I don't and never will.

What is a canceled carry weapon?

roklok wrote:

What is a canceled carry weapon?

I know my spelling stinks..Concealed

The reason I asked is I've been in a heated discussion with others on the subject. Just wondered what you guys thought.

I have had a CCW since 1967 and have carried a wide variety of handguns and all were loaded with my reloads. I prefer my reloads and have 100 percent confidence in them. Not sure why you or others are opposed to using reloads for self-defense. Please do not cite potential liability if reloads are used in self-defense. The use of factory ammo is not an abolute defense against being sued. Police departments use factory ammo and get sued on a regular basis. I have never seen a valid case when a law-abiding citizen ever faced additional liability for using reloads in a self-defense situation. It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. It is a personal decision and I made it years ago. Take care...
Joe

You might find this read interesting.

HANDLOADS FOR SELF-DEFENSE:THE DANIEL BIAS CASE
The Ayoob Files
Situation: Authorities try to determine if a death was suicide, blameless accident, manslaughter, or murder by replicating gunshot residue.
Lessons: Load easily replicable factory rounds in your defense guns … and don’t leave firearms where suicidal people can access them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trouble With Handloads

I decided to focus on this case this month after an interminable discussion that ran over five computer threads on four electronic Internet forums on the subject of liability that can be incurred by using handloads in defensive firearms. I took the position I take here — don’t use handloads in defensive firearms — and challenged those who preferred them to give a tactically sound reason why.

With thousands of views logged, the only reasons for carrying reloads were: “I get an inch at 25 yards with my loads, and only 2" groups with Hydra-Shok.” This, I submit, is not a decisive advantage, and if you think it is, there are many affordable factory handguns that will put five shots in an inch at 25 yards with the right factory ammo. See American Handgunner 2006 Tactical Annual, page 82.

“I save as much as 50 cents a cartridge with my carry reloads.” Balance that against Danny Bias’ sixfigure legal bill in just his first trial, not at all uncommon in murder cases, and factory ammo can be extraordinarily cheap insurance. Once you know your gun feeds with your preferred factory round, you can pretty much duplicate it for practice and get your cost savings there.

“My ammo is more reliable than factory.” One poster noted his pistol had locked up on him when he fired a factory cartridge that didn’t have a flash-hole, a one-in-million occurrence. While you may well be one of those very few who can actually handcraft better ammo, is it enough to warrant the liability it brings? And when you’re accused of handloading “to make deadlier ammo” (as happened in another case, N.H. v. James Kennedy), can you convince a jury of 12 lay people you make better cartridges by yourself, after work, with a few thousand dollars worth of hobbyist equipment, than is produced at a vast ammunition factory with quality control and trained engineers?

The “regular bullets weren’t deadly enough for you” argument is not the big reason I recommend against handloads for defense. The forensic replicability factor is the main reason. Listen to John Lanza, who had to fight for Danny Bias’ future in court.

“When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant. Once used, there is no way, with certainty, to determine the amount of powder or propellant used for that load. This becomes significant when forensic testing is used in an effort to duplicate the shot and the resulting evidence on the victim or target. Stippling or powder residue, and its amount, would relate to the distance between the barrel of the firearm and the victim or target. Lack of powder residue would reflect a distant shot as opposed to the presence of powder residue which would reflect or prove a close shot,” explains Attorney Lanza, who adds, “With the commercial load, one would be in a better position to argue the uniformity between the loads used for testing and the subject load.”

When I asked Elizabeth Smith about the handload crippling Danny’s defense, she replied, “You’re certainly right about that. Gunshot residue was absolutely the focus of the first trial. The prosecution kept going back to the statement, ‘It couldn’t have happened the way he said it did.’”

For several years, certain “Net Ninjas” have been spreading the false belief that no one has ever gotten in trouble in court from using handloads. Now you know better. The records of the N.J. v. Daniel N. Bias trials are archived at the Superior Court of New Jersey, Warren County, 313 Second Street, P.O. Box 900, Belvedere, NJ 97823. Those wishing to follow his appellate process can begin with the Atlantic Reporter at 142 NJ 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table). The only reason handloads have not been a factor in more cases is that most people who go in harm’s way are already smart enough not to use them for defense.

I use handloads all the time for carry. My loads were developed and tested in my guns.

“When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant." The arguement that a handload can't be duplicated is OBVIOUSLY silly. We handloaders do it all the time! In fact the goal is to do it every time! That is part of the point of handloading! You can't tell me that a high speed automated assembly line is more accurate or repeatable than me weighing charges, etc. (By the way, I am an automation technician with 17 years experience working on automated production equipment.)

Arguments can be made either way on this issue. What I use as carry loads depends on the gun I am carrying. Currently on my side is a Glock 17 full of Hydra Shocks with a spare clip in my hip pocket, :However allot of the time I have a Ruger Vaquero 45 colt revolver, with this I carry handloaded 250gr lead flat points at about 1,000fps and I realize they may cause me trouble in court and accept it and have my arguments prepared in advance.
It is a very good subject for speculation and debate.

I reload for everything I shoot with the exception of concealed carry guns. My main concealed carry is a Glock 36 and I use Federal Premium Personal Defense ammo in that.
Don

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but how dead does someone need to be before a lawsuit is filed?

Who decides what loads are "more deadly"?

Shouldn't "deadly" describe ALL your loads (factory or handload) when you feel threatened enough by some "badguy" to use your weapon?

DEADLY is used every time I pull the trigger, unless I am at the range developing a DEADLY load or practicing with a DEADLY load.

I am surprised to see that this is even an issue amongst those that carry concealed or open for personal defense. Part of the CCW courses taught in Arizona and at the local community college addresses the matter of "handloads vs factory loads", all with the same recommendation -- use factory ammo only for such purposes. In fact, it goes beyond that common sense recommendation.

Selecting the ammo used by the local law enforcement, either by brand, caliber or bullet weight, simplifies that part of the defense in the event that the issue goes to court. It goes to court before a jury of peers, some of whom have not the slightest understanding of why any responsible person would load their own ammo for the express purpose of killing another human being. Perceptions. And, perceptions turn the tide in many cases. By eliminating handloads, one eliminates one aspect of negative perceptions. And, that may, in turn, determine one's whole economic if not criminal future.

I've sat in on several CCW courses in other states, too, and have been called as an defense witness in several shootings. What we lay people consider trivial is often hyped beyond reason in attempting to have juries award clients big money. Which addresses another aspect of CCW, that of retaining in advance legal counsel.

Sympathetic or experienced lawyers can be found that have backgrounds in firearms and justifiable shooting cases. Counseling and retaining one is not expensive. Mine costs $100 per year and he has an enviable record in defending CCW cases. His card is next to my CCW license.

It is folly to use handloads for personal defense and it is folly to not have a lawyer on retention if one carries for personal defense. It is pure bravado in my opinion to suggest that the consequences will simply be born if one chooses otherwise and, IMO, that choice can lead to repercussions most serious.

hunterjoe21 wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but how dead does someone need to be before a lawsuit is filed? Who decides what loads are "more deadly"? Shouldn't "deadly" describe ALL your loads (factory or handload) when you feel threatened enough by some "badguy" to use your weapon? DEADLY is used every time I pull the trigger, unless I am at the range developing a DEADLY load or practicing with a DEADLY load.

Yet some lawyer will try to use any thing to make you look like the bad guy in the end. It's a sad legal system we have at times but it's what it is no more no less.

The CCW class I took had the legal issues as well as gun safety, and range time, A lot of the class was on the ramification's after you used deadly force.. I do remember this issue on hand loads. It was suggested not to carry them in your weapon. I'm sure there are Classes, at least in Mi. that just take your money and bing bam boom your qualified.
I too sit in and help my Dad as he teaches these classes and about one third of the students never retain their CPL, because of the tremendous responsibility to carry.

I am not in law enforcement, yet have attended all the classes, been licensed and have carried continuously for just over 25 years. For me the primary purpose is to give me a chance to survive an encounter with someone who may be trying to kill me or mine.
If you handload Blacktip,HollowBlaster,HomeboySmack Hollowpoints with maximum charges of powder it will be very very difficult to defend it in court, however if you have what would be considered common target loads (that are also very deadly in large calibers) it would not be very hard to establish their primary target use in court.
I hope I never ever have to use my sidearm to defend myself or others but I have the training, skills, and the will to do it if necessary and I will be very glad to be alive, or to have saved others, after it is all over.

glockman55 wrote:

hunterjoe21 wrote: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but how dead does someone need to be before a lawsuit is filed? Who decides what loads are "more deadly"? Shouldn't "deadly" describe ALL your loads (factory or handload) when you feel threatened enough by some "badguy" to use your weapon? DEADLY is used every time I pull the trigger, unless I am at the range developing a DEADLY load or practicing with a DEADLY load. Yet some lawyer will try to use any thing to make you look like the bad guy in the end. It's a sad legal system we have at times but it's what it is no more no less.

Perhaps I should clarify....

I CANNOT carry a weapon while at work. I drive a company vehicle. I CANNOT have a weapon in my company vehicle. I can do what the H*ll I want outside of work. As such I have no real reason to complete CCW training. If I'm not at work, I have a weapon with me and no reason to hide it.

That being said, I stand behind my original statement. IF I fire my weapon, it IS with malicious intent. I aint shootin' in time with the music. If I pull the trigger, unless I'm at the range, I have two preferences:

1) Since I pulled the trigger, something should be dead.

2) Since I pulled the trigger, the dead thing shouldn't be me.

Put me on trial in front of a "jury of Clinton's peers", and I'll say the same thing. I'll take that chance.....