Alright once and for all, is it ok to reload self defense ammo?

[rwilson452]

Buzz,

I think you misunderstood. the only thing that I said was discredited was using metallurgy to effect an ID of a bullet. nothing else.

Could you explain how this has been discredited? One can discredit people or ideas, but arguments are very difficult to discredit. They may have no value in one case but they might in another. That's why judges will allow quite a few arguments that people normally wouldn't imagine would make it.

[buzz_knox]

You are right. The way your response was shaped, it looked like you were responding to the OP, rather than to the portion quoted at the end of our post.

[Alleykat]

Mas Ayoob has covered this ad nauseam, with cites

No, he hasn't. "ad nauseum, yes, but not with appropriate cites. The only place some of Ayoob's caveats exist is between his ears. The one "cite" that I saw in a thread on TFL was a cite that wasn't germane to this discussion. There's neither case law nor statute that dictates what kind of ammo one must use, in a legitimate case of s.d, except, of course, in that idiot state, NJ.

Having said all that, I use factory ammo for daily carry. Bear in mind that those with a "New England" mentality don't think very well for themselves, regarding matters like this.

[Musketeer]

No, he hasn't. "ad nauseum, yes, but not with appropriate cites. The only place some of Ayoob's caveats exist is between his ears. The one "cite" that I saw in a thread on TFL was a cite that wasn't germane to this discussion.

Then you do not read or could not comprehend the issue fully. I sincerely doubt he will hop into this one again as he has said all that he needs to on the matter.

His article in Combat Handguns on the matter gave specifics. If you did not agree with the shootings you would have to at least agree the court would not allow the very existence of reloads to be introduced as evidence letting the prosecution use forensics evidence based on assumptions presented as fact to the jury. Those assumptions, factory ammo throwing powder a set distance, were a key factor in his conviction.

Nobody knows what a good shoot is until the refuse to prosecute or you are found innocent should they do so. The evidence used against you to make the prosecutions case is key in this and if your reloads are not even going to be accepted as existing, hence providing forensics evidence different than your story, your credibility is shot and your freedom in danger.

Go ahead and use them, I look forward to having additional cases to cite in order to help inform people who are actually capable of taking good advice.

[ssilicon]

No, it is not a good idea at all IMHO.

[Alleykat]

I don't use reloads for carry; however, I can read and comprehend, probably on a much higher level than Ayoob, and his cites are generally worthless in meaningful discussions of this subject.

There is no civil or criminal liability exposure, if one choses to use one's reloads for s.d. purposes. Nobody in this thread will produce a genuine case site that addresses that specific issue.

[Musketeer]

There is no civil or criminal liability exposure, if one choses to use one's reloads for s.d. purposes. Nobody in this thread will produce a genuine case site that addresses that specific issue.

Because that is not the issue. One of the major problems. which you repeatedly ignore, is the inadmissibility of reloads in court. As was said "making your own evidence". Without you being able to back up your story with forensic evidence your credibility decreases. If the forensic evidence directly opposes your story, because of a difference in factory ammo from the hand loads you are telling the court you really used then your story may never be heard.

That's alright though. You didn't address this issue before and also didn't acknowledge the cases Ayoob put forward in Combat Handgunner.

So how often are you an expert witness for self defense shootings and LEO shootings? I know Ayoob is nationally recognized.

[buzz_knox]

There is no civil or criminal liability exposure, if one choses to use one's reloads for s.d. purposes. Nobody in this thread will produce a genuine case site that addresses that specific issue.

This is a bit of a red herring, as there is certainly no exposure strictly related to the reloads themselves. The potential for exposure comes from 1) foresnics problems due to the non-standard nature of reloads and 2) the perception problems from the use of reloads.

As for asking for case law, that is also a red herring, as it ignores how our judicial system works. Most reported cases are at the appellate level, and primarily concern issues of law. Factual issues only come into play if the argument is that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict or the evidence was improper. You'll never see a case based on what the lawyers perceive as tangential but which actually played a role in a jury's decision, because juries aren't required to justify their decision. They are only required to give it. A judge who is swayed by a particular fact (even one which was improper) doesn't have to put that in the opinion if there are other facts that support the decision. And appellate courts are loathe to interfere in such factual findings absent manifest error.

Here's an excercise for everyone calling for cites. Find a case in which an employee's refusal to use foul language helped convince a jury that he wasn't the person who gave an order that led to a death, and thus the company was not liable. I'll give you a hint: it was in Nashville in 2000.

Here's another one. Find a case where a judge ignored the law because he disliked a company's actions in another case before him. The hint is Huntsville, in 1999.

If you can't find them, don't say the events never happened. I was there for both.

Not everything that can affect a trial makes it into the case law. Lawyers know this. It's why we're paranoid.

[freakshow10mm]

The only case law that remotely applies here goes way back to TN v Garner. It applies to police officers and civilians alike. One of the three main points of that case was that if and when deadly force is authorized, the manner in which it is delivered is on no consequence. I take this to mean if you were justified to defend your life with deadly force, shooting him with handloads or factory ammo is of no consequence, as with either medium of force, your actions were justifiable first and foremost.

I carry my handloads. I also like to taunt my ammunition manufacturer FFL and say that I am factory ammo, as I have the same licensing as the bigger factories do. I just happen to be a one man factory.

The issues with handloaded ammo are:

1. can you really make it more reliable than factories?

Yes.

2. if using hollowpoints, do you fully understand the design so you understand the velocities required for the bullet to function properly? Are you chronographing regularly to insure you are matching those velocities?

Yes and yes.

3. are you saving all records of what components you used (including lot numbers) as well as saving rounds from each batch to serve as exemplars? Hopefully, if you did save actual rounds, you seal and certify the rounds to establish they were made long before you ever needed to use them as evidence.

Yes. Both electronically and paper method. Twenty rounds of each lot are vacuum sealed, dated, and include the particulars of the load.

4. Do you have a legitimate and rational reason for using handloads versus factory ammuntion, and can you articulate that reason?

My handloads are more consistent, more reliable, and more economical than larger factory ammunition. My tolerances are far less than mass produced ammunition. They are loaded to perform within the bullet manufacturer's performance limits.

[Musketeer]

Yes. Both electronically and paper method. Twenty rounds of each lot are vacuum sealed, dated, and include the particulars of the load.

Are they sealed by a notary? I doubt it.

You recorded the data.
You vacuum sealed them.
You dated them.

Unless there is some irrefutable method to confirm the rounds you had at the time were identical to those stored it is all meaningless. Without a way to confirm that you could just have as easily manufactured the evidence after the fact to support your story. That is why they are not admissible.

[Musketeer]

One of the three main points of that case was that if and when deadly force is authorized, the manner in which it is delivered is on no consequence.

With forensic evidence contradicting your story because the reloads were not admissible you may have a hard time convincing the jury the shoot was justifiable...

[Wildalaska]

My handloads are more consistent, more reliable, and more economical than larger factory ammunition. My tolerances are far less than mass produced ammunition. They are loaded to perform within the bullet manufacturer's performance limits.

O thats simply BS, and even if its half true it's meaningless.

General comment: You want to load your own because it cheaper, have at it, don't whine when someone takes you to task for it.

WildblahblahblahAlaska ™

[buzz_knox]

I carry my handloads. I also like to taunt my ammunition manufacturer FFL and say that I am factory ammo, as I have the same licensing as the bigger factories do. I just happen to be a one man factory.

That distinguishes you from the average reloader and makes your situation inapplicable to most.

[freakshow10mm]

I have never had a squib load from a handload. I have never had a handload fail to feed, eject, or fire. I have never had a deformed bullet from a handload. I have never had a flipped primer from a handload. I have never had a handload jam my gun. I have never had a handload that had the bullet seated upside down. I have never had a handload with a split case. I have never had a handload whose bullet seating depth varied by more than .005". My bullet runout is less than the factory's. That is fact whether you want to swallow it or not.

I have had all the above with factory ammo of all brands, even the fancy $1/rd personal defense ammo.

My handloads will group sub-inch groups at 10y in my guns. I've never gotten factory ammo to shoot less than 3" groups at 10y.

So why should I carry inconsistent, overrated, overpriced big name factory ammo?

[TexasSeaRay]

Called up two of my cousins, both of who are still active-duty law enforcement. One is a Texas Ranger, the other is a senior homicide detective with a major PD. The Ranger said he didn't give a damn with what means an innocent citizen defended himself against a would-be fatal attack.

My homicide detective cousin said the type of rounds used in a gun wouldn't even factor in because he'd be investigating the dead guy's background way more intensely than the victim's. If the victim didn't have any wants or warrants on him, wasn't a felon, he really couldn't give a hoot less.

Next, I called up our district attorney--he has a hangar across the way from ours. Gave him short version of this discussion. His reply was that he didn't know HOW they did things up north, didn't give a damn HOW they did things up north, and didn't give a damn HOW they might think of us down here.

He said if a CHL carrier or homeowner fired their weapon in defense--obvious defense--that bullet type and manufacture would mean absolutely zilch. He also said type of weapon, so long as it was legal, would mean zilch as well.

He admitted that a few of the "big city DA's with Congressional aspirations" might try and make something of "type" of gun, but as far as "type" of bullets, it would be pretty futile.

Our county hosts some suburbs and has a population of right at one million, so we're not just falling off the turnip truck here.

Could just be a matter of geography like so many other inane laws.

Jeff

[Musketeer]

He said if a CHL carrier or homeowner fired their weapon in defense--obvious defense--that bullet type and manufacture would mean absolutely zilch. He also said type of weapon, so long as it was legal, would mean zilch as well.

I love how we continue to assume over and over that the shooting we are involved in with our handloads will be OBVIOUS DEFENSE or JUSTIFIABLE... Of course it is justifiable to US, the question is will it be so to a DA and a jury. If the forensics don't match your story because your handloads are inadmissible your credibility drops rapidly. Suddenly your justifiable shoot is no longer so obvious.

I love how nobody advocating the use of reloads for defense has yet to counter the arguments of reloads inadmissibility as evidence and lack of forensic corroboration with your story as a result of such exclusion... All we hear is the old "Justified is Justified" mantra with the same assumptions.

[Alleykat]

One of the major problems. which you repeatedly ignore, is the inadmissibility of reloads in court. As was said "making your own evidence". Without you being able to back up your story with forensic evidence your credibility decreases. If the forensic evidence directly opposes your story, because of a difference in factory ammo from the hand loads you are telling the court you really used then your story may never be heard.

That is truly sophomoric and silly. As I said, I carry factory loads, so this issue is nothing more than an academic exercise to me. However, I do suggest that anybody who's really concerned get their legal advice from real lawyers, judges, and district attorneys and not gunrag-writers and non-legally-educated seminar-givers. I'd also add that this ol' dog has just about been beaten to death.

I have no vested interest in self-promotion and throwing out "unusual" tidbits of silliness, in order to promote my writings or seminars.

[buzz_knox]

However, I do suggest that anybody who's really concerned get their legal advice from real lawyers, judges, and district attorneys and not gunrag-writers and non-legally-educated seminar-givers.

Done it. That's why I believe that reloads have potential issues but can also see ways of negating the issues, if someone is honest about why they are choosing reloads.

[Musketeer]

I agree that legal advice from someone familiar with the implications, legally and for items such as jury opinion and admissibility is important. The problem is how many lawyers, DAs and LEOs actually have had to deal with reloads as a part of an investigation or trial?

This is one reason I side with Ayoob on this. He may not be a lawyer but his experience in a court room dealing with these topics as an expert witness far exceed those of most lawyers. There is a reason lawyers get expert witnesses, because they are EXPERTS.

[pax]

However, I do suggest that anybody who's really concerned get their legal advice from real lawyers, judges, and district attorneys ...

Those would be the same lawyers who regularly hire Ayoob as an expert witness, the same judges who regularly accept his credentials in court, and the same district attorneys who regularly call him for consultation ...?

pax

[buzz_knox]

The problem is how many lawyers, DAs and LEOs actually have had to deal with reloads as a part of an investigation or trial?

It doesn't have to be. Taking similar concepts and analogizing to the specific facts at hand is a routine part of the job. It's also how you make new law.
Been there, done that, don't want to have it done to me.

[buzz_knox]

Those would be the same lawyers who regularly hire Ayoob as an expert witness, the same judges who regularly accept his credentials in court, and the same district attorneys who regularly call him for consultation ...?

pax, you've clearly fallen for the hype. The people Ayoob has named before don't exist; it's all a figment of his imagination, developed as part of the marketing scheme.

[buzz_knox]

So why should I carry inconsistent, overrated, overpriced big name factory ammo?

Sounds like you have a great argument for why you carry reloads. If you keep records of all this, you shoudl be good to go.

Could you agree that someone who doesn't have the meticulous standards you have and can't testify truthfully to the same universally positive experience might not have such a great argument?

[Sevens]

Not that this affects the discussion a whole lot... But I think just about everyone can agree that the best place in our fine nation for a justified defense shooting is certainly going to be in the state of Texas. It's also likely the worst place in the country for a criminal to snake his way out of punishment is going to be in Texas also.

[DaveInPA]

I want to move to Texas. Gun friendly and killer BBQ