cybershooters said:
It's not a bogus concern, the first thing forensics will usually do if there is any doubt about the circumstances (e.g. no witnesses) is try and duplicate what happened - they can't do that with a handload, not as easily at any rate. There was a case in New Jersey where a guy used handloads in self-defence, because there was no power burn on the victim, the prosecutors decided he had shot the victim further away than he said he did (i.e. ambushed them), and he was convicted of manslaughter, IIRC. The problem was that the handloads in his gun were inconsistently loaded, so forensics used some of the other rounds they found, which had a different powder charge in them.
First of all, I'd like to know where I can read a little more about this. I've heard this story before - but nobody has ever been able to put a name, place, and a date to it. Quoting John Ross when he addressed this concern:
The instance of a prosecutor going after a citizen for using handloads in a defensive shooting has not actually happened anywhere that anyone can document. The Internet discussion boards call it an “urban legend from Massad Ayoob,” which is maybe not fair to Ayoob. I don’t think Massad ever claimed a specific case where it had happened, only that it could.
As for Ayoob, he performed an extensive study of self defense shoointgs in which handloads were involved, and concluded:
- Handloads in a self defense shooting has no observable effect on the possibility of being convicted.
- Prosecuters may use that to try and put you in a bad light, but they're going to do that anyways.
All that aside, where was the accused individual's lawyer while this kind of state shenanigans were going on? Last time I looked, the onus remains on the crown/state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Assuming the circumstances are as related, what was the defense doing when forensics went "oh well, we got random results with the ammunition used in the shooting, so we went and used some different ammunition that wasn't used in the shooting because it was consistent.?
It's easy to say it "comes down to the circumstances of the shooting", but that is often determined by forensic analysis, so anything that makes that harder may well go against you in court.
It does come down to the circumstances. Furthermore, criminalistics experts are as equally available to the defense as the Crown/state - and all reasonable doubt goes in favour of the accused. I would imagine most courts would frown on discarding whatever thing was actually used in favour of something else that had nothing to do with it simply because doing so supports the government's case.
Mitch Vilas is a well known defense lawyer when it comes to these kinds of court cases. When he says any half competent defense lawyer can just as equally make it look more in favour of the accused than for the state, I am inclined to believe him. When he says he tracks these cases pretty closely as part of his practice and has never heard of such a thing, I'm inclined to believe him.
When a lawyer who, like Vilas makes his living defending these cases, says Vilas is wrong, and this does happen and innocent people do go to jail, then I might pay some attention. Other than that, I tend to remind myself that writers who make their living writing monthly articles need to keep coming up with new and hopefully provocative stuff.
The thing that struck me about it though was that the forensic people were there on the side of the Crown, doing everything they could to support the Crown's position - maybe they're supposed to be objective but when they're working with them all the time who are they going to favour in their analysis?
As you seem to have specific knowledge of the incident you're discussing, I would appreciate a referral as to where I can also read it. I'd like to read exactly what and how the forensic evidence was presented and bring the trial decision to Mitch Vilas attention for his comment.
Anyway, as to your Browning, I'd invest in a Bar-Sto barrel if it were mine. I've never been that keen on the .40 Hi-Powers because the recoil spring is so stiff and I found hammer bite was a serious problem. Accuracy-wise it wasn't very impressive, but to be honest I put that down to the hammer bite putting me off.
No hammer bite problems here.
I'll let Browning do the work to meet their 4" at 50 yards accuracy warranty before I start buying Bar-Sto barrels. That kind of accuracy is good enough for my purposes, and once they do have that, I figure the chances are pretty good I can improve on that with handloads.
