Hand Loads for Self Defense

[Bisley]

I have participated in discussions on this subject, on other forums, and I always end up getting swarmed by the folks who adamantly oppose the idea of carrying hand loaded self-defense ammo. I understand that this is due mainly to the fact that all of the self-defense writers strongly recommend the use of factory loaded ammo, and many even recommend using exactly the same ammo as local law enforcement.

I completely understand the arguments about how a lawyer might be able to influence a jury, by suggesting that custom-made 'killer' bullets were used to insure maximum damage. I understand that the consensus is that it is just best not to add another possible variable into an equation that could possibly result in your conviction, or an unfavorable civil judgment...or in larger defense fees being incurred to counter such arguments with expert witnesses, etc.

Personally, I am dead in the middle, on this issue. I understand the common sense argument, yet I also understand that it is an argument that is really not backed by much actual evidence. There are very few cases that can be cited in which hand loaded ammo was even mentioned, and even fewer cases where the use of hand loads were a factor in deciding the case. I have only ever seen two mentioned, personally, and in both cases, hand loads were peripheral to the main issue. I still carry factory loaded ammo, but should my preferred ammo become unavailable, I would not hesitate to carry my own hand loaded ammo. I am mostly unconvinced that this would be a disaster, should I ever have to fire my weapon in self-defense.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have any special ability to look for such cases, but common sense tells me that if they existed, I would be able to find more references to them, on the Internet. If anyone can cite instances where hand loaded ammo played a part in the conviction of a person who was defending himself, I would like to read them, and I would like to see more opinions on this subject.

[Rusty]

I do not think that the type of ammo would come up in a prosecution for deadly force.The thing that would matter,to a jury,is why you used deadly force.Did you use the minimum amount of force nessesary to STOP the person.Or were you neglegent,or have total disregard for your actions.I have been loading ammo since 1968,for hunting and competetion,and feel very comfortable with my loads.I have seen "squib loads" with handloads and factory ammo,but the percentage of you having a bad load is much less with Remington,Winchester,or Federal factory loads.Unless you use a 40mm grenade on a 70 year old lady,I don't think that type of ammo would be an issue.Were you Justified????

[Crapshoot]

If your gonna do it just load as close to factory specs as possible maybe cover your 6 from that angle. Maybe even call your local LEO agency or even the local DA's office and see what their policy on that sort of thing is. It can help a great deal if you live and or operate in an area that in "fire" friendly. Also if there is even a slim chance I could get pinched because of the type of load I was carrying, I'd have to reconsider for my family's sake.

[F_L]

I have read the same controversy and had the same questions. I decided that if I needed my weapon and it was a good shoot, I would be fine. If I can legally use my firearm, I am pretty sure I can legally use any projectile it is designed to fire.

I haven't loaded any SD ammo yet but intend to do so. My one concession to the lawyer types is I will get a chrony and document my loads. No +P+ loads for me. My only intention is to develope an accurate SD load and shoot it a lot. My experience in loading target ammo is I can produce more accurate ammo than factory until you get to the top tier ($$$$) ammo. Why wouldn't I want to carry the best SD ammo I can.

Fred

[DoubleJ]

even if I was a "rare case," my life sure would be different...

[Liberty]

I have read the same controversy and had the same questions. I decided that if I needed my weapon and it was a good shoot, I would be fine. If I can legally use my firearm, I am pretty sure I can legally use any projectile it is designed to fire.

I haven't loaded any SD ammo yet but intend to do so. My one concession to the lawyer types is I will get a chrony and document my loads. No +P+ loads for me. My only intention is to develope an accurate SD load and shoot it a lot. My experience in loading target ammo is I can produce more accurate ammo than factory until you get to the top tier ($$$$) ammo. Why wouldn't I want to carry the best SD ammo I can.

Fred

Might consider using new brass for those babies.

[dac1842]

There are no laws that prevent you from carrying ammo you reload yourself. However, the liability issue is what you must worry about. While the shooting might be justified, if you load your rounds on the hot side, this will certainly come up in a civil trial. It would not be an issue in a criminal case unless a grand jury indicted you. But as long as the shooting itself is clean that wont be an issue.
IN a civil trial is a diffrent horse altogether.

[Kevinf2349]

I thought that if there was no criminal case then there couldn't be a civil case as this would break the law in and of itself?

CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC g 83.001. ClVlL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

[Crapshoot]

I thought that if there was no criminal case then there couldn't be a civil case as this would break the law in and of itself?

CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC g 83.001. ClVlL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

That would be nice. But in my CHL class my instructor(a LEO) said it wasn't uncommon for the law to clear you and then have the assailant or their family file and win civil suits. He gave examples but I couldn't site anything specific, its been a couple yrs. Sorry

[Roscoe]

I've read many magazine articles where the writer warned against using reloads for self defense, saying it could be used against you in court. Former Texas sheriff Jim Wilson is now a gun writer with (I believe) Shooting Times. He has addressed this issue numerous times, and says he has never been able to find a documented case where any shooter was placed in jeopardy from using handloads in his self defense weapon. He has also publicly challenged any gun writer to point out a documented case where such action has resulted from the use of handloads. At least the last I heard, no writer has ever proved him wrong.

I personally prefer the higher performance factory loads for my self defense weapons - pretty much just because I have a lot of confidence in them. After I retire and really get into reloading, I may change my mind.

[srothstein]

I thought that if there was no criminal case then there couldn't be a civil case as this would break the law in and of itself?

CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC g 83.001. ClVlL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

You have a slight misunderstanding of the way the criminal laws work. The flaw in your logic is that the criminal side does not have a way for the courts to rule that the use of force was justified. The DA may decide not to file charges for this reason, but that does not mean the courts would agree. The Grand Jury does not give a reason when it returns a no bill. It could be the force was justified and it could be the DA just could not prove his case. The same is true in a regular trial (not enough evidence or the defense of use of justification proven). So, there may be a civil trial where the defense would be the use of force was justified. When this is proven, the defense will win the case, but it would take a trial to get to the ruling.

The real advantage of the immunity law is in its application in the real world. Most civil cases are taken on a contingency basis, where the lawyer gets paid out of the winnings. If there is little or no chance to win, the lawyers won't take the case. But a person does not really need a lawyer to file, or the plaintiff himself may be an attorney. The discouragement would not affect them. Nor would it affect some agencies that are truly anti-gun and think they might have a chance. Look at some of the shootings that the Brady Campaign has gotten behind. A third group it might not discourage is the ambulance chasers who know that a homeowner has insurance and they will offer $25,000 instead of going to court, simply because it is cheaper.

So, be prepared for the mental aggravation of a law suit after any use of force. You will probably win, but there is always the chance of the lawsuit and its hassles anyway.

[Bisley]

...The real advantage of the immunity law is in its application in the real world. Most civil cases are taken on a contingency basis, where the lawyer gets paid out of the winnings. If there is little or no chance to win, the lawyers won't take the case. But a person does not really need a lawyer to file, or the plaintiff himself may be an attorney. The discouragement would not affect them. Nor would it affect some agencies that are truly anti-gun and think they might have a chance. Look at some of the shootings that the Brady Campaign has gotten behind. A third group it might not discourage is the ambulance chasers who know that a homeowner has insurance and they will offer $25,000 instead of going to court, simply because it is cheaper.

So, be prepared for the mental aggravation of a law suit after any use of force. You will probably win, but there is always the chance of the lawsuit and its hassles anyway.

This is absolutely the best explanation I have seen, concerning the likelihood of civil action, following a self defense shooting. Thanks for the reply.

Would you also address the question of whether the use of hand loads for self defense would be any more likely to put a person in civil jeopardy, than say, having attended a hand gun self defense school?

The reason I ask for this comparison is that so many of the self defense writers that advise most stridently against the use of hand loaded ammo, will then recommend that a concealed handgun permit holder attend as many self defense classes as possible. To me, this is a bit of a contradiction, in that either could be 'spun' to suggest that a person was seeking a deadly confrontation.

[F_L]

Might consider using new brass for those babies.

Interesting thought and I will consider it.

If someone breaks into my house I can legally:
1)Hit him with a stick
2)Shoot him with my:
22
.22 mag
9mm
.45
AR15
.270
or 12 gauge

I would grab the shotgun every time because it is the most effective way to stop the threat. Will I be sued for choosing the shotgun over the stick? I can be sued for anything but would expect it to be a pretty short process. I don't see how my ammo preference would make much difference.

Fred

[srothstein]

Would you also address the question of whether the use of hand loads for self defense would be any more likely to put a person in civil jeopardy, than say, having attended a hand gun self defense school?

The reason I ask for this comparison is that so many of the self defense writers that advise most stridently against the use of hand loaded ammo, will then recommend that a concealed handgun permit holder attend as many self defense classes as possible. To me, this is a bit of a contradiction, in that either could be 'spun' to suggest that a person was seeking a deadly confrontation.

Many of the writers and instructors will tell you to avoid doing anything that could be used against you or make you look bad in court. Handloads are hard to explain as better than factory loads. For the non-gun and non-technical jury member, it is easier for the plaintiff or DA to show you loaded them to be more deadly, and claim this proves the intent to kill. They will also have the rounds from your gun there, along with the fired rounds. If they really wanted to be unfair, compare your handload (hollow point and mushroomed, probably) to how the standard military round (full metal jacket ball ammo, almost untouched and still round) looks and they can easily convince the jury you meant to injure more. The caliber you chose can also be used this way, as Harold Fish found out with his 10 mm rounds (IIRC).

Training, on the other hand, is much easier to show as being defensive in nature. "I went to extra training to make sure I could hit only my target and not innocent bystanders" as one example. "I went to training to learn how to not get killed myself or get my gun taken away from me" is another. And not having the course in court to show people, they would have to rely on your description of what you learned or the trainer's advertising and testimony. Not too many trainers are willing to say "I taught him how to kill people more efficiently" so it is less likely to get brought up.

The last thing to remember is that many of these gun writers are located in other states and governed by other laws. When you are writing for national audiences, you cannot be too careful on what you say. Many of them also repeat old wives tales that have been accepted for years. I don't really know if handloads would be used against you in court because almost everyone has bought into this theory and we all recommend using standard ammo, preferably the same ammo the local police use in the same caliber. Are we right or are we just a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[ghostrider]

>But in my CHL class my instructor(a LEO) said it wasn't uncommon for the law to clear you and then
>have the assailant or their family file and win civil suits.

IANAL but I thought that was no longer possible under Texas law?