Mixed-Load Magazines

[rbohm]

i have thought about mixing round in the past, and i have come to one conclusion, i wont do it. a handgun to me is a defensive weapon, and if i have to pull it out, i will shoot until the threat is ended. personally i will load my magazines with something like eldorado starfire, or federal hydrashock rounds. i want something to stop the badguys with reliably. i can deal with the legal aspects later. better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Double Naught Spy]

i have thought about mixing round in the past, and i have come to one conclusion, i wont do it. a handgun to me is a defensive weapon, and if i have to pull it out, i will shoot until the threat is ended.

Okay, I don't think anyone here is discussing loads for assaulting a castle in Liechtenstein. We are discussing self defense. The notion of mixed loadings is that you will have ammo that would ideally cover more circumstances than might be fully covered by only one type of ammo. The goal is to stop the threat regardless of the loading.

personally i will load my magazines with something like eldorado starfire, or federal hydrashock rounds. i want something to stop the badguys with reliably.

Yeah, I don't think you will get reliable stopping of bad guys from those rounds, given that they are pistol ammo.

[johns7022]

This is all moot...half the posters in here, carrying exploding nuclear fision hollow point bullets, will run away leaving wifes and children to deal with an active shooter scenario...

[orionengnr]

I don't see a big problem with carrying a gun that has 2 rounds of snake shot, then 2 rubber rounds, then two Glasiers (sic) (low power), then two high power Glasiers (sic), then two lead rounds, then two FMJ ball, then two HPs.

Well, I only see about 512 problems with your scenario...however, for the sake of brevity, I will only point out the first two.

Using your above example, you have expended fourteen rounds on the first assailant before taking him out of the fight. For some of us, that is tweo magazines' worth of ammo on the initial assailant.

1. Assuming he is not returning fire (and this is not a trivial assumption) will you still be alive 12-14 rounds from now?

2. If you take the time to pump 14 rounds into the first assailant, what are the second, third, fouth assailants doing during this period of time? Standing around idly watching American Idol on their i-Pod and waiting for their turn? And then waiting for you to reload so you can put 14 more into each of them?

In real life it doesn't work that way. If you need to employ deadly force, you need to neutralize a threat right now.

[johns7022]

For the majority of peeps in here that obviously will run or go to guns, as being their only self defense option, I think the kids at the skatepark should get some snake shot..not dropped....

If your of the ilk that multiple attackers, armed are going to take you down...big deal...opening up a mixed bag of snake shot, glasier safety slugs, hollow points, ball ammo, etc is still going to stop them..

I think most peeps believe the law states they have to KILL the bad guy, not so, you just need to apply appropriate force to neutralize the threat and if the threat is a punch in the nose...then pulling out a 44 mag might be just a tad overkill...

[TXGunNut]

Real life example here. One night I was night fishing and dozed off to find a water moccasin at my feet. I repelled it with LTL force. Somehow I dozed off again and the snake was back. Again LTL force was deployed. My M60 S&W was loaded with Silvertips and the rocky bank would have almost guaranteed a ricochet or fragmentation.
Next trip I had snake shot in the first two cylinders for the rude snake. I prefer a sharp hoe or shovel for snakes but was trying to minimize equipment carried. Snake was a no-show, fishing was productive but I was blocked on my way back to my truck by three guys who seemed reluctant to let me pass. I calmly put down my fishing gear, drew my trusty M60 and opened the cylinder to index past the snake shot. I had a speedloader in my pocket but decided indexing was quicker. My new friends were more than happy to let me pass. Mixing ammo worked for me and those guys that night, but I damn sure didn't plan it that way!
Back on topic, mixing ammo would work if you knew the exact scenario in which you were likely to use deadly force. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Pick a good ammo. Another magazine (pistol or rifle) may give you more versatilty but the rounds in the weapon are very important. Choose thoughtfully but just choose one.

[kkb]

The only gun I load different rounds in is the bedside shotgun. The last out shell is a 3 incher, all the others are 2 3/4 inch.

I have trouble counting to six sometimes and the extra umph from that last shell is going to tell me it's time to transition to another weapon.

Seems to work at the range.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

For the majority of peeps in here that obviously will run or go to guns, as being their only self defense option, I think the kids at the skatepark should get some snake shot..not dropped....

I think most peeps believe the law states they have to KILL the bad guy, not so, you just need to apply appropriate force to neutralize the threat and if the threat is a punch in the nose...then pulling out a 44 mag might be just a tad overkill...

I'm not sure what your point is here. From a legal perspective, shooting anyone with snakeshot is the same as shooting them with a .44 magnum hollowpoint. In both cases, you will only be justified in doing so if you can show a jury that you had a reasonable and immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.

If you can pull the .44 mag at all, then you are fighting for your life and snakeshot isn't going to maximize your odds in that fight. If you can't legally pull the .44 mag, then you can't legally empty snakeshot into them either.

You seem to be under the impression that shooting someone with snakeshot when there isn't an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is legally OK; but that is not the case. Or did I just read your statement wrong?

[ScottRiqui]

I'm not sure what your point is here. From a legal perspective, shooting anyone with snakeshot is the same as shooting them with a .44 magnum hollowpoint. In both cases, you will only be justified in doing so if you can show a jury that you had a reasonable and immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.

+1

By mixing a variety of different loads in the same magazine, it really sounds like you're trying to implement a "continuum of force" doctrine using a handgun as your only tool, which simply isn't possible.

Here's a fairly-standard continuum of force model that police use:

1. Physical Presence
2. Soft Hands
3. Mace or Pepper Spray
(A K-9 unit would fall here)
4. Hard Hands
5. Police Baton, etc.
6. Threat of Deadly Force
7. Deadly Force

The only steps that a handgun is suitable for are 6 & 7. As soon as you expose/draw your pistol, you're already legally at step 6, and the instant you fire, you're at step 7, regardless of what kind of load is in the chamber.

[dinsmore83]

The only steps that a handgun is suitable for are 6 & 7. As soon as you expose/draw your pistol, you're already legally at step 6, and the instant you fire, you're at step 7, regardless of what kind of load is in the chamber.

exactly true,

and, Johns 7022, at least where I am, you are not legally required to use other means before employing deadly force, IF you feel your life is in danger, yes the goal is to stop the threat, but using maximum force at your disposal is the fastest way to neutralize said threat, it might SEEM like overkill, but if you do not neutralize the threat quickly, you risk further threats to your life.

[Head-Space]

"Non-lethal" -- If you're justified in shooting the threat, you're justified in killing the threat. If you're not intent upon killing the threat, you'd better hold your fire. If you're going to shoot, shoot to stop the threat. That means use "lethal force" because it's justified.

If it comes up in testimony or cross-examination that you had the gun loaded with "non lethal" ammo, you're setting yourself up to hand counsel the argument that you were intending to justify "less than lethal force." You don't shoot if lethal force is not lawfully justified. And if it's lawfully justified, you need to ensure that you have it at your disposal.

As regards 6 and 7 above. When you draw your firearm, you provide the other party with legal justification to shoot you in self-defense. If you're moving to six, you're mandated to seven.

[Double Naught Spy]

"Non-lethal" -- If you're justified in shooting the threat, you're justified in killing the threat. If you're not intent upon killing the threat, you'd better hold your fire. If you're going to shoot, shoot to stop the threat. That means use "lethal force" because it's justified.

You seem confused. You most definitely can shoot to stop without the intent to kill and have be 100% justified by law.

You don't shoot if lethal force is not lawfully justified. And if it's lawfully justified, you need to ensure that you have it at your disposal.

Yes, but when lethal force is justified, you don't have to use lethal force. You can use less lethal ammo and be 100% justified. Not only that, even if you use full power lethal force, you don't have to apply it in a way that you feel will be lethal.

When you draw your firearm, you provide the other party with legal justification to shoot you in self-defense

This is absolutely untrue. You break into my house and are attacking my daughter and I come in the room and draw down on you, you have no legal justification for self defense. My draw was in self defense (defense of another) against you to stop you from being a threat. You are not then covered under self defense laws when you try to harm my daughter or me.

[Hook686]

I thought the idea was to stop the threat of pending death, or serious injury, not killing the threat. I also wonder at the idea on 'Non-lethal' rounds from a firearm. I figure all discharges have the potential to kill. Is that not why one of the rules is, 'Do not point the gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.' ?

I think if you have tested the ammunition, load what you think will stop a threat you are defending against. Different strokes for different folks.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Yes, but when lethal force is justified, you don't have to use lethal force. You can use less lethal ammo and be 100% justified. Not only that, even if you use full power lethal force, you don't have to apply it in a way that you feel will be lethal.

True; but since you can only use lethal force (and less lethal ammo is still lethal force) when you have a reasonable and immediate fear of death or serious injury, you are taking a big risk (that of death or serious injury) when you use less lethal means.

This is absolutely untrue. You break into my house and are attacking my daughter and I come in the room and draw down on you, you have no legal justification for self defense. My draw was in self defense (defense of another) against you to stop you from being a threat. You are not then covered under self defense laws when you try to harm my daughter or me.

It depends on the scenario and context. If he breaks into your house, the fact that he tries to use a lesser means of force than lethal force will not stop you from using lethal force to repel him in most states.

However, if we look at the post he is responding to, that poster seemed to be advocating shooting kids at the skatepark with snakeshot if they give you trouble under the mistaken belief that this is not deadly force. If it turns out one of those kids was a 21yr old with a CCW and you pull out your snakeshot and threaten him with it, he would be perfectly justified in considering you a reasonable and immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury and would be free to act accordingly.

Originally Posted by Hook686

I thought the idea was to stop the threat of pending death, or serious injury, not killing the threat.

Yes - and the most effective means of stopping a threat is a shot that penetrates a large, blood bearing organ or the central nervous system. This is most effective because it doesn't rely on the attacker's mental state to stop him. Instead, it physiologically shuts the body down. However, it also has a good probability of killing or seriously injuring him, which is why it is called lethal force. Killing isn't the goal; but it is a likely by-product. If the threat disappears though, so does your rationale for using this level of force.

[shafter]

I'll stick with one type of ammo. Anything else is overthinking the situation and borders on mall ninja syndrome.

Different ammo types may be useful in a wilderness excursion though

[Dave R]

Perhaps. Trooper Mark Coats might have had more success had he had a couple of 158, or 170 grain, hard cast, or Jacketed Soft Points in his .357 magnum instead of only 145 grain silver tips. The 145 grain hollow points did not reach the vitals of the very overweight assailant. Six hits, but not one reached a vital organ. The silver tip is a nice round, but ....

...And this is why I DO carry a mixed magazine in my .380acp. Alternating Gold Dots and JHP. If, God forbid, I ever have to shoot someone with a .380acp. I do not plan to shoot only once. I believe it was our own dear Tamara who said that good tactics for a mouse gun are "empty, run, reload." If I have to shoot someone, I want both big holes and penetration. One round won't do both in a .380acp.

The two rounds I use are reliable in my gun.

I don't want to carry something bigger.

[howwie]

I'm a 25 year old that still tries to skateboard at the local park and I am carrying. I've been to some parks around where noone skates, everyone is just itching for a fight or doing drugs. But there are a few decent skateboarders out there

[threegun]

IMHO, mixing (or alternating) rounds is a clear sign of either a) indecision or b) lack of faith in your choice of caliber.

Sorry but this is incorrect.

There is a clear advantage to mixing loads especially when you are expecting a specific threat. Some here have mentioned snakes. Obviously a snake shot would greatly enhance your ability to deal with that threat.

I had a situation come up several years ago and mixing my mag allowed me to prepare for this threat with a more effective ammunition. Police detectives warned us that some robberies had occurred and that the bad guys were using bullet proof vests. I loaded 6 magsafe super swat loads (capable of defeating IIa vests) mixed with my corbon 135 grain JHP's in my 10mm Glock 20. Numbers 2,4,6,8,10, and 12. Once the threats were arrested I returned my mag to normal (for me).

I know some will say just shoot them in the head and to them I say easier said than done especially under duress and on a small potentially moving target.

[shafter]

Howwie, You hang out a skateboard parks where everyone is hanging around doing drugs and looking for fights? You do this while carrying?

[Double Naught Spy]

True; but since you can only use lethal force (and less lethal ammo is still lethal force) when you have a reasonable and immediate fear of death or serious injury, you are taking a big risk (that of death or serious injury) when you use less lethal means.

Maybe, as you said, it depends on scenario and context.

It depends on the scenario and context. If he breaks into your house, the fact that he tries to use a lesser means of force than lethal force will not stop you from using lethal force to repel him in most states.

The statement was...

When you draw your firearm, you provide the other party with legal justification to shoot you in self-defense.

So he isn't using a lesser force but trying to shoot me for defending my daughter from him.

Whether it be citizens or the cops, when we draw our guns against a person or persons who are committing such as crime as to warrant the threat of lethal force (the draw) or lethal force, they then don't have legal justification for shooting the citizens or cops in self defense.

[howwie]

haha Nooo I avoid such places. But in my youth I did and never realized how STUPID it was

[TXGunNut]

Head-Space: can we expound upon this? The idea of a continuum of force is that we, as reasonable people, STOP escalating as soon as we obtain the desired result. If six works, seven isn't necessary. There's no need for step seven if step six, or five, or...you get the idea...works, and it does every day. Yes, if we commit to six, we must also commit to seven, but a favorable action by our adversary negates the necessity for seven. Step six has caused me some sleepless nights, step seven is a whole 'nuther matter. I don't want to go there, do you?

[XR750]

I load (6) Six Rnds 110 Gr Hollow Points 357 mag.

[chrisbarcelo]

I used to alternate the rounds in my magazines. But Im not at ease with the arrangement JHP followed by ball ammo, etc. Now, I just load my trusty 1911 with ball ammo, Ive been practicing with ball on the range with no jams. At least Im confident that my gun wont have any feeding issues when I need it most.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How do folks who alternate fmj, hardball with HP analyzed the risk of needing such to 'penetrate' likely opponents as compared to the risk over overpenetrating and shooting an innocent.

The latter does happen by the way. Is that a greater risk than the crime not stopping if you put a round in someone.

Or are you fussing about extreme cases, like giant fasto absorbs rounds in stomach and then kills you with an extremely lucky shot with a 22 mag. That's pretty rare.

Except for initial snake shot rounds for outdoor carry and snakes - I really don't buy into the "I have to penetrate a car or crazed meth body armored zombie" as compared to the overpenetration risk.