Self defense bullets

[hambam105]

Such a cogent argument...not.

Trump's Russian colluuuuusion.

Critical thinking has passed you by. Hope you didn't pay for a class in that. Have a good day.

I am still waiting for you to show your critical thinking proof of your statement that you made first. On the other hand, my assertion that State & Local LE shooting policies prohibit the use of handloads for duty purpose is what is known in Realitiy World as 'Common Knowledge', more or less depending on if you attended public school or not. You See Beserkely not withstanding.

MA knows more about firearms related issues than you do and yet you insist on throwing rocks. How much did you pay to learn that, or do you just dispense with the ilk for free? Good Day.

[Lead Waster]

I think it makes sense for Law Enforcement to prohibit handloads for the following reasons;

1) Taxpayers are paying for ammo, so why bother with handloads?
2) Uniformity of ammo across the department. Everyone shoots and qualifies with brand X factory ammo. When you draw ammo from (wherever), it will be brand X and we know you can shoot with it.
3) Probably liability issues, and possibly police union influence as well. They want known ammo from a known manufacturer, with deep pockets in case a round malfunctions and the cop wants to sue, or if a suspect is shot and they want to sue the police and gun and ammo manufacturer
4) It's just simpler


However, individuals do have to deal with ammo cost.

Some more research shows that hollowpoint bullets are mostly for accuracy and competition purposes rather than defensive purposes... for which the specialized bullets that were previously mentioned (XTP, etc) are available.


I think it would make sense that if the bullets are available, as well as factory rounds using that bullet, that buying the factory rounds for SD would be well complimented by loading up the same bullets, with an attempt to match velocity in handloads for practice would be a good setup. You can test functioning of the bullet profile in your chosen SD weapon, as well as similar shooting characteristics with the clone rounds, and keep the factory rounds in your SD magazines.

[bigbossman]

He can't state a single case where a good shoot became a bad shoot hinging on ammo used...and neither can you....

This is pretty much the point on which this discussion hinges.

If using hand loads caused extra/additional liability, then there should be demonstrable proof of that in the form of past legal judgements..... no?

Until someone can point to at least a single case "where a good shoot became a bad shoot hinging on ammo used", then the argument purporting that using hand loaded ammo will incur extra/additional liability does not hold water........ all the appeals to authority, straw-men, ad hominem attacks, and red herrings aside.

[jglabe]

This is pretty much the point on which this discussion hinges.

If using hand loads caused extra/additional liability, then there should be demonstrable proof of that in the form of past legal judgements..... no?

Until someone can point to at least a single case "where a good shoot became a bad shoot hinging on ammo used", then the argument purporting that using hand loaded ammo will incur extra/additional liability does not hold water........ all the appeals to authority, straw-men, ad hominem attacks, and red herrings aside.

Yep..... hard to argue with that. But I guess some people like to argue. So, I am sure someone will come along with more ad hominem attacks and straw-men arguments shortly....

[Deedle]

If using hand loads caused extra/additional liability, then there should be demonstrable proof of that in the form of past legal judgements..... no?

There are assertions that such has been an issue in trials, and those assertions were made by people who are in a position to know. Overcoming legal issues generally means lawyer money. Also, not all legal actions go to trial, settlements are not uncommon.

I think requiring someone to actually be convicted due to this is too high a bar to determine whether it's "a good idea" or not.

Just my $0.02, I'm not an expert like Ayoob is ....

[Lead Waster]

I think I'd say this;

Lawyer: Why did you feel the need to handload ammunition? Are you some sort of gun nut waiting for people to shoot?

Me: Because California made it expensive, difficult and onerous to purchase factory ammunition. No, I'm not a gun nut, but I needed ammunition to defend myself and this was how I was forced to provide it.

// rant over

[JagerDog]

I think it makes sense for Law Enforcement to prohibit handloads for the following reasons;

1) Taxpayers are paying for ammo, so why bother with handloads?
2) Uniformity of ammo across the department. Everyone shoots and qualifies with brand X factory ammo. When you draw ammo from (wherever), it will be brand X and we know you can shoot with it.
3) Probably liability issues, and possibly police union influence as well. They want known ammo from a known manufacturer, with deep pockets in case a round malfunctions and the cop wants to sue, or if a suspect is shot and they want to sue the police and gun and ammo manufacturer
4) It's just simpler


However, individuals do have to deal with ammo cost.

Some more research shows that hollowpoint bullets are mostly for accuracy and competition purposes rather than defensive purposes... for which the specialized bullets that were previously mentioned (XTP, etc) are available.


I think it would make sense that if the bullets are available, as well as factory rounds using that bullet, that buying the factory rounds for SD would be well complimented by loading up the same bullets, with an attempt to match velocity in handloads for practice would be a good setup. You can test functioning of the bullet profile in your chosen SD weapon, as well as similar shooting characteristics with the clone rounds, and keep the factory rounds in your SD magazines.

Not a bad plan, though I might argue the "simpler" aspect. What could be more simple than loading a few more rounds of what I'm already loading?

Bullet profile being a major factor in digestibility, loading "practice" rounds with the same projectile increases the population used to gauge digestibility. This is a positive.

In reality, anyone who thinks shooting a "BG" with a GDHP loaded by yours truly will exact different legal ramifications tha shooting a "BG" with a GDHP loaded by Speer isn't thinking very well. I don't care if God himself said so. If, God forbid, I ever have to shoot someone, whether I used handloads mimicking factory "LE style" rouunds would be the least of my worries. If asked what ammo I used, the answer would be "what was in the gun at the time".

Capricious arguments that LEA's don't permit handloads as carry ammo or possibly even practice ammo on their range or in their guns is a non sequitur. Not a single mfg. warrants the use of handloads period, so an agency authorizing their use in their firearms would be transferring that liability unto themselves so that an individual officer could handload ammunition they have zero control over the quality of. That wouldn't make business sense. It has nothing to do with "OMG, we might get sued because LEO Bill made super deadly rounds identical to our issued rounds".

There MAY have been an argument when JHP's were relatively new and their use not widespread. Some would have wanted to use the Geneva convention as the baseline. But nowadays, every agency issues JHP (or equivalent function). JHP's are synonymous with handgun SD ammunition.

I'll make Hamster a deal though (since he wanted me to put my money where my mouth is). If, in 30 days, he can find any adjudicated case where the use of handloaded commercial style ammo played a significant legal role to the detriment of the shooter, I'll donate $100 to CGF. If he can't, then he has to donate the $100 to CGF.

[hambam105]

Lawyers will sue over anything, right. So why give them more material to hang you with? The topic of ammo selection by itself doesn't prove or disprove a good or a bad shooting. Improper ammo selection, especially combined with missing, is grounds for a Negligent shooting but is a bit off topic.

Handloads may very well be used in a Civil court as additional circumstantial evidence that the shooting was premeditated. True, there may be 1,000 more examples, but why give them one?

Who is on the civil jury. Where do they get their information? That's right. Opra and from Travis Bickel. (movie, Taxi Driver.) Travis was honking around with ammo. And so are you. Get it?

The yahoo who shot the kid in Florida, what's his name. Do you think his case would have been helped or hampered if he had been using his own loads? How long do you have to think about that one. Geeze. Enough with the pseudo English Professor Forensic Debate Prowse.

Reloading as hobby, to save money, to learn about ballistics first hand, fantastic! Those are all legitimate activities. Dispense with ill conceived advise on where to use them is not good.

[Deedle]

Lawyers will sue over anything, right. So why give them more material to hang you with?

The topic of ammo selection by itself doesn't prove or disprove a good or a bad shooting.

Handloads may very well be used in a Civil court as additional circumstantial evidence that the shooting was premeditated. True, there may be 1,000 more examples, but why give them one?

Who is on the civil jury. Where do they get their information? That's right. Opra and from Travis Bickel. (movie, Taxi Driver.) Travis was honking around with ammo. And so are you. Get it?

Jack Reacher (One Shot) opens with the mass shooter operating a reloading press. Will it cause legal headaches that translate to $$$ or worse if the worst happens and you were using your handloads? Possibly, at least a few experts say it has happened. Is that enough to worry YOU? Up to you, like the girls in SEA say.

One for instance from Ayoob is a situation in more than one actual case where GSR was used to provide evidence of the range the shooting occurred at. Since the ammo that may (or may not) be still in the gun is evidence, according to him the lab nerds will test with some other factory ammo for comps since the legal eagles will not allow "destruction of evidence" by lab shooting the handloads. Are their comps similar to your handloads? If you're shooting Hornady ammo then they can get a box of the same stuff, but you weren't, so they can't. Good luck, maybe it will work out.

Has it ever got anyone convicted? I dunno. Would that sort of thing coming up cost some hours of lawyer time in both the criminal and civil trial? Mas says it took time, and I know that with lawyers, time is money. It's not worth it to make problems for myself but each person has to make their own choices.

[bigbossman]

I'll make Hamster a deal though (since he wanted me to put my money where my mouth is). If, in 30 days, he can find any adjudicated case where the use of handloaded commercial style ammo played a significant legal role to the detriment of the shooter, I'll donate $100 to CGF. If he can't, then he has to donate the $100 to CGF.

Well, now. Things just got interesting.......

Do you accept the challenge..yes, or no?

[JagerDog]

Jack Reacher (One Shot) opens with the mass shooter operating a reloading press. Will it cause legal headaches that translate to $$$ or worse if the worst happens and you were using your handloads? Possibly, at least a few experts say it has happened. Is that enough to worry YOU? Up to you, like the girls in SEA say.

One for instance from Ayoob is a situation in more than one actual case where GSR was used to provide evidence of the range the shooting occurred at. Since the ammo that may (or may not) be still in the gun is evidence, according to him the lab nerds will test with some other factory ammo for comps since the legal eagles will not allow "destruction of evidence" by lab shooting the handloads. Are their comps similar to your handloads? If you're shooting Hornady ammo then they can get a box of the same stuff, but you weren't, so they can't. Good luck, maybe it will work out.

Has it ever got anyone convicted? I dunno. Would that sort of thing coming up cost some hours of lawyer time in both the criminal and civil trial? Mas says it took time, and I know that with lawyers, time is money. It's not worth it to make problems for myself but each person has to make their own choices.

Yes. MA's "iconic" case where they were trying to determine who the shooter was (did the guy kill his GF or did she commit suicide). Without the requisite powder burns he was charged with her murder. But since the shells were reloads (wadcutters with Red Dot IIRC), forensics couldn't prove she would've had powder burns at available distance for her to shoot herself. The BF was released as a result. So add another "does not apply" nothingburger to the discussion. The reloads actually got him off and I'd already mentioned this "iconic" case earlier in the the thread. There's no value to me to make forensics "easy". The discussion wasn't about did you or did you not pull the trigger.

A 1000 "what ifs" and not a single case anyone can point to. Did Ham take me up on the wager? Y'all are boring. It's like you think I'm new to this. But I'm exhausted too from watching all the Olympic grade mental gymnastics.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. If y'all are so concerned about "getting sued for anything" y'all might wanna stay indoors. Or simply get an insurance umbrella like most gainfully employed people with something at risk. My policy would pay for a lot of civil lawyering, it's cheap and it covers me for a whole lot more than some "what if I shot someone with reloads made by the Devil".

[hambam105]

No. I don't accept the challenge.

I don't know how to do legal research that shows the dollar amount paid for when some yahoo's stupid ideas are put into practice and then is court ordered to pay money for the damages he created by implementing his unsafe activity.

Do you know how to do legal research? If so, please explain how you do it.

And while you are explaining things, please explain why some people insist on putting themselves on the image side of movie psycho idiots futzing around with ammo. Why do some painstakingly ignore and marginalize the importance of ammo selection that professional private & public LE agencies use where such rules explicitly prohibit home rolled ammo for duty use? Is not there a clue somewhere in there? Obviously not.

I get it. Let us make hamster bets. Just ride the rules of inductive & deductive reasoning like a merry go round carnival ride.

Speaking of advise,
Just as M.A. said in the first day of lecture, and I do paraphrase, 'It will be explained to them by gang members in the shower room at Rikers Island.'

[hambam105]

Attention Underwriting.

Or simply get an insurance umbrella like most gainfully employed people with something at risk. My policy would pay for a lot of civil lawyering, it's cheap and it covers me for a whole lot more than some "what if I shot someone with reloads made by the Devil".

There is risk, and there is putting yourself needlessly at risk. Good luck to you.

[Deedle]

There is risk, and there is putting yourself needlessly at risk.

I agree. Scuba diving is risky, but I really enjoy diving so I do it. I also do everything I can to mitigate my risk including things like never renting equipment and only taking dives I'm comfortable with. Riding a motorcycle is risky, but I do it, while doing what I reasonably can to mitigate the risks.

Choosing SD ammo? I buy enough to shoot and have some left for carry, and then I don't worry about it until it's time to freshen the stock.

Some people like blood sausage, but it's not for me. Each to their own.

I do have a decent umbrella liability policy, seven digit life insurance, and other things I hope I never need. I'm considering a self defense insurance policy, but since I don't have a CHL in CA I'm putting it off. I may just go for it anyway though.

Different people choose different risks for different reasons. I just don't see the payoff in insisting on handloads for SD use.

[JagerDog]

I agree. Scuba diving is risky, but I really enjoy diving so I do it. I also do everything I can to mitigate my risk including things like never renting equipment and only taking dives I'm comfortable with. Riding a motorcycle is risky, but I do it, while doing what I reasonably can to mitigate the risks.

Choosing SD ammo? I buy enough to shoot and have some left for carry, and then I don't worry about it until it's time to freshen the stock.

Some people like blood sausage, but it's not for me. Each to their own.

I do have a decent umbrella liability policy, seven digit life insurance, and other things I hope I never need. I'm considering a self defense insurance policy, but since I don't have a CHL in CA I'm putting it off. I may just go for it anyway though.

Different people choose different risks for different reasons. I just don't see the payoff in insisting on handloads for SD use.

So now we move away from legal safety into personal safety? I guess the other wasn't panning out. I'm not sure how one gets charged or sued for self-endangerment.

Don't own guns as it's more likely for the BG to take them away from you or your child to shoot himself, or burglars to steal it and use it to knockoff a liquor store. I can cite plenty of "experts" who declare such. I could cite all kinds of stories where a victims gun was used against him, a child obtained or BG stole a gun and bad things happened and many more where death or injury occurred from scuba diving, motorcycle riding, etc. But I'm finding that instance where a citizen used a reload to legitimately protect himself and the reload was his undoing to be elusive. I can't even buy it for $100. Should I raise my offer?

And who "insisted" on reloaded SD ammo? I thought it was about whether it was a viable choice?

That's the problem with failed arguments one just won't let go of. They necessarily produce red herrings, strawmen, logical fallacies, etc. Critical thinking is dismissed.