RX-79G said:
It's not a bet I'm likely to take, but what I've read lately about forensics in the US suggests that even complex crimes aren't getting the attention they deserve. Is there actually a test or match related to burn, residue and the rounds recovered that will actually come to the conclusion that something is fishy with the load?
Why do the lab guys need a special test? I suspect that coffee cans of brass, the reloading press and 7 remaining pounds of powder at the shooter's house might clue them in. Don't think the police will be searching the shooter's house? They may not, but it's certainly not out of the question. Let's not overlook the shooter's statements, either. SD is a justification defense, which means that the SD shooter may well wind up talking to the police. Then the police just have to ask "what kind of ammo were you using?"
My point is that there is a pretty wide variety of ways that the police/prosecutor/State can come to the conclusion that handloads or reloads were used. They don't all involve high-tech scientific testing.
That said, I don't deal with any state crime labs other than the Arkansas State Crime lab, but I'll grant you that the folks who work there are overloaded, and that I suspect that many state crime labs are the same way.
RX-79G said:
It's like the debate about removing a mag safety: Sure, it may be a bad idea, but who's actually looking for that evidence?
It just seems paranoid to think that the lab guy is going to make sure that residue matches the round by any other means than firing another round because even factory ammo might have powder changes from lot to lot.
There's a very specific "constellation of events" that can lead handloads to become an issue in the trial of an SD shooting. If they do, though, then the consequences can be very severe.
Even though there may be variations from lot to lot on factory rounds, if there's a question as to the performance of a factory round, the SD shooter can subpoena records or personnel from that factory and have that lot analyzed by his or her expert. OTOH, an SD shooter using his or her own handloads is faced with the problem of asking a judge to allow expert opinion testimony based on samples of evidence created by the defendant himself. If the SD shooter can't get his evidence admitted at trial, it's no good to him.
RX-79G said:
Meanwhile, guys are installing 3.5 connectors from target guns in their carry Glocks and no one calls that out. It all seems a little myopic.
If we really wanted to take this sort of thing seriously we'd only use common police issue unmodified guns, ammo and holsters.
I wouldn't say that "no one calls that out." For example, here are some TFL threads:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=483157&highlight=mods
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=481756
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=464518
The legal effect of gun mods often crops up in the "handloads/reloads and SD" threads, too. I haven't gone over to The High Road or GlockTalk (where I'm also found on occasion) to look for gun modification/legal issues threads, but I do know that they're out there.
However, gun mods lead to a different set of legal issues than handloads do.