Serious court + warranty question on reloads
- Thread starter JJEH
- Start date
OP
JJEH
Member
It's not about doing the effect thing. It's about getting facts and do the right thing! Because it's too easy to get in serious trouble.
You guys are awesome and I really do appreciate your answers.
The point to just reload for the range but use factory ammo for carry makes totally sense to me. I would go the same route.
As you should. I have no problem with anyone choosing to use factory ammo and I would not begin to tell anyone otherwise. I do however appreciate having the same courtesy extended to me, if you know what I mean.
If I am forced to use my gun in a self defense situation, I will not "shoot to kill". I will "shoot to stop the threat on my life".
roughedgekid
Member
Same here, started in 1980. Its been so long since I've bought factory loads I was shocked by the price.Been reloading since 1973, that's 39 years.
No blown up guns yet.
No law suits.
Guess it must be an OK hobby for adults...
Silversmok3
Member
The issue of reloads for self defense comes down to one word.
Evidence.
If a self defense incident goes down the path of the worst case scenario, such as a situation where the DA may be motivated politically to charge a homeowner with a crime,tests with the ammunition will be used to establish the distances of contact. If the homeowner claims that the suspect charged them with a deadly weapon and they thus fired X number of rounds at Y distance, the police can test the firearm to verify based on powder patterns where everyone was when the gun fired.
With factory ammunition, tables and loads provided by the factory can be used to definitively establish distances. Since its factory ammunition, the load and powder type is consistent,which allows for the powder marks to be used in defense of the shooter. The DA can hardly say that Federal Cartridge Co's load data is bogus.
When reloads are put into play powder testing can result in serious problems for the shooter. Assuming the would be victim states that he was 2 feet away from the perp when he shot the guy, its not going to look good when the prosecution asserts that based on the powder tests of the reloaded ammo the perp was in fact 15 feet away. This can have devastating consequences to the case of someone arguing self defense in court.
Since reloaded ammunition isn't made by a factory with established tables and load information, there's no standard to verify the police test results. Worse, any information about the reloads has to come from the defendant, which automatically ruins credibility .A jury doesn't see a shooter trying to save money or make an effective defense load, they just see some guy making rounds in his basement who think's hes too good to buy his ammo from "the professionals" like the cops and military do.
When dealing with court, we all would do well to remember that a "jury of our peers" won't be composed of 12 guys from the local gun store.
Evidence.
If a self defense incident goes down the path of the worst case scenario, such as a situation where the DA may be motivated politically to charge a homeowner with a crime,tests with the ammunition will be used to establish the distances of contact. If the homeowner claims that the suspect charged them with a deadly weapon and they thus fired X number of rounds at Y distance, the police can test the firearm to verify based on powder patterns where everyone was when the gun fired.
With factory ammunition, tables and loads provided by the factory can be used to definitively establish distances. Since its factory ammunition, the load and powder type is consistent,which allows for the powder marks to be used in defense of the shooter. The DA can hardly say that Federal Cartridge Co's load data is bogus.
When reloads are put into play powder testing can result in serious problems for the shooter. Assuming the would be victim states that he was 2 feet away from the perp when he shot the guy, its not going to look good when the prosecution asserts that based on the powder tests of the reloaded ammo the perp was in fact 15 feet away. This can have devastating consequences to the case of someone arguing self defense in court.
Since reloaded ammunition isn't made by a factory with established tables and load information, there's no standard to verify the police test results. Worse, any information about the reloads has to come from the defendant, which automatically ruins credibility .A jury doesn't see a shooter trying to save money or make an effective defense load, they just see some guy making rounds in his basement who think's hes too good to buy his ammo from "the professionals" like the cops and military do.
When dealing with court, we all would do well to remember that a "jury of our peers" won't be composed of 12 guys from the local gun store.
dirty gary
Member
Have loaded/reloaded 100,00+ rounds since I started. Over a million rounds if you count when I ran an Ammo load commercial loader. Have never blown up a gun with my ammo. I did blow up a 1006 with ammo I did not know the history of, except it was reloaded. Sent the gun to S&W, they repaired it to better-than-new, no charge. If I bought factory ammo for all the shooting I do, well, fact is I could NOT shoot nearly the amount I do. I'll keep doing what I'm doing, regardless of what gun makers recommend.
"Could", "May", "Might", "If" ....
Still waiting for evidence that it has ever happened....
Alk8944
US Veteran
For the record, it was an Arizona case, the gun was a 10mm not .40 S&W. The arguement by the prosecution was that the caliber was more powerful than guns carried by the police and therefore there was a presumption that the shooter was looking for an opportunity to kill someone.
Absolutely specious, but an excellent example of why the general admonishion that if you are guilty file a jury demand. If you know you are right and want to be tried on facts and the letter of the law then request a bench trial!
I do know that on the first appeal the conviction was upheld. What happened on subsequent appeals I do not know. I certainly hope your representation of his being acquitted eventually is correct! At the time it appeared to be a failure on the part of the defense that such a ridiculous arguement by the prosecution was not strenuously objected to.
So far as if there has ever even been a self-defense shooting where hand-loaded ammunition was used I have no knowledge. It would be interesting to know. Everyone seems to forget that even if you are acquitted if there is a criminal trial, or even if no criminal charges are even brought against you, in many states you are still liable to find yourself in the middle of a civil lawsuit! Does anyone remember O.J. Simpson? In a civil suit the burden of proof is simply "Preponerence of the evidence", not "Beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury must only reach a decision based on a simple majority, not a unanimous verdict. Again, remember O.J.?????
Whether use of hand-loaded ammunition has ever been or may be an issue in a criminal trial it very well may be in a civil trial. Why give the Plaintiff's attorney any possible opening that is not necessary, even if it may only be theoretical at this point? Civil cases have been lost for much flimsier reasons than this!
Be very, very glad if you happen to live in one of the states which bars civil suits in such cases if the person has been acquitted in a criminal trial!
While we're speculating about "that which could happen so why take a chance of being wrongfully convicted", shall we turn our heads to those cases where "that which did happen and the victim was wrongfully convicted".
Using the logic of some here, since there have been hundreds of homeowners who were wrongfully convicted of manslaughter in a criminal court and wrongful death in a civil court simply because they used their gun to protect themselves, then by God we should put down our arms and not even try to defend ourselves. After all we don't want to hand the prosecution anything that could have been avoided!
I mean in these cases we have evidence that this really really happens.
Unlike the hand loading theoretical scenarios emanating from imaginations written above.
Using the logic of some here, since there have been hundreds of homeowners who were wrongfully convicted of manslaughter in a criminal court and wrongful death in a civil court simply because they used their gun to protect themselves, then by God we should put down our arms and not even try to defend ourselves. After all we don't want to hand the prosecution anything that could have been avoided!
I mean in these cases we have evidence that this really really happens.
Unlike the hand loading theoretical scenarios emanating from imaginations written above.
OK, here are just a few of the past threads on self defense and reloads. They go on and on ad nauseum. These are just some of the longest versions. I think some have comments by Mr MA.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/224064-cast-bullets-personal-defense.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/183812-reloads-law.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/131360-cast-lead-defense.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/224064-cast-bullets-personal-defense.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/183812-reloads-law.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/131360-cast-lead-defense.html
I know, Rule 3. I participated in them as well.
When these discussions come up, I always ask the same questions and keep getting the same non-answers.
Which usually boil down to "Well, I don't think anyone should just to be safe."
It's like the signs on gas pumps about not using cell phones. The notion that you could cause an explosion has been thoroughly debunked but the signs remain "just to be safe".
It's like the signs near water coolers not to pour coffee down the drain. It was proven that this myth had it's origins in the problems caused when someone pours coffee GROUNDS down the drain.
But the signs remain "just to be safe."
It's maddening and I let my frustration boil over. I apologize to the forum for not letting this bone go.
When these discussions come up, I always ask the same questions and keep getting the same non-answers.
Which usually boil down to "Well, I don't think anyone should just to be safe."
It's like the signs on gas pumps about not using cell phones. The notion that you could cause an explosion has been thoroughly debunked but the signs remain "just to be safe".
It's like the signs near water coolers not to pour coffee down the drain. It was proven that this myth had it's origins in the problems caused when someone pours coffee GROUNDS down the drain.
But the signs remain "just to be safe."
It's maddening and I let my frustration boil over. I apologize to the forum for not letting this bone go.
Not at all directed towards you. Just throwing out the info for the OP for some great late night reading.
Don't forget to turn off all electronic devices while the plane is taking off and landing.
Don't forget to turn off all electronic devices while the plane is taking off and landing.
I, and any reloader, can safely surpass factory velocities by just using reloading manual load data. Factory ammo (commercial self defence loads) is not loaded to maximum velocities/pressures. I agree that Mr. Ayoob has been an expert witness, but still have yet to see/hear of anyone convicted/charged with using "extra deadly" ammo with intention of killing or maiming during a self defence situation...
RobsTV
Member
I have never had or heard of a company ask if the gun was used with reloads. There are plenty of kabooms splitting guns apart that have never seen a reload, only factory ammo. Reload disclaimer is only a lawyer thing, not something companies ask about when service is needed. How would they know anyway, unless you told them, and even then, most companies would still cover any damage.
I have had more FTF and FTE using "quality" factory ammo than I can count, while reloading my own ammo has never had any FTF or FTE. That answers everything for me. When you need to count on something, you can only count on yourself. Or, you can screw things up as well as any professional.
I have had more FTF and FTE using "quality" factory ammo than I can count, while reloading my own ammo has never had any FTF or FTE. That answers everything for me. When you need to count on something, you can only count on yourself. Or, you can screw things up as well as any professional.
They seem to be able to tell if you blow up or damage a gun and they ask you what ammo.
You reply reloads, case closed. You lie and say xyz ammo and they ask for the empty brass, lot number etc. Then they refer you to the ammo maker and round and round (no pun) it goes.
It should make sense only if you are planning to shoot someone. I believe a justifiable answer to the so far never asked in a trial, question [why did you shoot him with reloads?] is "that is what I had in the gun. I did not leave planning to shoot someone, I was attacked and feard for my life."
If it has never come up in a trial it is not because the Prosecuter never heard or thought of it, it is because it is without merit.
papajohn428
Member
Given the fact that juries are comprised of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty, I don't like the notion of having my fate decided by such folks, and would happily request a bench trial. And as for trusting lawyers to play fair...........no. I've heard horror stories about some of the tactics used, which the moronic judges allowed, and I don't think I'll be providing any extra reasons for the jury to see me as a gun-toting psychopath.
No handloads. I use the best defensive ammoI can find/afford, which is often the same thing the local cops carry. Pretty hard to make me into a reckless nutjob that way.
No handloads. I use the best defensive ammoI can find/afford, which is often the same thing the local cops carry. Pretty hard to make me into a reckless nutjob that way.
I have to respectfully disagree that factory ammunition is loaded as consistently as my handloads. Based on what I have seen on my chronograph and on targets, my handloads are more consistent. Also, an earlier post described a situation in which the bullet manufacturer changed the powder used and was called into court to testify to that fact. Finally, they're not measuring 1/10ths of an inch when looking at powder marks on a shooting victim. It's just not that precise a "science".
It seems to me that a certain person with a financial interest in "factory" ammunition marketed for self-defense purposes is the source of this urban legend.
That said, I am still carrying factory self defense loads... just in case I manage to find myself in the black swan situation.
You're killing me.
Make that choice for factory ammo, that's cool. It's some fine stuff.
But if your reason for doing so is as stated above, you are making a false assumption.
Please realize that a jury has never heard the argument.
It has never happened.
Not once.
Ever.
It is an Internet myth.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to banging my head against the wall...
Similar threads
- Locked
