My question is can anyone actually provide a case where the D.A. tried to go after the shooter in a good shoot because he was using handloads? I personally carry Winchester Ranger 147 gr. which was shown by the FBI to be one of the best ammo's available from there testing. Is a D.A. going to come after me because I researched and tried to find the deadliest factory ammo I could? I carry this ammo because if I ever have to shoot someone it is going to be to the point that they are threatening me in such a manner I see no outs and must fend for my life by taking theres. Think about it. If it is a good shoot its a good shoot. If it is not a good shoot its not. It's pretty simple.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Anyone carry your own personal defense loads?
- Thread starter 07JKX
- Start date
Please take this constructively. The Feder. agencies do not pick the "most deadly" ammo... they pick the ones that are the most effective at stopping a threat.
The majority of those who are shot w/ a pistol survive.
Our goal in using a pistol, which is easier to carry w/ us otherwise we would have a rifle or shotgun which are much more effective at stopping an adversary, is to stop the threat... not kill them. Whether they live or die at the moment is not of importance. What is important is that they stop their actions RIGHT NOW.
No D.A. to my knowledge has tried to "condemn" the use of the same ammo as L.E. although some used to try to make an issue out of using hollowpoints but any decent defense att'y can smash that issue easily.
Last edited:
Any good attorney would tell you it's fine to carry ammo that is very "effective"... just not to tell the court that your intent was to kill the "bad guy".
Of course if you're using .500 mag. ammo you could probably stop a whole bunch of "bad guys" if they were all standing in a straight line.....
He'll the simple explanation is that while fmjs can stop a threat, unfortunately they have a great deal of penetration and could potentially over penetrate and injure or kill bystanders, while a hollow point by design mushrooms out. part of this causes more damage, but it also ensures all of the bullets energy is expended into the target so as to not over penetrate.
All that is wonderful. Yes this and that are accepted and recommended...but here's your problem that I was trying to illustrate...it's all speculation. All of it. My claim that carrying 45 rounds of ammo can cause problems has just as much real world evidence as the claim that hand loads are bad news. That is to say, hardly any.
If an over zealous DA or retarde jury can be swayed by talk of dangerous reloads, why will they suddenly be reasonable when faced with someone carrying an "arsenal" of extra weapons and ammunition? Why will they not think that stickers and tshirts and subscriptions are indicative of some sort of malicious intent as they apparently do with reloads? What makes reloads so especially bad when all those other things are apparently inherently benign?
Carrying 45 rounds is typically (commonly) mandated for most LEO's with .40 S&W pistols (higher for 9mm) and that should be successfully argued due to "common practice". Spare magazine clips are designed "commonly" for two mags. This is not uncommon but you are right this may have to be further explained/taught to an ignorant jury. However, wear your speed rig with 5 "fully loaded" magazines then shoot someone and it comes up above the radar and don't think the media will miss that tasty tidbit of G2 (intel) with an exact round count.
Lawyers go into court wanting to win! Don't give them any basis for an argument if it can be avoided ahead of time. Remember out of the 12 jurors some will be on the right of the bell curve of IQ (98 I think for the U.S.) and some will be successfully reducing that average IQ number. Ever sit on a criminal jury? It only confirms what you allude to. Chance, Karma whatever will often dictate that at least one of the jurors will have fallen out of a stupid tree and struck every stinking branch on their painful descent. Don't let them give their opinion of your use of hand loads for self-defense and a part to play with your freedom.
It's not speculation but reality that jurors are common folk and far too often uneducated (especially as it applies to weapons) and it's not unlikely that at least one doesn't think civilians should even have guns. A plea or guilty verdict has been affected by the way the jury "feels" (a swayed jury) as you state. No one ever, at least on this site has stated that by using reloaded ammo you will go to jail. You were the only one who brought that up. I think you’re missing the point that it can and has incurred risk (an unacceptable one? You decide) and at least one man was sent to jail due to the use of his own reloads that his lawyers said if he had used factory ammo he most likely would not have his freedom taken from him. Perception and reality separate themselves too often to risk adding anything (specifically anomalies-reloaded ammo) that has to be taught to perhaps an unwilling audience.
Most folks just buy their ammo. A small sub-set of the gun community reloads and yet an even smaller sub-set of reloaded ammunition has been used for self-defense nationally. How often does reloaded ammunition get used in a SD shooting? Not much, not a lot of data and I won't be adding to the limited data bank. You can continue to debate your point based on "no case law" exist to prevent the carrying reloading ammo but I would counter show me the case law that supports its use, just one case. How about a seasoned criminal defense lawyer that recommends it, just one? What is gained by using reloads for self-defense? Cost? Independence? Piece of mind? And at what acceptable risk.
Speculation and hypothesis are similar but not the same nor are the potential expectations.
What does one do advice? Is it to your benefit? Is it cumbersome and difficult to realistically employ? You can take it or leave it. We live in litigious times. Why for Pete's sake would anyone avoid the recommendations of seasoned lawyers/professionals/trainers is beyond me, except some folks just like to argue for the sake of an argument. "That's my problem". I guess one could start a poll and see what the hive mind thinks but it won't change my habits based on training, education and experience as it applies to reloaded ammo for self-defense.
If I ever have to retain a lawyer for shooting someone, I won't be wearing my "Punisher" shirt, my machete will be safely in the garage-not worn, my 33 round magazines will be in the safe, my gun grips won't say "guns don't kill people, I do", my yard won't have a sign stating trespassers will be shot and my reloads will be either on the bench or stored in a container. My intent is to make my lawyer's job way too easy and anything less is unacceptable. We often reflect on the "scales of justice". It is just exactly that! A scales and willfully tossing anything on it that might weight against oneself are poor tactics and should not be encouraged.
OBTW I don't own a punisher shirt but if I did.......
Last edited:
