Reloaded Rounds
 

Just found out that reloading for hunting and pinking is a grate way to save money and have fun. BUT be for warned that for home self defense you BETTER use a factory round in your pistol {conceal carry also} or rifle or you will be in deep deep dodo.

Nim

Why?I load for three different rifles and with one exception all shoot better than factory ammo.The Fed 150gr .280 GK load shoots amazing groups.I doubt I'll be able to do better loading but even so I come pretty close with the loads I've tried so far.

He's talking about the theory that if you shoot someone in your home with your own rounds that a defense attorney might go after you. That has spread across the country on the www due to the self defense rounds made expressly to do big damage when they hit someone. It is sort of ridiculous as if you shoot somebody it sure isn't to give them a love tap and let them kill you after you fire a warning shot. If you don't intend to kill the intruder, then you shouldn't shoot to begin with and let them have a chance to do you in.

I heard this line for several years and didn't believe it at first...still don't. Why in the world will it make any difference, legally ?
If you have to shoot and kill/wound someone in self defense, regardless of what ammo you use you have effectively set yourself up for significant legal issues. I suspect that whether the ammo was handloaded by you at home or purchased from Walmart will be way down on the list of important issues for you at that point.

it has something to do with powder residue on the victum and being able to judge where the victim was by stats on a factory load something they cant do with reloads. It was a episode on Shooting Gallery and the Self Defense show on the boob tube .

If I am doing the shooting, they won't have to worry about the powder residue on them, just look at the bullet holes and that will tell them what the perp died from, hyper chronic anal lead ingestion, in short, fast lead in their a#$!!!!! All funning aside. While working in Chicago as a LEO, I did hear of a case that was being tried and within the court proceeds, the issue was brought up that the homeowner used what was believed to be reloads,"designed to kill". I did not have any dealings with this case or near it. Just overheard it within the office. Don't know the outcome, just that is was brought up and was trying to get the homeowner in trouble for having used them. If I remember correctly, it was dismissed and moved on.

I am curious, what is the difference in the residue of factory powder?

This is probably from an opinion held by Mossad Ayoob based on the Daniel Bias case, which wasn't a self-defense case. Rather, at best it was a failed attempt to prevent a spouse from committing suicide - at worst, the murder of a spouse.

The problem in this case stemmed from the fact that the reduced-power loads Daniel Bias loaded for his wife did not leave significant powder residue as did the factory loads tested by the prosecution did at the range the defense alleged the incident to have occurred. Lack of powder residue = she couldn't have shot herself, Daniel had to have shot her and from a distance.

Chances are probably fairly high that if you're going to shoot an intruder threatening you, you're not going to wait until you're in wrestling distance from them and you're probably not going to be worried about whether you're going to leave enough powder residue to prove they died from a self-inflicted gunshot.

Ayoob might make a compelling case if you're planning on allowing your suicidal spouse access to firearms, but if you're planning on preventing someone from harming you or your family, arguing that factory loads are more defensible in court is on the paranoid side of things.

Isnt that something, i dont even own a pistol but the rounds i reload for my rifles and shotgun are reloaded to "kill" critters and if i run short on time and rounds i buy factory ammo to do the same thing lol. So why does it matter anyway. If i was put in that situation and had to take someones life with either choice of ammo, i dont think one would leave them more dead then the other.

I feel that you are very correct with this RR. I seem to recall others stating at the time that was part of the prosecutors argument in that that was what the "Home Loads" were built to do was to kill and not just wound and stop the perp.

I think you mean the prosecution.

A prosecuting attorney could argue the same because you bought what you think is the best and most damaging factory loaded defense ammo so you could kill someone with it.

I use Hornady critical defense ammo in my carry gun because I think they are the best and will do the most damage to the bad guy thus ending the threat to my life. I'd much rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. I'm using the best stuff I can get.

I just have to wonder about the competence of a prosecutor who hangs their case on an argument like this, or a defense attorney for that matter, who can't effectively defend their client against such an argument? Imagine what one gun owner/juror familiar with reloading their own ammunition might have wreaked inside the jury room? It's sad that people in this country can be so easily misled by faulty information.

If any of you wish to put the "lessons" of this case into practice, I suggest you not reload anything at all. I also suggest you buy nothing but FMJ, factory-loaded COMMERCIAL ammunition. After all, we KNOW that anything with a hollow or soft point is intended to cause death rather than wounding, and that military ammunition is armor piercing and/or incendiary and cars blow up when shot with it. You might also be wise not to use anything larger than a .22 CB Cap. Otherwise, it "might" be proven that you selected a more powerful round because you intended to kill the perpetrator.

Once again though, this case alleged a suicide on one side, a murder on the other - not a defensive situation. I see a lot of conclusions here which are founded in the wrong situation. And again, if someone in your home is exhibiting suicidal symptoms, remove their access to firearms and the medicine cabinet and get them some help immediately.

Guess the moral of that story could be, "Don't live in West Virginia." On duty LEO, returns fire after being hit himself, and the court sides with the guy who shot him? I have to wonder if the perpetrator was charged with anything? Something doesn't smell right, and google isn't bringing up anything that looks remotely similar.

Was he using reloads? Or was he using factory-loaded duty ammunition?

Really, if stories like this become urban legends, creating even a semblance of hesitation or doubt in a gunowner's mind as to whether to defend themselves with a legal firearm, then the left has already won. Next, we'll be getting sued for "cruelty to animals" when hunting. Who needs the Second Amendment?

Sounds like that LEO had the worst lawyer ever to graduate from law school.

I have never believed this.
For one thing, this gets bandied about without a single court case to back it up. I've asked others for the case: no one seems to know.

Difficulty in establishing residue patterns? This insults the crime-lab folks, who know their craft and science very well. Besides, factories change powder and amounts in the same loading all the time. The box of .38 Special jacketed hollowpoints you bought yesterday very likely is not loaded with the same powder loaded 10 years ago.

Providing you reloaded with a bullet typically commercially available (no homemade mercury-tipped, exploding, fragmenting, etc. bullets), you will be judged on the legality of shooting, not what you fired.
Of course, any prosecutor will try to distract the jury by mentioning you used hollow points, a "Magnum" (even if you had it loaded with .38 Specials), etc. But these issues will be addressed even if you used factory ammo.

Whether you had the legal right to shoot another person will be the crux of the issue.
You MUST prove that you had reason to believe that you were in fear of:
1. Death to yourself or others.
2. Permanent, debilitating injury to yourself or others. Note, the injury must be permanent and extremely grievous. If someone comes at you with a baseball bat, you would have reason to believe that the bat could cause you death or permanent, debilitating injury. But if that same person came at you with a shoe in his or her hand, you likely shouldn't shoot.

There are other factors that play into shooting in self defense:
Your physical condition An 80-year-old man in a wheelchair could probably shoot someone armed with a shoe, or even bare fists, if they threatened to beat him.
But ...
A 20-year-old man in good physical condition facing another 20-year-old armed with a shoe? He'd be in trouble for shooting.

It all comes down to -- Did you have a reasonable belief that your life, or the lives of others, were in danger, or that you or them would suffer serious, debilitating, permanent injury?

Don't use reloads or you'll be in serious trouble with the prosecutor? Show me the court cases.