Anybody use/keep less lethal ammo?

No.

Some of those "safer bullets" that Janet Reno spoke of?

Nope.

Not a fan.

At one time, way back when, I was a certified DefTec instructor. I've got experience with 12-gauge drag-stabilized beanbag rounds (turn shotguns into single-shots), 40mm Xact-impact munitions (effective in certain situations if a subject is not armed with a deadly weapon), 32 and 60 cal 40MM rubber ball munitions (useless), every stripe of OC and/or CS munitions and OC/CS w/rubber ball ("pepper ball") munitions (don't typically work outdoors), Triple Chasers, SafSmoke, Speedheat, smoke, OC and CS grenades.

37mm stuff had pretty much been phased out in the early 00's.

Unless one is actively involved in riot control (or works in a prison) situations, less lethal is not a viable option. The failure rate of LL is too high.

But, I have been out of the business for a bit. Maybe there's some great whiz-bang technology out there now that actually works.

I personally don't see an application for a citizen user. Maybe a Mk-3 or Mk-4 personal OC (in minimum 1.3% formulation).

I hear lots of people carry a .380...

I don't consider "buckshot" less lethal. I keep a handgun in the night stand and a pump 3ft from the bed loaded with "buckshot".

Interesting!

I've seen YouTube videos that showed multiple LTL rounds having no effect on some individuals. Sounds risky. I guess I worry more about my aiming under stress being less than lethal... or maybe hesitating too long take action because the last thing I want to do is kill a person. Tough stuff to think about...

My only "less lethal" ammo.
Fired red meteor Orion flare casing loaded with a Federal 209A primer and inverted AA shotcup.
That badminton birdie flies straight and penetrates 3 layers of corrugated cardboard at 12 feet.

I callef it a "stray dog stinger" intended to be used to discourage free roaming dogs from attacking pets in the yard. Never had to use one after making four in the 1970s. Talk about deterrent effect!

Of course any "less lethal" ammo could only be used under circumstances where live ammo and real gun would be considered justified.

Outside of law enforcement I don't recommend them. Law enforcement typically deploys these types of rounds in a team setting where other officers are standing by prepared to use lethal force if necessary.

Ive kept 8 shot skeet in my 12ga before, it was less lethal than the buck and slugs or expanding .223 I wanted but couldn't find to buy. Otherwise no, IF ive decided I have to use my home defense firearms, I want the most effective rounds I can get.

I do get the sentiment.....tho again IF ive got to the point where IM engaging someone(s) with a firearm, ive probably/hopefully/SHOULD have expended every other option I could think of.

DustyGmt said:

Just wondering if anybody here has a gun stowed away at their bedside or in the closet with a shot of less legal (rubber slug, buckshot, snakeshot, etc..) or if you keep it on hand for any reason?

Click to expand...

That entire concept is dubious at best. For an armed citizen, I can't think of a single benefit in this. Once you've made the decision to present a firearm, you have made a decision to threaten (and then se) lethal force. I highly doubt the legal system will go easier on you because you had rock salt in your shot shells. Lethal force is pretty much an all or nothing, binary, option. If things have gone so far south that you need your gun, then you need the right ammo. "Stinging" someone will not reduce the charges against you-especially if the situation didn't merit the use of lethal force.

Now, if you wanted to discuss OC/Pepper spay in addition to a firearm, that's whole other discussion. I carry pepper spray much more often than I carry a sidearm, but I normally carry pepper spray when I carry a firearm. (I obviously don't carry a sidearm very often.)

Old Dog said:

Nope.

Not a fan.

...OC/CS w/rubber ball ("pepper ball") munitions (don't typically work outdoors),

I personally don't see an application for a citizen user. Maybe a Mk-3 or Mk-4 personal OC (in minimum 1.3% formulation).

Click to expand...

I could see at least one application for a citizen user. Teachers. The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act has crippled any chance of ever having school safety. A high volume/high pressure pepper spray or one of those pepper spray paintball guns (I wonder if those pepper balls will shoot in a regular paintball gun) would circumvent the Gun Free School Zone Act in as much as they are (correct me if I'm wrong) not classified as a firearm. A teacher might...maybe...possibly get a chance to fire off some of those at an attacker which might...maybe...possibly force him to retreat-at least momentarily. At a minimum, a teacher couldn't be prosecuted for having one, but I'm sure he or she would lose her job if it were to be discovered. But other than that, yeah I agree. No real use.

Isn't that a conflict in terms? I have no need to less lethal. Isn't that the point of ammo, to be lethal?

No...If I am going to point it I better be prepared to use it and take out the threat. You may just tick the threat off and make your life worse with one of those so called safe rounds.

Unless you count bird shot, no.

No!!!!

Well, I do own handguns, does that count?

DustyGmt said:

Just wondering if anybody here has a gun stowed away at their bedside or in the closet with a shot of less legal (rubber slug, buckshot, snakeshot, etc..) or if you keep it on hand for any reason?

Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not.

But a good question.


DISCLAIMER: You asked for "...conclusions you've made or advice you may have". I am not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be one after having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Therefore my comments fall under "personal opinion" and if you add a dollar to that about all you'll be able to get is a cup of coffee at McDonalds. And the statutes I cite here will be within my own jurisdiction (South Carolina). Please refer to your own jurisdictional statutes.


When it comes to firearms, the law doesn't make a distinction (at least in my jurisdiction) between "deadly force" and "less lethal force". If I were to draw a gun on someone, EVEN IF IT WERE EMPTY, then I could potentially be in a world of hurt.

SC 16-23-410. Pointing firearm at another person.

It is unlawful for a person to present or point at another person a loaded or unloaded firearm.

A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than five years. This section must not be construed to abridge the right of self-defense or to apply to theatricals or like performances.

PLEASE NOTE: The statute above makes absolutely no distinction between ammunition types and instead very clearly states only the two possible conditions the firearm can be in: loaded or unloaded.


ALSO, while SC 16-23 does not define what "deadly force" is, there are other statutes which cover the applicable use of this. Of note is the following:

SC 16-11 (Crimes and Offenses) under Article 6 (Protection of Persons and Property Act). SC 16-11-430 (Definitions) (2) "Great bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ. And under Section 16-11-440 (Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.) can be found the following:

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:


So, from a legal standpoint in SC, if you draw a firearm to someone LOADED OR UNLOADED, the presumption is that you are presenting deadly weapon and therefore the threat of deadly force as a minimum, whether used or not.


FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT:

I would not choose "less lethal force" ammunition for my firearms for a number of practical reasons.

1. If I am reaching for my firearm, then it's because I believe I am in imminent danger of death of serious bodily harm. To that end, I am interested ONLY in the application of maximum possible self-defense measures until that threat ends. I'm not interested in defending myself from my attacker(s) with anything less.

2. If I truly do not believe I am in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that "less lethal force" is required, there are any number of other means I may seek to use. I may seek to escape, to employ CS or some similar chemical defense, call for help, maneuver to a more defensive position/posture, make preparations to draw my weapon, etc.

3. Using my firearm as a "less lethal force" applicator necessarily means a couple really dangerous issues. First is that if the weapon is loaded for "less lethal force", then I have effectively eliminated my firearm from it's primary purpose of existence, which is to protect my life. Second, it adds a serious potential complication of finding out that the "less lethal force" option I THOUGHT I had when I grabbed it was really a "totally lethal force" option because it wasn't loaded the way I thought it was. In other words: don't mix the two when it comes to firearms.


"Less lethal force" options SOUND nice...but the legal and practical realities are often not what people think they are.

READ YOUR JURISDICATIONAL LAWS and see what they ACTUALLY say and learn what they ACTUALLY mean. Quite often, "less than lethal" is not what people think it is and a poor time to find this out is in front of a judge and jury.

And certainly "less lethal force" isn't very consoling to yourself in the hospital on life support or to surviving family/friends at your funeral. Your primary purpose when attacked with deadly intent is to survive...not be nice to your attacker.

Well... getting sued isn't my idea of a good time. Going to jail for bean bagging someone that can convince a jury that they were lawfully in my house sounds like actually a very bad time, so... no, no I do not.

If you’re going to get sued, you’re going to get sued. It doesn’t matter if they live or die. Most laws say that you have the right to defend and protect yourself and your family, especially if they are already in your home. If someone has made it into your home, they are in the wrong, plain and simple. You can sue me all day long on these facts. Not your responsibility to administer a psychological profile to determine what their frame of mind is at that point. If you choose to use LTL, and it’s enough to scare him/her/it away, that’s your choice. They’ll probably be back again sometime. I’ll stick with real ammunition for my defense and keep the incident isolated.

I have a whole driveway full of rocks & an old wrist rocket slingshot if I'm wanting to play around. If I pull my carry firearm out of my holster it is because I believe my live is in danger so I'm not going to be shooting any less deadly rounds.

DustyGmt said:

Just wondering if anybody here has a gun stowed away at their bedside or in the closet with a shot of less legal (rubber slug, buckshot, snakeshot, etc..) or if you keep it on hand for any reason?

Just interested in hearing a case for or against such a practice, I kind of know where I come down on it, last thing I want to do is be forced to pull up a gun to defend myself and am of the opinion that once (at least for me) I have brought a gun into the equation, I need to be able to quickly be able to end the fight and while you might very well be able to do that with a less lethal ammo type, you could just as well be signing your own death warrant. To me it's a nice thought and I have some on hand, but tbh the reason I bought them (rubber 12ga slugs) was because I had a couple very ballsy and brazen black bears around the place but I've wondered at times if it might be charitable to have a less lethal ammo on hand, maybe not in the magazine or tube, but perhaps on the butt cuff or shell/cartridge carrier for someone who poses an immediate threat but maybe doesn't have all their mental faculties or is a lil lost or confused but posing a threat or aggression all the same....

I'm thinking of scenarios where somebody who may possibly be mentally ill or have dementia or some other impairment, I'm specifically thinking of a scenario where last year my sister had someone enter her home and talk to her kids while she was showering and didn't even know they'd (whoever they are) came and went without my sister even knowing until my young nephew filled her in some time afterward, or more recently there was a young woman who posted a video of herself dancing in a Tik Tok video and all the sudden she is startled by someone walking into her home and asking "are you my friend".

I know it's impossible to anticipate all the various scenarios so I stick to the old tried and true threat stoppers, ask questions later kind of philosophy, but I can't help but wonder from time to time if a less lethal type of projectile that allows you to incapacitate somebody (hopefully), might be a worthwhile consideration.

I'm expecting most people are going to advise conventional lead projectiles designed stop/incapacitate and/or kill the lethal threat are necessary since you're reacting to the threat and don't own the initiative so you're already behind the 8 ball and need every advantage you can get......

That's just a few of my thoughts on it, but I figured I'd open it up for anybody who's considered this and the conclusions you've made or advice you may have.

Click to expand...

I own a few boxes of "less lethal" 12 gauge ammo.

It was bought for the very unlikely chance that I needed to stop a crowd at dangerclose ,but had no reason to need them deceased.

YES, it is hard to imagine that scenario ----- but better to have and see a need than to not even own.

And besides that do a GREAT job of scaring away critters that you dont want to kill.