1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,005 Posts
Assuming your gun feeds them okay, they should be great as defensive loads. Lots of experts swear by the "chopping" effect of bullet shoulders. RN bullets just push through.

------------------
If God didn't want us to own guns, why did He make the 1911?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
With all of the liability "blah, blah, blah,", I thing a "target load" would look good in court. Hell, I'm no expert. I bet a 200gr LSWC would get the job done. Just sounds good tonight.

good shootin', gunny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Can't remember when exactly it was, or the brand (hmmm .. it might have been "Master Cartridge"); but many years ago I bought and fired several boxes of LSWC that had a red/white Canadian flag for a label. I think they were a sort of factory reload. While they did lead up the barrel some, they functioned perfect in a Government Series 70.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
You can order excellent lead or plated SWC by the fifty or by the thousand at

georgia-arms.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I wish someone made a soft gooey lead SWC .45 with a hollowpoint. MY MY MY. A SWC does cut vessels as it moves through flesh. It also pushes a debris field ahead of it increasing diamter if it doesn't expand. a hard combo to beat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
I'm not to picky about which bullet I use. Have had better luck with swc on game compared to ball, although some of the jhp's seemed to fare better. Have used the lead swc-hp in 38spl, 44spl, and 45 Colt. If velocity was over 1100fps the relsult were very satisfing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Originally posted by MuzzleBlast:
Forget the part about handloads being a liability risk, because IMHO all that is urban myth. Any reason to believe a 200gr LSWC wouldn't be at least as effective as hardball?
Unfortunately, its not a myth. I just completed a State Armed Security ceritification coarse and handloads are a very real liability. Not so much that you could be accused criminally of murder (assuming you were justified in the shooting), but because you could be sued civilly for wrongful death, violation of civil rights, etc.

Its stupid, but it only takes a handful of anti's and soft hearted jurors to feel that even though you were justified to shoot you weren't justified in causing grievous injury or death. They'll see a paralized or dead kid with a grieving family and a middle aged middle class uncompasionate man with a gun. And do you know what their key evidence is? --your homemade "man killer" bullet. They'll say its proof that you wanted to hurt somebody before you even pulled the trigger.

We all know that you never shoot to wound. Fortunately, I think most jurors and most judges would understand that too. But you could help yourself a lot by 1)using factory ammo in your defence guns and 2) saving the box of whatever ammo you are carrying. That way you can not be accused of "wanting" to cause harm. Should there be any question about your choice of "killer" ammo they can ask Winchester.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
The assumption HAS to be made that the shooting is justified as an "un-justified" shooting opens a can of worms in more than one regard.

"...you could be sued civilly..." you say. Let's see, the shoot was justified. That means you were justified in using DEADLY FORCE. So just where does "causing grievous injury or death" get excluded from the equation?

"The jury will do this, and a lawyer will do that, and IF this happens then this might happen...". Why is everything surrounding the argument against handloads for defense dependent upon pure speculation and never fact?

You state you just attended a "State Armed Security certification course". In it, they explained the "very real liability" of using handloads for self-defense. Reality or myth? Reality would include examples. A myth is dependent upon perpetuated regurgitation of Pavlovian-like dogma with no basis in fact.

I'm curious. Did they offer any factual instances in your class in which such a foreboding instance actually occurred? Could you offer them up for discussion here?

"Very real liability" or another instance of a perpetuated myth?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
817 Posts
The way I see it, I'd rather carry factory ammo, and not have to even think about some slime bucket attorney trying to sue me for violating someone's civil rights. Who in my opinion, gave up those rights the second he tried to threaten my life. What the hell, $20 for ammo I hope I'm never going to have to use. Buy a box to test your gun with and a box to load a couple of mags with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,987 Posts
YOU ARE GOING TO BE SUED NO MATTER WHAT...
...so just accept that now and forget it. I'd still rather be sued than having my kids pick out the urn for my ashes...


------------------
>>>>>>>>>>g2<<<<<<<<<<

!!!Molon Labe'!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Hi there actually Shootin Spirit is correct I am an Armed PI and Security Officer here and I had to go through the exact same traing as the Law Enforcement Officers with regard to the firearms training. The CLEET instructors all said the exact same thing. and Ido remember reading in one of the trade journal last year about a NYC offiver who had to go on the carpet because of his 38.special loads. All the departments carry the expanding ammo they carry for a reason . Also expanding bullets today offer far better terminal performance than any lead or fmj bullet. read the next Police Marksman Assoc report and some fatality shooting reports then comment. also In this politically correct day and age carry hard ball or lswc loads in your sidearm and be forced to use it. then see what happens. Lady Justice can be a cold bitch. do not provoke her. Have a gret day

------------------
The Sharpshooter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
thanks SharpShooter for the confermation on this. the NY police officer was the case mentioned in the coarse.

Jager-
Criminal Courts v. Cival Courts -- OJ Simpson was not convicted in criminal court, yet was found guilty under civil law. It happens.

Speculation v. Fact -- Yes, speculation is relevant. That's what opinions are. Some speculate that hand loads won't have legal consequences in a self-defence case; I speculate that they will.

Very Real Liability -- exists everytime we discharge a firearm. That's why there is so much emphasis in safety and training. The fact that we are discussing the use of a firearm against another human being only makes the liability greater. Why take the chance when there is plenty of street proven factory ammo out there.

In final note, I'm on your side; I think that the case against hand loads is stupid, and I think most judges would agree since their are no laws against using them. But, while a judge ensures that the court room is a Just place, those who work with the law are very good at exploiting the details and using emotion to influence a jury. Its their job. Why give them more evidence against you when you can easily support your actions with factory "self-defense" ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Would either of you care to expound on the NYC officer case? I am doubtful that it has any merits in this discussion, but please do.

O.J. Simpson? Okay. Just how does handloaded ammunition play into your analogy? I seem to recall it was a storebought knife. Now, if it was a homemade knife, I could see the analogy (grin).

Sorry, I am not "speculating" about the absolute void of civil cases involving handloaded defensive ammunition. It is a fact that you, myself and anyone in this thread to date is unable to table one example for discussion.

If I use lethal force (handloaded round) to defend against lethal force (justified shooting), then where exactly is my liability? I dare say wether I picked up a factory produced claw hammer or one I forged myself will make no difference...

[This message has been edited by Jager (edited 11-03-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Originally posted by Jager:
Would either of you care to expound on the NYC officer case? I am doubtful that it has any merits in this discussion, but please do.
The officer shot an assailant with a .38 special handload. It became a serious issue in the officers case for a justified shooting.

Originally posted by Jager:
O.J. Simpson? Okay. Just how does handloaded ammunition play into your analogy? I seem to recall it was a storebought knife. Now, if it was a homemade knife, I could see the analogy (grin).
The O.J. analogy has nothing to do with handloads. It has to do with the fact that someone can be found innocent in criminal court, but guilty of the same act in a civil court.

Originally posted by Jager:
Sorry, I am not "speculating" about the absolute void of civil cases involving handloaded defensive ammunition. It is a fact that you, myself and anyone in this thread to date is unable to table one example for discussion.
I first learned about this in a Department of Justice firearms class. I lend a great deal of faith to the Department of Justice instructors. Afterall, its the DOJ that that houses the Police and the Attorney General's office. I'd give you the docket # of the NY case, but I don't have time to look it up on Lexis.

Originally posted by Jager:
If I use lethal force (handloaded round) to defend against lethal force (justified shooting), then where exactly is my liability? I dare say wether I picked up a factory produced claw hammer or one I forged myself will make no difference...
You wouldn't necessarily have a Criminal Liability (although you could, but that's a whole new subject) But you could be able to be sued civilly. I think the key word in my point is "could".

In civil court, lawyers have a lot more room to maneuver for reason's mentioned in previous posts on this thread. In those previous posts I also agree that it doesn't make sense and such claims are stupid. But, people get sued all the time. A Lady successfully sued McDonalds for serving hot coffee that burnt her when she spilled it on herself. The US Army Corp of Engineers was taken to court because a teenager dove into a shallow lake an was paralysed. The lake was marked with a large blue sign, but the victims lawyer said it should have been red. The USACE was found innocent, but at no small cost to the government and taxpayer in defense fees. Things don't have to be logical. They just have to appeal to a jury. Laywers capitalize on Sympathetic Emotions, Appearance, and Political Disposition in Civil Court. And in many states Civil court does not require a unanimous decision.

My beleif is that this will not be an issue for most gun owners. Most people never even have to use their gun to defend themselves. But, in this anti-gun era I see no need to give an anti anything to cry to the media about. Much less waste my time in court trying to sue me for my God given right to defend myself.

In closing, I'd like to say that we've constructived a very thurough debate, and given people a good bases on which to make their own decisions on this issue. That said I'll stop kicking my end of the dead horse until I have something new to add.

Jager -- Its good to have an open forum debate minus snide remarks. I appreiciate the opposing view, and not picking up the flame thrower.

[This message has been edited by ShootinSpirit (edited 11-06-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
ShootinSpirit,

Although I appreciate your response in the NYC officer case, I find it still lacking. I suspect it was a due to the officer using non-issue ammunition? In any case, LE policy stipulations have little or no merit in this discussion regarding civilian choice for self-defense ammunition.

"The O.J. analogy has nothing to do with handloads. It has to do with the fact that someone can be found innocent in criminal court, but guilty of the same act in a civil court."

Really? Name one case involving handloads.

"I first learned about this in a Department of Justice firearms class. I lend a great deal of faith to the Department of Justice instructors. Afterall, its the DOJ that that houses the Police and the Attorney General's office. I'd give you the docket # of the NY case, but I don't have time to look it up on Lexis."

Again, how about a civil case involving a civilian using handloads in a justified shooting? All the DOJ information in the world doesn't offer any legitimacy to the "no-handloads" controversy outside of LE circles. Having a position or argument means having the time to support it, wouldn't you agree? Dispel the myth. Please.

All I am hearing is speculation. Myth.

Forgive me for being blunt about it, but I think the "no-handloads" crowd comes up short every time in this discussion as witnessed by this thread and every thread on the subject I have initiated or participated in.

That being said, I am in full agreement that we have bastardized this thread and drifted far from the initial question. Also, that we have sufficiently covered the existence (or non-existence) of civil cases involving handloads.

The carcass rests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
Originally posted by PlusP:
I wish someone made a soft gooey lead SWC .45 with a hollowpoint.

Star bullet company makes a HPLSWC , 185gr.

I'm not sure about the hardness, but the HP is large so it could/should expand.


------------------
Matthew 24:6
"You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things MUST take place...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
If heaven forbid I should have to shoot someone, or use any other kind of deadly force - I only worry about it being the justifiable use of deadly force. What ammo, what kind of knife, etc is not something I worry about anymore.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top