Cast bullets for self defense?

[David LaPell]

I know the hollowpoint is supposedly king for personal defense, but why not cast bullets too? I don't mean the old lead round nose jobs like the .38 Special's 158 grainer that the factory used to load, but how about some decent bullets like the #358156? The #358429? What about the #429421 in hollowpoint or cast in a .44 Special? What about the #452424 in .45 Colt? I would think all of these cast not too hard would be ideal for personal defense and would cost alot less than jacketed hollow points.

[theperfessor]

And you would be correct in your assumption. Except you probably don't really need a HP in the .40+ calibers.

[MT Gianni]

I think a lot of the avoidance comes from Police Depts being sued for over penetration. A 358429 will go through a lot and most of it is out of your control. Too much risk of collateral damage.

[jh45gun]

Wad cutter with flat surface its got to do some damage. I shot at a zombie target with my 38 at 7 yards with some wad cutters that were given to me and some factory HP. The wad dcutter holes were twice as big on the paper and they were perfectly round so I know they were stabilized well. No I did not buy the zombie target LOL it came in a Mid South Flyer. :) :) :)Yea the hollow points cannot expand on the paper but I was surprised to see how small the HP round was on paper compared to the wad cutter.

[waksupi]

BD45 is my friend.

[35remington]

Given that the argument against using roll your own ammo for self defense now appears to entirely rest on the "non reproducible powder burn residue" theorem, which seems pretty tenuous, I'd say have at it with whatever you want to use.

You can always point out that the oft recommended factory loaded 38 Special 158 grain Plus P SWCHP is an all lead bullet, too.

It has been well advanced that since most bullets miss, over penetration fears are often very secondary to the problem of stray bullets. If you're still worried cast HP's can be produced.

In all likelihood very few of us will see a need to roll our own specifically for such use, but there is always the possibility of having to employ what's in the gun when misfortune strikes. That may not be a factory load in some cases.

It would be difficult to advance a cast bullet as superior to what you can buy, but then again sometimes factory hollow points don't penetrate enough.

[rintinglen]

Lead SWC's faired little better than lead RN in Marshall's studies. People ain't paper, and despite the seemingly larger holes a WC or SWC boolit might make in a target, an expanding hollow point will do more dammage in tissue. Now, if the HP bullet fails, due to the cavity getting plugged, mashed shut, or whatever, all bets are off. You are then dealing with a RN Equivalent. That said, my choice for a duty round in a service gun remains a 125 Grain .357 Magnum HP in a 4 inch BBl M-66.

[jh45gun]

I have shot deer with a 308 RN cast bullet and I have shot deer with the same bullet with the nose filed flat for a flat nose bullet. (Same size flat nose as a Lyman 311407 which I used as a guide) There was no comparison on performance the flat nose worked much better. I cannot help but think a wad cutter is gonna do some damage as it should mushroom well with that flat end hitting tissue or clothing before tissue.

[rintinglen]

As I understood the original question, I thought it pertained to standard velocity revolver cartridges. At 800 fps, there is little or no upset from non-hollowpoint bullets. The permanent cavity is little larger than the bullet diameter. Even hollow-point bullets often show limited expansion at that speed. At 1800 fps things change, the hollow point that was o.k. at 800, good at 1200 may disintegrate at the higher speed. The soft flat nose will mushroom at such speeds. Moving a 454-424 at 1800 FPS takes more gun than a .45 Colt. (Or at least, a very long barrel--maybe Earp was onto something with his Buntline).

[jh45gun]

If you got a big hole to start with it helps

[subsonic]

NO gun is a world away from A gun. The rest are just details. But if the gun is something you can shoot with enough accuracy to hit a grapefruit under said conditions and the power level is something north of mouse fart, you are doing really well. You just need to locate the grapefruit and apply the lead before you catch any lead yourself. The rest are just details.....

[shooting on a shoestring]

Cast Boolits for defense? Of course!

My rationale is two fold. First I shoot what I carry, and shoot it often. I very much prefer to practice with the same ammo that I carry. That amount of shooting calls for cast boolits. Secondly, I use soft wadcutters in two forms. For .38 spl, cast in 98% Pb/2%Sn, kept within standard .38 pressures (b/c they do get shot alot). For .357, the same boolit gets hollow pointed, pushed to the top end. My Security Six is so loaded and gets 150 grain HP'd soft boolits over 1400 fps. Impressively shreds milk jugs.

[218bee]

Just my opinion but I would say lead bullets even at low velocity would do the job against some ******* invading your domicile. Hell, a 22 would work in most cases I believe.
I could be wrong, but I feel most criminals would likely give up with even a small hole in them.
Now if I was in a war or chasing down known criminals who had bad intent and they were likely coked up and fighting for freedom or life in prison I would choose something with more power and terminal effect. But hopefully as an average citizen if I ever had to use a firearm for self defense it would most likely be against some stupid clown that would be easily discouraged with one or two small holes in him. Just my take for what its worth.

[tek4260]

Where does mouse fart begin? 9mm/40 and below? :)

[45/70fan]

Where does mouse fart begin? 9mm/40 and below? :)


Under the tail I would think.

[pdawg_shooter]

I rely on handloaded 45ACP myself, but my wife has a 2" 38Spl. I keep loaded with 148 HBWC loaded backwards over 5gr of Unique. If it does as well on a gomer as it does on a coyote then she has nothing to fear.

[subsonic]

Where does mouse fart begin? 9mm/40 and below? :)

I would say ~125gr moving @900fps is the basement floor. Snubby territory. Heard a story once about a pet rabbit that required 3 Golden Sabers from a Kel-Tec P3AT to be put down. I traded mine that week. But again, still worlds better than a sharp stick for all but maybe Chuck Norris.

[subsonic]

But then again, my carry gun is a G20 stoked with 175STHPs and I carry a spare mag for a total of 33rds. Or my j-frame with 2 extra speed strips (and maybe a speed loader) of +Ps if I can't have my first choice.

[subsonic]

Where does mouse fart begin? 9mm/40 and below? :)


Under the tail I would think.

An asstoot observation.

[subsonic]

To sum up my thoughts on the matter:
A cast boolit that lands anywhere on the bad guy is going to be a lot better than a hollow point that lands on something that is not the bad guy.

[subsonic]

Oh yeah, and a gun that goes bang instead of click is kind-of important too....

[1Shirt]

Well, just my 2 cents here I guess. I have no problem with a 22LR, or a 380ACP in a small auto for home protection with a concern for penitration thru walls etc. being a consideration. Same is true for a standard 38S wad cutter in a revolver single or double action. Distances are short/close in all probability, and just the presence of the weapon is part of the reality of defense.
1Shirt!:coffee:

[Catshooter]

I'll carry anything, as long it's a 45 of some flavor or another.

And in my 45s I carry my cast Keiths. Including 45 autos.


Cat

[machinisttx]

I would say ~125gr moving @900fps is the basement floor. Snubby territory. Heard a story once about a pet rabbit that required 3 Golden Sabers from a Kel-Tec P3AT to be put down. I traded mine that week. But again, still worlds better than a sharp stick for all but maybe Chuck Norris.

Jacketed HP bullets are one step above worthless in a .380, especially a short barreled one like the P3AT. They just don't expand. The gold dot might, but others are proven not to. Mine stays loaded with fmj.

[BD]

BD45 is my friend.

You're OK too Rick, for a westerner :)
BD

[Bret4207]

I don't know how many of you have been chasing a BG in the dark and ran around a corner only to find a gun pointed at your face, but a 22 looks as big as the open end of a 55 gallon drum in those circumstances. No one in their right mind WANTS to get shot and by my guess that's got to cover a good 50% of the BG's out there. In the extremely unlikely event you get the Zombie/crackhead/terrorist/jealous husband (shame on you, you deserve it!) that doesn't care if he gets shot, then use whatever is at hand. I carry cast and factory, I don't worry about it, I never have, I never will. Cast works as good or better than jacketed in handguns, simple as that. Those that feel that homecast or handloads are unwise should do as they wish and carry factory. End of story.

[1Shirt]

Yep, Bret has it covered well!
1Shirt!:coffee:

[saz]

I carry factory JHP's in my LCP and 1911 (unless it is in bear territory) just due to the fact of the legal ramifications of carrying "handloads". That word can be twisted into an "evildoer" that manufactures ammunition to be "extremely deadly". If the wrong lawyer gets you in his sights I would rather not give him anything to try to turn the blame onto me if I ever had to use my CCW.

[ShinyPartsUp]

The argument saz made is the one taught to me. I know two old-school LEO's that years ago carried cast in their service weapons until lawyers for the departments told them to stop giving the bad guys a reason to sue (and possibly win). There's no point giving lawyers a way to muddy the waters to a jury, IMHO. But to each their own.

[missionary5155]

Good morning & a Blessed New Year !
For years carried the 358429 (SWC) cast of 40-1 in 38 snubies with 4 grains Unique. All my ameture tests in gallon buckets of sand showed it was a descent thumper up close.
Today the same 2" 38´s carry a 358432 (WC) when cast of 40-1 weights at 164 grains and still gets the 4 grains Unique. In the same one gallon can of beach sand it expands just a hair more and penetrates just a bit less. Use the same boolit in a S&W #13-3 3" with 6 grains Unique and my car S&W 19-5 with a 3.5" barrel. Plenty accurate at 20 yards and up close really expands but still penetrates as well as the 38 Special load.
I figure it this way.. I have more than Wild Bill had. He faced more men with his Navy 51´s than many and it took a shot from the back to stop him.
But when I get up north there this year a 5 shot caliber 41 mag Titanium will carry the group buy 411 WC with about 7 grains Unique just because I like bigger holes. This will equal the 41 Colt load which certain pistoleros of days pàst thought was just a "jim dandy" thumper up close.
Mike in Peru
Mike in Peru

[Bret4207]

I carry factory JHP's in my LCP and 1911 (unless it is in bear territory) just due to the fact of the legal ramifications of carrying "handloads". That word can be twisted into an "evildoer" that manufactures ammunition to be "extremely deadly". If the wrong lawyer gets you in his sights I would rather not give him anything to try to turn the blame onto me if I ever had to use my CCW.

Both you and shinypartsup are invited to provide any actual PROOF this has ever happened. It hasn't. It's a bogus claim fostered by a professional witness/part time gun writer who was never really a street cop. A police officer carrying non-issue ammo is an entirely different matter.

Respectfully, Former Trooper Bret, retired actual, real police officer (not a rent a cop) and guy who has corresponded with the professional witness who started all this hog wash, who BTW, wanted to back up his claims by sending me his educational records!

[Jim]

Bret is right. It's hog wash.

There was a very long discussioon on this a long time ago and NO ONE was able to produce any documented evedence that this has ever been brought up in a court case.

The individual that Bret speaks of wrote a few books and made statements to the effect of the subject in one or two of his books. Just because his opinions got published, everybody decided we should all bow down to him and hold all that he says as gospel.

If you used a knife in self defense, you think it would make a difference that it was a handmade or homemade versus a manufactured knife?

IF you go to court after shooting someone in self defense, it will be because the law and the D/A think they have enough evidence to convict you on a felony charge. If you read up on and study the statues of the state you live in and use deadly force as allowed by the statutes, You won't have anything to worry about.

[BruceB]

This is, yet again, a rerun of a tennis match that's been going for ages.

After taking part in many discussions/arguments/etc on this whole subject, including the larger issue of handloads OTHER than cast-bullet loads for self-defense, I have done reached a conclusion (hey, it doesn't take ME long....maybe thirty years???)

The conclusion, based on extensive exploration of the subject, falls into two distinct findings, given that we ALL have strong positions.

1. I have NEVER changed anyone else's mind on this topic, and

2. Nobody has EVER changed my mind.

It's safe to say that "change" ain't gonna happen, at least not because of Internet yada-yada.

Ergo....I stopped tilting at this windmill some time ago. I still read the threads, but mostly I just shake my head. I know what I* think, based on reasonable evidence, and that will suffice for my purposes. I'd wager that the same holds true for most of us.

BE SAFE out there, and practice enough to hit targets efficiently. Bullets on target win fights, not internet argument.

[jh45gun]

I think many have fallen for the hollyweird hype of trying to make more exotic loads (Like the movie with the mercury in the bullets BS) We are not in the military we do not have to use FMJ bullets so I will carry cast loads and not worry about any lawyer as your lawyer should be able to prove your ammo is no different that what you buy off the shelf.

[waksupi]

I DO wish the Massad Ayoob **** would die a final and deserving death. Amazing how some hack writer can come up with a scenario, that becomes holy writ to some.

[jwp475]

I think a lot of the avoidance comes from Police Depts being sued for over penetration. A 358429 will go through a lot and most of it is out of your control. Too much risk of collateral damage.



Can you sight any cases of "over penetration" colatral damage? Since :EO's miss around 80 percent of the shots that they fired it would seem that misses far are more dangerous than a bullet "over penetrating"

[btroj]

I DO wish the Massad Ayoob **** would die a final and deserving death. Amazing how some hack writer can come up with a scenario, that becomes holy writ to some.

But I read it in a magazine so it must be true! blasphemy!

If you ever need to shoot someone I would expect that the bullet used would be pretty low on the list of problems.

[Char-Gar]

Back in the early 60's before Lee Jurris brought out his great Super-Vel ammo, I made some nice pocket change handloading for some Border Patrolmen. They carried Smith and Wesson 19s and were issued the factory 158 grain lead .357 Mag. load that leaded like heck and did not expand.

I loaded 358156 GCHP cast from 1-20 over 15/2400 in their empty cases they provided me. This was a popular combat load in the 357 Magnum back during that time. There was a couple of times these were used in gunfights and they said, they stopped the party pretty quick.

I still use that bullet over a strong dose of AA5 in 38 Special cases for my good 38 Special and .357 Magnums.

[Char-Gar]

I carry factory JHP's in my LCP and 1911 (unless it is in bear territory) just due to the fact of the legal ramifications of carrying "handloads". That word can be twisted into an "evildoer" that manufactures ammunition to be "extremely deadly". If the wrong lawyer gets you in his sights I would rather not give him anything to try to turn the blame onto me if I ever had to use my CCW.

This foolishness just won't die. Nonsense is published by somebody trying to make a buck, and it get picked up and repeated over and over again, even by folks who should know better, until it becomes accepted as fact by some people.

"Back in the day", I was a criminal defense attorney as well as a prosecutor and I knew this was ****, when I first read it, many long years ago.

I guess we just should ignore it, but if it isn't challenged when it raises it's head, then other folks will buy into the foolishness and the cycle go around again.

[35remington]

As I mentioned earlier, the whole argument against handloads (now that the "bloodthirsty handloader" part of the argument has been repeatedly discredited) now rests upon the claim of "dissimilar gunshot powder reside."

And nothing else.

Supposedly, should a pointblank range shooting occur, any residues left by a handload would be impossible to duplicate because it's non standard.

Apparently shooting another handload might come up with a different powder, voiding the results.

This is the case cited in the latest claim that handloads are unsuited to self defense use.

Yes, it's the same MA guy, responding to his critics on the internet.

Sound thin. Really thin. I'm not sure how this would preclude testing another handload remaining in the gun unfired, or carried on the person of the guy involved in the shooting. For that matter, the fired case could be examined for similar residues, assuming the lab could even tell the difference between residue from a powder that differs from another.

The alleged complaint assumes the handloader is probably shooting a mix of loads, none of which contain the same type or amount of powder.

In trying to make a very peripheral case , the very, very low possibility of such an occurrence makes it clear that if such a tenuous argument applies, the shooting was extremely unjustified based on all the other criteria that already applied.

In other words, the handload didn't convict the user. It was all the other things that they did.

[jwp475]

I carry factory JHP's in my LCP and 1911 (unless it is in bear territory) just due to the fact of the legal ramifications of carrying "handloads". That word can be twisted into an "evildoer" that manufactures ammunition to be "extremely deadly". If the wrong lawyer gets you in his sights I would rather not give him anything to try to turn the blame onto me if I ever had to use my CCW.



There is absolute no facts to support this claim. It is simply repeated over and over. Ones choice of ammo would not be the deciding factor in determining a good shoot from a bad one

[sundog]

So, let's see. Prior to the invent of jacketed bullets everyone killed in self defense was done so in an illegal shoot.

The Heller decision made great use of historical data from the time of the writing and adoption of the Bill of Rights. If I remember history correctly, there were a lot of lead bullets being used at that time. Has something changed?

Whoever started this KARPOLLA about using factory loaded self defense ammo ought to be taken out behind the wood shed..., and shot with a lead bullet. Just like the founding fathers intended.

The legal system is rift with people who present themselves as 'expert witness' and really don't the difference between KARPOLLA and lead bullets. They just talk like they are expert, and trial lawyers present them as such to courts that many times don't know any better, i.e, ignorance.

[jameslovesjammie]

I think Massad has alot of people on his case about the use of handloads in self defense. He is a contributor to Personal Defense TV on The Sportsmans Channel, and over Christmas he had a 30 second clip about how he is right about the use of handloads for personal defense, despite how often he has to argue with "internet firearms experts," or something along those lines.

[jameslovesjammie]

I should also add that Personal Defense TV is a Guns and Ammo production...which would explain why they have Massad and Clint Smith on their shows.

[btroj]

At this point in his life he isn't going to back down.

His welcome to his opinion, and that's what it is.

I suppose that in the spirit of full disclosure I hate scout scopes and don't load my 1911 to it's full potential.. There gos another "expert" I don't listen to. Dang, I must be an idiot.

[thehouseproduct]

Under the tail I would think.
I think it's also important to note that this line above is probably the funniest thing I read today.

[jh45gun]

My personal opinion is I always thought Massad was a legend in his own mind. I never cared for him as a writer and I would never buy any of his books or read his articles in the gun rags. He is full of bovine excrement!

[357Mag]

David -

Howdy !

IMHO -
Firearms used for self defense pretty much all started out discharging lead.

The past 35yr has seen a lot of debate over what works ( handgun wise ) for self defense.

The inadequacy of the stock .38Spl and 9mm loads to give reliable " stops " gave rise to things like "+P" loads; which themselves are basically a confirmation that
traditional .38SPl and 9m loads are marginal at best; for use in self-defense.

What is sometimes talked about is " stopping power " or " shock down " power.
The schoool of thought with those is: If you have someone high on PCP trying to remove your head from your neck, you'd be best served by a self defense round that can deliver the maximum stopping power you are able to put on target.

Looking cartridges that have garnered a decent one-shot stop record, the floor level for adequate KE appears to be around 425ft lbs. The well-known .45ACP hardball round achieves this level of power. The one-time king of one-shot stops
....the .357Mag..... signifcantly exceeds 425ft lbs in developed KE ( when shot from 4" guns ). The 9mm and .38+ Ps struggle to attain this level of energy.

Without even looking, I' ll betcha the popular .40 S & W is able to achieve or exceed 425ft lb w/ a variety of loads & barrel lengths.
.38-40 was the .40 S & W of yesteryear, achieving a balance of adequate bullet wt, vel, controlability, and attainable usefull KE.... all with a lead bullet.
Yet, who uses one for self defense, today ? Not many.

That being said, very few of the above cartridges mentioned above, are rated high on the stopping power scale; when leads loads ( results ) are being tallied. It's a "J"-word and even more often, a "JHP" bullet that has been/is providing the best results.

Most of the engagements take place @ arms-length to 7yds out.
That only complicates the scenario for likely successfull use of a lead bullet for self-defense; and gives rise to the serious question of potential " shoot-through".

Again... IMHO.

With regards,
357Mag

[subsonic]

While Massad has said things I disagree with, so have plenty of people. A lot of the things he says are very sound. I don't think I'll ever find a person that I agree 100% with on any subject, but that does not mean that I do not consider the other opinions or ask for advice from others.

If we all knew everything, these forums would be pretty worthless and quite boring.

Sometimes you can take information from several sources and find that the sum is more than the total of the info.

Let common sense (if you have any) be your guide.

Also, I seriously would not want to be in a gunfight with anyone, especially someone who shoots as well in competition as Massad does.

Now do you see many gang bangers shooting IDPA, IPSC, or even PRACTICING any marksmanship skills? Putting shots on target accurately in a short amount of time while moving to cover or at least concealment seems like a much more important part of the equation than what ammo is in the gun.

You can never miss fast enough or use a "deadly" enough bullet to make a miss worth much of anything. Unless we are talking ordinance....

[waksupi]

Wouldn't a person look a lot more blood thirsty, if the LEO's after a shooting found 5000 .45 ACP's loaded with cast boolits in a home, along with one box of supposed man stopper commercial loads? And the gun used had the commercial loads in it? That looks a lot more like intent to me.

[35remington]

It's been pointed out that if someone used factory 357 magnum hollowpoints instead of factory 25 ACP hollowpoints he also could be called "bloodthirsty."

Invalidation of the "no handloads for self defense" argument then follows. No handloads were involved, yet "bloodthirstiness" is still present if the argument holds water.

Which it does not.

It's all hanging on "dissimilar gunshot powder residue" now. And even more questionably so.

[Bad Water Bill]

I think if you hit someone with ANY of the above mentioned rounds all but the most strung out crack heads are going to stop bothering you. They are now in a world of pain and want it to stop.

IIRC that expert was an AUXILIARY LEO in a small town. Wow that should really make him the ultimate expert. Now if he walked a beat in N Y, Chicago, Detroit etc I might have believed him when he started sticking his pen in the bull puckie and calling it gospel. It stunk then just like it does today.

[btroj]

I don't care what level of law enforcement he worked. I want to see a body of case law that shows this is a real issue. Not a potential issue but something that has been used to hang people out to dry.
If you can show me a number, say 10 cases, where the use of reloads was an issue in determining guilt or innocence and I might buy it. Until then, it is just one guys opinion.

Maybe I will really walk the line and use high velocity cast reloads for self defense in a micro groove barrel! Or worse, a Glock! If I am gonna go down for breaking the rules I want to get my money's worth!

Yeah, sarcasm intended.

[aarolar]

What I don't understand about all this is if your involved in a so called "good shoot" are they really going to even pay attention to what ammo is left in your gun? Even if they do will they question you about the brand? How will they possibly determine that they are handloads vs factory without extensive research? I personally don't think ammo used will even get a second look in a "good shoot".

[ammohead]

You mean, some of you actually "buy" handgun bullets? Haven't you learned anything on this site? There ain't nothin you can do with a commercial handgun bullet that can't be done with a hand cast boolit.

Seen any buffalo lately?

[Catshooter]

I don't know why a handload couldn't be tested for gunshot residue. I use 4.7 grains of Universal Clays in my 45 auto.

If my lawyer loads some of my boolits over 4.7 grains of Unversal Clays I don't know why they couldn't compare to the loads I shot in self defense. Makes sense to me.

But then again I'm not a famous gun mag writer . . .


Cat

[saz]

Ok, I did not intend to insult anyone or bring up a subject that has been beat to death. I obviously did and I apologize. BUT, this is not info I got from reading an article (although I have read it before). I had a soldier a couple years ago who got into a little bit of trouble over an incident that involved firearms in his home (WAY too long of a story to get in to now); I got in touch with the NRA and asked for a list of lawyers who were familiar with this type of case. The guy he dedided to go with was a very down to earth guy, hunter, fisherman etc.... and we got to talking after the fact and I asked him if there was any truth to it. He simply replied "there may be the SLIMMEST of chance someone may try to come after you for such a thing, but it is up to you weather you would take the chance or not". Now I have a CCW of some shape or form with me when I leave the house BECAUSE I do not like to leave anything to chance which is my personal decision, as is my decision for what ammunition I carry. I may change my mind later on down the road, who knows.

Now just to clarify, I have been in a gunfight or two over the years and I will say that YES, bullets being shot at you are scary no matter what size they are. Now as far as selecting the best ammunition/boolit we all have our own opinions based on various things like what we read, testing at the range or just real world experiences. IMHO the first step is making sure you have something that will go bang every time you squeeze the trigger.

[Bret4207]

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong in choosing to carry factory saz, not a thing. The issue is one of what the individual chooses to do and the problem is that there are a zillion self appointed experts out there willing to spout off at length about something based on a magazine article they read once 15 years ago. And then to top it off, they will come down hard on those who don't follow their path! Doesn't matter if it's handloads and SD, wearing gloves while casting, the "need" for "hardcast" or Ford/Chevy/Dodge is better, some knothead will stick to his opinion based on nothing more than a story he read for all his life.

Do the research on your own. I've done it, it's boring as can be, but you'll find out the is no criminal case where the handloads themselves were an issue. In fact, of the cases that are germane to the issue, most losses appeared to be because of very poor attorneys that didn't have a clue about ballistics. Like Catshooter said- duplicate the handload. I'm sure most of us know that factory loads vary over time, powders change form lot to lot. The argument is simply more and more inane as time passes.

[Bret4207]

Can you sight any cases of "over penetration" colatral damage? Since :EO's miss around 80 percent of the shots that they fired it would seem that misses far are more dangerous than a bullet "over penetrating"

If you check the stats you'll find everyone misses 80% or whatever of their shots in a gun fight, not just cops, especially after the first shot is fired.

[Alan]

Actually, I think the stat for non-police justifiable shootings is the revers. 80-90% hits. Citizens are generally engaging at shorter distances for one thing.

And there is the whole professional/enthusiast thing: Who would you rather have sex with? A professional or an enthusiast?

[jh45gun]

actually, i think the stat for non-police justifiable shootings is the revers. 80-90% hits. Citizens are generally engaging at shorter distances for one thing.

and there is the whole professional/enthusiast thing: Who would you rather have sex with? A professional or an enthusiast?



lol lol lol

[JayinAZ]

A professioanl enthusiast :)

[blasternank]

I don't know if it's been said yet but it's a nice idea but you should try to have your defensive ammo store bought. I've taken many Conceal carry courses in many states and they all say you need to have factory loaded ammo. The reason? Lawyers, of course!! They'll sue you and say that factory ammo wasn't good enough. You had to load up a special load that would maim and injure their clients. They'll make you out to be the bad guy. It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not it's a reality that if you go against it you will be either paying huge attorney fee's to defend yourself or lose a ton when you have to pay the scum that you used it on or worse case both! Just my input.

[bob208]

see bret you are right the myth keeps going and gaining ground.

at one time long ago. i loaded for some city police departments. what i used was 358429 loaded to about 1000 fps.in .38 spl. cases. that load would punch through a car door would most of the time go though a windsheld unless the angle was extream.

[Jim]

I don't know if it's been said yet but it's a nice idea but you should try to have your defensive ammo store bought. I've taken many Conceal carry courses in many states and they all say you need to have factory loaded ammo. The reason? Lawyers, of course!! They'll sue you and say that factory ammo wasn't good enough. You had to load up a special load that would maim and injure their clients. They'll make you out to be the bad guy. It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not it's a reality that if you go against it you will be either paying huge attorney fee's to defend yourself or lose a ton when you have to pay the scum that you used it on or worse case both! Just my input.

:groner:

[MtGun44]

Nobody has ever identified an actual case where the "special, super dangerous ammo" was
actually raised. I suspect it is total BS.

Everyone has to do what they want. I usually use factory ammo in carry guns, but have a
couple that just do NOT like any factory ammo that I have tried (bunches of very expensive
testing at $1 a pop or more for some ammo) so I use handloads. Not worried.

For example:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=161&pictureid=3952

Penetration in gelatin is twice what it is in wet newsprint in my experience. So we are talking
about 4.75 to the front of the boolit x 2 = 9.5" deep. Works for me.

Your opinion and mileage may vary.

Bill

[waksupi]

I don't know if it's been said yet but it's a nice idea but you should try to have your defensive ammo store bought. I've taken many Conceal carry courses in many states and they all say you need to have factory loaded ammo. The reason? Lawyers, of course!! They'll sue you and say that factory ammo wasn't good enough. You had to load up a special load that would maim and injure their clients. They'll make you out to be the bad guy. It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not it's a reality that if you go against it you will be either paying huge attorney fee's to defend yourself or lose a ton when you have to pay the scum that you used it on or worse case both! Just my input.

Someone beat this with a stick, PLEASE! Then bury it deep.

[Jim]

Nothin' quite like beatin' a dead horse.

[zxcvbob]

Nobody has ever identified an actual case where the "special, super dangerous ammo" was actually raised. I suspect it is total BS.

That would be the Harold Fish case in AZ.

[btroj]

That case mentions the use of hollow points, not reloads.

[zxcvbob]

That case mentions the use of hollow points, not reloads.

If I remember right, it was his choice of caliber (10mm) that they used to paint him as a bloodthirsty monster. And the jury was actually swayed by that. Nevermind that he was armed for bears and mountain lions, and just used the gun he had available. (pisses me off all over again)

Not much you can do about that; a dishonest prosecutor will twist anything you did or didn't do to make it look bad.

The *only* point about reloads in a shooting is that the powder residue and burn marks testing will not be allowed if it helps your case.

[Char-Gar]

I don't know if it's been said yet but it's a nice idea but you should try to have your defensive ammo store bought. I've taken many Conceal carry courses in many states and they all say you need to have factory loaded ammo. The reason? Lawyers, of course!! They'll sue you and say that factory ammo wasn't good enough. You had to load up a special load that would maim and injure their clients. They'll make you out to be the bad guy. It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not it's a reality that if you go against it you will be either paying huge attorney fee's to defend yourself or lose a ton when you have to pay the scum that you used it on or worse case both! Just my input.

blasternak...Pretty please go back and read the ENTIRE thread.

[jh45gun]

You can take that ammo argument the lawyers would use about special ammo and tell them it is target ammunition it is not even defense ammo. It is lead and not jacketed because lead bullets that I make or buy are cheaper than defense ammo bullets. That said I still say this lawyer stuff is BS. I am almost 60 and I never heard of a case where the ammo was suspect in a shooting. Might be different some where else but not in WI that I know of. About concealed carry classes ever consider that those that teach these classes may some way be involved in working in the industry? I know several guys that teach gun classes and they all work in gun shops. It is to their benefit to promote factory ammo.

[garym1a2]

I think this alloy 98/2 would be good for even 45acp/9mm also. You don't need to worry about leading for bad guy ammo and the good soft lead should expan better under 1000fps.


Cast Boolits for defense? Of course!

My rationale is two fold. First I shoot what I carry, and shoot it often. I very much prefer to practice with the same ammo that I carry. That amount of shooting calls for cast boolits. Secondly, I use soft wadcutters in two forms. For .38 spl, cast in 98% Pb/2%Sn, kept within standard .38 pressures (b/c they do get shot alot). For .357, the same boolit gets hollow pointed, pushed to the top end. My Security Six is so loaded and gets 150 grain HP'd soft boolits over 1400 fps. Impressively shreds milk jugs.

[rintinglen]

2 more cents. I carry factory stuff most of the time, not because I'm scared of lawyers, but because I have had my cast boolit reloads fail. On a number of occasions in my PPC days, I had bloopers on hot days where I suspect my lube may have melted and contaminated my powder. I would druther have a bang than a pop if things required. I have carried handloads and no doubt wiil again, but that isn't my first choice.

[jwp475]

LBT Blue hard lube should cure the lube and powfer mixing proglem

[Larry Gibson]

I carry both factory and handloads (cast and jacketed) because it simply depends on what I'm doing at the time as to what handgun I carry. If I'm hunting and I use my "carry" handgun for self defense the very same laws, rules and opinions of prosecutors will apply.

BTW; over the years I've seen far more failures of factory ammo than with my own reloads. I also probably shoot many, many more of my reloads than factory ammo so figure the odds?

Larry Gibson

[Bret4207]

Actually, I think the stat for non-police justifiable shootings is the revers. 80-90% hits. Citizens are generally engaging at shorter distances for one thing.



Show me your stats, I'll try and find the ones I saw that said the hit ratio was about the same.

And, just for giggles, consider cops are usually fired on first. It's hard to get off aim shots while hunting cover and wondering what that warm wet feeling in your pants is....

[fecmech]

It's hard to get off aim shots while hunting cover and wondering what that warm wet feeling in your pants is....
That puts it into perspective quite well!

[btroj]

I am willing to bet I would be a piss poor shot if I was under fire. Not ashamed to say that at all.

I hope to heck I never have to find put for sure.

[Anachronist]

A professioanl enthusiast :)

:smile:

The counterargument to that is to point out that an enthusiast that loses interest isn't going to, but a disinterested professional is still a pro... uuummm cancel that, all metaphors break down when taken too far.

;-)

Seriously though just comparing round count and hit percentage without looking at the situations is fairly meaningless... I'm pretty sure the circumstances differ.

[sqlbullet]

That would be the Harold Fish case in AZ.

Actually, it would be NH v. Kennedy. Specifically, the defendant was accused of handloading to obtain "more dangerous ammunition". This was put to rest by expert testimony by Jim Cirillo.

And it illustrates why I avoid states on the Northeastern seaboard. Apologies to those who live there, nothing personal. But I don't need to deal with anti-gun prosecutors on a crusade.

And, lest any have the wrong idea, I have no qualms about carrying reloads or cast boolits for defense. But, this is a choice each person must make for themselves.

[thegreatdane]

I think it's also important to note that this line above is probably the funniest thing I read today.

it was for me too :)

[NSP64]

If you check the stats you'll find everyone misses 80% or whatever of their shots in a gun fight, not just cops, especially after the first shot is fired.

Those of us ex-military types call this "suppresive fire" lol

[NSP64]

I have no problem using my cast boolits in my gun for defensive purposes.

[Mossy Nugget]

Actually, it would be NH v. Kennedy. Specifically, the defendant was accused of handloading to obtain "more dangerous ammunition". This was put to rest by expert testimony by Jim Cirillo.

The only case I've heard of is N.J. vs. Bias. Cited by Ayoob as his example of hand loading confusing the issue in court because it could not be proven conclusively which loading killed his wife. The defendant had an unknown combination of different batches of reloads in the gun.
It seems to me that I could mix up an assortment of commercial ammunition that would leave powder residue at different distances and cause the same problems in court without hand loading! The subject of casting was never material to the case.
Ayoob's argument against using hand loads for self-defense doesn't apply even in his own example.

[9.3X62AL]

I worked as a robbery/homicide detective for a lot of years in a State and County that weren't very gun-rights-friendly (Riverside County, CA). That said, the issues of "handload vs. factory load"--gunshot residue pattern variance--or other like/similar questions NEVER came up in any of the many cases I assisted with from the forensics or the more conventional aspects of the investigations. Our focus--just like the District Attorney's--was on motive, intent, behavior, and actions of involved parties. Implied or direct malice is best derived from people's actions and statements, NOT their tools and equipment. Someone claiming that handloaded ammo or home-cast bullets alter malice in some way is selling ice cubes to Inuits, and is full of bovine fecal matter.

I also served as a range trainer for most of that 28 year timeframe, as an adjunct to my strong hobby interest in the shooting sports and its related hobbies. The failure rate of handloads vs. factory loads is about a dead heat in my experience, and VERY infrequent.

I carry my agency's issue service ammo in my war toys for CCW because 1) they require it as a condition of issuance of my CWP and 2) because IF the ammo question ever came up for any reason, the response "Because it's the same load most of the State of California peace officers are issued in that caliber" sits well and says much to the investigating authorities. (Hint hint). Ya think they're going to slam you for using the same pistol fodder they have on board? That would be Purina Attorney Chow right there, in absence of statute language specifically prohibiting use of certain ammunition types by citizens.

Besides that, I've been to emergency rooms and autopsies where I have seen the damage wreaked by my agency's carry loads, and taken as evidence the expended bullets from the subjects involved. Almost all of the bullets look like ad copy for Winchester SXT Ranger ammunition. The WWB HPs are the same ammo/bullets in 40 S&W and 45 ACP, BTW. Same ballistics, per my chronograph.

This might be the skatey-eighth time I've posted this bit. That's cool, and the answers won't change over time. Truth has that characteristic to it.

[BruceB]

WELL said, Al.

The truth does indeed bear (and REQUIRES) repeating, and when the repetition is performed by a voice of extensive practical experience, it bears all the more weight.

Thanks for doing this (again).

[Piedmont]

I worked as a robbery/homicide detective for a lot of years in a State and County that weren't very gun-rights-friendly (Riverside County, CA). That said, the issues of "handload vs. factory load"--gunshot residue pattern variance--or other like/similar questions NEVER came up in any of the many cases I assisted with from the forensics or the more conventional aspects of the investigations. Our focus--just like the District Attorney's--was on motive, intent, behavior, and actions of involved parties. Implied or direct malice is best derived from people's actions and statements, NOT their tools and equipment. Someone claiming that handloaded ammo or home-cast bullets alter malice in some way is selling ice cubes to Inuits, and is full of bovine fecal matter.

I also served as a range trainer for most of that 28 year timeframe, as an adjunct to my strong hobby interest in the shooting sports and its related hobbies. The failure rate of handloads vs. factory loads is about a dead heat in my experience, and VERY infrequent.

I carry my agency's issue service ammo in my war toys for CCW because 1) they require it as a condition of issuance of my CWP and 2) because IF the ammo question ever came up for any reason, the response "Because it's the same load most of the State of California peace officers are issued in that caliber" sits well and says much to the investigating authorities. (Hint hint). Ya think they're going to slam you for using the same pistol fodder they have on board? That would be Purina Attorney Chow right there, in absence of statute language specifically prohibiting use of certain ammunition types by citizens.

Besides that, I've been to emergency rooms and autopsies where I have seen the damage wreaked by my agency's carry loads, and taken as evidence the expended bullets from the subjects involved. Almost all of the bullets look like ad copy for Winchester SXT Ranger ammunition. The WWB HPs are the same ammo/bullets in 40 S&W and 45 ACP, BTW. Same ballistics, per my chronograph.

This might be the skatey-eighth time I've posted this bit. That's cool, and the answers won't change over time. Truth has that characteristic to it.

Al, Here is the part I don't understand. I'm just a civilian but have read about this stuff just like most other gunnys. My understanding is you (not meaning YOU, but anyone other than someone like you) would be stupid to stay much of anything to law enforcement because they will get you talking and use what they can against you. And if not "law enforcement" then some over-stepping prosecutor, like Nafong in that Duke lacrosse story a couple of years back.

So me talking to cops about my ammo choice strikes me as inappropriate. My understanding also is that they cannot make me talk in a criminal trial and the only time I ever may have to talk is if there is a civil trial, where they can make me take the stand. You are much closer to this stuff than me. Am I mistaken?

[Bret4207]

Piedmont, you don't have to incriminate yourself, no. But in my 20+ years in LE I've seen people not give the whole story in an attempt to protect themselves (???) and they wound up looking guilty as all get out and sometimes made things much worse. That's a decision you'll have to make. Just remember that when you say, "I'm not sayin' nuthin' till I get me a lawyer!" it can't help but make you look like you're worried about something. Do what you want, but if you are in the right and you know it then I'd be inclined to give the full story. If you have any feelings that you may have done something less than correctly, then lawyer up. The truth will eventually come out.

[thehouseproduct]

Bret, I acknowledge that shutting your mouth makes you "seem" guilty to cops on the scene and makes your job harder. But if I shot someone, I frankly don't care about your frustration, your job, spending a night in jail, or a couple grand in lawyer fees. I only care that in court, the DA has almost nothing at all to present to a judge and I'm not going to jail for 10, 20, or 30 years. Shutting my mouth will make my life harder for a very short while but, "he wouldn't say anything to us on the scene, he wanted legal council" really doesn't stand up in court.

[thegreatdane]

IMHO I believe the court would be more interested in legality of the actual event than choice of ammunition, because let's face it. A person fired on another. Ammo choice in this context seems a bit 'in the weeds.'

That said, I could see how a prosecutor could use ammo choice as a fall back

My interpretation is:
justifiable = no prosecution (regardless of ammunition)

but we never can predict the actions of slippery lawyers. 8-)

I carry my own.

[9.3X62AL]

Piedmont--

Full agreement with what Bret said, to a point. In officer-involved shootings over the past several years, a trend has developed where involved or witness officers are lawyering up, this in response to cities/counties/states all too eager to throw officers under the bus--civilly and/or criminally--when community anger over a police shooting gets heated. One case locally comes to mind in this context, in which Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the usual cast of compassion fascists raised hell over an OIS in the City of Riverside. In spite of the fact that the female subject pointed a gun at the officers around her vehicle--prompting their gunfire--the officers were still Federally prosecuted over civil rights violations due to their "tactics". In the minds of politicians, far better to let a Federal Court jury make the call on right/wrong than for them to take the heat for a decision made by local authorities. Justice served, McDonald's-style.

In discussions with the guys and gals still doing the work, it is largely expected that all people involved in an incident will lawyer up these days, and no real resentment or assumption of guilt forms in the mind of most investigators. I would never tell someone to not avail themselves of the protections our State and Federal constitutions provide us, nor would I insist that someone cooperate fully with the authorities in a given situation. Way too many variables, and no two cases are EVER alike.

[Hang Fire]

Maybe the best historical argument for cast boolits would be the million or so who have died from cast boolits propelled by BP.

[Reload3006]

IMO the best home defense round gun is the one you have loaded and handy. Personally a cheap single shot shot gun is the best for lots of reasons and Personally I know lots of people will argue and that fine by me #4 or #6 bird shot will do what I need done in my house. My reasons are Its probably going to be dark your going to be scared (or your wife / girlfriend) whom ever has the gun in their hands. If it is inside your house its going to be deadly if not lethal it will definitely stop the person. I have seen too many reports of people killed instantly by the same concoction. If it doesn't kill the intruder they will not be looking for anything other than the exit I assure you.

[Old Coot]

I have always agreed with the shotgun loaded with bird shot for home defense. At house hold ranges it is devastating.
The argument against carrying your cast bullets that has made the most sense to me is: "He created those lethal rounds with the express purpose of dealing death to some person or persons unknown." said the District Attorney.
You bet I made em to be lethal cause I only intended them to me use in the defense of my life or someone elses'. I just don't see the advantage in giving some sensation seeking legal weasel more ammo than he is already will to create. We understand what bullets do, what it takes to hit the target, but most people--ie. THE JURY-- do not. I had members of a jury on a murder trial I sat on tell me that the 12lb. trigger pull on the 20ga. was "too light to be safe", if they wanted to talk safe they should of been talking about not having the thing pointed at the victim in the first place.
Brodie

[Piedmont]

I don't worry about the truth. I do worry about running off at the mouth if I have a pint of adrenaline in my veins. And I do worry about what a not-good cop might testify about a soundbite what I may have said during the course of much questioning with a body full of adrenaline. And I do worry about crooked prosecutors because I have actually watched how those dirt bags operate on the idiot box.

So if the investigating officer thinks I look worried he will just have to deal with that. He can't testify against me if all I told him was something like, "That man tried to kill me."
Piedmont, you don't have to incriminate yourself, no. But in my 20+ years in LE I've seen people not give the whole story in an attempt to protect themselves (???) and they wound up looking guilty as all get out and sometimes made things much worse. That's a decision you'll have to make. Just remember that when you say, "I'm not sayin' nuthin' till I get me a lawyer!" it can't help but make you look like you're worried about something. Do what you want, but if you are in the right and you know it then I'd be inclined to give the full story. If you have any feelings that you may have done something less than correctly, then lawyer up. The truth will eventually come out.

[Piedmont]

Thank you.
Piedmont--

Full agreement with what Bret said, to a point. In officer-involved shootings over the past several years, a trend has developed where involved or witness officers are lawyering up, this in response to cities/counties/states all too eager to throw officers under the bus--civilly and/or criminally--when community anger over a police shooting gets heated. One case locally comes to mind in this context, in which Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the usual cast of compassion fascists raised hell over an OIS in the City of Riverside. In spite of the fact that the female subject pointed a gun at the officers around her vehicle--prompting their gunfire--the officers were still Federally prosecuted over civil rights violations due to their "tactics". In the minds of politicians, far better to let a Federal Court jury make the call on right/wrong than for them to take the heat for a decision made by local authorities. Justice served, McDonald's-style.

In discussions with the guys and gals still doing the work, it is largely expected that all people involved in an incident will lawyer up these days, and no real resentment or assumption of guilt forms in the mind of most investigators. I would never tell someone to not avail themselves of the protections our State and Federal constitutions provide us, nor would I insist that someone cooperate fully with the authorities in a given situation. Way too many variables, and no two cases are EVER alike.

[Char-Gar]

They vast majority of people in prison today, were put their by their own mouths!

[Bret4207]

They vast majority of people in prison today, were put their by their own mouths!

That's true, and I'm happy to say I helped put some of the dirty so and so's there! Stupid criminals running off at the mouth always makes police work easier.

[Bret4207]

I don't worry about the truth. I do worry about running off at the mouth if I have a pint of adrenaline in my veins. And I do worry about what a not-good cop might testify about a soundbite what I may have said during the course of much questioning with a body full of adrenaline. And I do worry about crooked prosecutors because I have actually watched how those dirt bags operate on the idiot box.

So if the investigating officer thinks I look worried he will just have to deal with that. He can't testify against me if all I told him was something like, "That man tried to kill me."

I don't see a thing wrong with saying "That man tried to kill me." or explaining that you worry about giving the wrong impression because of your nerves or wanting to take a few moments to collect yourself. I also don't see a huge problem with telling what happened, but maybe that's because I assume everyone here would hold their fire until it was truly needed to stop the attack. Like I said, if there is any doubt in your mind or if you feel you can;t trust the local cops, then lawyer up.

[Bret4207]

Piedmont--

Full agreement with what Bret said, to a point. In officer-involved shootings over the past several years, a trend has developed where involved or witness officers are lawyering up, this in response to cities/counties/states all too eager to throw officers under the bus...

Dear Lord, is that what it's coming to? Did I mention I can't understand why ANYONE would want to get into police work these days? If the BGs aren't out to get you the ambulance chasers are or the professional victims or the latest group of cry babies. And then on top of that IAB or some slime bucket climber is just waiting for that un-ditted "i" or grammar error.

To heck with it!

[9.3X62AL]

Afraid so, sir. I'm very glad to be out of the business as well.

Still not sure I would invoke Miranda, but I sure as heck wouldn't say a word without being ordered to do so by a superior if I was still working. I insisted on that in 1981 on my first exchange of finality--from my hospital bed after getting a shotgun round to the face as part of the confrontation. The drunken, alcoholic Captain that asked me to run the facts down to him got a MAJOR case of the @$$ when I told him I would be happy to give a statement once ordered to do so. His answer was "Screw you!" He and another subsequent station commander made my life and career a living hell through 1985. They solicited citizen complaints, sent me to pshrink after pshrink after not getting the answers they wanted from the series of doctors I saw. Real fun times. That is part of the reason I am so unimpressed by the cop haters/baiters that post their drivel on this site. Most of them have no freakin' clue what kind of nonsense I (and many other cops) have/had to deal with JUST TO STAY WORKING IN THE BUSINESS.

[idahoron]

Here is a video I thought you guys would like. Ron

http://news.yahoo.com/video/oklahomacitykoco-18229979/blanchard-mother-shoots-and-kills-intruder-27780388.html

[Char-Gar]

Guys, all the world has changed since "back in the day". When I was a kid lawyer, one attorneys word to another was as good as contract with the Pope complete with Vatican seal. Lawyers whose word was no good soon felt the need to find another town where they could make a living.

These days lawyers are cannibals and even consume those within their own firms. Nobody can trust anybody. Yet Law Schools are crowded with young fools wanting to get in that shark pool.

Time they are a changing and not for the better either. It is just not law enforcement or the law, it is all of society.

[jh45gun]

We as you all know got Concealed Carry in WI now. Now I already have my permit but a class a friend is teaching actually two friends have a two evening course and the second evening a lawyer covers what you need to know about concealed carry and if your involved in a shooting. I signed up just for that night to get the input of the Lawyer. Gonna cost 35 bucks figure its well worth it.

[Love Life]

We as you all know got Concealed Carry in WI now. Now I already have my permit but a class a friend is teaching actually two friends have a two evening course and the second evening a lawyer covers what you need to know about concealed carry and if your involved in a shooting. I signed up just for that night to get the input of the Lawyer. Gonna cost 35 bucks figure its well worth it.

I wish we had that here.

[jh45gun]

I wish we had that here.

It helps too that this lawyer is a gun guy and one of the best in our area.

[MtGun44]

Love Life,

How come you don't have your location info filled out? It would make it a lot easier to
understand that comment "Wish we had it here" Where is here? It helps to have the
location info under the avatar.

Bill

[Bret4207]

We as you all know got Concealed Carry in WI now. Now I already have my permit but a class a friend is teaching actually two friends have a two evening course and the second evening a lawyer covers what you need to know about concealed carry and if your involved in a shooting. I signed up just for that night to get the input of the Lawyer. Gonna cost 35 bucks figure its well worth it.

Get the lawyers card with his 24 hr number. And see if you can get any pertinent case law citations if he tells you anything set in stone, like "if a BG is in your house you can shoot, no questions asked". I've seen these statements made before and they often ignore a good deal of the prerequisites involved.

[gefiltephish]

Over the last 3 years I've seen/read this (factory vs hand loads) argument over and over again. I know we're pretty much preaching to the choir here, but some people obviously just don't get it. Here's my 2 cents.

It seems to me that the opposition would have to successfully argue such a concept of "varying degrees of dead". i.e. Billy Crystal in the kids movie "The Princess Bride" - "...oh he's not completely dead, just mostly dead".

A gun is a deadly weapon. When a gun is pointed at an animate object and fired, the only reasonable expectation is that the target is going to die. Period. It matters not the gun, the caliber or the specifications of any of the cartridge components or how many rounds are fired. The only assumption can be that death will be the result. I will go so far as to suggest that this is and has been a universally accepted expectation throughout the entire world for a very very long time.

How can it be argued that one type of (hand gun) ammunition is "more deadly"? Really? There is such a thing as "more dead"? How can anything be "more dead"? I submit that it's not possible, that there exists no such state as "more dead". If a recipient is fatally wounded with multiple bullets in the vitals as opposed to just one, is he "more dead"? Are you then somehow guilty of ?? if you defend yourself with a weapon capable of containing more than one projectile at a time? Does it somehow matter if a BG is killed with a single "more deadly" ammo as opposed to multiple "less deadly" ammo? Can you be more or less dead if you are fatally wounded with a 22cal vs 44mag? I would love to watch some squirming *** lawyer trying to define the varying degrees of dead. It would be quite the comedy act.

A gun is a deadly weapon. Period. This entire argument is ridiculous in concept and only serves to show how gullible some people can be. Let's put this thing to bed for good.

[jh45gun]

Get the lawyers card with his 24 hr number. And see if you can get any pertinent case law citations if he tells you anything set in stone, like "if a BG is in your house you can shoot, no questions asked". I've seen these statements made before and they often ignore a good deal of the prerequisites involved.
WI also just got the Castle Law

“Castle Doctrine” establishes the presumption that an individual who forcibly enters one’s home, business or occupied motor vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, and allows the use of force, including deadly force, against that person. This bill also eliminates any “duty to retreat” so that law-abiding citizens no longer must turn their back on a criminal and try to run when attacked.

Finally, AB 69 provides that any person who uses force, authorized by law, shall not be prosecuted for using such force and also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it restores rights to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.

[Bret4207]

Okay, but do yourself a favor, and I say this as someone who has seen the practical application of laws that were supposed to fix things that di nothing of the kind. Look at the actual wording of the statute extremely carefully. One of the phrases you used in post 112 was "forcibly enters". Check and make sure you understand your states definition of that phrase, see if there is case law that has refuted a claim of forcible entry, ie- see if forcible entry has requirements that don't meet the "normal" definition , see if there is an actual assumption of intent on the part of the BG or if there is more required than just entry into your home.

I'm not in any way saying you are wrong. I am saying that the politicians that write these laws very often work phrasing or lack of certain phrasing into a law to give the appearance that it says one thing when it actually says another. If there is any case law related to this yet it's a very good idea to see what it says.

IOW-cover thy butt friend!

[9.3X62AL]

G-Phish......

Exactly.

"Look who knows so much.......he's only MOSTLY DEAD." That little Billy Crystal video clip with your commentary added would utterly eviscerate a certain gun writer's "expert testimony" related to this thread's core issue. I would pay long dollars to see it get sprung on his sorry butt in court, next time he spews his drivel.

[Nora]

As I mentioned earlier, the whole argument against handloads (now that the "bloodthirsty handloader" part of the argument has been repeatedly discredited) now rests upon the claim of "dissimilar gunshot powder reside."

And nothing else.

Supposedly, should a pointblank range shooting occur, any residues left by a hand load would be impossible to duplicate because it's non standard.

Apparently shooting another hand load might come up with a different powder, voiding the results.

This is the case cited in the latest claim that hand loads are unsuited to self defense use.



To me this sounds as if the pearson defending them selves had fled the seen and a forensics team is trying to prove who the defending shooter was. Not much analysis is needed when the scenario is "I was confronted by the perp who gave me reason to believe my life was in danger. I discharged my weapon (still in my possession) to defend myself". With a statement AND a bullet match to my personal protection weapon I really don't think anyone will be worrying about a GSR match on the stiff.
Just my opinion.

[jh45gun]

Okay, but do yourself a favor, and I say this as someone who has seen the practical application of laws that were supposed to fix things that di nothing of the kind. Look at the actual wording of the statute extremely carefully. One of the phrases you used in post 112 was "forcibly enters". Check and make sure you understand your states definition of that phrase, see if there is case law that has refuted a claim of forcible entry, ie- see if forcible entry has requirements that don't meet the "normal" definition , see if there is an actual assumption of intent on the part of the BG or if there is more required than just entry into your home.

I'm not in any way saying you are wrong. I am saying that the politicians that write these laws very often work phrasing or lack of certain phrasing into a law to give the appearance that it says one thing when it actually says another. If there is any case law related to this yet it's a very good idea to see what it says.

IOW-cover thy butt friend!

Which is exactly why Bret I am spending 35 bucks of my limited funds to hear what the Lawyer has to say plus I think he is gonna field questions also.

[jh45gun]

Bret I would think force able entry would be kicking down your door or breaking a window in your vehicle to get at you.

[Bret4207]

Yeah, well, I thought Rape 1st, forcible compulsion, meant there was forcible compulsion in play (she was on top the whole time!). Just look into it. Kicking in a door would seem to fit, but what if he doesn't kick in the door? What if the door was unlocked and he came in? What if you are in your garage with the door open and he comes in to do you harm? What if your car window is down? Does there need to be actual forced entry used? What EXACTLY does your state definition of "forcible entry" say?

Don't make assumptions when dealing with law that you may be affected by- ever. The law may seem to say one thing when the lawyers see it meaning something else entirely. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying this is something that bears further investigation.

[jh45gun]

Yea it is a good question to ask.

[rintinglen]

There is something fundamentally wrong with the notion that you can shoot someone a little bit.
I know of a case wherein a child was killed by an accidental discharge of a pellet rifle. Any firearm is potentially lethal. Actions, intent, and motive matter. The bullets or boolits you carry mean very little.