|
Ballistics testing
Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. |
Ballistics testing
On 11/7/2017 1:01 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. If it has been used in a crime... Ah. That narrows it down somewhat I guess. |
Ballistics testing
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. I think you're referring to the Maryland requirement that a shell casing be provided the state for every gun sold in the state. Here a while back the state found that of the thousands of shell casings sent in, not one had ever been useful in the solving of a crime. I think they stopped the requirement. Here's mo http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...107-story.html I'm thinking a 'ballistics database' as used above might be a database of casings or bullets that have been recovered from a crime scene. |
Ballistics testing
Mr. Luddite wrote:
Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. If it has used in a crime... -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
Ballistics testing
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would also like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. |
Ballistics testing
wrote:
On 7 Nov 2017 18:01:49 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. If it has been used in a crime... Wasn't Maryland collecting fired cases and a bullet from every gun sold for a while? Just the cases but the state stopped doing that. -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
Ballistics testing
wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would also like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. I think they are comparing casings, not bullets. |
Ballistics testing
On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:13:40 -0500, John H
wrote: I'm thinking a 'ballistics database' as used above might be a database of casings or bullets that have been recovered from a crime scene. .... and tested and cataloged and entered into the database in some searchable form. My bet, not that many. I know on TV they are always saying "that bullet matches an open murder from 10 years ago" but it sounds like TV bull**** to me because that same show has some geek comparing the bullets under a microscope. How cumbersome would it be to physically compare 11,000 bullets a year, to maybe a few hundred thousand from past years, just from murders? I understand computers could narrow the search but the minute differences still require actually looking and using more than a bit of opinion, the main flaw pointed out when they talk about the problem with forensics. The classic case is a guy in the US who was positively identified as a murderer in Europe from fingerprints, confirmed by the FBI, Interpol and local "experts" and it turned out he was never even in Europe. |
Ballistics testing
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 18:57:48 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would also like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. I think they are comparing casings, not bullets. Same deal. If I have been firing cheap surplus steel case ammo that may be far from clean, I doubt those marks would stay "unique" for 100 rounds. I suppose a revolver or bolt action might do better but the act of extracting a case that starts moving while there is still pressure in the barrel is going to leave a mark if there is the slightest amount of grit on the round. Extractors and firing pins wear, bolt faces get banged up and things just change. As I said, if you get these things in fairly quick succession they may be unique but not for many rounds down the road. Perhaps that is why Maryland abandoned the practice of saving pristine new cases. It is more of an indication of the machines in the factory than the gun a couple of years later. I bet they also figured out cases from consecutive guns off the line were too close to call once they started looking at them. People who make their living in forensics certainly would not want to tell us it is all bull****. |
Ballistics testing
On 11/7/2017 1:57 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would also like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. I think they are comparing casings, not bullets. They are. The first report was "spent rounds" but was corrected later to casings. Harry's comment makes sense. They are comparing the casing to others found at crime scenes, not from the manufacturer. |
Ballistics testing
On 11/7/17 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2017 1:57 PM, Bill wrote: wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would alsoÂ* like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. I think they are comparing casings, not bullets. They are.Â* The first report was "spent rounds"Â* but was corrected later to casings.Â*Â* Harry's comment makes sense.Â* They are comparing the casing to others found at crime scenes, not from the manufacturer. Until recently, if you bought a new firearm in Maryland, the shipping or product box had to include from the manufacturer a spent shell casing in an envelope that was sent to the Maryland State Police. The rumor is the Staties here have many 55-gallon barrels full of spent shell casings from the sale of tens of thousands of new firearms over the years. Apparently no one ever bothered to compare those casings with the casings found at crime scenes. In any event, the state of Maryland has stopped collecting the shell casings. It's really a corollary of the 10-round magazine limitation. You can't buy larger mags in Maryland, but you can drive over to Virginia or any other state where higher cap mags are legal, buy as many as you want, drive back into Maryland and use them legally. I would like to see a ban on the sale and possession of bump stocks. They serve no useful purpose for hunting or for self defense or for competition. |
Ballistics testing
On 11/7/2017 5:18 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 11/7/17 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/7/2017 1:57 PM, Bill wrote: wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would alsoÂ* like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. I think they are comparing casings, not bullets. They are.Â* The first report was "spent rounds"Â* but was corrected later to casings.Â*Â* Harry's comment makes sense.Â* They are comparing the casing to others found at crime scenes, not from the manufacturer. Until recently, if you bought a new firearm in Maryland, the shipping or product box had to include from the manufacturer a spent shell casing in an envelope that was sent to the Maryland State Police. The rumor is the Staties here have many 55-gallon barrels full of spent shell casings from the sale of tens of thousands of new firearms over the years. Apparently no one ever bothered to compare those casings with the casings found at crime scenes. In any event, the state of Maryland has stopped collecting the shell casings. It's really a corollary of the 10-round magazine limitation. You can't buy larger mags in Maryland, but you can drive over to Virginia or any other state where higher cap mags are legal, buy as many as you want, drive back into Maryland and use them legally. I would like to see a ban on the sale and possession of bump stocks. They serve no useful purpose for hunting or for self defense or for competition. Every new handgun and rifle that I have purchased in Massachusetts included a small envelope containing a spent casing from the gun. I never knew why the manufacturer provided it because we are not required to do anything with it. I figured it was just proof that the gun had been test fired or something. I haven't purchased a gun in about 3 years so I don't know if they still include the spent casing. |
Ballistics testing
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:18:39 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
Until recently, if you bought a new firearm in Maryland, the shipping or product box had to include from the manufacturer a spent shell casing in an envelope that was sent to the Maryland State Police. The rumor is the Staties here have many 55-gallon barrels full of spent shell casings from the sale of tens of thousands of new firearms over the years. Apparently no one ever bothered to compare those casings with the casings found at crime scenes. In any event, the state of Maryland has stopped collecting the shell casings. It reminds me of the ammo logs retailers had to maintain for a few years., I don't think the idiots in DC even had a clue about how much ammo was purchased in the US every year. They had millions of pages of hand printed logs that nobody ever looked at. Finally they all just went into the landfill It's really a corollary of the 10-round magazine limitation. You can't buy larger mags in Maryland, but you can drive over to Virginia or any other state where higher cap mags are legal, buy as many as you want, drive back into Maryland and use them legally. That sounds like a mistake, not a planned loophole in the law. I am surprised Annapolis has not closed it. I would like to see a ban on the sale and possession of bump stocks. They serve no useful purpose for hunting or for self defense or for competition. I tend to agree. The question is how you write a law that accomplishes it without eliminating other harmless modifications to a gun. It would be easy to legislate against the current design but there are guys with the law book in hand while their imagination runs wild. I played with a thing many years ago that was just a small motor with a cam on it that operated the trigger (an IBM part I just had a "hey" moment with). It was a great way to waste ammo and probably far more accurate than a bump stock but the novelty wore off pretty quickly. I am not sure if it was illegal or not since there was no modification of the firearm. The strange thing was IBM had a part number for the motor and the bracket as a FRU. |
Ballistics testing
Bill wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would also like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. I think they are comparing casings, not bullets. There's not much to learn from casings. The firing pin strike on the primer is useless. We learned that from the micro-printing debacle. |
Ballistics testing
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2017 5:18 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 11/7/17 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/7/2017 1:57 PM, Bill wrote: wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would also like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. I think they are comparing casings, not bullets. They are. The first report was "spent rounds" but was corrected later to casings. Harry's comment makes sense. They are comparing the casing to others found at crime scenes, not from the manufacturer. Until recently, if you bought a new firearm in Maryland, the shipping or product box had to include from the manufacturer a spent shell casing in an envelope that was sent to the Maryland State Police. The rumor is the Staties here have many 55-gallon barrels full of spent shell casings from the sale of tens of thousands of new firearms over the years. Apparently no one ever bothered to compare those casings with the casings found at crime scenes. In any event, the state of Maryland has stopped collecting the shell casings. It's really a corollary of the 10-round magazine limitation. You can't buy larger mags in Maryland, but you can drive over to Virginia or any other state where higher cap mags are legal, buy as many as you want, drive back into Maryland and use them legally. I would like to see a ban on the sale and possession of bump stocks. They serve no useful purpose for hunting or for self defense or for competition. Every new handgun and rifle that I have purchased in Massachusetts included a small envelope containing a spent casing from the gun. I never knew why the manufacturer provided it because we are not required to do anything with it. I figured it was just proof that the gun had been test fired or something. I haven't purchased a gun in about 3 years so I don't know if they still include the spent casing. Firearm manufacturers do "proof" testing and the casings are likely from that. They fire a round that is loaded about 50% hotter than spec through each gun to test the components for durability. I've seen this firsthand and there are people who do nothing but fire guns all day long. |
Ballistics testing
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2017 5:18 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 11/7/17 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/7/2017 1:57 PM, Bill wrote: wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:38:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Watching a press conference by law enforcement officials investigating the Texas church shootings. They just said that a number of expended rounds have been recovered that will be sent somewhere that maintains a ballistics database to see if the rifle used had been previously used in any other shootings or crimes. So, contrary to some of the discussions we've had here in the past, it seems there *is* a data base maintained of the unique markings on the rounds fired from a particular firearm. My only question about this is how "unique" they actually are and how consistent they stay over the life of the barrel. If you understand anything about bore erosion, you have to question the ID of a bullet from a new barrel compared to one 1000 rounds down the road. I am seeing a lot of discussion these days about the flaws in the "science" of forensics. I would alsoÂ* like to see someone comparing the bullets fired from 2 barrels made consecutively with the same rifling tools. Either the "science" of striations is flawed or the "science" of tool forensics is flawed. I would agree that comparing bullets fired from a particular gun fairly close together in the life of the barrel might be significant but most of the "uniqueness" would be from the usage, not the machining. It is valuable when they find a gun that was tested shortly after the murder but comparing a bullet from the new gun to one from 1000 rounds later is more troubling. I think they are comparing casings, not bullets. They are.Â* The first report was "spent rounds"Â* but was corrected later to casings.Â*Â* Harry's comment makes sense.Â* They are comparing the casing to others found at crime scenes, not from the manufacturer. Until recently, if you bought a new firearm in Maryland, the shipping or product box had to include from the manufacturer a spent shell casing in an envelope that was sent to the Maryland State Police. The rumor is the Staties here have many 55-gallon barrels full of spent shell casings from the sale of tens of thousands of new firearms over the years. Apparently no one ever bothered to compare those casings with the casings found at crime scenes. In any event, the state of Maryland has stopped collecting the shell casings. It's really a corollary of the 10-round magazine limitation. You can't buy larger mags in Maryland, but you can drive over to Virginia or any other state where higher cap mags are legal, buy as many as you want, drive back into Maryland and use them legally. I would like to see a ban on the sale and possession of bump stocks. They serve no useful purpose for hunting or for self defense or for competition. Every new handgun and rifle that I have purchased in Massachusetts included a small envelope containing a spent casing from the gun. I never knew why the manufacturer provided it because we are not required to do anything with it. I figured it was just proof that the gun had been test fired or something. I haven't purchased a gun in about 3 years so I don't know if they still include the spent casing. Last rifle I bought did not come with a spent round as far as I know. Maybe the gun shop removed it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com