Ruger Forum banner

Reloading for Self-Defense

11K views 52 replies 36 participants last post by  Desert GP100 
#1 ·
Does anyone here use reloads for self-defense? Or do you stick with manufactured ammo for that?
 
#2 · (Edited)
I don't use reloads for defense. If someone else chooses to then that is their business. The ammo companies don't spend millions of dollars on R&D, tooling & quality control for their health. But if you are an extremely competent reloader and want to roll your own then go for it. There have been at least 2 documented cases when reloads were brought up at trial. One of these cases was The State of NJ vs. Danny Bias and that trial cost him over $100K in legal fees. 4 re trials later he was finally convicted. The use of reloads can possibly prove your case to the DA that you were in a righteous shooting--unless you lie about things and then it can also be used against you.(This can be done with powder burns/marks/flashes etc as different powders have different burn rates and at various ranges different powders can leave different markings). Mossad Ayoob's take on using handloads for self defense.
 
#3 · (Edited)
I took an advanced CCW class a while back and the instructor informed us that you can get in some trouble for using reloads as your carry ammo. The reason being is if the perp has a good lawyer, they will say that you loaded the rounds extra hot, and basically make you out to be some kind of gun nut vigilante.
My advice is; Buy good personal defence ammo for carry, and reload to the specs on the box for practice.
 
#5 ·
Does anyone here use reloads for self-defense?
I do. I haven't bought factory ammo for 20+ years (except .22).
 
#7 ·
Any and all things related to an incident can be brought up in a court of law... whether or not they are deemed as relevent or not is a different story... Coming from the opinion of people in law that I talked to... if your SD situtation is a clear cut self-defense, you feared for your life, you were in iminent danger, chances are that petty stuff like "you loaded your own ammo" will not be a valid argument against you.

If something looks odd, then there is a better chance that might be brought up and have validity.


MIke.
 
#8 ·
I do , & the process is very different than fixin plinkin ammo !!!

First is the case inspection , cleaning ,then the primer inspection , then powder & bullet (a home cast lead boolit) .

I then chamber each round in each chamber of each firearm it may be used in.

I then seal the rounds primer & store these in a green ammo box , hunting is red , plinkers are blue .

I actually down load the 357 a bit for sd/hd purposes, the concern there being muzzle flash & jump too late to worry `bout blast
 
#9 ·
I like what MikeG1005 explains. Good job. I used to carry my reloads because they were worked up to be the most accurate for my gun. Now I only carry factory due to the SD bullet designs.

Remember what Charley B. said, "Nothing is too good for our friends".
 
#10 ·
Too many predatory lawyers and DA's out there just waiting to label you as a stone-cold killer if you ever have to defend yourself with your reloads.
Yes, this. I don't modify carry guns beyond sights and grips and don't carry reloads.
 
#13 ·
Some very good info, all around. I haven't even thought about this until I saw this thread.

What JimB said has me wondering about laser sights. I can hear it now. he was a Marine and a Trained killer, with a laser sight, just looking to kill something or someone.

The truth is that I have a high regard and respect for all life but truth means nothing in a court of law.
 
#12 ·
Local LEO was in a shooting. Think it was the TBI that took his gun and ammo for testing. He said when he got it back the bullets had ben pulled.
He thought they were checking to see if he had upped the powder charge.
I use factory ammo just to be on the safe side.
 
#14 ·
I get wired when I see all these "legal opinions" on the forum that come from people with no legal background. Further, writers like Mossad Ayoob have used these scare tactics to sell books ... nothing more. I researched the referenced cases in Ayoob's book and found this: The guns and ammo used in the shootings were introduced as evidence. Neither the gun or the ammo had anything to do with the person being found guilty ... it was just evidence, nothing more and is very typical for any crime involving a shooting.

During my career with DOJ, I sat through many trials and did case reviews on literally thousands of criminal cases. Never once was the gun or ammo used ever a factor for guilt or innocence. Likewise with guns that have been modified ... never an issue with criminal guilt or innocence ... it's all based on intent.

Here's how our legal system works: There are two systems, one for criminal cases and one for civil cases. In a self defence criminal scenario, usually the case goes before a grand jury to determine if the shooting was indeed self defense. If there is enough evidence to support criminal charges, the grand jury will turn the case over to a criminal trial court. If the shooting was determined to be self defense, the charges are dropped by the grand jury. Once a criminal case is tried in court, the jury is tasked with determining guilt or innocence based on the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented by the prosecution attorney. If guilt was proven, it makes no difference if the person used a 22 rimfire, a 44 Mag, a modified gun, reloads, a golf club, or a car ... guilty is guilty. If there was not enough evidence to support a conviction, the defendant will be found innocent and released. Each state as well as the Federal court system has a set of "rules of evidence" and "elements of proof" that must be proven for each different crime before a person can be found guilty. These usually include: fear of being attacked, fear of loss of life for the defendant or another person, opportunity to resolve the issue without using deadly force, distance from the defendant to the victim, etc but no where in the rules of evidence or the elements of proof is there a provision for the type of weapon used (gun, knife, ball bat, etc), the type of ammo used, or if the weapon had been modified.

Civil court is based on "wrong doing" and can not be a criminal charge. Most states have a "Frivolous Suit" law that says "if a person is found innocent in criminal court, they can not be tried in civil court for related issues". Civil law suits involve paying a financial settlement ... no fines or jail time. It is possible for a person to be sued for using a modified weapon if the modification was the cause of a negligent shooting. An example could be ... a safety device in the gun was modified and the incident was directly related to the modification. If a gun was modified but the modification had nothing to do with the incident, then it can not be used as evidence. An example could be ... the sights were changed on a pistol.

There's nothing wrong with using either factory ammo or reloads because neither have anything to do with "guilt or innocence" nor are either included in the rules of evidence or elements of proof. If you feel more comfortable using factory ammo ... no one can fault you. This whole thing is nothing more than another Internet myth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Npela
#21 ·
I get wired when I see all these "legal opinions" on the forum that come from people with no legal background. Further, writers like Mossad Ayoob have used these scare tactics to sell books ... nothing more. I researched the referenced cases in Ayoob's book and found this: The guns and ammo used in the shootings were introduced as evidence. Neither the gun or the ammo had anything to do with the person being found guilty ... it was just evidence, nothing more and is very typical for any crime involving a shooting.


This whole thing is nothing more than another Internet myth.
I agree 100%.
Too many people take what Mossad Ayoob says as gospel. I've never bought into his fear mongering. He uses it to sell books and line his pockets.
+1

I use whatever reload shoots the best outta the gun at hand. All are loaded with unmodified factory bullets using published loads well within SAAMI specs. Hard to find much malicious intent in that.

BTW....our local DA uses his handloads for SD also. Kinda speaks volumes in itself, eh?
 
#16 ·
Being found not guilty in a criminal case is not the same as being found innocent. It just means that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence. Since that is a lesser standard a defendant can be liable for damages in a civil case even when they have been found not guilty in a criminal case. The criminal and civil trials involving O.J. Simpson are a textbook example of this.
 
#17 · (Edited)
awesome writeup Iowegan, one of best I have read on the intraweb about this topic, thanks for that.

I carry factory because as someone posted above the ammo companies have spent far more than I have on R&D, quality and consistency. I hope to never shoot the SD rounds other than blowing them off every now and again to avoid risks of setback, so I don't mind spending the money on the best ammo for carry. I do reload similar rounds to checkout my guns for proper function with those factory rounds, and also to practice with a close feel without the expense. The vast majority of my reloads are cheaper, simple stuff for targets and matches.
 
#18 ·
There's nothing wrong with using either factory ammo or reloads because neither have anything to do with "guilt or innocence" nor are either included in the rules of evidence or elements of proof. If you feel more comfortable using factory ammo ... no one can fault you. This whole thing is nothing more than another Internet myth.
Not in this day and age as far as I am concerned.
Maliscious intent is always there for the laywers to jump on the wagon.
Hollow points, etc are designed to maim or cause extensive tissue damage. Hence the Genva convention. Full metal jacket. Using anyting else and there will be attorney's out there they will say you did not intend to defend yourself, but, in contrast, intended to maim and harm your victim.
I'm not going there.......But, don't take comfort in using ammo in a defensive situation if your offender lives. Hot coffee spilled in your lap goes to court, you think a shooting wouldn't?
 
#20 ·
I get wired when I see all these "legal opinions" on the forum that come from people with no legal background. Further, writers like Mossad Ayoob have used these scare tactics to sell books ... nothing more. I researched the referenced cases in Ayoob's book and found this: The guns and ammo used in the shootings were introduced as evidence. Neither the gun or the ammo had anything to do with the person being found guilty ... it was just evidence, nothing more and is very typical for any crime involving a shooting.
I agree 100%.
Too many people take what Mossad Ayoob says as gospel. I've never bought into his fear mongering. He uses it to sell books and line his pockets.
 
#22 ·
MidLife, Show me one cartridge/bullet type powerful enough for lethal force that couldn't also be said to maim and harm the perpetrator ..... I think that's why they call it "lethal force". I noticed you said "victim", instead of perpetrator .... that kinda tells me something. BTW, the Geneva Convention had nothing to do with the type of ammo used in war ..... it was Declaration III of the Hague Convention, 1899.

You may find it odd, but very few actual cases of self defense end up in court. If the victim truly acted in self defense and the shooting was declared "justified" by legal authorities, there will be no trial. However, if the shooting was NOT declared justified, all of a sudden the victim becomes the perpetrator and there will indeed be a trial.
 
#23 ·
Very good advice from Iowegan.

If I may expand on Iowerans excellent post and add the concept of "expert" witness. In a nutshell a "expert" witness has specific knowledge on a subject as to merit being paid big bucks to testify for what ever side is willing to pay.

How big of bucks? Well I was the jury for a civil lawsuit involving a fire getting out of control and destroying a lot of the neighbors trees (also did a pretty good job of burining up half the township).

Expert tree witness #1 was paid $200.00 a hour for two days work.

Expert tree witness #2 was paid $500.00 a hour for three hours work. He didn't even look at the case until the day before the trial.

Massad Ayoob is a hired gun for hire. I know personally of one case he testified in. Care to guess his fee? If tree experts get $500.00 hr. then self-defense cases are easily worth four figures.

Mid Life please reference the legal concept ans cases that type of ammunition is one of the elements that must be present prior to using deadly force.
 
#24 · (Edited)
There are numerous lawsuits filed against home invaders becoming the victim!
And, the laws vary by state. If you think every self defense shooting goes without the possibility for consequnces, that's really not in this days reality. Here's a single example:
"The widow of David W. Park, an Albany teacher who was shot and killed as an intruder in an Amherst home, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the homeowner who pulled the trigger.

The lawsuit accuses David D'Amico of the "willful, intentional, malicious" slaying of Park, and acting "without just cause [or] provocation."

Deanna Ripstein, Park's widow, filed the State Supreme Court lawsuit eight months after an Erie County grand jury -- following an extensive Amherst Police investigation -- decided not to file criminal charges against D'Amico.

In a case that police called bizarre, puzzling and tragic, D'Amico shot the 31-year-old Park early March 28.

The two men did not know each other. D'Amico told police that he shot Park after Park illegally entered D'Amico's home on Millbrook Court and refused to leave despite D'Amico's warnings that he was armed and would shoot.

Park, who was intoxicated, according to prosecutors, had gone into D'Amico's home after leaving a party next door.

Although no criminal charges were filed, attorneys for the Park family allege under civil law that D'Amico was negligent and acted wrongfully by killing Park.

"[The incident] occurred as a result of the fault, negligence and carelessness of D'Amico, without any negligence on the part of Park contributing thereto," attorney David H. Elibol said in court papers.

The lawsuit, which was filed earlier this month and obtained Friday by The Buffalo News, did not request specific monetary damages.

Thomas H. Burton, D'Amico's attorney, said he was outraged by some of the allegations in the lawsuit.

"Making an allegation like that is like a drunk driver, driving on the wrong side of the road, blaming the sober driver he hit for a collision," Burton said in an interview late Friday.

"These tragic events were set into motion entirely by the actions of David Park. They were not set into motion by Mr. D'Amico and his wife, being sound asleep in their bed when an intruder broke into their home in the middle of the night."

Elibol noted that, in a civil trial, the legal standards and the burdens of proof are different than those of a criminal case.

"We've had an opportunity to review the investigation conducted by the Amherst Police. At this point, David Park's wife and family have more questions than answers about the events that led to David's tragic death," Elibol said.

"This is a case that people will have strong feelings about one way or the other, but people need to keep in mind that David wasn't a criminal. David was an award-winning elementary school teacher whose life was cut short," he said.

Police never were able to determine why Park entered the home at about 1:30 a.m. He had been attending a party at the house next door.

Authorities said D'Amico had dialed 911 and was waiting for police to arrive when the shooting occurred. From the top of a stairway leading to his bedroom, he fired at Park at the bottom of the stairs.

According to Burton, D'Amico was fearful because Park -- despite loud, repeated warnings -- walked "all the way through the house and kept advancing toward the stairway."

D'Amico shot Park because he feared that Park was about to walk up the stairs and try to harm D'Amico and his wife, Julie.

Police said a blood test determined that Park's blood-alcohol content was 0.18, more than twice the level needed to charge a motorist in this state with driving while intoxicated.

"If Park was drunk and out of control, it justifies my client's actions," Burton said. "If Park was not drunk, it suggests something much more sinister was going on when Park went into the D'Amico home, and why he refused to leave."

Police never determined why Park left the party, why he went into the D'Amico home or why he never heeded D'Amico's request to leave the home, Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said.

"You could still classify that as a mystery," Sedita said Friday.

Elibol declined to comment when asked if Park's family ever learned why Park went into the D'Amico home.

Police determined that Park entered the D'Amico home through an unlocked rear door. The D'Amicos had gone to bed at about 10 p.m. thinking the door was locked, Burton said.

The D'Amicos and Deanna Ripstein, who lives in Rensselaer, where she used to live with Park, declined through their attorneys to be interviewed on Friday.

Ripstein grew up in Amherst and still has friends and family members in Western New York. After the shooting, officials of the Albany public school system described Park as a teacher who won a number of awards and was beloved by students and co-workers.

"We're not dealing with a street thug or a criminal here," Elibol said. "David Park was a teacher and a family man, and he should not have died that night."

Burton and Elibol did agree on one thing Friday -- that the shooting was a painful event for all involved.

"Obviously, this was a tremendous tragedy for David Park's family, but it has caused a lot of suffering for the D'Amicos as well," Burton said.
"

The drunk intruder is the victim here.....I just hope it deosnt happen to any viewers or readers here....
This is the 2010s
Note the word malicious. This is the very things I am talking about.
If you can be sued, you will be sued. It's today's fact of life. While I don't agree, I don't accept that self defense shootings, whether deemed legal, justified or not, adding in the "high powered", or "frangible projectiles" or any other factors are going to help you in your defense.
 
#28 · (Edited)
I guess I am in the minority here, I find absolutely NO confidence that any US or State legislative body is going to side with a shooter, justified or otherwise. Choose your actions carefully. Call me pessimistic, however, I call myself realistic.
I have strayed off topic and out of theme of the reloading category so I will refrain from further posting on this matter here.
 
#29 ·
If you shoot someone, legally justified or not according to your state's statutes, unless specfically prohibited by law, an attempt will be made to sue you. Anything that a slick attorney can use to paint you as someone who tried to invent something more harmful or deadly than is commercially available, will only work against you in civil proceedings.

Do not look to this or any other forum for legal advice on such serious matters as the application of deadly force. Avoiding prosecution is just the first step in a complicated and monetarily costly journey.

Familiarize yourself with your states' laws regarding the use of deadly force, and if possible consult with an attorney, who is also a shooter, as (s)he will have given the entire subject a good deal of thought and research.

Beware of jailhouse, gunshop, and keyboard lawyers.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top