This is without question, there is no debate, and to say reloads could get you in trouble in a case where deadly force was authorized is nothing but fear mongering, legally false, and absurd.
The link provided by TX Nimrod to Massad Ayoob's writing about some cases should show you that saying reloads could get you in trouble is neither fear mongering, false, or absurd.
The point you seem to be missing is the point shown in the linked cases. The question wasn't about whether or not reloads are legal, the question was about how reloads complicate the chain of evidence and how they can alter the EXPECTED forensic test results, where there is some dispute between what the defendant (you) say happened, and what the prosecution says happened.
Do remember that when you become the defendant, ALL your statements, AND your records are in question. Your records of what load it was don't prove anything to the court. Your ammo might be evidence, not allowed to be "destroyed" in testing. There's no "proof" that what you SAY was in the gun is what was in the gun when fired. Things like that cast doubt, and doubt of YOUR story aids their story.
There are things that go on in court that make a big difference, nuances of language, how trained experts speak, and what exactly they mean is shaped by what questions get asked, and not asked, which affect what the jury HEARS.
And its not quite like it is on TV, but that is what the jury is expecting, which further confuses things.
Go watch MY COUSIN VINNEY, for a comical, but good example of how actual valid factual evidence is given, but it IMPLIES something else to the jury.
One example (not from that movie) is about "ballistic matching" a fired bullet to a specific gun. General public believes it can be done, but you will virtually never find a true expert who will say that in court. They'll state caliber, size, weight, all the verifiable things, and they'll tell you about how it was fired from a barrel with a certain twist and depth of rifling, again, all verifiable physical things.
Then they will state expert testimony that the rifling is
consistent with being fired from a Colt, or whatever brand. Consistent with, NOT "was fired from the gun in evidence" but "consistent with being fired from the gun in evidence, People's exhibit A "
A small nuance of language that most people would miss the significance of, and one the Prosecutor certainly won't point out.
We argue endlessly about how a small fraction of an inch bullet diameter and a few feet per second difference in speed "make a difference" that matters. How is so difficult to understand that choosing to use handloads as defensive ammunition won't also, possibly make a difference if you wind up in court?
Just because its not illegal doesn't mean its a good idea. Lots of things in that group, not just defensive ammo...