Re-loaded ammo in carry pistol ??

[Shadowrider]

All of this is just mental masturbation. What relevance are powder residue patterns, distance, etc. in a justified shooting? When does a justified shooting become no longer justified because the defending shooter used a 10mm Magnum instead of a 9mm?

Am I missing something?

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Civil suit

 

[1911master]

When I carried a 1911, I always carried my 200 grain SWC ammo because it shot so good. I would still do the same today. A good shoot is a good shoot. You can't erase the facts.

 

[NikatKimber]

Civil suit

Irrelevant in the state of Oklahoma unless it wasn't ruled a justified shooting. In which case you've got criminal problems too.

 

[MacFromOK]

If things come down to a "he said/she said" situation (for example, if that neighbor you don't like is the only witness), I'd want every possible shred of physical evidence on my side. Repeatable results seem more likely with factory loads.

I don't reload anyway, so it's a non-issue for me. But just because something is legal, doesn't always mean it's a good idea.

Just my 2¢ ...

 

[NikatKimber]

One thing to be aware of is that powder burns and powder residue are not the same thing. A well-experienced criminalist can make a very good estimate of the distance from the muzzle to the target and even though various factors will be considered, these estimates are usually quite accurate. The closer the shot, the more concentrated the residue on the target.

Factory loads merely permit a better comparison of the test results as opposed to the use of hand loads. The use of hand loads won't by itself make a legitimate self-defense shooting into a crime, but it might make self-defense harder to establish in court, particularly when the distance from the shooter to the target is in contention.

Thank you for making the distinction. I didn't register that.

However, some more quick research leads to a general number of powder residue traveling only 5-7ft, with rifle calibers traveling further than handgun calibers. I couldn't find any reference to powder residue being capable of traveling 20ft.

Given that - unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary - I would still say that the exact distance as determinable by ballistics alone, would be largely irrelevant to a self defense case. However, I could see it coming in to play if the defendant claimed the perpetrator was "right on top of me" in which case there *should* be residue and evidence of gunfire, vs a witness saying "nope, was 25 feet away" in which case there shouldn't be. Or the reverse in the case of a head shot.

I would still maintain that unless there are OTHER mitigating factors casting doubt on the case being self defense, reloaded ammo alone wouldn't be enough rule out justifiable self defense.

 

[Dave70968]

All of this is just mental masturbation. What relevance are powder residue patterns, distance, etc. in a justified shooting? When does a justified shooting become no longer justified because the defending shooter used a 10mm Magnum instead of a 9mm?

Am I missing something?

Nikat nailed it:

Thank you for making the distinction. I didn't register that.

However, some more quick research leads to a general number of powder residue traveling only 5-7ft, with rifle calibers traveling further than handgun calibers. I couldn't find any reference to powder residue being capable of traveling 20ft.

Given that - unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary - I would still say that the exact distance as determinable by ballistics alone, would be largely irrelevant to a self defense case. However, I could see it coming in to play if the defendant claimed the perpetrator was "right on top of me" in which case there *should* be residue and evidence of gunfire, vs a witness saying "nope, was 25 feet away" in which case there shouldn't be. Or the reverse in the case of a head shot.

I would still maintain that unless there are OTHER mitigating factors casting doubt on the case being self defense, reloaded ammo alone wouldn't be enough rule out justifiable self defense.

That's it. It's not a matter of the caliber changing it from a good shoot to a bad shoot; it's a matter of the caliber (and specific load) leaving patterns of physical evidence that tend to corroborate or refute your story of a good shoot. If the evidence is inconsistent with your story (because you're using a load for which the forensics guys don't have data), then you're in a position of having a less-credible (not the same as not credible, just less credible) story, and now you have one more variable for which you have to account, one more question you have to answer for the jury to get them to agree it was self-defense.

I know that sounds like semantics, and it is subtle, but when it's your butt sitting in the defendant's chair, you don't want the jury having any more reasons to question you than absolutely necessary. Can you overcome that extra question? Maybe you can, maybe you can't...but it'll cost you money to even try, as lawyers and expert witnesses don't come cheap.

 

[okierider]

I think handloaded hollow points filled with mercury topped with a bit of sealant is a bad thing...

Easy way to cut some trees down though, Not as messy as det-cord but almost as fun!!!!!

 

[gerhard1]

Thank you for making the distinction. I didn't register that.

However, some more quick research leads to a general number of powder residue traveling only 5-7ft, with rifle calibers traveling further than handgun calibers. I couldn't find any reference to powder residue being capable of traveling 20ft.

Given that - unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary - I would still say that the exact distance as determinable by ballistics alone, would be largely irrelevant to a self defense case. However, I could see it coming in to play if the defendant claimed the perpetrator was "right on top of me" in which case there *should* be residue and evidence of gunfire, vs a witness saying "nope, was 25 feet away" in which case there shouldn't be. Or the reverse in the case of a head shot.

I would still maintain that unless there are OTHER mitigating factors casting doubt on the case being self defense, reloaded ammo alone wouldn't be enough rule out justifiable self defense.

Agreed. But all we're saying is not to give your own counsel any more problems to deal with. If you are involved in a SD incident, you will already have problems aplenty without adding this potential difficulty..

 

[Shadowrider]

Nikat nailed it:

That's it. It's not a matter of the caliber changing it from a good shoot to a bad shoot; it's a matter of the caliber (and specific load) leaving patterns of physical evidence that tend to corroborate or refute your story of a good shoot. If the evidence is inconsistent with your story (because you're using a load for which the forensics guys don't have data), then you're in a position of having a less-credible (not the same as not credible, just less credible) story, and now you have one more variable for which you have to account, one more question you have to answer for the jury to get them to agree it was self-defense.

I know that sounds like semantics, and it is subtle, but when it's your butt sitting in the defendant's chair, you don't want the jury having any more reasons to question you than absolutely necessary. Can you overcome that extra question? Maybe you can, maybe you can't...but it'll cost you money to even try, as lawyers and expert witnesses don't come cheap.

That's all well and good as far as investigators determining justification. But there's an easy fix. Don't shoot anyone that doesn't need shooting and if you do need to shoot someone, don't lie about the circumstances. Problem averted.