Replies

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.]