JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
First, I'f I'm a "random person with an unqualified opinion," you most certainly are too: pot, meet kettle.

Bingo. ;)

Second, what have your friends in law enforcement and ballistics research told you about the actual use of handloads as evidence in a criminal case or civil suit? If you could share their stories, it would be a really valuable contribution to this discussion.

Not my friends, however, they do tend to recommend against using handloads for defensive purposes, as there is an increased risk of financial loss.

Can you link us to any threads discussing the use of handloads as evidence in an actual case? That would also be a big help - it would keep us from having to wade through pages of "unqualified opinion."

Sure, but you will just end up with "qualified opinions". :p

Here is one, with an opinion from a State Prosecutor. No specific cases of people being prosecuted for using handloads, but he does mention a case where a person was prosecuted because he carried two pistols. Apparently, the prosecutor felt that by carrying a back up pistol, the defendant was out looking for trouble.

Again, it's a question of mindset and intent.

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001538;p=1

Sounds like you're making a great decision for yourself. I'd also spend a few extra bucks to avoid worrying about something like this.

You hit the nail on the head, on both statements. I can't make decisions for others, but I can explain my decisions, and explain why I think it's a bad idea.

Just remember that opinions aren't facts, and not everybody worries about the same things you do.

Agreed. My point is to get people to think beyond the initial cost factor, where the only consideration is thinking "I can get 100 rounds of handloaded 230gr XTP for $27, or I can get 100 rounds of Ranger T for $85".

As mentioned before, I hand load as well, but not my defensive ammo. I actually have 3 types of ammo on hand:

- Defensive: Factory JHP for pistols, Factory OTM for Carbine, Factory Buckshot for Shotgun.

- Practice: Factory and Handloads of various flavors.

- Emergency: Ammo that could be put to use as defensive ammo, in an emergency, as an absolute last resort, since this is in fact handloads. I keep enough defensive ammo on hand that I should never, ever, need this emergency ammo, but it's there.
 
I assume you meant that you aren't arguing in favor of people being prosecuted for using handloads,?

Right, I screwed that one up. :eek: :s0114:


I love these kinds of arguments wherein we all know the law is an *&$ (name for a donkey) and we have to change from perfectly acceptable practices just because that is true.

Exactly.

Although, it's not really a law we are worried about here, as there is no law (that I know) that forbids using handloads defensively.

It's unscrupulous lawyers, DA's, and uneducated jurors, who believe everything they see on CSI:Miami and NCIS. :(
 
it's not really a law we are worried about here, as there is no law (that I know) that forbids using handloads defensively.

I should have said the legal system. It's our legal system that allows lizard skinned shysters to convince ignorant housewives that instead of trying to defend our lives we are actually hoping for the chance to try out our new killer ammo.

An example was the lawsuit against Continental Motors years ago, a Dr. was flying a Bonanza and ran it out of fuel and he died in the crash. In a wrongful death suit jurors somehow took the blame from the Dr. who was taught in his first flying lesson to make sure that there is enough fuel, and place it on Continental, who could not possibly have influenced the Dr. to not take off that day. If I remember correctly the result was a judgment of $105 million dollars against Continental! I know that every pilot who heard of that shook their heads in wonder, but it's that system that allowed such a miscarriage of justice to occur.

My guess is that only a minuscule fraction involve handloads.

Hard to say. There are a lot of people reloading and my guess is that some of it gets into the average shooting. One could argue that shooters who are "into" shooting enough to reload are not the same people who rob a kilo of pot at gunpoint or get into a gang shootout. I'd like to know what percentage of handgun ammunition in this country is hand loaded.

I see no good reason to not utilize ones best efforts at handloading for self defense loads, for the simple and clear reason I posted in the photo. Neither of those loads would have ever gotten past me had I been loading them, either one of them could mean a death sentence when someone is shooting at me.
Is there a higher standard put out by ammo makers for SD ammo? I really doubt it.
 
I think any lawyer that would twist your use handloads against you would just as easily twist your use of any ammo / gun / holster //// you used against you. Same loads as police used = a cop wanna-be itching to get some action.

The side with the more convincing lawyer has the best chance of winning, barring jury bias; with bias against you, you're likely screwed and it wouldn't matter what the details are IMO
 
First, I'f I'm a "random person with an unqualified opinion," you most certainly are too: pot, meet kettle.

Second, what have your friends in law enforcement and ballistics research told you about the actual use of handloads as evidence in a criminal case or civil suit? If you could share their stories, it would be a really valuable contribution to this discussion.



Can you link us to any threads discussing the use of handloads as evidence in an actual case? That would also be a big help - it would keep us from having to wade through pages of "unqualified opinion."



Sounds like you're making a great decision for yourself. I'd also spend a few extra bucks to avoid worrying about something like this.

Just remember that opinions aren't facts, and not everybody worries about the same things you do.

I would think that in order to nail me for using handloads, they'd have to somehow prove that they were deliberately and inherently more dangerous than factory loads. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, right?

Since I load my handloads as close to factory as I can, even using a chrony to check my loads against factory (to be sure I'm getting the bullet speed the same for expansion and penetration characteristics,) they can have the rest of the rounds in the gun to check and I'm not worried about them finding some "super killer" rounds in my gun.

I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is the whole idea of shooting someone in any way or circumstance, and then having to answer for it at all. I hope it never happens.

$.02
 
I reload my defensive ammunition and I refused to stop because of these urban legend threads that are purely based on extreme fear of the unknown. The fact is your average reloader such as myself does not have a degree in balistic bullet performance. The likely hood that I or the average reloader could purposely make a more deadly bullet then what is out there already is 1000000/1. To many variables matter to much. the powder matters, the amount of powder matters, the crimp, the bullet brand, softness of lead, design, depth of seating, primer used, etc. Not to mention I would venture to guess your average reloader doesn't do extensive testing of there deffensive amunition (I know I don't). I test my defensive loads for fps and reliable function in the gun mostly and hope for the best. Sure I've shot them in to a bucket full very wet mud (Redneck balistic jelly :D ) but that honestly doesn't have any scientific value.

Nope sorry I don't worry that my defensive ammunition might land me in jail or financially ruined. It doesn't even cross my mind. I simply assume my JHP are only potentially more deadly then your average FMJ round which I feel is reasonable to assume. Hopefully I'll never have to find out.
 
:s0155:

In a civil lawsuit stemming from a self-defense claim, it would effectively (or actually) be a stipulated fact that you were trying to kill the person you shot. That is to say, you'd admit from the outset that you were trying to use force that was as deadly as possible. You can see where this is going...

It wouldn't do the other side much good to argue that the use of evil extra-deadly homemade ammunition made you more liable. First, they'd have to show that your ammo was actually more dangerous or deadly than factory ammo. Good luck with that. Second, they'd have to show that you purposely or negligently made the ammo extra-deadly. Third, they'd have to show that those facts were relevant to the case - going back to the first issue, that you'd have already agreed that you were trying to kill your assailant, the handloads might not even be admitted as evidence.

Still, relevancy is a pretty easy bar to cross. But even if the handloads were admitted, you'd be able to present evidence that millions of shooters handload and that it's perfectly normal. It would be a minor sideshow in your case, as the jury's main task would be to decide whether the shooting was justified. I think the worst that would happen would be a possible increase in damages if and only if a jury found you liable in the first place...


Handload liability would really come into play in situations where you made some for a friend and they caused him to blow his hand off, or if you blew your own hand off and shrapnel flew into a bystander's eye...

That sounds very much like the input of a law student with zero actual experience trying cases before real juries. The real world doesn't work that way.
 
I took a gun safety course and part of the course was spending a day talking with a lawyer about justified use of force, etc.

He emphatically stated that it would be a very bad thing to use handloads for SD. He elaborated by saying you will more than likely be sued for having purpose-built the ammo to cause maximum damage. This guy was a pretty smart cookie and ever since talking to him I use off-the-shelf Speer Gold Dots. Nothing wrong with practicing with Gold Dot handloads.

Better safe than sorry and we're only talking less than $50 for a few mags of good SD ammo.
 
So using the logic of the "smart cookie" lawyer, it could be argued that using Cor-Ban (brand name) .45ACP++P 230Gr. JHP that is designed to consistently expand to the MAXIMUM at the maximum FPS for MAXIMUM damage is grounds to be sued... even if its "factory" ammo? Huh... logic has little to do with the legal system.
 
I'm just saying what the law-dog told me. I'm just a simple guy and often listen to experts in their field. I get paid for my expertise and experience in my field and consider the mistakes people make when they don't take my wizened advice. 'nuff said.

Again, we're talking $50 or less, so if you want to take your chances, go for it.

To the guy that got the bad rounds in Yuma... quite a coincidence. Very unlucky fella... Tap, Rack, Bang!
 
I believe I understand the reasoning against hand loads for personal defense. I've read some well articulated explanations from legal professionals on the matter.

Consider some reality though...

The police arrive at my house after a 911 home invasion call, and there's a dead bad guy in my living room with a machete in his hand. It's not like the cops will ask to see my ammo, and use that as a decision point whether to take me into custody. Even under the best circumstances (all things considered following such an ordeal) I'd call an attorney and spend some money just to protect myself. Depending on the political climate, the D.A. could have an agenda - or not.

If it's really "go time", and I or loved ones face death or injury, I really don't care how I respond.

Being judged by 12 is better than carried by 6.

Thanks
-Sean

Remember, you may never even be charged with a crime but still may see the nasty end of a court room. Lawyers love to poke at gun enthusiasts for everything from laser sights to having a gun with single action only (SAO). I even saw one Security Guard that was sued for "Wrongful Death". He shot a guy stabbing someone to death. The defense lost because the jury agreed that if Mr. Security was never there with that gun, the "victim" would still be alive.

I can't make this stuff up...

Am I telling you not to handload or carry handloads? No...I'm just letting you know that not matter what you do, when you shoot that gun- expect to be sued.
 
I try to carry factory loads in my auto for the reasons stated in this thread. BUT there are times when a guy can't afford it or find factory ammo. Isn't that why some of us reload? I think my defense would be that even though I can't afford fancy cop ammo, I still have the right to protect myself and loved ones with what ever means possible and in this case by reloading my own ammo for the 5 bucks I have in the cookie jar vs the 27 bucks I dont have in my wallet.
You all have good arguments one way or another, unfortunately like some of you stated we have a brain dead society that will judging us.
 
It's not just the prosecutor you have to worry about.

Even if there are no charges filed, and the shoot is justified in every manner possible, there is risk a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by the either the estate of the perp. That's where the real risk is, IMO.

That's exactly right. If, God forbid, I'm ever forced to use deadly force, my first course of action will be to file suit against the survivor or his estate, to make up for the mental anguish and trauma he forced upon me. Then, if his estate wishes to sue me, we can call it a wash!
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top