Sd 38 ammo reloads.

All I'll add to this is this. Zimmerman is now in court battle for his freedom in a SD shooting trial. I would say that that is more than enough of a burden to bear and deal with. I would not want to imagine the addition of reloads as the ammo used in this case.
 
I think the arguments against handloads are mostly nonsense that can be easily countered by a good attorney.
Click to expand...

Very true.
How many additional billable hours by that good attorney could be avoided by simply spending $30 on factory carry ammo?

It's not that reloads, in and of themselves, will get one convicted. It's that it's a potentially expensive distraction from what could otherwise be a cut & dried SD case. Lord help you if it's a complicated SD case.
Take Zimmerman, he (as far as we know) was not using reloads. His life is ruined for the foreseeable future as it is. Even if he is acquitted of all charges, he is financially ruined and will very likely have various people attempting to prey on him in any number of ways. Now, just for entertainment value, imagine how much more fun he would be having if he would have thrown reloaded ammo into the equation.

Reloads are simply one more potential variable to deal with. Why? To save a couple bucks on ammo costs?
What problem is being solved by reloads that outweighs the potential complications?
 
2 things I can remember from readin Ayoob's stuff in the gun rags.

One was the fight it takes to prove, (it might be accepted now) that reloads are not "more dangerous" than factory. Get real... It's a gun, it's designed for death.

The other was a case that a guy reloaded (down) into 38 +p cases and his wive / gf committed suicide. Case was something like he did it because of the +p powder residue... wish I could remember.

Personally, I talk to a few of my local PD and find out what they use in their duty gun, and what they use in the BUG that I have in my caliber. That way I do not really have to fight that fight.
 
Dondor said:
. . . . The other was a case that a guy reloaded (down) into 38 +p cases and his wive / gf committed suicide. Case was something like he did it because of the +p powder residue... wish I could remember. . . .
Click to expand...
That was the Daniel Bias case.
 
Bluedot or Unique lit with a Remington 5-1/2 primer in the 3" GP-100 with a 140 or 158 grain HP
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable. I would think Unique with a lead bullet, Blue Dot with jacketed.
 
better is a gualitative. in this case, if he gets his reloading gear out, and uses standard components and loading data. he can actually get amunition. versus "sorry out of stock" online and instore. or better yet, look in the bargain corner in your local paper.
in mine i have a fellow selling 325 round boxes of 22 lr for a low sum of 135.00 each.
 
Keep the Box

I generally keep the box my SD loads come in and I only use factory loads-I also stay away from stuff labeled "Zombie",etc for SD.The best bet is commercial ammo with the word "defensive"in it-25 years in LE taught me that prosecutors are often not to be trusted.They really don't care if your life was endangered if it can enhance their career to convict you.You can get some really good factory ammo from a number of companies including "flying ashtray" rounds that are good for HD because of low wall penetration potential.Another hint for HD-a large caliber single action revolver with a transfer bar firing system-you can dump almost anyone with a 45 Colt and single action makes you out to be someone who doesn't "spray and pray"-a 255 gr HP at about 750-800 fps will definitely put a hurt on an intruder.
 
For home defense, I use 158 grain LSWCHP with 4.3 grains of American Select or 4.6 grains of Unique. If I ever run out of those bullets, I'll use 148 grain cast wadcutters, or 158 grain Lee RNFP bullets. (I like lead bullets)
 
mordis said:
I think its bullcrap that I cant use reloads for self defense. Why should it be a negative at all? Why, it makes no sense.
Click to expand...
You can use reloads for self defense. Nobody's stopping you. It's completely legal.

mordis said:
If some dude is coming at me with a knife, and I pop him, why would the da care if I was using reloads or not? Especially if its a clear case of Self defense.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it isn't always a clear-cut case of self defense ... and you have no control over that. You can't control who might try to mug you, or where, or when, or under what conditions. You can't control how the investigating officer might view the circumstances, and you can't control how the prosecuting attorney might view the circumstances.

It isn't just that a prosecutor might try to portray your handloads as super-deadly-horrible weapons of mass destruction. Frank Ettin has written at length about the importance (more so in some cases than other) of gunshot residue evidence. When you shoot factory ammo, the forensic lab can take your gun and fire a bunch of rounds of the same ammo through it, at the distances purported to have been experienced in the incident, and report on whether the gunshot residue ("powder burns") are or aren't consistent with what was observed at the scene.

If you use handloads, they can't do that. Even if you keep meticulous notes, there's no way they can be certain that the rounds the investigating team found on your reloading bench are the same as the rounds you fired into that dead guy in the parking lot. If that evidence would have helped support your case ... too bad, because now you don't have it, and you can't get it. It doesn't exist.

Obviously, since the first rule of gun fighting is to bring a gun, if you absolutely, positively can't find any factory ammo anywhere, then by all means carry reloads. It's better than a pointy stick in the eye. But keep trying to find factory ammo, and change back as soon as you can. Why give an opposing attorney anything he can potentially use against you, and why deprive yourself of what might be exculpatory evidence if you don't have to?
 
Last edited:
Garry, I can't know the future any better than anyone else here. Personally I think you are fine and I did the same thing myself for years.

I had a 2" bbl .38Spec +P with fixed sights on it. I wanted to CCW 158gr cast SWCs (FBI load), but commercial loaded .38 Special hit below the the sight picture, .38 +P hit above the sight picture. So I dialed in a handload that hit point of aim out to 20 feet or so, loaded up thousands of them and practiced with what I carried. IIRC my personal load was real close to the top of the .38 Spec range, but not up into the +P range.

I later switched to .45 Colt. I am currently carrying 255gr SWCs laoded with black powder, same stuff my g-g-grandpa could have bought 13 years before my g-grandpa was born. Single action Ruger.

I don't test chamber all my rounds, I know that my sizing dies are appropriate to the chambers in my revolvers, and my COALs are fine; but I do test chamber my hunting rifle rounds. I seat the bullet pretty close to the lands on those and do bother to make sure before I take them out to the field.
 
I've never had a reload fail. I have had a few failures with factory ammunition. I don't think a court case is going to swing on "factory vs. reload". I would be much more afraid of the "man kills man of another race" case, or "man kills man outside his home." I hope this doesn't offend anyone, I'm just facing the reality of our society. I have also heard you shouldn't use reloads hunting. I'm sure glad no one told the deer my son killed or P.E.T.A. that it was a reload. Otherwise the deer might have survived and sued him.
 
A key consideration here is whether or not the state has a castle doctrine or a stand your ground law, and whether or not you plan to carry the gun outside the home or not, since the expectations can change. Some states extend the "castle doctrine" to places a person is allowed to be at. I would have to think that a castle doctrine trumps a civil suit, or any allegations of super-kill ammo.

Here is a link to the PA castle doctrine, for anyone interested:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005.005.000..HTM

In all, I found that around 20 states have the castle doctrine, and about the same amount have the stand your ground law. One would think that many states who have one would have the other, BUT....

PLEASE research it yourself. Do not take legal advice from an internet message board! I know thats obvious, but do your own research before making any such deicsions. Keep in mind that each state has a few differences to the next. Be careful as well who you ask such questions. Many people who should "know" this kind of stuff may not.
 
Last edited:
Essentially, if the defense has no compelling need to introduce GSR pattern test information and associated expert testimony to plead its case, there is no problem with the defendant's having used hand loads.

The issue arises when there is either incomplete or contradictory testimony or other evidence and GSR tests of the defendant's firearm and ammunition would make a difference, either in terms of helping to reconstruct what happened or of bolstering the credibility of the defendant or both.
 
Because the castle doctrine alleviates civil suit against the home owner / defender in a SD scenario. Its a given that there would have to be evidence of legal SD for the castle doctrine to come into play.

If the perp was an intruder in a person's home, and was shot, in a state with a castle doctrine, explain how the perp could have a civil suit or explain why a DA would pursue the home owner who used reloads? It would not happen. Perhaps you should read up on it before asking about it. If you disagree with me, I would like you to cite an example of whatever theory you may have. A specific case, not some paranoid delusion of a theory, either.
 
Posted by Winchester 73 If the perp was an intruder in a person's home, and was shot, in a state with a castle doctrine, explain how the perp could have a civil suit or explain why a DA would pursue the home owner who used reloads? It would not happen.
Click to expand...
Let's forget castle doctrine here--it applies to things other than the subject.

I will address the two points made.

First, civil suits: the burden of proof for civil suit is a predominance of the evidence; for criminal conviction, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The state can fail to prove the latter, but that does not, in and of itself, stop civil proceedings.

Some states have a provision for civil immunity if an act involving the use of force was justified under the criminal code and applicable precedents; they may or may not also have a "castle doctrine", and not all states with a castle doctrine provide for civil immunity. What civil immunity provisions mean is that a defender can petition the court to stop a lawsuit before it goes to trial. That requires the defender to produce, and present to a judge, evidence to the effect that a plaintiff would not be able to meet the preponderance of the evidence threshold, were the trial to take place.

Now to hand loads in a shooting within the home: in my opinion, the likelihood that the defender would have a need to introduce GSR pattern evidence in such a situation is lower than if the shooting had occurred somewhere outside. But that does not mean that discrepancies among other evidence and testimony could make such evidence important.

To understand that point, one has to accept that the castle doctrine does not provide a defender with either a license to shoot or a get out of jail free card, but for that, we have to go to the link provided by Spats.

This should also cast some light on the subject. The main point is that the simple fact that the shooting takes place inside one's home is not sufficient to bring castle doctrine protection into play.
 
Last edited:
Winchester_73 said:
Because the castle doctrine alleviates civil suit against the home owner / defender in a SD scenario.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. "Castle doctrine," broadly, is what allows you to defend yourself within your home without incurring a duty to retreat. A so-called "castle doctrine" law provides immunity from civil lawsuit ONLY if the laws of the state say it does, and very few castle doctrine laws say this. Perhaps your state's law does, but don't fall into the trap of extrapolating from your home state's laws to offer advice to people spread all across the country.
 
The main point is that the simple fact that the shooting takes place inside one's home is not sufficient to bring castle doctrine protection into play.
Click to expand...

Well I specifically mentioned, "evidence to support legal SD..." which basically meant, I was referring to instances which fall under the castle doctrine. Once again, a SD scenario, where the castle doctrine is state law, pretty much nullifies the chance of a perp bringing anything to court, esp an allegation of "ammo which was meant to kill" or anything like that. You seem like the type that likes to bring up the 0.1% chance, that the perp's brother was a lawyer, and was good, and tried something. I'm speaking for the high majority of the time and I was coming at from a common sense angle, that if the person was attacked in their own home, in a state with castle doctrine, and legally defended them self, the criminal would have very little recourse and esp NOT against the ammo used which is the actual subject of this thread.

How can we "forget the castle doctrine" when the difference between shooting someone, in a SD scenario, in a state with such laws vs a state without such laws is very meaningful?

I was simply saying that you have to look at the bigger picture before ammo type gets involved.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. "Castle doctrine," broadly, is what allows you to defend yourself within your home without incurring a duty to retreat. A so-called "castle doctrine" law provides immunity from civil lawsuit ONLY if the laws of the state say it does, and very few castle doctrine laws say this. Perhaps your state's law does, but don't fall into the trap of extrapolating from your home state's laws to offer advice to people spread all across the country.
Click to expand...

If you would bother to re-read my post, I re-iterated several times that the laws vary from state to state, and I actually said "look into it yourself." Thanks however for reading part of it, misunderstanding it, and then summarizing one of *my* key points. That added a lot of the discussion...

I was attempting to say "look at stand your ground laws and castle doctrine before over analyzing the ammo" and yet people still try to debate it. I purposely wrote the first post to NOT allow for any such arguments, and yet still, people try to nit pick it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top