Why JHP?

[beatledog7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatledog7
...Once I've had to shoot an attacker, the only thing that will keep me out of jail is the jury's recognition that given the scenario in which I chose to shoot, my decision was sound and justified....

Added by GLOOB
No. The police decide if there's enough to bring to the DA. Then the DA decides if there's enough to go to trial. If you go to trial, like Fiddletown the lawyer said, you're either very unlucky (or you made a bad shoot, and you deserve to go to trial and get hung).

GLOOB,
I grant your technical accuracy, but I was writing based on the assumption that we're already in a trial. I took that approach because the thread of the argument presumed that Mr. Smith would be defending himself in court, so the police and the DA and all the players that would have a role in deciding whether the case should go to trial have already had their say.

Peace.

 

[357 Terms]

Quote

Your question has been definitively a answered by me and others In the posts I've linked to. You just don't like or can't understand the answers.

I just can't let myself take speculation as fact.

 

[GLOOB]

Chill out, guys. No need to act like someone shot your dog.

No one shot my dog. Someone said this to me, and has only backed it up with vagueries, insinuation, and non-answers.

That's up to you. You've participated in some of the threads I've linked to, and it's been clear that you haven't really understood the issues. So what?

You're free to make your choices. However, knowing what I know, having the training and experience that I have, I would not make the same choices. Have a nice life.

Now if you (edit) have actual answers, how about posting them. Specifically to 357's specific, pertinent, straightforward questions and to my own post #46.

 

[WhistlinDixie]

Hey guys, I was just wondering what people were doing with these JHP bullets. I thought conventional wisdom went against carrying reloads, and perhaps there was an advantage in competition.

I got some good answers. Apparently they can be more accurate. Some people do carry reloads. Also it's possible to reload cheaper rounds that are similar to your factory carry rounds for practice. That's good enough for me. I didn't start this so it could turn into another argument about court cases and the liabilities of using reloads for SD.

 

[357 Terms]

^^^glad we could help/confuse!

Good shooting!

 

[Bubba613]

Lawyers will typically post their scare tactics of "do what you want but no one else will be in the cell with you."
The chances of getting involved in a shooting period are pretty slim. The chances that your choice of ammo will be an issue are even slimmer. The chances that GSR will be a factor are almost miniscule.
It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

[BeerSleeper]

Getting bent out of shape over non-issues, and running wildly off topic, when certain subjects, like SD handloads come up, is what we do here.

My take on it, is that whether the legal drawbacks are real, or not, or whether they are significant, or not, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, because I spent $20 on a box of factory SD ammo, just in case. So, for $20, I don't have to worry about it.

POI/POA arguments are useless, given the circumstances of a SD shooting. Under the stress of a SD shooting, in what is surely going to happen fast, you're not slow-fire drilling the bullseye at 25 yards. If you can shoot inside of 50 MOA (that's fifty, five-zero), that's what it takes to hit a human sized target at a realistic SD range. If they're outside of that range, you're gonna have bigger problems proving SD than your ammo selection.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't the presence or absence of GSR will more than likely be allowed to be presented to the jury? Even if your expert witness isn't allowed to present tests of your reloads to establish the exact distance, the GSR will still be able to stand on its own for whatever that's worth....

Why would it be presented? How would it be presented? The significance of GSR or an absence of GSR would not be considered to be within the common knowledge of a lay jury. And without expert evidence regarding its meaning, neither the lawyers nor other witnesses could comment on it.

...you could have an expert witness testify that it's impossible for that amount of GSR to embed at a distance of 20 feet, in his expert opinion. But he wouldn't be allowed to present actual testing of your reloads...

First, it would be unlikely for any expert to be willing to testify thus. Second, without acceptable test results to backup the opinion (and how do you establish "impossible"), he'd get torn to shreds on cross-examination. Having your expert witness humiliated on the witness stand is generally not helpful to your case.

...The prosecution was allowed to do exactly that in the Bias case, despite Bias didn't use factory ammo. They presented the lack of imbedded GSR as evidence, and they presented testing of a random factory round to show the presumable distance....

No actually. The rounds tested for the prosecution were apparently Bias' handloads. Massad Ayoob explains it in his article on Bias ("Handloads for self-defense: the Daniel Bias case", pg 1):

...Danny was careful to tell the investigators the revolver had been charged with handloads. During the grand jury inquest, the following exchange came with a senior investigator on the stand:

Prosecutor: "In fact, the uh, the rounds that were uh, taken that night and the rounds that were tested were rounds that Mr. Bias himself had reloaded, is that correct?"

Sergeant: "Yes, that's correct."

However, the test ammunition taken from the Bias home and submitted to the crime lab for examination included cartridges with R-P, Remington-Peters, headstamps. The loads in the gun, and in the box it was loaded from, were all in Federal P cases.

Apparently, the handloads taken for testing were full power loads. They deposited visible gunshot residue until a distance of 50" was reached. Factory Federal 158-grain lead semi-wadcutter P would leave visible GSR at that distance or greater....

But luckily, this sloppy procedure on the part of the prosecution didn't get Bias convicted. The first trial, the one in which this evidence was offered, ended in a hung jury. Ayoob discusses how at the second trial this prosecution evidence blunted ("Handloads for self-defense: the Daniel Bias case", pg 2):

...The Public Defender's office appointed another skilled lawyer, Elizabeth Smith, to represent him in the second trial.

Seeing the devastating effects of the GSR evidence against Bias the first time around, Smith attacked the evidence gathering. She explained to me much later, "I think in the second trial, I was able to effectively cross examine Dr. Mihalakis (the ME who did the autopsy) about how the evidence was collected (and) was able to really raise doubts about the GSR issue. I don't think the second jury was convinced one way or the other about the GSR evidence." Thus, while the state was unable to show that the GSR should convict Danny, the defense was likewise unable to show GSR evidence that would have exonerated him. The second trial also ended with a hung jury....

 

[420Stainless]

I read an article (probably by Ayoob) that recommended carrying factory ammo for the reasons being argued about above, but to try and duplicate that load and performance as close as possible with handloaded components for lower cost practice. That reasoning made sense to me, so that is why I buy JHP from time to time for my self-defense practice. I also buy JHP from time to time for full power magnum revolver loads mainly because they are constructed for those high pressure loads and are widely available.

Most of my shooting is done with cast lead bullets.

 

[357 Terms]

Pour a good glass of wine fiddletown ( lets not debate Bias)

The OP is done and has had answers.......another thread

 

[Seedtick]

Hey guys, I was just wondering what people were doing with these JHP bullets. I thought conventional wisdom went against carrying reloads, and perhaps there was an advantage in competition.

I got some good answers. Apparently they can be more accurate. Some people do carry reloads. Also it's possible to reload cheaper rounds that are similar to your factory carry rounds for practice. That's good enough for me. I didn't start this so it could turn into another argument about court cases and the liabilities of using reloads for SD.

Looks to me like it's been asked and answered then.

Where is that portly chanteuse?

Seedtick

 

[LiveLife]

Any differences in POA/POI comparing roughly ballistically similar loads, factory or handloads, are inconsequential.

Correct, hence why I practice with cheaper reloads that comparably duplicate the factory JHP POA/POI.

Mottos I live by are "Holes on target speak volumes" and "Accuracy is everything".

Peace.

 

[BullfrogKen]

So, if I get your meaning right fiddletown, the issue I'd face by using hand loads surrounds Gun Shot Residue, right?

Anything else?

 

[Frank Ettin]

So, if I get your meaning right fiddletown, the issue I'd face by using hand loads surrounds Gun Shot Residue, right?

Anything else?

Exemplar testing of GSR, that is the primary issue. How often that could come up is impossible to know. We know that it was significant for Randy Willems. We know that it was an issue in a case Marty Hays was involved with.

There's the probably minor secondary issue of strange jury response -- such as we saw in Fish regarding JHPs and that Glenn Meyer studied in connection with gun type (see this article). And I have some personal experience with the sorts of factors that can influence jurors from post verdict interviews of jurors in cases I've been professionally involve in.

I know that some upstanding citizens of my acquaintance have looked at me as if I had two heads when they found out I handloaded (manufactured my own ammunition). For many non-gun people that's a very strange concept. I wouldn't want anyone with that sort of attitude on my jury if handloads were involved.

My general approach to risk management (stacking the deck in my favor) is to avoid possible wild cards (1) that aren't necessarily going to be a meaningful help to me on the street; and (2) that I don't have a good, non-technical explanation for. Things like training and good, factory JHP ammunition will help me on the street and I have a good story for. Things like handloads -- not so much.

The jury concerns are subjective. The objective issue is that if one needs to use his gun in what he believes is self defense and it winds up that expert opinion testimony based on exemplar GSR testing will be important to helping him establish that his use of force was justified, he's going to have big problems if he used handloads.

 

[newbuckeye]

My general approach to risk management (stacking the deck in my favor) is to avoid possible wild cards (1) that aren't necessarily going to be a meaningful help to me on the street; and (2) that I don't have a good, non-technical explanation for. Things like training and good, factory JHP ammunition will help me on the street and I have a good story for. Things like handloads -- not so much.

The jury concerns are subjective. The objective issue is that if one needs to use his gun in what he believes is self defense and it winds up that expert opinion testimony based on exemplar GSR testing will be important to helping him establish that his use of force was justified, he's going to have big problems if he used handloads.

So, in my non-lawyer mind, another of those "possible wild cards" to be avoided is a .44mag for CCW when a 40sw or .45 ACP will do?

 

[Frank Ettin]

So, in my non-lawyer mind, another of those "possible wild cards" to be avoided is a .44mag for CCW when a 40sw or .45 ACP will do?

A lot depends on whether a .44 Magnum is really a better choice. From what I've read and based on my training a .44 Magnum might not be the best choice for self defense, in part because the amount of recoil can slow down follow up shots. On the other hand, it might be the appropriate choice if one will be out in the wilds where a concern is animal defense.

Personally, I'll stick with my .45.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I know that some upstanding citizens of my acquaintance have looked at me as if I had two heads when they found out I handloaded (manufactured my own ammunition). For many non-gun people that's a very strange concept. I wouldn't want anyone with that sort of attitude on my jury if handloads were involved.

I know people who'd look at me like I was an evil assassin working for the Mafia if I told them I carried a concealed handgun. Or if I shot many thousands of rounds a year. Or that I spend hundreds of dollars and use vacation time to take training classes when I'm not a cop or serve in the military.

Those are all hurdles that can be addressed, including the "odd concept" of assembling your own ammunition. So let's set aside all those subjective arguments so as not to get lots in the weeds over them.


You're concerned with exemplar testing. I would assert it could still be possible to achieve some level of testing with handloads, were that necessary.

But even if I'd used factory ammunition, gun shot residue is going to be different depending on the gun used. The residue from a 2" revolver with porting is going to be substantially different than that of 8" barrel. The same can be said for a short-barreled automatic with porting vs. a 5" barrel.

How would you suggest a defendant address those disparities?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...But even if I'd used factory ammunition, gun shot residue is going to be different depending on the gun used. The residue from a 2" revolver with porting is going to be substantially different than that of 8" barrel. The same can be said for a short-barreled automatic with porting vs. a 5" barrel.

How would you suggest a defendant address those disparities?

The exemplar testing would have to be done with a substantially identical gun. Marty Hayes noted that in the post I linked to above:

...I must conduct testing with a Glock 19 and Silvertip ammunition. It is critical for the defense to show the distance from the shooter to the shootee, and that should be done with a reasonable degree of acuracy BECAUSE I CAN USE THE SAME GUN/AMMO COMBO as the shooter/defendant....

 

[Frank Ettin]

...You're concerned with exemplar testing. I would assert it could still be possible to achieve some level of testing with handloads, were that necessary....

There's no question that testing can be done. The problem is getting expert opinion testimony based on that testing into evidence if handloads were used in the event that is the subject of the trial. The rules of evidence appear to present an insurmountable barrier to putting such information in front of a jury.

• I discussed the applicable evidentiary principles at length in a number of the threads linked to in this sticky of Kleanbore's as well as this post.
  
  
• Daniel Bias was unable to introduce such evidence on his behalf. The Bias case is discussed at great length in the various threads linked to by Kleanbore, and I also write about it in this post.
  
  
• Another lawyer on this board, Bartholomew Roberts, has also commented in the various threads that Kleanbore has linked to on the problems of introducing such testimony into evidence, including in this post, this post and this post.
  
  
• Another lawyer known as Spats McGee, who is not a member here but who posts on TFL, as also commented extensively on the problems of getting such opinion testimony before a jury if handloads were used. Some of his comments from a recent TFL thread on this topic may be found here, here and here. Spats McGee also assembled this archive of TFL threads on the topic.

So the evidentiary issues with GSR testing and handloads have been pretty fully discussed.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Perhaps that would work with a substantially similar firearm, if one existed. But I would contend that the ammunition used must come for the same LOT for the results to be valid to achieve any hope of determining a distance with any degree of confidence. One of the big secrets in manufacturing is the ammunition companies can use entirely different powders from lot to lot. But most often powders are blended to achieve a similar burn rate for the powder they're looking to use.

Perhaps a company as large as Winchester can set aside batches of Winchester Silvertips for posterity. In that case it might be possible to get some rounds from the same lot. But what do we do when the rounds are made by smaller houses, like Wilson Combat? Or perhaps I bought the ammo and no longer have the box it came in; or it's so old the lot number is no longer visible; or I have two boxes from two different lots in the gun?

I may not know a lot of people who reload, but I do know a LOT of people who cannot locate an original ammo box. And given magazines that hold up to 20 or more rounds, they could very likely have ammo from different lots in their magazines.


Additionally, what do we do when the gun isn't a Glock 19, with literally hundreds of thousands of similar models made on a production line? What would be your advice if I shot a handmade 1911 from a shop like Novak's, or made by someone who is now deceased like Mr Swenson?

Couple that with some ammo made by a small house like Wilson's and I'd contend the hard science of determining exact distance based on GSR becomes a lot more vague.

By the point we start talking about lot differences, about as much confidence as I'd have in the science is to convince me that either a shot was made in close proximity or it wasn't.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...But I would contend that the ammunition used must come for the same LOT for the results to be valid to achieve any hope of determining a distance with any degree of confidence. One of the big secrets in manufacturing is the ammunition companies can use entirely different powders from lot to lot. But most often powders are blended to achieve a similar burn rate for the powder they're looking to use...

Yes, this is a potential concern. It would have to be addressed if the prosecution were to raise it as an objection to your introduction of the the opinion testimony. Perhaps testimony from the cartridge maker would help overcome those objections. Another possibility would be to conduct tests using a number of lots picked at random. That would show whether or to what extent results are sensitive to lot-to-lot variations.

If you were not able to overcome that objection, you would be out of luck and unable to put the information in front of the jury. I keep the boxes, hold back some rounds and make records when I load my magazines for self defense use.

...Perhaps a company as large as Winchester can set aside batches of Winchester Silvertips for posterity. In that case it might be possible to get some rounds from the same lot. But what do we do when the rounds are made by smaller houses, like Wilson Combat? ...

I've been told buy Massad Ayoob that major cartridge manufacturers do indeed set aside batches from each lot. This would be a common practice for a variety of business reasons, including concerns over possible product liability or warranty claims.

Whether smaller houses do or not, I couldn't say, but it's my understanding that setting aside samples is a normal practice in manufacturing. I would also wonder how many smaller houses actually make the ammunition or have it private labeled by a larger manufacturer.

And indeed the ammunition concerns you raise are valid. But they all cut against the interests of a possible defendant. They are all objections the prosecutor could raise to the introduction of the information that could help you, so you will need to overcome them to get your expert's opinion into evidence. Using handloads makes it all that much harder.

...Additionally, what do we do when the gun isn't a Glock 19, with literally hundreds of thousands of similar models made on a production? What would be your advice if I shot a handmade 1911 from a shop like Novak's, or made by someone who is now deceased like Mr Swenson?...

At least the gun used still exists (unlike the ammunition fired). That makes it possible to physically and dimensionally compare the gun used with any test gun.

I suspect that I would be able to find an expert who would testify that possible in GSR displayed by different guns, all else being equal, would arise from attributes such as barrel length, the presence of a compensator and possibly the strength of recoil spring (or in a revolver, the width of the cylinder gap).

These physical attributes could be reproduced in the test gun. If absolutely necessary, testing could be done with several similar guns. Comparison of results could show the sensitivity, or lack of sensitivity, of the results to various physical attributes of the gun or any possible differences among the guns used

...By the point we start talking about lot differences, about as much confidence as I'd have in the science is to convince me that either a shot was made in close proximity or it wasn't.

And that would be the attack a prosecutor might make when the defense in a claimed self defense case wants to use expert opinion testimony based on GSR exemplar testing to support the defendant's position.

But if you're the defendant and you really want that sort of testimony into evidence, as I and other lawyers who have commented on the question have discussed, use of handloads will itself pretty much keep such testimony away from the jury. The fact that there are a variety of other objection that could be be raised by the prosecution doesn't change that.

.

 

[BeerSleeper]

How do they ID the ammunition used?

I can buy Remington golden sabers and load 'em up in nickel plated RP brass, with a nickel plated primer, and externally, visually, they are the same. Not all factory defense ammo can be created with identical components, but I would bet this isn't the only case where it is possible.

If you're carrying factory ammo, and shoot the mag empty, how do they verify what you were shooting?

 

[massad ayoob]

Hey, fellas,

The previously cited sticky contains anything I would have said here, but to briefly recap:

From my point of view, the ability to document GSR in a close-range shooting in which distance is a key issue and the main reason (though not necessarily the only reason) to use factory for SD. As explained in the sticky, NO ONE has yet found a case where the courts accepted a reloader's words or records for what was in the handload that was fired in the case at bar. We have seen from the Bias case the "canary in the mine shaft" that tells us why this evidence probably WON'T be allowed in our defense.

As others have noted, handloading practice ammo to duplicate the factory load fulfills all economy of training/practice/competition needs. Put a couple hundred of the factory loads through the gun to make sure it works, carry same, practice with handloads: best of both worlds.

Economy? If I've saved a dollar per cartridge by loading my own, I don't want to be on the witness stand as defendant and having to answer the question, "So, a dollar is the price you put on a human life?" Battles avoided are battles won.

Yes, we all have pride in the ammo we reload. If we end up like Bias or Willems in a case where GSR replication will make or break our defense, is that pride worth the agony we put ourselves and our families through in a trial?

That's an issue to discuss with your family, not with me or Fiddletown, but the fact is that Fiddletown has given good advice here.

 

[357 Terms]

NO ONE has yet found a case where the courts accepted a reloader's words or records for what was in the handload that was fired in the case at bar.

Has there ever been a self defense shooting involving handloads where the reloader/shooters data was not accepted? Especially where there is sufficient GSR evidence.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If you're carrying factory ammo, and shoot the mag empty, how do they verify what you were shooting?

The question isn't how "they" will verify what you were shooting. If you want to introduce expert opinion testimony based on GSR exemplar testing, it's how you will demonstrate to the judge's satisfaction what you were shooting. Randy Willems was able to do so. It also appears that Marty Hayes in a case he was working on believed he would be able to.

How you might be able to do it, if you need it someday, will depend on all the circumstances and what sort of possible evidence might be available to help you do it. Things like one or more left over partial boxes of ammunition would help you. Remember that if you can't, you might have some problems if you're on trial following a shooting you claim was in self defense. So you might want to start thinking about some of the things you could do now to help. Or you could even choose to just leave it to fate.

Has there ever been a self defense shooting involving handloads where the reloader/shooters data was not accepted? Especially where there is sufficient GSR evidence.

Explain to us why, under the law of evidence, it would matter if the shooting were a self defense shooting or some other kind. You've been repeatedly advised that as a matter of law it doesn't matter. If you continue to contend that it does matter, cite some applicable legal authority.