I have investigated, either as the primary investigator, co-investigator, or as part of a team, a significant number of shootings, unknown death investigations, etc. As well as attended numerous training schools related to the subject of forensic investigation.
Never, not once was the issue of whether the person was shooting handloads, reloads, or factory ammunition end up being a factor in the case, in terms of prosecutorial outcomes. Not one single time. This was also discussed with other investigators from various state/federal agencies throughout the country when attending training.
Not one single time did anyone have any personal experience with an investigation where that was the case. Again, not one single time. And we are talking about combining literally thousands of shootings/investigations. Senior guys groan when some new guy brings up the dang question and it eats up time during the class too, as it gets covered over and over, year after year.
New Jersey v. Daniel Bias was brought up. It is such a statistical outlier that it is not worth bothering with.
Think about this.
These are rough numbers BTW.
NJ vs Bias happened in 1989.
There are (very roughly) 15,000 homicides a year.
That would be over 450,000 homicides since the NJ vs Bias.
Yet handloads have not really been a factor in those 450,000 cases, so guys are digging all the way back to the 80s.
Someone who makes his living selling fear based propaganda and classes is not a person I would rely on for unbiased information.
There are far more important things to worry about.
Thanks. I feel better about my casual ammo management now. Seriously.
