Do you reload your self defense ammunition?

[OnTheFly]

Just as the subject says...Do you reload your own SD ammo?  Or can you not buy the specialty SD bullets you might want?

Fly

[NE Bull]

Thought: Even though I have a BUNCH of  Hornady XTP bullets in 9x18 and .45 to load, I will probably still carry with the Critical Defense due to the fact the boys (and gals) in GI went to great lengths to get them just right for me.  But I suppose if done right, researched, etc one could come to trust your own loads with your life.
Second Thought; IF you are forced to defend yourself, could a prosecutor raise an issue with 'Killer ammo' that your formulated and loaded yourself?

[Dan W]

I have reloaded GoldDot 230gr .45acp and 147gr 9mm in new Starline +p brass for self defense , but I will only use the cartridges as a last resort.

It was done more in an attempt to master the techniques in case they would be required at a later time

As long as new Speer GoldDots or Federal HST ammo is readily available I will hold my handloads in reserve.

[NE Bull]

I have reloaded GoldDot 230gr .45acp and 147gr 9mm in new Starline +p brass for self defense , but I will only use the cartridges as a last resort.

It was done more in an attempt to master the techniques in case they would be required at a later time

As long as new Speer GoldDots or Federal HST ammo is readily available I will hold my handloads in reserve.

That was kind of my thoughts too Dan.

[bkoenig]

I've heard a lot of people say using reloads could be used against you by a prosecutor in a self defense scenario.  Has anyone ever heard of this actually happening? 

[Dan W]

I've heard a lot of people say using reloads could be used against you by a prosecutor in a self defense scenario.  Has anyone ever heard of this actually happening? 

I am not a huge fan of Mas Ayoob, but his ideas regarding the use of handloads for self defense and the issues of gun shot residue evidence were compelling in my view.

He believes that no court would allow a defendant to use gun powder residue evidence acquired from a handload that the defendant manufactured. while the courts do allow such evidence provided by the manufacturer of commercial self defense ammunition, and that evidence could be vital in establishing distance from an attacker and whatever other CSI crap is involved

[bk09]

Like the other guys have said, I use factory rounds in case I ever had to defend myself in court.
Prosecutor: "Why did you use factory self defense ammunition? Did you feel it would kill better than full metal jacket bullets?"

My response would be: "I use this ammunition because it expands in the target transferring more energy into the target and creating a smaller possibility of over penetration causing damage to nearby citizens. And they are built to higher specifications making them more reliable."

Trying to explain why I would use handloads to maximize killing power doesn't sound like a fun fight to argue.

AND the Hornady Critical Duty I carry in my G23 shoot to the point of aim, as does the Critical Defense in my S&W 642. (Still need to test Critical Defense in my Kahr CW9 to see where it hits before I carry it)

[OnTheFly]

Like the other guys have said, I use factory rounds in case I ever had to defend myself in court.
Prosecutor: "Why did you use factory self defense ammunition? Did you feel it would kill better than full metal jacket bullets?"

My response would be: "I use this ammunition because it expands in the target transferring more energy into the target and creating a smaller possibility of over penetration causing damage to nearby citizens. And they are built to higher specifications making them more reliable."

Trying to explain why I would use handloads to maximize killing power doesn't sound like a fun fight to argue.

So explaining why you chose a special SD factory round with the reasons you gave would be easily accepted by an anti-gun prosecutor and/or juror, but giving the same reasons for a hand load would not?

I'm not attacking you personally bradkoll. I'm just saying if they don't like the fact that you used a gun in self defense, they are going to come after you regardless.

"Why didn't you use a factory round, it is safer and not as deadly?" or "Why did you use a factory self defense round, it is made to kill?" 

It seems that every time someone asks a question about using "X" or "Y" for SD, someone says "I wouldn't use that because the prosecutor will use it against you". Are these just claims with little to no substance, or does this happen on a regular basis?

If we shouldn't have "X" or "Y" for SD because of what the prosecutor will say, then we better not shoot COM either. The prosecutor will be asking "Why didn't you shoot them in the arm or leg?  Didn't you in fact WANT to kill them?!" 

I don't know. Seems like you are darned if you do, and just as darned if you don't.  Just my $0.02.

Fly

[bk09]

The prosecutor will be asking "Why didn't you shoot them in the arm or leg?  Didn't you in fact WANT to kill them?!"

Then you tell them you aim for the biggest target to decrease chances of missing and hurting others. Like you said you are probably darned if you do or darned if you don't. All hypothetical things that hopefully none of us have to deal with it. I would shoot to stop the threat, chances of shooting a gun out of someones hand while you are pumping with adrenaline would be slim at best. If they can turn on me to return fire or shoot someone else then I shoot to cease the threat. Every time I carry I pray I never have to use it. Too much paperwork and grief...

Oooh just thought of a response to

So explaining why you chose a special SD factory round with the reasons you gave would be easily accepted by an anti-gun prosecutor and/or juror, but giving the same reasons for a hand load would not?

A gun is a tool. There are different tools for different jobs. You don't use a hand saw to trim an extra 1/32" off a board. So I chose to use self defense ammunition because that is what it is intended for. If I wanted to punch a hole through someone and have it keep going I would use full metal jacket ammo.

Was that a decent response? Wish I was a lawyer so I could think outside the box to ask counter questions...

[OnTheFly]

Im not expecting you or anyone else to come up with a phrase that is going to be the perfect defense. It doesn't exist. Anything you say, while making perfect sense to us gun folk, is blood thirsty and indefensible in the eyes of the anti-gunner.

Without a strong Castle Doctrine, we will have to endure an arduous legal process. With the doctrine, it will be significantly less.

Fly

[RobertH]

if you used a company's SD ammo, say Hornady, in self defense would they come to support you?  (lawyers, testimony, etc)

[OnTheFly]

if you used a company's SD ammo, say Hornady, in self defense would they come to support you?  (lawyers, testimony, etc)

Good question.  That would certainly be a reaction that, given the right case, could improve their standing in the the gun community not to mention help preserve their source of income.  Of course, they would have to make sure it was a righteous case.

I guess my point is that I continually hear "don't do _________" or they will use it against you in a court of law.  Granted, if I post on Facebook "I can't wait to shoot my first BG", you can bet it will be used against me. 

But if I...
Use a gun to protect myself or others.
Use SD ammo in an act of self defense.
Train by shooting targets that look like silhouettes of people.
Buy a carry gun that resembles my USPSA gun.
Install a trigger that is safe, but shortens reset/over-travel, and lightens the pull.
State on a gun forum that if attacked, I will shoot until the threat stops, which may include being dead.

Where does it stop?  We are carrying a gun in the very slim chance we have to use it.  IF we use it, especially considering our state's failure to implement the Victim Protection Act (a.k.a., Castle Doctrine), we WILL be dealing with a lot of grief before it is all done.  Add an outcry from the community who does not know the facts (recent shooting in Florida comes to mind) and an anti-gun attorney general, we may be entrenched in a legal battle beyond our imagination.

In my opinion, what is important if you are involved in a shooting is what you say (or maybe more importantly what you do NOT say) after the fact.  "He pulled a knife. I was in fear of my life. He started to move towards me.  I could not reasonably retreat.  I drew my firearm and defended my life. Am I being charged? If so, I would like to have an attorney present."

I guess this has gone WAY off topic, but my initial question was intended to find out if the reloaders trusted their skills and could acquire the supplies necessary to produce their own SD rounds.

Fly

[wallace11bravo]

Cases Where Handloads Caused Problems in Court

As promised, here are the sources for records for any who feel a need to confirm the cases I have referenced previously where handloaded ammunition caused problems for people in the aftermath of shootings.

As I have noted in this thread earlier, and as the attorneys who have responded to this matter have confirmed, local trials and results are not usually available on-line. However, in each case, I have included the location where the physical records of the trials are archived.

NH v. Kennedy

James Kennedy, a sergeant on the Hampton, NH police force, pursued a drunk driver whose reckless operation of the vehicle had forced other motorists off the road. The suspect ended up in a ditch, stalled and trying to get underway again. Advised by radio that responding backup officers were still a distance away, and fearing that the man would get back on the road and kill himself and others, Kennedy approached the vehicle. At the driver’s door, the suspect grabbed Kennedy’s Colt .45 auto and pulled it towards himself. It discharged in his face, causing massive injury.

The reload in the gun was a 200 grain Speer JHP, loaded to duplicate the 1000 fps from a 5” barrel then advertised by Speer for the same bullet in loaded cartridge configuration.

This was the first case where I saw the argument, “Why wasn’t regular ammunition deadly enough for you,” used by opposing counsel. They charged Kennedy with aggravated assault. They made a large issue out of his use of handloads, suggesting that they were indicative of a reckless man obsessed with causing maximum damage.

Defense counsel hired the expert I suggested, Jim Cirillo, who did a splendid job of demolishing that argument and other bogus arguments against Kennedy at trial, and Kennedy was acquitted.

This case dates back to the late 1970s. The local courts tell me that the case documentation will be on file at Rockingham County Superior Court, PO Box 1258, Kingston, NH 03843. File search time is billed at $25 per hour for cases such as this that date back prior to 1988.

NJ V. Bias

This is the classic case of gunshot residue (GSR) evidence being complicated by the use of handloaded ammunition, resulting in a case being misinterpreted in a tragic and unjust way. On the night of 2/26/89, Danny Bias entered the master bedroom of his home to find his wife Lise holding the family home defense revolver, a 6” S&W 686, to her head. He told police that knowing that she had a history of suicidal ideation, he attempted to grab the gun, which discharged, killing her. The gun was loaded with four handloaded lead SWC cartridges headstamped Federal .38 Special +P.

Autopsy showed no GSR. The medical examiner determined that Lise Bias had a reach of 30”, and the NJSP Crime Lab in Trenton determined that the gun in question would deposit GSR to a distance of 50” or more with either factory Federal 158 grain SWC +P .38 Special, or handloads taken from his home under warrant for testing after Danny told them about the reloads. However, the reloads that were taken and tested had Remington-Peters headstamps on the casings and were obviously not from the same batch.

Danny had loaded 50 rounds into the Federal cases of 2.3, 2.6, and 2.9 grains of Bullseye, with Winchester primers, under an unusually light 115 grain SWC that he had cast himself, seeking a very light load that his recoil sensitive wife could handle. The gun had been loaded at random from that box of 50 and there was no way of knowing which of the three recipes was in the chamber from which the fatal bullet was launched.

We duplicated that load, and determined that with all of them and particularly the 2.3 grain load, GSR distribution was so light that it could not be reliably gathered or recovered, from distances as short as 24”. Unfortunately, the remaining rounds in the gun could not be disassembled for testing as they were the property of the court, and there is no forensic artifact that can determine the exact powder charge that was fired from a given spent cartridge.

According to an attorney who represented him later, police originally believed the death to be a suicide. However, the forensic evidence testing indicated that was not possible, and it was listed as suspicious death. Based largely on the GSR evidence, as they perceived it, the Warren County prosecutor’s office presented the case to the grand jury, which indicted Danny Bias for Murder in the First Degree in the death of his wife.

Attorney John Lanza represented Danny very effectively at his first trial, which ended in a hung jury. Legal fees exceeded $100,000, bankrupting Danny; Attorney Lanza, who believed then and now in his client’s innocence, swallowed some $90,000 worth of legal work for which he was never paid.

For his second trial, Bias was assigned attorney Elisabeth Smith by the Public Defender’s office. Challenging the quality of evidence collection, she was able to weaken the prosecution’s allegation that the GSR factor equaled murder, but because the GSR issue was so muddled by the handloaded ammo factor, she could not present concrete evidence that the circumstances were consistent with suicide, and the second trial ended with a hung jury in 1992. At this point, the prosecution having twice failed to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge threw out the murder charge.

It was after this that I personally lost track of the case. However, I’ve learned this past week that the case of NJ v. Daniel Bias was tried a third time in the mid-1990s, resulting in his being acquitted of Aggravated Manslaughter but convicted of Reckless Manslaughter. The appellate division of the Public Defender’s office handled his post-conviction relief and won him a fourth trial. The fourth trial, more than a decade after the shooting, ended with Danny Bias again convicted of Reckless Manslaughter. By now, the state had changed its theory and was suggesting that Danny had pointed the gun at her head to frighten her, thinking one of the two empty chambers would come up under the firing pin, but instead discharging the gun. Danny Bias was sentenced to six years in the penitentiary, and served three before being paroled. He remains a convicted felon who cannot own a firearm.

It is interesting to hear the advice of the attorneys who actually tried this case. John Lanza wrote, “When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant. Once used, there is no way, with certainty, to determine the amount of powder or propellant used for that load. This becomes significant when forensic testing is used in an effort to duplicate the shot and the resulting evidence on the victim or target.”

He adds, “With the commercial load, one would be in a better position to argue the uniformity between the loads used for testing and the subject load. With a hand load, you have no such uniformity. Also, the prosecution may utilize either standard loads or a different hand load in its testing. The result would be distorted and could be prejudicial to the defendant. Whether or not the judge would allow such a scientific test to be used at trial, is another issue, which, if allowed, would be devastating for the defense. From a strictly forensic standpoint, I would not recommend the use of hand loads because of the inherent lack of uniformity and the risk of unreliable test results. Once the jury hears the proof of an otherwise unreliable test, it can be very difficult to ‘unring the bell.’”

Ms. Smith had this to say, after defending Danny Bias through his last three trials. I asked her, “Is it safe to say that factory ammunition, with consistently replicable gunshot residue characteristics, (would) have proven that the gun was within reach of Lise’s head in her own hand, and kept the case from escalating as it did?”

She replied, “You’re certainly right about that. Gunshot residue was absolutely the focus of the first trial. The prosecution kept going back to the statement, “It couldn’t have happened the way he said it did’.”

The records on the Bias trials should be available through: The Superior Court of New Jersey Warren County 313 Second Street PO Box 900 Belvedere, NJ 07823

Those who wish to follow the appellate track of this case will find it in the Atlantic Reporter.

142 N.J. 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table)

Supreme Court of New Jersey State v. Daniel N. Bias NOS. C-188 SEPT.TERM 1995, 40,813 Oct 03, 1995 Disposition: Cross-pet. Denied. N.J. 1995. State v. Bias 142 N>J> 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table)
TN v. Barnes

The decedent attacked Robert Barnes and his young daughter with a large knife and was shot to death by the defendant with SJHP .38 Special reloads from a Smith & Wesson Model 36. The distance between the two at the time of the shooting became a key element in the trial, and a misunderstanding of that distance was a primary reason he was charged with Murder. The evidence was messed up in a number of ways in this case, and I do not believe the reloaded ammo (which the prosecution did not recognize to be such until during the trial) was the key problem, but it definitely was part of a problem in reconstructing the case. We were able to do that without GSR evidence, and Mr. Barnes won an acquittal. In this case, I believe the use of factory ammo, combined with proper handling and preserving of the evidence by the initial investigators, would have made the defense much easier and might well have prevented the case from ever being lodged against him.

The records of TN v. Barnes are archived under case number 87297015 at:

Criminal Justice Center 201 Poplar Suite 401 Memphis, TN 38103

Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems

A man attempted to disarm and murder Corporal Randy Willems of the Davenport, IA Police Department, screaming “Give me your (expletive deleted) gun, I’ll blow your (expletive deleted) brains out.” Willems shot him during the third disarming attempt, dropping him instantly with one hit to the abdomen from a department issue factory round, Fiocchi 9mm 115 grain JHP +P+. The subject survived and stated that the officer had shot him for nothing from a substantial distance away. GSR testing showed conclusively that the subject’s torso was approximately 18” from the muzzle of the issue Beretta 92 when it discharged. Randy was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting at trial in 1990. Two years later, Randy and his department won the civil suit filed against them by the man who was shot.

I use this case when discussing handloads because it is a classic example of how the replicability of factory ammunition, in the forensic evidence sense, can annihilate false allegations by the “bad guy” against the “good guy” who shot him. The records of State of Iowa v. Corporal Randy Willems are!! archived in the Iowa District Court in Scott County, Davenport, Iowa. Those from the civil suit, Karwoski v. Willems and the City of Davenport, should be at the Iowa Civil Court of Scott County, also located in Davenport, Iowa.

A final word: I did not research the above and place it here to placate lightweight net ninjas. I did it because three recent Internet threads led me to believe that a number of decent people had honest questions about the real-world concerns about using handloads for self-defense, and were possibly putting themselves in jeopardy by doing so. For well over a decade, certain people have been creating an urban myth that says, “No one has ever gotten in trouble in court because they used handloads.”

This is now absolutely, and I hope finally, refuted.
Respectfully submitted, Massad Ayoob

[wallace11bravo]

I do not reload pistol, so no, I do not use handloads.

I would not, not because of the slim chance that it could be used against me in court, but for the simple reason that I have screwed up handloads (for rifle) in the past. I have never had a round fail to exit the muzzle, but I have had rounds that I could tell where over charged, not seated correctly, etc, now those result in accuracy issues with rifle that would likely be negligible with pistol.

But the idea of completely leaving the powder out, or having some wet powder,  or other catastrophic errors on my part, that may affect accuracy/reliability with pistol ammo are not too hard to imagine. On the other hand, I have never had quality factory ammo have any failure that I would call catastrophic.

Massad brings up an excellent point, btw. Forensic Ballistics are based off of what can be observed at the scene, and matching that to what can be recreated in a laboratory. Many "Ballistic Experts" and Forensic Labs are underwhelming in their knowledge base, and will automatically assume that your reloads are going to show that same characteristics as factory ammo. Before any ballistic evidence can be admitted against you in court, your defense attorney, at your discretion, can challenge the validity of the evidence offered by the prosecution. This would be the time to ensure continuity of the testing with what the actual round/weapon combo, environmental factors, etc etc, that where present at the incident.

[OnTheFly]

Thanks for that snippet W11B.  Interesting cases.  The "science" of GSR may be a real concern in the defense of a SD shooting, and this is something your defense attorney should be ready to address if you used hand loaded ammo. Most of these cases appear to be relatively old.  I wonder what advancements have been made in regard to GSR, and if prosecutors have tried to use this argument more recently.

Regardless, with respect to the negative image of using hand loads for SD, I still stand by my argument.  Darned if you do/don't.  I'm betting that in the cases above, if it was not GSR evidence, they would have been warping another perspective.  Witnesses could have helped each of these cases, but you can't wait for someone to walk by.

Also, thanks for answering the question from the perspective of your confidence in hand loading SD and your aversion to it for quality assurance concerns.

Fly

[JTH]

Merely my opinion:

I don't use handloads for defensive ammo.  I always use factory ammo.

Not because I don't think they are reliable enough---if I am making defensive ammo, I can make it one by one and measure everything.    Matter of fact, I could make my defense ammo much more uniform than factory ammo, if I wished.

Not because I'm worried about what it will look like in court---while there have been some cases where this was an issue, they are a statistically tiny sample of the whole, though obviously sometimes it does occur.

Not because I think that factory ammo is just that much more effective---we can buy the exact same bullet in many cases, and load to exactly the same velocities.

And not because I really enjoy paying factory defensive ammo prices.   

My reason isn't a singular one of those.  It is the totality of those that makes a difference to me.  Each one of those things is pretty solidly minor.  However, they comprise a set of things that could each cause problems----and I can get around the entire set by simply buying factory ammo.

In any situation where I can fairly easily get rid of a whole set of problems by a single simple choice--I'm probably going to do it.

Yes, factory ammo can fail---but the chances of it is vanishingly small.  In court, any opposing attorney will have a hard time arguing that the ammo I use (which matches the ammo of a number of law enforcement departments) is an issue.  And that ammo has a proven track record of effectiveness, provided the person operating the firearm did their job.

Even better, I can build a practice round similar to it very easily, so that I can still practice cheaply (getting used to the same noise/recoil characteristics) in quantity.  (This, by the way, is a good idea if you reload, because good defensive ammo in quantity is NOT cheap to practice with.)

So, for me:  factory ammo.  Good choice for lazy people who don't want to spend extra hours at the reloading table making rounds one at a time.   

[unfy]

Nope, don't carry hand loads in my carry pistol.  Never will.  Just too many small things that add up to it being a possibly bad idea.

[Lorimor]

In a word, no.

[Randy]

In a similar word no.

[altheman2]

I do the same as the majority here, no. I reload and practice with ammo that is similar but when it comes to self defense ammo is my pistol it's factory ammo.