I don't see any "getting in trouble" for using reloads in the above posts. What gets them in trouble is using a firearm in a sometimes questionable (?) circumstance, and them some prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves by harping on the reloads. And how many of those rediculas attempts resulted in a conviction? No more than any other lame concept a prosecutor can come up with. So what if forensics can't duplicate your reloads. That evidence against you becomes "inconclusive."
For those who wish to "reduce the risks," perhaps you should consider further reducing those risks by not carrying a firearm at all.
Doesn't matter if you use hand loads, factory loads or horny toads....they will sue you regardless if that is their intent. The clean cut citizen formerly known as scumbag's family is going to ride the golden gravey train to a leisurely life.
Assume they would know they were reloaded rounds if they had access to the unfired rounds in the firearm. If you got this from Ayoob's book, the situation was actually that the data would have helped defend the shooter, but since it was reloaded ammo, there was no "base-line" to do testing against. In your second scenerio, of using reloaded rounds that they would know to be reloaded, then that just goes back to the first point. If you WANT them to know it is reloaded, then you would just disclose it--but as in the situation in Ayoob's book, that may or may not help your defense. I wouldn't worry about it too much either way. True, factory ammo is the way to go, but if I'm out hunting, and that's all I got, and someone attacked me, they are probably getting the low-powered SWC's used against them.
I think there are many many other practices done by many shooters that would "Look" much worse if questioned in court. Those "Keep Honking--I'm reloading" bumper stickers on your pickup, the Skull and Crossbones grips on that tricked out 1911, the "Smile-Wait for Flash" Glock barrels, and various other things, that I guess are alright, until you are trying to explain that you really were NOT looking for a fight when the shooting happened. Look at all the trouble Zimmerman has had, can you imagine if he had had some radical gun slogan T-shirt or cap on?
Apprearances DO matter, no matter how "entitled" one is to freedom of expression.
Probably more of an issue in some places than others.
I carry factory ammo that is marketed as "defense". Generally hollow tip as typical. I can see the concerns with issues with self loaded ammunition in a self defense situation, however would that really be brought up in the case? I would expect more of a concern may have been failures due to issues with reloads.
Originally Posted by OldVet
And we must not forget, that in the " due process" part of criminal proceedings, there is a thing called " Motion for Discovery" in which the prosecution,, must lay out all of its evidence, which may later be disputed and, even forbidden for the prosecution to bring up, if it is shot down in a " suppresion hearing", which means, what ever is " suppressed" cannot be mentioned in trial.
Unless the prosecution has a relevant reason for bring up handloads, such as to attempt to prove a premeditation ,or something else, then the judge may not even allow it, unless it is clearly releveant to the case presented against the accused.
Unlike TV, the due process system is a long road with a lot of stops and hearings designed to shape the trial into a focused meeting with time constraints.