JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I would suggest that one uses whatever load functions the most reliable out of your firearm...along with whatever load you shoot the best with....Hopefully they are one and the same.
And not worry 'bout lawyers.*
Andy
*Edit to add :
If it comes to court...and some lawyer goes on about using hand loads , one could argue that they are actually safer to use , as they are the most accurate load for the gun.
So there is less chance for harming others , with a missed shot.
But Andy, How do you do a factory load of your Hawken rifle? What whould that even mean?
 
The only example any anti-reload people can find is a case in which a woman committed suicide using a .38 Special revolver the husband had for home protection. It had his reloads in it.

Because the GSR was not consistent with factory ammo, the husband was convicted of murder. IIRC, because there was little GSR on the wife, the prosecutor contended that the husband was holding the pistol and shot the wife from a couple of feet away. Defense argued that the reloads did not produce the same amount of GSR and the court did not allow testing of the reloads to establish that fact.


When I first started reloading, I made some mistakes and produced rounds that were not reliable due to primers not seated properly.

I use a different priming tool now, a single-stage press and check my primers religiously. I have high confidence in my reloads.
 
It is hogwash, the question that needs to be answered is weather or not the shooting was jusified or not.
A good shoot will be a good shoot regardless if you hit them with a black powder cannon or a stock .22lr
There is no proven liability to using your own loads unless you mean what if they do not work.
With respect to all, it does matter. Maybe not always, perhaps better to say it can matter. Love our free country so everyone is free to chose what they wish in this area but please understand choices like this have consequences.

Here is but one example. If you use handloads there is no standard sample to test how far your gunshot residue will travel, which can be a major factor in determining the distance in a DGU. All manufactures keep samples from lot numbers (keep track of this as well) for testing when needed. This may help determine distance and assist in determining if a shoot was justified in some cases. Below is an excerpt from a case detailed by, yes, Massad Ayoob. He has plenty of stories about why not to do things like this (heard plenty after 80 hours with him over the past year).

While it's a slam-dunk to defend your use of hollow point ammo, the use of handloads in a shooting presents much more serious problems to your defense team. Defensive shootings are often very close-range affairs in which gunshot residue (GSR) from your muzzle is deposited on your attacker's body or clothing. This can become a critical evidentiary factor if the other side insists he was too far away from you to endanger you at the moment he was shot. The distance testing is done with exemplar ammunition, that is, ammo identical to what was in your gun, but not the same exact cartridges. Don't count on the crime lab testing the remaining rounds from your weapon as taken into evidence at the shooting scene. If the fight was sufficiently intense, there may not be any rounds left in the gun that saved your life. Even if there are remaining cartridges in evidence, they may not be tested. The prosecutor can argue, "Your honor, firing those cartridges consumes them! It's destructive testing! The defense is asking the Court's permission to destroy the evidence! You cannot allow it!" Do you think that's a BS argument? So did I…until I saw a judge accept it, in a case where handloads were used in the death weapon, but the state crime lab tested with a much more powerful factory load, based on the headstamp on the reloaded casings. That gave a false indication of distance involved, and the defendant – whom I have strong reason to believe was innocent – was convicted of manslaughter.
Using handloads, ammunition that "maximizes the lethal potential" (we are stopping threats, not attempting to be "lethal"), placing sayings on your AR dust cover, with gun tattoos or on back plates, may be what makes a District Attorney decide to file on you (the officer that had the saying on his AR dust cover during a shooting spent over $10,000 just to keep this out of court). It may also be what a jury hears. With respect to all quoted above (and noting my thoughts nearly always align with you all), it's just not that simple in the real world. I've now spend 35 years in law enforcement in various capacities, now mostly training. I've sat next to Deputy DA's prosecuting cases and assisted prosecuting numerous cases...the little things matter.

My personal choice and my recommendation to my students: don't give the DA or a civil attorney any more ammunition (sorry for the pun) than needed.

With respect to all.
 
Stay out of the city.
Use reloads if you want.
Keep your mouth shut.
Keep fuel in the backhoe.
:s0062:
Problem solved.

Do I use factory for carry ammo? Yes.
However if I needed to defend myself or loved ones and the weapon I have at hand is stuffed with reloads I'm sure not going to ask for a time out.
 
While it's a slam-dunk to defend your use of hollow point ammo, the use of handloads in a shooting presents much more serious problems to your defense team. Defensive shootings are often very close-range affairs in which gunshot residue (GSR) from your muzzle is deposited on your attacker's body or clothing. This can become a critical evidentiary factor if the other side insists he was too far away from you to endanger you at the moment he was shot.​
And I disagree with Mr. Ayoob's contention on this. Since GSR travels to a maximum of 6'-10', the absence of GSR does not mean that a threat was not a threat. I don't see how someone is going to be found guilty of murder or manslaughter because the bad guy was 15' away instead of 6' away. The chances of GSR residue coming into play in a self-defense shooting to determine distance is akin to winning the lottery while getting hit by lightning while getting attacked by a rabid beaver. The odds are astronomical.
 
:) I was curious and thought I'd drop a post in this law & legal forum to seek a general consensus here.

This has been getting kicked around on the net from the the day Algore invented it and people started gun groups :)
Every time it comes up you will see some tell you with authority it does matter. When asked to show you they can't, and they often get mad because there is nothing to show you it's ever happened. It's one of those urban myths that had lived so long many do not want to hear facts any more and it gets pointless to try to persuade them. It all started with that well known guy and one of his books and took on a life of it's own. When someone asks me I tell them what I said here. If you want to great. The ammo will not be your problem if you end up in a shoot. for those who get over the top mad about it? <shrug> I tell them great do not use ammo you roll and go on with a happy life, problem solved:D
 
A "Professional gun writer" is the one who got this going decades back. In one of his books he made a comment about avoiding home rolled and it spread from there. Often with being retold in watering holes and then the net if became people saying they had seen court cases where it was used. Of course they could never find the case when asked. What you will have no trouble finding is cases where someone used a gun when they should not have and or could not shut up after and let the lawyer talk. :(

I was being nice since his name hadn't made it into the thread at that point.
But since he was named in a later post....
I do respect Massad Ayoob's opinion ...but I do not always agree with him .
( Or at times other "professional gun writers" , past or present ) :eek: :D
Andy
 
I was being nice since his name hadn't made it into the thread at that point.
But since he was named in a later post....
I do respect Massad Ayoob's opinion ...but I do not always agree with him .
( Or at times other "professional gun writers" , past or present ) :eek: :D
Andy
I too was trying to avoid his name as some follow him like a god. The man is good, far better than me at many things "gun" but, that does not mean I take everything he writes as something from on high :D
 
I too was trying to avoid his name as some follow him like a god. The man is good, far better than me at many things "gun" but, that does not mean I take everything he writes as something from on high :D
This is very true...and is also how I feel about another gun guy who wore a big cowboy hat and enjoyed Smith and Wesson revolvers....:eek: :D
And
 
Hey @Andy54Hawken and @Alexx1401, respect you both greatly on this forum and appreciate the opportunity to have this valuable conversation. Also agree that we are big boys and girls and at the end of the day we should all freely decide what works best for each of us.

Every time it comes up you will see some tell you with authority it does matter. When asked to show you they can't,
I obviously knew most refer to Ayoob with this and similar subjects so I put his name out there. Understand some do not agree with some or most of what he says. In his classes he provides much deeper context for this and many other DGU subjects, nearly always stating specific cases where factors like this did matter. With this subject I provided one of those instances he discusses where it was likely a factor in post @23.

We are seeing similar, documented cases now in the real world. Jake Gardner, bar owner in OK who shot a "protester" he was fighting with was initially not charged by the DA but the mob forced a grand jury review and his social media post was a major factor in charging him...not the actual facts of what happened during the moment. So for others who think "if it is a good shooting I'll be fine." here is a recent, real and very specific case to show this is simply not true.
 
Just how many times have hand loads been used for defense and its not been brought up or mattered if the shooting went to court...?
This number needs to be known , so we can see and compare data , before making a statement , to be taken as fact*or rule.
Andy

*A example of two or three times , where a person had a tougher time in court for using hand loads in a self defense shooting , is not enough to convince me.
All that shows is that it did happen , then....not that it will happen in the majority of cases.
Again more data is needed before making a hard a fast rule,
 
Valid point Andy.
But we are clearly seeing even more of a shift by prosecutors using items that I think nearly all of us on this forum and responsible defensive gun owners in general would agree should be a non-issue. Here is another recent and local one:
Man accused of pulling gun on Portland protesters was armed with multiple magazines of ammo, prosecutor says
This is a headline from the Michael Strickland case. The DDA argued in his bail hearing that he was "heavily armed" `having five extra mags on his person along with an extended magazine in the gun. Did this get him convicted? No. But especially in this climate if we ignore these factors being used against us, I humbly think we as a society of defensive gun owners are operating with a lack of intellectual honesty.

To those who think "the truth will set them free," I submit they have not spent much time in court. It's the prosecution's and defense's version of the truth that is allowed in the courtroom.
 
I have no doubt that often what really matters in court is just how something is spun.
And to ignore the whim or set in stone , preconceived notions of 12 of my so called peers , would be foolish.

My biggest issue here is that 'cause one famous gun guy said it....
It must always be true....and that just ain't so.
Andy
 
Since there are a few old LEO's here - I have a question that's been on my mind for 30 years now that seem pertinent...
Around '89 - '90 I was camping at Champoeg State park and had a situation. Had a crazy guy bothering us and others for a few days and by the end of the weekend he had gotten crazy enough to charge into our tent with some serious malice. He was nearly 400 lbs and very intimidating. He charged in - I drew my pistol and did all the correct yelling and commands and he immediately knew I was about to take his head off. He retreated immediately making a huge scene. The police were called - and by then the entire campground had heard the commotion and knew what was up. By the time officers arrived I had already written up a proper statement and was waiting. After a quick investigation and being cleared - the biggest question and concern was - did I have FMJ's or hollow point ammo loaded. (ball/fmj) That seemed to be the only thing they wanted to know from me. My situation was clear and ok - but they really wanted to know what my weapon was loaded with. More than anything. I always though that odd.
Sorry for the rambling - but this thread reminded me of that day.
 
Since there are a few old LEO's here - I have a question that's been on my mind for 30 years now that seem pertinent...
Around '89 - '90 I was camping at Champoeg State park and had a situation. Had a crazy guy bothering us and others for a few days and by the end of the weekend he had gotten crazy enough to charge into our tent with some serious malice. He was nearly 400 lbs and very intimidating. He charged in - I drew my pistol and did all the correct yelling and commands and he immediately knew I was about to take his head off. He retreated immediately making a huge scene. The police were called - and by then the entire campground had heard the commotion and knew what was up. By the time officers arrived I had already written up a proper statement and was waiting. After a quick investigation and being cleared - the biggest question and concern was - did I have FMJ's or hollow point ammo loaded. (ball/fmj) That seemed to be the only thing they wanted to know from me. My situation was clear and ok - but they really wanted to know what my weapon was loaded with. More than anything. I always though that odd.
Sorry for the rambling - but this thread reminded me of that day.
They mighta just been looking out for you.
I've killed deer with 9mm.. jhp and lead swc.. you sure don't want to use fmj. Law enforcement only uses them for practice for a reason.
Most rubes think all ammo is good enough.
 
They mighta just been looking out for you.
I've killed deer with 9mm.. jhp and lead swc.. you sure don't want to use fmj. Law enforcement only uses them for practice for a reason.
Most rubes think all ammo is good enough.
From the way they made it sound back then - HP's would have been a no-no for me...?
I even had to fudge - nowhere in my statement did I mention it was a 'loaded' weapon I used. (didn't say it was or not - just left the inference there. Loaded weapons were a serious no - no in State Parks back then...) But they just gave an approving nod for not incriminating myself on paper for that fact - but were still needing to check some, "No HP rounds" checkbox?
One officer made the quiet remark before leaving, "Only a fool draws an unloaded weapon..." while leaving and looked back at me with a smile. I smiled back and said, "I know. But I'm no fool." He nodded back and said, "I didn't think so." Of course when they inspected my 1911 it was dry by the time they arrived.

But they did seem pretty curious about the HP thing...
 
From the way they made it sound back then - HP's would have been a no-no for me...?
I even had to fudge - nowhere in my statement did I mention it was a 'loaded' weapon I used. (didn't say it was or not - just left the inference there. Loaded weapons were a serious no - no in State Parks back then...) But they just gave an approving nod for not incriminating myself on paper for that fact - but were still needing to check some, "No HP rounds" checkbox?
One officer made the quiet remark before leaving, "Only a fool draws an unloaded weapon..." while leaving and looked back at me with a smile. I smiled back and said, "I know. But I'm no fool." He nodded back and said, "I didn't think so." Of course when they inspected my 1911 it was dry by the time they arrived.

But they did seem pretty curious about the HP thing...

Laws are nuts - "you can carry a gun - but it can't be loaded" - what kind of Anti-American crap is that?
 
Back in that era hollowpoints had not been adopted / approved by all departments and they may have had the misguided belief that also extended to the civilian world or the officer in question may have been a fud that believed hollow points to be evil. Just because someone is in uniform doesn't indicate they know the law. If you look back on that era you would find many departments had officers that had far less legal training than what we now take for granted.
 

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