Handloads as defense ammo

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by CraigC

I think the risk is minute. What do I base it on? Exercising the muscle between my ears ...

Just as I thought -- no basis in training or experience.

In any case, you're also ignoring the risk versus utility analysis.

There is a risk my training will be used against me. But my training increases my chances for survival. Therefore, I have prepared to meet attacks on my training.

There is a risk that my use of commercial JHP ammunition will be used against me. But I am convinced that such ammunition is more effective, and its use will increase my chances of survival. I have therefore prepared to meet attacks on my use of JHP ammunition.

There is a risk that use of handloads could be used against me. But I have no reason to believe that using handloads will improve my chances of a favorable outcome on the street. Therefore, I don't use them for self defense.

Originally Posted by CraigC

Exactly! Far too many unknowns. In other words, your theory is no more sound than mine.

Actually, my theory is more sound because it is based on training and experience and is supported by other professionals. All opinions aren't equal. The opinion of my doctor regarding my health is a good deal more sound than the opinion of my mechanic. Were it not, I'd need another doctor.

In any event, a lack of cases is not evidence supporting your assessment of the risk unless you can also establish that the use of handloaded ammunition for self defense is widespread.

Originally Posted by CraigC

Why is that? Factory loads are no easier or harder to prove than handloads....

The Bias case (discussed in post #7) illustrates why not. The evidence of test results of the GSR produced by loads duplicating the loads that Bias testified were in the gun could not be admitted into evidence to show the GSR that would be expected from the round that was fired. The reason such test results were inadmissible was that there was no satisfactory basis, as required under the rules of evidence, upon which to believe that such loads manufactured by the defendant were the same as the round fired.

If you used factory ammunition, you will have access to the same ammunition from the same manufacturer, and perhaps even the same lot (ammunition manufacturers retain samples from each lot) for testing. The fact that such ammunition tested is a fair exemplar of the round fired will generally be accepted. Such ammunition is manufactured in large quantities, subject to commercial quality controls, sold to the public and expected to be reasonably uniform in performance. In such a case, your test data should be admissible.

But if you used handloads, there will be no independent, third party validation of the proposition that any ammunition tested is the same as the round fired. So your test data will be inadmissible.

It's pretty basic evidence law that tests are not admissible unless a clear nexus can be established between the test and the event. The result in Bias is absolutely consistent with, and predictable under, the usual rules that apply to the admissibility of test results.

If you want to perform a test and have the results of that test admitted into evidence as probative of a material fact in a case, you must first establish a proper foundation. You must establish that the test results are relevant because you have duplicated in the testing the appropriate circumstances of the act which is the subject matter of the trial.

For example, in a product liability case you might want to show the shear force under with a particular metal part would fail. So you test a part identical to the part at issue apply a shear force and note the point at which the part failed. Now, to get the results of that test admitted into evidence to show the force required to cause the part to fail you will have to first lay a foundation and convince the judge that: (1) the part tested was substantially identical to the part at issue; (2) the force applied in the test was similar in type, direction, and rate to that to which the part that was the subject matter of the trial was subjected up to the point of failure; and (3) environmental factors like temperature and humidity were the same in the test as in the event at issue, or that any differences would scientifically be immaterial. And unless you can convince the judge that everything about the test duplicated the situation at issue in the trial, the judge will not permit the test result to be placed into evidence. And of course, that makes perfect sense. If the part that failed was titanium and you tested a piece of tin, the test results would be meaningless. All this is just basic law school Evidence 1A.

So if the defendant in a case wishes to have tests performed of exemplar ammunition to show the GSR residue produced, in order to compare that GSR with the GSR observed from the event at issue, he will need to establish an adequate foundation. He will have to convince the judge that the ammunition tested was the same as the ammunition fired in the event at issue. If he can't convince the judge, the judge will not admit the test results into evidence. If the defendant can't establish that the test exemplars were the same as the ammunition fired in the event that is the subject of the trial, what possible relevance could the test results have? Again, this is basic law school Evidence 1A.

But if the gun fired in the event at issue was loaded with ammunition "manufactured" by the defendant, the defendant will not be able to reliably establish that the exemplar ammunition tested was the same. For example, there is no way to establish what powder and what charge was in the actual rounds that were fired in the course of the event that is the subject of the trial. It will be tough to convince a judge that some bunch of rounds produced by the defendant in his basement are the same as the rounds at issue.

In Bias the judge did not admit the GSR test results because Bias couldn't show that the exemplar rounds tested were in fact the same as the round fired in the event. That is basic law school Evidence 1A and predictable. I suspect that Bias' lawyers weren't surprised that they couldn't get the test results in, but the zealous advocate tries nonetheless.

In contrast, if the defendant had loaded his gun with Federal EFMJ, 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 defendant would 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 EFMJ, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition.

Originally Posted by CraigC

Criminal law?

No, but for these issues it doesn't matter. There is substantial overlap in jury psychology, trial tactics the rules of evidence, etc.

[OkieCruffler]

Seems like every week or so we go thru this again. There are those who do, those who don't. Neither side will persuade the other. You play the game, you take your chances. Me, I carry my reloads because I trust them to go bang everytime and hit where I want them to everytime.

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

Why add one more potential problem by using handloads?

Whatever your pet load can do, you can find a factory load that will reproduce the results.

Mas is THE MAN on this kind of thing and I would suggest following his advice.

Handloads are fine for practice or hunting, but not the best choice for self-defense.

[OkieCruffler]

Handloads are fine for practice or hunting, but not the best choice for self-defense.

For you, I feel differently. If I were that worried about what's going to happen after I wouldn't bother to carry in the first place.

[Doodlebugger45]

Well, after reading all this stuff I have been convinced that if I am ever in a situation where I might have to shoot another human, I will make sure I have factory ammo loaded in my revolver. That's the legal issue and it appears there are a lot of experts here on those isssues.

On a more technical side of it though, realize that self defense to some of us isn't necessarily related to evil humans. For me, I can't imagine any scenario where I would shoot a person. However, there is a real (although slight) possibility that I might have to shoot a bear in self defense. There are legalities involved in that scenario as well, but I don't think they would relate to handloads vs factory ammo. For those situations, I trust my own handloads more than I do factory ammo. My own handloads aren't 100% foolproof but factory ammo isn't fail-safe either.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Doodlebugger45

....However, there is a real (although slight) possibility that I might have to shoot a bear in self defense. There are legalities involved in that scenario as well, but I don't think they would relate to handloads vs factory ammo....

I wouldn't see this as being a significant issue in animal defense. Among other things, your legal exposure defending yourself against an animal attack would involve some possible violation of laws relating to when, where, how and if game may be taken. And shooting an animal is generally not as emotionally charged a matter as shooting a human.

[RGS]

Now this brings up a whole new kettle of fish. Say ya stuff a nice home cast heavy Keith bullet over a case full of H110 for bear patrol. So far no problems.

However, a self defense situation comes up as you stumble into someone's marijuana grow and there ya go with those nasty handloads again.

Then once they confiscate your computer and find all the ballistic softwear and gun related forum posts, our friendly jury foreman, Suzie Soccermom will stroke out fer sherr dude.

[Beauhooligan]

I would like to thank all of the posters for their contributions, but would make special appreciation to Fiddletown for his extremely well thought out and expressed presentations. His posts have made me decide to read any of his future posts with great care, as he actually has something of value to say.

I'm not a legal whiz kid, but I was a police officer for 10 years, and in that time was involved in 5 shootings (that is a lot in such a short period). If I had been using my handloads in any of those confrontations, my employment as a cop would have ended after the shooting review was completed, no matter how "good" the shoot had been judged. Those were revolver days, and we were allowed to only carry Department issue Winchester .38 Special +P 125 grain HPs. We actually had ammunition checks occasionally at roll call to see if we were carrying .357 Magnum ammunition; an act that would get an officer a 30 day suspension. "Magnum" was a dirty word, one that caused, in the Department's upper echelon's minds, visions of endless liability litigation. It didn't really matter, as those Department issued rounds were pretty darned good at stopping the BGs.

I carry for protection these days, usually my little SA XD40 SC, but I occasionally carry my Wilson or Springfield 1911, and I never load the magazines with anything but factory ammunition. When it comes to any firearm I may have to use for self defense, I only load factory ammo. I have been through the mill with Internal Affairs and the Shooting Review Board, and don't have a single good memory of those reports and the endless questions. The last thing I would want to do is add one more little odd detail, that in an otherwise "good" shooting could be whipped up in a frenzy, and a major screw-up. So, I don't modify safety features, don't change the weapons other than things like grips, or adding tritium sights, and shoot only factory ammo. I don't even reload for the .45 ACP and .40 S&W anymore, as I want my training ammo to either be the ammo I am going to carry, or something less expensive that has the same recoil, muzzle blast, and shoots to the same point of aim. Colonel Cooper was right, train the way you want to fight, for you will fight the way you train.

The Department I was with has taken this to heart and now uses their duty ammunition for ALL training. When I was there we did all of our training with .38 Special wadcutter reloads, and only fired duty ammunition to qualify. No wonder the connect percentage on BGS then was so low back then. Still, recently, two officers were trying to stop a suspect in a sporting goods store burglary, and he fired a single shot at them from a Charter Arms .38. The two officers fired 41 rounds of .40 S&W in return, with one officer finally hitting the suspect in the ankle.

[Frank Ettin]

Beauhooligan, thank you. I appreciate the kind words.

Originally Posted by RGS

Now this brings up a whole new kettle of fish. Say ya stuff a nice home cast heavy Keith bullet over a case full of H110 for bear patrol. So far no problems.

However, a self defense situation comes up as you stumble into someone's marijuana grow and there ya go with those nasty handloads again....

A tough problem for sure. And of course, "You pays your money and you takes your chance."

However, if you really are out tramping in the wilderness, and if bears really are demonstrably the most credible threat, Suzie Soccermom and her friends may be able to process the argument that your ammunition was chosen as suitable for a particular concern involving furry creature with sharp claws, and you didn't really expect to run into some human type nasties.

Of course that's probably not going to help you if there's been no sign of bears in the neighborhood in the last 50 years. Nor will it be much use if you're down at the mall. And if gunshot residue evidence could be important to you, you're still out of luck.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Beauhooligan

The Department I was with has taken this to heart and now uses their duty ammunition for ALL training. When I was there we did all of our training with .38 Special wadcutter reloads, and only fired duty ammunition to qualify....

A very good point.

A short time ago I read an interesting book by Stephen Hunter, An American Gunfight. It discusses in depth a gunfight between several LEOs (U. S. Secret Service agents and Washington, D. C. PD) with two would be assassins of President Truman. One point brought out was that at that time the Secret Service practiced and qualified with target reloads that actually shot to a different POI than duty ammunition. This factor accounted ofr some of the misses by one of the Secret Service agents who actually had a reputation for being an excellent shot.

[sakeneko]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

A short time ago I read an interesting book by Stephen Hunter, An American Gunfight. It discusses in depth a gunfight between several LEOs (U. S. Secret Service agents and Washington, D. C. PD) with two would be assassins of President Truman. One point brought out was that at that time the Secret Service practiced and qualified with target reloads that actually shot to a different POI than duty ammunition. This factor accounted ofr some of the misses by one of the Secret Service agents who actually had a reputation for being an excellent shot.

Hmmm.... I've been shooting five or ten rounds each of my SD loads when practicing because the feel of the higher-powered loads is quite different from that of target loads. I wonder, were these SS agents doing that, or did they get *no* practice whatsoever with their duty ammo? I'm wondering if I should shell out for more of my SD ammunition and work with it more.... (Well, after I become a better shot, anyway.) ;-)

[Frank Ettin]

...I wonder, were these SS agents doing that, or did they get *no* practice whatsoever with their duty ammo? I'm wondering if I should shell out for more of my SD ammunition and work with it more...

I don't recall if the book mentioned how often, if at all, the agents practiced with duty ammunition. The agent involved had qualified with the "light" ammunition that morning.

I shoot some SD ammunition on a regular basis. But I also find that the ammunition I practice with, either commercial or my reloads, seems to be pretty similar in POI and performance in general to then various .45 ACP or 9mm JHPs I'll use for SD.

[Lost Sheep]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

I shoot some SD ammunition on a regular basis. But I also find that the ammunition I practice with, either commercial or my reloads, seems to be pretty similar in POI and performance in general to then various .45 ACP or 9mm JHPs I'll use for SD.

Originally Posted by sakeneko

Hmmm.... I've been shooting five or ten rounds each of my SD loads when practicing because the feel of the higher-powered loads is quite different from that of target loads. I wonder, were these SS agents doing that, or did they get *no* practice whatsoever with their duty ammo? I'm wondering if I should shell out for more of my SD ammunition and work with it more.... (Well, after I become a better shot, anyway.) ;-)

That's why the serious and careful reloader loads his/her own practice ammunition to match the recoil and POI as the ammunition carried "for real".
That said, I have not been that serious or careful. But having re-read this thread, I am re-thinking.

Lost Sheep

[TEDDY]

and now there is shortage of ammo,so what to use if no factory. and I also feel that there is a break down in our judicial system.and then there are the fanatic prosecuters.who want to get aconviction no matter what.
some prosecuters may look at the over all case and dcide it is self defence and that would be the end.in this state the AGs have rulled you enter someones home then you are up to no good end of story.there have been
acouple of cases ruled.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by TEDDY

...and now there is shortage of ammo,so what to use if no factory. and I also feel that there is a break down in our judicial system.and then there are the fanatic prosecuters.who want to get aconviction no matter what....

Again, "You pays your money and you takes your chance." There's really nothing to add to my previous posts. And in any case I have sufficient self defense ammunition on hand.

[RamSlammer]

Probability you'll ever have to draw your SD handgun . . . 1 in a few thousand.

Probability you'll actually have to fire a shot . . . 1 in a few more thousand

Probability you'll do both of the above and hit someone . . . 1 in a few more thousand.

Probability you'll do all three of the above and kill someone . . . 1 in a few more thousand.

Probability you'll do all four of the above AND be prosecuted . . . 1 in a few more thousand.

Probability you'll do all five of the above and be prosecuted successfully just because you used handloads . . . almost none.

A meteor will fall from the sky and hit just you long before you get into trouble for using handloads in a self defense role.

In the day and age of $1.50 a shot factory SD loads (which you should practice with if you're gonna use them for serious work), I'll buy some Gold Dot bullets (or similar good hollowponts), fire up the press and take my chances.

P.S.: And, I'm going to load my rounds with the optimum bullet, powder charge and primer combination to kill humans in their tracks via the most devastating effectiveness I can possibly concoct. Isn't that what good self defense ammunition should do?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by RamSlammer

...I'll buy some Gold Dot bullets (or similar good hollowponts), fire up the press and take my chances....

It's up to you. As I've said before, it's not my problem.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by RamSlammer

...Probability you'll do all five of the above and be prosecuted successfully just because you used handloads . .

You must have missed the part where I said that an ambitious prosecutor is not going to be prosecuting you if all he has is that you used handloads. If you're being prosecuted, you will have enough problems with your situation that the DA figures he'll be able to get a jury to find you guilty. Handloads will be only one of your problems, but it is an avoidable one. I prefer to eliminate as many avoidable problems as possible before hand, so that I and my lawyer can focus on dealing with the unavoidable ones. (Carry factory but load the ballistic equivalent for practice.)

If we paid strict attention to probabilities, none of us would be bothering with guns. The odds of having to use a gun in self defense are vanishingly small. Most people will die quietly in their sleep without ever having had to defend themselves in a violent encounter.

But unlikely things have a way of nonetheless happening. Basically good people have used their guns in what they honestly thought was proper self defense and still found themselves on trial for aggravated assault or manslaughter. Some of the time they have won, and some of the time they have lost and gone to jail.

Yes, these are rare event. But they have happened to others in the past. It may happen to one of us in the future.

I sometimes find it very odd that one might spend a great deal of time preparing for a thing, using a gun in self defense, that is almost a certainty not to happen to him. He'll spend hours doing research and agonizing over choosing just the right gun, the right ammunition, the right holster. But he probably spends very little time or effort preparing for the predictable legal aftermath.

While the use of a gun in self defense is an extremely unlikely event, if you do use a gun in self defense, some things are almost certain to follow. You will be questioned by police, you will need to give a statement, and the circumstances will be investigated. The investigation will be reviewed by the DA and prosecution will at least be considered. You might well find yourself facing a grand jury deciding whether to indict you. And then there's the further risk that the DA and/or grand jury will see defects in your claim of self defense, so you wind up charged and on trial. How this all turns out will decide whether you get to stay at home with your family to enjoy the fruits of your victory over evil, or spend some extended, quality time picking up soap in the showers for guys with no necks.

So although the possibility of my needing to use a gun in self defense is tiny, the downsides of either flubbing things on the street or making a hash of the legal aftermath are seriously undesirable. So I'm going to both do what I can to improve my chances to prevail on the street AND do whatever I reasonably can to stack the deck in my favor when it comes time to play out the legal aftermath.

[OldMarksman]

I'm going to load my rounds with the optimum bullet, powder charge and primer combination to kill humans in their tracks via the most devastating effectiveness I can possibly concoct.

It's a very good thing that the likelihood of a self defense shooting is so very low.

Should one occur under circumstances that appear questionable to the authorities after the fact--no corroborating witnesses, no physical evidence that imminent danger ever existed, circumstantial evidence that the shooter appeared to have been following the deceased, a shooting distance that raises the legal eyebrow, whatever.......

...and should the accused have ever made a comment such as the above on line, he would have a heck of a time explaining it in court.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Gotta laugh - with all the discussions of Mr. Fish's use of a 10mm.

What if Mr. Fish had posted that he loaded 10mm with the optimum bullet, powder charge and primer combination to kill humans in their tracks via the most devastating effectiveness he can possibly concoct.

Give he was in serious trouble to begin with - that would have gone over very well. Whadda think?

Folks also don't understand that the DA doesn't have to make an explicit and big rant about the ammo or gun type (they could) - studies show that simple exposure to things that look deadly can influence the jury.

I've read a fair amount of the law lit as well as the jury psych lit and they agree that you don't want to be out there as planning to kill with glee.

[Don P]

IMO, bad idea using reloads for SD. Doing so may require the expert, Massad Ayoob to be testifing at your trial.

[sakeneko]

IMO, bad idea using reloads for SD. Doing so may require the expert, Massad Ayoob to be testifing at your trial.

Yeah. And while Ayoob is a gun expert out of conviction rather than a desire to make lots of money, I believe he charges a fee to testify as an expert witness. Most fees for expert testimony are high: couple hundred dollars per hour up. If I were a handloader, I'd probably figure that into the cost of using handloads vs. factory ammo in a self defense situation.

[OldMarksman]

I believe he charges a fee to testify as an expert witness. Most fees for expert testimony are high: couple hundred dollars per hour up.

Plus travel and per diem. A court case can drag on and on, be scheduled to resume on a Tuesday and get pushed back day by day until the week is gone.

Meals, hotels, car rental, other expenses by the day, airline travel and taxi by the trip.

Not by any means limited to hand load issues, by the way. Any forensic issues can burn up a lot of money.

Shooting someone is the next-to-last thing I ever want to happen.

[alloy]

If the question is using handloads, I assume that means you can actually produce those handloads. So isn't that the real problem used against a person in court, regardless of using them or not?

"Why do you handload Mr. ZZZ?''

"Ok...yet you chose to load your self defense handgun with hollow point Corchester YZAP rounds...would you explain why, when you have already stated that you handload for accuracy/ballistic performance, as well as cost savings.
What is it the more expensive store bought YZAPs do that your handloads can't?"

Seems to me like the hypothetical's prerequisite of reloading is the problem either way.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by alloy

"Ok...yet you chose to load your self defense handgun with hollow point Corchester YZAP rounds...would you explain why, when you have already stated that you handload for accuracy/ballistic performance, as well as cost savings.
What is it the more expensive store bought YZAPs do that your handloads can't?"

Come on, do you really think Suzie Soccermom and her friends, all good folk who know nothing, and care less, about guns, are going to follow that kind of argument? It's way too "inside baseball."

Your jurors are just going to stay stuck on their mental image of you up by the light of the full moon concocting your secret, super lethal zombie killer boolits.

If it comes up, the best answer to "Why did you load your gun with XXYYY?" is something like, "Sir, it's my understanding that ammunition is what some police departments issue to their officers; and I figure if they've done whatever testing they need to do to decide that it's proper ammunition for self defense, it would be a good choice for me as well."

That is an answer to that question that most jurors will be able to process, follow and understand. Of all the possible types of answers to that sort of question, that will generally be the best. However, it perhaps could be a little better if you were using the exact ammunition that your local police department issues.