JackDaWack

It's a pistol accessory, that's all. Legal.

This stuff is in stock everyday. If you need plinking ammo better scoop some up.

Yeah stock shoes are really just meant for flat driveways there so short.

Could be the surface he was clearing. Aluminum is super soft. So many aftermarket options these days with composites if you need that, the Arians shoes flip over once you wear them out so you get 2x the life. Yet after 4 years of use, they still look barely used.

One day I'm gonna make this joke in front of people that have no idea what I'm talking about, and as I laugh they will look upon me as a total moron/jackass.. And It will still be worth it.

Dealerships are not what they used to be, I can't beleive how many were willing to let a sale walk out the door over small negotiations.

I use the k&m hand primer for .223, its gets a bit taxing by the 500th case. Since I had to remove the crimp at the primer pocket, I like the feel I get with hand priming to know I swaged enough. Once the brass goes through a cycle I have no issues priming on the press. But I got a couple cases stuck in the press from primers not seating fully due to the crimp no fully removed. I like to process my brass, and prime it. Then it all goes into a can ready for powder and bullet when I get around to it. This way I can load small batches, but process the brass in large lots.

If handloads don't fit in nicely with their "data" on factory ammo it doesn't constitute fooling anyone. They simply have no standard to compare to. My point is that regardless, unless you're using some super special bullets, powder or primers, they all produce similar GSR at short distances based on what they can test for. Whether its the basic components in a primer, the copper or lead from the bullets, or stabilizers or nitrates in the powder. "Clean burning" powder is not any less dense in what is detectable since they typical don't look for the substances that produce smoke. At least from what I have gathered from various law enforcement studies I have not read anything to the contrary unless it was used for a visual inspection, which would be close enough for burn marks. If you shoot someone within close range they will have GSR on them, with out a doubt if you are in a confined space at any reasonable distance. If some prosecutor can't place you at exactly the distance, that's not your problem. 99% of the people who handload most likely produce extremely similar GSR patterns as major manufacturers across the same calibers.

Smokeless powders don't leave GSR based on "cleanliness". They look for trace elements contained in all smokeless powder. At least that is from what I have read and understand from forensic science. Whether you are examining the reactant of unburnt or "Dirty" powder, vs the products of combustion... either or would be present regardless of the powder used. The visible smoke is a good indicator of the distance GSR can travel with the naked eye. But a forensic examination is most likely running a swab across clothing and doing a test through chromatography or another element identifying process. Instead of looking for compounds, they look for the standard elements in gunpowder.

Using a case of "suicide" by gun shot to the back of the head is hardly ground breaking reasoning not to use hand loads. And GSR will be on anyone, using any rounds, if self inflicted. There is not a hand load out there that exists that wouldnt do that. If you use handloads neither you, nor the state has ballistic data to use in court. Thats not a lose for the defense, it's a draw. And lets be real, ballistic data doesn't change much at short home self defense ranges. I'm finding it incredibly hard to beleive, especially with the lack of physical evidence, that hand loads dont leave GSR at the same distances a factory load would. This was my point.

Ugh, so much stupid in those links. If the system is trying to screw you it will have little to do with handloads, not a single argument in those links has ever been used, and would never work with a half competent lawyer. If anything, load your rounds hot so there is plenty of extra GSR to go around, lol

I thought we were talking about hollow points for self defense in the home? In which case I would use them for all of the above, or alternatively polymer tipped.

Huh? Does the motto, "always be prepared" strike a chord? By that standard who even needs a gun? People who are informed and prepared wont be caught with their pants down, and most likely best positioned to protect their home/family during and after any events. I wouldnt be shooting ball ammunition in my home of any caliber.

They're still dumdum rounds, and regulated all the same as hollow points. This is why you dont listen to the NJSP. If its a bullet designed to expand its regulated to possession in certain locations.. ie allowed by exemption. Doesnt matter if the tip is filled with a polymer by NJ statute becuaaw they very clearly use the term "dumdum". Since there is zero language about use, the premise is simple. You can use them where they are legal to possess.

What kind of arguments do you expect from someone citing the njsp website?

I find it incredibly amusing that people have this expectation to pay prepandemic prices on ammo. Just saw a WTB here that apparently has an issue with paying market prices. That's like asking to buy gold, but refusing to pay spot price for it because.. well... because it used to be cheaper. LOL. If you're buying ammo from someone, you should fully expect to pay them what it would cost them to replace it, which isn't possibly at retail prices... so suck it up. If that were possible you wouldn't be here trying to score ammo below market value.

Rcbs make a standard die for any press.

True, but with a cop out die it locks you out before that. Problem with titegroup is you will spike faster with an overcharge.

Powder cop die is a must for a progressive press. I set mine to lock out on the max side. If I under charge its no biggie before it locks me out on that side.

I use titegroup in 9mm exclusively and I'm pretty sure you would have to compressed the charge significantly. Im also pretty sure that would blow up your gun, or do some kind of damage. Titegroup spikes rapidly. It could have just been a hot charge and no necessarily a double.

Is it possible to double charge a 9mm with titegroup? I feel like that would be hard to do. A 45acp I could see that happening.

Could be what im always afraid of, bullet setback. I factory crimp all my rounds to prevent that.

I'm guessing you didn't read the SCOTUS complaint, or the article. Basically everything you claim isnt anywhere to be found in either... Of course I'm a bore, who could be bothered with reading the complaint and just pulling an argument out of their ass. The red flag laws have been instituted under the constitutionality of the police having reason to believe you will harm yourself or others, using the same caretaking aspect of their duties.. These actions described here are the efforts of police to subvert the courts and ERPO's and use the caretaking exemption to take your guns without even needing a warrant. Since this occurred in 2015, RI didn't have ERPOs. However, SCOTUS can set precedent and require a constitutional test be set prior to confiscation of firearms, that ruling could very well effect how red flag laws are instituted, or worse if they aren't even needed! The cops didn't fall back on anything, they lied to the wife under the guise of using a real exemption that didn't require a warrant. Really not that hard to understand here. Their original report did not at all, ever, state the wife gave permission, and then had to backtrack and find an alternative legal reason. Factually speaking, the two arguments of the case are whether a police officer was "reasonable" in the seizure of both the individual and the firearms. Both key stone principles to red flag laws. Feel free to make the conversation less "boring" by providing citations to your argument.

How so? The complaint refers directly to the community caretaking exception being used by Law Enforcement as a reason for the search, and that they claim neither the wife nor the husband consented to the search. The entire SOTUS decisions will handle on that. No some lie they told the wife. "And in this venue, the defendants press no argument that they secured valid consent from the plaintiff's wife to seize the firearms." In short, the cops may have lied to the woman to gain entry, but they are not using her consent as a reason for the search and seizure. They refer to it as deception to execute the seizure using the community care taking exception. Cops lie all the time... and by lying to the wife they broke no laws, if in fact SCOTUS rules the exception holds. The search would be considered legal whether she consented or not, and thus coercing her to consent by lying is moot.

That's not what the police are using as an excuse to search the house. They are not claiming consent.