Reloads for self defense

[jmortimer]

"Good point. In which case(s) were the decision to use hollow points an issue? I ask not to be argumentative, but simply because none spring to mind."
This case http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/
"...the jury falsely believed that Grant Kuenzli was unarmed, allowing the prosecutor to argue that one of the two combatants had a powerful 10 mm gun loaded with hollow point bullets while the other had nothing."
The People made much of the fact that he used a gun "more powerful" than the police use and that he used deadly hollowpoint ammunition. We know for a fact that "powerful guns" and "hollow point" ammunition can and will be used against you so why go there but argue the theory that reloads are bad news for a defendant when no case can be cited in support of the proposition that reloads played a role of the conviction of an innocent person acting in self-defense. I'll stick with my hard cast flat point reloads in "old fashioned" firearms and I'll be safer in court, as defined herein, than the Glock 10mm shooter with "powerful" and "deadly hollowpoints."

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So far, in the history of the United States, no one was ever convicted in a self-defense shooting for using reloads or having evidence of reloads used against them.

You claim to be an attorney, yet you keep misinterpreting the issue as "being convicted for using reloads." Since you say you are an attorney, I'm assuming you understand how the evidentiary process works and I have to wonder why you don't address those points instead of making the statement I quoted above - which is meaningless to this conversation since nobody is claiming that you'll be convicted solely for using reloads.

Further, the couple few cases cited for the proposition in question, have nothing to do with using reloads for self-defense.

The cases actually have relevance to several issues being brought up in this discussion:

1) "A good shoot is a good shot"

Unless it isn't - all three cases mentioned were ultimately ruled "good shoots" by our justice system; but I guarantee you that none of the shooters feel good about how they got to that point.

2) The Abshire and Hickey shootings are cases where the distance to the person being shot was an issue at trial. It illustrates that this issue does come up in "good shoots" - ergo things that make it harder for police to forensically determine distance (handloads) can cause you problems.

So, again, why all this over something that is a theory and has never, ever happened, not once ever, never?

Did you see the discussion on conditional probability? First, your statement is analogous to saying "Nobody has ever died from falling from a 200 story building, so why worry about looking over the edge of a 200-story building?"

Second, as has been pointed out, you don't know that it hasn't happened. I can just as easily say "Show me one single case where the defense was able to get their GSR evidence using handloads admitted into evidence - You can't show me one single case! Not once ever, never!" It has as much truth to it as your statement and is about as helpful in analyzing the risk.

I have seen cases where there was undisputed evidence that ended up meaning absolutely nothing because the other sides attorney did a better job convincing the jury.

Except here the jury may never even get to hear your evidence because it isn't admissible. That is a major issue.

Another issue is the effect ammunition and weapon choice can have on the jury; but at least that is an issue your lawyer can prepare for and address. Your lawyer can't do much with evidence that the court won't allow.

Now go back and read the book mentioned above, section on Range Determination on Powder Marks. I think you'll find your test coincide with the book.

Quote:
"In General, burning is a phenomena which does not occur under any circumstances at all when the distance from the muzzle is greater then 7 inches. Few Pistols will burn at a distance beyond about 2 inches regardless of the loading"--Firearms Investigation, Identification, and Evidence

Doing your own studies, and test will convince you that TV CSI is just that, TV, the same can be said regarding all our Internet opinions.

I'm not familiar with the science forensic testing of powder residue to determine distance. I can tell you I read 17 pages of gunshot residue cases last night and expert witness testimony on GSR was routinely used to establish distances way beyond 7 inches. Once case involving a rifle described the gunshot residue as being projected 15-21 FEET.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There are several books out there on the subject but the best I've found, and the one I used was "FIREARMS INVESTIGATION, IDENTIFICATION, and EVIDENCE" by Hatcher,Jury & Weller. Granted its an older text but gun powder hasn't changed, it all boils down to Nitrates....

A classic book -- written some 50 years ago. There certainly have been changes in powder in that time, including the development of low flash and cleaner powders. And there have been developments in forensics in that time.

In any case, we know that in Bias GSR evidence was an issue for the purpose of determining the distance at which a shot was fired and that Bias' expert testimony, which was in his favor, was not admitted because handloads were used. We also know that recently Marty Hayes was engaged by the defense in a self defense case to do GSR testing in connection with a question regarding the distance at which a shot was fired.

 

[kraigwy]

I'm not familiar with the science forensic testing of powder residue to determine distance. I can tell you I read 17 pages of gunshot residue cases last night and expert witness testimony on GSR was routinely used to establish distances way beyond 7 inches. Once case involving a rifle described the gunshot residue as being projected 15-21 FEET.

Burning powder and gsr are and are not the same (not that confusing when you think about it).

However, what I was trying to relay, is that for individuals to do their own test/studies and see what happens. Lets take your numbers of 15-21 feet. I don't believe it would be too difficult to convince a jury that you felt for your safety regarding an armed suspect at 15-21 feet.

Beyond the "safe to retreat" (for lack of a better term) the GSR (based on your numbers) would not be available.

No one will dispute an expert with his comparison microscope. However there will be disagreement with the interpretation of those findings. A considerable knowledge of firearms my reveal several possibilities in the way a shot was fired. The reason being, two bullets, from the same gun, same lot of ammunition may or may not react in the same way.

A good example is trying to determine the location of a shooter by expended brass. No one who is concerned about his credibility will say he can. A simple test we can all do is to take our pistol out, stand in on location and fire a clip. Your brass will be scattered about, making it impossible to pin point your location when firing. The radius of the brass expended would make it impossible.

It seems the evidence against re-loads is based on it being more difficult to determine the distance between the target and shooter, your own readings indicate that its as much as 15-21 feet. I contend that under normal situations it would be reasonable that one could fear an armed assailant at that range.

What happens is if some attorney tries to discredit you evidence that you were in fear of your life, they will do that, whether you use reloads, hollow points, magnums or FMJs. That's the way of the world, that is the profession of attorneys. What's more it even varies do to location and the make up of the population of your area.

Regardless of what you use, you are gonna have a better chance in SD situations regardless of the make up of the bullet, in Wyoming then say, New Jersey or Chicago.

One size does not fit all.

 

[Spats McGee]

fiddletown, is Bias an appellate case? If so, do you happen to have a cite?

kriagwy, there is some truth to your assertion that "if some attorney tries to discredit you evidence that you were in fear of your life, they will do that, whether you use reloads, hollow points, magnums or FMJs." I would submit, though, that it's easier to discredit the shooter if the shooter used reloads.

Edited to add: I'd also agree that your jurisdiction makes a big difference. In Wyoming, I would expect most juries to be more familiar with the practice of reloading than in Chicago or New York, for example.

 

[csmsss]

I'm amused, to say the least, by those who cling stubbornly to the notion that their reloaded ammunition is significantly better than factory ammo. How do they know this? How COULD they know this? Is it a question of accuracy? Well, at the typical ranges involved in selc defense shootings, the comparative accuracy of different handgun loadings is irrelevant. I certainly don't hear the cops complaining about the "inaccuracy" of their factory loaded ammo. No, the accuracy problems that appear in SD are pretty much attributable to the shooter, not the cartridge. Is the reliability better in reloads than in factory ammo? You'd sure have trouble proving that, and any reliability gains would almost certainly be attributable to a persnickety firearm with finicky diet - not exactly the kind of firearm I would want to trust my life with. Is it terminal effectiveness that is so much better? Well...how on earth would they know? There is simply no basis for knowing.

I'll stick with factory loads.

 

[kraigwy]

I would submit, though, that it's easier to discredit the shooter if the shooter used reloads.

Would it??? Think of it this way, if one shoots hundreds of rounds a month, in practice and competition, and carries the round he knows vs. someone who shoots hundreds of reloads yet carries Brand X after shooting a few rounds to see what it does.

Juries are funny creatures, I been involved in hundreds of cases (not necessarily gun cases), I believe from what I've seen they will way on the side of familiarity for the same reason they value a 20 year cop's testimony more then a 2 years cop.

I'm amused, to say the least, by those who cling stubbornly to the notion that their reloaded ammunition is significantly better than factory ammo. How do they know this? How COULD they know this? Is it a question of accuracy? Well, at the typical ranges involved in self defense shootings, the comparative accuracy of different handgun loadings is irrelevant. I certainly don't hear the cops complaining about the "inaccuracy" of their factory loaded ammo.

Simple fact that they might just have fired hundreds of thousands of both. And as I have been preaching, doing their own test. Here is an example: Two bullets fired into a wet phone book out of a S&W 642. One is a Black Hills 125 Grn 38 +p, the other is a Lyman 358477 cast 150 grn SWC pushed by 4.5 grns of unique.

I have more faith in my reloads. I know what they will do, and I know what I can do with them.

Again this is my test out of my gun, using my reloads vs. the Black Hills +p. As they say, your mileage may very, do your own test, don't take anyone's word what will happen in your gun using what ever bullet.

If one is not willing to work at the shooting of thousands of rounds, is not willing to do multipul test of those rounds, then by all means, I recommend they carry factory ammo. This includes most shooters out there.

 

[Spats McGee]

Would it??? Think of it this way, if one shoots hundreds of rounds a month, in practice and competition, and carries the round he knows vs. someone who shoots hundreds of reloads yet carries Brand X after shooting a few rounds to see what it does.

Yes, I think it would. Regardless of the number of rounds shot, of handloads or factory, if the shooter has used his or her own reloads, the prosecutor can always argue that his or her records are self-serving, and that the defendant is the only person who really knows what went into those cartridges. The defendant's testimony may also be considered self-serving, and his records may not have the indicia of reliability that the court wants before admitting them. That kind of contamination can get your expert's testimony kicked out before the jury ever hears it.

On the other hand, if some third party, with nothing to gain or lose by the outcome of the case, produced the ammo, the court has no reason to disbelieve their records or their tests.

For that matter, even if the ammo was technically reloaded, but done so by a company that makes "remanufactured ammo," the shooter may still find himself in a better position, just because there's some neutral third party to testify as to how the cartridges were loaded.

 

[csmsss]

Craig, with all due respect, I have yet to hear of anyone being attacked by wet newsprint, so your photograph, while no doubt indicative of how each loading fared against that media, isn't a reliable indicator of how each cartridge would perform against an honest to goodness bad guy. If you're being truly honest about it, nothing really simulates what a cartridge will do - each and every time. There are simply too many variables from shoot to shoot to make any kind of comprehensive claim, especially with handgun ammunition.

 

[Frank Ettin]

fiddletown, is Bias an appellate case? If so, do you happen to have a cite?...

Daniel Bias actually endured several trials and there were several visits to the appellate courts. The background is covered in this article by Massad Ayoob from the May-June, 2006 issue of American Handgunner. Mas offers this pointer to the court and appellate record:

...The records of the N.J. v. Daniel N. Bias trials are archived at the Superior Court of New Jersey, Warren County, 313 Second Street, P.O. Box 900, Belvedere, NJ 97823. Those wishing to follow his appellate process can begin with the Atlantic Reporter at 142 NJ 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table)....

Mas also wrote this:

...The only reason handloads have not been a factor in more cases is that most people who go in harm's way are already smart enough not to use them for defense...

...It seems the evidence against re-loads is based on it being more difficult to determine the distance between the target and shooter,...

No, that's not the issue at all. The issue is the admissibility, or lack thereof, of an expert's opinion based on testing. As I outlined the evidentiary issue:

...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....

...I don't believe it would be too difficult to convince a jury that you felt for your safety regarding an armed suspect at 15-21 feet....

But the issue doesn't necessarily have to be a question of whether you shot at a threat inside your "danger zone."

For example, there could be a dispute about your distance from the target when you shot. You say you shot your alleged attacker when he was 6 feet away. A witness (or even your alleged attacker who survived) claims the alleged attacker was 20 feet away. Now a witness can be mistaken about such things. It could be a matter of angle. It could be that the witness has lousy skills for estimating distance. Or it could be the fact that we know that witnesses can suffer from the same stress induced perceptual distortions as participants.

If you can introduce an expert's opinion based on GSR testing that supports your story about the distance at which you shot your alleged attacker, it will add credence to your testimony. The jury will be more likely to accept your testimony, and you will therefore be more convincing to the jury. But doubt regarding your story will damage your overall credibility.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

However, what I was trying to relay, is that for individuals to do their own test/studies and see what happens. Lets take your numbers of 15-21 feet. I don't believe it would be too difficult to convince a jury that you felt for your safety regarding an armed suspect at 15-21 feet.

True; but to use another example, the Hickey and Abshire cases both involved multiple unarmed attackers against a single armed person. In the Hickey case, the question was whether the second shot that struck his attacker in the back was fired in self-defense or fired after the attacker had already turned and fled. In the Hickey case, he claimed he was attacked by three people in his own driveway, they claimed he attacked them in the alley outside their own house. In both of those cases, the GSR is going to help police and the jury determine who is telling the truth out of the different stories they are being told.

Here is another hypothetical:

You say you are holding burglar at gunpoint and he charged you, so you shot him. Burglar says you were holding him at gunpoint, got nervous and shot him accidentally. One of those is self-defense. The other one is negligence. Let's say the distance between where the burglar says he was standing and where you say you were standing is 7'. Tests detect no GSR on him. The cops do a test of the standard factory loading of whatever case you used and determine it sprays GSR at least 6'. You tell them "No, I was using these reloads and my expert's tests show they only spray GSR 2 feet"

If you are on the jury and not a gun guy, what are you going to make of that evidence - especially if the only part of the GSR evidence you hear is "We tested the standard factory load matching the defendant's expended case and it left GSR out to a distance of 6 feet."

That is the type of problem that doesn't exist when you use factory ammo.

 

[Spats McGee]

fiddletown, is Bias an appellate case? If so, do you happen to have a cite?...

Daniel Bias actually endured several trials and there were several visits to the appellate courts. The background is covered in this article by Massad Ayoob from the May-June, 2006 issue of American Handgunner.

Good article. Thanks.

 

[kraigwy]

A classic book -- written some 50 years ago. There certainly have been changes in powder in that time, including the development of low flash and cleaner powders

That's true, but they test for nitrates then and they test for nitrates now. Smokeless gunpowder used nitrates, either nitrocellulose or a combination of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. Nitrates, with out nitrates you don't have smokeless gun powder.

Here is another hypothetical:

I don't do hypothetical or what ifs. Do the paraffin test I described above. You'll find out if factory leaves residue at X distance, so will reloads out of the same gun.

I hope you all know I'm not trying to convince anyone into carring anything. I entered this just for the discussion on a topic I've spent my life studying and practicing, in one form or other, in my careers and hobbies.

The problem is I was suppose to go to never never land to get back in the field (LE Mentor) but the Dept of Defense seems to think my lungs wont handle it, so you're stuck with me.

 

[Spats McGee]

I don't do hypothetical or what ifs. Do the paraffin test I described above. You'll find out if factory leaves residue at X distance, so will reloads out of the same gun.

But the problem that I've been trying to communicate is this: It may not matter if the reload is made to the exact same specs as the factory load, because the shooter may never get to tell the jury about it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'll stick with my hard cast flat point reloads in "old fashioned" firearms and I'll be safer in court, as defined herein, than the Glock 10mm shooter with "powerful" and "deadly hollowpoints."

I respectfully submit that you will NOT be safer in court.

As fiddletown and Bart have been trying to explain, in the case of your "old fashioned" ammo, a prosecutor can make it sound pretty awful and pretty deadly, but because it is handloads and there's no reliable, untainted documentation as to exactly what your reloads consisted of, you may never be able to get YOUR expert's testimony before the jury. On the other hand, if you're the 10mm Glock guy and a prosecutor tries to portray that particular round as "too powerful," you can present experts (such as Mas Ayoob) who will testify that the FBI at one time adopted the 10mm round as its standard caliber. They didn't discontinue it because it was "too effective," they discontinued it because some agents simply weren't comfortable shooting it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Do the paraffin test...

What "paraffin test"? That's not how things are done these days. Here are some links to abstracts of some scientific journal articles discussing current methodology.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00170.x/full

http://www.thescientificworld.co.uk/TSW/toc/TSWJ_ArticleLanding.asp?ArticleId=199

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p6vde24vegeyxbuf/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...f5930254fe00c6ec04f415f63feda564&searchtype=a

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...#v=onepage&q=gunshot residue distance&f=false

A classic book -- written some 50 years ago. There certainly have been changes in powder in that time, including the development of low flash and cleaner powders

That's true, but they test for nitrates then and they test for nitrates now. Smokeless gunpowder used nitrates, either nitrocellulose or a combination of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. Nitrates, with out nitrates you don't have smokeless gun powder....

You should have quoted me in full. I also wrote

And there have been developments in forensics in that time.

See above regarding some of those developments.

...You'll find out if factory leaves residue at X distance, so will reloads out of the same gun...

Even with different powders? Even with different powder charges?

 

[kraigwy]

What "paraffin test"? That's not how things are done these days.

I mentioned the paraffin test as I posted earlier how one (we) can do the test if we wish to do a bit of studying on our own.

And there have been developments in forensics in that time

Yeap, and as I mentioned in recent developments check for nitrates, you cannot have smokeless gunpowder without nitrates.

Even with different powders? Even with different powder charges?

Pretty much, its more of a relation between barrel length, or whether revolver or pistol. Revolvers bleed off gas through the cylinder gap. Pistol powders are relatively fast burning, which will burn a few inches from the barrel. Rifle powder is relatively slow burning (compared to pistols) but will be consumed between 7-12 inches depending on the length and powder.

But in ammunition normally used for SD situations, then the distance residue shows up will be pretty close to the same for reloaded ammo and factory ammo.

I'm not asking anyone to believe it, I'm asking before you say it HOOEY, that you try it. Its a simple process.

Shoot a series of targets at different ranges, paint the targets after firing with a layer of paraffin. Now mix up a mixture of 1 gram of Diphenylamine, and 100 c.c of Sulphuric acid. If nitrates are present, the paraffin will turn blue. Now compare that (GSR or nitrates) to actual powder residue at different distances.

Do the test with both factory and reloaded ammo. Measuring from a foot to 20 feet or so. I think you'll be surprised.

We can all say we "read this" or "Officer Friendly Said that" but that doesn't make it so. I'm a kind of a "show me/ I got to try it my self guy".

When I was in the game, before I testified that such and such expert's book said X, I experimented with X, keeping good notes because of that, I've never had a problem in court, That goes with Firearms, Bomb scene investigations, and Accident Reconstruction. Juries don't want to be told what happens to a tail light when a cars in an accident, they want to see it. Same with firearms, same with bombs, (although best film bomb test, don't bring the scukers into the court room, judges get uppity).

So again, instead of just saying X happens with factory loads, and doesn't with reloads, do some testing and investigations on your own. Nothing else happens you have fun.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Even with different powders? Even with different powder charges?

Pretty much, its more of a relation between barrel length, or whether revolver or pistol. Revolvers bleed off gas through the cylinder gap. Pistol powders are relatively fast burning, which will burn a few inches from the barrel. Rifle powder is relatively slow burning (compared to pistols) but will be consumed between 7-12 inches depending on the length and powder.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you, too.

I shoot mostly 1911s as handguns. I use a full-size (5" barrel) in competition, but for personal carry I was alternating between a 3" and a 3-1/2". There was a rash of articles, both in print and on the errornet, about how much velocity is sacrificed when you use a short barrel. Awhile back I got curious when I shot a Commander (4/1-4" barrel) one night and I could see my bullets hitting the steel plates, but the plates weren't falling.

So I gathered up a few pistols (all 1911s) in various lengths, a few boxes of ammo, and a chronograph and set out to quantify the variables. I started with the 5" pistol, shot a few mags of a few different ammos through it, and wrote down the velocities. Then I repeated with the 4-1/4" Commander. So far, so good.

Until I got to the Officers ACP (3-1/2" barrel). All of a sudden my chronograph went nuts. Instead or showing me velocities, it kept popping up "ERROR." I was indoors and running off A/C power, so it wasn't weak batteries. Something else had to be happening.

I had always set the chrono ten feet from the front of the bench (which would put it about 11 feet from the muzzle. On a hunch/whim, I reset the chrono from ten feet to fifteen feet away (16 feet from the muzzle). No more error messages on the screen, either with the 3-1/2" pistol or the 3" pistol.

The point being that barrel length has an effect on both the amount of "stuff" ejected, and how far the "stuff" flies (at least in sufficient concentrations to disturb a chronograph). I was running about six or eight different types of ammo in my little experiment, and they didn't all generate errors out of the 3-1/2" pistol, so some of the rounds behaved "normally" while others (I'm going to guess those with slower-burning powders) were expelling perceptibly (to the chrono) more junk.

So let's say a factory round is one of the faster, cleaner rounds, but I handload using the same bullet but a slower powder. The faster power commercial load might not create much detectable residue at ten (or twelve) feet, but a handload with slower powder might.

Seems to me that would make a significant difference in the result of your nitrate test if the distance is somewhere in the 10 to 15 foot range. And that brings us back to the point all the legal beagles here have been patiently (or not) trying to make: with handloads, much cannot be quantified because the evidence is too tainted to be admissible.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Even with different powders? Even with different powder charges?

Pretty much, its more of a relation between barrel length, or whether revolver or pistol. ...

But in ammunition normally used for SD situations, then the distance residue shows up will be pretty close to the same for reloaded ammo and factory ammo.

I'm not asking anyone to believe it, I'm asking before you say it HOOEY, that you try it....

[1] I'm not going to try it because (1) your methodology is hopelessly outdated as reflected in the links I posted above; and (2) I'm not equipped to use current methodology.

[2] Nonetheless, i do say it's hooey. If you were correct, Daniel Bias would not have been convicted.

But Daniel Bias was sent to jail for the negligent manslaughter of his wife. He was convicted principally because --

1. His wife's body showed no traces of GSR at the wound.
2. The prosecutions expert tested commercial ammunition bearing the same headstamp as the casing of the expended "death round", and those tests showed GSR deposits at the distance from which Bias claimed his wife shot herself.
3. Ammunition loaded by Bias and which he claimed was identical to the "death round" when tested by Bias' expert did not show GSR deposits at the critical distance; but that expert's testimony was not allowed into evidence for the reasons I've discussed.

So if what you say is true, i. e., "then the distance residue shows up will be pretty close to the same for reloaded ammo and factory ammo", why didn't Bias' wife's body show traces of GSR deposits?

 

[kraigwy]

I can see the confusion, as I too have had problems with chronographs regarding distances when shooting short range barrels. Light is a big problem with chronographs, and can affect results.

Another problem, or at least in my shooting is "overpressure". In reality a bullet going off is sort of an explosion, a controlled explosion, but an explosion just the same. Any time you have an explosion you have over pressure. Meaning a blast of air moves out, and sometime back (depending on the vacuum caused by the rapid burning).

Overpressure does not necessarily contain particles of residue from the burring powder. Its more of air waves caused by the explosion. Much like a tsunami except with air instead of water.

You want to have fun, shoot your chronograph with two identical rifles, same ammo, but one with a muzzle brake, one with out. Funny things happen.

That's why I recommended one do his own parffin test. It measures residue left on the target.

Things happen, people make mistakes, people misinterpret information, thats why I stress one should do the testing themselves.

Always seek a separate opinion, then test both opinions.

I just got an e-mail of a news story that proves my point regarding second opinions.

http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/3361230-Special-prosecutor-to-probe-NY-crime-lab/