Reloads for self defense????

[oldpink]

I have immense respect for Ayoob, but fortunately, I live in a state where lawful gun owners aren't treated as the pariahs they are in the northeast or Commiefornia.
I would carry Underwood 155 grain Gold Dot factory ammo, but (for some reason) they seem to have dropped that particular load, so I carry my own reload backed by a max charge of AA#9 driving that bullet.
As BBI mentioned, this load won't be used for any reason other than one in which my life or that of an innocent person is in imminent risk, so what that load is composed of is irrelevant, and it's from my own bench, so reliability is assured.

 

[foszoe]

Don't invoke his name and walk away. What's Ayoob's reasoning? It was either reasonable to use deadly force or not.

I THINK it was legal liability not fear of functionality

 

[Cameramonkey]

I THINK it was legal liability not fear of functionality

I think you are correct, but given we are not in the same state of affairs (silliness) he occupies, he may not have thought it that far through.

 

[ScouT6a]

This question comes up fairly regularly. A good shoot is a good shoot. Don't worry yourself about what the gun is loaded with.
Factory loads can and DO fail. You train for that moment. It's called an immediate action drill.
I have carried factory and reloaded ammo in self defense guns for 30+ years. Never worried myself about the liability of it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This is the basis for Ayoob's statements:

Handloaded Ammunition: Not a Good Idea for Concealed Carry/Self Defense

This can become a critical evidentiary factor if the other side insists he was too far away from you to endanger you at the moment he was shot. The distance testing is done with exemplar ammunition, that is, ammo identical to what was in your gun, but not the same exact cartridges. Don’t count on the crime lab testing the remaining rounds from your weapon as taken into evidence at the shooting scene. If the fight was sufficiently intense, there may not be any rounds left in the gun that saved your life. Even if there are remaining cartridges in evidence, they may not be tested. The prosecutor can argue, “Your honor, firing those cartridges consumes them! It’s destructive testing! The defense is asking the Court’s permission to destroy the evidence! You cannot allow it!” Do you think that’s a BS argument? So did I…until I saw a judge accept it, in a case where handloads were used in the death weapon, but the state crime lab tested with a much more powerful factory load, based on the headstamp on the reloaded casings. That gave a false indication of distance involved, and the defendant – whom I have strong reason to believe was innocent – was convicted of manslaughter.

I don't doubt his experience, however as I've said that's not what I've observed locally.

 

[ScouT6a]

"This can become a critical evidentiary factor if the other side insists he was too far away from you to endanger you at the moment he was shot."

What a load of BS.
Goes back to a good shoot, is a good shoot.
If I shoot someone 100 yards away with my 9mm, that is actively shooting at me, is that too far away?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

"This can become a critical evidentiary factor if the other side insists he was too far away from you to endanger you at the moment he was shot."

What a load of BS.
Goes back to a good shoot, is a good shoot.
If I shoot someone 100 yards away with my 9mm, that is actively shooting at me, is that too far away?

What if the case involved an aggressor with a hammer instead of an active shooter?

 

[ScouT6a]

A hammer wielding attacker would fall under the 21 foot rule, for me personally.

 

[Tryin']

A hammer wielding attacker would fall under the 21 foot rule, for me personally.

I think that is the point. If one were to load ammunition to a much "softer" level than standard factory loadings, and used them in a defensive shooting, AND the prosecutor suppressed testing of the ACTUAL rounds used, and the prosecutor substituted a hotter factory load result as evidence of expected terminal results, and that evidence indicated that a comparable wound track would have necessitated the shooter being farther away than claimed, (I.E. 40' instead of 21') it could get sticky.

I like to think this would not occur in Indiana, but it has happened somewhere at least once.

 

[OutdoorDad]

What 21 foot rule?

If you're making life and death decisions based on 21 feet, you are going to be killed.

If I'm hanging out in the park and a machete wielding mad man starts running at me yelling "Leroy Jenkins", I'm not going to worry about 21 feet. I'm going to defend myself from the time I or my loved ones are in danger, until they aren't in danger.


I don't run as well as I did 30 years ago.

 

[Expat]

As I recall, the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case in FL tried to make a big deal out of the type gun being carried so doing the same with ammo wouldn't be a stretch.

 

[ScouT6a]

What 21 foot rule?

If you're making life and death decisions based on 21 feet, you are going to be killed.

If I'm hanging out in the park and a machete wielding mad man starts running at me yelling "Leroy Jenkins", I'm not going to worry about 21 feet. I'm going to defend myself from the time I or my loved ones are in danger, until they aren't in danger.


I don't run as well as I did 30 years ago.

"The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.

Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]

A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being accused of murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat."

Every situation has unique circumstances and unlimited variables to consider and unfortunately many of those things have to be processed in seconds during a life threatening situation.
The Tueller Drill or 21 foot rule is not a hard and fast rule, but rather something to be mindful of when dealing with the reactionary gap.

 

[ScouT6a]

Expat,
I would like to think that I would never put myself in the situation that Zimmerman put himself in.
I think the prosecution had every right to question every action by that guy, on that shooting.

 

[HoughMade]

I THINK it was legal liability not fear of functionality

If deadly force is justified, why would reloads vs, factor vs. a knife vs. a hammer matter?

 

[HoughMade]

This is the basis for Ayoob's statements:

Handloaded Ammunition: Not a Good Idea for Concealed Carry/Self Defense

I don't doubt his experience, however as I've said that's not what I've observed locally.

...and the defense couldn't have equivalent ammunition made and tested? I don't know about where he was, but in Indiana, I don't know why this couldn't be done.

That being said, I don't see why someone would use handloads for carry.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

...and the defense couldn't have equivalent ammunition made and tested? I don't know about where he was, but in Indiana, I don't know why this couldn't be done.

That being said, I don't see why someone would use handloads for carry.

Did you click the link? Next to last paragraph. That said, I agree that in Indiana I don't see it as the same issue. If I were to load, say, wadcutters for my Colt DS I would make 50, label the box "self defense loads", and have some available. It'd take some pretty fancy lawyering to claim I intentionally loaded the carry bullets stronger so it would look like I was closer or whatever nonsense was used there.

A hammer wielding attacker would fall under the 21 foot rule, for me personally.

Ignoring that there is no '21 foot rule' in the law and that the originator of the Tueller drill himself has said it's not based on human performance and is simply a demonstrative drill, you can see where distance can become an issue on if you're 'good shoot' is a good shoot or not. While I still maintain that it would be treated differently in Indiana, that does not make Ayoob's concern or experiences "BS", it is simply not something I deem as relevant for our area and time. If I were to travel to CA, though, I would be more concerned about it.

 

[RMC]

I believe a justified shooting would hardly be scrutinized to the point of how many grains of powder were used or the construction of the projectile unless it was illegal to begin with. If a shooting needs to be scrutinized to determine if it was justified or not then perhaps the shooter should have used better judgement. In a crisis, damn near anything can be used as a hammer (we've all done it) and virtually any load can be used for target shooting, hunting, self defense, or plinking. My Sig P238 loves 90 gr hollow points loaded to crony at 1000 fps. The only reason I don't take it to FNS is I don't feel like spending $50 per piece for enough 7-shot magazines. Liberals like to place blame on the tools used but I prefer to hold the individuals accountable for their actions. If we screw up we need to own it. If our actions are justified we shouldn't have to worry. We still have rights in America, at least until January 20, 2017 depending on how people vote.

 

[ScouT6a]

BehindBluel's,
I know what Tueller said about his research.

Tueller has said in video interviews that he never designed nor presented his firearms training drill as an organized, outlined, and implemented research project involving the applied sciences of psychophysiology, physics, and related human factors. No forensic testing, examination, reconciliation of data, or scientific oversight of a research model was ever conducted.

Ok, we'll agree to call Ayoob's concerns " not relevant ". I can live with that.

 

[BE Mike]

Just curious if anyone carries reloads for self defense. I have recently started reloading so I would have plenty to shoot, but had no plans to reload self defense rounds. I'm starting to wonder why not. There are plenty of self defense rounds out there to reload, and my reloads have been 100% reliable except for some early .380 rounds with a less than reliable powder measure. And with most of the self defense rounds costing about $1 per round, I was considering it somewhere down the road.

The only real considerations would be (1) Can I reload competently enough to insure the quality of my loads? (2) Are my reloads as good as commercially available premium defense ammo? (3) Is it truly a big savings to reload my carry ammo vs. premium commercial ammo, considering how little is used? For me the answer to #1 is yes, but the answers to #2 and #3 is no. If you want to try to duplicate your premium commercial ammo for training, then have at it, but loading your own defense ammo isn't really worth it. I personally wouldn't consider some lawyer's reach regarding the type of ammo a factor. If you have to shoot in self-defense, you can assume that you will be sued and have to defend your actions. It'll cost you a bundle of money to defend yourself, even if you were clearly in the right. The type of gun and ammo you used will be the least of your worries, IMHO.

 

[RMC]

I trust my reloads more than factory loads so I'm good with #1 and #2. In fact that is why I got interested in reloading. It sure wasn't to save money because I could have bought a lot more ammo than I shoot for what I've paid for the equipment.