We got a really watered down version in 2007. The real deal, with Stand Your Ground, was a couple years ago . . .
Missouri Concealed Carry & Castle Doctrine: What to Know
Missouri Concealed Carry & Castle Doctrine: What to Know
Why Is It Taught Not To Use Reloads For Self Defense?
- Thread starter s1mp13m4n
- Start date
- Status
I'm curious as to how a prosecutor or investigator would know if you used reloads or factory ammo if you had to use force for defense. When I load my self defense bullets, I do go the extra mile. I use new brass usually nickel just to make sure if doesn't get mixed in with others. I do hand weigh every charge and load each one individually instead of my Dillon progressive press. When I load up a bullet I am trying for defense, I don't think many people would know if the bullet is factory or reload. I think it would be pretty stupid in case that situation presented itself to proclaim "boy those bullets I loaded really did a job on him!"
OP
s1mp13m4n
Member
I was wondering the same thing. How would they know if you used reloaded ammo or store bought “hyper” ammo? If you used a revolver and tossed the brass compared to a semi-auto throwing the brass everywhere. What I am gathering from all of this is that the idea was based on opinion, fear, story out of context, etc and not science.
gman51
Member
Unless you tell them you used your own reloads then how would they know? If you are just reloading spent factory stamped ammo then a reload doesn't look any different than a manufactured round. I don't believe whether reloaded ammo was used would even be considered in most cases.
I am going to make a really wild guess and say most criminals haven't used reloads when they committed their crimes.
I am going to make a really wild guess and say most criminals haven't used reloads when they committed their crimes.
The Norseman
Member
Trump
Who ever concocted the "Do not use Reloads for Self
Defense" is not wise. As usual Fake News.
I can tell you this, if the Day comes that I have to save
my Life or someone elses, I'll use what I have (all I have
is Reloads). Hell, it might not even be a Gun used, it could
be the Axe behind/by the Basement Door.
This is one of those Threads I'm getting Stupider the more
I read it.
Wow, I'm sorry, got that off my chest, yikes.
This Box is Red for a reason.
Who ever concocted the "Do not use Reloads for Self
Defense" is not wise. As usual Fake News.
I can tell you this, if the Day comes that I have to save
my Life or someone elses, I'll use what I have (all I have
is Reloads). Hell, it might not even be a Gun used, it could
be the Axe behind/by the Basement Door.
This is one of those Threads I'm getting Stupider the more
I read it.
Wow, I'm sorry, got that off my chest, yikes.
This Box is Red for a reason.
Attachments
bigggbbruce
Member
I have no problem identifying reloaded ammo..
Let me toss in my two cents. I have been reloading for about 43-44 years. In that time frame, I have never had a squib round or an ammunition failure. That being said, I don't want the next round I fire to be the first squib round or failure to fire. Should my time come because my ammunition failed, I want my estate to be able to go after the manufacturer.
One of the biggest lessons that I learned in college is that in America, anyone can sue anyone for anything, regardless of their chances of winning. Should I be unfortunate enough to have to fire in self defense, I don't want to give any attorney (be it prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer in a civil suit) an opportunity to exploit against me.
While there may not have been a successful case where a person was either prosecuted, or had a civil judgment against them, because they used handloads, I don't want to be the first one to lose! As long as I can afford to spend $20-30 every year or three for a box of factory loaded self defense ammo, I will purchase it in the name of cheap insurance.
One of the biggest lessons that I learned in college is that in America, anyone can sue anyone for anything, regardless of their chances of winning. Should I be unfortunate enough to have to fire in self defense, I don't want to give any attorney (be it prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer in a civil suit) an opportunity to exploit against me.
While there may not have been a successful case where a person was either prosecuted, or had a civil judgment against them, because they used handloads, I don't want to be the first one to lose! As long as I can afford to spend $20-30 every year or three for a box of factory loaded self defense ammo, I will purchase it in the name of cheap insurance.
Last edited:
Four reasons:
(A) Aforementioned "extra deadly ammunition" argument
(B) There's really nothing to be gained besides saving a couple bucks
(C) Gunshot residue testing will be thrown out, on the grounds that since you loaded it yourself, there's no way to prove the rounds fired were remotely similar to the ones that are left.
(D) You're missing out on an opportunity to show your reasonableness by failing to use established, proven ammunition. In other words, you look a little crazy, to the uninitiated layman, for believing you can make better ammunition than what the cops use.
Do as you will, I couldn't care less. Personally, I'm quite happy to just use a well-known, long-established defensive ammunition.
This is the correct counter-argument to (D). Which is why I would just suggest picking from amongst the bigger names. Hard to find fault in selecting a defensive ammunition that's been in use for fifty or sixty years, and proven reliable and effective in that time.
Because it's not going to be "decided". There's never going to be a "precedent". It's whatever's in the jury's minds.
(A) Aforementioned "extra deadly ammunition" argument
(B) There's really nothing to be gained besides saving a couple bucks
(C) Gunshot residue testing will be thrown out, on the grounds that since you loaded it yourself, there's no way to prove the rounds fired were remotely similar to the ones that are left.
(D) You're missing out on an opportunity to show your reasonableness by failing to use established, proven ammunition. In other words, you look a little crazy, to the uninitiated layman, for believing you can make better ammunition than what the cops use.
Do as you will, I couldn't care less. Personally, I'm quite happy to just use a well-known, long-established defensive ammunition.
Walking Wolf said:
This is the correct counter-argument to (D). Which is why I would just suggest picking from amongst the bigger names. Hard to find fault in selecting a defensive ammunition that's been in use for fifty or sixty years, and proven reliable and effective in that time.
Because it's not going to be "decided". There's never going to be a "precedent". It's whatever's in the jury's minds.
Ayoob cites a case similar to what you describe save for a few significant differences. There were rounds left in the pistol, but the prosecution successfully argued against firing them as proofs, claiming “destruction of evidence.” Disregarding the shooter’s offered extensive reloading notes, the crime lab fired a factory round with the same head stamp and similar bullet, with a considerably higher velocity result. That evidence discounted the defense’s distance argument, and the defendant was convicted, although I believe it was a lesser included offense.
One of the very few points on which Ayoob and I agree is find out what your local PD issues, and buy that or as close to that as you can get. . .
One of the very few points on which Ayoob and I agree is find out what your local PD issues, and buy that or as close to that as you can get. . .
Last edited:
Let me chip in with an example from my own state. There was a shooting by an off duty LEO who claimed to have been in a life or death struggle with the deceased and shot at close/contact range.
When the state crime lab did their CSI thing, gunshot residue testing using the same brand/bullet weight ammunition did not support the claim, conviction resulted. Now, the crime lab did not use ammunition from the same lot as used in the shooting. A check of the records of the manufacturer showed that the two lots used different powders, the gunshot residue tests were invalid. Appeal reversed the conviction.
Factory ammunition will be what is used for any laboratory comparison testing. Each firearm manufacturer retains exemplar rounds from all ammunition lots for comparison testing. Their records include the date and time of manufacture, powder make, type and lot, similar information for bullets and primers and sometimes the machine the ammunition was loaded on. Their records are those of an independent third party with no interest in the outcome of any legal proceeding.
You aren't using the same powders as the factories (they're not using canister grade powders) and your records-if any-don't have the detail or provenance of the independent third party. They're likely not to be admitted in evidence.
$20-$40 bucks per year for factory carry ammo is much cheaper than what you'll be paying your attorney to dispute any discrepancies in lab results. Like several have said, don't give the other side any clubs to beat you with. Trial law is the last blood sport in the US and you'll be the one who might have to provide the blood.
When the state crime lab did their CSI thing, gunshot residue testing using the same brand/bullet weight ammunition did not support the claim, conviction resulted. Now, the crime lab did not use ammunition from the same lot as used in the shooting. A check of the records of the manufacturer showed that the two lots used different powders, the gunshot residue tests were invalid. Appeal reversed the conviction.
Factory ammunition will be what is used for any laboratory comparison testing. Each firearm manufacturer retains exemplar rounds from all ammunition lots for comparison testing. Their records include the date and time of manufacture, powder make, type and lot, similar information for bullets and primers and sometimes the machine the ammunition was loaded on. Their records are those of an independent third party with no interest in the outcome of any legal proceeding.
You aren't using the same powders as the factories (they're not using canister grade powders) and your records-if any-don't have the detail or provenance of the independent third party. They're likely not to be admitted in evidence.
$20-$40 bucks per year for factory carry ammo is much cheaper than what you'll be paying your attorney to dispute any discrepancies in lab results. Like several have said, don't give the other side any clubs to beat you with. Trial law is the last blood sport in the US and you'll be the one who might have to provide the blood.
Last edited:
Blacklion66
Member
Falls under a ounce of prevention.
Boriqua
Member
Maybe I am lucky .. or unlucky depending who you ask but .. I have fired CASES upon CASES upon cases of factory ammo over nearly 4 decades in .38, .380, 357, .45, .40 .9, 10mm, 44mag, 44 special and even a few hundred 45lc and 12 guage. Bought from all different manufacturers.
In tens of thousands of rounds I have never had one not fire.
My reloads ... I have maybe reloaded about 3000-4000 rds .. 2 fails to fire and more than a few keyholed inaccurate rounds because of a crimp that was too tight.
I just like the math best for using Factory for my SD.
Buy it .. shoot a few to make sure they work .. stick it in the closet. It may seem expensive but since you will probably go to your grave with out having to shoot anyone you only need a couple of boxes.
I still have some boxes of 9mm SD ammo from I think the early 90's sitting in an ammo can. Probably should just go shoot it. Guess I would need a 9mm handgun though!!
I swear I dont know where the myth of reloading "killer" ammo and its implications in a self defense shooting started but even before the internet it was a erroneous assumption.
I know I wont convince anyone who has made up their mind already but .. if god forbid you shoot someone in defense of yourself or a loved one within the laws of self defense in your state then the only thing that will be in question is whether you were indeed justified in using deadly force and not the manner in which you inflicted death. Stab him with a kitchen knife, hit him with a bat, scare him to death by running out of the shower nude ... doesnt matter.
Were you justified in using deadly force?
Now a Jury is made up of your peers and some of our peers are gun people and some not and some are smart and some are not and they all come with different make ups. Can/will a prosecutor, hot to convict you, use information that in the end is not relevant to try and color a juror. Of course! and once heard you cant unhear but any defense attorney worth peanuts will object every time the discussion veers from "was justifiable force used.
Let me add one more thought just for conversation .. if indeed rolling "more lethal" rounds was a deciding factor in your shooting .. couldn't then a person be faulted for using a .357 or a 44 mag instead of a 22 or 9mm because the person chose the .357 (or round of your choice) because it was reported to me MORE lethal. Of course not .. well maybe they could use it to color a juror but since there is no legislation against the use of those rounds in a self defense situation you cant be tried or found guilty of it.
So much was made about Fish and his 10mm. I carry 10mm often. It wasnt the 10mm that got him sent to jail (later acquitted) it is what flavored the news because the prosecutor wanted it to be color. If you look it up carefully there were some inconsistencies in his story and time line and his jurors had trouble with it. He was never sent to jail because he used a 10mm.
I try and keep in mind that a self defense shooting is THE LAST RESORT! If you arent sure if you are at the last resort then don't shoot. If you are .. and you know you had no choice but to take a life then what round you used is irrelevant.
I do stay away from gun doodads that speak to a militaristic mind set. A jury may see your gun in evidence 20 times. If it has punisher symbols or colorful sayings and its holstered in that extra special skull motiff holster .. well .. the jury is your peers and are human. If the shoot is close to borderline it might show a mindset but then still the question is was it a good shoot and not the doodads.
Last edited:
A legal thing...................
but if you leave the spent cases in the revolver or pistol on the floor and.......
put factory ammo in the weapon with the same weight Gold Dot
bullets.........
I don't think the cops can prove they were reloads, do you ??
Who said you need to give them the ammo you used......?? !!
Hand them a empty weapon.............
Let them chew on that...................
but if you leave the spent cases in the revolver or pistol on the floor and.......
put factory ammo in the weapon with the same weight Gold Dot
bullets.........
I don't think the cops can prove they were reloads, do you ??
Who said you need to give them the ammo you used......?? !!
Hand them a empty weapon.............
Let them chew on that...................
Good call, Muss....^^^^^
And precedent is created in the appeal.
Last edited:
You folks can do whatever you want, but I do not carry reloads for self defense. One of the main reasons given is that if your defense team has to duplicate your load for test purposes, it might be impossible. However, if you are shooting RP, WW or Federal factory, it is quite easy to match that particular lot. This data can be used to show distance, etc.
Not to say that if I am at the range or coming home and I am forced to use a reload, I would not hesitate to do so.
If you are involved, you want as many things as possible on your side and as few as possible against you.
Not to say that if I am at the range or coming home and I am forced to use a reload, I would not hesitate to do so.
If you are involved, you want as many things as possible on your side and as few as possible against you.
silentflyer
Member
Don't give the lawyers any "ammunition" to use against you, a "jury of your peers" may have members who are not firearms owners and look at you like some sort of mass murderer.
I was called for jury duty once, one of the cases on the upcoming docket was a man who had shot his wife "accidentally" with a 1911 .45, which we all know has multiple safety devices. I was rejected from the jury pool.
I was told later by a local lawyer friend,the defendants lawyers didn't want anyone on the jury that knew anything about firearms. Somehow in the legal "community" we are all considered radical "gun nuts'.....
I was called for jury duty once, one of the cases on the upcoming docket was a man who had shot his wife "accidentally" with a 1911 .45, which we all know has multiple safety devices. I was rejected from the jury pool.
I was told later by a local lawyer friend,the defendants lawyers didn't want anyone on the jury that knew anything about firearms. Somehow in the legal "community" we are all considered radical "gun nuts'.....
- Status
Similar threads
