I would point out that (1) that's pretty anecdotal, and (2) the problems don't really occur when you're looking at a straight-up murder, but rather when you're making a claim of self-defense.
Like I said--there are some reasons not to do it, there are some reasons to do it. Me? I don't. But I can articulate some reasons why you might want to.
Here--which of the following three guys sounds the least serious about the prospect of using lethal force in self-defense?
(1) "Well sir, I knew I'd be counting on my firearm to function in a dire, life-or-death situation. It can't work if the ammunition is defective, and I've seen all sorts of ammunition fail due to manufacturing errors. For instance, primers that don't ignite because they're not fully-seated, or cartridges that don't have any powder, even in very expensive self-defense ammunition. These are problems that can have deadly consequences when you're fighting for your life, and it worried me greatly. Handloading my own defensive ammunition let me verify that each cartridge was properly-made. I used the same bullets--the projectile the gun fires--found in high-quality defensive ammo, and used a powder charge designed to match the velocity found in that ammo. I also used nickel-plated cases for corrosion resistance, and the same Federal primers used in self-defense and match ammunition."
(2) "I used handloaded ammunition because, according to my reading of [insert book title here] by [author], the jacketed hollowpoints used in most defensive ammunition aren't very effective in the relatively small and low-powered cartridge I was using. Jacketed roundnose ammunition, meanwhile, would be similarly ineffective, and likely to overpenetrate, which could be hazardous to bystanders. He also wrote that more effective ammunition, in addition to improving my own chances for survival, could be capable of stopping an attacker with fewer shots, improving their chances of survival as well. This made sense to me, as the whole point of self-defense is to prevent the loss of life. [Author] did extensive testing, and concluded that a soft, swaged lead hollowpoint semiwadcutter was ideal for the velocities this cartridge is capable of. Unfortunately, swaged LSWC-HP's just aren't available commercially, so I elected to load my own."
Side note, now the book this guy read is admissible as evidence. This is a good thing, presuming you're not reading idiot ninja books from guys that think Punisher grips are real cool.
(3) "Well, self-defense ammo is usually $0.50 to $1 a round. I wanted to save some money, so I handloaded my own."
Now--out of the three, who presented the best defense?
Even now, though, I'll be really even-handed. I think there is a case for reloading defensive ammo to save money.
"Well sir, I'm a man of limited means, so to speak. I bought my gun used to save money, and buddy gave me a holster he tried and didn't like. It was still a big expense, but we don't live in the best neighborhood, and I wanted to be able to protect my family. I know $36 for a box of ammo isn't a lot of money to most folks, but I'd have to replace the ammo in my carry gun three times a year--the humid weather gets into the powder, corrodes the case, and unloading the gun for regular cleaning wears out the chambered round. I did the math, and it'd wind up costing $100 a year. That's most of a week's groceries, or a pretty big chunk of Christmas. Deciding to handload defensive ammo for $8 a box...well, it was an easy decision."
Man, bust out the violin music for that guy.
And yes, I realize I just pissed off everyone in the forum by suggesting that handloading defensive ammunition was neither the worst idea in the world, but also not above criticism. Zero likes for me.
