Serious court + warranty question on reloads

[blujax01]

...
However, the door is also opened for ethically and/or politically motivated folks to use the home brewed stuff to raise additional issues that you really don't need during a trial for your freedom and financial well being...

...Still never happened....

What HAS happened over and over is good people being wrongly convicted in a both civil and criminal courts using a registered firearm, using "appropriate" ammunition, and using sufficient force in a life-or-death situation.

If the person carrying a firearm has a fear is being sued over things that have never happened without regard to things that have, I submit that person should not be carrying a gun in the first place.

 

[EvilBetty]

As above it's a free country.

If I was in a situation where I needed to defend myself with deadly force, and all I had in reach was a illegal M16 with a 3lb trigger with unobtainium tipped hand-loaded +P+ rounds loaded in a 500 round drum decorated in pro-Al-Qadi furniture... I'd use it and deal with the consequences later... it was that or laying down my life after all.

BUT if I don't have to put myself in that situation, if I designate an industry accepted self defense weapon with industry accepted self defense ammunition, that's one less headache for later.

Is a lot of it marketing? Of course it is. But that doesn't change the fact that most people would agree it to be the norm. And that's the one thing you don't want labeled on you in any trial... Abnormal. With label other labels are too easily attached... excessive, aggressive, protagonist, etc.

At least that's my reasoning for "conforming"... to each his own.

 

[blujax01]

To each his own indeed. I am not telling anyone else what to put in their gun.

I do take exception to others telling me that my reloads will cause a legal problem later. Or that they could cause a legal problem later.

Because reloads have never caused a legal problem in a self-defense case. Not once.

The point I keep trying to make that is being missed is that using hand loads is not a headache, has never labelled anyone in court as being abnormal (which I am but that's a whole 'nother thread!), excessive, aggressive, or a protagonist or anything else.

It has never been an issue.

It is a myth.

It has never been brought up in court.

The thought process seems to be "Well it could happen sometime in the future so I won't take a chance." Fine. Do as you will. I do not have a dog in that fight.

My issue is with those who think that it has happened or that it is an imminent threat. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.

 

[Moonman]

Remember,

If LAWYERS don't sue,

and Surgeons don't cut,

THEY DON'T GET PAID.

 

[DEG]

If you return a damaged firearm, don't you think the factories are going to evaluate the proximate cause of your problem? Get an independent 3rd party evaluation? Metal failure due to excessive pressure leaves characteristic evidence that experts can verify.

No, I don't think that at all. I believe unless the firearm is completely blown apart, the manufacture of the firearms I own will just repair and return even if they believe the the shooter was likely responsible for the damage.

Also, just because the published data has been pressure tested in their equipment doesn't take you off the hook. Where are your records documenting your QC program and the frequency with which the calibration of your scales has been certified to be within acceptable tolerances? The accuracy of your check weights if you have and use them? Documentation that you actually verified the scale setting with those weights? I really don't want to beat this to death, but this is the stuff that wins or loses cases at trial.

Actually, if it goes to court, the only thing I have to prove is that my firearm was under warranty and they did not repair it. For them to win the manufacture must prove my reload caused the problem.

 

[WR Moore]

We had a duty weapon fail. HP White did an engineering review and determined that the weapon failed due to an ammunition defect. The ammo manufacturer paid for the repairs.

It isn't rocket science or brain surgery.

 

[DEG]

Actually an engineering review is equivalent to rocket science, but they still can't legally void a warranty based on the simple fact reloads are used. They must demonstrate the reload caused the malfunction.

 

[Pigirondan]

Since my handloads consist of either a 158 grain lead semi-wadcutter over 5 grains of Unique or a 230 grain round nose lead over 5 grains of Bullseye, I am neither concerned or worried about how they will function or how they will be perceived. YMMV

 

[Glenn H]

I think that this "myth" had its origin from the days when some Police Officers, stuck with only 158 lead roundnose cartridge, would pull the bullet, or hand load, the same, to a higher velocity to get a little better performance. And then because it was brought out in court or supervisors wanted you to think it would be, reloads were painted as a possible evil thing.

There actually was an episode of Police Story back in the late 70s that had this as a plot element.

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
Or you all can do what I have done..
Go to a custom " manufacturer " and have your carry ammo made.
In my case my 10mm ammo is a 155 gr bullet at 1400fps
put up in nickel cases.
As this company is a Licensed Manufacturer I have "factory"ammo,,,
To My Specs [like Hornidy custom]

 

[DEG]

I humbly disagree. Some slimeball attorney could try to spin that in a negative light, but nobody with a shred of common sense would buy it and legally there is no support to turn what I said into a "See? This guy just wants to kill... Look at all the deadly ammo he made!" Defense will turn around and go "How deadly is a +P or +P+ Hydrashok round, or for that matter _any_ bullet, that is commercially available?"

If you are forced into a position of using a firearm against another human being, you obviously felt that life was in immediate danger and needed to stop an attack as quickly as possible. Having the most effective round possible within the confines of law (meaning no explosive or bi-metal rounds) accomplishes that.

Have you seen how horrendous solid copper bullets are? They expand to about the size of a golf ball and tears out fist fulls of meat. And they are commercially available. All I have to do is go to my local store and pay $50 for 20 of them.

I don't think you understood my point. In court words matter a lot. You didn't say you wanted the round most capable of stopping an attack. You said you wanted "the most lethal round possible." The round most capable of stopping an attack may, or may not, be the same round that is the most lethal, but that makes no difference. The difference between manslaughter and self-defense can often boil down to nothing more than your intent. It conveys two entirely different intents to say "I wanted the round most capable of stopping the attack" vs "I wanted the most lethal round" is huge. One conveys the intent to kill the other conveys the intent to stop an attack.