Talk me out of this?

[fightingquaker13]

We've talked this to death. BUT, the short answer is this. It gives a hostile DA more ammo to use and can hurt you in a civil suit from either the perp's family or any bystander who got tagged. "The defendant, not be satisfied with the lethality of ammo available to the general public, did knowingly and willingly....yada, yada, yada". Why take the risk? There is plenty of good stuff at Bass-pro and Wally World. Its just my .02, but introducing an uneccessary X factor into a homicide investigation when you are the star player is worse than a bad idea.
FQ13

[NS2]

We've talked this to death. BUT, the short answer is this. It gives a hostile DA more ammo to use and can hurt you in a civil suit from either the perp's family or any bystander who got tagged. "The defendant, not be satisfied with the lethality of ammo available to the general public, did knowingly and willingly....yada, yada, yada". Why take the risk? There is plenty of good stuff at Bass-pro and Wally World. Its just my .02, but introducing an uneccessary X factor into a homicide investigation when you are the star player is worse than a bad idea.
FQ13

Thank you.  But is this opinion or is there an actual precedent?

I'm not debating the merits of using factory ammo over reloads for defense.  I'm asking if anyone knows of a precedent to support the age old theory to which most of us subscribe.

This is very similar to the belief many FFL holders have that they can't legally accept a handgun shipped to them from a private party.  When asked to cite the actual law to which they refer, none of them can.  It was just something they heard.

Is the thought process of using  reloads for defense more risky actually supported in fact by legal precedent, or is it just something we heard?

[mortdooley]

 From a non-related experience with the courts a lawyer will use any edge to win and reloaded ammo in a shooting will be misrepresented as special killer bullets regardless of the truth.

[fightingquaker13]

Thank you.  But is this opinion or is there an actual precedent?

I'm not debating the merits of using factory ammo over reloads for defense.  I'm asking if anyone knows of a precedent to support the age old theory to which most of us subscribe.

This is very similar to the belief many FFL holders have that they can't legally accept a handgun shipped to them from a private party.  When asked to cite the actual law to which they refer, none of them can.  It was just something they heard.

Is the thought process of using  reloads for defense more risky actually supported in fact by legal precedent, or is it just something we heard?

I agree with all your points Alf, and I certainly agree that the BG won't get any deader if I shot him with FQwhackinator home brewed specials, or Winchester White Box from Wally World. If its justified that SHOULD be the end of it. The question is this. Do you want to be the guy that sets the precedent? Do you want to give an anti DA that extra inch of rope? Do you want to face a jury of the perps peers in a civil trial that could ruin you, with anything that could allow them to sympathize with the poor crippled minority shot by the mean white guy with "killer" bullets? I don't. YMMV.
FQ13

[NS2]

From a non-related experience with the courts a lawyer will use any edge to win and reloaded ammo in a shooting will be misrepresented as special killer bullets regardless of the truth.

Yes a lawyer could. When has it been done?  Was is allowed?  Did it succeed?

Without precedent it has merit only as an opinion.

I understand the opinions here. I looking for citable facts to support them.

If I use premium gas for better performance and then run some over with my car, did I have malicious intent and would the argument stand that I used said gas with the intent to do agregeous bodily harm?  More so than if I had used regular gas?

The answer, who cares unless it can be supported through fact or precedent.

Does a precedent exist, or is there scientific fact to support that a 115 grain projectile moving at 1050 fps from a Glock 17 has a different intent when it is reloaded by the shooter as opposed to a factory loaded cartridge of the same specification?

What is the basis in law or science?

I'm not arguing that we should, I'm asking for legal or scientific support for why we shouldn't.  

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

The example Ayoob used was that with factory ammo , they can go get a box at a store and with testing establish your range to the target from powder residue. With reloads they have no independent baseline to work from and it could undermine your defense.
As far as I know no one has gotten jailed just for using reloads for SD.

[NS2]

The example Ayoob used was that with factory ammo , they can go get a box at a store and with testing establish your range to the target from powder residue. With reloads they have no independent baseline to work from and it could undermine your defense.
As far as I know no one has gotten jailed just for using reloads for SD.

Very true!

They could also use your unfired rounds for the same test.  The person who reloaded it could provide samples and the formula used to make up the ammunition.

I know that no one has been convicted just on the basis of using reloads.  What I'm looking for is if there is proof that a person was convicted of a crime for which they would not have been otherwise because they used hand loaded ammunition.

The person who began this post wishes to use a weapon which would best serve him using hand loaded cartridges.  The point was made that it is considered a "no no," to do this.  I'm just asking for proof, not opinion.

I've had a few side bar conversations with Mas and a few others and I agree.  I do not conform to the practice of using hand loads.  However, before it is presented as fact, I would like to read the ruling or shooting lab reports.  Otherwise, when some one asks for help on a site such as this those answering should provide all the information.

I think the person who posed the original question for this post should hear both sides so he can decide for himself.

[ericire12]

Back on topic.....

I actually have one of the Police Positives that you are talking about, and yes it would be very easy to conceal/carry. However, I do think that the ammo situation with that particular caliber is a deal breaker (I have never even shot mine because the ammo is so costly/hard to get). I think you would be better served making the investment in a good all around conceled carry gun... After the headache of chasing down all your reloading components and testing loads and practicing enough to become proficient with the gun it will probably be a wash with just going out and buying something that is designed for concealed carry -- plus your carry gun will be in a better caliber. If you cant afford to plunk down the $500 (give or take) then a good dependable .38 snubbie can be had for $200-$300 if you are willing to do the searching. If you absolutely cant spend a dime, then get yourself some off the shelf ball ammo and just carry that sucker..... Practice, practice, practice..... and make damn sure you put two in the chest + one the head

[ellis4538]

Since I made the original statement I guess I am going to chime in here.  The experts who recommend against handloads probably can site caselaw but I can't.  I will ask...do you have insurance because you know you are going to get in an accident (I know the law in most states says you must have it)?  You probably have more auto insurance the law requires...why?  What about "homeowners insurance"? More than necessary?   Do you have a fire extinguisher and locks on your door?  Why do you have a CCW and carry in the first place?  I could go on but I will finish by saying I prefer not taking the chance and finding out the hard way.  I recommend you seek out an attorney in your area who can advise you.  Will it cost?  Yes, but so will trials and lawsuits.

JMHOFWIW

Richard

[Solus]

The example I heard was of a prosecutor saying to the Jury in your trial...

The defendant wasn't satisfied with the deadly factory ammunition, he had to make up some "special" ammunition to kill this woman's 16 year old son with.

Don't know if it ever happened...but I'd expect the prosecution to make that statement.