Liability for reloads?

[SwampYankee]

Using reloaded ammo is just offering another straw for an opposing attorney to grasp.

That's exactly it.

As for criminal, I would again rather represent a careful reloader who used hardcast ammunition and kept good records than represent someone shooting "uber killer" factory ammunition that rips people apart.

Why? If I am going to reload my SD ammo, I'm going to make it as lethal as possible, right? Or no? Why does being a careful reloader get brownie points with a jury? I can only assume that you suggest a "careful" reloader is going to stick to round nosed lead bullets for self defense. And while the 158 g SWC is known to be an excellent manstopper in .38 special, I'm just not sure that a lot of people reloading lead and using those reloads for SD are going that route. After all, look at all the bucks Hornady generates from the XTP's.

[Clark]

A lawyer told me that no one has ever suffered in a court room because of self defense with handloads.

He also said that hollow point bullets would be a far greater liability to carry, legally speaking.

[Magnum Mike]

Quote:
Using reloaded ammo is just offering another straw for an opposing attorney to grasp.
That's exactly it.

A better lawyer would convince the court about the manufactures description of Hyshok and other SD ammo. Like lethal, harder hitting, most lethal, more trauma, more lethal, larger cavity, super lethal, more devastating wound, best lethal bullet, et.,et, Oh did I mention the word lethal?
I'll still take my chance that a lawyer for some scumbag is not as good as mine in a justified use of DEADLY FORCE case. Good luck to those that have to use the most lethal SD shell they can buy!!

A lawyer told me that no one has ever suffered in a court room because of self defense with handloads.

He also said that hollow point bullets would be a far greater liability to carry, legally speaking.

I could not agree more. When they remove my round ball bullet that will help my case even more, showing I did not want to rip someone to shreds with the most lethal load I can find!

[TXGunNut]

Yes, but better still not to be in court listening to your lawyer trying to refute the other lawyer. Like I said, plan A is not to have to defend your choice of ammo or give them a reason to make an issue of it.
It's not just about reloaded SD ammo, it's about not doing anything that you may have to explain in court. There are several things that you can do before, during and after a justified SD shooting that aren't illegal but could land you in court with your financial future and liberty at stake.
I have a very good lawyer but he isn't cheap. A complicated estate/real estate/foreclosure matter has cost me several thousand dollars over the past couple of years. I can only imagine what an actual trial would cost.
Carry what you're comfortable with, Mike. I'd be proud to be on your jury if you need to defend yourself in court but as I've mentioned people like me would get struck.

[SwampYankee]

A better lawyer would convince the court about the manufactures description of Hyshok and other SD ammo.

This does not seem to deter many police departments, though, does it? I repeat, the simple fact is that many, many police departments DO USE commercially produced self defense ammunition while on duty. Hydrashocks are widely prevalent. In the same regard, officers are generally forbidden from using handloads and can get into quite a bit of trouble for doing so. Also in that context, remember that many police departments forbid the use of .357 magnum ammo decades ago out of concerns about over penetration and collateral damage.

I wonder what their lawyers know that yours don't?

[TXGunNut]

Their lawyers can instruct their client to write a large check to settle the matter. Mine could do that, then we'd laugh and get down to business. I was lucky to work for a department that had pretty broad guidelines but back in the 60's & 70's they did mandate revolvers loaded with .38's. I heard rumors of some very hot .38 handloads but the only one that caused a problem was some factory SuperVels, officer involved had to transition to a shotgun mid-fight.
Specifying a particular weapon and cartridge is more of an admin decision than an oficer safety decision with larger departments. In most cases it's a very good weapon and a very good cartridge but it will never please all of the officers.

[SwampYankee]

Their lawyers can instruct their client to write a large check to settle the matter.

True enough. And that is the end of the officer's career. But I wonder how often someone comes after a police officer/department claiming the bullets he used were "too dangerous". I suspect it is as often as people come after regular citizens doing the same.

[Magnum Mike]

This does not seem to deter many police departments, though, does it? I repeat, the simple fact is that many, many police departments DO USE commercially produced self defense ammunition while on duty.

This true but the police are suppose to PROTECT AND SERVE the public, I'm not paid to do that. Many police departments can only use a certain gun, certain shoes, even a uniform. Also if the tax payer was paying for my ammo and lawyer I use what was given to me also. I only count on MY reloads for my life not anybody elses.
It really does not matter what you shoot you will still need a lawyer.

I wonder what their lawyers know that yours don't?

There is more of them and it's the government paying!
As far as the jury not liking a reloader, they would probably a be anti gun and not help any shooting case.

I suspect it is as often as people come after regular citizens doing the same.

Swamp yankee
Why do you keep twisting things up? You quoted me on "liability of reloads" earlier, Then had me not using a gun if I could not take their head, to a suicide case for a use of DEADLY FORCE issue. Face it man you cant prove where a reload has affected the outcome of a justified shooting.

[Magnum Mike]

But I wonder how often someone comes after a police officer/department claiming the bullets he used were "too dangerous".

More often than they do a reloader I'm sure!

[Bamashooter]

i think if its legal to buy or legal to reload then it shouldnt be an issue. all this talk of lawyers makes me want to go down to the basement and reload.

[Lavid2002]

I dont know why people get all caught up in this kind of garbage....


1-The odds of having to use a gun in self defense are VERY VERY slim
2-When you do use one..you will be in a life or death scenario...not a how much trouble will I get in if I do this scenario. I will do anything and everything capable of getting the job done if that scenario comes along : )

Odds are it never will..and for that i'm thankful

[zxcvbob]

Sigh,
The real point is that with handloads you cannot use ballistic forensics to corroborate your story regarding the distance the shots were fired at. That should only be an issue if it's not clear that it was a good shoot and (IMHO) if the prosecutor's case is kind of weak. If all the stars line up against you, you're screwed whereas with factory loads you might could have proven that you really were only 10 feet away when you fired, not 50 feet like the only witness said. (for example)

I use handloads in my home defense guns. There is no place in my home where I could even take a shot that was more than 20'. I don't carry a gun yet, but when I start I'll probably carry factory loads -- unless I can't find any, like was recently the case just about everywhere in the U.S. with .380 ammo.

[Alaska444]

Reloading is fine as long as you have the money to hire the expert witnesses to examine all aspects of your reloading techniques. The CCW instructor where I got my class testifies as an expert witness and he stated it could cost up to $100,000 just for the reload issue. He had a shot dog case a few months ago where the dog attacked his client on his property and it cost over $235,000 just to defend a dog case. Just add automatically another $100,000 to your defense for your own reloaded ammo. Just might take all of your lifetime ammo savings out the door real quick.

[SwampYankee]

Face it man you cant prove where a reload has affected the outcome of a justified shooting.

Nope, I can't. And you can't prove the existence of God but that doesn't mean many people aren't hedging their bets and going to church. Most people who carry a weapon will agree that it is better to be safe than sorry and the general consensus is that using factory ammo is less likely to get you into trouble. Whether the proof exists or not, the consensus does exist. You can call it a fallacy, but that doesn't make any less sensible.

So my question to you is: Why take a risk? Why are your reloads better than factory ammo? You have yet to explain why you choose to use a reload than a proven self-defense round. Feel free to argue the term "proven" but ammo manufacturers spend a lot of time doing the best they can to demonstrate the effectiveness of their ammo, aside from shooting actual people with them. You still aren't answering any of my questions about your special reloads...

I use handloads in my home defense guns.

Assuming it exists in your state, Castle Law means if you shot an intruder in your house, you cannot be prosecuted. The law assumes he was there to do you harm and there is nothing a prosecutor can do to charge you. Any shoot is a "good" shoot.

Why do you keep twisting things up?

Sorry about that. It's not my intent. I'm just having a hard time keeping track of your arguments.

[SL1]

So, SwampYankee shouldn't be claiming one exists and that it favors HIS position.

As for why reloads might be "better" for self defense, there is at least a basis for being SURE that they have powder, primers with anvils, and cases with flash holes. Loads made automatically in a factory do not have the personal quality checks that the handloader can make, so reliability is potentially better.

Also, accuracy can be better for handloads. Which means that you could argue that they are actually SAFER for innocent bystanders.

And, cost is much cheaper for handloads than for similar premium factory loads, so you can practice more with what you actually shoot and be better at hitting your target instead of somebody/thing else if you use the same handloads for both practice and defense.

So, if you are shooting handloads that are not any "hotter" than the specs CLAIMED for factory ammo, using bullets available in factory ammo, I think you have a pretty good argument that the loads you used are NOT designed to be MORE lethal than factory. And, if some lawyer says "factory ammo doesn't really meet its published specs" then you can point back to the reliability issue and say that is why you use ammo that DOES do what it is supposed to do, instead of SOMETIMES doing less.

The truth is, if somebody is going to sue you, they are going to use whatever excuses they can think-up. They aren't going to make that decision based on whether you used handloads. They are going to make the decision based on whether they want to use the court system for revenge or an additional attempt at robbing you. And, the same goes for prosecutors who want to charge somebody with a crime because they are anti-gun ownership.

So, I don't think you are really "safer" with factory than handloads from a legal point of view. With the lack of examples of actual court cases where handloading was detrimental to the defendant, there seems to be a very small probability that this would actually come up IF you actually needed to shoot someone with your handloads.

Of course, if you start doctoring the bullets, then all bets are off, both legally and in terms of accuracy and actual terminal performance.

SL1

[SwampYankee]

There is no "consensus" on this.

I respectfully disagree. There may not be a consensus on a Firing Line forum entitled "Handloading and Reloading" but in the wider world of shooters, FFL's and law enforcement agents, this consensus does exist. Chalk it up to anything you like (experience, ignorance, bias, etc) but it is there. In fact, in a ridiculously unscientific and statistically dubious poll on TFL (see http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388901), 56% of respondents indicated that they would prefer factory ammunition to reloads. Obviously, this does not address their reasons nor is it a random sample but it does demonstrate a "consensus", even on TFL.

I won't argue your reasons for preferring handloads but I will point out that saying, "they are going to sue you no matter what you do" seems a little foolish. Giving "them" as little ammunition (pun intended) to throw at you seems the wiser course of action.

there seems to be a very small probability that this would actually come up IF you actually needed to shoot someone with your handloads.

Indeed. But there is also an extremely small probability you will ever need to use your weapon. So in that case, why even bother carrying it? See the logic?

[Magnum Mike]

And you can't prove the existence of God but that doesn't mean many people aren't hedging their bets and going to church

I'm Not claiming that.
I'm just tired of people telling newbies not to reload SD "(home brewed man killers) because of some pipe dream they cant prove while taking a dump!
I really dont care what others use,I will use reloads.
Even the stupidest lawyer knows that a factory or reload, 5" or 10" knife, aluminum or wood bat, can be lethal!! The use of Deadly Force is the use of deadly force, which can be very lethal!

[jmorris]

Wow, this one kind of blew up, we have guns, religion maybe someone can work in abortion?

Good thing I don't have to use my reloads for SD as I still have a decent stash of Black Talon's....yes, that was a joke.

[Magnum Mike]

I quit doing polls nor do alot of others do it. IT is a poll!! You would make a good Brady Campain worker the way you are disagreeing and coming up with your statements.

[Magnum Mike]

The real point is that with handloads you cannot use ballistic forensics to corroborate your story regarding the distance the shots were fired at. That should only be an issue if it's not clear that it was a good shoot and (IMHO) if the prosecutor's case is kind of weak. If all the stars line up against you, you're screwed whereas with factory loads you might could have proven that you really were only 10 feet away when you fired, not 50 feet like the only witness said. (for example)

So point being we should trust factory stuff because it is perfect?
Tell that to all Toyota owners! And yes I've had factory ammo not perform right for me! I KNOW my loads will work for me and can prove it!

[zxcvbob]

So point being we should trust factory stuff because it is perfect?
Tell that to all Toyota owners! And yes I've had factory ammo not perform right for me! I KNOW my loads will work for me and can prove it!

I didn't say that. I said the courts will trust the factory ammo but will not necessarily believe anything you say about your handloads, and they won't even test them. (I have exactly one data point to back that up.) You have to decide for yourself whether this is important enough to sway your decision.

One more point about me using handloads at home; if I shoot someone, it's pretty clear that I didn't go looking for trouble, it was looking for me. If I'm carrying a gun in public, that's different and the jury is gonna be prejudiced against me from the beginning and I have an uphill battle. The chances of me ever getting in a gunfight are vanishingly small (but not zero) and I like my handloads, so I haven't totally decided for myself if I'd carry them. I know I would if no factory ammo was available.

You're a big boy, you gotta make up your own mind. I'm just laying out some points you may not have considered.

[Magnum Mike]

zxcvbob, I wasn't trying to agrue with you. You are also right about it being an up hill battle. especially if it's an anti DA it which it wont matter what you were shooting. I'm just saying if it's a clean justified Use of Deadly force case Reloads wont matter.

[Clark]

With all these years that have gone by since that book was written raising the concern, and still no demonstrated liability in a courtroom, one might think that we have some unusually dense debaters. But there is nothing unusual about this in human behavior. Once someone worries about something, they keep the concern, no matter how irrational, if there is no real cost to keeping the concern.

Another example would be free machining steel with lead in the alloy, used for muzzle loading barrels. There was a concern it was not strong enough, because other steels are stronger.
There was then a stress calculation that showed it was much stronger than needed.
No one changed their mind.
There was then a validation of the calculation with a test. A barrel was plugged on both ends and completely filled with powder. The barrel did not fail.
Still, no one changed their mind.

"I don't care about no facts!" -Al Sharpton on the Tawana Brawley case

[Magnum Mike]

With all these years that have gone by since that book was written raising the concern, and still no demonstrated liability in a courtroom, one might think that we have some unusually dense debaters.

+1+
Well said!!

[SL1]

SwampYankee,

"56%" is a MAJORITY, not a "consensus."

The fact that there is ALWAYS an argument on this subject is PROOF that there is no "consensus." A consensus is a near-universal believe in something.

Clearly, there is NO consensus on this. Even a universal prohibition against LE carrying handloads would not constitute a consensus about the legal ramifications of a civilian doing the same, because there are too many other aspects that the LE folks need to consider.

So, let's try to argue the FACTS and not try to use an argument like "everyone else agrees with me."

SL1