Ammo For Sale

« « I have the weirdest schadenboner right now | Home | Bob Owens, Rest in Peace » »

Never thought of it


13 Responses to “Never thought of it”

  1. James Brack Says:

    Very interesting article, thanks for that.
    I use nothing but Federal HST ammo in my carry guns. However, if for some reason I did have to carry my reloads, living in a gun free state (GA) this issue probably would not arise.

    I can see this issue being big in the blue states for sure.

  2. SPQR Says:

    James, with the caveat that big cities (coughAtlantacough) in good states can have blue DA’s.

  3. James Brack Says:

    ^^ Good point!

  4. JFM Says:

    I read an article of Ayoob’s about this years ago and he convinced me. Going one better, I carry the same load as the police in MyCity (not your City) carry.

  5. mariner Says:

    I do as JFM and carry what the cops carry (Speer Gold Dot).

    For me the issue wasn’t possible legal liability but convenience.

  6. SPM Says:

    A family friend that is a lawyer told Me a long time ago, that if you used hand loads the prosecutor would pant you as a psycho your loads as some super magic voodoo kill you twice ammo.

  7. KevinM Says:

    I’ve gone through formal instruction a dozen times now. To a one, they don’t allow handloads. A few also call out factory reloads, and nonbrass cases.
    I’m convinced I can’t do better than the better factory loads, and don’t think anyone else can without investing 10s of K$s.

  8. Robb Allen Says:

    KevinM, that’s actually provably false – many professional shooters use handloads because of the ability to tune & perfect a round. Factories crank out rounds as fast as they can, tuned for “most guns”, they’re not paying attention to each & every bullet they seat like a handloader should be. “Should” being the operative word.

    I still do not believe there is enough evidence to show that handloads have a high chance of getting you convicted when you would have gotten off scot free had you used factory ammo. A handful of cases do not a trend make.

    That being said, I won’t carry my own handloads for SD. The chance is miniscule, but why risk it anyway? That, and I do not load enough any more to have the confidence that my ammo is exactly where I need it.

  9. rickn8or Says:

    Mas convinced me years ago when he said, “Imagine facing a prosecutor who asks ‘So regular bullets weren’t deadly enough for you?’ “

  10. Laughingdog Says:

    Two things. Why is the only example they can give one where the guy claims his wife committed suicide with soft loads? Even the hypotheticals, like “So regular bullets weren’t deadly enough for you”, seem like a stretch if you don’t live someplace anti-gun.

    But, more importantly, how on earth would they know? It’s not like there’s something magical on my ammo that would scream “these are reloaded ammo”.

  11. ExpatNJ Says:

    Excellent discussion.

    Quite some moons ago, I decided to use hand-reloads ONLY for non-defensive uses (sighting-in, target-shooting, plinking, varmint dispatching, etc). My reasons were reliability-related. After reading the link, I understand the heightened potential for legal liability.

  12. Rivrdog Says:

    No offense to Mas, he’s the most common-sense gun expert I know at the moment, but knuckling under to this argument means that you have assumed that your defense attorney can’t beat a bullshitting prosecutor.

    Oh wait, then there was the Michael Strickland case in Portland, OR…

    Also, Mas’ line of thinking is why we now have NRA’s “CarryGuard” insurance foisted off on us: it’s a choice now, but this idea has already been suggested as State Law in some blue states. This offer is the biggest cave to gun controllers that NRA has yet made, but worse caves are coming…

  13. nk Says:

    What Rivrdog said. Get a good lawyer.

    What prosecution forensic experts are most expert at is testifying convincingly. Forensic ballistics are not like fingerprints or DNA. They’re mostly guesswork and sometimes outright lies. You need a lawyer who knows this, and how shake up the prosecution “expert’s” testimony and create reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact.