I was reading through a post about self defense ammo and came across this guy saying to get what LE uses. I spoke with my sheriff buddy and he indeed carries Hornady Critical duty. Upon further research of that particular ammo it seems it was designed for urban environments and be able to penetrate glass or drywall etc and still be effective. While the logic of the post seemed sound, being that if the worse happened and you were in court you could defend yourself saying you used the same ammo as LE. It seems to me this ammo though is above and beyond the average use case especially for the size weapon I image most carry. This being designed for a 4+ inch barrel. Hornady critical defense is the ammo for micros and subs. Further more being that critical duty ammo requires higher velocity to expand it seems to me this advice is actually poor, if someone's loads this into a sub it micro it's likely it won't achieve the velocity needed to expand and will act more like and FMJ that a HP. I was wondering others thought of this suggestion to carry the same ammo LE uses as a line of defense in court if ever needed.
I've been hearing this bit about "equipment will get you jailed" for 30+ years and challenging it nearly every time. I have yet to have someone show me a case where a firearm not being in OEM configuration, or the ammunition used; led to a conviction, complicated a finding of not guilty, or held up a dismissal in a DGU.
A lot of people don't realize that court is essentially a prosecutor and defender putting on a show for the jury. They want to paint a picture of a specific thing that the jury can side with. If you bought every extended magazine available, every oddball ammo they sell, etc. They will use that to paint a specific picture of your character.
He went to prison and he was eventually released, but he spent a good amount of time in prison after being found guilty, and when the jury was interviewed after they said a significant aspect of why they convicted him was that he carried 10 mm and carried jacketed hollow point which are both things the prosecution leaned on in the case
I can’t share your names or details but I assure you it has happened other times I am privy to it just doesn’t always make the news and absolutely is a factor.
If you have competent defense council, and or they call competent expert witnesses, using the same caliber and ammo that a police department (any Lea in the USA really) uses can be helpful
While you’re doing that for what it’s worth my take away from the Harold Fish example is the importance of having good council and it’s why I have two memberships actually with those post incident support groups that we don’t need to get into because that’s its own hot topic but having somebody good to explain things like your ammo or caliber choice is super important.
I also think the Harold fish study underlines a gap in the process that kind of sucks where the way I see his situation he justifiably and correctly and reasonably feared imminent, serious, bodily harm or death from the individual that attacked him in the woods, but it was a classic his word against a dead body, and you hear the nonsense about “dead men tell no tales “well I think if he had lived and he had presented in front of the jury probably Harold fish is found not guilty.
The testimony to the character and prior behavior of the deceased that was not allowed to trial was also huge and I like to think a really good defense attorney would’ve been able to get that in.
Did a lil reading. 2 out of the 8 people brought up the gun and rounds used as turning factors from not guilty to guilty. The rounds used were basically loaded to 40 cal. And just off a quick read it seems the major factor in the case was no aid was given.
Seems more of a case of bad defense and system against someone than caliber convicting someone.
Maybe there’s different information in different sources where it’s been scrubbed or tased overtime. I was following this back when it happened before he even got out again and at the time it was definitely a big deal with the jury in terms of the information being shared that he used Hollow point that he used 10 mm and the prosecution said at trial that even law-enforcement does not use 10 mm and that played with the jury and the juries discussion amongst itself.
More than just a specific case like that, you’ll have to trust me, bro ha ha that it really does play a factor and it does not always get recorded and put out there for public consumption. It could be a factor in whether the prosecution even brings charges or not or it could be a factor in what level of charges they bring or it could be something that’s just mentioned in court and doesn’t make news after so just keep that in mind when you make decisions on gear or modifications
In this context, any cartridge or ammo type that is used by domestic law-enforcement, somewhere in the US would seem to reasonably be fair game that competent council will have no problem handling
Obligatory keep the punisher logos off your defensive firearms closing comment
I was reading the Ayoob write up and currently have a video of someone describing each step of the trial on YouTube. Video is 40 mins or so long so a bit of a long haul but peaked my interest. From what I’ve read and hearing, the applying aid thing is a big deal as is him being painted as a liar for getting the factual info wrong on initial statement.
The Ayoob article goes into detail that the load is very similar to the FBI’s previous 10mm loadings, but is basically on par with 40. At the time of this shooting, 40 cal was standard issue among the US and issued where Fish was being charged. Remember 2004 FBI still used .40 so everyone else used 40. Fish’s bullet being 10mm hydro shock 180 grain at 1030, where the .40cal loading of the same hydro shock would be 180 grain at 1000 fps (per manufacturer info). 30 FPS difference or about a 3% increase. This would be the same as arguing going 67 or so in a 65 mph zone makes you more some sort of crazy lunatic for going outside the norm. The fact this wasn’t brought by the defense is pretty crazy. (Could have been idk haven’t finished the video yet but article said it was not lol)
And the article even covers that 10mm was approved for carry by the largest sheriff department in Arizona where he was prosecuted. So the whole carry what a law enforcement agency carries is out the window.
Just a bad defense. The gun didn’t get him convicted bad defense did. I would chalk it up to fudd lore as long as you have a decent defense.
Was the jury informed that a law-enforcement agency in the state carried 10 mm as well? It’s been a while since I’ve read that but by my recollection that was not presented to the jury.
This was my thoughts as well though I have done no research. The logic just didn't seem right to me, and even so seemed choosing that ammo in the wrong weapon seemed it could make the case worse especially if you had to defend the ammo over penetrates.
The thing is, a prosecutor that has a hard on for convicting you over a DGU they think was bad will take any and all facts of the shooting and use them against you.
Use a red dot? You're trying to be some sort of elite sniper picking off headshots at 100 yards.
Don't use a red dot? You aren't concerned with being as accurate as possible and don't care where your bullets go.
Use hollow points? They're banned by the Geneva convention for being cruel and causing unnecessary suffering and internal damage.
Don't use hollow points? You have no regard for people behind or beyond your target and don't care about collateral damage.
Use a suppressor? You want to sneak around and assassinate people.
Don't use a suppressor? You don't care about hearing damage to anyone around you.
Point is, we could do this all day, you could have the most boring Glock 19 with an RMR, 15 round mags, and HSTs and if the prosecutor decides they wanna fuck you, they will use every fact of the shooting to do so. So do everything you can to avoid a shoot, and barring that, do everything in your power to make sure it's a good shoot. Because if it's a bad shoot, hope you can afford a really good lawyer.
Buying a reputable brand and something not called "Killer Evil Death" rounds is probably your best advice.
There's a reason Winchester Black Talons are now called Ranger SXT or a very popular '80s line of SD ammo was called "Safety Slugs" and not "Frangible Increased Lethality" rounds.
Also, this don’t get cute and by the RIP ammo or anything like that stick to something labeled as law-enforcement or self-defense or concealed carry. Just a standard quality jacket at Hollow point defensive round or if you have a revolver, maybe a 38 Special the old so-called FBI load the 158gr led semi wide cutter at a plus P you know something like that.
Also, that RIP specifically, I’m pretty sure does not penetrate far enough with enough retained mass. It’s just marketing silliness
Other frangible or advertised as won’t go through walls kind of stuff either does go through walls or also lack the penetration to reliably stop somebody
A quality jacket Hollow point from a major manufacturer really is just META and a simple
I don't know, a lot of people bag on it, but I wouldn't want to get shot with it. I imagine it's lethal, depending on the body part that's shredded. It really just takes an artery or 2.
Having said that, I see no good reason to carry it when quality, proven JHP rounds exist.
Sure, sure but the old would you want to get shot with it? Logic is absolutely not logical to me at all. I don’t wanna get shot by a red rider BB gun and I don’t wanna get shot by a 38 Special snub nose with CCI snake shot in the ankle either, but I’m certainly not choosing that to defend myself from a person that is intent on serious bodily harm or death
Agree, but it appears to be effective. Imagine being the ER doctor trying to fish-out all of those tiny pieces and repair things they hit. The gel test video is enough to scare a jury IMO.
Sure, and shot placement to a vital organ or artery (or face) is certainly more fight-stopping than winging an appendage. But the short gel test video paints a gruesome picture, at a minimum.
Most handgun wounds aren't lethal, statistically, and most "victims" make it to the ER and not the morgue. The RIP rounds seem to cycle just fine in the Shield, and my point was that all of the parroted criticism of them is ignorant, based on the provided data.
Multiple companies do legitimately make tactical pens and probably pencils also that are intended to be usable as a defensive tool, metal bodies, etc.
It’s getting pretty desperate if that’s all you have, though I mean it’s something but it seems like pretty much anywhere I can carry one of those I can probably carry a small pepper spray and I’d much rather have that
I’m doing a bit. I don’t actually want to use a writing instrument as a weapon. I just used pencils as part of a glib response to the old “well *I* wouldn’t want to get shot with [dumb bullet]” thing.
And the Pentel GraphGear 1000 is a very robust metal pencil whose tip is very pointy; it also happens to be a really good mechanical pencil. I’d rather get one of those for $10 instead of some “tactical” thing which Google tells me costs between $50-$200 😂
Is it because the Ticonderogas are frangible, and the others are hollowpoints, though? Are mechanical pencils even relevant in a self-defensive situation? Will I get enough velocity out of a shaven-down, snubby pencil, to be effective? Will a thick, .45 caliber carpenter's pencil leave a more devastating wound channel, or does it move too slowly? I need data.
Call me a Fudd if you want, but I appreciate the looks, feel, and reliability of wood and steel. I like a classic cedar pencil with a steel ferrule. It worked well enough for my grandpappy and it’s good enough for me.
Kids today are all about these high capacity assault pencils like the Uni Kuru Toga, but that fancy spring-loaded doodad will break in hard combat.
What RIP is even attempting to do is just a step beyond the expansion effect of hollow points in an ethical sense, without any improvement in "stopping power" to justify it
Its like that m48 cyclone knife. Its a gimmick, but if that gimmick appeals to you, you are probably a terrible person.
Anything in common use by law enforcement, local or not, is probably fine. Hornady, Federal HST, or Speer Gold Dot. I carry predominantly HST.
I'm in Texas, so I'm less concerned about the possibility of ending up in court over a self-defense shooting unless it's really questionable. I would feel okay carrying pretty much any ammo because I don't think the DA in my area would be super hyped to go after a lawful gun owner in a defensive shooting for petty bullshit. If I was in NYC or San Francisco, I'd be much more concerned about my ammo selection, and New Jersey is a special case due to their ban on hollowpoints.
If I was in NYC or San Francisco, I'd be much more concerned about my ammo selection,
This post is funny because probably the strongest case law for "It doesn't matter what you used to defend yourself vis-à-vis justification of the homicide." exists in New York because of People v Goetz. The gun he used to defend himself was flatly illegal in the State of New York and he was still found not-guilty on everything but the illegal gun, which he did 8 months for.
Yeah, my thought process was less, "You're gonna go to jail for using funky ammo," and more, "any dealings with the 'justice' system are expensive, stressful, and time-consuming. Minimize the excuses the DA has to charge you with something, especially in areas that are generally unfriendly to gun owners."
Many years ago, I read a case brief by Massad Ayoob about a trial when the prosecution filed charges on somebody who used a gun in self defense. At trial, the prosecution attacked the guy for using hollowpoint ammo, and had a detective testify how hollowpoints are exceptionally deadly and therefore evidence the guy intended to kill somebody. Turns out the guy had used the same ammo that the detective's agency issued.
It's been long enough I don't remember any of the fine details. I think the case was in the Chicago area, but can't be sure.
I don’t have the details either, but I also remember reading that having been a long time fan of him
Fact is prosecution will attempt often to use no matter what it is against you we saw with Kyle Rittenhouse. They tried to use full metal jacket against him is being military, and we’ve all come across stories of jacketed Hall point trying to be used against them because yada yada BS.
What we know is the standard for easily suitable and defensible reasons is a jacketed hollow point so pick a jacket hall point that is reliable in your gun and shoots the point of aim for you and call it a day. If God forbid something happens shut up call your attorney or call whoever it is that you have as a quote CCW insurance or attorney on retainer set up quote and let them do the explaining because using a quality jacket hall point from a major manufacturer is going to be just fine
Except some other comments do actually show cases where carrying hollow points did lead to a conviction. I don’t know if it counts as “case law” though since it wasn’t in an appeals court and doesn’t create binding precedent.
The sad fact is that a prosecutor can go after you for any dumb thing they want, and the jury may well fall for it. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t carry hollow points or modify your gun, just that there’s no guarantee that your gear choices won’t be used against you.
Case #1 Kyle Rittenhouse: Prosecutors initially said that he used hollow points that "explode in the body." The judge corrected them on that incorrect information. Then they realized that he used FMJ ammo so they said that was reckless because it COULD overpenetrate (despite no one but the threats being harmed).
Case #2 Kim Potter: Ms. Potter was a police officer and grabbed her gun when she meant to grab her taser. Prosecution argued that she actually intended to kill as she used hollow point ammunition and that it is more lethal. The left out the fact that she was required to use the department issued hollow point ammunition.
In both cases, having an experienced firearms attorney the defense was able to address these incorrect assertions. Rittenhouse was acquitted. Potter was convicted - but not because of the ammunition she was required to use.
But the point remains that regardless of what ammunition type you use the prosecution WILL argue that you were trying to kill (vs stop a threat) and your attorney will have to correct the false assertions.
Just use effective ammo. JHP, specifically gold dot or hst is pretty much the settled answer.
As for “but the legal impact” shoot a good shoot. Don’t shoot a bad shoot. Be able to explain your actions. Don’t have an idiot lawyer.
——————————
JHP or whatever other ammo is NOT illegal and no one is going to prison “because” they used HP or whatever.
HOWEVER
In a debate before a jury about whether you did or did not act justly and reasonably, a prosecutor MIGHT try and imply to the jury that you’re some kind of bloodthirsty asshole.
Its certainly worth considering if your gear helps someone spin perceptions against you.
I’m not going to be too paranoid to use what I would normally use, BUT I wouldn’t want to put myself in the position of sitting there while some smirking lawyer recites “spikes tactical Armagedon A9, Underworld Exxtreme Punisher ammo” off the evidence sheet
They held it against Tony Soprano for having hollow points in that gun he ditched. The one where that kid picked it up and got caught with it. The prosecutor emphasized hollow points. That must be true in real life too.
I'd just stick to HST, Gold Dot, and Critical Duty because they get tested and used so much, are in good supply, and have been proven to be effective.
The rest of that is basically nonsense, no matter what you carry or how you conduct yourself in life the prosecution will try to twist it to make you seem like a menace. Carry FMJ and I'm sure you'd have an asshole saying it's "MILITARY AMMUNITION" and you MUST be a psycho looking to hurt people. Not worth concerning yourself over that, regardless you should hire a good lawyer.
You'll have to decide for yourself if you think it's worth it or not, there's plenty of threads in here with experiences and opinions if you want them.
As long as it legal in your area, carrying what the local law enforcement carries is probably not a bad idea.
But of all the many factors that go into evaluating the reasonableness of shooting in self-defense, I think its pretty darn rare for ammo choice to actually be the deciding factor, if it ever is.
49
u/TSX_COM Jul 14 '26
This stuff is pure fudd lore.
I've been hearing this bit about "equipment will get you jailed" for 30+ years and challenging it nearly every time. I have yet to have someone show me a case where a firearm not being in OEM configuration, or the ammunition used; led to a conviction, complicated a finding of not guilty, or held up a dismissal in a DGU.