carry ammo, reload or factory

[Dutchman]

Originally Posted by 1buba

You're exactly right. However, both the Baer and Kimber can indeed be made to function dependably with solid self defense ammo. Both need to have around 500 rounds put through them to verify it though. The same SHOULD be said of all carry guns, but folks that buy lower end production guns don't typically worry about it.

+1
I shoot/carry mostly revolvers. Even with revolvers I think you should pump a few hundred rounds through it, just to see if the gun functions properly. Even with the tightest quality control a few lemons can slip through. I had to send one of my smith and wesson revolvers back to the manufacturer for a problem that could have rendered the gun inoperable at the most inopportune time. The problem was found within the first few dozen rounds.

[hylander]

I Reload for almost every thing I own.
Right now I don't Handload for my Carry gun as I just haven't ordered the Dies yet. As soon as I get the Dies, my G23 will only be fed Handloads for practice and Carry.
I know it is Taboo to feed a Glock Handloads, mine has an aftermarket barrel that has much tighter tolerances and it feeds 100% Reliable with everything I have put in it.
I trust my life to my Handloads far more than any factory ammo.
Although all factory ammo in my Glock has proven 100% reliable, I have had lots of other factory ammo malfuntion and have never had one of my Handloads malfuntion.
Also, I have yet to be pointed to one case where an otherwise justified shooting went south because of useing Handloads.
I am in no way suggesting anyone use Handloads, I am just stating what I use and what works for me

[libertarian]

Originally Posted by hylander

Also, I have yet to be pointed to one case where an otherwise justified shooting went south because of useing Handloads.

Not really wanting to open this can of worms again, and not saying this was an 'otherwise justified' shooting, but here's the classic case of what can happen:

Handloads for self-defense: the Daniel Bias case.(The Ayoob Files) - American Handgunner | Encyclopedia.com

[1buba]

Originally Posted by libertarian

Not really wanting to open this can of worms again, and not saying this was an 'otherwise justified' shooting, but here's the classic case of what can happen:

Handloads for self-defense: the Daniel Bias case.(The Ayoob Files) - American Handgunner | Encyclopedia.com

You just HAD to go there. lol

[libertarian]

I choose factory loads. Others are free to choose as they like, but should do so with an informed opinion and full knowledge of the realities of our legal system.

YMMV; void where prohibited; no warranty expressed or implied.

[1buba]

Originally Posted by libertarian

I choose factory loads. Others are free to choose as they like, but should do so with an informed opinion and full knowledge of the realities of our legal system.

YMMV; void where prohibited; no warranty expressed or implied.

I'm not a fan of Ayoob. Three folks I know and trust (none of them know each other) have nothing good to say in that arena.


That said -I'm with you, factory only when I carry (or train). Target and hunting, almost ALWAYS a hand load. Haven't hunted or shot with store bought (except when I tried some FGMM) in a LONG time.

[RomanDad]

For liability purposes- FACTORY ONLY when carrying.

My advise- Find out what brand/type the local PD/SD are using and use them as well....

Direct
"Officer smith- What type of bullets did the defendant have in his gun?"
"Federal .45 caliber JHP".
"And are those bullets more or less lethal than the average bullet?"
"They are specifically designed to cause MORE damage to the victim."
"thank you."

Cross-
"Officer Smith- Do you carry a firearm in the course of your employment?"
"Yes"
"what type of bullet is in it right now?"
"Federal .45 caliber JHP."
"No further questions."

[G30 Steve]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

For liability purposes- FACTORY ONLY when carrying.

My advise- Find out what brand/type the local PD/SD are using and use them as well....

Good advice. That's exactly what I did.

Last safety inspection for my CCW renewal I asked the armorer if the SD is still issuing HST. His response was yes they are and he showed me their bullet board and mentioned how well they functioned in their new Glocks. I said if they work for you they'll work for me.

[1buba]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

For liability purposes- FACTORY ONLY when carrying.

My advise- Find out what brand/type the local PD/SD are using and use them as well....

Direct
"Officer smith- What type of bullets did the defendant have in his gun?"
"Federal .45 caliber JHP".
"And are those bullets more or less lethal than the average bullet?"
"They are specifically designed to cause MORE damage to the victim."
"thank you."

Cross-
"Officer Smith- Do you carry a firearm in the course of your employment?"
"Yes"
"what type of bullet is in it right now?"
"Federal .45 caliber JHP."
"No further questions."

I'm NOT a lawyer - don't have the brains to be one.

I'm curious though...
isn't there a thing called "re-direct", and depending on the views of the officer, would the re-direct be something like...
"Officer Smith - is the defendant a law enforcement officer?"
"no, counselor, he is not."
"Officer Smith - does he have a need for the same equipment as an LEO?"
"no, counselor, it is not his job.:"
"No further questions."

I'm using factory for the reason you state, but the arguments for it have always intrigued me. it seems like if they are talking about your ammo, and your lawyer has already laid waste to that discussion, you probably have already lost... again, depending on the officer and the DA.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by 1buba

I'm NOT a lawyer - don't have the brains to be one.

I'm curious though...
isn't there a thing called "re-direct", and depending on the views of the officer, would the re-direct be something like...
"Officer Smith - is the defendant a law enforcement officer?"

OBJECTION- LEADING. SUSTAINED

"Officer Smith - does he have a need for the same equipment as an LEO?"

OBJECTION- LEADING. SUSTAINED

I'm using factory for the reason you state, but the arguments for it have always intrigued me. it seems like if they are talking about your ammo, and your lawyer has already laid waste to that discussion, you probably have already lost... again, depending on the officer and the DA.

OH... PLEASE let him say something that stupid! Not only is it hard for a line of questioning like that to come in -You cant ask leading questions on direct, and I dont know HOW I would get around that if I were asking the questions- but If they were:

Re-cross-

"Officer smith- The police are issued guns to protect themselves correct?"
"Yes"
"And Mr Jones has A CCW issued by your department's Cheif, Correct?"
"Yes"
"And the Cheif issues those permits at his discretion, correct?"
"yes."
"And CCWs are issued to people showing cause that they have heightened need to defend themselves correct?"
"Yes."
"Then why are you of the opinion that police deserve better protection than ordinary citizens who have gone through training, had extensive background checks performed, and demonstrated a need for them to defend themselves?"
"uh, uh, uh.... We deal with bad people every day in the scope of our business."
"But Mr. Jones met a very bad person in the scope of his daily activities, and you want him to be less able to defend himself than you are despite the fact your boss says its within his right to carry the weapon in question?"

[rycerz]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

"But Mr. Jones met a very bad person in the scope of his daily activities, and you want him to be less able to defend himself than you are despite the fact your boss says its within his right to carry the weapon in question?"

Not a lawyer, but isn't this one leading as well? (Though I like the direction where you're going )

[1buba]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

OBJECTION- LEADING. SUSTAINED


OBJECTION- LEADING. SUSTAINED



OH... PLEASE let him say something that stupid! Not only is it hard for a line of questioning like that to come in -You cant ask leading questions on direct, and I dont know HOW I would get around that if I were asking the questions- but If they were:

Re-cross-

"Officer smith- The police are issued guns to protect themselves correct?"
"Yes"
"And Mr Jones has A CCW issued by your department's Cheif, Correct?"
"Yes"
"And the Cheif issues those permits at his discretion, correct?"
"yes."
"And CCWs are issued to people showing cause that they have heightened need to defend themselves correct?"
"Yes."
"Then why are you of the opinion that police deserve better protection than ordinary citizens who have gone through training, had extensive background checks performed, and demonstrated a need for them to defend themselves?"
"uh, uh, uh.... We deal with bad people every day in the scope of our business."
"But Mr. Jones met a very bad person in the scope of his daily activities, and you want him to be less able to defend himself than you are despite the fact your boss says its within his right to carry the weapon in question?"

UNCLE!
That's why i normally don't post in these threads. lol

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

OBJECTION- LEADING. SUSTAINED

I was on a Federal jury last December. One of the defense attorneys became a joke in the jury for his convoluted objections.

"Objection, Rule (some number I can't remember) lack of foundation, compound, leading, and vague.

After every FRIGGING question.

If he hadn't had a brilliant close he would have lost it all. As it was he got a split decision.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by rycerz

Not a lawyer, but isn't this one leading as well? (Though I like the direction where you're going )

On CROSS examination, and RECROSS I can ask ALL THE LEADING QUESTIONS I WANT....

I dint make the rules... I just use them to my advantage.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Bombard

I was on a Federal jury last December. One of the defense attorneys became a joke in the jury for his convoluted objections.

"Objection, Rule (some number I can't remember) lack of foundation, compound, leading, and vague.

After every FRIGGING question.

If he hadn't had a brilliant close he would have lost it all. As it was he got a split decision.

Was he WINNING the objections? i.e. was the judge ruling in his favor and making the prosecutor reformulate his questions?

MOST defense attorneys are REALLY, REALLY good attorneys.

A lot of prosecutors, ARENT so good.... Without knowing anything else, the fact that the defense was making lots of objections indicates to me the Prosecutor was a boob....