I know your not supposed to but does anyone handload their carry ammo.

[1911Tuner]

I do...when I carry my Model 13...mainly because what I want to carry in it isn't offered commercially. A simple recipe consisting of Speer's 158-grain SWCHP and 7 grains of Unique. It produces an honest thousand fps from the 3-inch barrel...recoil and blast are manageable...and because I keep it in 100-round lots, I can demonstrate that it's actually loaded to a lower power level than commercial ammunition in its class, thus negating any issues that might be raised about manufacturing some kind of overpowered super lethal "bullets" designed to blow gaping holes in the recipient causing instant death and dismemberment.

It's accurate and consistent...expands like gangbusters...and hasn't raised any red flags as far as over penetration in ballistic gelatin.

I know that it's not recommended, and I make that point whenever it comes up because I can't advise anyone to do the same...but I can make decisions for myself, and I'll take my chances.

 

[357 Terms]

fiddletown:

Please quote precident from a self defense shooting involving "handloads"

Again....Self Defense

Again....Handloads

And if you can please elaborate on the prosecutions main points. Did they think it was a bad shoot because of the fact that handloads were used or were there other factors.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Mostly I load my own. There's a couple factory loads I like better than my own.

 

[mgmorden]

I USUALLY carry factory loads, but I don't worry too much about carrying handloads. In this state it's VERY unlikely that you'll even go to trial (much less have an entire jury think you're guilty) in the event of a justified self defense shooting.

Most of it boils down to the "DA having a field day" mantra that's repeated so often on the internet with little justification. If you use handloads, or have a safety disabled (sometimes they claim on the weapon used - sometimes they claim on any gun you own), or if you listen to the wrong kind of music, or whatever, then this mythical DA is going to pounce all over you like a rabid chipmunk and convince 12 people that instead of a person defending themselves you are a cold-blooded bloodlusting murderer.

Besides - the same arguments (if they were valid and plausible - which I don't believe they are), could also be made for carrying specialty self-defense ammo. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The defendant didn't even consider REGULAR bullets to be enough for this. He specifically purchased special, more deadly ammo costing 5 times what normal ammunition would cost. This ammo is so deadly that our military doesn't even allow it to be used in the field!".

It just doesn't hold up. I disable my magazine disconnects, and I occasionally carry handloads. Besides, usually my handloads aren't some carefully honed methodically developed super-load anyways. Usually if I carry handloads it's just because I'm out of factory ammo and since I practice with only handloads, I just threw some of my practice/range ammo into the gun.

 

[willypete]

1911Tuner: Check out Georgia Arms's's's's's's's's's Speer 158 gr Gold Dot .357 magnum load. I carry it in my SP101 (2.25" bbl) and it does 1150 fps. A little faster than your 1000 fps, but not much, and it's a factory load. Also, from looking at my chrony data, it has a standard deviation of 3.38 fps. Very consistent!

http://georgia-arms.com/new357mag158grgolddothollowpointp50pk.aspx

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Please quote precident from a self defense shooting involving "handloads"...

It often happens in the practice of law that a particular issue of interest has not previously been addressed by an appellate court, and one must make a reasoned judgment without the guidance of on point precedent. Just because there is insufficient historical data doesn't mean that professionals can't make reasoned estimates about how likely a particular result might be under certain circumstance.

Relying on historical research is helpful only if there's sufficient historical data. If the question is something like, "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be charged if he used handloads compared with factory ammunition?", or "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be convicted at trial if he used handloads compared with factory ammunition?", the availability of useful data depends on (1) a large enough population of private citizens having shot someone in claimed self defense; and (2) a large enough subset of those private citizens having used handloads. I suggest that the vast majority of people who keep guns for self defense aren't enthusiasts and use stock guns and commercial ammunition. Indeed, even many of the members here, who are enthusiasts, use commercial ammunition for self defense.

In fact we have some evidence that reloads are very seldom used in self defense. Al Norris, a member here and a moderator on TFL, did some research on the subject. In a period of some 37 years in Idaho handloads were used in only 12 self defense shooting incidents. Six weren't prosecuted; apparently they were clearly justified. Six were prosecuted, resulting in six convictions -- four on pleas and two on jury verdicts (see http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388901 posts 109 and 114). In the cases that resulted in a conviction, drugs and/or alcohol was apparently also involved.

And of course we still have Bias which illustrates that it's highly unlikely that GSR test results would be admitted into evidence if handloads were used. While, Bias is not a self defense case, but the rules of evidence apply in the same way whatever the type of case.

As Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out repeatedly in his books Fooled by Randomness, the Hidden Role of Chance (Random House, 2004) and The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable (Random House, 2007), "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Taleb, a securities trader and professor at the University of Massachusetts, provides some interesting and useful insights into strategies for dealing with rare events.

Again, if you're happy that the use of handloads for self defense is legally innocuous, have at it. Perhaps you'll get to be a test case.

 

[357 Terms]

Again, if you're happy that the use of handloads for self defense is legally innocuous, have at it. Perhaps you'll get to be a test case

Then I could understand the points you make.

And only then.

 

[357 Terms]

fiddletown
"In the cases that resulted in a conviction, drugs and/or alcohol was apparently also involved."



Again...????

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

How exactly would they know its handloaded ammo anyway?

 

[357 Terms]

^^



Don't ever lie!

A good shoot is just that...a good shoot.

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

I agree with fiddletown on this. Why take a chance? You can buy one box of premium defensive ammo just to use in your carry gun or home defense gun. Why do you need to practice with the premium ammo anyway when most self defense shootings happen at extremely close range?
You can practice with cheap ammo and use the premium ammo for self defense.

 

[TIMC]

I do and will continue to do until I croak.

That is pretty much how I feel about it. I load for everyhing pretty much except for .380 and .22 so if I am carrying one of these two calibers then no; everything else yes.

 

[Owen Sparks]

How can they prove that YOU loaded it? Maybe you bought it at a gun show or got it in a trade.

 

[Dazen]

Wow just WoW, I would have never thought this would be an issue. I've never even thought of something crazy like this till i seen this post. This is stuff from the Twilight Zone.

 

[gamestalker]

I have it on good authority, my Nephew who is a prosecuting attorney, that hand loading your self defense ammunition is considered excessive and unnecessary deadly force. This is simply explained in that, hand loaded ammunition could be made to a specification that exceeds what is considered as "prudent or of normal velocity".
So in consideration of these facts, I absolutely will not use any self defense ammunition that I have not loaded my self.
Actually there are some good reasons to consider how hot we load our carry ammunition, one reason for consideration is to minimize the risk to an innocent person who may be standing behind the perpetrator, or even a wall.
Personally I don't down load my self defense ammo, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm approaching it right or wrong, it just means this is how I load for self defense. If not for some personal experiences directly related to this topic, I might feel different. Everything I've stated as a pro or con to this topic, is in my personal opinion and is neither right or wrong.

 

[357 Terms]

I have it on good authority, my Nephew who is a prosecuting attorney, that hand loading your self defense ammunition is considered excessive and unnecessary deadly force

And shooting them with factory ammo would not be with "deadly force" ?

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

I could imagine a lawyer trying to tell a jury that "this man manufactured his own super evil cop killer ammunition." If you use factory ammo, a lawyer could say "this man used the same ammunition that such and such police department uses." Which of these statements would sound better to a jury?

 

[357 Terms]

I could imagine a lawyer trying to tell a jury that "this man manufactured his own super evil cop killer ammunition."

If he shot a cop? I would have no problem with that approach.

 

[zxcvbob]

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

Some years ago Finn Aagard wrote a piece on this. He carried handloads of of a hard, but mostly lead alloy of home cast bullets driven very fast. His reasoning being that the bullet was "just plain lead" (I'm paraphrasing him) & not some special extra lethal evil bullet. FWIW

 

[rondog]

I do, because I want them to WORK!

Then there's this.....

How exactly would they know its handloaded ammo anyway?

And this.....

How can they prove that YOU loaded it? Maybe you bought it at a gun show or got it in a trade.

 

[Bobson]

I have it on good authority, my Nephew who is a prosecuting attorney, that hand loading your self defense ammunition is considered excessive and unnecessary deadly force

And shooting them with factory ammo would not be with "deadly force" ?

Exactly. How can something be unnecessarily or excessively deadly? It's either deadly or it's not. There aren't varying degrees of deadliness.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 357 Terms: Soooo much speculation in this debate and sooo very few facts.

And so much ignorance.

Here are a few facts

• That it is up to the shooter to present evidence in support of a defense of justification is a fact.
• That GSR patterns or lack of same are routinely used in establishing gunshot distance is a fact.
• That evidence regarding gunshot distance can confirm or discredit testimony is a fact.
• That GSR patterns vary depending upon the barrel length and the ammunition used is a fact.
• The rules af admissibility for scientific forensic trace evidence are facts.
• That GSR test evidence for ammunition not produced by a third party ISO qualified source will not be admissible in court is a fact.

So far there has never been a case of a "self defense" shooting where handloads were a factor in any prosecution.
The lack of data speaks volumes in regard to the fact that it isn't, nor has it ever been, an issue in a court of law.
Again; in a "self defense shooting"

To establish that, one would have to review the transcripts of every gun-related homicide case in every county court in the country over an extended period, establish which cases might be relevant, and interview every juror in each case. That has not been done. Google does not reveal everything.

Nonetheless, it is completely irrelevant to the argument. Legal precedence is not dependent in any way upon the kinds of cases about which appellate rulings are made.

There is ample precedent to enable any reasonable person to conclude that (1) if a defendant's defense of justification is dependent on whether GSR patterns either indicate critical facts or impinge upon the defendant's credibility, and (2) if the defendant used hand loaded information, (3) GSR tests of the defendant's ammunition will not be admitted into evidence and (4) the defendant's defense of justification may fail.

"The lack of data".... Let me repeat: Legal precedence is not dependent in any way upon the kinds of cases about which appellate rulings are made. As a matter of fact, the rules of admissibility for scientific forensic trace evidence for criminal trials in many states--those are the rules that will govern the admissibility of test data for ammunition--were established in a US Supreme Court ruling involving a civil trial that had to do with pharmaceuticals. Nothing to do with "hand loads".

That's the way the law works.

The other states? They use different rules, at least for criminal trials. The result would be the same, however.

 

[jerkface11]

Mr. Ayoob is the leading proponent of this theory. So far he has failed to give even ONE example of a self defense shooting where the shooter was convicted because they used handloads. Maybe we should stop ignoring the fact that he was an ammunition distributor for years.

 

[zxcvbob]

Folks are missing the point. If you use handloads, you probably will not be able to use gunshot residue (GSR) to prove that the shooting was justified. The judge won't allow it unless you somehow sneak that detail past. If you don't need to present GSR evidence, it doesn't matter. You don't know ahead of time (but for myself, I've decided that I'm unlikely to need GSR evidence to justify a shooting in my own house -- it'll either be justified or it won't and the distance involved etc. won't matter much.) How often is GSR evidence pivotal? I don't know.

The part about the prosecutor making you out to be the bogeyman is *possible*, I guess, but the prosecutor is going to do that regardless. I wouldn't worry about that angle unless you are loading something really "special" (stupid.)