Reloading for Self Defense- Opinions

[Azbuilder]

I use Federal HST for carry but load a similar bullet at similar speed for practice. Same with my AR, oem stuff for loaded mags and something similar for practice,
If I ever have to use either for SD then whatever is currently in the gun at hand is what I'll use.and not worry about it.
I test enough different loads so often that it would be happenstance if I had some super killer in the mag at the time and I wouldn't bet aware of it.

Same here, keeps things consistent for me. What's the cost of a couple of boxes used for carry when I reloading so much for practice and save there.

[TheAccountant]

Deadly force is deadly force. If you're justified to shoot someone with a 22LR, then you're justified to shoot them with a 300 Win Mag. The bs about reloads is just internet folklore.

Well if I have to go to court for killing someone in self defense I'm not going to count on this ideology being BS. If the state police use Hydro shock or what ever. I will carry that. I will also find a supplier that carries the bullet and build my reloads for the range identical as my carry ammo. I can't and won't put my faith in the ammo not getting looked at in court.

Using your logic, I don't see how you feel comfortable carrying anything more than a rimfire derringer. The idea that carrying hand loaded 38 specials, 9mm, or 45acp somehow makes you more of a killer than factory loaded 44mag is kind of ridiculous. Where does that stop? 15 round mag? You're just out to kill. Spare mag/speed loader? You're out to kill. Hollow points? You're out to kill. You carry a gun? You're out to kill.

Luckily, the law isn't constructed that way anyway there isn't a single place in the law that delineates between calibers, cartridges, power, etc. There's also no place in the law that allows you to shoot someone without it being deadly force, so your choice of firearm is irrelevant. Before you go bringing up Fish, remember his conviction was thrown out because that trial was a sham, and if you really look at it, the idea that his conviction hinged on the cartridge he was carrying is pretty laughable. On top of that, the Fish case caused the self defense law to change so that the burden is placed on the prosecution to prove it was not self defense, as opposed to Fish's burden of proving that he was acting in self defense.

[Mauser98]

10mm was brought up in the Harold Fish case but that was a really bad shoot. His story made no sense. He was afraid that the dogs were attacking him so he shot the dogs' owner, who had no weapons and had not tried to attack him at all.

[Ranger1]

Who cares. I don't believe the NRA would have put it in a publication of theirs if it didn't mean anything. Huh believe you over the NRA. You have got to be kidding me right???

[shooter444]

Deadly force is deadly force. If you're justified to shoot someone with a 22LR, then you're justified to shoot them with a 300 Win Mag. The bs about reloads is just internet folklore.

BADA-BING,... we have a winner!!! Oh, and, no one is ever charged with "self defense". It's just not a crime!

[TheAccountant]

10mm was brought up in the Harold Fish case but that was a really bad shoot. His story made no sense. He was afraid that the dogs were attacking him so he shot the dogs' owner, who had no weapons and had not tried to attack him at all.

That's a lot of conclusions to draw for someone that wasn't there, but regardless, he's a free man and the law has been changed. The role the 10mm played in that case gets completely overblown by those who try to use it to make the argument that reloads will get you convicted in any shooting.

[Mauser98]

10mm was brought up in the Harold Fish case but that was a really bad shoot. His story made no sense. He was afraid that the dogs were attacking him so he shot the dogs' owner, who had no weapons and had not tried to attack him at all.

That's a lot of conclusions to draw for someone that wasn't there, but regardless, he's a free man and the law has been changed. The role the 10mm played in that case gets completely overblown by those who try to use it to make the argument that reloads will get you convicted in any shooting.

No, I was there.


Just kidding, I wasn't.

[Flash]

I think the point others are making is that if a prosecutor is willing to bring up caliber to try and convict you, he'd probably have no problem bringing up reloads either. Neither is against the law but since when did that matter to a Politically ambitious lawyer?

[TheAccountant]

I get that, my point is there are a million other things that could be thrown in that same basket (mag size, extra mags, hollow points, etc) and used against you if you follow that same logic. I would love for someone to find an actual case where the fact that someone used hand loads was a deciding factor in the case (again, deciding factor, not just a fact of the case). All I've ever seen is pure speculation, and the speculation never goes as far as to explain what part of the law would allow for someone to be shot with factory ammunition but not hand loaded ammunition. The argument always relies on some evil prosecutor, but in that case I think the speculators are ignoring the fact that you were guilty in their eyes simply because you had a firearm.

[shooter444]

I think the point is, as has been stated thousands of times,... when split seconds count,... second thoughts, politically correct thoughts, legality thoughts, etc. etc.... will, one, or, all, probably get you DEAD!!!

Bottom line,... when your life is in danger,... shoot'em where they stand, sit, fall, crawl, or run,... whether the threat is in front of a barrier, on the side, on top, or behind!

If a threat to your life is move'n,...keep shoot'n,.... til it ain't!

All that matters in a defensive shoot, is that the threat goes down before you do,... screw all the legal mumbo-jumbo!

That's my story, and I'm stick'n to it!

[338lapua]

I think a lot of this crap is pushed by that Massod Ayoob booob. Took a class by him many years ago and he was preaching this factory ammo all stock guns agenda. One of the classes I learned the least from.

[shooter444]

I think a lot of this crap is the product of mealy mouthed, limp wrist f***-tards worried more about what Big Brother Government power/control seeking idiots will do to them if they misbehave and save their own ass, with their own power/abilities,... rather than worry about a threat standing in front of them with a weapon.

[Rpowell600]

Well I am now firmly in the camp of do "what is legal but dont worry about what would be under the microscope". Im reloading my own SD rounds. IF the rare scenario of having to use my firearm arises, there will be far too many things to worry about. Really its just unfortunate that so much misinformation is being thrown around and confusing everyone one of us as a community.

[nvgdude]

Not to make the thread all about Fish but .. I wonder why his attorney never brought up he was on a rather lonely hike in the woods and the 10mm just happens to be a great anti animal gun and that might be why he chose it that day.

Fish had one huge issue that overwhelmed everything else. He refused to hire an attorney experienced in firearms and self defense law. His attorney was in way, way over his head.

And yes, the prosecutor did make a huge deal over the Kimber 10mm Fish used.

The other problem he had, was he admitted firing "Warning Shots" at the dogs, but then had to shoot the person who attacked him. You and I, or anyone who actually understands the nuances of the law, might understand that a situation can go from non-life-threatening to life-threatening in the blink of an eye, but the Jury had a hard time reconciling warning shots against dogs and center mass shot to the human.

[kidkaiser]

It was pointed out in a CCW class in Nevada that a prosecuting attorney will paint the shooter as someone who "sits around making bullets at night".