How do you choose your SD ammo?

[amd6547]

All I know is, I’m sick of the latest and greatest SD ammo sold in 20rd boxes for well over a dollar a round. None of it does anything better than the 9mm +P+ BPLE that was widely available for $18/50rd preplandemic. Or Rem-UMC 357mag 125gn SJHP that was $50/100.
Keep your magic bullets, I stick with the classics.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by amd6547

All I know is, I’m sick of the latest and greatest SD ammo sold in 20rd boxes for well over a dollar a round. None of it does anything better than the 9mm +P+ BPLE that was widely available for $18/50rd preplandemic. Or Rem-UMC 357mag 125gn SJHP that was $50/100.
Keep your magic bullets, I stick with the classics.

I don’t think anyone is forcing anyone to buy brand X or brand Y. We’re all free to buy and use what we want. Certain brands have become more or less popular with time, as is the nature of this industry. Stores tend to stock what sells. Generally speaking you can still order most ammunition online.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

I'd not be quite so emphatic, as there are a number of circumstances where the use of handloaded ammunition may create more of an exposure to doubt, as well as potential civil liability.

Sure, its' easy to state that deadly force is deadly force, but if a question arises regarding the circumstances in which the deadly force was used, as stated by the victim using the handloads, it may be less easy to answer than if factory ammunition was used.

For example, the big names in ammunition have been reported to keep exemplars of their production runs, meaning the ammunition can be checked against it, if needed. If the distance alleged between attacker/victim may become a question - meaning creating doubt of the veracity of the victim's claims in other aspects, in the minds of investigators and jurors - the use of factory ammunition allows for checking forensic evidence with similar ammunition. Not as easily done with handloads, since it's only the victim's word how the ammunition was created and loaded. Look at the link below, scrolling down to the section on Gunshot Residue Analysis:
https://nj.gov/njsp/division/investi...evidence.shtml

It may be a fuzzier matter to debate whether loading their own defensive ammunition shows any particular state of mind of a victim, and it's often claimed that a good attorney can overcome smoke & mirror claims and problems that arise in an investigation and court case ... but that still costs money and time, and why create a situation where the attorney has to work any harder (and charge you more money) than must be done?

Also, as a former avid handloader myself, I've seen how some components (primers) can unexpectedly become an issue, as well as monitoring the amount of powder in a hopper, temperature humidity during handloading, etc may introduce factors not anticipated.

As a LE firearms trainer who has also worked in classes attended by private citizens, I've seen more ammunition-related failures occur with handloaded ammunition than with factory ammunition ... and that's considering that factory ammunition has been involved by the many hundreds of thousands of rounds, which is a LOT more than handloaded ammunition has been brought to classes.

When obvious handloaded ammunition problems have arisen during classes, the usually responses from the shooters affected by them has been, "But that's never happened with my handloads before?!?", or, "But that's never happened with the handloads my friend has made for me before?!?". Maybe not, but it sure happened that time on the range, causing a problem for the shooter and slowing everything down for everyone else while the resulting problem had to be corrected. Imagine that happening outside the range, when someone desperately needed the ammunition to work as desired?

Not saying it can't happen with factory ammunition. Just saying that I've seen it happen much more often with handloads people have brought to a range session, and among a much smaller sample size than with factory ammunition.

You pay your money and you take your chances.

Absolutes are hard to come by, granted.

In your l.E. career, did you know any Snipers, Marksman observers, (whatever you want to call them) that loaded their own sniper ammo? I knew several, because we could load so much more accurate ammo than we could buy.
Some people are not capable of turning out precision handgun ammo, some are. My plinking, target, match, ammo is turned off the Dillon at 300 to 500 an hour. My carry loads are new factory primed Winchester brass, weighed powder charges, dual stage crimped, run through a body die. Not cheaper than factory, better than factory.

[reynolds357]

Federals new "Punch" ammo looks interesting. It is a non barrier blind hollow point that expands much more rapidly than their barrier blind hollow points.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by reynolds357

In your l.E. career, did you know any Snipers, Marksman observers, (whatever you want to call them) that loaded their own sniper ammo? I knew several, because we could load so much more accurate ammo than we could buy. ...

Sniper gave way to precision rifle shooter.

In answer to your question, no. Nobody was allowed to use anything other than the best factory ammunition that could be sourced. Too much potential for exposure to unnecessary liability, or at least the perception of it, if an incident resulted in the big orbital magnifying glass being brought to bear upon each and every minute aspect of events.

Joking aside, once one type or another of premium precision ammunition was selected, and each rifle was checked with it and a dope card created for the rifle shooter and the particular rifle/ammunition, consistency was always checked and rechecked.

When claims and lawsuits can result from civilian LE actions, it's preferable to avoid any needless opportunity for exposure to anything that could be made into an issue. Even if it's not an issue, it can still become an exercise in time and money to deal with it. Especially when paid "experts" are a dime a dozen who can be brought in to testify to jurors.

This is something that may easily change from one agency to another, though, and there are more than 17,000 state and local LE agencies in the US.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

Sniper gave way to precision rifle shooter.

In answer to your question, no. Nobody was allowed to use anything other than the best factory ammunition that could be sourced. Too much potential for exposure to unnecessary liability, or at least the perception of it, if an incident resulted in the big orbital magnifying glass being brought to bear upon each and every minute aspect of events.

Joking aside, once one type or another of premium precision ammunition was selected, and each rifle was checked with it and a dope card created for the rifle shooter and the particular rifle/ammunition, consistency was always checked and rechecked.

When claims and lawsuits can result from civilian LE actions, it's preferable to avoid any needless opportunity for exposure to anything that could be made into an issue. Even if it's not an issue, it can still become an exercise in time and money to deal with it. Especially when paid "experts" are a dime a dozen who can be brought in to testify to jurors.

This is something that may easily change from one agency to another, though, and there are more than 17,000 state and local LE agencies in the US.

It is really not about how premium or "precision" a batch of ammo is. It is about how well the rifle likes it. You mess with powder charge and seat depth, you can turn a 1/2 moa into a quarter moa rifle. Most of the L E. Snipers I trained with and shot with were barely sub MOA shooters. They are usually lost as last year's Easter egg on the 1000. If I threw factory ammo in my 1k rifle, I would probably look just as lost.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by reynolds357

It is really not about how premium or "precision" a batch of ammo is. It is about how well the rifle likes it. You mess with powder charge and seat depth, you can turn a 1/2 moa into a quarter moa rifle. Most of the L E. Snipers I trained with and shot with were barely sub MOA shooters. They are usually lost as last year's Easter egg on the 1000. If I threw factory ammo in my 1k rifle, I would probably look just as lost.

How many LE snipers are taking a shot at 1000 yd in the line of duty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

How many LE snipers are taking a shot at 1000 yd in the line of duty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None. My theory is that if you can shoot 6 " groups at 1000, 100 yds is a cake walk. Some of my guys used to have trouble shooting a 90 with hand gun every quarter. We quit practicing at 25, 15, 7, and 3 yards and started practicing at 50 and 100. Once they figured out 100 yard, the 25 yd and under qualification course was a cake walk.
I had never considered shooting Glock 23 and 22 at 100, until a retired IDF trainer was doing it for fun at a training seminar I went to. He rarely missed a popper at 100.

[HiBC]

When the question of handloads versus factory loads for self defense came up in this thread, I suggested using "search" to catch up on the long and in depth threads that had already gone very deep into the topic. Its kind of like "headspace". It does not need to be done over. The uninformed might spend the effort to catch up

I'll put out the standard disclaimer. I'm not a lawyer. Do not take this as legal advice.

There is nothing unlawful (as far as I know) about carrying handloads for SD.
In general, the preferred , first choice factory loads are designed to produce trauma. Thats how they disable the threat.

Whether you use Keith SWC's, Double ended wadcutters, or Lee Jurras swaged half jackets, law enforcement and the District Attorney don't have any legit complaint.

Its unlikely your handload "kills deader" than whatever factory load your local sheriff carries.

The argument about the lethality of factory loads versus handloads or the mindset of the handloader is silly. Its a red herring that completely misses the point of why factory loads are preferred.
So is the argument about quality. Handloads can be superb quality. Sure there can be crap handloads. But once again,it completely misses the point of why factory loads are preferred. We don't need to discuss the quality of your handloads.

Ready? OK,here is the reason. If you are involved in a SD shooting death,you essentially confess to a homicide. Now you provide evidence the homicide was justified.
Ballistic forensic evidence might be critical to your defense. Maybe there are no witnesses. All you have is a dead body and a story.

Ballistic evidence can add credibility to your story. Gun shot residue,for example.

A police forensic lab or defense firearms expert can go buy the same factory load that was in your gun and conduct tests that will be admissible as evidence.

You won't be able to get admissible evidence from handloads. The lab can't go buy your handloads to test.

That is the issue. Carry handloads and you give up ballistic forensic evidence as an element of your defense.

With that in mind, carry whatever ammo you want. I prefer factory loads for carry.
Other than rimfire ammo and self defense ammo, I just don't buy factory loads. I buy virgin or once fired brass and shoot the same, consistent ammo regardless of what is on the shelf. I've been handloading since the late 1960's. I've had some practice. I do not lack confidence in my handloads.

[TunnelRat]

So then results at 1000 yd are a somewhat odd choice of benchmark to use to judge factory ammo if the people shooting at that distance are likely unpracticed at shooting that far. That says more about the shooter than the ammunition.

I’m under no illusion that a person handloading ammunition can’t tailor a load to a particular rifle and barrel better than say most factory ammo. But there is plenty of factory ammunition that is capable of good groups, read sub MOA. We’re also now mixing talking about handgun ammunition and rifle ammunition. I’ve shot IDPA steel plates at 100 yd with a Glock 19 and factory RUAG ammunition with ease, not match ammunition but off the shelf FMJ provided as a training round. And this was a stock trigger and a drop in KKM barrel. I don’t say this to brag, I say it to point out factory ammunition for the great majority of cases is just fine when it comes to accuracy and precision.

If someone wants to tailor a load more power to them and I’m aware there are benefits, but we have to be talking fairly extreme distances before I accept that factory ammunition is really hindering a shooter. Let’s also keep in mind the context of the question, and frankly I don’t think 1000 yd falls within the context of most self defense shootings.

Edit: I wanted to add I do agree that training at longer distances yields benefits at closer distances and can make the latter feel easier. My argument isn’t with that notion as I myself have benefited from doing just that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by HiBC

When the question of handloads versus factory loads for self defense came up in this thread, I suggested using "search" to catch up on the long and in depth threads that had already gone very deep into the topic. Its kind of like "headspace". It does not need to be done over. The uninformed might spend the effort to catch up

I'll put out the standard
Ready? OK,here is the reason. If you are involved in a SD shooting death,you essentially confess to a homicide. Now you provide evidence the homicide was justified.
Ballistic forensic evidence might be critical to your defense. Maybe there are no witnesses. All you have is a dead body and a story.

Ballistic evidence can add credibility to your story. Gun shot residue,for example.

A police forensic lab or defense firearms expert can go buy the same factory load that was in your gun and conduct tests that will be admissible as evidence.

You won't be able to get admissible evidence from handloads. The lab can't go buy your handloads to test.

That is the issue. Carry handloads and you give up ballistic forensic evidence as an element of your defense.

Let me preface this by saying I carry factory ammunition.

Can you link me a reported/recorded example of when such a situation in terms of ballistics testing being unable to be performed came up? Not you heard it from someone, but there’s a report or news story you can link us to that will show this.

I ask this because every time this question is asked someone relates how John Q’s local police department or DA is going to double down on CSI level ballistics testing. I have yet to read a story of a defensive shooting with a handgun where that seems to be the case (that’s not even getting into the current state of the legal system which is so backed up after the pandemic that I’m doubtful there is time to do this level of investigation even when desired).

Moreso, most people when they reload ammunition load more than what they carry at a time. A person could point low enforcement to where in their home additional rounds are stored and have those used by whatever crime lab is being used. Could I see some doubt being introduced because of this? Yeah I could, but I’m somewhat doubtful of this being enough to overrule a court’s requirement of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

I fully admit my current view could just as easily be an example of the media being lax in reporting or my own ignorance, which is why I am asking in earnest. I’d add I agree with you on practically every other point you’ve made (in fact I just argued one of those points). I also carry factory ammunition to simply remove one more variable, as I see it, from a potential legal defense. But I’m unsure if that fear is founded.

Edit: since it relates, I wanted to share this video. Essentially it details how Federal has changed their 147 gr HST bullet design in recent years. Performance aside, it goes to the question of a ballistics lab being able to buy a box of your factory ammunition for testing. In this case in a 5 year or so span we see a visible change to the bullet. This is something that other companies may also do. If you’re replacing your carry ammunition regularly it may not be a factor, but if you say bought a large lot in the past and have been using that, it may differ from what the factory is currently producing and in the scenario discussed this may be something that would have to be pointed out.

https://youtu.be/xQg_D7mcVRw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HiBC]

Can you link me a reported/recorded example of when such a situation in terms of ballistics testing being unable to be performed came up? Not you heard it from someone, but there’s a report or news story you can link us to that will show this.

To answer your question, No. I'm not a lawyer,I don't have the time or resources. Once again,why waste the time and energy to re-invent the wheel and hijack this thread off into the weeds?
Because it seems not many folks have the energy to use the "search" function,I did it for you. I first came across the advice I repeated via Massad Ayoob.
If you will go to the link below,the first that I found with "search" you will see the weigh-in of all the legal minds here at TFL. They have written and researched the topic in depth. Please go read the thread linked below and see if it does not answer your question.

Your question is not a new one. As I recall,Spats McGee addresses it in that thread.


https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...r+self+defense

[TunnelRat]

I don’t believe I was hijacking the thread. I was responding to something you posted in response to someone other than me.

Thank you for the link. As for a lack of energy, I had no way of knowing where you came across that information. I’m not a mind reader. While it’s true the search function exists, as you pointed out there are many threads. If you know it directly, and frankly the onus is on the person making a claim to support it, then I figured it might be a small ask. This is after all a community and helping each other is why many are here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by HiBC

To answer your question, No. I'm not a lawyer,I don't have the time or resources. Once again,why waste the time and energy to re-invent the wheel and hijack this thread off into the weeds?
Because it seems not many folks have the energy to use the "search" function,I did it for you. I first came across the advice I repeated via Massad Ayoob.
If you will go to the link below,the first that I found with "search" you will see the weigh-in of all the legal minds here at TFL. They have written and researched the topic in depth. Please go read the thread linked below and see if it does not answer your question.

Your question is not a new one. As I recall,Spats McGee addresses it in that thread.


https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...r+self+defense

It didn't answer mine. It was a bunch of speculation and repeated stuff someone else heard from what someone else said. I saw no court citations of cases that came down against handloads. Saying handloads for self defense increase your liability is like saying using a weapon that has been in any way modified from factory will increase your liability. If you miss mister Perp and hit miss Judy Joe on her Sunday stroll, all those factors can come into question. In a "good shoot", it's all pointless and meaningless.

[HiBC]

I did not intend to point at you regarding hijacking the thread. It was just going that way.

Its not the first time I have presented what I believed was a good faith perspective on a topic and been challenged with "prove it" .

I understand the "rule", but if you put that to an attorney it might cost you a lot of money. I'm not going to do hours of amateur legal research. I've resd,understood, and remembered what Massad Ayoob,Spats McGee, etc have written.
I thought the basic premise regarding admissability of forensic evidence was worth presenting because,once again the red herrings about state of mind and handloads to kill people deader or handloads as substandard ammo were misleading as far as why handloads might not be a good choice.

I don't get paid to contribute. I do it because I enjoy sharing. I do it assuming the reader can discern ; "Hmm, He makes a reasonable case. I'll consider it" Or not.

I clearly say "I'm not a lawyer,its not legal advice.

Take it for what its worth or ignore it.

[HiBC]

In a "good shoot", it's all pointless and meaningless.

|

You go ahead and do whatever makes you happy. I don't care.

As others have said, Its not a "Good Shoot" until a jury of regular,non-gun folks is convinced its a "Good Shoot" and generally,the bias is toward "We don't like shooting"

But you go ahead.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by HiBC

I did not intend to point at you regarding hijacking the thread. It was just going that way.

Its not the first time I have presented what I believed was a good faith perspective on a topic and been challenged with "prove it" .

I understand the "rule", but if you put that to an attorney it might cost you a lot of money. I'm not going to do hours of amateur legal research. I've resd,understood, and remembered what Massad Ayoob,Spats McGee, etc have written.
I thought the basic premise regarding admissability of forensic evidence was worth presenting because,once again the red herrings about state of mind and handloads to kill people deader or handloads as substandard ammo were misleading as far as why handloads might not be a good choice.

I don't get paid to contribute. I do it because I enjoy sharing. I do it assuming the reader can discern ; "Hmm, He makes a reasonable case. I'll consider it" Or not.

I clearly say "I'm not a lawyer,its not legal advice.

Take it for what its worth or ignore it.

Understood, and I found value in the other thread (I’d say posts 31, 33, 45, and 53 do a good job touching on the ballistic implications from people that are lawyers and called in as witnesses in similar such cases). I was asking in earnest, not just trying to be antagonistic (which happens a lot online to be fair). If I hadn’t seen value in your comments I would have ignored them outright. I simply wanted more details, as you provided with the link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by HiBC

|

You go ahead and do whatever makes you happy. I don't care.

As others have said, Its not a "Good Shoot" until a jury of regular,non-gun folks is convinced its a "Good Shoot" and generally,the bias is toward "We don't like shooting"

But you go ahead.

I have never seen a good shoot go to a jury. I worked a pile of self defense, justifiable homicides. No one was ever charged. D.A. did his job and ruled it justifiable. I did work an interesting case where an old man shot a home invader. Didn't kill him. When the goy that got shot was being sentenced, the judge said "I wish Mr. ----- had learned to shoot better. Your funeral would have wasted less of my time than this trial.".

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by HiBC

|

You go ahead and do whatever makes you happy. I don't care.

As others have said, Its not a "Good Shoot" until a jury of regular,non-gun folks is convinced its a "Good Shoot" and generally,the bias is toward "We don't like shooting"

But you go ahead.

I think I would rather just move somewhere that has a good D.A.

[JohnKSa]

Can you link me a reported/recorded example of when such a situation in terms of ballistics testing being unable to be performed came up?

The Daniel Bias case is a situation where handloads may have complicated the ability to demonstrate how far away the gun was from the victim at the time it was fired.

It is quite difficult to come up with examples like this for reasons that have little to do with the potential issues that can relate to the topic. The following link deals with that specific issue in some detail.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=586732

I saw no court citations of cases that came down against handloads.

See the link above for an explanation, from a lawyer, of why it's very difficult to find such citations, even if handloads have played a part in court cases.

Even if they did play a part, the issue of handloads would almost certainly be buried in the case details, not an obvious part of the verdict or normal coverage.

And it's not nearly so much about "increasing liability" so much as it is creating a potential complication for one's defense in a criminal or civil defense.

Finally, it's not something that's likely to become an issue--in fact it's quite unlikely that it would become an issue. The point isn't that the odds are high that it will come into play--the odds are quite small that it will come into play. The point is that it's a risk that can be avoided extremely easily. Given that the whole point of firearm self-defense is about dealing with unlikely situations where the stakes are potentially very high, it seems to me that there shouldn't be any confusion about this topic--which is nearly identical in that respect. It's dealing with an unlikely situation (handloads come into play in a legal defense) where the stakes are potentially very high. For some reason that I don't understand, people who understand the first situation quite clearly sometimes have trouble with the latter in spite of the obvious parallel.

...is like saying using a weapon that has been in any way modified from factory will increase your liability,

It's not like that at all, or maybe it is, in the sense that nobody I've ever seen actually makes the claim that modifying a weapon "in any way" increases liability. In both cases they are strawmen. They are distorted versions of the actual situation.

I have never seen a good shoot go to a jury. I worked a pile of self defense, justifiable homicides.

Of course. If there are no questionable circumstances at all, why would they go to trial? It's when the are some questions about the circumstances that a trial might result. But the fact that a trial results doesn't mean the shoot was automatically bad. A trial doesn't mean the person is guilty, or they wouldn't need to have trials--as soon as a trial was determined to be necessary they would already know that guilt was established.

In a "good shoot", it's all pointless and meaningless.

1. It is the circumstances of a shoot that make it good or bad. If, for some reason there are questions about the circumstances, or they appear ambiguous, then further analysis may be required and in those situations, even small details could be very important.

2. The statement is based on the idea that all shoots that are good shoots can be immediately determined to be good shoots without a trial. Which is saying that only guilty people go to trial--obviously nonsense.

I think I would rather just move somewhere that has a good D.A.

That's a novel approach to a problem that is so unlikely to occur in the first place. Moving is a better solution than simply not loading your self-defense firearms with handloads?

Look, the topic of handloads for self-defense is pretty nuanced. People who want very simple answers--It's black. It's white. Yes. No. are going to be frustrated or dismissive of the topic. That's fine. The problem is that having that kind of simplistic view of the world doesn't change reality. Where things tend to get sticky is where someone who doesn't want to understand the topic because it doesn't fit a black/white worldview tries to say that the problem doesn't exist. That's simply incorrect.

From a purely practical perspective, if one must have a black/white answer, then I suppose: "It won't matter." may be as close as one can get to satisfactory. More accurate would be: "It's unlikely to matter." Completely accurate is: "It's not likely to be an issue, but fortunately it's extremely easy to totally eliminate that particular risk by simply not using handloads."

Some people won't care about eliminating that particular risk and that's fine--it's their decision to make.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The Daniel Bias case is a situation where handloads may have complicated the ability to demonstrate how far away the gun was from the victim at the time it was fired.

It is quite difficult to come up with examples like this for reasons that have little to do with the potential issues that can relate to the topic. The following link deals with that specific issue in some detail.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=586732
Quote:
I saw no court citations of cases that came down against handloads.
See the link above for an explanation, from a lawyer, of why it's very difficult to find such citations, even if handloads have played a part in court cases.

Even if they did play a part, the issue of handloads would almost certainly be buried in the case details, not an obvious part of the verdict or normal coverage.

And it's not nearly so much about "increasing liability" so much as it is creating a potential complication for one's defense in a criminal or civil defense.

Finally, it's not something that's likely to become an issue--in fact it's quite unlikely that it would become an issue. The point isn't that the odds are high that it will come into play--the odds are quite small that it will come into play. The point is that it's a risk that can be avoided extremely easily. Given that the whole point of firearm self-defense is about dealing with unlikely situations where the stakes are potentially very high, it seems to me that there shouldn't be any confusion about this topic--which is nearly identical in that respect. It's dealing with an unlikely situation (handloads come into play in a legal defense) where the stakes are potentially very high. For some reason that I don't understand, people who understand the first situation quite clearly sometimes have trouble with the latter in spite of the obvious parallel.

I generally agree, which is why I carry factory ammunition, as I stated. I was simply curious as to what information was out there as my experience with the firearms community in general is many things are repeated as true often just because someone else said it. I already understood the parallel, but I was curious as to how the potential complications had materialized in real life. The other thread that was linked had some interesting discussion on the topic that I found informative, including Spats' comments about GSR that I hadn't considered and then MarkCO's comments from his own experience being a witness in court cases.

When I don't know or I'm curious, I ask, that's my main reason for being here, absent the occasion I actually get to pass on something I personally know or learned. I also understand your quoted comments above aren't just for me, but for anyone else reading, too.

[Mannlicher]

I may have opined before with regards to this business of hand loads/factory ammo, but my thought are that all my semi auto ammo is factory, simply because I don't load those at home. I can get the performance I want from one of the name brands.
All of my revolver carry ammo is hand loaded. I cannot get what I want from the gun store. My loads are probably faster than factory or with a better bullet, or some combination of that. Accuracy is always good. I have been putting this stuff together for at least 60 years. My loads are reliable and effective. I know my revolver loads take game with no issues.
I have zero concern for lawyers and prosecutors finding fault with my handloads. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a red herring and a subject for arm chair 'experts'. I don't ask for, nor particularly need any forum validation. The passive aggressive virtue signaling gets old.

[JohnKSa]

The passive aggressive virtue signaling gets old.

You do, of course, realize that the last three sentences of your post (including the one I quoted) are absolutely classic passive aggressive, right?

Also, since this topic has nothing to do with morality or personal character by any stretch of the imagination, bringing up the concept of virtue signaling is a total non sequitur.

I have zero concern for lawyers and prosecutors finding fault with my handloads.

Which is fine. Everyone gets to make their own decisions, and in this case the likelihood of your decision coming back to bite you is very small. This issue isn't about spreading the word of a likely pitfall/threat to self-defenders. It's just about informing people of the existence of a particular risk that is quite unlikely to rear its head but that could considerably complicate a criminal or civil defense in certain specific circumstances.

[Rob228]

The Rittenhouse trial was somewhat eye opening for me as far as ammunition goes. The prosecutor attempted to go down a rabbit hole regarding the type of ammunition used and I could not help but think "if he had been carrying something other than FMJ that would also have been used against him". His answer of "I don't know, a bullet is a bullet" was about as good an answer as he could have given under that line of questioning.

A google search shows mostly advertisements for CCW insurance with lawyers saying "don't carry handholds" although I did find this one article that discusses loading defensive ammo to save money: https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/relo...ive-ammunition

The closing paragraph is one I tend to agree with, to the tune of "worry about the legal ramifications afterwards, at least you survived".

[reynolds357]

O am going to bring up a side note about factory vs handloaded. In the past three years, I have had multiple factory load failures. I had Winchester .25-06 that 4 out of 20 never went boom in any of my 3 rifles. Had 350 legend ammo with multiple primers in backwards. Had 30-30 split a case neck. Watched a Glock 22 get the barrel bulged shut. All that was factory ammo. In the same time, I have had zero handloads failures. (Except in a Taurus G3 that has an undersized chamber, but that don't count)