quoted from Erich:
Erich, since the issue has never come up in court, how are we supposed to know which variables are the most potentially hazardous?

When some unlucky soul finds this overzealous DA, which is going to be worse, using handloads, or factory ammunition that are advertised as more deadly than any others. Take a look at ammunition ads, and articles in magazines too, and tell me that a person that knows nothing about ammunition wouldn't get a negative impression about their use in self defense. Especially when they realize hollow point bullets are for creating a wound channel to let your "game" bleed out faster.

The point I'm trying to make is that "any" ammunition can be demonized if that is what the accuser wants to do. Claiming that one is better than the other has no evidence to back it up.

Are we going to spend our lives wondering what will and won't get us into more trouble based on non existant evidence? The possibilities are endless and are as varied as the imaginations that dream them up. If I said that using high octane gasoline can cause you problems if you get into an accident because it shows you intended to speed, would you stop using it? Or should I pay someone to build my garage that is a licensed contractor instead of building it myself in case it falls on somebody? Now, when everyone gets this far and is thinking how stupid those examples are, the factory vs. handload issue is every bit as idiotic.

Quite true that one can't spend one's life worrying about what might be turned against one. But there are some variables that one can see easily might be such, and it may make sense to avoid them.

Two things:

1. I'm not Mas, and I do carry handloads. Don't expect me to defend his position, because I don't give a hoot what anyone here does as far as ammo. (Heck, it's potentially money in my pocket, defending someone who gets themselves in a fix on this issue - not that I don't have plenty of work.) I'm saying is that Mas' concern is cogent and that he's gracious to be concerned and to make a recommendation.

2. It did come up in court in a case that Mas worked (the GSR issue).

I think that I'm done with this. Happy Easter, amigos.

I have the opposite concern. I like factory Winchester ammunition, but I want to carry it in my home built Gov't model clone.

Kentucky's CCDW allows me to carry nunchuks and shurikens, so a home built pistol shouldn't be a problem.

For the record, I have never carried either nunchuks, or shurikens. When my leg was sore from an injury, I did use a cane sword, but it was the only cane I had handy at the time.

I recently cast some 452423s, so it will be tempting to load and carry some of those in my 625-8. If I do, I won't lose any sleep over it.

^^^^^This^^^^^

__________________
WWSSD?
What would Skeeter do?

What gun rag writer did you get your info from?

I see this **** repeated on every forum. It is an urban myth that just seems to get all the arm-chair experts excited enough to type without the caps key on.

I don't think we disagree. I think of cast lead solids as being a bit harder than soft lead round balls. Driving a hard cast lead bullet through an attacker is little better than shooting them w/ ball ammo IMO. While I know any HP has limitations, it is why we test them, I would still choose what I have show. If it doesn't expand, it drives deep w/ a flat meplate. If it does expand, it causes a larger wound for faster blood loss. A full WC has a certain merit, but then so does a LHP.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I should mention that I DO carry handloads in a PD gun......every August when I go huckleberry-picking in the mountains here in NW Montana near my home, griz country, I carry a 4" 500 S&W loaded with a factory-duplication load simulating the Cor-Bon 440grainer. I load a Cast Performance 440gr. GCSWC over a maximum load of W296, consider that my griz load. I also carry pepper spray. I've not had to use either, and hope that I never will, I'd hate to shoot such a magnificent animal.

I've enjoyed this thread. Definitely lots of varying points of view. I think it is true that a given case is going to turn on factors other than the specific type of ammo used in 99% of instances, but my experience also teaches me that it isn't the easy cases that go to trial, those get resolved before reaching that point, it's the real tough/close ones, and that's where you don't want to have that one little factor that tilts the scales in the opposite direction.

Happy Easter and I will pray that none of us ever have to experience any of these lessons first-hand.

I think we just found out the main problem with you then! You live in a state that spawned Max Baucus! DUH on the rest of us!

cp1969, With all due respect, IMHO you are VERY ill informed......

With regard to what?

I guess there must be others than Massad Ayoob writing and talking about it.

As I mentioned in another thread once before, I think that we should see the transcript of what the prosecutor in this one case said, and what other prosecutors in other cases have said, about the ammunition used in any kind of self defense case....specifically any case in which one of the issues were handloads. Transcripts are available....in fact, if someone will give me the citation, I WILL get the transcript and post it after scanning it....the page numbers and the citation would be very helpful....but I worked in our DA's Office for 12.5 years prior to being elected Sheriff, I know my way around transcripts.....

One could not comment on your bullets without testing them. However, I do remm=ember that Winchester, I believe, used to manufacture a 38 Special self defense load with a 158 gr. LSWCHP bullet.

Erich, I would love to avoid those variables you are talking about. The problem is that the issue of carrying handloads for self defense has never come up. So who can guarantee me that factory ammunition will be a "safe" bet when it does? The possiblity that a person using factory ammo will become a target is just as likely, and even more so from case history. So saying that you will be safer using factory ammo is not rational, unless it's from the person that made the rumor up in the first place. And I do know you're not Mas Ayoob because he is a member here too and you can't have multiple accounts. I also believe he has more hair.

As far as Mas' case, we've beat that to death here before, and I seem to recall you were in on those beatings. His client didn't get into trouble using handloads, he got into trouble when he shot his wife and the evidence collected at the scene didn't fit the lies he told to get out of trouble. Also, as Mas was working for the defendant and his attorney, the only side of the story he presented to the reader was theirs. If you were in Mas Ayoobs place, knowing everthing you know about the case, would you swear that the defendant was telling the truth if your life depended on it? From what I've read in the original article and on the internet after Mr. Bias' recent arrest, I have no doubt that he was guilty and there is no evidence that he didn't recieve a fair trial. The reason the GSR evidence wasn't admitted was probably because it was nothing but a cheap ploy to introduce reasonable doubt to the jury and wasn't relative to the evidence against him.

Quoted from sheriffoconee:
Mas' case was supposed to be New Jersey vs. Bias, Danial (?). The defendant went through three trials and I've never known for sure which trial Mas was referring to. I also don't remember the year but I seem to recall the incident occured in the 1980s. Also, as I recall, the shooting took place in Pennsylvania if that helps your research.

fredj338, I'm not talking about hard cast solid bullets. I have a nice example around here somewhere, if I can find it and my camera I'll try and post a pic.

Well, one thin' is for sho, no one has changed the opinion of one other individual in this whole thread!

Kind of like beating a dead horse, when you see yourself doing it, by all means, DISMOUNT!

Sounds like our friend Erich has the right "idear"!

No, I haven't changed my mind about it. I'm not likely to either.

I know that the "experts" are well meaning. I just wonder if their public opinion hasn't tainted the opinion of others, those that are in the legal profession.

Not that GSR isn't a technical issue, it is, just that it would seem to me that the aftermath of the Bais or Bias case has done more to hinder than help the handloader. The issue in that case, was the impossibility of there being no GSR on the hand or head of someone that committed suicide with the evidence as presented. They didn't test the handloads because, as Ayoob states, it would be evidence manufactured by the defendant. So, the case wasn't about handloads per se.

If there had been factory ammo in the gun that Mrs. Bias supposedly shot herself with, there still wouldn't have been any GSR residue because she didn't shoot herself, and so stated the jury.

So, I'll hope I don't get struck by lightning! (So to speak!)

I agree, in a "perfect world" but, would make an additional point. From being on juries repeatedly, on cases brought by local AGs, I would like to point out something mentioned in passing here by at least one practicing lawyer. That is, AGs are elected officials everywhere I know about. In my experience, they can and do sometimes bring some VERY dubious cases to court. In my personal experiences on juries, these can be so blatant as to result in quick jury decisions AGAINST the AG. In recent years, my opinion of AGs has been dropping steadily, based on these jury experiences.

I keep trying to use these experiences to keep me off juries where the case presented during jury selection reminds me of these shoddy performances by AGs. So far, this has only resulted in defence lawyers insisting on me being on jury.

IF ya gotta get dragged into court, may the AG's case be of the quality noted above.

Niklas

Reading the posts on this subject I think that when the legal system is considered most are thinking Criminal Court.
The big problem, even after a shooting deemed justified, may well be in a Civil Court. The less ammunition that you can give the *victim's* family's lawer(s) the better.

__________________
In dog years I'm dead.

'At's why I want to move me and the family to Texas! If I make it through the shooting and it was justified, no Civil charges can be brought either!

I'm sayin' that's the way things ought to be!

I rationalize what will be my statement should it ever happen that I pull the trigger and have to worry about this.

You see, I mean for my bullets to kill what it is they hit. Period. I want whatever I shoot to be the most deadliest thing I can have. Once I have to make the descision to defend myself or someone else, I think it is largely irrelevant what the projectile was.

I have a load for my 357 loaded as three seperate 66 grain Wadcutters stacked inline. They punch three holes in a perfect centered triangle. I did this to avoid penetration in my home, and they worked nicely out of my 66.

That being said, I now load 158 grain hollowpoints for that weapon. They happen to be factory, as I just have not gotten around to finding any primers in the last few years.

I load Black Talons in my 44.... And Ranger SXT in my other handloads. Gold Dots and XTPs....

A case could be made that handloads are meant to kill. Another can be made that hollow points are more deadly. A solid lead wadcutter could be said to be deadly in yet another manner. In New Jersey, I am fairly certain you cannot use hollowpoints at all for SD.

It all comes back to the circumstances of the shoot. "Yes, I meant to kill to defend myself against an imminent threat of great harm." I used a tool purposefully meant to do so.

GSR testing is only a tool that might help if there is a question about a shooters statement about how an incident happened.

Factory ammunition is no better than handloads because there are no factory loads that can't be taken apart and tampered with. Most of the brass and bullets used in factory ammo is available to the handloader too, so no matter what you claim you had in the gun, or what kind of box you wrote on claiming it's what was in the gun, once it's been fired there is nothing that will tell you exactly what that load was, or wasn't.

And I've never seen a civil suit based on the fact that a low life cretin was killed with too much force when he was justifiably killed in the first place.

Maybe I should be an expert witness, or am I too honest?

That was the point in the famous case noted by the experts. There was no GSR on the Mrs. The handloads that were supposed to have been used couldn't be tested because the "evidence" had been manufactured by the defendant and hence the problem with handloads for self defense. Paul's testing clearly proves that had the firearm been held by the Mrs. in the manner described there would have been GSR on her. If she had been shot from across the room, there would have been none or so little that it could have gotten missed.

Guess what? There wasn't any GSR according the article and court documents.

The jury simply didn't believe that she could have shot herself and not left GSR. Personally, I don't either, no matter how light the load was.

Then again, I'm not an expert witness either!

Most people assume the methods used by law enforcement are valid methods. That may or may not be true.

Once was the time when people were jailed on the basis of bullet chemistry, where it was assumed all of the cartridges in a box were identical. It later became known that as many as 4 or 5 different lots could be in a single box of factory cartridges.

Here's the article that debunks that whole concept.
Forensics on trial: chemical matching of bullets comes under fire | Science News | Find Articles at BNET

If there can be that many different lots in a single box of factory cartridges, could there also be numerous lots that have different powder in them, which would also affect the GSR? Of course, as Skip noted, there wasn't any GSR in the Bias case to check.

Quoted from Smith Crazy:
Skip, that was my point.
While it is possible to have no GSR on a suicide victim, there would be evidence showing why. Apparently there was none in the Bias case just as there was no evidence that showed Mr. Bias was telling the truth. Duplicating what really happened isn't hard to do, but trying to fabricate results based on deception can be a real chore, no matter who you are.

He was found guilty of intentionally murdering his wife and that decision was overturned on appeal. He was then found guilty of unintentionally murdering her and that decision was upheld when appealed. Had the higher court shown that there was not enough evidence to show he was the one that killed her, the prosecutor would have only been wasting his/her time and money with another trial. If I was a betting man, I'd say that the higher court overturned it only because the state couldn't prove intent.