I have read a case study in Massad Ayoob's article in Combat Handguns magazine where this was exactly the case.lrb111 wrote:I'm not so sure it's liability at all. The best reasoning I have heard for factory loads, is because of the balistic database for factory loads. There is no database that a prosecutor would look to for my handloads.
Let's say a BG had one of my bullets in him, and it was one from the factory loads database. They could make a pretty fair conjecture on how close/far away I was based on known ballistics for that round.
OTOH, if a BG had one of my handloads in him, there is no way the court is going to allow my shoddy record keeping on my loads as an evidential database.
Let's go with BG has bullet in him that traveled diagonal through his upper torso, penetrating 12 inches of tissue. If it is a Brand name bullet, they might conclude I was pretty close to the BG, and at a high threat level to myself.
Now, if I had been in the same spot, same threat level, and used one of my light target loads. The reduced load would have less penetration.Let's go with 4 inches.
The trick is, the court will not have a basis to judge how far away I was. Based on their known average ballistics for my caliber in factory loads, the court could assume I was much further away from the BG when shot. In fact, may conclude he was far enough away that he was not an immediate threat,
So, for me it's not about quality of the rounds, it's about being able to use the known balistic databases to my advantage, should I ever end up in court.
A guy had loaded some light .357Mag rounds for his wife. She shoots herself in the head, point blank, revolver to temple.
BUT, the CSI lab used factory loads to test fire the revolver, and concluded by the stipling that the gun HAD to be all the way across the room, because a factory load next to target created significantly more stipling.
I don't recall the issue, or the outcome, but Mas did indeed testify as an expert witness in said case.