Sharp as a Marble - If it's not caliber wars

<< Ignorance is our biggest enemy | Home | Coming to Chicago in 2016 >>

If it's not caliber wars

Reloading , Self Defense

It's "Should I carry my own reloads for self defense?"

Damn straight you can. Nobody has yet showed me a single case where a person involved in a shooting was convicted solely on the basis of hand loaded ammo.

Will some unscrupulous prosecutor try to make that an issue? Of course. Their job is to put you away, guilt be damned. And if you didn't reload, they're going to make a case that you used hollowpoints, or +P ammo, or that the 9mm was "high capacity", or any number of bullshit points to try to make it seem like the shooting was premeditated.

Self defense doesn't end at the shooting. It's an unfortunate necessity to ensure that we don't just go shooting people at random and that those who do are brought to justice. So, if you're not willing to protect yourself in court as well, it would be safer to not carry. Otherwise, carry what you're comfortable with. If it's factory loads, factory reloads, or your own concoction, be prepared to defend your life on the street and your freedom in the courtroom.

posted @ 9/29/2009 7:59:31 AM

Incoming Links

The Handload Wars at A Dixie Carpetbagger on 10/5/2009 3:06:56 PM

Comments

Tam says:

on 9/29/2009 8:51:51 AM

Of course, I could just avoid that particular landmine in the first place by carrying factory ammo... ;)

Can't lose a fight you don't get into in the first place.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/29/2009 9:00:30 AM

Or, just not carry a gun at all and avoid that particular fight altogether!

My personal view is that the added risk of carrying hand loads is so negligible to be almost non-existent.

Jay G. says:

on 9/29/2009 9:24:48 AM

Just remember two things:

1. No matter what firearm you carry, or what ammunition you use, carry two additional items: A cell phone, to call the authorities, and the number of a versed 2A attorney in said cell phone you can call after the fact.

2. These magic words: I would like to contact me attorney.

And nothing else...

Wolfwood says:

on 9/29/2009 12:07:40 PM

Maybe we should add a caveat that carrying your own loads is something that ought to be done only once you know what you're doing. Both "click" and "kaboom" are unacceptable sounds when one is looking for "bang."

ThomasD says:

on 9/29/2009 10:06:07 PM

I've never had a factory round misfire in an otherwise unmodified modern pistol (race guns are another story entirely.) The same cannot be said for my reloads.

That is the only reason I discourage reloads for personal defense. Tap rack bangs drills are all well and good but best avoided in truly lethal environments if at all possible.

Tam says:

on 9/29/2009 10:16:30 PM

My personal view is that the added risk of carrying hand loads is so negligible to be almost non-existent.

I just can't see any possible benefit to doing so, and I can see a possible (however unlikely) downside.

Sure, I think that the "ZOMG, they'll hang you!!!" schtick is overplayed, but at the same time, I can't see any reason not to just use premium factory JHP's; I certainly can't think of anything handloads would do better.

chris says:

on 9/30/2009 3:34:09 AM

Tam, Ive got a downside for you. I can reload 100rds of 9mm JHP for about $8. I can buy that same 100rds of factory ammo for $50+

IMO, you need a MINUMIM of 200rds practice with the ammo you carry to ensure that you know how it will feel to fire it and that it will function well in your gun. $16 Vs. $100+ is a no brainier.

Like Rob I have yet to have anyone show me a case where the ammo choice was the sole choice in the conviction.

pdb says:

on 9/30/2009 6:11:40 AM

Chris, while I'm a card carrying cheapskate, I question your priorities here. I think the price difference is small in the grand scheme of things.

Also, factory ammo uses fresh, new brass that hasn't been repeatedly fired and cold worked, the brass is not of mixed manufacture, and the bullets are retained with a proper roll crimp, etc etc.

I'm with Tam. There's plenty of good reasons to not carry reloads. Overzealous prosecutors are not among them.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/30/2009 7:22:05 AM

ThomasD, I have seen factory ammo misfire. I've seen factory ammo that went boom. Both of which are very, very, very rare mind you.

And I shoot thousands of reloads a year. Well, not this year. I've been so broke that reloads are even cutting it close. Outside of working up the right load for a pistol, I don't have problems (here's a tip kiddies. The IPSC match is NOT a great place to try the new load... Just sayin'). If out of every 100 rounds I shot, I had a problem, then yeah, I'd not have the confidence in my ammo.

Again, I totally support purchasing factory fresh, Self-Defense ammo. I just think that if you load your own and you have confidence in your work, there's very little risk involved.

Now dammit, we're NRA / Gun Lobby shills are we not? WHY ARE YOU NOT ALL WALKING IN LOCKSTEP????

Tam says:

on 9/30/2009 9:29:56 AM

Jeez, Robb, it's not that big a deal. :p

Robb Allen says:

on 9/30/2009 9:31:41 AM

No, it's not. But as gunnies we've pretty much fixed all the major issues and are destined to argue over the little things until Col. Cooper comes to take us home.

Al says:

on 9/30/2009 9:57:48 AM

Cooper? I will wait for Mr. Browning, thank you very much!

Heresy. :-)

Laughingdog says:

on 9/30/2009 11:50:20 PM

Tam, Ive got a downside for you. I can reload 100rds of 9mm JHP for about $8. I can buy that same 100rds of factory ammo for $50+

Or you could buy a single box of factory self-defense ammo, measure the velocity with a chronograph, and then work up a reload with the same weight bullet that has the same average velocity.

Granted, regarding Tam's first comment, if a prosecutor is enough of an ass to try to make reloads look like evidence of premeditation, he'd do the same thing if you use any kind of JHP round, and I'd be pretty surprised if you used FMJ for your self-defense ammo. Hell, can you imagine the field day a prosecutor like that would have if you fired JHPs from a Para with "Gun Blogger .45" on the side and laser grips?

In the end, if you live in an anti-gun area, you're probably going through the wringer whatever you use.

P.S. Robb, your blog engine has the best preview function for comments that I have ever seen.

Laughingdog says:

on 9/30/2009 11:55:17 PM

Cooper? I will wait for Mr. Browning, thank you very much!

I guess it all depends on whether you're an Old Testament gunnie or a New Testament gunnie.

pax says:

on 10/1/2009 5:04:04 PM

"Nobody has yet showed me a single case where a person involved in a shooting was convicted solely on the basis of hand loaded ammo."

It's amazing how easy it is to win an argument when you start with a strawman. :D

Not even Ayoob claims that.

Robb Allen says:

on 10/1/2009 5:25:56 PM

Pax, how is that a strawman? I didn't build up a case that has nothing to do with what we're talking about and tear it down.

If you were to tell me that drinking water was likely to make you grow potatoes out of your nose, asking for proof isn't a strawman. Saying that in court, it is so likely that you're going to have to defend yourself against your ammunition should you decide to carry hand loads and me asking for you to show me where that's happened is also, not a strawman.

If I were to go by what seems like it could happen, I'd be an anti. Blood in the streets and all.

pax says:

on 10/1/2009 6:16:26 PM

Robb,

It is a strawman because you attributed an assertion to your opponents in the discussion that your opponents never made, cheerfully knocked that false assertion down, and honestly believed you'd made a point when you did it. That's what a strawman is, by definition.

Ayoob - the chief proponent of "don't carry handloads" - does not claim, and has never claimed, that anyone gets convicted "solely because they used handloads." That's an untruth.

If you don't understand what an opponent is saying, how can you build a valid argument against it? Answer: you can't.

Do your homework first. It makes much better reading when you do! :)

Robb Allen says:

on 10/1/2009 6:32:54 PM

No, I did not. Please read again.

In my blog post, the first attribution to Ayoob is... lessee... Yup.

You.

So, you just constructed a strawman, and knocked it over with a slight breeze.

At Sebastian's, I say

I’ll make the same challenge I offer to anyone (including Masaad Ayoob)

Anyone != Masaad Ayoob.

So, if you'd like to take part in this conversation, then my question remains as valid as ever.

Can you show me statistical proof of handloads being even a remote deciding factor in someone's guilt?

That's MY question to EVERYONE. I am not putting words in other people's mouths, I am not constructing strawmen. I am asking a simple question because it has been brought up before that handloads cause problems during court cases. Like the potato in the nose, all I ask for is proof before I jump on the bandwagon.

pax says:

on 10/1/2009 7:03:38 PM

Sure, Robb.

First show me where someone -- anyone -- on the "don't carry handloads" side actually uses "convicted solely because they carried handloads" as their argument for not carrying handloads.

Strawman.

Robb Allen says:

on 10/1/2009 7:32:04 PM

Strawman

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Ok, so you're saying I'm misrepresenting someone's position. Let's look at Sebastian's original post since that's what I'm linking to

But conventional wisdom says this is a bad idea, because a prosecutor could try to argue in court that you custom made an extra lethal load, and your hand loads won’t be as reliable as factory ammo.

Explain how I'm misrepresenting that?

All I'm asking for is proof that my position is incorrect. Not a strawman, not a logical fallacy.

Robb Allen says:

on 10/1/2009 7:40:36 PM

Oh, as for the solely part - that's important. If I were to say "People who drink water get cancer", I could make a strong case because everyone who has ever gotten cancer has drank water at some point.

However, I couldn't accurately say "Water is solely responsible for cancer" because there is plenty of proof that people drink water and do not get cancer.

If carrying handloaded ammunition were to be the deciding factor in a court case regarding self defense, then it would be easily proved by showing many cases where this is the norm.

Can your handloads cause extra issues? Sure. So could a particular brand of sneakers or the fact that you exercise a few times a month.

There are legitimate reasons not to carry handloads, worrying about that being a hurdle in court isn't one of them. Statistically.

pax says:

on 10/1/2009 8:21:35 PM

Robb ~

It's a strawman because you morphed "could try to argue in court" into "solely responsible for" the conviction. The two are most emphatically not the same thing at all.

Again, if you start by misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what the people on the other side are saying, it's pretty easy to prove they're all wet and therefore you win teh internets for the day.

On the other hand, if you do your homework & learn what the other guys are actually saying (not just what people who disagree with them are saying about what they say...), your own position becomes stronger & more defensible -- if indeed you continue to hold it.

Statistically, you're right: there's no point in carrying a firearm at all. But statistics aren't the point here & never have been. As Marko so eloquently put it not long ago, it's not the odds - it's what's at stake. That's why we carry firearms and that's why you very sensibly point out that it's important to be prepared to cope with our own legal defense after the fact.

In the very very very unlikely event that you use your firearm in self defense, AND then end up in court for doing so, it's quite likely that the physical evidence on the scene will form an important part of your legal defense. That evidence can only serve to exonerate you, the good-guy armed citizen... unless for some reason major portions of it are unavailable to your defense team.

If you need ballistic or residue evidence to show your side of the story clearly enough to soothe a jury, and that evidence isn't available to you, you're in a world of hurt. Irrecoverable? Well, that would depend on the totality of circumstances, but it's not a good thing.

Carry whatever you like. It's your life.

But quit misrepresenting the nature of the discussion. It's unfair to the newbies who will take your flat-footed assumptions as gospel truth.

Robb Allen says:

on 10/1/2009 8:45:12 PM

Isolation of data points isn't morphing the discussion. To prove the whole you must also prove the parts.

true & true & false = false regardless of how many trues there are.

Statistically, you're right: there's no point in carrying a firearm at all.

Speaking of strawmen ;) I didn't say that. I said "You can avoid the whole argument by not carrying" as an illustration that if avoiding court issues matters to you, then that's one of doing it. And, being that I was discussing it with Tam, it was done tongue in cheek.

It's unfair to the newbies who will take your flat-footed assumptions as gospel truth.

Sorry, if anyone takes anything I say as the gospel truth, there's nothing I can do to help them. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a computer programmer who happens to like to shoot. And, I'm allowing, nay fostering discussion so that multiple viewpoints can be brought forward and my readers can make their own decisions.

My point, and the one you're missing (and inadvertently morphing the conversation to your own point) is that using handloads does not appear to be a deciding factor in losing a self defense case and not carrying handloads because of this is ridiculous.

Not carrying handloads because you're not confident in your rounds is a good reason. If you carry a common caliber and can get ammo fairly easily and feel safer in using factory loads, you should. If you are concerned about the reliability of cold worked brass, or tolerances, or whatever, then fine.

To quote Tam

Sure, I think that the "ZOMG, they'll hang you!!!" schtick is overplayed

That's my point. Not that it's not feasible, not that it can NEVER HAPPEN (you list a possibility), but that it's not common enough to warrant a fear of carrying handloads for self defense.

And, just to be clear since a 3x2 box doesn't carry inflection very well, I'm glad all of you are here arguing the finer points. The last thing I need is an echo chamber and I appreciate differing views.

pax says:

on 10/1/2009 9:52:59 PM

Robb ~

Thanks for that last paragraph. Online life is tricky sometimes for sure! And likewise, I've enjoyed the give and take.

From this vantage point it seems pretty obvious to me that you haven't really understood what I tried to say above, and there's no real way to forward the discussion without that understanding. My fault, I'm fairly certain. Tempted to forge ahead anyway, because I can't help but think if I could just word things more plainly you'd see what I was getting at. But I fear that the harder I try to put things plainly, the more unreasonably crabby I sound (as opposed to just normally crabby, you know ;) ) -- or worse, insulting, so I'll bow out now.

Thanks for the discussion.

Kathy

Trebor says:

on 10/4/2009 11:19:49 PM

Rob,

Here is a post from Ayoob over on THR where he talks about actual court cases he's familiar with where the use of handloads was a significant factor in the case.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2129976&postcount=140

Here are a couple of American Handgunner articles he wrote about a couple of those cases if you want more detailed info.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_181_30/ai_n26806104/

and the second more general article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_4_51/ai_n11840291/

Based on Ayoob's post and info on those cases that he is personally familiar with I believe that there are serious legal risks involved in using hanloaded ammunition for self defense.

You can believe otherwise, if you like, but there is evidence that it has been an issue in the past and a similiar situation where it is important to be able to prove the distance from the shooter to the attacker could easily happen to any one of us.

There are more then enough legal problems that can arise with even the most seeminlgy clear-cut defensive shooting. Why add another risk factor and give the prosecutor more ammo to use against you for what I consider to be a rather negligible benefit?

Trebor says:

on 10/4/2009 11:35:45 PM

Rob Allen said:
"Damn straight you can. Nobody has yet showed me a single case where a person involved in a shooting was convicted solely on the basis of hand loaded ammo."

Rob,

I'm only going to cut and paste this one quote from Ayoob's article on the Danial Bias case. There is more relevant info in the article, but I don't want to recopy the whole article here.

Now, if you think the use of handloaded ammo has to be the *SOLE* reason for a conviction before anyone should consider using handloads to be legally risky and to be avoided, I don't know if we'll find a case. Very rarely does a case come down to only ONE specific thing. In this case though, it looks like the use of handloads was one of the key elements, if not *the* key element.

I think this speaks directly to your statement in your post. This guy went through four trials and wound up with a felony conviction in the end, after spending over $100,000 to defend himself. Likely the whole thing would have been avoided if not for the gunshot residue confusion caused by the handloads instead of factory ammo.

Ayob: "When I asked Elizabeth Smith about the handload crippling Danny's defense, she replied, "You're certainly right about that. Gunshot residue was absolutely the focus of the first trial. The prosecution kept going back to the statement, 'It couldn't have happened the way he said it did.'"

From Page 5 of the article at:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_181_30/ai_n26806104/?tag=content;col1

Comments have been closed on this topic.