This might cross into a couple of different categories, but IIRC while taking my CCW course, the question of carrying handloads came up.
We were told it was frowned upon because if a shooting ended up in court, it might be tried that the shooter made super killer bullets that may be deemed unreasonable or any such stupid finding.
That's always nice gun rag lore, good for selling another few copies off of the news stand.
The thing is, if it is a good, legitimate self defense shoot, it won't matter what you were using, even a howitzer. OTOH, if it's
not a legitimate self defense shoot, then it won't matter even if it's a .22 short.
Following that logic of "super killer bullets", we should be afraid to use something like a .44 magnum, 10mm, or .357 sig (or .454 Casull....) for self defense, right?
(The Harold Fish case was not about the ammo, it was about his right to defend himself with deadly force and was probably a miscarriage of justice.)
The only documented case where handloads have come up was one where it was debated whether it was a suicide or murder. The defendant claimed his wife committed suicide but that there were no powder burns because it was supposedly a very weak handload. It wasn't even a self defense case.
We were told if possible, try to carry the same bullets LEO's do. That way the argument is hey, I was just carrying the same thing the cops do.
2 cents.
Well that's okay in most places but not all. A few places don't think we deserve to protect ourselves as well as LEOs do. BTW, go back to the top of the thread where the topic is about LEO only ammo that may not be available to common civilians.