Does anyone here handload anti personnel munitions? I know you're

What is this, Bioshock?

>>34721149
I don't know what you're talking about. I know Bioshock is a video game, but what the fuck does that have to do with handloading?

>>34721023
What the hell are you on about?
People roll their own defensive ammo all the time.

>>34721262
They say you're not supposed to do it because you won't be able to replicate the powder residue for forensics purposes. Personally, I think it's worth that risk to have hotter loads.

The reason -people say not to roll your own defensive loads is that if you ever have to go to court, and the opposing lawyer asks you why you used that particular man-killing, unfair, explosive-round load to shoot someone, you will find yourself having to explain interior, exterior, and terminal ballistics to twelve people who would rather be at home playing with their computers.

They will zone out after five words, and will only remember the, "particular man-killing, unfair, explosive-round load," part and you will be found wanting.

If, on the other hand, the five words are, "it's what the FBI uses," then THAT is what the twelvel men good and true will remember, and you won't lose because you wanted another 150FPS on your particular man-killing, unfair, explosive-round projectile.

Oh. And. Perfect rational to use a .40S&W.

>>34721787
Has there ever been a court case that involved a self-defense shooting where the defendant was convicted soley because of his choice of ammo?

>>34721787
>you will find yourself having to explain interior, exterior, and terminal ballistics to twelve people who would rather be at home playing with their computers.
No, you won't. You can just tell the court that there's no law against using handloads, so you'll use them whenever you damn well please, and that's the long and the short of it.
>>34721807
No, because there is no law against it. You can't send someone to prison for breaking a law that doesn't exist.

>>34721310
>>34721787
Neither of these things have ever happened, stop repeating this retardation

as long as it's just hypothetical "what will the jury think?" you could make an argument that it shows that you are not a super operator wannabe. "I load my own because it's my hobby. I don't buy 'black talon' killer bullets, I just enjoy loading and shooting my own cartridges"

"it's just what I regularly shoot in my firearm, I wish I hadn't had to use it in self defense"

>>34721023

You meant anti-personnel as a joke I'd assume? If you want more damage use a bigger caliber. If you have to use a smaller caliber for reasons buy Underwood. 20 rounds of 9mm +p+ 124 grain golden saber at 1300 fps out of a glock 19 for like $16. That's about 357 mag out of a 4 inch in the greatest 1 shot stop round out there, a 125 grain saber. I thought I'd get greater velocity out of a glock 34 but it's only clocking around 1330 fps on my chronograph.

>>34721787
For those who say that making your own defensive ammo shouldn't be a factor, you need to remember civil suits. It really comes down to how comfortable you are with these two factors
>your lawyers ability to call experts to explain handloading to the jury or judge
>the potential makeup of the jury or the disposition of the judge
If you live anywhere the population is gun-neutral or worse on average, you are better off going with factory rounds IMO.

>>34722003
The forensics thing has happened, albeit in a suicide case.
>>34722617
>You meant anti-personnel as a joke I'd assume
No. Why would that be a joke? At least one major munitions company refers to their self defense ammo line by that term.
>>34722617
>If you want more damage use a bigger caliber.
Size matters, but so does speed.
>>34722704
Even in a civil suit, they can't punish you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist. There is no legal rule against using handloads. Ergo, use them if you please.

>>34722770
>Even in a civil suit, they can't punish you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist.
But they can slightly sway a jury. Its not burden of proof in civil suits but the weight of evidence. You just need to be found slightly at fault to pay out the ass for something.

As a side benefit, often the ammo manufacturer will be also included in your case (so you share the burden). Lawyers care about who has deep pockets (they want a big payday) and you most likely will not have the pockets they are looking for but the manufacturer will.

>>34722837
>But they can slightly sway a jury. Its not burden of proof in civil suits but the weight of evidence. You just need to be found slightly at fault to pay out the ass for something.
The accusor still has the burden of proof. The only difference is the STANDARD of proof. In a criminal trial, the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, it is preponderance of evidence.

Either way, the question is not how you shot your enemy, but why. If you shot for the right reason, you're in the clear.

>>34722862
>the question is not how you shot your enemy, but why
True. I just understand how quickly shit gets muddied up. Look at any of the high profile shootings. When the smoke cleared, it is usually found that the shooter was by far in the right, but during the court case and ensuing media storm, facts were often misconstrued.

Also, I would rather not be the individual who sets the precedent when it comes to handloaded ammo and living in a place that judges love to legislate from the bench, it would be easily possible.

>>34721023
>>34722770

If you're afraid of using handloads for self defense don't be, it's never been used successful argument and I'm unsure if it's ever been brought up in court before and I've read of people using them. If it did come up (I'm not sure how they'd even know unless you told them), say that you felt like you were paying more for worse quality control and it made it to expensive to practice with when you can buy the bullet and dump the powder in good brass yourself. If you have the speed autism, 357 Sig is your answer though.

By the way, if you want handloads on hot 9mm search "9mm major loads". It was sold up until the 90s but there were too many KBs by idiots not putting it in a 9mm built for it if I remember correctly. It's meant for race guns to meet power factor requirements.

Did I answer your questions?

>>34722897
Mostly by the media. A lawyer who tells an obvious lie in court will be corrected and lose his case. An anchorman can lie for year, even a lifetime, and never face any consequences.
>>34722897
>Also, I would rather not be the individual who sets the precedent when it comes to handloaded ammo and living in a place that judges love to legislate from the bench, it would be easily possible.
I think it's highly unlikely that judges would rule that self defense law somehow magically doesn't apply to handloaders. If they wanted to, they could have done it by now.
>>34722928
I agree.