What is the test for a defendant's claim that he had to use "no more force than was reasonably necessary" to defend himself?

Appellant contends that CALCRIM No. 505 incorrectly states that he had to use "no more force than was reasonably necessary" to defend himself. He is mistaken, because "any right of self-defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances." (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 966; People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1065.) Also, "measures of self-defense cannot continue after the assailant is disabled . . . ." (People v. Lucas (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 305, 310 [after shooting an unarmed victim once, defendant was not justified in firing four more times until he was dead].) Appellant fired ten .45 caliber bullets into someone who was empty-handed and defenseless. The jury could reasonably reject appellant's claim that he used no more force than necessary.

b. CALCRIM No. 571