the factory HST I have sitting on the shelf causes occasional premature slide lock back. Kimber sent me a new slide stop, but I haven't had an opportunity to test it.

For the people who ask "why can't you afford to buy a box of 20, how much are you going to shoot your defense ammo?" my answer is: you need a lot more than 20 rounds to prove that any particular ammo is reliable in a autoloader (revolvers are better that way). My Kimber TLE is reliable with Golden Saber handloads but not with Federal HST. I discovered that while shooting two boxes (50 each) of the HST.

You probably need to shoot a couple of hundred rounds (with each magazine you might use) before you can feel pretty sure that it is reliable. If you hit a problem (like I did with HST), then you need to fix it and start over. Finding quantities of defensive ammo today isn't all that easy, it's more a situation of "take whatever you can get" :(

IANAL, but I think that here in Ohio, you cannot be sued in civil court if the shooting was justified in criminal court (or the prosecutor did not elect to prosecute.)

So, I feel comfortable carrying whatever is most reliable. In my TLE, it's handloads. In my Compact, it's factory Gold Dots.

YMMV

Ken
 
I'm not going to debate commercial vs reload; quality, legal implications, or anything along those lines. I have a simple question. You said in the opening post of this thread:
I've yet to find a steady supply of defensive ammo
Click to expand...

I've got to ask: How much defensive ammunition do you need? I think I have 1-2 boxes PER GUN. The word STEADY SUPPLY implies that you are continuously shooting it. If you are, my question is "WHY"? At 0-30 feet (usual max distance for self defense - past that, you should be going the other way), there isn't a large accuracy difference between any ammo. I.e. fmj, hollow point, flat nose, hornady, remington, etc... at 20-30 feet are all going to shoot about the same. Throw in nerves, stress, heart beat, etc... of being in such a situation, and the the type of ammunition will be pretty insignificant for the purpose of accuracy. I've shot different boxes, types, brands, etc... of defensive ammo in each of my defense guns, to determine which ammo the gun liked the best. But once I've figured that out, I probably don't go through 5 rounds of it in a year. Just no need to. I shoot the cheapest FMJ or whatever that the gun will fire for fun, practice, and plinking. I keep a separate magazine filled with defensive ammo for it's purpose in life.

Anyway, I guess if you believe that you should practice with what you intend on using, then there is some logic to shooting tons of hollow points or whatever. I just don't see it. Especially considering that the overwhelming majority of people will go their entire life and NEVER have to fire a handgun at another person for any reason at all. I have nothing against reloading. I still reload hunting ammunition, and use to reload pistol ammo all the time. Always lead because it was cheaper for my 45acp. But I don't really reload handgun ammo that much any more. Most of my handgun ammo is cheaper to buy than to reload. I buy 45acp at $11 per box of 50. 9mm at $10 box of 50. 9mm makarov at $9 a box of 50. But defensive ammo; I wouldn't even think of that, because even if I wanted to possibly stay somewhat proficient in feeling the defensive ammo once in a while, I don't think I'd go through an entire box in an entire year. Anyway, just wondering how often you shoot defensive ammunition.
 
I've got to ask: How much defensive ammunition do you need? I think I have 1-2 boxes PER GUN. The word STEADY SUPPLY implies that you are continuously shooting it.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read my entire post. As I said, while shooting two boxes (100 rounds) to test reliability, I found that HST was NOT reliable. (BTW, the problem didn't show up in the first 30 rounds.)

If you want to go out and depend on ammo that you've only tested with 20 rounds in your gun (and a single magazine?), that's your choice.

Nope! I don't normally shoot my expensive defensive ammo, that's why I'm not testing GDHPs in the new TLE, I don't have enough and it's not in stock.

Ken
 
gotcha; I sort of missed some of that. When I first buy a gun, I run about 100 rounds of various defensive ammo in it to determine which ammo my magazines and gun feed well as well as how I handle the load. Usually 2 or 3 brands. But after that, I really never shoot defensive ammo through it again. But that's cool. The word steady supply just seemed like you were shooting lots of defensive ammo through it. There are some people that ONLY shoot the ammo that they plan on using for defensive purpose through it. In other words, they are shooting 100+ rounds a month of defensive ammo through it. I never understood this reasoning.
 
Just stating my opinion, Sevens! Mas apparently has some credibility in court and as a gunwriter but I've learned to distrust anyone with what I perceive to be a "legend in his own mind" mentality. "Expert witnesses" are often merely well-spoken pitchmen hired to present their clients' point of view to a jury as evidence. I don't have countless hours of experience in court but I'm familiar with the process and I've seen some pretty discouraging stuff. I'm not nearly as gullible as and a bit more perceptive than your average juror. My few opportunities to be on a jury have been shot down by attorneys familiar with my background.
I'm not an "expert" at anything, BTW, and resist the label every time it's thrown at me. I don't expect everyone to accept my version of reality, but I'll respect your opinion and defend your right to express it. I learned long ago that I could learn something from almost anyone. I've learned quite a bit from this forum and tried to pass on some of the knowledge I've gained.
 
Here in Louisiana, I am not worried about overzealous anti-gun prosecutors trying to condemn me for using lead bullet reloads, i.e. technology as old as center-fire ammunition itself. For that matter, it wouldn't be an issue if I used JHPs either.
Click to expand...
Nor should anyone be, anywhere. If the use of deadly force is judged to have been justified, it doesn't matter what is used. There could be a weapons charge in New Jersey, for example, but it won't impinge on the self defense case.

Well, my family members aren't committing suicide, so I'm not going to be accused of shooting one of them (isn't that the legal difficulty he often uses to illustrate this matter?)
Click to expand...
That was the case, but that's not the point. The point is whether or not test data related to forensic trace evidence might be needed by the defense.

I respect Ayoob's advice to a huge degree, and I think as a "one size fits all" statement that his stance on handloaded SD ammo makes a lot of sense. After all, he lives in New England and is surrounded daily by evidence of high profile anti-gun craziness & its implications from across the nation. But in my area, living my lifestyle, with my life history & associations, etc., I don't think it's an issue whatsoever.
Click to expand...

A lot of people seem to think that living in a "gun friendly" state will help in a self-defense trial. Maybe, maybe not. It's pretty hard to get a handgun legally in some parts of New York, but a defender using a gun has more leeway under some circumstances than in Florida, where one can carry concealed in every county. California laws are rather restrictive when it comes to concealed carry permits and to what guns one can buy, but the self defense laws are quite sensible.

Setting aside distinctions in castle doctrine and stand your ground laws or case law, the right of self defense exists in all states, and the question is the same everywhere: was the shooting done in self defense, or was it manslaughter or murder or an accident? It isn't a question of "anti gun craziness"--it's a question of the evidence. Shootings occur everywhere, murders occur everywhere, and self defense is lawful everywhere. The investigators, charging authorities, and juries in Arizona, New York State, Texas, Oregon, Mississippi, and Wisconsin all have to look at the evidence--all of it--in each shooting, and whether the legislature has allowed concealed carry, open carry, concealed carry without a permit, whatever, does not mean that someone who has shot someone else is automatically a "good guy" and will get a pass on a murder charge because the gun laws are favorable.

The judicial climate may be a little different, but the issues are the same everywhere. Not too long ago a man in Texas was charged when he shot someone who had broken into his house--they guy had run outside. In Illinois, however, a guy was not charged when he shot an unarmed person on a bicycle with someone else's gun. In Oregon, where the castle doctrine exists, a man was charged and pled guilty after shooting a man who had entered his home unlawfully. I wouldn't rely on conclusions based on the nature of the gun laws or on folklore about local juries when it comes to going to trial with my freedom at stake.

If you have been involved in a short-range shooting out doors, if the evidence and testimony are contradictory, and if you need to address gunshot residue evidence, I don't think it's gong to matter very much at all which state or commonwealth you live in.
 
TXGunNut said:
...Mas apparently has some credibility in court...
Click to expand...
And to the extent we're talking about what goes on in court, that can matter. If you're in court, what you want is someone who has credibility in court.

TXGunNut said:
..."Expert witnesses" are often merely well-spoken pitchmen hired to present their clients' point of view to a jury as evidence....
Click to expand...
Or they are persons with special skill, knowledge and experience who know how to explain technical matters to a jury unfamiliar with the topic in a way that the jury can best process and understand. If you're a defendant, wouldn't you want such an expert to help you tell your story to a jury?

TXGunNut said:
....I don't have countless hours of experience in court but I'm familiar with the process and I've seen some pretty discouraging stuff. I'm not nearly as gullible as and a bit more perceptive than your average juror....
Click to expand...
Given your rather jaundiced assessment of the legal process and jurors, if there was some possibility that you might wind up in court, wouldn't you want to stack the deck ahead of time as much in your favor as you reasonably could?

Trying to stack the deck in my favor if I wind up in court is what using factory rather than handloads is all about. If I'm in court, I already have a bunch of trouble, and I don't need to have done things that could make my lawyer's job harder, and the outcome more uncertain, than it already will be. Handloads might or might not hurt me in court, but they won't help matters.

OldMarksman said:
...The point is whether or not test data related to forensic trace evidence might be needed by the defense....
Click to expand...
That's exactly right. The lesson for us from Bias is about the rules of evidence. If gun shot residue (GSR) test results would help you, if you used handloads, you most likely will not be able to get those results into evidence. That applies no matter what the underlying charge or circumstances of the case may be -- including a self defense case.

OldMarksman said:
...A lot of people seem to think that living in a "gun friendly" state will help in a self-defense trial. ...
Click to expand...
Remember that Harold Fish was hung out to dry in gun friendly Arizona. (Fortunately, he won his appeals and is now free.)
 
I know the gun rags would have you believe that reloading ammo for defense is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Factory ammo is great stuff. New cases, new primers, new powder, the latest bullets, all sized and seated correctly.

Cheap function insurance in my opinion.

My life is worth it.
 
Fiddletown, don't use H.Fish as a reason for anything. There are alot of us in N.Az. that think that punk should still be in jail. If he was not such an idiot, he never would have gone to jail in the first place and he never would have had to shoot some guy walking the shelters dogs. The only lesson from that case is: NEVER FIRE A WARNING SHOT. All he did was escalate the situation into a lethal confrontation by doing so. He had a walking stick, and if he was so afraid of some barking dogs, he should have used that, or if he thought his life was in danger, shot the dogs. But his life was never in danger, until the guy walking them thought he shot the dogs he was with. Fish was just scared and panicked. You never, never, fire a warning shot to scare some thing or some one.
 
running iron said:
...don't use H.Fish as a reason for anything. There are alot of us in N.Az. that think that punk should still be in jail....
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion, but there are also a lot of people who have studied the case closely who would disagree strongly, including the three justices of the Arizona Court of Appeal, who reversed his conviction and ordered a new trial and the district attorney who then decided not to re-try Mr. Fish. In addition, enough members of the Arizona Legislature were sufficiently troubled by the Fish case that they made some changes to the law to ease the burden on the defendant claiming self defense.

See also: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3681115&postcount=182

Also, since Harold Fish is a retired school teacher, I hardly think calling him a "punk" is appropriate.
 
Fiddletown, you have your facts wrong, those laws that you refer were not made due to the fish case. They were in the process of becoming law before the incident, and were made law after the fact. They did have a bearing on the case, the trouble is, Fish was the only witness and it got political real fast. People here love their guns and let him, Fish, go because they over reacted in the , right to arm, outlook. I'm glad that they went this way as opposed to the way California would have, but, The truth is still the truth. If he never fired a warning shot, this mess would never have happened. I stand by the truth. He was afraid and acted like a coward, of course you are entitled to your reason for thinking other wise. I still think he is a punk, retired school teacher or not. So what if he was a retired teacher and the other guy was wack job. It did not give Fish the right to take his life IMO.
 
All of the posters that believe that factory ammo is dependable enough to stake your life on haven't seen very much factory ammo.
 
It appears that even among ourselves we have varying opinions on problems in the aftermath. That should send up a red flag. What if you get a leftie DA who wants to barbeque you?

I have also read Ayoob's opinions, and he is hired as a professional for such court cases.

The last box of Gold Dot hollowpoints I bought cost 37 bucks. If I take my wife out to dinner at any place that utilizes specialty forks and where they are forced to call me 'sir,' the bill usually runs 50 bucks plus tip.

I don't even see this as a debate.
 
drail said:
...All of the posters that believe that factory ammo is dependable enough to stake your life on haven't seen very much factory ammo....
Click to expand...
I don't know. Over the last ten years or so I've fired several thousand rounds of factory SD ammunition like Federal Hydra-Shock, Eldorado Starfire, Winchester SXT and Remington Golden Saber, in both 9mm and .45 ACP. I've also fired something on the order of 20,000+ rounds of Winchester, Federal, PMC, Remington, etc., generic promotional ammunition (e. g., American Eagle, WWB, etc.). I can't recall any problems. (Haven't had any problems with the tens of thousands of rounds of my reloads either.)

ETA: I do have to add that I've had some bad rimfire rounds, but that's about it. Oh, and years ago I had some problems with "factory re-manufactured" ammunition; but I've long since given that up.
 
the trouble is, Fish was the only witness
Click to expand...
How in all holy hell is that true?

I read your posts and clearly it's evident that you witnessed the entire thing!

I can't imagine why any attorney or any judge made any members of a jury miss any work. Obviously, you know every detail and already had all of it entirely dissected, reviewed and determined before the shell casing even the ground after being ejected.

The State of Arizona is obviously foolish... why didn't they save everyone all the time and expense and simply call in for your testimony? :confused:
 
Just stating my opinion, Sevens!
Click to expand...
No harm, no foul...
I just take a little issue when you say that he lacks credibility.

I think he has pretty much the textbook definition of credibility -- he is personally brought in for the select purpose of giving credibility to the claim that the attorneys address -- and bring him in to speak on.

The only place it seems that he lacks credibility... is with you.

Perhaps he'll add your approval to his "to do" list, but hopefully not at the expense of a good guy who happens to be on trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top