Do you consider ammo company PR in choices?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

From an old research interest of mine on appearance. I've read a case (not Fish) and confidential where in an ambiguous shoot, the jury clearly discussed the use of hollow point bullets by the defendant. Initial discussions by the jury (as later related) were that the choice of ammo must indicate intention to kill and thus guilt. Later the SD aspects finally won the day against the most serious charge but the lesser charge actual sentence given by the judge was influenced by the use of HP rounds (judge said so).

Thus, I see this ad, which type I've mentioned before for this company: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...wilson-combat/

Deadliest Bullet on the Planet!

Contrast to :

Critical Defense®
Personal Protection / Concealed Carry

Critical Defense® handgun ammunition was developed to provide the best performance for DEFENSIVE or PERSONAL PROTECTION SITUATIONS

I know the standard argument is to pick something used by the law in your area. A counter is: SO - you think you are police officer!

However, my question is do you consider the more 'out there' rhetoric in ammo choices. Not to pick on the company or their business model. With the lawsuits over advertising (Remington), it's a thought.

[BBMW]

I'd go with the ammo popular with LE. You showed your counter argument. But show where that counterargument has been used in court and been successful. I think if you have a good attorney, he could shoot that argument down pretty easily.

[4RNR]

Yes but not for those reasons. To me these tough/killer/macho/deadly/tactical names just sound cheesy and make it seem like they came up with a product around a name and not the other way around.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[JAH 3rd]

I was taught one shoots to stop the threat, not to kill. One retort for using JHP ammo is that you want the bullet to stay in the body, not pass through and hit an innocent person.

We remember when Glock first came out the word was it could pass through a metal detector because the frame was polymer. In a court setting I would also BOLO for wild, unsubstantiated claims that jurors and judges believe as fact which needed to be strongly rebutted. Unfortunately in today's legal environment, one is usually tried in the press long before a jury trial.

[joshs]

I'd go with the ammo popular with LE. You showed your counter argument. But show where that counterargument has been used in court and been successful. I think if you have a good attorney, he could shoot that argument down pretty easily.

The lawsuits don't have to be successful to be expensive. In the Soto v Bushmaster case, the court directly cited numerous ads that led the court to conclude that there was a potential violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act. That's why the PLCAA's litigation bar didn't apply. While I disagree with the court's conclusion, it's hard to argue that wasn't a successful use of advertising against a manufacturer.

[OlongJohnson]

I know the standard argument is to pick something used by the law in your area. A counter is: SO - you think you are police officer!

@Mas comes to mind most readily when thinking of this line of reasoning, as he has advocated it many times. I think the way he presents the argument would include the counter to that attack. If done well, you would have already answered the question with the right answer, and you would just repeat what you had already explained.

But yeah, I think avoiding ammo marketing that puts one at a disadvantage, just as avoiding firearm marketing that puts one at a disadvantage, is wise.

Several years ago, Hornady was selling "Zombie" ammo that was basically V-Max and maybe some CD stuff with a green instead of red poly tip. Great bullets, often available at a good price. But I remember it being called out specifically as possibly not great to have in your ammo stash if your stuff got inventoried post-shoot.

[CCT125US]

Yes I do.

[FrankB]

It looks like only their rifle rounds have “Deadliest in the World” printed on the box.



I would NOT use a round that was labeled as “Deadliest in the World”, “R.I.P”, or “Nuke ‘em All”.

[okie john]

I've spent 20 years in advertising and marketing. I'd advise any of my clients to avoid language like that, and I'd personally avoid any products that used it in their advertising.

Nothing good comes of it.


Okie John

[LockedBreech]

I generally use Gold Dots or HST (other other Doc's List options) because of their reliability and terminal characteristics, but also because there is a lot of literature about how because they reliably hit the FBI protocol range, they limit overpenetration. I could testify that I use them to make sure to defend myself as safely as possible because that's a true statement.

As for the "So you think you're a cop" argument - I can see that getting some traction in the more anti-gun jurisdictions, but I also feel that any decent defense attorney could throw up ten quick counter-arguments to that. Maybe talk about how many people own Mag Lites or have quick tourniquets in their first aid kits - police gear is often affordable and reliable, of course non-police want to emulate that.

That being said, this exact discussion is why I've never gone within a mile of Zombie ammo, RIP Ammo, or any sort of fun/scary logos on my Glock backplate or ammo cases. I hope to never use my equipment in self-defense but if I ever do I want the jury and judge to be crystal clear that I took it seriously.