Reloads for JHP

[Re4mer]

As I was in Cabela's today on my never ending quest to find ammo I got into a discussion about JHP re-loads/hand loads with one of the workers. He said I should never us anything other than factory made rounds in my CCW because it might "look bad" if I used hand loaded rounds to defend myself in a life threatening situation. His insinuation was that it was boarder line illegal to use a hand load defensively.

Although my BS detector went off I still thought I would ask if there is any truth to his claim that using a hand load JHP defensively somehow makes you look worse in the eyes of the law.

[Unclenick]

Please search the forum for threads on the same topic. It's been done to death.

The bottom line seems to be that it falls into the category of popular assumption and belief, but one without foundation in actual case law. Massad Ayoob started it by claiming it had been a factor in trials he had been an expert witness in, but then was never able to produce a transcript or citation. It is worth keeping in mind that what prosecutors care about is that the homicide was justifiable, not what equipment you used. There is no statute against using handloads for self-defense anywhere that anyone can find, so you aren't breaking a law. And you can take more care with each individual round than a commercial manufacturer, so you can actually load more reliable ammo than they can if you know what you are doing and are using new brass.

The one legal worry I can imagine, though, again, no precedent exists that anyone can find for it, would be an ambitious lawyer filing a civil suite on behalf of the bad guy or his family claiming that loading your own makes you blood thirsty. (In this economy you could probably argue back that it is just thrift.) Many states don't allow such suits when the BG's injury was acquired during the commission of a crime. Check your state law to see if you have that protection where you are?

[Re4mer]

Thanks Nick for the helpful information. That was basically what I had thought but its nice to have some facts to back it up next time I talk to somebody about the issue.

[Mas Ayoob]

Citations are there, Nick.

The archives are your friend.

[IllinoisCoyoteHunter]

Please post a link to the citations, Mas. Thanks!

[whiplash]

I did some research on this topic, as I wondered myself about carrying handloads for SD. I have found on other sites, including this one, that it seems the percentage of people carrying handloads vs. factory is a 50/50 split. Both having good points. But Unclenick is right, is has been beat to death. But it still is a good debatable topic. I wanted to know what my situation would be. So it took doing research by digging into your state laws and statues. In Idaho, and like many other states, there is no law against using handloads. Also, in Idaho, there are statutes that protect the good guy from civil liabilities and lawsuits (providing the homicide was justifiable self-defense, in the criminal case). And thats whether you use handloads, factory loads, or a hammer! Like Unclenick said, do search, like handloads vs. factory or self defense loads etc. Shouldnt be to hard. But like I said, do some research in your state to find out how the statues are written...

[Mas Ayoob]

Illinois Coyote Hunter:
If I was computer-literate enough to post links, I'd be happy to. Alas, I am not. However, a search under reloads for self defense here, and on THR and most recently smith-wessonforum.com will turn up more than enough details and discussion.

Whiplash:
If you make the same search recommended above, you'll find that it's not about handloads being against the law (they aren't), it's about evidentiary issues in close range shootings and, to a lesser degree, about the other side using the argument that "regular ammunition wasn't deadly enough to satisfy the defendant's bloodlust."

Anyone seriously interested will find all the details with searches. As they said on the X-Files, "the truth is out there."

best wishes,
Mas

[Tex S]

If I was computer-literate enough to post links, I'd be happy to.

It is extremely easy.

Step 1- Hold down the left mouse button while dragging over the entire web address. This should highlight your selection. When the proper text is highlighted, let off the left mouse button.

Step 2- Click the right mouse button. A menu should pop up containing a selection labeled "copy". Left click "copy".

Step 3- Reply back to this post. At the bottom of your reply, right click your mouse again. A menu should appear and you will see a selection labeled "paste". Left click "paste".

The link will then be "copied" and "pasted" to your reply so everyone can see the above mentioned citations.

Pretty standard computer operation, and a handy one at that!

On a more personal note, it is amazing to me that you have authored books and countless articles and still do not know how to copy paste.

[erikrichard]

So it is perfectly legal to use a S&W 500 with factory .500 mag rounds but you might get in trouble hand loading your own .38sp jacketed hollow points? c'mon, at some point you need to use your own common sense to block out the bull****.

[Unclenick]

Mas,

Since you are linking-challenged, I searched and will link your post for you. It is here. It makes an interesting read. I was only aware of NJ V. Bias, the suicide vs. homicide discrepancy case, which did not strike me as pertaining to self-defense directly, which I why I didn't mention it earlier as I had in another thread on this topic. Your point about forensic replicability of GSR makes sense, since you can't prove a fired handload necessarily had the same charge weight its co-produced rounds have, while same-make commercial ammunition may be presumed to be matching from one round to the next most of the time.

The gist of the arguments at THR in favor of carrying only commercial ammo seem to boil down to, why take even the remote chance of getting caught up in GSR forensics uncertainty at all? The answer from the con side is improved reliability, and juggling the ammunition reliability risk against the prosecutorial problems risk. One fellow on the Shooter's Forum tested commercial ammunition for a job on a government contract. He said he had fired tens of thousands of rounds of it and at one time or another seen every possible kind of failure any handloader might create and some that handloads never have. As an example of the latter, I found two cases in my last bulk purchase of Winchester .223 brass with no flashholes punched. Those are the same cases they would have loaded ammunition with in their plant, and it would cause the kind of reliability failure I can avoid doing careful handloading.

So perhaps the best way to make the decision is to base it on which risk you believe is truly greater? For myself, I've seen a lot of jam-ups with commercial ammunition at one time or another, so I favor the reliability of carefully crafted handloads I've put thousands of through my gun without failures over the potential risk of confusing a crime lab about my gun's GSR. But I can now better understand why someone might take the opposite decision.

Thanks for taking the time to add to the information input,

Nick

[SL1]

Unclenick,

Thank you for picking out the earlier post. And Mas Ayoob, thank you for taking the time to put that post together.

After reading it, is seems like the risk to the shooter from this issue is much reduced by good reloading practices. If you carefully craft loads that are producing the advertised factory-level performance and keep them in a properly marked container (including load info) with only others just like them, there is no reason for the forensic folks to get confused about GSR evidence.

It seems absurd to me that the guy in the suicide vs homicide debate was not sure what load was in the "home defense" gun. And, if the wife choose the rounds herself from his stash and loaded them into the gun without his knowledge before she used them on herself, he would still be open to this risk if he had ANY handloads anywhere in the house.

So, thank you very much for posting this information. I will feel much more comfortable using reloads for SD preparation.

I already load them very carefully, in groups of 50 or 100, put them in identifiable containers, and mark those containers with all pertinent loading data, including case head stamp, origin of the brass, primers (with lot #), powder (with lot #), charge weight, bullet (including lot #), and velocity from MY gun. I reload in batches with methods that provide me with MUCh more assurance my loads have the intended charge than I would have with factory ammo.

So, I think that, if forensic evidence is misleading authorities about what I did with these loads, I would be in a MUCH better situation to defend myself than if I had to deal with the potential for all the potential weird and unreproduceable things that MIGHT have happened with a factory load.

Of course, that presumes that I am an honest guy telling the truth in the first place. If somebody actually DID do something wrong with their gun, perhaps causing confusion about what happened with handloads would help them get off by creating a "shadow of a doubt" about the evidence the prosecuters were presenting. (I wonder if that isn't what was really going on with the suicide vs homicide case.)

SL1

[kraigwy]

I normally try to stay out of the Reloads vs. Factory loads for SD, but I'll Chime in a bit hear.

DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU ARE: In most places (Alaska for one, Wyoming for another, as Alaska is where I was a LE officer, did some Uniform CSI and was classified as a EOD/Firearms Expert) and Wyoming, where I live after retirement) you have to know the laws.

An example, for the two places I mentioned, When one is involved in a SD shooting, you first go through a cornor's inquest. That will determine if the Shooting was justified, meaning it was SD or it wasnt. Depends on State Law. Now if you dont make it through the Cornor's inquest, you have more problems then the reload vs. factory issue. If the cornor's inquest ruled the shooting as SD, then you are through with the criminal aspect.

Now comes the Civil Case. Again State Laws very. In Wyoming, if the shooting is ruled SD. Then you are through. Wyoming forbids civil suits in ligit SD shootings.

In states where you can face civil charges thats where the reload vs factory comes in. Regardless lawers are gonna go after your gun, your ammo, and everything else to cloud the issue. The more crap they can bring in, the more time and money its gonna cost figthing it. And don't think you are gonna get off scot free cause you used Factory ammo. You use hollow points you have to answer why you wanted to maime and do more damage, you use full metal jactet, why do you want armor piercing bullets. Bad things can be said of any bullet. Best case as far as bullet justification is lead RN 158 grn standard 38s, which have been around since they've had revolvers. But not many are silly enough to think they are diecent SD loads.

So you just take you best shot and hope for the best. Use factory ammo if you think that will increase your chances in court. Use ammo you practice the most with (again I think thats silly, who used 38 standard target WCs in your SD gun. Use reloads if you think you can justify them.

Most state CCW programs are run by your states attorney general. Try writing him and asking his recomendation. He may or not respond, but keep his letter, and yours, in case you have to go to court.

I'll not suggest a course of action, I don't know your laws or back ground. Personaly and this is just me, I can justify my reloads with my training and background. Plus I live in Wyoming, a state that protects you if its a ligit SD situation.

I'll not live in a bubble in fear of reprocutions if the rare chance comes where I have to protect my family.

[whiplash]

kraigwy, I am in the same situation you are as far as state laws and statues. Idaho also protects the good guy from civil liabilities if its an honest SD issue. And like you said, if its not an honest SD, then you may have more problems than what weapon or load is used. Again, not all states are the same, and I think thats where I came up the the unofficial survey of 50/50 split on reloads vs. factory. Both sides have good points, as well as Mas. It has been a long day already, so I am going to speak some humor....just pokin some fun Mas ....if I were to use an aluminum bat to smack a BG that broke into my house, and threatend to kill my family, is the proscutor going to ask me, "sooo, a wooden bat wasnt deadly enough" again, just pokin fun...

[P5 Guy]

Re4mer, use factory loaded ammo so your estate has some one to sue if the ammo fails.

[Mas Ayoob]

Tex S -- Thanks for the advice.

Uncle Nick -- Thanks for the link.

SL1 -- I'm afraid the best of loading records won't help. In the Bias case, the defendant had thorough records, and they were not accepted by the court. Any document/documentation created solely by the defendant for such things will generally be disallowed as evidence in his defense. The reason is, it cannot be independently verified, and he is seen has having a motive to falsify it.

Otherwise, no criminal suspect would ever be convicted, because he could produce a handwritten diary claiming that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed.

Factory ammo is generally assumed to be just that, and the load therein can be verified by an independent third party, the manufacturer.

Personally, I see the evidence admissibility factor as the major argument against carrying handloads.

In several years and several heated threads in which this topic has been discussed, NO ONE has ever come up with a case where a handloader's word for what was in the load was accepted by a court of law in regard to GSR testing.

[SL1]

Mas,

I understand that the court would question my logs. That was not my point. I was imagining being accused of something that I had NOT done, based on GSR evidence. If I know what was in those loads, I may be able to figure out how the GSR evidence came out that way, which would be an advantage for me in preparing a defense. If I had to try to figure that out while only knowing what some malfunctioning factory load MIGHT have done, then I would be at a disadvantage.

Police labs have been in the news many times for mis-use of ballistics data. For in stance, there has been quite a lot of debate about matching bullets by analysis of the lead alloy. Some labs were even trying to pretend that they could tell which box of .22LR the murder bullet came from, despite data that showed that bullet was one of MILLIONS that came from the same batch of lead, and other evidence showing that the trace elements in ONE BOX of bullets did NOT match from bullet to bullet. In my state, the police lab's evidence for a whole slew of cases was thrown out because their definition of GSR did not exclude other PRETTY COMMON contaminants from every-day life.

So, coming from the position that I did NOT do anything wrong, KNOWING what I shot would probably help me figure out why the police were saying the GSR evidence said I did something wrong.

And, in court, the prosecuters have to PROVE that I DID do something wrong. I would certainly be allowed to present data that challenged their case. If they were basing their GSR evidence on factory ammo instead of my handloads, then they could not exclude evidence that I was NOT using the same ammo that their evidence was assuming. That would surely be a mistrial if they excluded that.

Now, switching gears a little, I guess some devious handloader could try to concoct some "perfect crime" where he put one load in one chamber to make the fatal shot, but loaded the rest of the chambers or magazine with other handloads to throw off the police investigation. I doubt that would really be a good strategy for a criminal, but I understand that the prosecuters could accuse me of doing it anyway. But, it seems to me that this only makes the job harder for the prosecuters, because they have to show that their evidence is not materially affected no matter what load was in the gun. It would be easier for them to do that if they could alledge that all factory ammo was the same, rather than to have to deal with all possible variations in my handloads.

One of the scariest things is that prosecuters often argue that the forensic evidence is more scientifically conclusive than it really is. And, the public often buys into it. As the accused person, you need to show that it is not so good as claimed.

One example of this type of logic is the "micro-stamping" that politicians keep trying to require for guns and ammo, where the firing pin makes some microsopic printed serial number on all of the primers that it fires, or all cases must have micro-serial numbers put on them at the factory. The intent is to be able to trace the ammo back to the gun that fired it and thus to its owner. But, anybody can go to a range, pick up an empty case, drop it at the scene of his next crime, and pick-up or retain his own brass. So, instead of catching a criminal, this scheme might convict an innocent person. In my state, that would not matter. They are happy to put any gun owner in jail with any excuse (unless he is a member of the government). So, frankly, I don't see using handloads here is increasing my risk by any significant amount.

SL1

[whiplash]

"And, in court, the prosecuters have to PROVE that I DID do something wrong. I would certainly be allowed to present data that challenged their case. If they were basing their GSR evidence on factory ammo instead of my handloads, then they could not exclude evidence that I was NOT using the same ammo that their evidence was assuming. That would surely be a mistrial if they excluded that."

SL1, I find your point very interesting...


All of you have good points.... If the prosecutor can bring in a third party (ammo manufacture) to test for GSR......then shouldnt the defense attorney be able to do the same with used handload? I understand Mas's point on a criminals diary theory. But if I used a handload (and kept good records), the defense should be able to take that same load and test for GSR, just like the prosecutor would for factory loads. If the used handload produced GSR at a given distance in a shooting, and the handload that is tested gives the same distance, isnt that good comparison? If the jury isnt going to take my word on what i used (handloads), then why would the jury take my word that I used factory? If I tell the jury that I used factory, and its tested and everything checks out, all is good. Fine. But if I tell the jury the handload that was used, and its checks out, then all should be good as well...right? Mas you might have some take on this.....couldnt the defense get an expert witness to load up said handload and test for GSR? I dont really understand how the prosecuting side can take factory loads as evidence and test....but shouldnt the defense be allowed the same rules with handloads? I do understand the diary theory, but just because I say I used factory, does the jury just automatically take my word for it? I dont know, the more I think about it, the more my head spins I am I on the right track? or is my train going to de-rail?

[Mas Ayoob]

Whiplash, please see above statements, and the kindly provided link.

Defense testing of the listed handloads in Bias' case supported his contention. But, being based on HIS documentation of HIS reloads, they weren't allowed.

No reason to believe that won't be replayed next time for the next unfortunate handloader for whom this becomes an issue.

Doesn't seem fair. But this isn't about what's fair. It's about what happens, and what we have to be prepared for.

Street attacks ain't fair either. But TFL isn't about preparing for how things should be , it's about preparing for what's happened before and may happen again.

If it matters, I don't like it any more than you do.

[whiplash]

Thanks Mas, I did in fact go back and re-read that case again....I guess sometimes one can pull something different each time it gets read...Anyway, if in fact the courts dont always play fair, I can understand how one may not get the chance to explain their handloading process/recordkeeping. And that could be the begining of the end.

not to highjack the thread to much...but maybe someone can learn from that case.....but that Bias guy probably could have prevented that issue....having a gun easily availible with a person that was somewhat suicidal? probably not a good idea. Having mixed loads in the same box? I do the same, but its marked accordingly inside the box, and kept nowhere near the house, let alone the nightstand. And, my wife's gun and my gun is already loaded (with factory loads but I am also a reserve officer, and the duty gun has to have factory, and that same gun is my SD/CC gun, so I am not going to constantly change out different loads all the time)......Whiplash out

[SL1]

Mas,

I reread your posts, and it seems as though the prosecutors did not disassemble or test any of the unfired rounds in the gun. If that is the case, then they are withholding evidence, and that should be grounds for a mistrial/retrial. With respect to the judge not allowing evidence from your own testing, that also seems like grounds for a mistrial. You seem to be saying that the judge can basically allow evidence to convict that cannot be shown to be relevant, and at the same time deny similar evidence to acquit that cannot be shown to be relevant. Something is very fishy there.

Further fishiness seems to occur in the defendant's account of what happened. We are to believe that he grabbed a gun from a woman that was pointing it at her head when he grabbed it, and he pulled the gun at least 24" away from her head before it fired, and, with that one shot, the woman was still able to hit herself in the head and kill herself. It seems like it would have been very easy for him to make sure that the gun was not pointed at her head by the time he got it that far away. And, the gun just happened to be loaded with the lightest handload he ever assembled in (just that one?) chamber that fired. And, somehow, there was NOT any GSR on AT LEAST the woman's hand that was still holding the gun? Not impossible, but REALLY improbable.

So, since neither you nor I were there to witness what REALLY happened, we don't know if this guy is really innocent and the victim of a very improbable set of circumstances, or whether he really did murder his wife and was grasping at straws related to his reloading to cover that up. I have to admit that it sounds like the guy was most likely guilty.

Going forward, myself. I only take this to mean that my SD handloads should put as much GSR in the neighborhood as possible if I ever have to shoot somebody. Even more than factory ammo sounds like a good idea. Then, prosecutors can't argue that I am too far away to feel threatened by my attacker(s). Not a problem for me, because my SD loads are made to give high performance, not cleanliness or light recoil.

But, for practice loads, I do try for clean as well as mild. So, if SOMEBODY ELSE gets to load my gun and use it, then I could have the same problem, just because I have handloads in the house, even though I don't use them for SD.

Worse, some devious handloader who got to load my gun could put ANYTHING in there to try to leave a misimpression. Heck, he could fill a case with Bullseye or C4 explosive and kill ME with it.

So, I am also learning not to handle a gun that somebody else has loaded or shoot somebody else's handloads. But, I was taught never to do those things a long time ago. So, this case does not change things for me in that respect.

Oh yes, and IF I ever see somebody holding a gun to her/his head, even inside my house, DON'T wrestle with her/him. Get the heck away from the scene and call 911. But, even then, if I was coming back from the range with a dirty gun and GSR on me... Heck, maybe I best turn all of my guns in to the government right now to protect myself!?

No! At this point at least, I still see criminals as my main threat, not the government. And, I live in a VERY anti-gun (and pro-criminal) state.

SL1

[whiplash]

I reread your posts, and it seems as though the prosecutors did not disassemble or test any of the unfired rounds in the gun. If that is the case, then they are withholding evidence, and that should be grounds for a mistrial/retrial. With respect to the judge not allowing evidence from your own testing, that also seems like grounds for a mistrial. You seem to be saying that the judge can basically allow evidence to convict that cannot be shown to be relevant, and at the same time deny similar evidence to acquit that cannot be shown to be relevant. Something is very fishy there.

That does seem a little odd

You have some good points SL1...Ive been sitting on the fence with this issue for a long time. As both sides have valid/good points. Fortunately my state has good statutes, that protect the good guy providing its justifiable SD. Then it should never make it to a civil court. Therefore handloads arent an issue. Like I did mention earlier, it wouldnt matter if its handloads or a hammer...

[45Marlin carbine]

seeing as how the original .357mag round was a cast 158gr SWC at 1350 fps (blow a hole through a BG right now - and heavy auto sheet metal to boot) could the arguement be made that JHP's are actually a 'humane' bullet as it's designed not to exit saveing the BG an extra hole?

[SL1]

Probably not good to sound like a wiseguy in court.

But, HP and other non-exiting bullet designs can easily be justified as being safer for innocent bystanders, because they don't go beyond the intended target when you score a good hit.

And, the police now use them, so how can the govenment say that they are inhumane or excessively deadly without indicting itself?

SL1

[Mas Ayoob]

FWIW, I totally agree with the last two posts.

SL1, in the Bias case, prosecution was apparently able to keep out any disassembly of remaining rounds in the gun on the theory that it would be destruction of evidence. Sounds stupid to me, too, but there it is. There was also the fact that other side could argue that the fired round was different from the others in the gun, to fool the investigators.

We all have to remember that as much ego investment as we all have in being the good guys, we are no longer seen as such or treated as such once we become the accused.

Personally, I like to keep this kind of blood out of the water and away from the sharks. Y'all can of course make your own choices.

Bias had no motive to kill his wife, and if he was going to fake a suicide could have done a much better job of it. The deceased had documentably attempted suicide before. No, leaving a gun where she could find it wasn't the smartest thing to do. However, those who love suicidal people are like those who love alcoholics: they desperately want to believe that their loved ones have changed. Not an excuse, just an explanation.