So I have got to thinking. Are "normal" handloads really a bad idea for self defense, and if so, where is the evidence?
I have read several cases involving handloads. None of them sway me. Handloads did not appear to be a significant issue in any of these cases.
I have read and considered all the arguments, and the only one that has any merit to me is the fact that some jurors might equate the act of handloading with something only a psycho killer would undertake. I agree, stigmas are real, even though they aren't real. You know what I mean.
But that stigma goes both ways. Example.
Defendant A used handloads. The bullets he used were the cheapest hollowpoints on the market. The load was taken from factory recommendations. He makes a box of these bullets for $7.00 per 50, and he shoots them regularly for target practice. He does not fill the hollowpoint with cyanide, cover with candle wax, then charge with 50% more powder than manufacturer recommendations. But he was obviously intent on murder, and thinking about it every time he pulled the handle on his reloading press!
Defendant B used [inset high performance factory SD round with snazzy name] which are marked LEO only, for which he paid $35.00 for a box of 50, from a gunshow dealer or on the internet. This happens to be in use with some US PD's. When he shoots for practice/recreation, he uses WWB. He reserves his highly lethal and expensive rounds for carry, waiting to get the chance to pop one into an unsuspecting victim!
Defendant C used a factory hollowpoint that was discontinued 20 years ago, but which he hoarded and/or purchased recently for $80.00 a box. He was obviously a time bomb just waiting to go off. And when he did, he used ammo that was "banned" because of its needless lethality.
If I'm a prosecutor, I'll do everything I can to make a guy look bad. But I'd really hope for Defendant C. Sure, I'll wax on about how Defendant A was premeditating murder every time he pulled the handle on his press. That image might stick in the mind of some feeble-minded jurors. But I'd have a field day with Defendant C!
I hope anyone with a court case where handloads were a factor will post a link for discussion. I have yet to see one where handloads were a pertinent factor. At worst, they were used in an attempt to cast a negative light on the defendant. This is something that is going to happen no matter what. In all cases where forensic evidence was questioned due to handloads, I again don't see any evidence that this was harmful. If anything, it actually opens up a greater area of variability, which makes a conviction based on such evidence more unlikely.
I have read several cases involving handloads. None of them sway me. Handloads did not appear to be a significant issue in any of these cases.
I have read and considered all the arguments, and the only one that has any merit to me is the fact that some jurors might equate the act of handloading with something only a psycho killer would undertake. I agree, stigmas are real, even though they aren't real. You know what I mean.
But that stigma goes both ways. Example.
Defendant A used handloads. The bullets he used were the cheapest hollowpoints on the market. The load was taken from factory recommendations. He makes a box of these bullets for $7.00 per 50, and he shoots them regularly for target practice. He does not fill the hollowpoint with cyanide, cover with candle wax, then charge with 50% more powder than manufacturer recommendations. But he was obviously intent on murder, and thinking about it every time he pulled the handle on his reloading press!
Defendant B used [inset high performance factory SD round with snazzy name] which are marked LEO only, for which he paid $35.00 for a box of 50, from a gunshow dealer or on the internet. This happens to be in use with some US PD's. When he shoots for practice/recreation, he uses WWB. He reserves his highly lethal and expensive rounds for carry, waiting to get the chance to pop one into an unsuspecting victim!
Defendant C used a factory hollowpoint that was discontinued 20 years ago, but which he hoarded and/or purchased recently for $80.00 a box. He was obviously a time bomb just waiting to go off. And when he did, he used ammo that was "banned" because of its needless lethality.
If I'm a prosecutor, I'll do everything I can to make a guy look bad. But I'd really hope for Defendant C. Sure, I'll wax on about how Defendant A was premeditating murder every time he pulled the handle on his press. That image might stick in the mind of some feeble-minded jurors. But I'd have a field day with Defendant C!
I hope anyone with a court case where handloads were a factor will post a link for discussion. I have yet to see one where handloads were a pertinent factor. At worst, they were used in an attempt to cast a negative light on the defendant. This is something that is going to happen no matter what. In all cases where forensic evidence was questioned due to handloads, I again don't see any evidence that this was harmful. If anything, it actually opens up a greater area of variability, which makes a conviction based on such evidence more unlikely.
Last edited:
