Ayoob also published that article in "GUNS" magazine, and the problem was that the handloads were light, low recoil rounds that caused the ballistic techs to think that the muzzle was much farther away than it really was when fired due to lack of powder residue etc. So instead of the bad guy being at arms length when shot, they testified that the bad guy had to be across the room; therefore the shooter was not in "imminent danger" and shouldn't have shot.

It was AH, but that was the article about the case I mentioned up-thread.

quote:

Originally posted by CMcDermott:
Ayoob also published that article in "GUNS" magazine, and the problem was that the handloads were light, low recoil rounds that caused the ballistic techs to think that the muzzle was much farther away than it really was when fired due to lack of powder residue etc. So instead of the bad guy being at arms length when shot, they testified that the bad guy had to be across the room; therefore the shooter was not in "imminent danger" and shouldn't have shot.

Now that's scary! Things can certainly be twisted by "experts."

I have had the same concerns, especially after reading of the tragedy in Phoenix last year. I discussed it with one of the prosecuting attorneys here in my county. He is also a shooter and belongs to the same club as I. He indicated taht it was a nonissue. The big however for me is that a good quality factory load that is 100% reliable for me is a better choice. If you are in a situation that requires you to shoot to save yours or someone elses life, then you don't want John Murphy to rear his ugly head. Reload duplicate loads for practice, occasionally practice with the real thing, lay in a supply of the "good stuff" for serious social work.

In a thread on this forum a few weeks ago -- in the lounge section, under a discussion of 9mm ammo, IIRC -- one poster spoke of 3 cases he was familiar with where use of reloads was brought up in court against the defendant, with one of them losing.

Use of exemplar ammo (ammo identical to what was in the gun at the time of the shooting, and used for forensic testing purposes) is my major issue with use of handloads for self-defense. Since "the evidence was literally manufactured by the defendant," you can't expect the court to take your word for what load was in the weapon at the time, if gunshot residue testing to determine distance becomes an issue.

I've had this debate many times on many forums, and no one has yet been able to show a case where a court DID take the defendant's word for that.

I'll march to the advice of the immediately previous poster: factory loads for carry and HD, duplicate reloads for training.

As one of the dreaded lawyers here, I thought I'd chime in on this tired, old subject. I reload, and have for many years. Back in the 70s and 80s, when the selection of good factory self-defense loads was much slimmer and I had much less money, I almost always kept handloads in my self-defense handguns. Now, with a vast array of readily available, highly developed commercial self-defense loadings for most calibers, there is rarely a good reason to give a vindictive prosecutor (Please excuse the redundancy. ) or a greedy plaintiff's lawyer any extra "ammunition." Therefore, I carry handloads only on the rare occasions when I carry my Model 58, since there are no factory .41 mag. loads that shoot to the sights that I also consider to be as good for self-defense as my reloads.

That said, if a shoot is "good," I don't have any nightmares about what kind of ammo was used, and the prosecutor/plaintiff's attempts to use your handloads against you should be readily defeated by good lawyering and a good expert witness. I'm presently employed as a defense expert witness on a case wherein factory loads were used, but if the ammo had been handloads, I could readily envision that having become a highly significant factor. (I can't give any more details, since the case is still pending, but in a couple months, I hope to be able to fill in the blanks.)

BTW, I think the case mentioned above in other posts involving the difficulties arising from the absence of an exemplar cartridge was a suicide which the prosecutor claimed was a murder, not vice versa. Mas, correct me if I'm wrong.

I would highly encourage utilizing factory ammo and discourage the use of any handload in a carry gun for the reasons highlighted previously. Use of exemplar ammo is vital after the fact regarding residue testing to determine distance as well as ejection patterns in semi-auto handguns.

Follow the experts advice: Factory loads for carry and HD, duplicate reloads for training. I believe any other choice may lead to regrets later down the road. My two cents worth from personal experience.

You guys are starting to really make me think. I always kinda considered trouble in court with hand loads an old wives tale. I used hand loads in an earlier, 4" .357 because no factory loads that I ever tried gave me super accuracy or didn't smack my hand. I finally developed a fantastically accurate load and used that. Fortunately, my new .357 carries Speer GDSB and I'm developing hand loads to approximate point of aim and recoil. (The Speers are very accurate.)

"Expert's advice"? I wasn't aware that any experts in firearms law, or legal disputes involving shootings, had given any. I'm perfectly comfortable carrying my own loads

quote:

I've had this debate many times on many forums, and no one has yet been able to show a case where a court DID take the defendant's word for that.

I guess we will have to take your word that you are Mas. In this age of the internet anyone can claim to be anyone. In fact I am really George Bush!

Can anyone site a case where they didn't take the word of the defendant? I'm not trying to be argumentative but I thought we were innocent until proven guilty here in America. I am thankful I live in rural America where the jury of my peers will be most likely someone I shoot once a week with!

It is Mas, Skip.

(But is it me writing this . . . ? )

As has been mentioned, Mas did expert witness work on a case in which the defendant's word was not taken on a handloading issue. I believe a conviction resulted . . .

All right: I tried to run a search to pull up last year's thread on this subject (and save us all some time), but it's outside the search parameters. Here's a summary of my feelings on the subject.

I've been a prosecutor and I now do criminal defense law. I carry handloads in many of my defensive handguns. They're in the house gun, and they're in all the .38s and in my .357.

I would note that Mas has a point when he says that using handloads adds the possibility of another angle of attack against any defensive shooting you may have to justify - civilly or criminally. He very kindly and generously advises that one should minimize the possibilities of attacks against which one might have to defend.

Myself, I'm not so generous: I don't give advice to non-clients. If I were to do so, I'd almost certainly pick the safest possible advice, which would be, "Minimize the possibility that you'll have problems: why give a hypothetical nefarious prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer something extra to try to use against you? Use factory ammo!"

However, I personally am aware how infrequently this handload issue comes up in cases, and I'm aware that - in general - a good shoot is a good shoot. (A miss or overpenetration is always a bad shoot.) But, as a lawyer, I realize that anything can happen, and . . . well, I feel comfortable in court. I feel like I would be able to explain how my handloads were tailored to my guns to do precisely what was needed. How I've worked on almost 200 handgun killings, and I know what's needed to effect a stop of an aggressor, and how I tailor my carry ammo to do that. How no factory worker takes the time and care I do when handcrafting my carry loads. How I test them and keep extensive records on them. How my standard deviations and extreme spreads are lower than with factory ammo, and my groups are tighter (and I have logbooks upon logbooks to prove it). How I developed the loads over time (and have logbooks to prove it) to suit my precise needs. How handloading enables me to practice extensively (hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of rounds) with the very custom-tailored ammo that I carry (something that only federal cops generally have the resources to do). Etc.

One should research the issue and do what makes oneself comfortable and what one feels one could justify if necessary. Think about this: How good are you at expressing yourself in court? Mas has logged more courtroom time than most folks (more than most lawyers, no doubt at all in my mind about that), and yet even he doesn't feel comfortable enough with this issue to be willing to use handloads. Me, I carry handloads, but when my little brother bought his first handgun this week, I contacted a police officer/armorer (our own Fastbolt, another professional who's kind and generous with his time) to find out what factory ammo he recommended fr Mark's new gun. And that's what I told my little brother to carry . . . .

quote:

Originally posted by smith crazy:
I am thankful I live in rural America where the jury of my peers will be most likely someone I shoot once a week with!

Hate to break it to you, but even in "rural America," you don't really want a jury to decide the issue for you. I've tried lawsuits (over 60) in more than 20 counties in Texas, many of them quite "rural," and I've not seen lots of my "peers." While most juries do what's right (unless the lawyers and/or judge screw up badly) learning how they got there (to the verdict) is incredibly frightening. I've talked to lots of jurors after trials to learn what they thought and how they arrived at the verdict. I've also tried some cases to "mock juries," for settlement evaluation purposes, and have witnessed their deliberations via closed circuit TV. That is some scary stuff! What you really want is: 1.Not to have to shoot anyone, or, failing that, 2.For the shoot to be so clean that it is never presented to a grand jury, or, failing that, 3.To be no-billed by the grand jury. The case I'm presently hired in as an expert is a civil case in which the defendant was no-billed by the grand jury, but was subsequently sued, so it ain't over till it's over!

Here's a link on the three cases where handloads may have been an issue. LINK
One case is from the 1970s, one from 1989 and one unknown date.

Just from Erich's involvement in 200 shooting incident cases, that's only 1.5% and I don't even think Erich was practicing in the 1970s.

The link was posted a little over 2 years ago and the information is hardly widespread or current.

As I said, the Bias case was originally claimed to be a suicide and later changed to a murder case by the Grand Jury. The handloads were not claimed to be more lethal, but rather the claim was for them being less lethal "target loads".

Dealing with another issue/ploy tried on occasion to bring about a conviction, the composition of the lead in "factory loads" can and does vary a lot.

quote:

Therefore, a box of ammunition is likely to contain bullets from multiple volumes of lead, the committee reported.

"In fact, the FBI's own research has found instances where a single box of ammunition contained as many as 14 distinct compositional groups," MacFadden says. SOURCE

There is no reason to assume any of the other components may not be as mixed as the lead that's used. We know the powder used is non-cannister and can change at any time, but the end product is supposed to perform the same. Performance and composition are two entirely different things.

If you look at the MSDS for Red Dot, just as an example, you'll find it can be 4%-40% nitroglycerin. That means it varies, even though it performs relatively consistently.

I find all of the arguments against handloads to be lacking in fundamental scientific veracity, but that's my opinion.

As a resposible adult I am the final arbiter of what ammo I will carry. I choose my handloads, no one loves me as I love myself. No one is as careful as I am with my wellbeing. In my opinion a risk/benefit analysis weighs heavily toward this conclusion.

Who do you trust when it absolutely, positively has to work perfectly?

Yet I purchase the bulk of my "blasting" ammo.

Kind, The Bitter One