Reloads for Personal Defence

[FM12]

In one of my ccw (sig 220/45ACP) icarry my reloads and practice with them, I reload a 185 JHP for about .20 each and can afford to practice with them. Not so with factory loads, too expensive.

 

[Spats McGee]

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance of reloading here, but can you find a factory load that is close to your reloads in performance? If so, I'd suggest buying a box of factory loads for carry, and practicing to your heart's content with the reloads.

 

[pax]

Spats, other way around, but that's what I do. The money argument is a non-starter -- you can practice with reloads tuned to match your factory carry rounds, and you don't have to cycle your carry loads all that often.

pax

 

[jrothWA]

My personal consideration is,

I will reload practice ammo that attempts to mimic my carry ammo.

When changing out old carry ammo, I will use that for a bowling pin match.

Interesting read and much too consider.

 

[Don P]

For my fellow members and mod's I posted this after seeing the new episode last night. Mas explained what they would do to duplicate gun shot residue in a SD shooting doing so inch by inch until the pattern was duplicated. He stated it was much easier to do with factory ammo because the courts will accept there data without question. My intention was NOT to start a war or debate on the subject but to just pass on some information that to me had a very valid and understandable explanation behind it.

 

[Willie Lowman]

So, you are telling me that a person who down loads .44 magnum ammo to something like a +p .44 special would be in grave legal danger for using these rounds for home defense?

Or is this more about loading a carry gun with your hand loads and getting into a shoot out down town?

 

[Spats McGee]

It's not a matter of the location of the shoot. The rules of evidence remain the same, whether it's at your home, or downtown. As other posters have pointed out, there's a particular constellation of events under which this issue rears its head:
1) A shooting;
2) in which handloads were used; and
3) the now-defendant needs GSR evidence to establish distance.

 

[JohnKSa]

So, you are telling me that a person who down loads .44 magnum ammo to something like a +p .44 special would be in grave legal danger for using these rounds for home defense?

I don't know who you're responding to because no one has used the words "grave legal danger" (or even any combination of words that could reasonably be construed to have similar meaning) anywhere on this thread.

I think it will help tremendously to keep things civil if we can all try to focus on what's actually been posted on the thread instead of trying to stir things up by overstating or exaggerating either position.

 

[Willie Lowman]

I used the term "grave legal danger."

When discussing the possibility of being incarcerated for several years, possibly the rest of your life, grave legal danger is a good descriptor.

It seems my simultaneous use of the bold, italics, and underline function have upset you, John.

I was asking if this conversation was in regard to shootings in the home or out in the street.

Spats answered my question quite clearly. Thank you.

Good night.

 

[JohnKSa]

It seems my simultaneous use of the bold, italics, and underline function have upset you, John.

I don't know why you think I'm upset. I did assume that you triple-emphasized those particular words because you felt they were important or meaningful in some way, as opposed to triple-emphasizing some randomly selected part of your post.

As a result I felt it was worthwhile to point out that characterizing what anyone has posted on this thread as a claim that anyone who uses handloads for carry/home defense is in "grave legal danger" is hyperbole and that this thread, which is on a topic that often generates heated discussion, can do without that sort of thing.

It's been made quite clear that the main point of this entire issue is that using factory ammunition for carry/home defense is a small price to pay to eliminate a risk that, while improbable, could be quite bothersome if it came to fruition. I dont' think that's what most people think when they say or hear "grave legal danger".

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It's been made quite clear that the main point of this entire issue is that using factory ammunition for carry/home defense is a small price to pay to eliminate a risk that, while improbable, could be quite bothersome if it came to fruition. I dont' think that's what most people think when they say or hear "grave legal danger".

Whether or not the legal danger is "grave" is a value judgment folks will need to make. But there is a real legal danger if GSR test results are important to your defense and if because you used handloads you can't get expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing into evidence.

Spats, Bart, OldMarksman and I have discussed the legal and evidentiary issues in great detail in the threads that Spats and Pax have linked to. Spats, Bart and I are lawyers. OldMarksman has a legal background and experience in legal matters. I suggest that it's a waste of all our times to again trod this already well trod path.

In this post I discussed in great detail the Bias case, why the evidentiary principles illustrated by that case are important to us even though it's not a self defense case, and the general principles applicable to the admissibility into evidence of expert opinion testimony based on scientific testing.

And in this post I pointed out a case in which a person was able to successfully defend himself in court because he didn't use handloads and was therefore able to introduce GSR test result corroborating his story.

Whatever legal risks may flow from using handloads for self defense, and however you choose to characterize them, they are completely avoidable simply by using quality factory ammunition.

 

[nate45]

fiddletown

I'm not arguing here and don't want a debate. You say you are a lawyer and I just want to ask you a few questions.

If someone shoots someone, with handloaded ammunition and there is a GSR issue involved. Why couldn't the remaining ammunition with the firearm, or the partial box, bag or whatever the person had at home be used as evidence?

If a person loaded a hundred rounds in virgin brass and carefully weighed each load. Why would that ammo be inconsistent or not provide good testing material?

Also, one lot of factory ammo could differ from another lot. If the forensic lab only uses ammo, that is like yours and not those, that actually were yours. What's to say that the different lot of ammo, even if it is factory and the same bullet and load, would provide reliable GSR results?

I'm not advocating handloads for defense, I just find it perplexing that with all the small boutique/designer defense ammo companies there are and all the commercial reloaders, how ones own carefully constructed handloads could be so different.

The whole way the term reloads is used in the debate, conjures up images of haphazardly constructed, oddly assorted once, or thrice fired brass and miss weighed powder charges.

 

[Frank Ettin]

'm not arguing here and don't want a debate. You say you are a lawyer and I just want to ask you a few questions....

Nate, I don't want to appear troublesome, but the questions you're asking have been answered multiple times in the various threads to which Spats and pax have linked.

It's late, and I'm tired. So why not spend some time reading those other threads. If some points are still unclear, I'll address them tomorrow or the next day.

 

[nate45]

I must have missed that thread that Pax linked to. I saw her link, but I thought I had already read all the handloads for defense threads.

The point about giving up your fifth amendment right if you had to testify about your handloads was a good one. Besides the possible biasing of the jury with the possible prosecutorial claim that you needed extra deadly ammunition. The giving up the fifth possibility, is one of the most compelling reasons not to use handloads for defense I've seen.

 

[Spats McGee]

While fiddletown is correct in saying that this path is well trod, I'll go down it just a little this morning.

. . . .If someone shoots someone, with handloaded ammunition and there is a GSR issue involved. Why couldn't the remaining ammunition with the firearm, or the partial box, bag or whatever the person had at home be used as evidence? . . . .

Remaining in the firearm: That's part of the crime scene, and testing it would result in destruction of evidence. A big no-no.

Remaining in the box at home: If you're referring to handloads, for starters, because it would be evidence created by the defendant. As such, it's already suspect. Nobody has more reason to lie at trial than the defendant.

Evidence created by an impartial third party (Remington, Speer, etc) would not be suspect, as those third parties have no (obvious) motive to lie about what's in the cartridge. The defendant, possibly facing a long stay as a guest of the State, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, has very large motives.

. . . .If a person loaded a hundred rounds in virgin brass and carefully weighed each load. Why would that ammo be inconsistent or not provide good testing material?

For the same reason as above: evidence created by the defendant. It's not a question of how good or consistent the reloader is, nor how good his records are.

. . . .Also, one lot of factory ammo could differ from another lot. If the forensic lab only uses ammo, that is like yours and not those, that actually were yours. What's to say that the different lot of ammo, even if it is factory and the same bullet and load, would provide reliable GSR results?

That's an attack that can be made by defense counsel. If the defendant suspects that the factory load is inconsistent from other lots, he should, by all means, talk to his attorney about that! It wouldn't be hard to get a box or two from a different lot and have them tested.

. . . .I'm not advocating handloads for defense, I just find it perplexing that with all the small boutique/designer defense ammo companies there are and all the commercial reloaders, how ones own carefully constructed handloads could be so different.

The whole way the term reloads is used in the debate, conjures up images of haphazardly constructed, oddly assorted once, or thrice fired brass and miss weighed powder charges.

It's not a matter of how meticulous a reloader is, nor how well he or she keeps records of the loads created. The Rules of Evidence just won't let you get that stuff in. It's evidence created by the defendant.

. . . .The point about giving up your fifth amendment right if you had to testify about your handloads was a good one. Besides the possible biasing of the jury with the possible prosecutorial claim that you needed extra deadly ammunition. The giving up the fifth possibility, is one of the most compelling reasons not to use handloads for defense I've seen.

If you're claiming self-defense, you're probably going to have to testify anyway. SD is an affirmative defense, which means that the shooter's story is, in essence, "Yeah, I shot him, but I had a really good reason."

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Willie Lowman: I was asking if this conversation was in regard to shootings in the home or out in the street.

Spats answered my question quite clearly. Thank you.

Spats is, of course, correct in saying that the location of the shooting will not impinge upon the legal issues:

It's not a matter of the location of the shoot. The rules of evidence remain the same, whether it's at your home, or downtown. As other posters have pointed out, there's a particular constellation of events under which this issue rears its head:
1) A shooting;
2) in which handloads were used; and
3) the now-defendant needs GSR evidence to establish distance.

I may have created some confusion here in referring to the likelihood of higher risk in the case of a defensive shooting that occurred "in the out of doors in the absence of evidence of an unlawful forced entry". Let me explain.

My thought is, if one is forced to use a firearm inside his own residence after an unlawful and forcible entry, the likelihood that a defense of justification will be thrown into question by contradictory testimony or other evidence, and in particular the likelihood that GSR patterns will prove pivotal, would probably be lower than if the shooting had occurred somewhere else.

That does not mean that the issue could not arise.

It does mean to me that one would assume greater risk in carrying ammunition that had not been loaded by a factory in an outdoor situation where the reconstruction of the incident would likely be less straightforward.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .I may have created some confusion here in referring to the likelihood of higher risk in the case of a defensive shooting that occurred "in the out of doors in the absence of evidence of an unlawful forced entry". Let me explain.

My thought is, if one is forced to use a firearm inside his own residence after an unlawful and forcible entry, the likelihood that a defense of justification will be thrown into question by contradictory testimony or other evidence, and in particular the likelihood that GSR patterns will prove pivotal, would probably be lower than if the shooting had occurred somewhere else.

As a practical matter, I think that you are correct. When the shooting happens in the shooter's home, and the person shot was previously unkown to the shooter, I think that a jury is more likely to believe that the shooting was SD. I think that's particularly true if there's evidence of a forcible entry. For that matter, I think that the police and prosecutor are also more likely to believe SD under those circumstances, as well.

 

[Don P]

It's not a matter of the location of the shoot. The rules of evidence remain the same, whether it's at your home, or downtown. As other posters have pointed out, there's a particular constellation of events under which this issue rears its head:
1) A shooting;
2) in which handloads were used; and
3) the now-defendant needs GSR evidence to establish distance.

Spats McGee, THAT WAS THE HOLE POINT OF MAS'S SEGMENT!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for articulating it for me in # 3

 

[Frank Ettin]

While fiddletown is correct in saying that this path is well trod, I'll go down it just a little this morning....

Thanks, Spats. I was just out of gas last night, I'm afraid. Let me add a few comments yours.

. . . .If someone shoots someone, with handloaded ammunition and there is a GSR issue involved. Why couldn't the remaining ammunition with the firearm, or the partial box, bag or whatever the person had at home be used as evidence? . . . .

In addition to the issues Spats mentioned regarding spoilage of evidence and the fact that the evidence was manufactured by the defendant, there will always be the question whether the ammunition tested was actually identical to the ammunition fired.

At least with factory ammunition from a major manufacturer, one would be able to introduce evidence regarding that manufacturer's quality control procedures. Manufacturers will have written quality control standards and testing protocols, and they will maintain logs of quality control testing. Because the manufacturer is an uninvolved third party, and because such records are routinely kept for its own business purposes, such records will be admissible as business records and have credibility.

. . . .Also, one lot of factory ammo could differ from another lot. If the forensic lab only uses ammo, that is like yours and not those, that actually were yours. What's to say that the different lot of ammo, even if it is factory and the same bullet and load, would provide reliable GSR results?...

Often it will be possible to establish what lot of factory ammunition was used. I keep partial boxes of the ammunition I load into magazines for defensive purposes. And ammunition makers keep back quantities of each lot. So as long as I can identify the lot the ammunition I used in self defense came from, I will probably be able to have my expert test exemplars from that same batch.

Even if you can't establish from what particular lot our Federal Hydra-Shoks came, for example, your expert could test multiple lots and compare results. If the results are wildly inconsistent, you might have some difficulties. But considering the the ammunition makers take some pains to maintain consistent velocity and pressure characteristics from lot to lot, to conform to published specifications, I doubt you'd see much inconstancy.

And you still have the opportunity to leave a trail indicating what lot you actually used.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by fiddletown: ...with factory ammunition from a major manufacturer, one would be able to introduce evidence regarding that manufacturer's quality control procedures. Manufacturers will have written quality control standards and testing protocols, and they will maintain logs of quality control testing. Because the manufacturer is an uninvolved third party, and because such records are routinely kept for its own business purposes, such records will be admissible as business records and have credibility.

That's a very key point. The existence of indpendently-generated third-party records that have been formally maintained in a secure environment under validated procedures is a major element consideration regarding admissibility.

The principles here are not at all limited to ammunition and firearms testing. The same issues may be encountered in determining the admissibility of a very wide variety of kinds of evidence, ranging from pharmaceutical test results to, believe it or not, computer-generated financial records.