[1] The legal issues regarding the use of handloads for self defense have been discussed here. See:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423771
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391656
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394682
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397127
[2] Just some high points --
1. Yes, a good shoot is a good shoot. But you won't be deciding if it was a good shoot. Other folks will. And if you're on trial, someone who matters didn't think it was a good shoot. Now it's not a good shoot unless the jury says so.
2. If you've been involved in a shooting in which you claim self defense and if, for some reason, gunshot residue (GSR) test results will be important to your defense, GSR test results will not be admissible into evidence if you used handloads. It won't matter how good your records may be. They are suspect, because they are yours. You will not be able to establish the necessary foundation for admission of GSR test results of your handloads because you will not be able to satisfactorily establish that the handloads tested were the same as the rounds fired in the incident.
3. It will be highly unlikely that any members of your jury will have any knowledge of or interest in guns or shooting. Your reasons for using handloads will strike them as too "inside baseball", and they will probably not be receptive to them.
4. If you're on trial in a shooting in which you're claiming self defense, you probably have a number of problems. Handloads can become one more thing that will need to be explained, one more "wild card." As a general rule in court, the less you have to explain, the better off you'll be. You won't have to explain handloads if you didn't use them and used factory ammunition instead.
5. There aren't cases on the issue because it's most likely that there are very few self defense incidents in which handloads have been used.
[3] Some of these points are discussed in greater detail and at greater length in the threads I've linked to.
[4] I practiced law for over 30 years before retiring a few years ago. I will not use handloads for self defense applications.
[5] The case alluded to in post 4 is the case of Daniel Bias. It was not a self defense case. But that doesn't matter for our purposes. What is significant for us in Bias is a matter of the rules of evidence, and those rules and their application are the same in all types of cases.
Daniel Bias was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, killing his wife. He claimed she committed suicide. Part of the prosecution's case was that test firings of commercial ammunition bearing the same headstamp as the round fired showed GSR deposits on the target at the distance from which Bias claimed his wife shot herself. But there was no GSR on the shot wife.
Bias claimed that the gun his wife used to shoot herself with was loaded with very light handloads he prepared for her self defense use. They were very light because Bias' wife was sensitive to recoil.
Test firings by an expert engaged by Bias of ammunition that Bias claimed matched the loading of the round that killed his wife showed no GSR deposits on the target at the critical distance. However, the judge would not allow those test results to be entered into evidence on the grounds that there was insufficient foundation to establish that the ammunition tested did indeed match the death round.
[6] The lesson for us from Bias is that if we fire a gun in self defense and it becomes necessary or desirable to our legal defense to look to GSR test evidence to help corroborate our story, e. g., our distance from the alleged assailant when we fired, we might be out of luck if we used handloaded ammunition.
That might not come up in every self defense case, but we have no way of knowing in advance if it might come up in ours, if we're ever unlucky enough to be in that position. But it does come up as shown in
this post on another board by Marty Hayes (who's a member here as well).
[7] The result in Bias is actually consistent with basic evidentiary principles.
Say you may want to introduce GSR evidence to corroborate your story about how the event took place.
You therefore engage an expert to conduct tests reproducing the circumstances of the event. You want the test results to validate your story of how things took place. If you're claiming self defense, you're hoping that your expert witness can take ammunition which can be established to be substantially identical to the ammunition you shot the alleged attacker with under conditions replicating the shooting as you have contended it took place and produce GSR similar to the GSR produced at the scene. And that will, you hope, allow your expert to testify that in his opinion the shooting took place as you had described it.
That can only work, and you can get the sort of expert testimony you need in your defense, if the judge can be satisfied that the ammunition tested by your expert was substantially identical to the ammunition with which you shot the guy you claim attacked you.
If you used handloads, the only evidence you can offer to support the claim that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the ammunition used in the claimed self defense event will be your testimony to that effect. Your testimony on that point would be suspect because you are vitally interested in the outcome and there can be no independent corroboration of your claim as to what was in the ammunition you used to defend yourself with.
On the other hand, if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, the you could show that Federal Cartridge Company manufactures large quantities subject to certain quality controls to a certain degree of uniformity. In addition, Federal Cartridge Company is a non-involved third party making ammunition for sale to the general public. That would most likely establish an adequate foundation to secure admission into evidence of GSR test results of exemplar Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition in support of your expert's opinion.
It's all about being able to perform a test under conditions that a judge can be convinced mirror the event sufficiently to permit an expert to draw valid conclusions about the event from the test results.
[8] To me, the avoidance of handloads is a simple decision. They're really not going to give me any advantage on the street, so I have no reason to take any risk, no matter how small, by using them.
Perhaps if I am ever involved in a self defense shooting handloads will be the least of my worries. But by avoiding using handloads for self defense handloads go from being among the least of my worries to handloads being no worry at all.
If I ever have to use a gun in self defense, my lawyer and I will have a lot to do and a lot to concern ourselves with. I see no reason to throw a wild card like handloads into the mix.