Ayoob on Firearms +++ Massad Ayoob

A collection of one of my favorite writters on firearms.. or link here---

http://www.backwoodshome.com/author_index.html#mayoob

His piece that argued against using handloads for defense was the first and last of his that I read.

Mayoob has been around quite awhile and was always a pretty thorough, common-sense law enforcement and civilian instructor/author.

Not sure about the advantage for semis in hunting turkeys. (Didn’t read that specific article)...

Engaging multiple targets like,say, quail or zombies, though- different story.

I used to think so too, until I took his class, and he has good reasons for it!

The use of force, and the instruments of that force, must be defensible in the event you end up in court (which is more likely than not, given the propensity for “wrongful death” suits these days). The steps you take in advance of such an occurrence will make the difference between freedom and imprisonment/impoverishment. It will be up to you to educate the jury and bring them up to understanding whether a reasonable man, knowing what you know, would do what you did in that particular set of circumstances.

Factory ammo is known quantity, and goes through a defined and documented quality control process - handloads don’t. Manufacturers do that for liability purposes, besides which customers seem to prefer a consistently-performing product. Does the average handloader run a statistically significant portion of each lot to determine velocity, penetration, expansion, etc.? I sure as heck don’t, and I reload 500-1000 rounds a month. Maybe the high-speed rifle competition guys do.

The factory ammo can be obtained by investigators and fired to determine/verify distances, expansion, and other characteristics to which the defendant (you) may attest during your questioning.

Some Prosecutors all but lick their chops when handloads are involved - “he loaded SUPER-HOT ammo - he wasn’t satisfied with regular velocity store-bought stuff! - he’s a crazed killer just looking to blow someone away!” That will do wonders to your credibility with the jury and the press, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.

Granted, factory self-defense ammo is not cheap. Handloaders can build practice loads that approximate velocities and recoil for their favorite factory loads if high-volume practice is needed/desired. Nonetheless, occasionally running some of your carry ammo into the training mix will (a) clear out the old inventory (and a(nother) reason to go to the gun store), and (b) provide an opportunity to train with and to document training with the “real stuff”. Anticipate the questions: “What is your experience with this particular firearm & ammunition combination?” “When did you last fire this type of ammunition, and under what circumstances?” - document when, where, and how you trained and what you shot in a shooter’s log book.

As Mas is a renowned expert witness in self-defense legal proceedings, you might consider re-visiting your position...myself, I would avoid giving the opposition any more ammo (pun intended) for their purposes...

Show a case where use of handloads made the difference between guilt and innocence.

"Some Prosecutors all but lick their chops...'he...SUPER-HOT...he wasn’t satisfied...blow someone...!'"

That wouldn't surprise us. [Little humor there.]

"That will do wonders to your credibility with the jury and the press, regardless of your protestations to the contrary."

[More sincerely...] My credibility depends on what I do and say--not what others say.

Hysteria should be avoided in judicial work and in self-defense. Logic, study and experience in physical interactions are better. We shouldn't be making way for constitutional violations.

I carried evil Talons on duty long ago. The public arguments against those were no more or less irrelevant than the arguments against handloads. My handloads are more accurate and proven than commercial loads. More expensive, too (also irrelevant). ;-)

>>Show a case where use of handloads made the difference between guilt and innocence.

Hopefully sometime in the future we won’t be posting links to an incident you were in as an example.

There’s no doubt in my mind at all that if Zimmerman was using handloads, especially if ballistics tests on his other rounds showed they were ‘hotter’ than anything else on the market (unlikely to be a problem), that it would be part of the MSM and prosecutor’s meme.

Arguments befitting women’s studies instructors.

Arguments befitting women’s studies instructors.

Sounds like you've taken a few of those courses, so I'll defer to you as to what they consist of.

ping for later.

The argument that handloads give any prosecutor a leg up in your prosecution is moot. No case has ever been decided on the basis of whether handloads or factory loads were used. Ayoob’s citations have been researched by handloading lawyers and were found to be without merit in regards to his argument.

Juries understand that whatever is in the gun at the moment is the bullet that is going to be used. Reloading at the point of the fight with factory loads would be foolish and would get you killed.

Pistols are very limited by engineering in there ability to carry a “super hot load”. .45 caliber (.452) is limited to 14,000 Psi and if you exceed that number the gun may blow up in your face either on the next shot or down the road after the gun has been weakened by the over pressures.

Speaking for the handloading community I can tell you that we are all paranoid in the extreme concerning loading super hot loads by accident and we go to great lengths to try to eliminate it because it could cost us our life or the life of a family member or the life of a stranger in the slot next to us at the shooting range. At the least it might thoroughly wreck a gun rendering it a paperweight and a reminder that screams “Don’t do this again!”.

Ayoob is highly respected in many quarters but not in the reloading community. He is regarded as a fool who is not sufficiently knowledgeable to be instructing others in this particular aspect of shooting.

My own bone to pick with him is that he has merged and confused the difference between tactical shooting and defensive shooting. To review the difference:

Tactical shooting is many times a drawn out affair with multiple magazines being loaded into the pistol. Distances are as far as 40 or so feet. Occasionally further. Large quantities of ammo are required and back up is always welcome. The gunfight may be several minutes in duration.

Objective of Tactical Shooting: To end the fight.

Defensive shooting occurs at distances of 10 to 15 feet and only 3 to 5 shots are fired. There is no backup available. The encounter lasts less than ten seconds and most likely will be about 5 seconds in duration.

The objective of Defensive Shooting: To keep the perp from making the next shot.

These are very different objectives and for my money the most effective method of meeting the objective for defensive shooting is to use a .45, either ACP or Long Colt. A .45 Long Colt loaded with a 250 grain bullet traveling 700 feet per second is quite effective on a perp at 15 feet and was also used to put down an out of control horse at close range. This is in no way a hot load but is the classic load for the .45 Long Colt, the black powder load equivalent for the day to day shooting needs of the Cowboy.

My own .45 LC reloads are quite mild but they would be effective on a perp at close range. Pretty much lights out on the first shot. Which is as it should be. He would not make another shot. Objective met.

Well said, buffaloguy. This one’s for you (and for Matt, if he ever wants to use any of the content or ideas from it in his own work). Sorry about the hasty writing. Other things to do here today.

The Story of Bob and His Buffalo Bore Coup

Metro recalled the thoughts of his past few days: the end of his career and the government-haters who ended it. He planned the whole operation from start to finish and even planned his defense in detail. Thank goodness, taxpaying public servants passed the Goochie Act to put the uneducated right-wingers in their place. The fools never suspected that Metro’s Progressive Conservatives were upholding decent regulatory government principles for doing business.

But the right-wingers succeeded in their crime of becoming anti-government communities, independent and with their own little economies. They refused to buy from approved retail authorities who generate revenues that upstanding persons like Metro are entitled to.

Metro arrived at Bob’s rube ranch. The place gave him the creeps. Men like Bob had always intimidated him. He had taken much pleasure in gatekeeping at the agency to keep tall rednecks like Bob from getting in.

Black rifle? Check. Commando uniform? Check. Level VI body armor with armor plate? Check. Twenty 30-round magazines in the proper (and very stylish) handbag? Check. Armored mask? Check. Metro couldn’t lose.

There’s Bob, down by his chicken coop, acting like the anti-government scumbag that he is. Look at him—proud to be an unintelligent, impoverished hick. Metro found a three-foot-high boulder and assumed a proper tactical standing position behind it.

Metro opened fire. He couldn’t miss, sending so many bullets through the air for only 200 meters. Or...how far was that? Dang. Forgot the laser rangefinder. Oh, well, doesn’t matter, because he knew that his black rifle was the brand that always made sub-MOA groups at 500 meters. learned it from the Internet. Had to hit something.

Bob took cover behind a small boulder and assumed a prone position, resting his Ruger Blackhawk on the boulder. He cocked the hammer, aimed for many seconds, a thinly scribed line on the lower part of the front sight leveling in line with the rear sight, squeezed and let one go. The revolver emitted the usual explosion and kicked like a mule. Didn’t expect to see that dandy boy up there. The revolver was for the monstrous bear that had been visiting to stalk and pester the livestock.

Metro dropped backwards like an Army silhouette. Bob saw dandy boy’s feet, aimed patiently between them and let another go. Boom!

The deputy looked at the exit wound on the top of the weird stranger’s skull and said, “Bob, that’s one sorry pelt.” Bob said, “Yup.”

The deputy looked around for an entry wound. Seeing the pool of blood between below Metro’s torso and no obvious entry wound, he decided to let the lab technician find it.

“You know that with that new Goochie law and all, you’ll have to drop by to see us.”

“Yup.”

The lawyer for the partner of Mr. Metro S. Politan told the judge, “The Goochie Act....”

“I’m aware of it. Have it your way. The Court will present the lists.”

Mr. Politan:

1 Striker/Arachnid Ninja rifle
...
Horny Turbo Extreme LE Cartridges
...
...Italian suit

Bob:

One Ruger Blackhawk revolver, customized by John...
...
Stetson Hat
...
...Boots
...leather
...Buffalo Bore Cartridges

The judge decreed, “Mr. Metro, total $7,386. Bob, total $11,264, brand names also approved.

“Bob, not guilty...!”

Nicely turned story that I can relate to since most of my shooting is done with peepsights. I own nothing that is “Tactical Black”. I do own much that is brass,deer and elk hide,

I really enjoyed the story. Thank you.

I’ll freely admit that I have no instant cases where the jury based guilt or penalty on handloads where factory loads would have led to an Innocent verdict.

I’ll even stipulate to no cases ever having been decided on that turn of facts.

That being said:
1.WHY would one willingly provide a weak point in one’s defense like this, all over an occasional $20-$25 box of factory ammo? Small change, in the big picture.

2. DON”T count on the jury “understanding” anything, even after detailed explanation. People who can think for themselves are typically the first ones released from the jury selection. Lawyers want people they can lead to a conclusion. Thinkers cause problems for them.

3. I’m not following “...Reloading at the point of the fight with factory loads would be foolish and would get you killed.” From your point “...whatever is in the gun at the moment is the bullet that is going to be used” - “bullets is bullets”. Are the modern factory self-defense loads that sufficiently low-performing that one has to resort to the faster (= “hotter , more powerful”) handloads? My carry rounds (Hornaday Critical Defense) seem to perform adequately...

4. IIRC, Clint Smith notes that the point of using a gun is to get the bad guy to stop what he’s doing. Ending the fight = keeping the perp from making the next (or any) shot = getting them to stop what they’re doing.

We’re on the same page - just different ways of getting to the objective.

1. First of all, bullet damage from shootings is extremely well documented through hospitals, coroners and the military. Any super hot load would be called to the attention of the DA by the Coroner.
2. Any claims that a reloader used a superhot load would be immediately confirmed by tests using ballistic gelatin and plastic bones. The testing is fairly cheap and is quite accurate. DAs know this and will not use the argument of a hot load unless the Coroner feels that there is enough odd fragmenation and high penetration to warrant it. It is not an argument that is inserted by the DA willy-nilly.
3. Semi auto pistols have a very limited range of bullets: They must have enough recoil to cycle the next shot but they must not have enough recoil to make the pistol jam or to break parts. Very limited.

Ayoob’s contention that it is any factor whatsover in a court case is simply incorrect. It is a false claim as no cases have been judged on this basis. Zero cases.

It is simply not an issue.

Your second contention that tactical and defense shooting and equipment are equivalent is simply wrong.

Defensive shooting has seperate objectives from tactical shooting.

"That being said:
1.WHY would one willingly provide a weak point in one’s defense like this, all over an occasional $20-$25 box of factory ammo? Small change, in the big picture."

I'll be sincere with this reply. No silly business. I've done security, a little police work, trained as a soldier and engaged in sporting activities in the past. Also did some custom machining long ago and have much mechanical and other experience. I've fired more than I enjoyed on ranges and am more of a ballistics nerd than anything.

Factory ammo is good for those who can afford enough of it, although handloading can add a good learning experience. I'm going to go a little further than expected in the following with some related issues.

Proper training generally, initially requires thousands of rounds for say, four people (e.g., family) over the course of a couple of years and a couple of thousand per year afterward for maintenance. And as for the round count,...

Not all victims of attacks are within minutes of help from police (re. round count, types of training). Some people are even hours away from police help. Such a rural area leaves police with doing occasional investigations after homicides and unable to arrest attackers fast enough to protect residents. That's my argument for good, competent residents training in ways similar to police for self-defense as well as being similarly armed.

I can handload for less than half the cost of essentially the same manufactured ammunition with more precision, consistency and no one in organizational "politics" trying to disturb my peace (re. consideration of a of hypothetical of a handloader trying to work for an agency). And I don't receive federal funding.

"2. DON”T count on the jury “understanding” anything, even after detailed explanation. People who can think for themselves are typically the first ones released from the jury selection. Lawyers want people they can lead to a conclusion. Thinkers cause problems for them."

How would a court feel about a resident using a shotgun to stop a deadly attack? Forensic records of such defense cases are generally uglier, wound-wise, than those of defense cases involving pistols. The weapon used in defense is irrelevant. Nearly anything can be used as a self-defense weapon. Police have used hammers, in some cases, vehicles in others. Bullets sometimes don't end fights started by criminals (with adrenaline and escalation in mind and avoiding the more generalizing myths about drugs).

Problems in the judicial system and society at large must be solved in ways other than incremental disarming of residents. Aiding and abetting a trend caused by Roman-istic immorality (re. displacement of and revisions against the older American paradigm in law and culture) will only make the general situation worse.

As for police who would like to effectively outlaw certain kinds of weapons and supplies for self-defense, that's an error. For one, it won't work. Moral and law-abiding residents, who try to obey laws (including laws against owning certain kinds of weapons, ammunition, etc.), are no threat to police. The us-against-them approach was warned against by several police chiefs of past generations, and our fathers were right.

For another, police should train more, just as anyone should. Training is where the greatest advantage in self-defense comes from. They should also realize the importance of morality. Morality also lends to self-defense abilities. Without it, one is tactically disarmed, when things get really rough. Many police, BTW, do know these things. Most of them are a clean cut above the rest, per person.

But many in leadership are also being gradually drawn under the control of a bipartisan, socialist class of constituents who desire to monitor, control and prevent good and honorable business competition from their neighbors too much (legalized, institutionalized social pathologies, wrongful regulations).

Tools and civil remedies for self-defense should not be controlled according to class, occupation, etc. And most often, ingenuity is an attribute of a good neighbor--not of a criminal who refuses to do technical work with self-motivation or to consider consequences. Don't disrespect or nurse irrational fears of the Bubba in the neighborhood (redneck like me as an example).

Trying to disarm him with brand names, costs or fan-boy-ism will be ineffective and detrimental in the long run. Allies among neighbors will likely be more needed before long. Besides, want more revenues? Then we need more men and machines at work again for those sustainable revenues.

We're probably looking at a situation of "austerity" just ahead, where much more of the middle class will lose incomes: government employees, pensioners, all. Many already have, but the future looks more than a little poor for most of us. Thus, using marketing speech fallaciously to limit freedoms is a bad way to go. It won't disarm the bad guys, but it will turn a population against those who perpetrate such a tactic.

Most training is done incorrectly. Most defense situations are close, dark and fast, requiring training for the same. Most residents don't consider physical/situational matters well enough in advance. A few projects involving dim lighting, fences, camera systems, protective veneers, etc., might even prevent an attack from happening. Apologies to those who suffer when seeing mentions of "light pollution" in "starlight." [Okay, a tiny bit of humor there for those who rely on expensive optics.]

Anyway, there's something to work on instead of trying to disarm "the Joneses" in incremental steps by using marketing/economic tactics. Let the Joneses use AK-pattern rifles in defense, if they wish, and if they're in a sufficiently rural area or use frangible rounds. Ban handloading more, and others will see to it that we're more limited on availability of certain manufactured, effective self-defense cartridges by whispering in the ears of vendors or even outlawing sales to "civilians". [Contrary to television shows and bad journalism, all who are not in our military forces are civilians.]

[I don't have any AK-type rifle, BTW, although AK-like rifles can be very effective with no nearby neighbors, proper home security preparations, fire-and-maneuver and uses of cover. Remember that I'm a ballistics nerd. Saw more than enough violence in the past and probably won't see any more due to my past learning and experiences, situation, bearing, etc.]

IMO, the whole argument about excessive wound cavitation is irrelevant. I carried the evil Talons on duty in the past, and there was much public argument against those.

Manufactured loads are made to do as much damage to the human body as technically possible while keeping recoil low enough to make as many such wounds as possible.

Another example: good, handloaded bear loads will blow right through a body and into the background without making more than a small hole—even through bone. So will similar manufactured loads. But accurately enough placed, they can be very effective against an attacking bear (re. attack profile: head-on). As for humans, it would likely make a much less interesting wound cavity than turbo/extreme defense loads (not to mention horrid recoil and noise for the defender).

Hope the following will be helpful.

Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories:
The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

[Now, to go out and do something healthier, like fetching manure for next year’s garden.]

“Some Prosecutors all but lick their chops when handloads are involved “

There hasn’t been a single case of that happening, therefore, that statement is a bold faced lie often repeated by those wanting to sound authoritative on the subject of firearms.

Oh how I wish that I had a horse to generaste that manure. But I am running an open houise today trying to get the house sold.