Reloads for self defense
- Thread starter MSD Mike
- Start date
- Status
Spats McGee
Administrator
I don't think this belongs in reloading. I think L&CR is fine. There are a number of threads around here on the topic. In particular, I remember a couple up in Tactics and Training.
For reasons that have been stated by others, I would stick with factory loads for self-defense.
For reasons that have been stated by others, I would stick with factory loads for self-defense.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
jmortimer said:
What do you define as "careful records?" I am neither a reloader nor someone who practices criminal law, so this is out of my league; but just looking at it, it looks like reloads would raise at least the following issues in getting an exemplar load admitted for evidence:
1. Can we trust the records of the person on trial with regards to evidence that supports his version of events? Was there an opportunity to tamper with those records after the police investigation started?
2. How do we know that the handload loaded in the firearm was the same handload used for testing?
I don't mean that question to sound confrontational; but as a lawyer and a gun guy, I get asked this question a lot, so I would be interested in learning about good mitigation techniques for those who do want to continue using their handloads.
What would you recommend to a client that wanted to use reloads with regards to best recordkeeping practices?
spacecoast
New member
I carry factory ammo but would not hesitate to use my reloads if necessity dictated that I do so. I'd rather be alive and in court than dead.
On the other hand, the two squibs I have experienced in well over 10K rounds of shooting (approx 75% my reloads) were both factory ammo, and I cracked open a box of Remington .380 ACP the other day only to find one with a primer forced in sideways.
On the other hand, the two squibs I have experienced in well over 10K rounds of shooting (approx 75% my reloads) were both factory ammo, and I cracked open a box of Remington .380 ACP the other day only to find one with a primer forced in sideways.
"What would you recommend to a client that wanted to use reloads with regards to best recordkeeping practices?"
I believe many/most reloaders label plastic storage boxes "1-5-11 9.5 Grains Unique" or even add weight of bullet, i.e. "255 grain swc" If you need an expert they either take the factory load and specs and make a forensic analysis or they would take your information/loads and make a forensic analysis. Either way you are paying an expert. The main case, as noted above, cited for the proposition of not using hand loads, involved a "suicide" where it appears a guy allegedly killed his girlfriend and tried to cover it up. He was convicted, and from what I can see, rightfully so. Most cases don't need arcane ballistic expert analysis. A good shoot is a good shoot. Many more persons have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit so based on that I recommend not leaving the house and having a rock solid alibi 24/7/265. Life is full of risk and the risk of being convicted solely due to using a reload is so infinitesimal that it is not an issue. I do think the "protection plan" offered by Ayoob et al is worthwhile due to insane litigation costs.
I believe many/most reloaders label plastic storage boxes "1-5-11 9.5 Grains Unique" or even add weight of bullet, i.e. "255 grain swc" If you need an expert they either take the factory load and specs and make a forensic analysis or they would take your information/loads and make a forensic analysis. Either way you are paying an expert. The main case, as noted above, cited for the proposition of not using hand loads, involved a "suicide" where it appears a guy allegedly killed his girlfriend and tried to cover it up. He was convicted, and from what I can see, rightfully so. Most cases don't need arcane ballistic expert analysis. A good shoot is a good shoot. Many more persons have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit so based on that I recommend not leaving the house and having a rock solid alibi 24/7/265. Life is full of risk and the risk of being convicted solely due to using a reload is so infinitesimal that it is not an issue. I do think the "protection plan" offered by Ayoob et al is worthwhile due to insane litigation costs.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Would you recommend making a point of notifying the investigating officers that you used a particular box of ammo in the gun and making sure they took that box with them to avoid questions of evidence tampering?
I'm sure that is true; but it is those borderline cases I am thinking of. Since gunshot residue (GSR) is often used to determine the distance between the shooter and the shootee, any additional variables that make this subject to even more interpretation than usual concern me.
If the distance a shooting took place becomes a critical factor in whether to indict or not indict (or worse convict or not convict), then I'd like the evidence to be as uncomplicated as I can make it.
I'd agree with that. You aren't going to be convicted solely because you used reloads. It will be a lot of little things that pile up against you - maybe the bad guy has multiple witnesses on his side and you just have yourself, they tell one story, you tell a different one. In a case like that, they are going to look at the forensic evidence and if the forensic evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation, they are likely to let the jury sort it out.
The thing is, I can't control the number of attackers, whether I have witnesses, where the attack happens. What I can control is what kind of ammo I load/records I keep to make the forensic evidence less ambiguous. Although the risk may be small, it seems to me that the reward (advanatages of handloads over factory ammo) is even smaller; but as I said, I don't reload so that likely colors my judgment as to the advantages.
"Would you recommend making a point of notifying the investigating officers that you used a particular box of ammo in the gun and making sure they took that box with them to avoid questions of evidence tampering?"
I would consult with an attorney before answering any questions. The "chain of evidence" is really an issue for the prosecution. If I was involved in a shooting and was using reloads I would "segregate" the box of ammunition and produce it only if required to do so. I should point out that I use reloads but I won't let my wife use them, not for legal reasons, but because I want her to have reliable ammunition and would feel bad if I short seated a primer and she had a FTF at the wrong time. I have never had an FTF with my reloads (did find an upside down primer but before I tried to use it). For her, I'll grab about 10 random cartridges out of the box and fire them to ensure they go bang. Then I trust the box but even factory ammunition can FTF.
I would consult with an attorney before answering any questions. The "chain of evidence" is really an issue for the prosecution. If I was involved in a shooting and was using reloads I would "segregate" the box of ammunition and produce it only if required to do so. I should point out that I use reloads but I won't let my wife use them, not for legal reasons, but because I want her to have reliable ammunition and would feel bad if I short seated a primer and she had a FTF at the wrong time. I have never had an FTF with my reloads (did find an upside down primer but before I tried to use it). For her, I'll grab about 10 random cartridges out of the box and fire them to ensure they go bang. Then I trust the box but even factory ammunition can FTF.
Use local Law Enforcement ammo
Most of the comments addressed the Criminal side of the equation.
You must also consider the civil suit which will be filed against you. Civil Ligators will use any thing they can to win their commission. Handloads for them will become cop killer bullets. We all know the furor these mythical bullets have caused.
Be safe use the Ammo used by your Local department.
Most of the comments addressed the Criminal side of the equation.
You must also consider the civil suit which will be filed against you. Civil Ligators will use any thing they can to win their commission. Handloads for them will become cop killer bullets. We all know the furor these mythical bullets have caused.
Be safe use the Ammo used by your Local department.
OldMarksman
Staff
Not sure what "if you need an expert" means, but the issue is whether, by chance, you will need to have evidence regarding the ammunition that you used admitted in court.
The specific rules of admissibility of forensic trace evidence differ among states; some states have adopted the new Federal rules ("Daubert"); some still use the old rules ("Frye"); and some have their own. The one thing they all have in common is that the source and validity of the examplar evidence must be unquestionable. Without third party records created using recognized, uniform processes, including, for example, the independent QA and lot acceptance documentation of manufacturer, that would not be the case. Records created by the accused certainly would not meet the threshold.
The issue here has nothing to do with the kind of case at hand and everything to do with the admissibility of forensic trace evidence.
If you say so, but gathering gunshot residue is routine, and if the absence of same on the person shot is used as an argument against the actor's account of a self defense shooting, and if other supporting evidence is skimpy, being able to counter that argument could be crucial.
Eh?
The issue is whether the shooter can provide sufficient evidence to counter the otherwise damning evidence that he shot someone, an act to which he will have to admit in order to mount a defense of justification.
No one will ever be convicted solely due to using a reload. He will be convicted or acquitted on the basis of the totality of the evidence, and if by chance his inability to present favorable evidence tilts the balance against him, woe be the defendant.
m.p.driver
New member
I carry my reloads but they are new remington cases,185 gr. remington h.p.'s and fairly new unique powder.I dont hotroad the loads,they are loaded to factory velocities,and they are tried and true in my S&W .45.I shoot them because i have an ample supply of components,and i can load them for way cheaper than what i can now buy loaded rounds for.I stockpiled back in 1994.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
It seems to me that if you want to introduce your client's handloads as exemplar loads to show a different theory of gunshot residue interpretation, then it is going to be an issue for the defense. Am I missing something there?
This issue came up in our CCW class where the instructor made it clear that it is a very bad practice to use reloads for self defense because of the duty to produce expert witnesses who are quite costly, open questions of the balistics of your reloads and many other issues.
The ammo industry already has all of these statistics and it also plays a role in proving exactly how far away you were at the time of the actual shoot which is based on these statitics. So not only could it undermine your pocketbook for the experts and the questioning of the actual reloading process that you use, it could also put into question whether you were within a 20 foot distance.
It is to say the least problematic at the very least. Get reliable high quality store bought ammo and save the box so the exact bullets are known. Reloads will cost you thousands of dollars in the very least and perhaps much more. Just not worth it.
The ammo industry already has all of these statistics and it also plays a role in proving exactly how far away you were at the time of the actual shoot which is based on these statitics. So not only could it undermine your pocketbook for the experts and the questioning of the actual reloading process that you use, it could also put into question whether you were within a 20 foot distance.
It is to say the least problematic at the very least. Get reliable high quality store bought ammo and save the box so the exact bullets are known. Reloads will cost you thousands of dollars in the very least and perhaps much more. Just not worth it.
madmo44mag
New member
I have never carried factory ammo.
IMHO it is a none-issue in a clearly justified shooting.
From all I have read and seen, ammo only becomes an issue where there are other factors in play.
The court could care less what ammo was fired as long as the shooting was justified and occurred within the confines of the state and federal laws.
Simply put a “Good” shoot is a good shoot and a questionable shoot will bring the wolves.
As stated by others the civil trial may be your worst nightmare not the county or states case against you, depending on the laws of the state the shoot occurred. There are some states that if the shoot was justified you can’t be sued in civil court.
IMHO it is a none-issue in a clearly justified shooting.
From all I have read and seen, ammo only becomes an issue where there are other factors in play.
The court could care less what ammo was fired as long as the shooting was justified and occurred within the confines of the state and federal laws.
Simply put a “Good” shoot is a good shoot and a questionable shoot will bring the wolves.
As stated by others the civil trial may be your worst nightmare not the county or states case against you, depending on the laws of the state the shoot occurred. There are some states that if the shoot was justified you can’t be sued in civil court.
madmo44mag said
That is just not the way a court case goes down with ballistics first of all dependent on powder charges to determine distance from the shooter and the "victim" in the case of a criminal action against you, likewise every aspect of the reloading technique utilized is critiqued by expert witnesses and actual demonstration of the reloading technique is required, then the bullets are tested by the ballistics expert, most likely another paid professional, then there is the lawyers on both sides and you get to pay for all of those people.
I forget the sum quoted by my CCW teacher who is a nationwide expert witness in many gun cases, but I believe he stated it adds $100,000 to the defense costs to document the reload issue. His point is that it is far cheaper to just get reliable high quality ammo that comes with the experts from the factory that makes it. They already have all of the data and tables at hand.
It thus is costly to defend and jeopardizes your defense especially if you use high powered loads outside of the traditional ammo loads. So, I am not in the least an expert myself, but that was the experience and opinion of someone who is. As several have already stated, just buy a box and keep the original box you bought it in. Change out your ammo every six months as well was another recommendation.
That is just not the way a court case goes down with ballistics first of all dependent on powder charges to determine distance from the shooter and the "victim" in the case of a criminal action against you, likewise every aspect of the reloading technique utilized is critiqued by expert witnesses and actual demonstration of the reloading technique is required, then the bullets are tested by the ballistics expert, most likely another paid professional, then there is the lawyers on both sides and you get to pay for all of those people.
I forget the sum quoted by my CCW teacher who is a nationwide expert witness in many gun cases, but I believe he stated it adds $100,000 to the defense costs to document the reload issue. His point is that it is far cheaper to just get reliable high quality ammo that comes with the experts from the factory that makes it. They already have all of the data and tables at hand.
It thus is costly to defend and jeopardizes your defense especially if you use high powered loads outside of the traditional ammo loads. So, I am not in the least an expert myself, but that was the experience and opinion of someone who is. As several have already stated, just buy a box and keep the original box you bought it in. Change out your ammo every six months as well was another recommendation.
Last edited:
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
You just don't get it! It's the jury who will determine whether it's a good shoot or not. That determination may very well be based solely on the distance between the shooter and shootee. If, for example, the shooter claims he was being attacked with a knife at a distance of 10 feet when he fired, and a ballistics expert claims that based on (lack of) gunshot residue, the attacker must have been at least 50 feet away, all of a sudden the "imminent" threat doesn't become so imminent.
While I have every confidence in the reliability and efficacy of my handloads, I simply don't carry them for defensive use, when virtually 100% reliable and effective factory ammo is available in each of my defense calibers. True, it might never come up, but spending $50 for a box of factory premium defense loads once a year is far better than gambling on saving $30 and having to spend an extra $100,000 on defense if I ever have to use them.
OldMarksman
Staff
I guess it depends on how you define a "clearly justified shooting".
How about his: you are going to your car, and two men jump you in the dark. They threaten you, and at least one has a knife. Having no choice, you shoot. One person is injured, and the other escapes.
Would that be a "clearly justified shooting"? Would it be a "good shoot"? Or would it be a "questionable shoot"?
The problem is, the incident did not take place on a sound stage with an audience, and there are no video recordings that can be played back. Whether you are charged, and the success of your defense of justification if you are, will both depend upon your testimony, which will of course be disputed, and upon the evidence that you can produce in support of your account of the incident.
So here is the evidence:
- Forensic evidence proves that you fired the shots with your weapon.
- You testify that you fired from near your car at close range because you were in imminent danger--the men had the opportunity and ability to kill or seriously injure you, the y had threatened to do so, and shooting was your only alternative.
- They both testify that you fired at them from the dark without provocation while they happened to be near your car.
- No knife is found--you say that the guy who escaped must have taken it and gotten rid of it; they say that they didn't have knives.
- Your empties have rolled in the wind and down a slope, and their location proves nothing conclusively.
- No trace of gunshot residue is found on the person who was shot.
At this point you are at great risk, and if you are charged and tried, your fate is out of your hands. It is not at all unlikely that the prosecution will argue that the lack of GSR on the victim is consistent with the testimony of the other two and indicates that the victim was sufficiently distant from you, the defendant, that imminent danger simply did not exist--that you were not justified in shooting.
Now suppose that tests of your ammunition could show that GSR would not have been deposited at close range and could cast doubt on that argument, but because the ammunition was hand loaded, the tests cannot be admitted due to the rules of admissibility of forensic trace evidence.
At that point, is it the court that cares what ammunition you used, or is it you?
The likelihood of that happening may be remote, but considering the potential consequences, is it worth the risk, when it is probably about the only thing that you can control in advance?
PS--it looks like Gary L Griffiths has already nailed it.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
[1] The legal issues regarding the use of handloads for self defense have been discussed here. See:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423771
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391656
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394682
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397127
[2] Just some high points --
1. Yes, a good shoot is a good shoot. But you won't be deciding if it was a good shoot. Other folks will. And if you're on trial, someone who matters didn't think it was a good shoot. Now it's not a good shoot unless the jury says so.
2. If you've been involved in a shooting in which you claim self defense and if, for some reason, gunshot residue (GSR) test results will be important to your defense, GSR test results will not be admissible into evidence if you used handloads. It won't matter how good your records may be. They are suspect, because they are yours. You will not be able to establish the necessary foundation for admission of GSR test results of your handloads because you will not be able to satisfactorily establish that the handloads tested were the same as the rounds fired in the incident.
3. It will be highly unlikely that any members of your jury will have any knowledge of or interest in guns or shooting. Your reasons for using handloads will strike them as too "inside baseball", and they will probably not be receptive to them.
4. If you're on trial in a shooting in which you're claiming self defense, you probably have a number of problems. Handloads can become one more thing that will need to be explained, one more "wild card." As a general rule in court, the less you have to explain, the better off you'll be. You won't have to explain handloads if you didn't use them and used factory ammunition instead.
5. There aren't cases on the issue because it's most likely that there are very few self defense incidents in which handloads have been used.
[3] Some of these points are discussed in greater detail and at greater length in the threads I've linked to.
[4] I practiced law for over 30 years before retiring a few years ago. I will not use handloads for self defense applications.
[5] The case alluded to in post 4 is the case of Daniel Bias. It was not a self defense case. But that doesn't matter for our purposes. What is significant for us in Bias is a matter of the rules of evidence, and those rules and their application are the same in all types of cases.
Daniel Bias was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, killing his wife. He claimed she committed suicide. Part of the prosecution's case was that test firings of commercial ammunition bearing the same headstamp as the round fired showed GSR deposits on the target at the distance from which Bias claimed his wife shot herself. But there was no GSR on the shot wife.
Bias claimed that the gun his wife used to shoot herself with was loaded with very light handloads he prepared for her self defense use. They were very light because Bias' wife was sensitive to recoil.
Test firings by an expert engaged by Bias of ammunition that Bias claimed matched the loading of the round that killed his wife showed no GSR deposits on the target at the critical distance. However, the judge would not allow those test results to be entered into evidence on the grounds that there was insufficient foundation to establish that the ammunition tested did indeed match the death round.
[6] The lesson for us from Bias is that if we fire a gun in self defense and it becomes necessary or desirable to our legal defense to look to GSR test evidence to help corroborate our story, e. g., our distance from the alleged assailant when we fired, we might be out of luck if we used handloaded ammunition.
That might not come up in every self defense case, but we have no way of knowing in advance if it might come up in ours, if we're ever unlucky enough to be in that position. But it does come up as shown in this post on another board by Marty Hayes (who's a member here as well).
[7] The result in Bias is actually consistent with basic evidentiary principles.
Say you may want to introduce GSR evidence to corroborate your story about how the event took place.
You therefore engage an expert to conduct tests reproducing the circumstances of the event. You want the test results to validate your story of how things took place. If you're claiming self defense, you're hoping that your expert witness can take ammunition which can be established to be substantially identical to the ammunition you shot the alleged attacker with under conditions replicating the shooting as you have contended it took place and produce GSR similar to the GSR produced at the scene. And that will, you hope, allow your expert to testify that in his opinion the shooting took place as you had described it.
That can only work, and you can get the sort of expert testimony you need in your defense, if the judge can be satisfied that the ammunition tested by your expert was substantially identical to the ammunition with which you shot the guy you claim attacked you.
If you used handloads, the only evidence you can offer to support the claim that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the ammunition used in the claimed self defense event will be your testimony to that effect. Your testimony on that point would be suspect because you are vitally interested in the outcome and there can be no independent corroboration of your claim as to what was in the ammunition you used to defend yourself with.
On the other hand, if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, the you could show that Federal Cartridge Company manufactures large quantities subject to certain quality controls to a certain degree of uniformity. In addition, Federal Cartridge Company is a non-involved third party making ammunition for sale to the general public. That would most likely establish an adequate foundation to secure admission into evidence of GSR test results of exemplar Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition in support of your expert's opinion.
It's all about being able to perform a test under conditions that a judge can be convinced mirror the event sufficiently to permit an expert to draw valid conclusions about the event from the test results.
[8] To me, the avoidance of handloads is a simple decision. They're really not going to give me any advantage on the street, so I have no reason to take any risk, no matter how small, by using them.
Perhaps if I am ever involved in a self defense shooting handloads will be the least of my worries. But by avoiding using handloads for self defense handloads go from being among the least of my worries to handloads being no worry at all.
If I ever have to use a gun in self defense, my lawyer and I will have a lot to do and a lot to concern ourselves with. I see no reason to throw a wild card like handloads into the mix.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423771
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391656
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394682
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397127
[2] Just some high points --
1. Yes, a good shoot is a good shoot. But you won't be deciding if it was a good shoot. Other folks will. And if you're on trial, someone who matters didn't think it was a good shoot. Now it's not a good shoot unless the jury says so.
2. If you've been involved in a shooting in which you claim self defense and if, for some reason, gunshot residue (GSR) test results will be important to your defense, GSR test results will not be admissible into evidence if you used handloads. It won't matter how good your records may be. They are suspect, because they are yours. You will not be able to establish the necessary foundation for admission of GSR test results of your handloads because you will not be able to satisfactorily establish that the handloads tested were the same as the rounds fired in the incident.
3. It will be highly unlikely that any members of your jury will have any knowledge of or interest in guns or shooting. Your reasons for using handloads will strike them as too "inside baseball", and they will probably not be receptive to them.
4. If you're on trial in a shooting in which you're claiming self defense, you probably have a number of problems. Handloads can become one more thing that will need to be explained, one more "wild card." As a general rule in court, the less you have to explain, the better off you'll be. You won't have to explain handloads if you didn't use them and used factory ammunition instead.
5. There aren't cases on the issue because it's most likely that there are very few self defense incidents in which handloads have been used.
[3] Some of these points are discussed in greater detail and at greater length in the threads I've linked to.
[4] I practiced law for over 30 years before retiring a few years ago. I will not use handloads for self defense applications.
[5] The case alluded to in post 4 is the case of Daniel Bias. It was not a self defense case. But that doesn't matter for our purposes. What is significant for us in Bias is a matter of the rules of evidence, and those rules and their application are the same in all types of cases.
Daniel Bias was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, killing his wife. He claimed she committed suicide. Part of the prosecution's case was that test firings of commercial ammunition bearing the same headstamp as the round fired showed GSR deposits on the target at the distance from which Bias claimed his wife shot herself. But there was no GSR on the shot wife.
Bias claimed that the gun his wife used to shoot herself with was loaded with very light handloads he prepared for her self defense use. They were very light because Bias' wife was sensitive to recoil.
Test firings by an expert engaged by Bias of ammunition that Bias claimed matched the loading of the round that killed his wife showed no GSR deposits on the target at the critical distance. However, the judge would not allow those test results to be entered into evidence on the grounds that there was insufficient foundation to establish that the ammunition tested did indeed match the death round.
[6] The lesson for us from Bias is that if we fire a gun in self defense and it becomes necessary or desirable to our legal defense to look to GSR test evidence to help corroborate our story, e. g., our distance from the alleged assailant when we fired, we might be out of luck if we used handloaded ammunition.
That might not come up in every self defense case, but we have no way of knowing in advance if it might come up in ours, if we're ever unlucky enough to be in that position. But it does come up as shown in this post on another board by Marty Hayes (who's a member here as well).
[7] The result in Bias is actually consistent with basic evidentiary principles.
Say you may want to introduce GSR evidence to corroborate your story about how the event took place.
You therefore engage an expert to conduct tests reproducing the circumstances of the event. You want the test results to validate your story of how things took place. If you're claiming self defense, you're hoping that your expert witness can take ammunition which can be established to be substantially identical to the ammunition you shot the alleged attacker with under conditions replicating the shooting as you have contended it took place and produce GSR similar to the GSR produced at the scene. And that will, you hope, allow your expert to testify that in his opinion the shooting took place as you had described it.
That can only work, and you can get the sort of expert testimony you need in your defense, if the judge can be satisfied that the ammunition tested by your expert was substantially identical to the ammunition with which you shot the guy you claim attacked you.
If you used handloads, the only evidence you can offer to support the claim that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the ammunition used in the claimed self defense event will be your testimony to that effect. Your testimony on that point would be suspect because you are vitally interested in the outcome and there can be no independent corroboration of your claim as to what was in the ammunition you used to defend yourself with.
On the other hand, if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, the you could show that Federal Cartridge Company manufactures large quantities subject to certain quality controls to a certain degree of uniformity. In addition, Federal Cartridge Company is a non-involved third party making ammunition for sale to the general public. That would most likely establish an adequate foundation to secure admission into evidence of GSR test results of exemplar Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition in support of your expert's opinion.
It's all about being able to perform a test under conditions that a judge can be convinced mirror the event sufficiently to permit an expert to draw valid conclusions about the event from the test results.
[8] To me, the avoidance of handloads is a simple decision. They're really not going to give me any advantage on the street, so I have no reason to take any risk, no matter how small, by using them.
Perhaps if I am ever involved in a self defense shooting handloads will be the least of my worries. But by avoiding using handloads for self defense handloads go from being among the least of my worries to handloads being no worry at all.
If I ever have to use a gun in self defense, my lawyer and I will have a lot to do and a lot to concern ourselves with. I see no reason to throw a wild card like handloads into the mix.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Old thread it's true so:
1. The good shoot cliche, as mentioned is useless, this discussion starts when you are going to trial or civil court as the shoot is evaluated as not being good by those who can get you in court. Forget that cliche!
2. If you are in court, weapons related issues can influence mock juries - as seen in studies. Some folks don't like to here that - tough. Go to court dressed in your gun loonie, killer clothes - go for it!
3. Look at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=443854. In this castle doctrine thread - note the stories are mentioning hollow points - not reloads but shows you that public perception might be influenced by media reports.
1. The good shoot cliche, as mentioned is useless, this discussion starts when you are going to trial or civil court as the shoot is evaluated as not being good by those who can get you in court. Forget that cliche!
2. If you are in court, weapons related issues can influence mock juries - as seen in studies. Some folks don't like to here that - tough. Go to court dressed in your gun loonie, killer clothes - go for it!
3. Look at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=443854. In this castle doctrine thread - note the stories are mentioning hollow points - not reloads but shows you that public perception might be influenced by media reports.
Number 1 - Will you even be charged with a crime by the DA if it was a justified defensive shooting.
Number 2 - If the DA finds a reason to charge you, then it will go before a Grand Jury to indict you prior to you facing a jury trial. (You are in trouble for other reasons than your type of ammo.)
Number 3 - If you get to the point of a jury trial, then most likely you have a lot more to worry about than what type of round you fired. (You are in a bunch of trouble now for reasons other than the type of ammo you used.)
Number 4 - If in a State like New Jersey, if it is a justified defensive shooting you could be charged if you used hollow points. I doubt the charges will be for murder but for the law you violated (I think; although this was not the question.)
If some of you lawyers know I am wrong about the above, please correct me.
Number 2 - If the DA finds a reason to charge you, then it will go before a Grand Jury to indict you prior to you facing a jury trial. (You are in trouble for other reasons than your type of ammo.)
Number 3 - If you get to the point of a jury trial, then most likely you have a lot more to worry about than what type of round you fired. (You are in a bunch of trouble now for reasons other than the type of ammo you used.)
Number 4 - If in a State like New Jersey, if it is a justified defensive shooting you could be charged if you used hollow points. I doubt the charges will be for murder but for the law you violated (I think; although this was not the question.)
If some of you lawyers know I am wrong about the above, please correct me.
- Status