Why not reloads for self defense?

[unclejack37]

For the record, I use store bought ammo in my EDC. It seems to me a lot of poster on this forum tend to be very judgmental of what other people post. Just look at how everyone wants to condemn me because I suggested that being stupid is OK. If some someone wants to use reloads in their EDC it's OK for them to do that. If someone wants to carry a Glock it's OK, or a Revolver, or a belt-fed weapon, it's OK. Just because your way is the best for you; doesn't mean it's the best way for someone else. JEEZ
This time for sure.......Nuff Said

 

[Wag]

My thought (and assumption) is that most people don't keep track of what ammo is in their firearm at any given time. Even if they did, they still have to confront the challenge to their assertion that the ammo came from THAT box or the other one or none of them.

That said, it's quite likely I'll get beaten up on this over several points but there is a thought that's been running through my head for as long as I've read this thread.

Presently, I know that I'm using Speer Gold Dot ammo in my carry pistol but it's strictly because I found a few boxes of it in one of my ammo cans and loaded it into my firearm on the recommendation of a local sheriff's deputy. That was about five years ago. I tested ten rounds and it functioned flawlessly in my pistol and I've never had any doubts about it since.

The potential legal questions that come to mind are:

- I have no idea how old this ammo is. My best guess is over ten years old, probably more.
- I no longer have the boxes it came in.
- Unless Speer has never ever changed their manufacturing process for Gold Dot ammo from inception to today, is there ever going to be a way to say that what is in my firearm is a good example of Gold Dot ammo?

Obviously, if evidence is collected at the scene of a shooting, it's going to be known soon enough that it's Gold Dot ammo but it won't be truly clear what the lot number is or the reloading recipe unless it is ALWAYS and FOREVER made the same way. And it may not matter. And that, of course, is the real question. Do I or should I keep better track?

--Wag--

 

[HiBC]

Wag,I really do not know the answers. I suspect if I was in the position of post SD shoot,I would be sitting in a cage with very little power to influence anything.
Others would control the investigation. I might get to talk to my lawyer,or those who are investigating...and those investigating may well become those prosecuting.I may never get called on to testify.

Should you know what ammo you carry and where the box is? That's up to you,I guess.

As a lay person with no legal expertise,I have no advice for you.

Presently, I know that I'm using Speer Gold Dot ammo in my carry pistol but it's strictly because I found a few boxes of it in one of my ammo cans and loaded it into my firearm on the recommendation of a local sheriff's deputy.

If I was a juror and heard that,IMO,you would pass my "reasonable person test"

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting discussion. One thing that impacted me is that if I did need an expert, it is going to cost thousands. So why take that risk for a $26 box of quality SD ammo?

Psych experts run from $1000 to $10,000 a day to due human factors, perceptual and memory evaluations.

Economic impact experts cost about the same.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Interesting discussion.

To be sure. And one we've had on several occasions. My take on the matter (and yes, I am a court-qualified firearms expert):

Back in the day, I carried handloaded ammunition, because there weren't any effective factory loads available. This is when Super-Vels were just coming out, and the standard defensive load was a .38 Spl 158-gr RN Lead bullet. I carried bevel-base wadcutters loaded backwards with a gas check to maximize the velocity out of my .38 Snubbie. These conditions no longer apply.

I'm unimpressed by the "super-duper killer-diller bullet" theory that many shooters are afraid the prosecution will throw at them. I'm not aware that this has ever been a consideration in a self-defense case.

The known-ballistics argument for factory ammo has merit, although it's application in a self-defense shooting would only occur if the shooter were being attacked with an edged or blunt-force weapon, in which distance to target would play a critical role in determining threat. Still, it is a valid consideration.

I can no longer load ammo that is more consistent, reliable, or effective than premium defensive ammo from Federal, Speer, Winchester, and several others. The cost of premium defensive ammo is negligible unless you choose to shoot it for range practice weekly. FWIW, I shoot 124-gr FMJs for practice, and carry Federal 124-gr HSTs for "serious social occasions." I shoot my carry ammo annually when I qualify under LEOSA, then replace it. One 50-rd box will last me two years -- not a major expense.

To sum up, I carry factory ammo primarily for reliability and effectiveness, with ballistic consistency and more positive "social" factors as less important considerations. YMMV.

 

[OldMarksman]

The known-ballistics argument for factory ammo has merit, although it's application in a self-defense shooting would only occur if the shooter were being attacked with an edged or blunt-force weapon, in which distance to target would play a critical role in determining threat.

Actually, in any case in which additional evidence would tend to corroborate or impeach the testimony of eyewitnesses and/ or the defendant, such evidence could prove invaluable.

 

[HisSoldier]

I asked my friend who is a retired oregon State Trooper about this and he said that every homicide he had been involved in, whether ruled self defense or deliberate murder, the facts about whether or not the shooter used reloads never came up at trial. He thought the idea was silly.
From that I have to take the fear mongering with a grain of salt, in spite of the implications of the Fish case I don't think it's a likely problem.

 

[Spats McGee]

It's not a likely problem, but the stakes are very high if they come up. Then again, getting into a gunfight is unlikely to begin with, but I still carry a gun. I do so because of the stakes, not the odds.

 

[OldMarksman]

I asked my friend who is a retired oregon State Trooper about this and he said that every homicide he had been involved in, whether ruled self defense or deliberate murder, the facts about whether or not the shooter used reloads never came up at trial.

The subject is most unlikely to "come up at trial", but if it does, state troopers would not be aware of it, nor would the jury, nor the public.

The question of the admissibility of evidence would be handled in the judge's chambers. Only those who had to be involved in the ruling would know about it.

If evidence is not admitted, no one else will know of its existence.

He thought the idea was silly.

I would't put much stock in what he thinks.

From that I have to take the fear mongering with a grain of salt, ....

We are not engaged in "fear mongering", but in a discussion of well established and tested legal principles.

....in spite of the implications of the Fish case I don't think it's a likely problem.

I would agree. It is very unlikely indeed. It would only become a problem if the defense needed to introduce expert testimony regarding test results relative to the distance of a shooting, for example in cases in which eyewitness testimony is contradictory, and if the defendant had used ammunition that would not meet the requirements for admissibility under the rules of evidence.

Sure, that's unlikely. But it may be the only thing that could prevent a conviction.

The problem is easily avoided.

 

[JohnKSa]

From that I have to take the fear mongering with a grain of salt, in spite of the implications of the Fish case I don't think it's a likely problem.

If there's one thing that should be painfully obvious from this thread it is that it is not a likely problem.

Just in case it's not, I'll say it again.

It's not a likely problem.

It's unlikely that issues related to reloaded ammo will figure heavily in a criminal or civil case related to a shooting.

Everybody can rest assured that it is unlikely that this topic will ever affect them in any way.

It's also pretty unlikely that you'll have to use your gun in self-defense.

However, if either of those unlikely situations come to pass, there are some very simple things one can do in advance to dramatically increase the chances of things working out smoothly.

If you like the idea of doing something very simple to eliminate a risk--even a small one, then you might be interested in this topic.

But you can also decide that you're unconcerned about the small risk of complicating a trial defense by using handloaded ammo, and if that's the path you take, then all of this thread is meaningless to you. It's pointless to learn about ways to mitigate a risk you don't care about. Clearly some people choose that path.

And, along the same lines, a person could decide that they are unconcerned about the small risk of needing a gun for self-defense and not bother with it. In which case, it would be equally pointless to learn about laws relating to firearms carry and self-defense. I know people who have made this choice.

Choosing to ignore the issue of handloads for self-defense due to potential legal complications is a choice you can make and, really, you can feel good about your choice either way because the odds are good it won't ever be an issue. There's really no need to feel like you have to argue against the existence of the risk because you feel like it's a risk that is small enough to ignore.

The only reason this topic is controversial is because some people who choose to dismiss the risk can't just dismiss it and walk away. They feel like they must PROVE that the risk doesn't exist at all.

The odds of getting hit by a meteorite are very small, but it has happened. It's one thing to say that you're unconcerned about getting hit by a meteorite--it isn't something I worry about at all. The risk is very small. It's another thing to claim that meteorites never hit people and claim it's fear mongering to accurately describe the possible problem while accurately pointing out that the odds of it coming to pass are small.

The difference is that preparing an effective way to survive a meteor strike would be horrendously difficult and astronomically (see what I did there? )expensive. Not using handloaded ammunition for self-defense is childishly simple and costs a few bucks.

Anyway, an objective assessment of the overall situation will show that there's a much more important reason (having nothing to do with legality) not to use handloads for self-defense. And one that's much more likely to be an issue.

 

[OldMarksman]

If there's one thing that should be painfully obvious from this thread it is that it is not a likely problem.

Just in case it's not, I'll say it again.

It's not a likely problem.

It's unlikely that issues related to reloaded ammo will figure heavily in a criminal or civil case related to a shooting.

Yep.

They is all about basic risk management.

The first step in risk management is to identify the risk.

In this case, the risk is one of an actor needing to have introduced in court expert witness testimony and evidence regarding ammunition testing.

The second step is to analyze the risks--to assess the likelihood and the potential consequences.

The likelihood here is far less than remote.

But the potential consequence--criminal conviction or large civil liability--is extremely severe.

The third step is to identify and evaluate potential mitigation strategies.

There is one strategy that comes to mind--don't use reloaded ammunition for defensive carry.

The last step is to decide whether to mitigate the risk or to accept it unmitigated.

If either the likelihood or the potential consequences are severe, that decsion will depend upon what it would take to mitigate the risk.

However, if either of those unlikely situations come to pass, there are some very simple things one can do in advance to dramatically increase the chances of things working out smoothly.

...preparing an effective way to survive a meteor strike would be horrendously difficult and astronomically (see what I did there? )expensive. Not using handloaded ammunition for self-defense is childishly simple and costs a few bucks.

Very simple, really.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As a different look, saw someone's reloads totally take down a AR style 9mm carbine. Rounds seem to go off out of battery and blew the casing in half. Ouch. Could be the gun or the rounds, investigations continue.

If I see a round go back, it more likely to be a reload. Of course, YOU won't do that.

 

[HisSoldier]

How many thousands of cases have shooters lost over hand loaded ammo? 20,000?

10,000?

5,000?

10?

What are the odds?

I'm not afraid of meteors.

 

[HisSoldier]

By the way, one weekend in Yuma I bought two boxes of centerfire ammunition by major ammunition makers. The box I bought on a Saturday had one round with no primer hole,
the primer blew out and no harm. That was Saturday. The next day I bought another famous brand, probably #1 in the nation. Loading the gun I found a round with the side of the case pushed down to the base of the bullet.
What are the odds of that? Two bad loadings by major ammo makers in two days. Probably less than of being hit by a meteor, and neither of those things have gotten by me when I'm loading.

 

[Spats McGee]

How many thousands of cases have shooters lost over hand loaded ammo? 20,000?

10,000?

5,000?

10?

What are the odds?

I'm not afraid of meteors.

I'm not concerned about the odds. I'm concerned about the stakes. If you want to carry handloads, feel free to do so. That won't change the legal realities, though.

 

[OldMarksman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HisSoldier View Post
How many thousands of cases have shooters lost over hand loaded ammo? 20,000?

10,000?

5,000?

10?

What are the odds?

I'm not afraid of meteors.

I'm not concerned about the odds. I'm concerned about the stakes. If you want to carry handloads, feel free to do so. That won't change the legal realities, though.

Yep. Odds, stakes, and legal realities.

If one were to base risk management decisions solely on an assessment of the likelihood that risk will materialize, one would not try to mitigate the risk at all.

if one were to decide whether to carry a firearm solely on the basis of the likelihood that will ever be needed for self preservation, one would not carry a firearm at all.

If one were to base the decision on whether the firearm will ever be fired if it is needed, one would be ell served to carry it empty.

If the question is about the likelihood of whether one will ever have to use a firearm with effect in a defensive encounter, one would never take the time to learn to shoot.

But every now and then, not very often at all, but very occasionally, it becomes necessary to actually shoot a firearm with effect for self preservation.

And unless the event is captured on video in its entirety, it will be necessary to piece together small bits of evidence to decide what likely happened.

Enter the very common reality of inaccurate witness recollection, if there were eye witnesses at all.

Enter the reality of biased testimony, even from persons who arrived after the fact.

Among the questions to be weighted include such little factors as innocence (who initiated it), necessity, and so on. If the distance of the shooing is in question, and in some places even if it is not, forensic evaluation will routinely include gun shot residue pattern analysis.

Routinely.

And when all of that has come into play, there is the possibility that the defendant will best be served by expert testimony on the subject of GSR.

Enter the legal realities of the rules of evidence. BIG problem, if handloads were used.

Bit the problem at that point goes back to being a very unlikely one, though still very serious in terms of consequence.

That's because the use of hand loaded ammunition in defensive encounters is very rare indeed.

 

[2wheelwander]

I haven't chimed in here for a while, but want to share a conversation I had with my Fed LE buddy regarding this. He has worked for 4 Federal LE agencies including international.

He bought up a good point. When the line has been crossed authorizing deadly force, why would it matter how deadly force was executed? He brought up a case of a gunman shooting at people (I don't recall the details), and a responding officer ended up deliberately hitting the gunman with his car running him over to end the shootings. Of course he and the department were sued, but won the case because it was deemed deadly force was appropriate.

Not trying to discount you Spats and really appreciate your input. You know much more about this than myself. However (here it comes), it still begs the question as to 'excessive' deadly force? I mean, can a knife be too sharp, what if a ball bat were homemade on a lathe by a wood worker, you get my drift.

If my home were broke into and I had the option, I would hold my ground at the end of the hallway guarding entrances to all bedrooms and wait for the calvary to arrive. I can understand the political consequences of using a bump fire stock to fill an intruder with 30 rounds "just because you can" or stabbing an intruder 53 times and desecrating the body. A prosecutor would have a field day.

I'm sure after reading your response you will sway me back to store bought ammo because you make great points. One of your best, for me, is the basic argument that is it really worth risking having to defend this at the cost of thousands of dollars, just because you choose to shoot reloads. I get that. I live a predominantly rural/conservative area who have no sympathy for idiots caught in houses beside their own in the wee hours of night.

So, I'd like your take on excessive deadly force as I've presented it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I’ m not a lawyer but there have been several cases where the issue has been the continuation of force usage when the attacker or alleged attacker seems to have been stopped in the view of the prosecutor. In one case,a pause of seconds switched the action from SD to premeditated murder.
An action that seems clear to you may be ambiguous.

 

[JohnKSa]

When the line has been crossed authorizing deadly force, why would it matter how deadly force was executed?

This is all about when whether or not deadly force is authorized has not yet been established.

Yes, if you assume that it's all good, then it's all good. If you assume that deadly force is authorized, then deadly force is obviously authorized.

But if you start with some assumption OTHER than "it's all good" then the circumstances can matter. If you don't assume that deadly force is authorized, then the circumstances can be very important in the quest to show that deadly force was authorized.

However (here it comes), it still begs the question as to 'excessive' deadly force? I mean, can a knife be too sharp, what if a ball bat were homemade on a lathe by a wood worker, you get my drift.

None of those has anything to do with this topic. No, a knife can't be too sharp, and it doesn't matter if a bat is homemade. You can have "excessive deadly force" (as Glen mentions) but that's really a different topic.

This topic is not really about excessive deadly force or about situations when it has already been established that deadly force is authorized. It's about the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of muddying the water that needs to be clear to prove that deadly force is authorized.

Besides, there's a much more important reason not to use reloads for self-defense--and one that's much more likely to come into play. And one that has nothing at all to do with legality.

 

[44 AMP]

Pardon my confusion, but I do not think "authorized" can apply to private citizens, and generally authorized means permission granted before the act.

A police officer can be authorized, in advance, with standing orders, that if A, then B is authorized. A private citizen isn't authorized before the fact, they can be justified, after the fact.

So, a police officer might speak about deadly force being authorized, because for him, it could be. But for civilian (non-LEO) situations, I think saying "authorized use of deadly force" isn't the best way to phrase it. "Justified / justifiable use of deadly force gives a better, and more clear impression.

Doesn't it??