Modern 38 Super

[meausoc]

Roll your own. I use a 125 grain Hornady Action Pistol bullet (true .356 diameter) and 6.0 grains of Autocomp. I also picked up a bunch of Starline brass marked down at Bass Pro during the last panic. I shoot this out of a Colt 1911 O model and it is very flat shooting.

[Co-gnARR]

Thanks for the links. I thought about loading my own, but as you already mentioned the legal aspect gives me second thoughts.

What's the history behind the legal aspect of hand loads and righteous shoots?

[williejc]

I can't cite court cases but have been reading the gun literature for decades. It seems that writers from the less gun friendly North advise against using reloads. Having lived my entire life in the South and Southwest, I haven't encountered any officials who would care about bullet origin. I'm fortunate to have a good supply of factory defense ammo so that's what I use. Of course a person can be sued in civil court for a shooting the bad guy even if not charged by the district attorney. In my area a civil suit would be my concern about using hand loads.

[Co-gnARR]

I can't cite court cases but have been reading the gun literature for decades. It seems that writers from the less gun friendly North advise against using reloads. Having lived my entire life in the South and Southwest, I haven't encountered any officials who would care about bullet origin. I'm fortunate to have a good supply of factory defense ammo so that's what I use. Of course a person can be sued in civil court for a shooting the bad guy even if not charged by the district attorney. In my area a civil suit would be my concern about using hand loads.

Thank you, williejc. I assumed it was regional precedents that generated this concern, but it does seem to have potential for internet lore, ie, a case was cited and the story was exaggerated. And you are right about the civil suit issues- the FSA in my area seem to think this is why responsible people carry liabilty insurance, whether for auto, home, umbrella policies, etc. It does not help that predatory lawyers fill their heads with this belief.

[jbjh]

I can't cite court cases but have been reading the gun literature for decades. It seems that writers from the less gun friendly North advise against using reloads. Having lived my entire life in the South and Southwest, I haven't encountered any officials who would care about bullet origin. I'm fortunate to have a good supply of factory defense ammo so that's what I use. Of course a person can be sued in civil court for a shooting the bad guy even if not charged by the district attorney. In my area a civil suit would be my concern about using hand loads.

Unfortunately, not internet lore. Ayoob has been writing about it for more than a few years. Here are some actual cases from a quick Google search

http://www.gunforums.net/forums/gene...mas-ayoob.html

To quote from the link -
"A final word: I did not research the above and place it here to placate lightweight net ninjas. I did it because three recent Internet threads led me to believe that a number of decent people had honest questions about the real-world concerns about using handloads for self-defense, and were possibly putting themselves in jeopardy by doing so. For well over a decade, certain people have been creating an urban myth that says, “No one has ever gotten in trouble in court because they used handloads.”

This is now absolutely, and I hope finally, refuted.

Respectfully submitted,
Massad Ayoob"

(IANAL, but I have slept with several)

One of the problems when asking for case citations, is that cases become citable precedent only when they have gone through the appellate level; appeals may be based on technical issues rather than a factual issue, such as what kind of ammo was used, and how the way that information was presented may have influenced a jury, as opposed to trial, where it is a totality of the evidence. Also, there simply aren't that many self-defense cases that go to trial, as there aren't that many in the country to begin with.

My take on it, instead of finding case law that supports, or disproves the argument, please find me a criminal defense lawyer that gives the advice "Sure...go ahead and use your reloads for self-defense. They're fine".

(ETA) I know the cases Ayoob quotes above aren't precise answers to the "cite case law" argument, but my point was to show that it is a variable in court that doesn't need to muddy already turbulent waters.

[Corse]

Unfortunately, not internet lore. Ayoob has been writing about it for more than a few years. Here are some actual cases from a quick Google search

http://www.gunforums.net/forums/gene...mas-ayoob.html

To quote from the link -
"A final word: I did not research the above and place it here to placate lightweight net ninjas. I did it because three recent Internet threads led me to believe that a number of decent people had honest questions about the real-world concerns about using handloads for self-defense, and were possibly putting themselves in jeopardy by doing so. For well over a decade, certain people have been creating an urban myth that says, “No one has ever gotten in trouble in court because they used handloads.”

This is now absolutely, and I hope finally, refuted.

Respectfully submitted,
Massad Ayoob"

(IANAL, but I have slept with several)

One of the problems when asking for case citations, is that cases become citable precedent only when they have gone through the appellate level; appeals may be based on technical issues rather than a factual issue, such as what kind of ammo was used, and how the way that information was presented may have influenced a jury, as opposed to trial, where it is a totality of the evidence. Also, there simply aren't that many self-defense cases that go to trial, as there aren't that many in the country to begin with.

My take on it, instead of finding case law that supports, or disproves the argument, please find me a criminal defense lawyer that gives the advice "Sure...go ahead and use your reloads for self-defense. They're fine".

(ETA) I know the cases Ayoob quotes above aren't precise answers to the "cite case law" argument, but my point was to show that it is a variable in court that doesn't need to muddy already turbulent waters.

This is where I was coming from. I'll gladly load my own for less than serious purposes, but I'd rather be safe and use factory ammo for carry. I just want modern projectiles that are designed for that velocity.

[jaholder]

I just wish I could get the 357 sig bullet (something like an HST) loaded from the factory at velocities approaching 9x23mm. Is that too much to ask?

Well that might be a bit tricky, considering max pressure for .38 Super +p is 36,500 psi whereas the 9X23 is 55,000 psi.

That said, pushing a 124/125 JHP in a Super to 1400+ with V-V powders shouldn't be too difficult.

[Corse]

Well that might be a bit tricky, considering max pressure for .38 Super +p is 36,500 psi whereas the 9X23 is 55,000 psi.

That said, pushing a 124/125 JHP in a Super to 1400+ with V-V powders shouldn't be too difficult.

I think that would be acceptable. If only someone made super Super brass equal to the strength of 9x23.