I've read through pages and pages of this contentious topic and why would anyone would use the Bias case in an attempt to illustrate that reloads are a bad idea in a self defense situation? First off, how does Massad Ayoob, or anyone else for that matter, know for a fact that Dan Bias didn't shoot his wife either intentionally or accidentally? If I were on a jury listening to the evidence, as a gun owner, shooter and reloader, I'd have a hard time believing that a woman could shoot herself 2-1/2" behind and 1-1/4" above her left ear using a revolver and not leave any GSR or other evidence indicating a close range shot regardless of the load used. If Dan Bias shot his wife, the issue of reloads or factory ammunition is moot. The S&W revolver in question had a 6" barrel so it would be a neat trick to shoot oneself in the head with the muzzle of the revolver being anything more than just a couple of inches from the skull. Massad Ayoob discusses this case as if he has no doubt that Dan Bias is innocent, but then again, it serves his purpose of pushing his 'factory ammunition only' agenda so why bother with such petty things as the truth. It serves him to present Dan Bias as the victim of a heinous miscarriage of justice because he has a better chance of convincing others to think like him.
The other cases presented by Massad Ayoob are similarly weak in making an argument for the use of factory ammunition rather than reloads for self defense. It's ridiculous to state that it's not possible or it's inordinately difficult to reproduce the ballistics of reloaded ammunition for GSR testing. Frankly, I'm not impressed by any of the arguments presented in this thread or any of the others that have been linked to. I could care less if those presenting the arguments are well known firearms experts, moderators, lawyers or judges for that matter. I'll do what I want based on my understanding of the facts and risks involved. If I choose to carry factory ammunition or reloads, I certainly don't need the approval of anyone here.