Alright once and for all, is it ok to reload self defense ammo?

[zxcvbob]

I posted what I think is the solution to this several pages back but I'll repeat it: Carry factory ammo that you trust. Practice with reloads that mimic the factory ammo (you'll have to practice a little with the factory ammo too to verify that they really are the same.)

Bob

[Edward429451]

I'm on the fence on this one. I was of the mind that justified is justified, but then again justice is becoming more rare than in the past. Ayoob may come across as an ammo schill but if you think about it, the man's not making this stuff up for S&G's. He is an expert witness and deals in this stuff frequently. Sure, it's a rare case nowadays that the issue of handloads works against the defendant. But the probability of it becoming more of an issue in more cases is likely. Especially since ammo prices are going up and more people are reloading.

So why should I carry inconsistent, overrated, overpriced big name factory ammo?

Good question and I think I may have an answer for you. You know and I know that its not hard to best factory ammo by reloading, thats a given. But realistically, how far are typical SD distances? Do you need ammo that will do 1/2" groups at 50 yards to defend yourself? Do you think you could get a BG off of you at <10 ft to contact distance with the worst overpriced inconsistent big name ammo? Of course. If you have one less thing that they can use against you, it may be enough to set you free. Possible advantage to factory crap.

At the same time I believe that we should develop our own SD re-loads now, even if we don't carry them now. Ammo could go to $100 per box or even be jerked completely overnight. I wouldn't want to have to start feom scratch at that point.

EH?

[TexasSeaRay]

I love how we continue to assume over and over that the shooting we are involved in with our handloads will be OBVIOUS DEFENSE or JUSTIFIABLE... Of course it is justifiable to US, the question is will it be so to a DA and a jury. If the forensics don't match your story because your handloads are inadmissible your credibility drops rapidly. Suddenly your justifiable shoot is no longer so obvious.

I'm sorry.

I was speaking from the perspective of one who carried a badge for a living, has seen numerous defensive shootings, and whose family still has a large number of folks still in the law & order business ranging from street cop to prosecutor to defense attorney.

Point you're missing is that an indefensible "self defense" shooting is just that: INDEFENSIBLE. It don't make a hoot WHAT kind of ammo you used--handloads, reloads, military, Communist Russian Kremlin-Penetrating-Incidiary-tipped, etc.

A bad shoot is just that and no prosecutor is going to waste time arguing the merits of the ammo used unless it is relevant to the case.

In my old special agent days, I worked, investigated and/or made arrests all over the country. What I found was that your biggest enemies to victims' rights were prosecutors in big cities/counties who looked in the mirror every morning and said, "Good morning, Senator."

Each and every homicide case that crossed their desk was political mortar to further build the foundation for their election campaign. They didn't--and don't--give a damn about either the victim or the criminal, only themselves. Everywhere else, prosecutors are a lot more beholden to the People who Elected them.

As far as Ayoob and "the same lawyers, defense attorneys, etc that hire him," absolutely.

One reason is that most lawyers are not ballistics or firearms experts. A second reason is that you often want third-party objective resources on the witness stand--and you want witnesses that are well-spoken and most importantly, that are likeable and credibile.

Mas Ayoob, without a doubt, fits all of the above criteria.

Also keep in mind, the cases in which he is hired to testify in for self-defense purposes are often those cases in which a prosecutor looks in the mirror every morning . . .

Ayoob writes and speaks, correctly, of those instances in which he either testified or has direct, first-hand knowledge.

There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of self-defense shootings, brandishings, etc that occur every month in which the prosecutor looks the report over and doesn't even waste his/her ink sending it to the Grand Jury.

How many of those might involve reloads used in self-defense?

I like in a large county. For my travel around here, I carry factory ammo. In my old military unit, we were trained to "control the variables you can control so that they're absolutes." That's what carrying factory ammo in the big city does for me. Eliminates one more variable in the mix should I need to ever use my weapon.

Jeff

[Tomas]

I don't get all the Ayoob bashing. He is one of us - a card carrying gun toting CCW supporting neanderthal. (OK, maybe we aren't ALL neatherthals). He has OUR best interests in mind when he advises against carrying handloads. Clearly, he cannot legislate whether or not we can carry handloads, and if you decide to carry them, well, it's a free country - run with scissors if you want to, talk on the cell phone while speeding, take your vicatin with a single malt...

Just think about what the guy says, he's been around the legal block a few times, and if you don't want to listen to him...fine.


I carry handloads in my Glock 20 when I hunt. Not sure what the outcome would be if I had to cap a camp robber (not the bird) or defend myself against a featherless bi-ped in the woods. Other than that, I carry factory ammo because it's one less thing I need to be concerned about if, God forbid, I ever am involved again in a SD shooting.

[rwilson452]

It seems to me the issue of handloads vs factory would be a bigger in civil rather than criminal court. It has been my observation that perception plays a greater role in civil court. I'm not saying this is the way it should be, just that is the way it is.

[freakshow10mm]

But realistically, how far are typical SD distances? Do you need ammo that will do 1/2" groups at 50 yards to defend yourself?

Studies show very close. But what if someone is holding a hostage and with a knife to their throat and I have to either make a headshot at close range or watch an innocent person die? With my handloads I can say with confidence I can make a headshot at common SD distances. With major factory ammo, I cannot say the same and woudn't even attempt it.

[Edward429451]

Hmm. Good answer and hard to argue with logic like that.

Low probability of a hostage situation, low probability of a handload issue. But both probabilities likely to become more common. The priorities are clear, live first and hash out the details later.

Decisions decisions. I guess thats why they call it fence sitting.

[Musketeer]

With my handloads I can say with confidence I can make a headshot at common SD distances. With major factory ammo, I cannot say the same and woudn't even attempt it.

Wow, I have not problem making such a shot on paper with quality factory ammo.

FYI, I do not consider $1 a round Extreme Hype ammunition sold with photos of Mall Ninjas as serious factory defensive ammo.

[CPTMurdoc30]

I use only factory ammo for carry. Just me I do not trust John Q. Public to do what is right anymore.

I am sure that if you shoot someone youare going to face a jury it is just one less "Bullet" the defense will be able to throw at you

[UGH]

I use both rounds that I load myself and also factory ammo. I am also very careful when I load my own as my life may depend on them. I really don't see the issue between the two. Frankly I trust my own more than the factory loads.

[Mas Ayoob]

Some perspective may be in order here.

It is easy to get the right answer to the wrong question. The topic here is whether handloaded ammo can hurt an honest person in court after they fired in self-defense. We naturally tend to ask the question from that perspective: "Mr. Prosecutor, Mr. Homicide Investigator, would you try to pork me in court if I shot a criminal in self-defense with a handload?"

The answer, of course, will be "no." This is because (a) we are asking people we know, who wouldn't be in our circle of friends if we thought they were Mike Nifongs. They're decent people giving you an honest answer to an honest question. Moreover, (b) if they're in YOUR circle of friends, there's an excellent chance that their more knowledgeable about gun/ammo matters than many of their counterparts. Finally, (c) no honest prosecutor or investigator wants to shaft an innocent victim who fired in self-defense.

You'll get a better perspective if you offer them this hypothetical question: "You are the prosecutor or investigator. Testing of the death weapon with crime lab exemplar ammo produces gunshot residue that does not jibe with the shooter's story about the distance involved. YOU BELIEVE HE IS, OR AT LEAST VERY WELL MAY BE, GUILTY OF A CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. He or his attorney now tell you that he had special handloads in his gun, ammo that he created himself, and he offers you sample ammo or reloading notes to re-test. WILL YOU ACCEPT HIS WORD FOR THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR WILL YOU OPPOSE THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN HIS DEFENSE?"

I suspect this will bring you an entirely different answer.

Most of the time, when a private citizen draws a defensive firearm, their attacker flees. But not always, and that's why we all study/practice defensive shooting. Similarly, most of the time when an armed citizen has to fire in self-defense, it is recognized as such by the criminal justice system. However, there are times when evidentiary inconsistency (such as gunshot residue [GSR]), or false statements by witnesses who misunderstood what happened or may be on the side of the slain bad guy, create a convincing but bogus case against you. That's the sort of thing that's under discussion here.

For years now, I've been engaging in this debate on the Internet. I ask a simple question: Can anyone cite a case where a court DID take the defendant's word or loading notes for what was in the gun, if GSR evidence became an issue?

No one has yet been able to cite such a case.

If you go over the threads on the topic archived here, and at THR (yes, this topic has been done to death!) you'll find citations I've posted, and other posters who've seen the reload argument thrown at people who were on trial. At the moment, there's a thread at www.smith-wessonforum.com, in the Lounge section, titled "9mm Self Defense Ammo." On page 2, one poster writes of 3 cases he is aware of where reloads became an issue in officer-involved shooting trials, one of which the officer lost. (I have asked for citations but have not seen them posted yet.)

[Edward429451]

It's hard to argue with logic like that too. I'll just hope that I'm never forced to use my weapon in SD at all, reloads or not. I like having insurance (reloads), and hope I never have to use it, but realize that they may deny the coverage on a technicality anyway. :-(

[Frank Ettin]

The legal issue is really fairly subtle. It has nothing to do with putting the gun or ammunition on trial. It has to do with what a jury is likely to think about you, the person who used the gun in self defense. That's important because you will probably need to tell your story about how you were in fear for your life and had no choice, and whether or not the jury completely believes you depends in part on the impression you make on them.

First, my views are based on my fairly intimate familiarity with the realities of our legal system. I practiced law for over 30 years. Understanding those realities is how I've supported myself and family for over 30 years -- keeping a roof over our heads and food on the table, and allowing me to retire before the age of 60. For almost 15 years leading up to my retirement as of the first of last year, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. My duties included managing and controlling litigation and making tactical decisions with trial counsel. This included deciding what potential witnesses for our side would most likely make a favorable impression on a judge or jury; deciding how to rehabilitate witnesses for our side who could make an unfavorable impression on a jury; and deciding whether and how to impugn opposition witnesses.

As far as finding cases goes, it’s pretty unlikely that there have been too many self defense cases, if any at all, in which handloaded ammunition was used. I suspect that the great majority of private citizens, who own guns for self defense, including those with CCWs, are not necessarily enthusiasts. They most likely own and carry factory stock guns loaded with ordinary, commercial ammunition.

So as is often the case, it's unlikely that there is any real history that would help us predict how a case would play out with certain facts. So we have to rely on general principles, and experience with other, reasonably analogous, fact situations.

Remember that whether or not a shooting is justified is not always obvious. It may well become your burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the factors that permit you to use lethal force in self defense, i. e., that you were reasonably in fear of being killed or grievously injured. This can place your perception, state of mind and disposition in issue.

Of course, your testimony may or may not be all that important. There may be good physical evidence to support your case, or there may be helpful witnesses. And then again, there may not.

So if a defendant claiming self defense used handloaded ammunition, I know what I, as a prosecutor, could do with the information; and I also have seen lawyers significantly and effectively impugn the character and thus the credibility of witnesses. I know from post verdict interviews of jurors in matters in which I've been involved that jurors have discounted, and disbelieved testimony because of such attacks on a witness' character or because they found some aspect of a witness' conduct distasteful or inappropriate. And I have come to appreciate how important it can be to gain the trust and good will of a jury.

At a trial, at the end of the presentation of evidence, each side gets to argue what the trier of fact should infer from the evidence. So a prosecutor might argue that a trier of fact should infer certain things about your character and disposition for violence from the evidence that you handloaded yourself the ammunition you used. The prosecutor might further argue that the trier of fact should conclude that your are a gun nut, and that from such inference, the trier of fact may have doubts about your claim that you were in fear of your life and absolutely needed to shoot. Indeed, I'd expect a prosecutor to conjure up for the jury the image of you up late at night in your garage quietly assembly special super killer bullets.

There are many factors that can affect how a jury will view you and your testimony -- factors that can help dispose the jury favorably toward you, or unfavorably toward you. Those factors can include how you dress (showing up in urban camo with your face painted is definitely a very bad idea), how you cut your hair, your tone of voice and demeanor when testifying, etc.

So Suzy Soccermom now asks herself, as she sits on your jury deciding whether to believe your story about what happened when you shot that nice gang member, why store bought ammunition wasn’t lethal enough to satisfy your perverted blood lust. Remember, Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was good.

I don’t see that I gain anything using handloads for self defense compared with quality, commercial ammunition. If I have to use it for self defense, it is a certainty that my conduct will be subject to intense investigation by the police and the district attorney. It is very likely that my conduct will come before the grand jury. It is a distinct possibility that I will be required to answer criminal charges and also defend my conduct against a civil claim for damages. My freedom and property will be at risk. I will have to spend at lest tens of thousands of dollars, and possibly a hundred thousand dollars or more, to defend myself. So it strikes me as prudent to do what I reasonably can do ahead of time to lay as good a foundation as possible for a good result for me.

Of course, anyone who wants to use handloads for carry ammunition is welcome to do so. It won’t be my problem. However, I will not.

[Tomas]

fiddletown brings up another good point, to wit: Chances are very slim that you will actually be judged by a jury of your "peers". If you think that the jury pool won't be vetted, i.e., that every gun "enthusiast" won't be found out and summarily shown the door, you are likely in for a shock.

Chances are good the jury will be a legion of soccer moms and gun ignoramuses, who will not be capable of "identifying" with you. Sure, it's the defenses job to make that happen, but will it?

Perhaps Mas and fiddletown would care to elucidate us on the finer points of jury selection?

[Hammer1]

Three honest, humble questions from someone who doesn't know the answers.


One, if the concern is what the jury thinks of the defendant in a righteous shooting, isn't the introduction of evidence that he reloads for a hobby or that he has been to a shooting school to prepare him for such a situation already putting him in the category of someone with an inordinate interest in guns and shooting regardless of whether handloads were in his firearm at the time of the shooting ?


Second, since most of us do not knowingly walk into situations where we expect to need to shoot in self-defense, and if we use handloads for practice or hunting, would the prosecutor be just as able to persecute the righteous shooter because he took the special effort to load factory loads in anticipation of trouble ? The prosecutor asks, "Your neighbors and friends know you are a target shooter and ammunition handloader. Have been for twenty years. Pretty good at it I hear. You had a couple of hundred rounds of quality handloads that you routinely use in simulated combat competition (IPSC) in your vault by our count. Why did you load factory JHP +P ammo in your gun that day ?"

Prove you do it every day... How ?


Three, the prosecutor asks, "You spend time on internet forums that discuss self-defense shooting and the legalities. Why ? How long have you been planning for this ?"


.

[Mas Ayoob]

Good questions, Hammer1, the first in particular probably worth a thread in itself.

To answer your first question, the best strategy I've seen is for the defense attorney to include in his opening statement (which I'd recommend be given at beginning of trial, and not the close of the prosecution's case) that of the thousands of people in your jurisdiction who kept and/or carried firearms for self-defense, you were one of a tiny fraction who took the responsibility so seriously that you paid out of your pocket to be trained by the same sort of people who train the police. You sacrificed time and money at each practice session, to make sure that if you ever did have to fire, you would minimize the chance of a wild shot that could endanger a bystander. Out of the gate, the defense establishes you as an exemplar of responsibility and cuts a leg out from under the other side's argument that you're reckless. It should also be established at the beginning that you are one of a great many gun collectors, a demographic that has included people from Elvis Presley to JFK to our current vice president. They may be able to keep the "gun people" off the jury, but at least some of those jurors will probably have loved ones and respected friends who are also gun collectors, and that will help to neutralize the other side's "gun nut" argument.

Your second question is one I wouldn't worry about. Factory is what most hunters and plinkers, and virtually all cops and soldiers, load with. If you've followed the good advice of some here, and loaded up with what the local cops carry (assuming it's a load you trust) the "evil killer bullet" argument should be easy to shoot down, no pun intended.

Cordially,
Mas

[45Marlin carbine]

all the more reasons for me to stick with my FMJ +P loads in my Mak.

[hikingman]

Five rounds carried for whatever reason, and one or two are fired in SD? This discussion is not necessarily about two mag. carry or 500 rounds. Hmmm...It still is up to you to decide.

Case in point, if you want to consider Texas-similar to other locales.

A retired Airborne Ranger lived in Texas. He was carrying his weapon of choice, a Browning Hipower. Two men were carrying his electronics out through the yard around noon. Returning home, and entering the yard of his home- he called them on the burglary attempt in clear wording, and loud enough to be heard. The perps proceeded to tell him where to go. He pulled his then 'permit' friendly 9mm & double tapped both men. One alleged burgler-departed this earth, and the other began a lawsuit from his wheelchair (a real victim, right?). Upon hearing the charges, the judge immediately dismissed the case against my former colleague. Burglary stats. in that county sunk to an unusual low for a long period of time thereafter.

I know, the justice system in Texas at times works in favor of those with military service who have no arrest record...

[Frank Ettin]

Tomas, ah the wonders and mysteries of jury selection. It basically goes like this.

[1] Each side would ideally like the greatest number of jurors who will most likely be most favorably disposed to their respective cases and the most receptive to the types of evidence and arguments they will be presenting. And of course, each side doesn't want any jurors who will be receptive to the other sides arguments. And of course what each side's ideal juror would look like will depend on what story each side intends to tell and how it intends to tell it.

[2] There are various means by which the lawyers on each side can find out about the prospective jurors. Often the jurors are asked to fill out questionnaires, and the prospective jurors are also interviewed under oath by each side, and sometimes also by the judge, in open court.

[3] Each side will have a certain number of peremptory challenges, i. e., each side may boot a certain number of prospective jurors off the panel without having to provide any justification. One of the lawyers may also move to have a juror excused for cause if he believes that he can demonstrate some actual prejudice.

[4] So in, say, a homicide case in which the defendant is an ordinary, law abiding citizen who used a gun and is claiming self defense, the prosecutor would ideally like a bunch of jurors who are afraid of guns and may doubt that private citizens ought to be able to own guns. And of course the defense doesn't want anyone like that on the jury and will use whatever means available, including peremptory challenges to have them removed.

[5] Ideally the defense would like a jury made up of dedicated gun enthusiasts and CCW holders who will understand and identify with the defendant. And such a jury would be anathema to the prosecutor who will used whatever means available to have such persons removed.

[6] At the end of the process, the jury will probably be made up of folks who don't have strong opinions and who don't have any special knowledge of, or interest in, the sorts of information that will be introduced into evidence.

This is a gross over simplification of course. In a high budget, high profile matter, each side will hire psychologists to help analyze the attitudes of prospective juror and to help decide on the best ways of reaching the jurors who are finally impaneled.

Hammer 1, I agree with Mas. Also, I might mention that there is always a risk versus utility analysis that one must make. I don't think I gain anything material using handloads instead of quality, commercial ammunition; so why make things harder for myself by using handloads. In contrast, I greatly improve my chances of prevailing in a fight if I get proper training and practice.

hikingman, that was one case in which things were clear and which came before a receptive judge in a good jurisdiction. In my view, you can't, and shouldn't, count on things always falling into place so nicely.

[TexasSeaRay]

Originally Posted by Hammer1

Second, since most of us do not knowingly walk into situations where we expect to need to shoot in self-defense, and if we use handloads for practice or hunting, would the prosecutor be just as able to persecute the righteous shooter because he took the special effort to load factory loads in anticipation of trouble ? The prosecutor asks, "Your neighbors and friends know you are a target shooter and ammunition handloader. Have been for twenty years. Pretty good at it I hear. You had a couple of hundred rounds of quality handloads that you routinely use in simulated combat competition (IPSC) in your vault by our count. Why did you load factory JHP +P ammo in your gun that day ?"

Prove you do it every day... How ?

Not sure how this would apply in all states, but for the ones I'm familiar with . . .

First thing I'd have my (defense) attorney and (if necessary, expert witness such as Mr. Ayoob, et al) testify on would be just how "light" such combat competition handloads actually are. Easy point to prove unequivocally from both testimony and physical evidence.

I'd volunteer my IPSC reloads (in my case, light .38 special LRN loads), and probably ask other members of the club to volunteer their rounds as a sample to prove how lightly loaded such typical competition rounds are compared to factory self-defense loads.

Secondly, I'd testify as to how for practice--even reality practice--the DoJ agencies issued us ordinary round ball ammo for range practice. A number of reasons for this, fiscal being one, and the difficulty for both shooter and firearm encountered by a steady diet of these hot loads.

By the end of this line of questioning, my team and I will have established that the prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney is grasping for fragile straws with this line of reasoning.

Originally Posted by Hammer1

Three, the prosecutor asks, "You spend time on internet forums that discuss self-defense shooting and the legalities. Why ? How long have you been planning for this ?"

Objection, Your Honor! Presumptive. Move to have it stricken from the record.

Sustained!

Originally Posted by Mas Ayoob

the best strategy I've seen is for the defense attorney to include in his opening statement (which I'd recommend be given at beginning of trial, and not the close of the prosecution's case) that of the thousands of people in your jurisdiction who kept and/or carried firearms for self-defense, you were one of a tiny fraction who took the responsibility so seriously that you paid out of your pocket to be trained by the same sort of people who train the police. You sacrificed time and money at each practice session, to make sure that if you ever did have to fire, you would minimize the chance of a wild shot that could endanger a bystander. Out of the gate, the defense establishes you as an exemplar of responsibility and cuts a leg out from under the other side's argument that you're reckless.

+1000

This is a typical strategy and vernacular used by the civil affairs attorneys in the USA's office when defending agent shootings from civil trials. It carries an extremely powerful, potent message of of individual responsibility and knowledge rather than reckless mindset and behavior tendencies.

A team mate of mine from the military was involved in a third-party self-defense shooting. The plaintiff's attorney tried to make him appear as a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" Hollywood B-movie snake-eater.

Typically, anything but the truth and not even close.

I testified as to our training and the intense restraint we had drilled into our heads. A retired Naval legal officer produced mountains of evidence showing the higher level of training within the military, the normal greater restraint in shooting. Other members of the team testified to similar points.

Our buddy won the decision, then successfully counter-sued for fees and damages.

Bottom line, if you are going to carry a gun for the possible defense of yourself, you family or others, your defense--in such an event--should be as important as your choice of weapon and ammunition.

And once you decide to begin carrying a gun, your actions and attitude from that point on--even years and years down the road--can be used in your defense, or against you. If you swagger and brag about "by-God, I'll shoot anyone who even passes gas at my wife or kids," or "Look crossways at my house and I'll light you up like Clark Griswold's Christmas tree," and guess what? SOMEONE will remember you saying that, and the attorney prosecuting/suing you WILL find that someone.

And lest anyone think I pulled this out of my backside, this was the "talk" given to us when we separted from the military. It was also the jist of what we were taught at Quantico and reminded of in our agency. It was damned good advice back then, and still is today.

I have repeatedly stated that I try very hard to not go or be places where I might need my gun. Try as I may, I might not always have control over that.

But what I DO have control over is my reputation, training and behavior--and even more than that, my preparedness for such another situation. I've been in too many of those situations when working for Uncle Sam. I've not been in one in the many years I've been out of that line of work. Yet, I still remember and live by the most basic, rudimentary training that some old senior chiefs drilled into us decades ago, "Control those variable you can, and turn them into absolutes."

What kind of gun I carry, what kind of ammunition I keep in it, and why are variables I have turned into absolutes.

Jeff

[Frank Ettin]

TexasSeaRay,

Exactly. Control what you can before hand. Remember P6 -- proper prior planning prevents poor performance.

[Hammer1]

A fourth question if I may be so bold.


The prosecutor asks, "You're a Life, Benefactor member of the NRA. You have thirty years of American Handgunner magazine neatly stacked and organized on your book shelves. Your fingerprints were found on every page of every article by Massad Ayoob. How come you're so fascinated with self-defense shootings ?"

.

[Frank Ettin]

In my case my answer will be: "I'm an NRA certified handgun instructor (soon also to be certified in Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home). So I study these matters so that I can properly instruct students, answer their questions, and help them to be thoughtful and responsible gun owners."

[TexasSeaRay]

Originally Posted by Hammer1

A fourth question if I may be so bold.

The prosecutor asks, "You're a Life, Benefactor member of the NRA. You have thirty years of American Handgunner magazine neatly stacked and organized on your book shelves. Your fingerprints were found on every page of every article by Massad Ayoob. How come you're so fascinated with self-defense shootings ?"

My answer would be something to the effect of:

My fingerprints are also found on every page of every magazine--not just firearms-related--that is in my house. That is why I subscribe to them--so that I can read and re-read them.

Jeff

[Rampant_Colt]

I just got done watching Death Wish 1 through 5.

"Wildey's Here"
I'm going to get a .475 Wildey Magnum [it's based on the African big game cartridge LoL] and whip up some ultra-hot handloads using mercury-filled 325gr jacketed hollowpoints topped off with a small rifle primer for maximum effect.

~Paul Kearsey