Why are handloads not the preffered carry loads?

[roadkill45]

AZ just passed a law stating that a justified shooting cannot be brought suit in a civil court! That is what gets you, the millions in 'suffering' that the perps family is having. not no more here!!!!! heck, may even go to his funeral!
but to keep on track i only use what one of the LEO depts across the country use, usually Hornady Critical Duty right now. nice round.

 

[gm272gs]

I like factory ammunition because their quality assurance is better than mine, typically.

I had a reload in my 1911 once that went "click". After waiting the requisite time for a "hangfire", I took it out and guess what I found? No primer in the cartridge case. Yeah, what a dummy!

 

[shouldazagged]

So know your local laws, and know the local attitudes towards guns and the right to defend one's self and one's property. What would not even be cause for you to be arrested or detained in Texas or Arizona, may well get you thrown in prison in NYC or Washington D. C., Detroit, Chicago, or California.

Point taken, and Kentucky where I've lived most of my life has historically been a pretty gun-friendly state. Shall-issue, castle-doctrine, stand-your-ground.

My point is that if forced to shoot someone in self defense I would almost certainly be cleared of any criminal wrongdoing; but the endless, grinding, hugely expensive and frivolous civil suits could drag on forever and drag me down in the process. The kind of lawyer who would take a dubious case like that would know how to keep it going approximately forever, costing me endless time, expense and unbearable frustration, while my so-far good name is dragged in the mud. It can and does happen, usually without the merits of the case ever making it into open court, in hopes of forcing a settlement for the family of the "fine young man" who was trying to off my elderly derriere.

The criminal law is the least of my worries in the (please, God!) unlikely event that I have to use my gun to save myself.

 

[wrangler5]

IIRC, Ayoob's contention is NOT that handloaded ammunition will necessarily mean you get convicted as a blood crazed vigilante, but just that it gives a prosecutor and/or a plaintiff's lawyer an issue to raise to cast doubt on the validity of your defensive shot. You know, and I know, that it's a bogus issue, but Ayoob's point is that your lawyer is still going to have to spend time (and that means your money) to deal with the issue. And since YOU can completely eliminate the possibility of this issue being raised by just carrying factory ammo, that's what you ought to do.

As to reloads making a difference in being prosecuted (or not), I had an email exchange several years ago with a fellow who had been an investigator for a DA's office in one of the northern states for many years. He said

I know of numerous cases where reloaded ammo made the difference between a justifiable shooting and a criminal action in the handling of the case as well as the end result of the defender become defendant in resulting prosecution.

While that's only one guy's experience in one office, it was NOT in NY, NJ, CA or Chitown, so I suspect it's not entirely unique. Again, I don't know WHY reloaded ammo should be an issue that affects the decision to prosecute or not, but apparently it can be. So again, if you can completely eliminate this risk by just carrying factory ammo, why not do that?

 

[Triggernosis]

I agree with the above, when someone brings up the overzealous prosecutor argument, ask them to cite the case law. Ends the discussion quickly.

That pretty well sums it up right there.

 

[BearBio]

I agree with the above, when someone brings up the overzealous prosecutor argument, ask them to cite the case law. Ends the discussion quickly.

Cite case law where the argument has been made and it DIDN'T make a difference.

Attorneys are largely blood-sucking parasites (Well, many are anyway). Anything to win. I have a friend who is a Deputy DA in a LARGE city-one of the largest in the US. He's also pro-gun. He once said anyone who goes for a jury trial is a fool. It's nothing but a coin toss (He refers to his class in courtroom procedures as "Drama 101"). Where you live (what neighborhood, City and State) are going to likely be a bigger determining factor.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Seems to me, that Handloads are just as suitable as Factory for their intended purpose of self protection. What am i missing?

Massad Ayoob, a noted firearms trainer, author and expert witness for clients in various court cases, has noted cases in which idiot prosecutors have made issue of hand loaded ammo, deactivation of safety devices, and other issues that a knowledgeable gun person knows to be stupid arguments designed to confuse juries, who are equally as uninformed about firearms matters. Thus, he has counseled against the use of hand loads, removing magazine safeties from guns that came that way (Browning High Power, for example), and other things that gun owners understand, but ordinary folks do not. I think his advice is cautionary and follows the theory of "why inject an issue into an otherwise complicated case if you can avoid it?"

There are two sides to everything. For example, with handloads:

Prosecutor: you used special powder, special bullets to make your own killer loads. Factory ammo not deadly enough for you? You were premeditated by going to the trouble to make up your own killer loads. You were lying in wait to kill someone at the first opportunity.

Defense: My client handloads all sorts of shells - he doesn't kill with those. He does so as a hobby, it saves him money, he can control the load better, make better quality ammo that is less likely to have a misfire, more accurate in order to do what he can to make sure an innocent bystander is not hurt or killed (this one is easily refuted because minute of B27 is easily obtained even with the worst factory ammo), he can cast softer bullets so they expand more and are less likely to overpenetrate, making them less dangerous to bystanders, etc., etc.

With juries who know nothing, why not just remove the issue from the case by using a factory tested and proved ammo similar of the same as your local police, who are also concerned with only stopping, not killing, and lessening the harm to bystanders from over penetration, etc.

It may never come up, buy why inject a potential issue at all?

 

[LimaCharlie]

Technically and logically, there is nothing wrong with using hand-loads or shooting a bad guy in self-defense with a Barrett 50 BMG. In a court of law, you can be completely innocent and in the right and still go to jail in a criminal case or end up bankrupt and penniless for the rest of your life in a civil case.

I personally carry 100% stock handguns for self-defense and keep 100% stock long guns for home-defense. I use new factory ammo in my defense guns. I am surrounded by liberals and any jury of my peers would likely be 80% or more very liberal and have absolutely no experience with guns. I don't want to give an ambulance chaser any more excuses than possible.

 

[st regis]

I can afford a lot of factory stuff right now; but I have a ton of handloading components around....a question of economics

 

[wrangler5]

I agree with the above, when someone brings up the overzealous prosecutor argument, ask them to cite the case law. Ends the discussion quickly.

The fact that there is no "case law" to "cite" demonstrating overzealous prosecution does NOT show that it doesn't exist, for several reasons relating to the way cases are decided and reported.

First, in almost all state and local jurisdictions, the only "case law" that is available to be "cited" is an opinion issued by an appellate court. Trial court proceedings are almost never "reported" in a series of books that can be consulted and so "cited." Only if appealable issues arise during the trial (a conviction that the defendant wants to appeal, or some sort of dismissal that the prosecution wants to and is allowed to appeal) will the trial record even go out of the courthouse. And even then, only the portions of the trial record that are relevant to the issues being appealed are likely to show up in the appellate court's opinion and so be subject to review and citation by others.

Second, one of the concerns about using handloaded ammo in a defensive situation is that it is a factor which a prosecutor MAY consider when deciding whether to prosecute or not. A prosecutor's discretion in deciding which cases to bring is virtually absolute - legally, nobody can require a prosecution to be brought, and nobody can prohibit a prosecution from being brought. Even when political pressures come into play (e.g. George Zimmerman being charged in the death of Trayvon Martin when virtually all hard evidence indicated a valid self defense shooting) those factors never become part of a legal record which can be "cited." So again, even if a prosecutor does use handloads as a factor in making his yes/no decision to prosecute, that will never show up in a record.

A similar situation obtains with respect to a prosecutor using handloads as an issue during a prosecution. It is extremely unlikely that that issue will come up in a way that raises a LEGAL issue which can be appealed - in a criminal trial, juries decide issues of fact and the court (judge) decides issues of law. Only issues of law may be appealed. So, again, it just isn't likely that the issue of handload use in a defensive shooting will be something that works its way into an appeal, let alone into an appellate opinion.

There's a scene near the end of the movie Casino where 4 old Mafia dons are talking among themselves during a break in their trial for racketeering (or some such.) The topic is whether to have the character Andy Stone (based on Teamster lawyer Allen Dorfman, played by Alan King) killed to be sure he doesn't turn state's evidence. Although Stone is a Jew and not an Italian, 3 of 'em gush about his loyalty and reliability. But the last one says "look, why take a chance?", which seals Stone's fate (executed in a parking lot, as was Dorfman.)

That's the thinking behind carrying only factory ammo. Why take a chance?

 

[wrangler5]

I can afford a lot of factory stuff right now; but I have a ton of handloading components around....a question of economics

I try to choose carry ammo for which I can get the same bullet as a component. I reload to duplicate the carry ammo, and use the reloads for practice. But I CARRY the factories. Shoot and replace a magazine or cylinder of factory stuff every year or so, which is a small expense in the overall scheme of things. Economize on the practice ammo, which is where the volume of shooting should be anyway.

 

[Erich]

a myth, mostly perpetuated by Ayoob and his lawyer friends

Hey! I'm one of Mas' lawyer friends, and I will sometimes carry handloads for defense.

One thing that this thread shows for darned sure: handloads can't kill a dead horse.

Here's a three-pager on the subject from not too long ago, featuring Mas himself and many of the Big Blue folks who speak well on both sides of the issue:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/183812-reloads-law.html

 

[AzRedleg]

It seems like the discussion comes down to just a couple of points:

1. Reliability: Do you trust your handloads or not? This includes both internal and external ballistics.

2. Do you live in a state where a lawyer could potentially leverage your use of handloads in a civil case?

My thoughts on point 1: I know I can load ammunition that meets or exceeds factory specification and consistency round to round in terms of accuracy and reliability (goes bang when I pull the trigger). All this being said, major ammunition manufacturers spend a good amount of research developing the external ballistics of their ammunition. This includes the terminal effect on the target. I am not equipped to test this part of the equation. I'll leave this to the large manufacturers and select one of their SD loads. I'll stay away from the small "boutique" manufactures with names like "fang face" and nonsense like this.

Thoughts on point 2: Seems like if you got dragged into a civil proceeding you probably are going to experience a good bit of financial pain whether you are using handloads or not. A good defense attorney is probably the most important investment you can make at that point. I suppose there are cases in which an aggressive lawyer for the plaintiff could make the case that some "deadly force" is somehow more "deadly" than regular "deadly force" but they would really have to be good. I mean under most law, "deadly force" is....well...."deadly." Can you get any "deader" than "deadly?" I mean seriously, even the vice president seems to advocate the use of shotguns for SD. That is about as "deadly" a weapon as a civilian is going to have access too. Maybe he forgot to leave the part out about loading it with confetti or something. Also, most SD factory loads are designed to be as "deadly" as possible. Manufacturers of SD ammunition wouldn't sell much ammo if they were not designed for maximum "deadliness," unless they are manufacturing "less lethal" munitions which is outside the scope of the argument. Seems like a good defense attorney could easily dodge the myth of the "super deadly handload" attack by the plaintiff's attorney.

For the law enforcement officers on the forum; do any of you know of a case when an analysis was done of the cartridge used in a justifiable homicide to actually determine conclusively if it were factory loaded or handloaded?

There are plenty of licensed remanufactured ammo manufacturers around, so even these are "factory loads" utilizing partially recycled components. Seems like it would be very tough to prove a handload, loaded by the shooter, was actually used or not. Heck, many of the exact components the factories use are available to the handloader including the bullets, primer, cartridge cases, and even powder. It would be very expensive to try to go this route and actually prove a handload was utilized.

All of this seems like a really good reason for one to keep their pie hole closed until represented by competent counsel.

 

[JNewell]

Cite case law where the argument has been made and it DIDN'T make a difference.

Attorneys are largely blood-sucking parasites (Well, many are anyway). Anything to win. I have a friend who is a Deputy DA in a LARGE city-one of the largest in the US. He's also pro-gun. He once said anyone who goes for a jury trial is a fool. It's nothing but a coin toss (He refers to his class in courtroom procedures as "Drama 101"). Where you live (what neighborhood, City and State) are going to likely be a bigger determining factor.

It's impossible to prove a negative. If it was argued and didn't make a difference to the result, you are very unlikely to find any indication in reported cases. In fact, most, maybe nearly all, of these cases aren't reported anyway.

Unless I lived in TX, I'd take your friend's advice, though.

 

[rwsmith]

I'm sure that this partly....

AZ just passed a law stating that a justified shooting cannot be brought suit in a civil court! That is what gets you, the millions in 'suffering' that the perps family is having. not no more here!!!!! heck, may even go to his funeral!

I'll bet that the Fish case had something to do with that. Even if you are found innocent, defending yourself can wipe you out.