How many here do carry hand loads for the carry ammo ? Now I do know it is not legally recomended cause it opens up an exrta liability factor, but if one was to load the same bullet, case, primer and powder (if possiable) to the same velocity or slightly lower than the factory ones shoot would it be out of the question ? lets have some imput here ?

Well sorry to bother , I have not seen this question ask before

It gets discussed fairly often in various threads about defensive ammunition but not often in a dedicated thread like this one.
I am not aware of any actual court cases where the use of handloaded ammo was an issue, but personally would not want to be the first test case. I am sure that there are plaintiff's attorneys out there who research these things and may be eager to bring the matter up under favorable (to them) circumstances. Why give the opposing counsel anything extra to use against you in court? Having said that, if the shooting is ruled justifiable, you would probably be OK and if it is ruled unjustifiable, you will have worse things to worry about.

Back in the days when good defensive factory ammo was rare, reloads might have been worth carrying. Today, however, the factories are putting out excellent ammunition and there is no ballistic or terminal performance advantage to reloaded ammo for defensive purposes.

Another factor is that, honestly, many reloaders do not produce handgun ammunition that is as good as they think it is. If one round in 50 has a high primer or a bulged case, Murphy's Law will place that round under the firing pin when the fur starts to fly.

I vote for factory ammo only for serious social purposes. But it's a free country.

I often end up carrying reloads. Generally speaking its 230 round nose lead cast bullets in a 45acp.

Because thats whats in the gun and mags when I was shooting it last, and I fail to remember to change ammo out.

Doesn't worry my mind one bit. I do make sure the wife typically has factory though, I'd hate for her to be aggravated by one extra thing in court if it ever happened....

FWIW I'm a competition shooter and so is my wife. Last time I cranked out 45s, it was appx 5000 rounds. We have not quite fired all that yet... I have yet to hit one that failed....

I have settled into using factory ammunition in my semi auto pistols. The commercial loads do what I want, and are readily available.
I hand load for my defense revolvers, as well as my hunting/outdoors revolvers. Being able to tailor a specific load for a specific purpose, is important to me.


I have always felt it was utter BS that hand loads were a legal liability.

If I were to have a non speed related traffic accident in my Shelby Cobra with overbore cylinders and quad carbs and blower, i would not worry about that either. If you are meticulously drilling out the noses and filling them with arsenic and curare, then you might have a problem.

There it is!!!

Massad Ayoob popularized the theory that you should only carry factory loads due to them being less liable in a court case. At some point, people started questioning this and by now I think most people can't recite any cases where it mattered.

As far as loading for practice...my thought has always been that the place you save some money is in the bullet. You can take a good cast bullet and load it to the same velocity and have a practice load that duplicates your carry load, recoil-wise, without the expense of either factory loads or premium bullets. Then you carry either factory or reloads with the bullets you want.

I'm like Rost495. I have loaded literally tens of thousands of handgun rounds and have yet to have one not go bang. I carry reloads in all my hand guns and don't worry about it.Fact is I think besides 22 RF ammo,I might have at best 50 rounds of commercial 9mm ammo on hand and that is only becasue PMC put out a bunch of crap 22 RF ammo and they sent me this as an additive when they replaced two cases of the 22 ammo.

Great guys I am pretty much seeing a coming theme here . I personally like gold dots for a defence bullet but around here you cant hardly find them in factory loads and if you do you have to go to the bank to get a loan. But have noticed from my reloading suppier gold dots are about the same money as dang old win. HP. My goal will be to get once fired speer nickle brass. use the correct cci primer try to find the factory type of powder and charge if I cant I will chrono a factory round or two and match velocity. any other suggestions ?

I could not fnd any 10mm ammo that duplicated the original Norma/Dorneaus and Dixon power level, and no one was loading Gold dots or similar in 10mm factory loads So.... I played around with variou spowders and such and came up with 14.6gr of AA#9 with 180gr Gold Dots at 1375fps with no issues running them in my much modified Delta Elite.

IF someone MADE a factory load that was this good, I would buy it and use it but they don't so I roll my own.

IMO, if a shooting is legally "Righteous" it will matter little if the ammo is factory or home made. If the shooting is not legally correct, it still will not matter you are in deep kimshee. Might be an issue in a personal injury situation/courtroom but I am pretty judgement proof these days.

I carry factory ammo, not my own handloads, for defensive purposes.
The so called legal issues are not the reason(s) I do. Factory ammo comes with coatings and sealants to make for a long self life. I simply am not setup to make this type of ammo. That and the brass has no dings in it which can cause a hangup. Doesn't happen often, but it can.
I practice with handloads because it's much cheaper. The ones I use shoot the same zero as my carry ammo.
BTW, I don't buy the special tactical ammo. Mine is the simple white box, 230 gr. Winchester HP, .45 ACP stuff which has plenty of power for anything, even shooting through doors and windshield glass. Now, if I packed a 9mm, I'd probably buy the Hornady stuff that works even when it hits drywall and clothing, etc.
Really, the only things I concern myself with in a carry gun is (a) hitting the Bad Guy and (b) making sure the gun works all of the time. And in that order. E

This is one of two areas where I entirely ignore Massad Ayoob's advice...



The other would be toupee choice.

I once heard Ayoob say in regards to this and certain other weapon mods something along the lines of "Being involved in a shooting can put anyone on thin ice. I just want to keep people where it's thickest."

That is a very good metaphor in that, even if you think the odds of such practices as handloading defense ammo holds very, very little real-world risk (and this is what I think) there's no denying that it COULDN'T be an issue. I mean, you could get hit by a meteorite too, unlikely as it might be. Factory ammo affords less risk of some beserk DA trying to make a big deal out of it. And remember, even if you can completely refute his histrionics it would probaly cost you lawyer time to do so.

Is there risk? Yes. Is it very, very slight? Yes. Your call.

Im a hand loader also,my wifes guns are all loaded with factory.
For me Some times its factory but more often than not its its my own.got a great deal on 9mm and 45 Gold dots a while back and have about 1500 of each loaded up.Hard to pay factory prices with the ammo I have put up.

The risk, however small, in using reloaded ammo (other than any risk of malfunction due to loading errors) would not be likely to exist in the criminal investigation of a shooting. The shooting is either justified or it is not. You will either be charged with a crime based on probable cause or you will not.

The risk would be centered on the civil proceeding that may follow a shooting, whether justified or not. Anybody can sue anybody for anything, and if you shoot somebody there is a great possibility of being the target of a lawsuit, regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation.

In a civil suit, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The side that has the largest 'stack" of evidence will probably win. The use of reloads may end up being one of the items in the stack. It MIGHT be the final thing that sways a jury to a finding of gross negligence.

Personally I prefer to do the simple things that could reduce my risk, whether it is wearing my seat belt while driving or being a bit overcautious about the ammo I carry.

A good Plaintiff's attorney will study this subject and gather up every bit of manure he possibly can to fling at you in the courtroom, hoping that some of it sticks. Why supply him with an extra handful to throw?

Mr Smith, I understand you are a chef?

Yes sir.

How many knives do you own?

A few, of course I have some for work, and some for hobby.

Do you sharpen your own knives, Mr Smith?

Why yes I do.

Do you carefully hone the edges so to be as sharp as possible Mr Smith?

Yes sir.

Did you use one of those carefully honed and polished knives to stab your assailant? (Of course it would be "the law abiding plaintiff")

No I used a dull butterknife, because that was all I had at the time.

So you are a professional user of knives Mr Smith, even dull butter knives?



I could go on and on with that one...

Coatings and sealants for bullets, come otu of a fingernail type polish bottle... easy to buy, easy to use, assuming you feel the need.

Of course I would think we've loaded some 200,000 or more rounds of 223 for competition over the years... the ONLY place I've had a failure in them is the 3am batches probably... I recall 2 rounds that never got powder.... And though this was not rely your life on ammo, it damn sure aint' cheap to shoot all year and then travel from TX to Ohio and stay and shoot a couple weeks with costs and entry fees etc.... IE I wouldn't risk bad ammo in that instance either.

IMHO I can make better and more reliable ammo than the factory can...

About a year or 2 ago Ayoob responded to a thread like this, might have been on Rugerforum, can't recall.
Anyway, he cited 2 cases where guys are currently doing hard time because they weren't using factory ammo. One of them involved shooting the defendant's wife, he said suicide, prosecutor said murder.

So, you guys go ahead and keep stoking your handloads, and keep that Alfred E Neuman smile on your face. I'll continue to practice with reloads and carry factory.


Pete

I carry reloads. I shoot Gold Dots; 45 acp in my Ed Brown Special Forces and 38/357 Mag in my BUG S&W 340CT. I first buy a box of the factory stuff for each cartridge and chrono it. I then find a powder like Solo 1000 that gives me the accuracy I demand as well as zero to nil muzzle flash. I then load it to the same velocity as the factory stuff. It's easy to prove my loads run the same velocity as the factory stuff.

Alan

I would use factory loads for SD because factory loads can be tested against a standard and certified. Hand loads can not be tested against a standard and cannot be certified.Pick your poison.

I'm curious as to what jurisdiction it's okay to shoot your wife, as long as you use factory ammo?

Was thinking the same thing... using different ammo won't change the charges... sounds pretty stupid to me.

Now what if you have tritium sights. Especially aftermarket? Sounds like you are looking for a fight at night.
What about the folks that don't use out of the crate guns? Modify them? Or heaven forbid a custom gun DESIGNED to protect you and kill others? Or worse yet one you smithed yourself?

And then heaven forbid if you touched the factory sight setting to zero the gun?

Non standard holster? Crap my wife will be in deep as she carries in a shoulder bag that we sewed a holster into...

Or if I'm wearing handmade clothing from Mom or such when I have to protect myself....

Whatever... you are either right or wrong. its the Indian and not the arrow as always.

It was an enormous clusterhump of a case. To cut it short the problematic part was what DD alluded to a few posts up. The rounds were super-soft handloads intended for his wife to shoot with almost no recoil. The result however was a load that left practically no GSR on the "victim" at a range that, the prosecution's argument went, should have had at least some GSR. The court ruled that handloads weren't admissable since it's essentially impossible to provide a testable/repeatable exemplar. You don't KNOW what THAT cartridge did until you fired it, basically destroying the evidence. Sure, you can testify that it's POSSIBLE to create a load that left the GSR signature in question but there's no way verify that the one used in the actual shooting was the same. (don't try to argue it, that's what the case said)

I don't particularly like this case since any SD ammo I can imagine anyone here would load would be roughly a factory analogue so the above wouldn't have happened with anything I, for instance, would have loaded in a SD weapon. Still, there IS the issue of factory ammo providing a vetted exemplar for forensic testing that is on MUCH firmer ground than anything a court is likely to accept from handloads.

I'm sticking with my "death by meteorite" position. You would have to be one SERIOUSLY unlucky bastage to have things turn out where the fact you were using handloads mattered...but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Don't recall all the details, but if you really were interested in the subject I'd suggest contacting Ayoob. He doesn't bite.

GAAR and I overlapped. Thanks for the post.

Pete

anything is possible, just saying that in the scheme of things worrying about your ammo, other than it being totally reliable, is about the last thing I'd worry about.

You can get sued for damn near anything.

#1 - Biggest myth on the internet since e-mails saying microsoft will give you money for using their e-mail.

#2 - If you can't rely on your reloads, under any conditions, you should take up knitting.

IMHO it's the extremes on both sides that are overwrought. Anyone that claims there are NO actual risks involved in carrying handloads hasn't boned up on the legalities. What some other the other side posit would have you think that it's better to just leave your weapon at home than risk carrying handloads.

There IS a risk and there are actual cases that set this forth.

BUT

You are almost as likely to be driving by a river and be the only person there to pull the Victoria's Secret models to safety after their bus crashed, thereby earning their profound sexual gratitude, than having handloads (or caliber, or trigger, etc) be an issue in a shooting. (unless you really did screw up and then they really will throw anything and everything at you)

ok let ask a different way if the round fired in this case had been a factory , would the defendent have walked ?

The defendant's name was Daniel Bias. The case is NJ v Bias. If you're curious enough you can look up the whole thing but the part germane to the topic is pretty much summed up by this quote from John Lanza, the defense att in the first* case:

�When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant. Once used, there is no way, with certainty, to determine the amount of powder or propellant used for that load. This becomes significant when forensic testing is used in an effort to duplicate the shot and the resulting evidence on the victim or target. With the commercial load, one would be in a better position to argue the uniformity between the loads used for testing and the subject load. With a hand load, you have no such uniformity. Also, the prosecution may utilize either standard loads or a different hand load in its testing. The result would be distorted and could be prejudicial to the defendant. Whether or not the judge would allow such a scientific test to be used at trial, is another issue, which, if allowed, would be devastating for the defense. From a strictly forensic standpoint, I would not recommend the use of hand loads because of the inherent lack of uniformity and the risk of unreliable test results. Once the jury hears the proof of an otherwise unreliable test, it can be very difficult to �unring the bell."

*There were actually 4(!) trials. The first and second trials both ended in hung juries. So after giving up on trying to get him on murder charges the state fell back and on the third attempt, though falling short of the Agg Manslaughter charge they did manage to make a Reckless Manslaughter stick in the third trial. There were enough questions to actually get him a 4th trial but he got RM in that one too.

Sonofabitch. Ayoob had it right, after all.

Who'd a thunk it?

I cast a 235 grain truncated cone and load it for all my 45 shooting. It is my bowling pin load, my plinking load and my every day carry and defense load.

I believe in the KISS principle.

Yeah. We have one case that is completely irrelevant to use of reloads in a defensive situation, and another "mystery" case we have no details on. Sorry, not buying it.

A couple years back Ayoob was involved in a long piss-fight type thread on the smith-wessonforum. He was defending Marshall and Sanow, which is itself irrelevant, but his arguments and demeanor were less than impressive to me for someone supposed to be a font of wisdom. His name alone, which is essentially all that we have been presented with here, isn't enough to convince me.

Here's a question for the tinfoil crowd:

If your factory ammo uses a bullet that is available separately as a component, how do you intend to prove that your ammo was not a special "baby-killer" handload you concocted specifically to violate your victim's civil rights?

Forget Ayoob, it's the lawyer's statement I quoted concerning forensic evidence that's carrying the water here. There is absolutely demonstrable court precedence that handloads can badly muddy the water in the forensic dept of reconstructing a shooting. If that evidence would have proven exculpatory wouldn't it be best to have it on the firmest ground possible?

Setting aside the actual "likelihood" of it being an issue it's simply not possible to rationally dismiss the fact there IS a risk associated with handloads over factory IF forensic reconstruction of a shooting matters.

I'm not all that impressed with the lawyer's statement either, and the precedent doesn't seem remotely relevant to a defense shooting.

What if I provided 100 or more of my reloads to an independent lab to take down and measure the powder charge or do whatever they wanted to? That would provide more than enough statistical "certainty" that the effects could be recreated. And I'm not sure I even see how this would come up in a defense shooting, to be honest.

I blew up a 1911 once with factory ammo. I'd like to hear something about the certainty of that powder charge.

let me ask a different way if this round that was fired in the case had been a factory round , would the guy have walked ?

Factory ammo is assembled with the freshest of components, pass through innumerable double checks and safeguards, and are developed after extensive testing, including terminal bullet performance. How do your reloads stack up against that? My error rate for handloads is practically nonexistent, but the factorys error rate is much lower than mine.

Would I use my own ammo for self-defense if necessary? Without question. Is it my first choice? Nope, but it should be adequate.

And what, exactly, would be your answer to the lawyers's observations GLEANDED FROM WHAT HE ACTUALLY FACED AT TRIAL. There is nothing hypothetical about the issues that CAN arise from the use handloads vs factory. None. I have stated many times in this thread that I condisider the conditions that would make that an issue "unlikely" but it can happen because it HAS happened. The SD aspect is a bit of a red herring. Think of it this way- if a case, ANY case, comes down to forensic evidence being pivotal then wouldn't it damn well behoove a person to have that evidence on the most solid ground possible?

Your second question shows you've not yet grasped what the lawyer was trying to impart. With handloads YOU literally manufactured the evidence and there is no way you're going to be able to demonstrate, to a court's satisfaction, that anything else YOU produced is necessarily going to be indicative of what was actually used in the shooting itself as the firing of a round destroys that evidence. Look at it yet another way-just because what you are trying to argue makes sense in YOUR head or even MY head does not mean it's going to be allowable in whole or even in part at trial.

We've got 20/20 hindesite on this one. It absolutely (no statement of likelihood here mind you) CAN AND HAS mattered.

The amusing thing is in the last xxx shootings I have been involved in investigating(suicide, self defense, drive-by, armed robbery, etc), not once did anyone give a rats ass if the ammo was a reload or factory.

Not once.

Speaking absolutes here is dubious but as I understand the case the incongruity of the GSR evidence (due to the particular handload used) with the known distance (arms length) in play was the key piece of evidence that turned this case from a possible suicide to a murder charge. A factory load would A: have left GSR evidence consistent with what the ME would have anticipated and B: would have allowed for a readily available and court approved exemplar for confrimation.

At an absolute minimum a factory load would have supported the story as presented by the defence at trial. At best that evidence would have been sufficient, along with whatever else backed up the story, to have never had charges brought in the first place. Obviously we'll never know what would have happened but we do know what DID happen.

It would take a really nasty set of circumstances for it to be an issue. Which is a good thing of course.

Two lessons here, avoid all really nasty set of circumstances, and avoid at all costs NJ.

In common sense states this is a non issue. There is absolutely nothing that prohibits citizens from protecting themselves with any kind of ammunition.

Applies equally to factory ammo, is my point, which you have failed to grasp. And I think that lawyer is a dumbass.

Here is something else going completely over your head. All your screwy "precedent" claims to show is that the ballistics of your reloads cannot be established "with certainty" after the shooting, which would actually tend to work in your favor in the tinfoil scenarios proposed. How can they claim to prove you were using evil nasty reloads in that case?

Two points I always make:

First, just because nobody has ever been convicted because they used handloads (NJ vs Bias notwithstanding) does NOT mean nobody ever will. Smugly repeating that line will be no comfort to the first unlucky SOB who is.

Second, you can prevent that from ever happening to you simply by using factory ammo for carry and handloads for practice.

The way to prevent an unfair conviction is to not use a weapon in a questionable situation, the load is not the most important factor to consider

Well...no.

Sorry, but the fact that one lawyer tried to make handloads an issue in a court case doesn't prove a thing. To the contrary, the fact that it's only been tried in one, single case tends to prove the opposite.

I'm a criminal defense attorney and am very good friends with our county's elected prosecutor. We were sitting around one day with several other lawyers and got to talking about the Factory Load v. Handload thing and whether using handloads exposed the shooter to more risks regarding prosecution/conviction/civil suit.

One attorney astutely pointed out that, if he could pick the shooter's ammo, and then go after the shooter in court, he would prefer that the shooter use factory ammo. His reasoning was factory self-defense loads are tested against multiple other options. They are tested and re-tested. Their performance is analyzed and re-analyzed. Only when the company has decided that it has produced the "perfect" killing round does it mass produce it and sell it to the public. So when Joe Citizen buys that ammo, he is purposely buying ammo designed to do the most harm to the other guy. That decision shows more planning and evil intent than the guy who handloads and would say in court "Oh, I loaded those rounds because I got the bullets on sale and they shoot good in my gun. No, I've never tested them for stopping power or tissue damage. I just got good groups with them and have a bunch to shoot up."

So, choosing a factory loaded, purpose-built man stopper could easily put you in a worse position than packing whatever you put together in your reloading room. Ayoob should stick to marksmanship and tactics; I understand he's quite good in those fields.

+1 Waders............

DITTOS! DITTOS!

The way I look at it is this, as you are well aware we have an adversarial justice system. Both attorneys are putting on an act for the benefit of the 12 dummies making up the jury. The job of the jury is to determine which attorney put on the best performance for attorney-of-the-day award. And maybe if one is lucky justice will be served.

What you have just proved is that any prosecuting attorney worth his salt is going to be able to use the ammo issue to get a conviction weather it's factory or hand loaded ammo.

Self defense against bad guys is a lot like self defense against Grizzly attacks. In the case of Grizzlies you had better have teeth and claw marks to justify self defense. In the case of bad guys you had better have bullet holes in you to justify self defense. Otherwise one is just a mean son-of-b!tch who likes to kill people with the best factory or hand loaded ammo one can get.

There I think I have it pretty well summed up.

I tend to agree, in principle, with what you said. You've refuted the urban legend that handloads expose you to legal jeopardy nicely. Your ammo matters not; it's the other circumstances of the shoot that determine your righteous, or lack thereof...

It absolutely does NOT apply equally. That this has to be rehashed is troubling as I'm trying to identify where you are having the disconnect. Do you know what an exemplar is in legal terminology? You understand that exemplars for factory ammo can be (indeed, are) easily obtained and uniformly tested to look for incongruities with what is forensically found at a scene? (In fact I've been told at least the major factories keep exemplar lots of their old stuff PRECISELY for this purpose.) This IS NOT the case with handloaded ammo. That last statement is not an opinion BTW but a statement directly related to actual trial conditions. Oh, and "is a dumbass" is pretty cryptic. Please feel free to elaborate, specifically, on how a lawyer who explained the issues he faced set forth by the prosecution (you DO realize HE wasn't the one throwing handloads under the bus but rather it was his job to try to fight the prosecution on the issue, right?) is being a dumbass.



I would give a more full answer to this but the easy one is obvious...it sure as hell didn't work out in the "favor" of Daniel Bias, did it?

Look, your contrarian stance and tone are a bit bewildering. Perhaps you've come by this honestly in dealing with some who (and I'm rehashing again since I went down this road earlier in the thread) would try to convince you that only a fool would carry handloads and that doing so is tantamount to Russian Roulette. I have repeatedly stated that it is my opinion that those who posit such an argument are at best being overwrought and at worst basically fear mongering. I believe that. I also know, for a fact, that the issue has been put to the test in a real court (not some forum where people are throwing opinions about from their keyboards) and it came out very badly when handloads played a pivotal role in the forensic evidence. Hell, it may NEVER happen again...ever. It damn sure did happen at least once.

I find this line of reasoning fascinating on several fronts. For instance:

The ammo companies would send an army of attorneys to attack that premise. How could they not? The self defense market (and I think you'd agree) is a huge one where, as you yourself point out, vast amounts of resources are spent on R&D as well as, and this is a HUGE deal with what your friend posited, marketing. A case where a DA went after FACTORY rounds specifically marketed as SELF DEFENSE ammunition could rock the entire industry if it went badly.

And then there is the law enforcement problem. I'd say the vast majority of what is marketed to civilians as SD ammo is in use by at least some LE agency somewhere. And even if not the "idea" being posited about "the perfect killing round" would immediately come under no small amount of scrutiny. Is LE to be expected to go back to low powered ball ammo in the wake of such a judgement? Or would they somehow effectively argue something along the lines of "If WE shoot bad guys with this stuff to defend ourselves that's just different than when John Q does it.".

What do you think? It's an interesting angle you've set forth.

What do you do for a living?

I can tell from your tone that you are sure you're much smarter than me. Yet, I am equally convinced that you're a dumbphuck. Let's leave it at that. Have a great Thanksgiving.

well, obviously, in a spouse homicide the issue of handloaded ammo couldn't possibly be the deciding factor. if it was really a suicide, the ammo in the gun is irrelevant. if it was murder, same same.

I don't think either of the cases Mas cited really support his proposition, because in a criminal case the ammo is irrelevant to the issue of guilt.

if there is any added risk, and I really don't think there is, it would be in a civil case where it would be used to inflame a jury into a psycho verdict.

I carry factory because I like HydraShoks and so does my Kimber, but if I accidentally had a mag of reloads in it, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.

Just...wow. Not only have I made no attempt at an ad hominem attack I've repeatedly stated that, as a matter of PROBABILITY of it (carrying handloads) being an issue, we probably wouldn't be in all that much disagreement. The ONLY point of contention is that, somehow, I'm failing to get across that there is actual courtroom precedence that handloads can muddy up the forensic evidence IF that evidence turns out to be pivotal. How and why you'd want to personally attack me for that...whatever.

Hope you also had a good Thanksgiving. (And aren't a Lions fan)

There was a time when you could improve on factory ammo with your handloads, those days are gone. Buy a couple or three boxes of the one that trips your trigger, they'll last years as carry ammo since you really don't need to rotate them very often.

Then duplicate that load with cast or plated bullet reloads and practice, practice, practice, practice.

It really ain't hard.

Hey Steve,

Unless I'm just completely wiffing on my recollection of the case the question was if they were dealing with a suicide or not. It's my understanding they were actually leaning toward suicide until GSR evidence seemed to contradict the distance of the gunshot. As it turned out it was a very light handload. The fact it was a handload turned out to be more than a little problematic for the defense.

I'd like an opinion if you would grant me the few minutes to offer it. Say John Doe was involved in a SD shooting. Let's also say it was not the kind of shooting any of us would want to face. As it turns out the only witnesses were friendly to the victim. (say fellow gang members) Their testimony is, as expected, much more damning than exculpatory to Mr Doe. After all the twists, turns and convolutions such a case may take one of the huge areas of contention was the distance at which the shot was fired. Mr Doe was carrying handloads and the DA is pushing that whatever evidence forensics turns up is impossible to accurately quantify (the only way to know that rounds GSR pattern is to test it) or reproduce it.

I think an awful lot of things would have to be already working against a defendant to be in such a position but if they were it would certainly seem, to my mind anyway, having a readily available and easily defended forensic exemplar couldn't be seen as anything but an advantage. What do you think?

I have a hard time believing that someone can shoot themselve from contact distance and not leave GSR. The case is not proof that handloads are a problem

I don't know about you guys, but in any scenario I can come up with, I'm not going to shoot a bad guy and then claim it was a suicide.

And this one case hardly backs up the tired internet fable of bleeding heart juries swayed by the "deadly handload" argument.