Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/20/2003 1:56:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2003 1:59:22 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56077

www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=55114

Some examples:

I applaud your attempt at locating some of these "elusive" cases, however, without substantiating them they offer little or nothing to the discussion.

The "don't use handloads or you'll get sued" crowd say these cases exist.

The "handloads won't make a difference with regard to civil litigation" crowd says they don't.

I'm certainly not interested in participating in a wild goose chase in an attempt to prove a negative.

I'd venture to say it is the "don't use handloads or you'll get sued" crowd's duty to do just that.

Perhaps you might contact Mr. Ayoob again and ask him to direct you to where these cases might be located online or even to send you some documentation regarding these cases. Seems to me that he might be eager to present these to an audience to which he preaches his "no handloads" doctrine. The "surprise" you should be experiencing should actually be no surprise that he didn't provide you with the necessary documentation to support his contentious position. Which only further erodes the "don't use handloads or you'll get sued" crowd's position.

Again, the "don't use handloads or you'll get sued" crowd is the one contending that these cases exist. The onus is upon them to prove their case. Not offer "clues" as to the possible existence of them and expect the opposition to expend mighty efforts to "disprove" what they themselves can't produce in the first place.

The debate actually isn't "never ending". It's been hashed out ad nauseum here and on various other firearm related boards for years with the "don't use handloads or you'll get sued" crowd repetitively failing to produce all these wonderful cases that supposedly "prove" their point.

Until a bona fide case is produced, the horse isn't likely to move.


Last edited by Jager on 08-19-2003 at 03:32 PM

Report this post t



Has anyone here been able to track down such a case, I havn't.


LW, make me a liar...

I just can’t sit on the sidelines.

I (by reloading) get ammunition specifically designed to operate at peak performance because it is developed specifically for the firearm it is fired in. This same claim can’t be made for factory ammunition since the majority of it is made to established “minimum” chamber specifications and even those differ widely between manufacturers in actual production.

One of the glaring examples of this can be demonstrated by comparing a Winchester 50 round white box 115 grain FMJ to a Remington UMC 50 round yellow box 115 grain FMJ. The Remington rounds overall length is much shorter. I imagine they do this to ensure better feed in the majority of firearms they might find their way into. They also perform rather poorly when it comes to accuracy in my pistols because of the additional distance to the barrel rifling when chambered. These differences also exist in premium factory ammunition intended for defense.

Factories make mistakes, too. Speer is a most recent example with their recall of Gold Dot “reclassified” ammunition. Ammunition that was intended for law enforcement. If a diligent manufacturer like Speer can produce millions of sub-standard rounds that they knew were destined for “professionals”, then they positively can do it for the general publics consumption, especially with the associated higher production quantities. Since the cost of premium rounds tends to be “premium” also and predominantly the purchased ammunition does not go through “acceptance testing” by it’s civilian end line users, a lot longer time period might elapse before a problem would be detected, should one exist. You can’t tell me you haven’t seen the ammunition recalls in major firearms related publications every few months.

I purchased 500 rounds of Federal NATO 45 ACP a few years back that had absolutely no crimp whatsoever on the rounds and as a result, would not feed reliably in any of my three 1911’s, not to mention experiencing bullet setback problems. This ammunition was “only” destined for our armed forces…

These companies have tremendous liability policies for a reason. “Premium”, when touted by these companies, tends to allude to terminal performance (based on who’s criteria?). Generally, they are not touting “Premium” as meaning reliability or accuracy, since they know they can’t encompass all of the firearms their ammunition may be fired from, although they are successful in a reasonable number of instances. So, if the manufacturers can’t always “get it right” when it comes to the ammunition they provide to law enforcement and the military, what makes you believe they are getting it right for you?

I get to practice more for the same cost. I see FAR too many people that shoot FAR too little of their expensive “carry” ammunition to have determined a reasonable level of reliability or performance. I’ve also seen FAR too many that carry “Premium” ammunition who have never fired ANY of it due to it’s cost. If you can afford to fire a few thousand rounds of your selected “Premium” carry ammunition throughout a variety of drills, matches, training or whatever each year, then I commend you on your deep pockets. Reality says that most of us can’t. Some of us in the latter group insist that we be able to fire a similar number of "premium" rounds to achieve the same assurance of performance, despite our shallow pockets. Or, even if we could afford "Premium" ammunition, would still insist on hand loading our own for the reasons cited above. What I can’t help but notice is how the majority of the Premium “factory-only” crowd never seem to show up at any matches or training sessions with the requisite number of rounds being their chosen premium defensive ammunition.

What I also continually find puzzling is that this “argument” never comes up when it comes to reloading hunting ammunition, whether it be for handguns or rifles and especially when it comes to rifles. Some of which may be employed on potentially dangerous game. The “selective thinking” I see borders on ambiguity or even hypocrisy. Why is it that hand loading for game is acceptable, but hand loading for self-defense is not in some people’s opinion? Seems to me the stakes are even higher. Sure, we hand load for game to be more “humane”, essentially to be more certain of placing ONE shot to dispatch the animal and reduce it’s “suffering”. So, why not hand load for self-defense under a similar premise?

Especially when some of the suffering alleviated might well be your own?

I want to drive the same car and engine I practiced in on race day.

Call me odd.

Everyone else does.


Last edited by Jager on 08-08-2003 at 02:24 PM




Anyone here experienced anything like this?
Link Posted: 8/20/2003 3:04:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2003 4:01:15 PM EDT by Charging_Handle]
While I don't use any reloaded ammo for self defense (my reloads that is), I have always wondered how the heck anyone would ever determine that you were using reloads to start with? I mean seriously, if you were to shoot some scumbag, how likely would it be that investigators would check to see if the ammo you used was reloads? Would that specific fact be recorded and entered into reports? And even if they did check, there are ways to throw someone off. If you had brass marked the same as the brand on the box you said it came from, and used a bullet consistent with what should be found under the brand/marketing name, how would anyone know? LOL. An example would be a Gold Dot bullet loaded in Speer cases and stored in factory Gold Dot boxes. Tell me how the average Joe would know the difference between this and factory ammo. I am not advocating this, but I just don't think in many cases anyone would know the difference between a reload and a commercial load. Especially if reloaded in the manner I stated. Again, I don't use any reloads accept Black Hills stuff and as far as legality goes it is factory anyway and of no concern to me. But I really think much of this is rather over-hyped. I am not aware of any case where a person involved in a legal shoot was ever sued because of the ammo they used. -Charging Handle
Link Posted: 8/20/2003 4:01:12 PM EDT
I have enough factory ammo for home defence, but I also have a lot of componants for reloading home defence type ammo, just in case. I have never heard of a single case of someone being charged, only "what ifs". I would not have second thoughts about using a home brew. I really don't think that my ammo could be any more lethal than any particular factory ammo.
Link Posted: 8/20/2003 4:03:50 PM EDT
Exactly.
Link Posted: 8/20/2003 4:10:02 PM EDT
I've taken several beginner and intermediate personal defense courses and all the instructors say the same thing: USE FACTORY AMMO. The last thing someone would want is a slimeball lawyer using it against you. I'll be honest with you guys; to me it doesn't matter what you shoot at a bad guy. If the situation has deteriorated to the point I need to sling lead, that person or people deserve every bit of it. But if it keeps another lawsuit, that could bankrupt me, off my back, I'm all for it. I use reloads for fun at the range and SHTF (I trust them, they go bang every time) and factory ammo for carry. I consider it prudent. jim
Link Posted: 8/20/2003 4:13:42 PM EDT
I'd agree with that. Factory ammo for defensive applications, reloads for everything else. The only problem with that is that I trust my reloads MORE than I do factory ammo. I KNOW EXACTLY what goes into MY ammo, but I have to take it on faith that a factory did their job right. CJ
Link Posted: 8/20/2003 8:32:36 PM EDT
if you have to shoot, shoot to kill. the bad guy can't sue you if he's dead.
Link Posted: 8/20/2003 8:46:51 PM EDT
If you shoot a bad guy with reloads you will probably be no beter or worse off legally. But, If you miss (or over penetrate) hurting another person then a criminal of civil lawyer might have the ammunition they need to prove negligence on your part. If a criminal can fall and get hurt while robbing your residence and succesfully sue... anything is possible.
Link Posted: 8/20/2003 9:21:07 PM EDT
This came up again recently on the SASS pages. My brother did some extensive searches and only found one case where the use of reloads came up that he could find. And he has lost his reference, but it was used only by the plaintiff to attack company policy on ammo use by guards. The guard had apparently fired on the perp and the gas station attendant had been hit by flying lass gfrom the shoot out. Not the perp or the shooter. The guy was suing his employer on the guard not shooting within policy. None of the SASS folks had any other references any closer. They were looking for a citation somewhere. You probably won't find it in a cite unless it was a major part of an appeal. Will it get argued to enflame or otherwise bumfoozle 12 good men and true? Maybe, but if it has, it's apparently never made the law books. So has it happened, nobody has come up with a definite interest.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 2:15:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Charging_Handle: over-hyped. I am not aware of any case where a person involved in a legal shoot was ever sued because of the ammo they used.
View Quote
Closest thing I am aware of: A friend of mine, His father was a Long Beach police officer in the 70's. He carried a S&W .45 Colt revolver on duty, when most of his partners were carrying .38's. Following a lawful on duty shooting, he was sued by the dead crooks family. One of the issues that came up during the civil trial was that had had chosen to arm himself with a deadlier sidearm than what was commonly used by his peers. It didnt sway the jury, but it did come up.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 2:29:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By snafu: if you have to shoot, shoot to kill. the bad guy can't sue you if he's dead.
View Quote
No but his family can, whether you were justified or not.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 6:36:29 AM EDT
Since you will be sued either way, the jury will probably decide on whether you were justified in shooting the perp or not, NOT on exactly what you used to kill him. Besides, SAAMI lists ammo specifications for pressure, measurements, and other things. As long as you were withion specification, and you were using commercially available components, the argument would have as much relevance to the shooting as the color of the weapon.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 10:54:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Torf: Since you will be sued either way, the jury will probably decide on whether you were justified in shooting the perp or not, NOT on exactly what you used to kill him..
View Quote
Actually you have it backwards. Its a wrongfull death suit, not a wrongfull shooting suit. A JURY OF MORONS can rule the shooting was justified but killing him wasnt. As in you should have used a smaller caliber or shot to wound, even though that goes against all the rules of self defense. If Jonny Cochrain can get the jury to buy off on it, you lose.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 2:14:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2003 2:17:26 PM EDT by RogueAssassin]
Hey... my head started to hurt after reading this thread... To quote Macman37... "I'll be honest with you guys; to me it doesn't matter what you shoot at a bad guy. If the situation has deteriorated to the point I need to sling lead, that person or people deserve every bit of it." I understand that the laws are different in other parts of the country, but here in Texas... things are a little wild. If you draw your weapon, Your best bet is to fire... If you fire your weapon, You better have a damn good reason... If you hit the person, You best hope that the person dies... (quickly). The unwritten, but well know RULE... If you fire and hit the person and they do not die, The only option you have left is to fire again... You Shoot to Stop a threat, not to kill... But a dead man can no longer be a threat. In the case of home envasion... it is free reign from sundown to sunup... It is very hard to tell what someone might be holding in the dark. As far as reloads... It doesn't matter if you, John Doe make the round or if Federal Cartridge Company made it. The end result would have still been the same. Dead Men tell no lies; therefore, it is your word that will sway the jury one way or the other whether YOU felt that your life, the life of another, or that your personal property were at risk.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 3:31:38 PM EDT
Lethality of factory ammo vs. handloaded ammo: So, is there a new kind of dead now, or what. "Yeah, he was dead, but he was only 'factory ammo' dead. Good thing he wasn't 'handload dead' or he would stay dead longer." You are supposed to be tried by a jury of your peers. If a big city lawyer tried this with a true jury of my peers, they [my peers] would laugh him out of the courtroom. That said, my nightstand gun is loaded with factory ammo. My goto gun is not, because it is for shooting critters in the yard.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 3:39:43 PM EDT
Insulating yourself from liability is a good thing. But you can take it too far. I took LFI-1 from Ayoob back in the early 90s. It was a good class, but it had me so damn paranoid about shooting someone in self-defence it almost made you want to hide out in your house. I got over it. Best rule...shoot as a last resort.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 6:01:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RogueAssassin: Hey... my head started to hurt after reading this thread... To quote Macman37... "I'll be honest with you guys; to me it doesn't matter what you shoot at a bad guy. If the situation has deteriorated to the point I need to sling lead, that person or people deserve every bit of it." I understand that the laws are different in other parts of the country, but here in Texas... things are a little wild. If you draw your weapon, Your best bet is to fire... If you fire your weapon, You better have a damn good reason... If you hit the person, You best hope that the person dies... (quickly). The unwritten, but well know RULE... If you fire and hit the person and they do not die, The only option you have left is to fire again... You Shoot to Stop a threat, not to kill... But a dead man can no longer be a threat. In the case of home envasion... it is free reign from sundown to sunup... It is very hard to tell what someone might be holding in the dark. As far as reloads... It doesn't matter if you, John Doe make the round or if Federal Cartridge Company made it. The end result would have still been the same. Dead Men tell no lies; therefore, it is your word that will sway the jury one way or the other whether YOU felt that your life, the life of another, or that your personal property were at risk.
View Quote
Why did my post make your head hurt?
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 8:09:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2003 8:12:08 PM EDT by RogueAssassin]
Why did my post make your head hurt?
View Quote
Nothing personal... it's just when I starting reading the thread, I started hearing lawyers in the back of my head... It is getting so ridiculous about all the STUPID Law Suits that are now allowed to waste time in our court rooms. First people are suing fast food placed because the food there is unhealthy and made them fat. They knew before they went in the the place, that the food was bad for thier health. AND Now we are talking about what bullets we can and can not use to shoot someone with. I'll get off my soapbox now... but before I go... Warning to all who dare to threaten my life, my family's life, or my personal property, I don't have the time to search for my P.C. bullets. I will shove in the first thing that fits the chamber and start shooting. If it happens to be the P.C. Bullets, goodie for you. You can die knowing that I did not hand load them... Damn.. Sarcasim is a great stress reliever...
Link Posted: 8/22/2003 6:12:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RogueAssassin: Nothing personal... it's just when I starting reading the thread, I started hearing lawyers in the back of my head... It is getting so ridiculous about all the STUPID Law Suits that are now allowed to waste time in our court rooms. First people are suing fast food placed because the food there is unhealthy and made them fat. They knew before they went in the the place, that the food was bad for thier health. AND Now we are talking about what bullets we can and can not use to shoot someone with.
View Quote
OK, gotcha. Honestly? I agree 100%. I'm just not going to run the risk of going bankrupt because some liberal lawyer decides to champion the cause of a scumbag (unfortunately we have Geoffrey Fieger who does that a lot... Grrr). Even if you win the case, you will be a lot poorer at the end...
Damn.. Sarcasim is a great stress reliever...
View Quote
Amen, brother [:)]
Link Posted: 8/22/2003 7:09:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2003 7:13:15 AM EDT by RogueAssassin]
Macman37... I wasn't saying that your reply made my head hurt... this whole topic is what did it... and not your post. forgive me... I was a little distracted when you replied to my post and asked...
Why did my post make your head hurt?
View Quote
I was in agreement when I qouted you about the whole lead slinging thing... speaking of... I hear someone in my backyard... better get the PC bullets... F#*k-it!!!.... Don't have time... *** shots being fired *** okay.. I'm back... Damn HL&P meter man... next time they'll knock on the door instead of jumping my fence...
Top Top