What type of ammo do you use for carry/home defense?

[JC57]

Federal HST (40 and 9mm), Winchester Ranger T (.45), or Buffalo Bore (SWCHP - .38s, JHP - .380), Hornady XTP (.25)

Not concerned about a jury's opinion of my choice of ammo. If it's a criminal trial, I won't be explaining anything to a jury. Defendants don't normally testify.

If it's a civil trial, I wouldn't have much to say there either. I'm not an expert on ballistics. Lawyer's job to defuse that argument, not mine.

 

[Spats McGee]

How do you prove that those rounds used were loaded to one spec or another?

Elementary my dear.

I load in batches of about 200-300 rounds. A sample can be taken from the rest of the reloads and tested at a balistics lab and compared to the standard manufacturer load.

That presumes that evidence as to your loading will be admitted at all. Down in L&CR, I put together an "Archive on Self-Defense and Reloads" (or some other, similar name). I think it's worth a look if you're interested in the legal aspect. Part of the problem is that you may find that all evidence of your reloading practices is inadmissible. That's one of the major reasons for sticking with factory ammo. In the case of factory loads, there's a neutral third party who can testify as to the bullet, the loading, the performance . . . all without the shooter having to get on the stand.

 

[sigcurious]

^This. Also, assuming for a moment it is accepted into evidence, the reloading data from other rounds proves is that you loaded some rounds to certain specs, not that the rounds used were loaded to the same specs

 

[jmortimer]

No one will ever win the factory or reload argument. I suppose the best practice would be to reload as close as possible to the uber-factory load that you carry and practice with the reload. A good shoot is a good shoot. The guy in Phoenix got dinged for using a 10mm, more "powerful" than the local police. So if we are to use the "logic" of the experts, no one should ever use a 10mm for self-protection. Silly. But we know for a fact, that no one, has ever been convicted of a crime, for attempted self-defense for using reloads. Never, ever. I use reloads for everything. I load my wife's gun with factory ammunition as she should not suffer for a mistake I make. Another argument parroted is that you have to hire an expert but if you needed an expert at all, you would need the expert regardless if the ammunition was factory or reload. In virtually (except the 10mm case, one case in history of the United States) every case of self-defense, the ammunition is not the issue, the issue is the justified use of deadly force. In the end a good shoot is a good shoot. We have had a number of self-defense videos posted here and elsewhere over the years, and the ammunition was never mentioned and is never an issue. The only issue is the justified use of deadly force. Let's not get the vapors over a non-issue that has never happened, never, ever.

 

[Marquezj16]

Part of the problem is that you may find that all evidence of your reloading practices is inadmissible.

On what grounds would this evidence be inadmissible?

Also, assuming for a moment it is accepted into evidence, the reloading data from other rounds proves is that you loaded some rounds to certain specs, not that the rounds used were loaded to the same specs

I'm not a lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night but I would think a good lawyer representing you could/would be able to present your load data, specially if it was tested by an independent lab.

This brings up another topic in my mind. If you can get prosecuted for "reloads" that may or may not be hotter than factory ammo, what's to stop a prosecutor from prosecuting you if you carry the latest ammo that penetrates barriers and ensures full expansion, painting you as a blood thirsty gun fanatic. Same thing if you used a .40 or .45 over a 9mm. Prosecutor could state you are going over the top with using calibers meant to kill. think about it.

If you are worried about getting prosecuted for the type of ammo you use on your carry/home defense gun, then I think you need to think of less lethal alternatives.

 

[jmortimer]

I am a lawyer, and the issue of admissible evidence is up to the trial judge. There is a case where the judge wrongly, in my opinion, would not allow evidence relating to the reloaded ammunition because the evidence was not reliable. But, it was not a self-defense case. A good shoot is a good shoot. We all have to decide for ourselves, but I'm not going to decide based on something that has never, ever happened in the history of the United States. "Justified" self-defense is just that. I have a baseball bat expert ready to testify if I whack an intruder with my "home-made" bat.

 

[Marquezj16]

jmortimer - thanks for the information. I totally agree wit your comment.

A good shoot is a good shoot.

 

[Spats McGee]

Somewhere in my archive (& I'm trying to dig up the post), I did a short analysis based on the federal rules of evidence. In short, it has to do with the principles underlying the admissibility of technical or expert evidence, and the fact that the shooter/defendant is trying to get in evidence that he created himself.

jrmortimer is right in that the question of admissibility is up to the trial judge. However, the rules of evidence remain the same, regardless of whether the case is self-defense, suicide, negligence, or improperly mowed grass. The fact that the Daniel Bias case (where reloads were an issue) is not an SD case is wholly irrelevant.

Nobody has ever been convicted "for using handloads" because "using handloads" isn't a crime. However, having handloads become an issue is a separate issue. It can significantly complicate a shooter's defense (criminal, civil or both), even if it does not lead to a conviction (or loss at the civil trial).

A good shoot is only a good shoot after someone other than the shooter (i.e. police, prosecutor, judge or jury) has made that determination.

Edited to add: Found my post: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4499803&postcount=118

 

[jmortimer]

"The fact that the Daniel Bias case (where reloads were an issue) is not an SD case is wholly irrelevant."
Well, no, it is relevant. In Bias, a convicted killer, tried to say his wife killed herself. Assuming we were to believe him, or not, then the take away is that no one should reload, or put reloads in their firearms. Even an accidental shooting (this is what the prosecution argued - that it was an accidental and reckless killing)and you are toast using this "logic." Are we really going to quit reloading and assuming the answer is no, then would we dare to insert the reload into a firearm, because just doing that will cause you huge problems in court no matter what if someone gets shot. Accidents happen, and that is what the Bias case is all about in the end, and reloads are bad in every circumstance because accidents happen. You see how silly all this is. Use some common sense. So, no one use reloads under any circumstances and no one use a 10mm just because you never know what might happen.

 

[Quincunx]

10mm and .41 Magnum = 175 gr Silvertip.
.45 ACP = 230 gr Golden Saber.
.44 Special = 200 gr GDHP.
.32 ACP = 73 gr Fiocchi FMJ.

 

[Marquezj16]

So, if scientific or specialized knowledge will help the jury, an expert's opinion is admissible if:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

1 - a good reloading book from a refutable company should suffice
2 - reloading is a known process with a long history that is proven by the thousands of reloaders
3 - if the reload is tested by a balistics expert in a lab, that expert witness can testify on the reloaders behalf.

 

[droptrd]

I dont let the thought of a jury influence me though i dont use my hand loads. I like hydrashok and Ranger T series.

 

[iraiam]

I do in fact use reloads for home/self defense. My 9mm defense ammo is every bit as good as any high end 147 grain SD ammo (superior to some of it). I have loaded and fired thousands of rounds of this recipe.

 

[Spats McGee]

"The fact that the Daniel Bias case (where reloads were an issue) is not an SD case is wholly irrelevant."
Well, no, it is relevant. In Bias, a convicted killer, tried to say his wife killed herself.

Did Bias have a criminal record as a killer prior to the case involving his wife's death? What impact does his status as a "convicted killer" have on the admissibility of evidence?

Assuming we were to believe him, or not, then the take away is that no one should reload, or put reloads in their firearms. Even an accidental shooting (this is what the prosecution argued - that it was an accidental and reckless killing)and you are toast using this "logic." Are we really going to quit reloading and assuming the answer is no, then would we dare to insert the reload into a firearm, because just doing that will cause you huge problems in court no matter what if someone gets shot. Accidents happen, and that is what the Bias case is all about in the end, and reloads are bad in every circumstance because accidents happen. You see how silly all this is. Use some common sense. So, no one use reloads under any circumstances and no one use a 10mm just because you never know what might happen.

That no one should reload is not what I take away from the Bias case. What I take a way from it is that using reloads for SD can significantly complicate one's defense, should there ever be a shooting with those reloads. The "constellation" under which that complication can arise is of a "low-probability-but-high-stakes" sort. If you're aware of some case that stands for the proposition that "a reloader's reloading data is admissible," I'll be glad to read it.

As for 10mm, I take that to be a wholly different problem. Reloads are an evidentiary issue. The 10mm case was a jury perception problem, a totally different beast.

I actually agree with this earlier statement of yours earlier statement:

I suppose the best practice would be to reload as close as possible to the uber-factory load that you carry and practice with the reload.

So, if scientific or specialized knowledge will help the jury, an expert's opinion is admissible if:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

1 - a good reloading book from a refutable company should suffice
2 - reloading is a known process with a long history that is proven by the thousands of reloaders
3 - if the reload is tested by a balistics expert in a lab, that expert witness can testify on the reloaders behalf.

1) How will the reloading manual tell the jury what was actually loaded into the cartridge? Answer: it won't. It will only tell the jury what was recommended. For actual loading information, you'll have to turn to the reloader himself. There's a challenge to "suffient" right there.
2) You won't be allowed to bring in "thousands of reloaders." I do not doubt that the process is reliable, but the key witness to the act of reloading and the data will have to be the shooter (defendant). Reliability of the data/testimony is a problem.
3) See #1 and #2.

 

[Tinner666]

About 6 Silvertips followed by 6 FMJ. Spare clip has FMJ only. I would hope it never gets to where I'm firing the FMJ too..

 

[Skadoosh]

About 6 Silvertips followed by 6 FMJ. Spare clip has FMJ only.

I have often considered doing this....just curious as to your reasoning.

 

[Marquezj16]

From earlier post

I think if your load was developed to perform as the manufactured ammo (published load, chronographed and tested side by side on gel medium) your lawyer could argue that your ammo is no more deadlier than the manufacturer ammo.

I actually agree with this earlier statement of yours earlier statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmortimer
I suppose the best practice would be to reload as close as possible to the uber-factory load that you carry and practice with the reload.

Quote:

1) How will the reloading manual tell the jury what was actually loaded into the cartridge? Answer: it won't. It will only tell the jury what was recommended. For actual loading information, you'll have to turn to the reloader himself. There's a challenge to "suffient" right there.
2) You won't be allowed to bring in "thousands of reloaders." I do not doubt that the process is reliable, but the key witness to the act of reloading and the data will have to be the shooter (defendant). Reliability of the data/testimony is a problem.
3) See #1 and #2.
Today 01:42 AM

1 -the expert testifies to the validity of the load as printed in the book after testing it in a lab (read quotes above about loading as close as possible to factory spec).
2. It's not about bringing thousands of reloaders into court it's about your lawyer presenting reloading as a reliable process based on testing the process "if you load 1000 rounds, using the documented process, you get the same results". This can also be tested in a lab by an expert.

3. - again the expert testifies.

 

[buck460XVR]

We all have to decide for ourselves, but I'm not going to decide based on something that has never, ever happened in the history of the United States.

I agree. The guns I use for SD/HD are loaded with the ame ammo as I use for practice. My handloads. They are commercially available bullets loaded to published specs. They are also the loads I have found shoot the best outta my guns. The Daniel Bias case has nuttin' to do with self defense because it was not a SD shoot. It was a case of where the prosecutor claimed it was murder and the Defense said suicide. The reason the reloaded bullet evidence was compromised is because Daniel Bias himself said that the box of shells that he claims his wife loaded the gun with contained shells with various amounts of powder charges. Since one needs to know the powder charge to determine range from GSR, testing the bullets had no merit because the charge could not be known. Since the range could not be determined by the GSR, there was a question whether the wife held the gun to her head or Daniel Bias shot her in the head from close range. Why the 'ell folks continue to use this as a reasonable reason to not use handloads is way beyond comprehension. But, as I always say, one should always use the ammo they are most comfortable with, have the greatest amount of confidence in and functions the most accurately and reliably in the firearm they have. To me, that is my handloads that I practice with every week.

Hard to believe a jury in the world would think that someone using range ammo in their handguns is more likely a crazed killer than someone using "Zombie Killer" or "Black Talon" ammo.

Probably the same reason my local D.A. uses his own handloads in his SD firearms.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . The Daniel Bias case has nuttin' to do with self defense because it was not a SD shoot. . . .

In what set of evidentiary rules do SD shoots get different evidentiary rules from an alleged murder?

Since one needs to know the powder charge to determine range from GSR, testing the bullets had no merit because the charge could not be known. Since the range could not be determined by the GSR, there was a question whether the wife held the gun to her head or Daniel Bias shot her in the head from close range. Why the 'ell folks continue to use this as a reasonable reason to not use handloads is way beyond comprehension.

No, it's not beyond comprehension. One does need to know the powder charge to determine range from GSR. That much is true. If you're using handloads, you run the risk that such evidence will be excluded. All it takes is a finding by the judge that the data provided by the handloads is not reliable in order to exclude it. Who has more reason to lie about the powder charge? (A) A handloading shooter facing a murder charge; or (B) A subpoenaed representative from a neutral ammunition manufacturing company who faces no criminal charges.

. . . .Hard to believe a jury in the world would think that someone using range ammo in their handguns is more likely a crazed killer than someone using "Zombie Killer" or "Black Talon" ammo.

But this is a problem of jury perception, not evidentiary rules. I'd avoid using any rounds for SD named "ManKiller 2000," regardless of whether they were factory rounds or handloads.

. . . .1 -the expert testifies to the validity of the load as printed in the book after testing it in a lab (read quotes above about loading as close as possible to factory spec).
2. It's not about bringing thousands of reloaders into court it's about your lawyer presenting reloading as a reliable process based on testing the process "if you load 1000 rounds, using the documented process, you get the same results". This can also be tested in a lab by an expert.

3. - again the expert testifies.

It's about exemplar evidence. The round(s) actually used in the shooting are no longer available for testing, of course. So it's about getting a sample of similar ammunition to use as an exemplar. It's about the possibility that the judge may simply determine that evidence created by the defendant himself (the remaining handloads) do not constitute a sufficiently reliable sample on which to base testing. Nobody in the world has more incentive to lie about how the round was loaded than the shooter/defendant. OTOH, a neutral third-party representative from a company that loads millions of rounds a year, has much less reason to lie about how one particular batch of ammunition was loaded.

For that matter, it's not even about handloads being deadlier than factory ammunition. Daniel Bias, by all accounts, used a light load because his wife was recoil-sensitive. It's about consistency in the loads, having a sufficiently reliable source for the load data, and someone who can testify about the powder charge without having to put the defendant on the stand (in the potential criminal case).

Don't misunderstand me. I understand that handloads carry significant cost savings. I'm all for that. I'm all for developing a handload that mimics a reliable, effective factory load, for practice purposes. If I had a place to handload, I'd be cranking out my own practice ammunition. What I don't think is that the risk of having potentially exculpatory evidence excluded is worth the cost.

 

[Tinner666]

Skadoosh, " Quote:
About 6 Silvertips followed by 6 FMJ. Spare clip has FMJ only.

I have often considered doing this....just curious as to your reasoning."

I just figure if I'm in a firefight after 6 rounds, somebody must be under cover and I need penetrating power. I'd like to hope that never happens. The most BG's I've faced at one time was 4 and there were two of us, and we got the drop. No shots fired and over with.