# Ammo for CCW



## Redwolf (Nov 29, 2008)

Just curious how many people load their own rounds for carry, I did up to about 3 years ago when alot of people said it was not wise to do so because of legality. I now carry Gold Dot because the local LEO's do.


----------



## kg333 (May 19, 2008)

Redwolf said:


> Just curious how many people load their own rounds for carry, I did up to about 3 years ago when alot of people said it was not wise to do so because of legality. I now carry Gold Dot because the local LEO's do.


Legality? What kind of reasoning do they have for it being illegal?

KG


----------



## BeefyBeefo (Jan 30, 2008)

kg333 said:


> Legality? What kind of reasoning do they have for it being illegal?
> 
> KG


It's not an issue of whether it's legal. People worry that reloading your SD ammo would give a prosecutor more ammo to use against you (no pun intended). I believe the argument is that they might call it premeditated since you took the time to load the ammo that you shot and/or killed someone with. Either way, I would never do it. I don't want to give anybody anymore angles to come at me with in such an instance. I believe Jeff Cooper has a lot of articles against this. Not sure though.

-Jeff-


----------



## tekhead1219 (May 16, 2008)

I agree with Jeff, there is absolutely no way I'm going to take a chance of some headline grabbing DA accuse me of premeditation just because I load my own ammo. Reload for the range, factory loads for SD. Just my .02.


----------



## kg333 (May 19, 2008)

I see your guys' point...wow, someone taking reloading that way just boggles me, though.

KG


----------



## BeefyBeefo (Jan 30, 2008)

kg333 said:


> I see your guys' point...wow, someone taking reloading that way just boggles me, though.
> 
> KG


I see where you're coming from, but it doesn't boggle me one bit. The prosecutors job is to stab you in the heart and make you look like a horrible person (read: criminal, terrorist or whatever you want). Any little piece of "evidence" or information that can be used against you in any way, will be used. It's not a surprise that this is a worry for many individuals. Either way, I don't see what the big deal is. The majority of practice at the range is with FMJ rounds, and you can shoot all of the reloads you want. Most people don't shoot their self-defense rounds nearly as much, therefore purchasing factory SD ammo isn't that big of a deal. Maybe some could practice more with their SD ammo if they rolled their own, but it's usually not necessary as practice with FMJ rounds generally translates to your SD ammo. Just my .02 :smt023

-Jeff-


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

I used to subscribe to that mind set with reloaded ammo for carry thinking it would cause more trouble. I later after talking to some local LEO, a county attorney and a few other people and posed a simple question. By me going to the store and choosing a HP over a FMJ and I not doing the same premeditation? If I choose ammo that is more powerful, has been tested to cause more of a wound channel and buying it from a reputable company insuring that I will get the same results box after box I am no different than the person that reloads his carry ammo. The intent is the same. If I was going to only wound a person to make sure I and my family could get away safe I could use any gun, any ammo. But to buy ammo that is made to kill more efficiently and I do my research. I buy the gun rags, I post questions in gun forums I am putting together a pan to have and carry a weapon that will give me a much better chance to put a person down for good. Is that not the definition of pre-meditation?

All of them looked at me funny and i would add. If I buy a normal HP slug. It's not some James bod super cool and groovy smart round that explodes on impact, kills the BG, and even wrapped up the mess for the LEO, What is the difference? Sure you can make a load hotter. But if it's too hot then you can have a slug that flies all over the place and you have no idea where it will land. Or blow up my gun pretty much making sure I'm not having a problem anymore because of my 45ACP grenade I just exploded in my hand. So I'm pretty much going to have to load a safe round.

Bottom line is no one was able to tell me how it was different. So I load the same rounds practice that I carry most the time anymore. I load a Rainier slug that is a hollow point and I use them for everything. I will still buy some from time to time being I shoot out any ammo that's in the gun after a week or so and if I see something at a good price I'll get them still but for the most part I use what I roll.


----------



## Growler67 (Sep 8, 2008)

Not set up for reloading at this point in time. The reliability of factory SD/HD rounds these days is enough for me. Many will do just fine, I've tried many but have stuck with Federal HydraShoks. I always end my range sessions with several mags for POA/POI and mucsle memory refreshment.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

DevilsJohnson said:


> Bottom line is no one was able to tell me how it was different. So I load the same rounds practice that I carry most the time anymore. I load a Rainier slug that is a hollow point and I use them for everything. I will still buy some from time to time being I shoot out any ammo that's in the gun after a week or so and if I see something at a good price I'll get them still but for the most part I use what I roll.


The bottom line is perception, and as we all know, perception is reality. It may not be that your hand loads are much different, hotter, deadlier or anything "super-dooper", but that's what the lawyers will get across and make you look like a bad guy. The reason why carrying something very similar or exactly the same as what the local police carry is because if they are going to relate what ammo you use, they have to relate it to the police, and they are generally viewed as the good guys.

So, by carrying what the good guys carry, the perception lends itself more to you being a good guy, rather than a senario from the lawyer like this...

"He's a vigilante who sits in his basement making his own bullets by hand, all the while thinking about shooting someone with his 'super-death-killer-bullets', that he made with his own hands... (emphasis from lawyer as he holds up the gun) HIS OWN HANDS folks"​
Being that perception often times is reality to most people, I'll go with the thought that if the police carry it, it'd be better for me in court, should that horrible day ever happen. Also on the topic of lawyers and perception, have you ever sat in on a jury pool for selection? Oh my hell... that's scary enough to think that out of the 30-40 people selected for jury selection, better than half of them are missing most of their teeth and probably don't have a whole lot of insight into the law and are probably easily influenced. Therefore, perception will be more likely to be reality, and that's why I believe you need to limit anything that can be used against you. Hell, they even tell you that in the Miranda Rights.

Zhur


----------



## Ditch Doc (Dec 7, 2008)

kg333 said:


> I see your guys' point...wow, someone taking reloading that way just boggles me, though.
> 
> KG


Just part of the game. It doesn't have to necessarily be true or even make sense. If they can put on the best show, they win.

It's kinda like an election.


----------



## Redwolf (Nov 29, 2008)

I would like to add ( maybe it was a typo) carrying reloaded ammo is maybe not the safest. when I did I bought new brass to start with. As for as the question of FMJ vrs JHP the question lays in whats behind your target. FMJ's dont like to stick around while JHP's tend to stay in the target. Just like the Leo's we are responable for where our bullets stop, I want mine to stop with the attacker and not make a victim.


----------



## wjh2657 (Jun 18, 2008)

I have sat on juries. These were Civil and not criminal. In all cases of SD I heard, the shooter had already gotten off from criminal charges. (And this was in a state where they had the "Can't be sued if it is justified shooting" law, it was over-ridden by U.S. Supreme Court rulings on States cannot pass laws limiting right to legal redress)

The court proceedings are a three act High Drama play:

Act I: Plaintiff Attorney gives performance.
Act II: Defense Attorney gives performance.
Act 3: Jury decides awards.

Act I goes something like this :

" Members of the jury. This mentally deranged gun nut terrorist attacked my poor client with this ugly ,black, professionally prepared weapon (Kimber or other big 1911 fully decked out with modifications, looks mean!) He further spent ,what could have been productive hours with his family, hand preparing special killer ammunition to be even more efficient in his murdering act. "

Remember, there is a pretty good chance that some of the jury members have kin or friends that make their living as criminals, so forget fact he broke into your home, that was just "business!"

Visual images stay with the lesser educated members of the jury. Between criminal kin and bleeding heart liberal ladies who just abhor violence you don't have a chance. The best you can hope for is that a good clean presentation of a stock weapon that people recognize as a "normal" gun and the use of "store bought" ammo will convince somebody on the jury that you did not make special preparation and were not just waiting to "waste" someone. That person(s) may be able to sway rest of jury into a better decision.

You might also make sure that the neighbor you told "I carry the biggest, baddest gun and ammo that I can so that I can pop Zombies" doesn't come walking through the courtroom door to testify for the plantiff. _They will find him/her, that is what they do for a living_!

Forget what is "legal" as a civil trial is a play on emotions and law has very little to do with it.

Is it right? Most assuredly not. Is it real? You better believe it!


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

wjh2657 said:


> Is it right? Most assuredly not. Is it real? You better believe it!


+1 DING WE HAVE A WINNER! Perception IS reality my friends.

Zhur


----------



## Mach One Man (Jan 11, 2008)

I think we should all carry Black Tallon ammo :anim_lol:


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

zhurdan said:


> +1 DING WE HAVE A WINNER! Perception IS reality my friends.
> 
> Zhur


And perception is what the prosecution will build on:

your gun collection becomes an arsenal.

your hobby becomes the premeditated building of killer rounds.

you now are carrying "hidden, loaded guns" into public places (never mind that it is legal to do so with your permit).

If it gets into the courtroom, the prosecution's job is to convince the jury that you are evil. His job is NOT about fairness or justice, it is about winning the case that the public has hired him to win. The court system is an adversarial one. One side is not supposed to help the other.

By the same token, it is up to your attorney to win the case for you. It is up to your attorney to turn your arsenal back into a valuable collection of antique or unique guns.

It is up to your attorney to paint you as a defender of property to the jury/judge.

It is up to your attorney to show that you are a well rounded person with healthy hobbies and loving freinds and family.

Don't sweat about what will happen in court. Make your own rounds. Buy the best rounds you can. Carry a mouse gun or a hand cannon.

The fact that you fired a gun in your possession and hurt someone is what matters, and the prosecution will use the fact that you wear brown shirts instead of yellow or vice versa against you, because that is his job.

It will always be bad for you if you end up there as a result of your actions. Just concern yourself with being able to justify any action you may taken.

When it is all over, no matter how visiously the two attorney's attack, they will go out for coffee, exchange Christmas gifts, and continue to do their jobs.

WM


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

Pretty much the point of my earlier post. the act of buying a gun can be perceived as a premeditated act. The idea that you use one ammo over another. Anyone that buys a gun, gets a permit to carry hidden or even does the open carry thing. No one wears a gun thinking that they wont use it. We hope that we wont have to use it. But no one can say that they will carry a gun everywhere so that they wont use it.

Ammo choice sure can be held against someone. as with the rest of it you have to be sure that God forbid you use it that the firing is justified. The rest is for the lawyers. If this is something that you are not willing to accept then I would say don't carry a gun period. That way you know that you will not have to deal with it. The legal people I have posed my questions to could not say there was a difference in my loading a hollow point and buying one. in fact the ones I do load probably don't expand as well as say..A Federal Hydro Shok. I know they will expand and they will not have the risk of going all the way through like ball ammo can. The probably wont make quite as bad a wound channel as a top end HP. So while they can be seen as my taking the time away to make my own ammo they are not loaded hotter for better penetration and are less likely to fly apart upon entry. Pretty much they are designed to expand enough ensure they don't go through. More could be said about placement than the style of ammo. I don't know if any of y'all haev seen the Rainier LeadSafe Bullets. They are 0.004" of copper plated rather than the standard jacketed rounds. It's not much different than using a regular lead round except it's easier to clean out of your gun.

Sure if there's a reason to arrest me for a shooting I must have done something wrong in that they believe that I might not have had to shoot then I might have an issue. But I believe a decent lawyer can argue that my rounds are no more deadly than what you can buy in any store that sells ammo. If I'm having to stand trial I've probably done something wrong and it wont be because I have made my own rounds. In fact in looking at my rounds I would think it be hard to say it was reloaded in the first place. Unless someone really knows ammo and says "Hey..I've not seen a hollow point like this before". They don't look as mean and nasty as most carry ammo. a lot cheaper though:smt083

Please understand. I am not telling any one that they should do as I do. The question was raised does anyone carry reloads and I said I did. Then explained why. and bottom line is the loads are made for the gun as to pressure velocity etc, The round itself is no more destructive, they are less expensive, and I know the rounds will work if needed. Also..I practice with the same ammo I carry. I know exactly what it is going to do. That is no different to me than someone that target shoots with store bough ammo same as they carry.


----------



## Redwolf (Nov 29, 2008)

I ran into this article and it made for interesting reading

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/lawsuits.html


----------



## Waffen (Feb 8, 2006)

Reloads for the range or hunting, factory for CCW..


W


----------



## truman565 (Jun 27, 2007)

I would agree with everyone who has harked on perception. Keep in mind that the average Joe (no offense to any Joes here :mrgreen, who is usually on your jury, is not smart. Common sense does not prevail and perception rules the day.

However, that being said I would like to argue another point of why not to carry hand loads that has not been presented yet. I remember reading a case study in a self defense magazine (maybe Concealed Carry, not sure) a while back where a man claimed his wife shot herself with his gun. His gun was loaded with hand loads. 

Well apparently a commonly used forensic test in the event of a shooting is a gunpowder residue test. Basically with the use of swabs and chemicals police can determine how much gunpowder someone has on them and that can help them determine things like who possibly discharged the weapon, how far the weapon was discharged from the target, and so on. The police have tables that reference the known gunpowder residue amounts for a given round at a given distance. 

The prosecution argued that the amount of residue found on the man's wife was not sufficient enough for the gun to have been held by her when it was discharged. The defense argued that the gun was loaded with hand loads that were not loaded to full powder spec and therefore would not create the same residue characteristics as the load that the prosecution was referencing. Basically the prosecution was referencing the factory load while the defense was referencing the fact that it was not a factory load but rather reloaded factory cases and therefore would not yield the same results. The end result was the husband being convicted of the murder of his wife.

Was the guy really guilty or was he innocent? I am not sure I wasn't there but I think we can agree that the fact that the gun was loaded with reloads did not help him. A hand load won't just perform differently on the range; it will perform differently in the court room too.


----------



## clanger (Jan 27, 2009)

The opposition will do everything they can to bring your charachter into question, up to and including 'fabricating' and embelishing things to establish 'reasonable doubt'. You'll find, in some cases, you are on trial even if the perp was in the wrong. 

Why give them more 'ammo' for their cause? 

PD ammo should always be Factory ammo. LE agencies mandate it for a(several) reason(s). 

Load your PD firearm with Factory stuff, save 5 or so with the box as proof rounds. Don't take my word for it. Ask any CCW expert or advocate (like Billy Jack). 

A righteous shoot includes using the correct ammo. Leave no room for doubt. Make it all as airtight as possible.


----------



## BigNic (Feb 17, 2009)

I agree with "reloads for the range"... it's a shame though.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Every single 'expert' that I know of who has addressed this subject recommends carrying factory made self defense ammo. The logic for not carrying hand loads is sound - that a prosecuting attorney could spin the tale that you have created a 'killer load,' because you are out there on the street looking for an excuse to kill someone - or some variation of that scenario.

Very believable...yet the people who argue this side of the issue rarely, if ever, are able to cite cases where that has actually happened. I mean, 10 cases would not be an unreasonable number to expect them to produce, yet I have only ever heard one or two mentioned, and they were both kind of a stretch.

The argument for only using factory loads seems to assume that in such a court case, I don't have a lawyer of my own, or that he is an idiot. Why can my lawyer not make the case that I have a benign reason for loading my own ammo, and convince a jury that he helped pick, that I'm just a poor guy who couldn't afford expensive ammo and had to make my own, which, with current prices, is actually very credible.

The very same experts who advise you not to carry hand loads, will also advise you to seek professional self-defense training. Is this not a contradiction? I mean, if a slick lawyer is going to exploit the fact that you make your own ammo, he is also going to have a field day when he cross-examines you, and makes you describe running around shooting at the 'life-like' silhouette targets, and all the other 'lethal force' drills that you have done.

I carry factory made SD ammo, now. But, I make very good quality JHP ammo to practice with, and I likely will also be carrying some of it, eventually, when it comes time to replace my premium SD ammo. I'm not arguing with the logic against doing it, but I think the risk entailed is not very great, and I may choose to carry my hand loads, rather than pay the exorbitant prices that quality SD ammo is bringing...if you can even find it.

I look at it about the same way as I would view my insurance coverage, if the rates had doubled. I might decide to take on a little more risk, in order to be able to afford the premium.


----------



## clanger (Jan 27, 2009)

> Why can my lawyer not make the case that I have a benign reason for loading my own ammo, and convince a jury that he helped pick, that I'm just a poor guy who couldn't afford expensive ammo and had to make my own, which, with current prices, is actually very credible.


You are defending a weak arugment. They will counter with "you could have taken the money for reloading stuff and bought an alarm, dog...blah blah blah" And, you won't be able to not prove the arugued intent with it.



> But, I make very good quality JHP ammo to practice with, and I likely will also be carrying some of it, eventually, when it comes time to replace my premium SD ammo. I'm not arguing with the logic against doing it, but I think the risk entailed is not very great, and I may choose to carry my hand loads, rather than pay the exorbitant prices that quality SD ammo is bringing...if you can even find it.


I make an excellent HP defender for one of my snubby's too... (240gr Nos JHP over 9gr of 700X) I don't load it in the guns at home though. I use factory stuff. Even if it aint PD ammo. It's still factory stuff and I save 5 rounds and the box as proof.

We live in an over-letigious society. The good guy is guilty before being found innocent and for me it aint worth the risk. I'll use an ammo that someone else made. That will give the other team less to make the BG a martyr with, which you can bet they will try to do.

The only thing I'll have to defend is showing 'just cause'. That'll be enough of a task where I live in itself.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

clanger said:


> The only thing I'll have to defend is showing 'just cause'. That'll be enough of a task where I live in itself.


"*where I live*" is the operative statement, here.

Where I live, showing just cause is probably going to be enough.


----------



## clanger (Jan 27, 2009)

If "probably" works for you? Great.

I aint risking it.

Others that know WAY more than I do, told me stright up, w/o any reservation, Do not use handloads for SD if at all possible, and *NEVER* for CCW.

YMMV.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

clanger said:


> If "probably" works for you? Great.
> 
> I aint risking it.
> 
> ...


Yes, yes, I know, I know.

I, too, have always bowed to consensus on this subject, despite the fact that all of these experts, most of whom I have great respect for, cannot really back up those opinions with hard facts.

Saying something could happen, or might happen, is adequate for some things, up to a point. But without actual cases to underpin these opinions, they don't stand up very well to close scrutiny, whoever the experts are.

I'm just saying that I don't think it's a very big deal, one way or the other.


----------



## truman565 (Jun 27, 2007)

Bisley:

You might have missed it but if you look at this thread you will see that I already cited a specific case in which the use of a hand load worked against the defendant. I did a quick search and found another case in which the use of a hand load worked against the defendant. You can check it out by clicking on the link below.

```
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13984898_ITM [HTML]

If anyone wants additional evidence then I suggest doing more online searches or going to a law school library somewhere.  Law schools have encyclopedias full of case studies about everything.  I have no doubt that you could probably find several cases in relation to this thread.

If neither one of these cases sways your opinion then that is fine.  You are certainly entitled to it.  Just because it worked against the people in the two cases I have presented doesn't mean that it would work against you.  However I am reminded of a saying I like. "The fool learns from his own actions while the wise man learns from the fool".  Not to say that the people in these cases were fools but to simply say that if you can learn from someone else's misfortune then why make your own.

And yes if I found evidence that taking a personal defense class could yield the same results then I would probably just teach myself.  There is enough free information and video on the internet to allow me to do at least a half decent job I think.
```


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I read everything you wrote.

Did you read anything I wrote? Do you not see any logic in my argument?

If the answer to this issue is the slam-dunk everyone seems to think it is, there should be dozens, if not hundreds of examples. The only two cases I ever see cited for evidence are these two provided by Massad Ayoob. I read Ayoob regularly and nearly always take his advice, but his arguments are weak, on this particular subject.

EDITED TO ADD:



> And yes if I found evidence that taking a personal defense class could yield the same results then I would probably just teach myself. There is enough free information and video on the internet to allow me to do at least a half decent job I think.


Aha! Now you are asking for evidence!

That's all I have done, and lacking clear and conclusive evidence, I fall back on logic. Logically, if we are to say that a lawyer will exploit hand loaded ammo, it is completely logical to believe he will exploit a dozen other things with equal vigor. These have already been mentioned so I won't repeat.


----------



## truman565 (Jun 27, 2007)

Bisley:

Yes I read what you wrote but I disagree with you. You asked for evidence and I gave it to you. You claim 2 examples is not enough for you. Exactly how many examples of peoples lives being ruined do you need? You on the other hand have not provided any evidence. If you have any cases of justified use of a hand load in a SD scenario then I will gladly read them. 

You are basing your argument off of perception (what the lawyer would say or how the jury would interpret it). I am basing my argument off of forensics. As I stated before the man used a hand load which did not create the same gunpowder residue as a factory load would. He was not able to prove that the bullet was in fact a hand load and therefore the forensic evidence pointed towards him being the shooter and ultimately lead to his conviction for murder. Good lawyer our not it is hard to argue against hard forensic evidence based on science. 

I think we can both agree that the reason why any of us carry is to minimize risk. I agree with you that if a lawyer would argue a point such as this then he could argue any number of points such as taking personal defense classes. I do see the logic in that and like I said I personally would not take a personal defense class, just as I don't carry hand loads, if I was presented with evidence that showed that it was an unnecessary risk.

However I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that carrying a hand load is an unnecessary risk. Especially when I don't see any real advantage to carry hand loads when there are great factory defense loads out there. Sure a hand load is cheaper than a factory load that costs a buck a bullet but are you really going to spend hundreds of dollars on a quality handgun only to risk such a thing over a $20 box of bullets? That I do not see any logic in.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Well, truman,

We obviously have very different threshholds for what would be considered sufficient evidence. You have cited one single case in which you seem to be contending that an innocent man was convicted of murdering his wife because forensic evidence would not back up his claim that his handload would have negated the results from normal testing procedures.

Now, from my point of view, this case is peripheral to the issue actually being discussed here, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with a self-defense shooting. And since the case you mentioned is actually a murder case, we can logically assume that this was but one tiny scrap of the evidence presented against the hand loader. I seriously doubt that this single inconclusive bit of forensic evidence (or lack thereof) was the single deciding factor in convicting this man.

Regardless, your example is one single case, very loosely related to this subject, out of who knows how many self-defense shootings that have occurred, throughout history. Massad Ayoob, and many other self defense writers who agree with him, have been preaching the point of view you have adopted, for decades...yet they have not published any better evidence to back up their opinions than a couple of stories like this. I don't need to go digging around in case law, because obviously, if this is all they can produce to back up their opinions, better men than I have already searched for them.

You are going with the consensus on this issue, and that's fine. I have been doing the same, for years, even though I have always likened the arguments they present to those of the 'man-made global warming' activists, who have been using the same flimsy bits of evidence for thirty years to convince dimwits that the sky is falling.

I'm OK with anyone's decision to play it safe. All I'm saying is that the argument of the consensus, on this particular subject, is not well supported by actual evidence, and if, in the future, I decide to depart from going along with conventional wisdom...I don't think my liability will be increased very much. 

It's a question of degree, and in my opinion, the degree to which I will increase my exposure to liability, is not greatly increased, should I elect to carry hand loads. Of course, I live in a rural area, in Texas, so that may be a factor, too.


----------



## truman565 (Jun 27, 2007)

Bisley,

I agree with you. I think we both have reached the same conclusion of not to carry hand loads but have come about that conclusion differently. Your statements that there don't seem to be a huge number of examples floating around and that my example is not a true SD example are both valid points. However I don't think it is a stretch to think that a similar situation could arise during a true SD scenario but then we get into the "what if?" game.

I guess for me the bottom line is that of risk and reward. Even if the risk is minimal I just don't see any reward making it worth my while.

Ultimately I think we both have our opinions on the issue and I think we are both sticking to our guns :draw: . I enjoyed the debate and hopefully someone else besides us got something out of it. Stay safe.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

truman565 said:


> Bisley,
> 
> I agree with you. I think we both have reached the same conclusion of not to carry hand loads but have come about that conclusion differently.


Yeah, I'll go with conventional wisdom on this for a while longer...at least until I run out of SD ammo to 'freshen' my load-out with. I know the ammo will last for decades, if left alone, but mine gets handled a lot, and cycling it repeatedly may loosen or re-seat the bullet after a while. I keep rotating the round (within the magazine) that gets slammed into the chamber, but you lose track after a while, and my practice is to just shoot it up, ever 2-3 months. That is getting to be way too expensive, and I'd rather not try to stretch out too much on keeping the factory SD loads.

I got a deal, back before the panic, on some factory second bullets, in Hornady XTP's, and bought a bunch of them. They are supposed to be 'blemished,' but I can't see it. They weigh out correctly and the length is correct. I have a few hundred 'hot' practice loads loaded with them, and I practice regularly with them in both 9mm and .45 ACP. I would be completely confident to use them for SD purposes, and if I do use them, I'll have fresh carry ammo loaded after every practice session, because I'll be using the same ammo as I practice with...not a bad thing.


----------



## the duke (May 4, 2009)

As far as the discussion goes I will use factory ammo for concealed carry and home defense and use reloads for practice.I grew up having cops and prosecuting attorney's for neighbors,and still have both for
neighbors now.They still say the same thing for concealed carry and home defense factory hollowpoints,and for practice use reloads.tumbleweed


----------



## stickhauler (May 19, 2009)

*Why?*



kg333 said:


> I see your guys' point...wow, someone taking reloading that way just boggles me, though.
> 
> KG


My instructor held to the belief that you should have any firearm you might choose to carry on a qualification record, as such I've done so with every pistol I may carry, and if I buy a new one I'll drag him out to the range for a few minutes to watch me run 50 rounds downrange. His argument? If you qualify for your license with a 9mm, and end up having a self defense incident when carrying say a .45, the DA may well argue that you intended to kill someone that day "because you were carrying a much larger caliber handgun, and one you were unfamiliar with" according to your training record.


----------



## hunter27 (Jul 7, 2009)

I am just starting reloading and would not trust it.


----------

