1858rem
Member
i wonder if paper patching is for BP rifles only or if it can be done with modern smokeless cartridges, absolutely no leading and very cheap to reload
How traceable are bullets?
- Thread starter Fosbery
- Start date
- Status
Some of you need to read up on class characteristics, subclass characteristics and individual characteristics.
Nice link here to get you going:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/training/firearms-training/module11/fir_m11_t04.htm
Nice link here to get you going:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/training/firearms-training/module11/fir_m11_t04.htm
ThomasT
Member
1858 yes it can. Ross Seyfried wrote an article about doing this very thing. He used .308 bullets in a .318 bore Mauser rifle because .318 bullets aren't common.
I think the only place paper patching doesn't work well is in revolvers because of the bullet jump. Sabots don't work in revolvers either so i've read.
Rifle magazine has had at least two articles about doing this that I can think of.
I think the only place paper patching doesn't work well is in revolvers because of the bullet jump. Sabots don't work in revolvers either so i've read.
Rifle magazine has had at least two articles about doing this that I can think of.
1858rem
Member
cool, i wonder what type of bullet mold it would take to paper patch for a .308 win.....the other id like to have is a 45-70for strictly lead boolits
ThomasT
Member
1858 I believe there are lots of bullet molds for paper patching the 45-70. Read some of Mike Venturinos articles on BPCR shooting or better yet he has a couple of books on the subject. There is also another series of books on this sold at rifle mag. Check thier website at riflemag.com look for PigIron & Lead.
The 308 is another matter. You might check with some of the custom mold makers like Hooch and Steve Garby. You might be able to patch a .284 (7mm) bullet to .308 but i'm thinking that might be a little thick on the paper. That would be a patch that is .024 thick total or .012 on the side. Then again it might be just fine.
The 308 is another matter. You might check with some of the custom mold makers like Hooch and Steve Garby. You might be able to patch a .284 (7mm) bullet to .308 but i'm thinking that might be a little thick on the paper. That would be a patch that is .024 thick total or .012 on the side. Then again it might be just fine.
No Pat answeres.
THORAZINE: "Coat the bullet in some teflon." (is that dip or paint or spray??) "It'll not pick up any markings from the barrel..." (surely you jest!) "...and the teflon gives it the strength to pass right through a M1 Abrams tank!!" (Yup, you jest!) (Horatio Cain will prove otherwise.)
JMusic: "The case and primer strike is another analysis.."
In all of these cases one must remember that in forensics, 1+1=3 sometimes. Best bet: get a Defense attorney who is also a shooter, and KNOWS what "shadow of doubt" really means.
"Polygonal" rifling does mean "rifling." There is often a little more "scuffing" before the bullet begins to twist, but there IS "polygonal" rifling.
Ultimate answer: icepick, into the river.
THORAZINE: "Coat the bullet in some teflon." (is that dip or paint or spray??) "It'll not pick up any markings from the barrel..." (surely you jest!) "...and the teflon gives it the strength to pass right through a M1 Abrams tank!!" (Yup, you jest!) (Horatio Cain will prove otherwise.)
JMusic: "The case and primer strike is another analysis.."
In all of these cases one must remember that in forensics, 1+1=3 sometimes. Best bet: get a Defense attorney who is also a shooter, and KNOWS what "shadow of doubt" really means.
"Polygonal" rifling does mean "rifling." There is often a little more "scuffing" before the bullet begins to twist, but there IS "polygonal" rifling.
Ultimate answer: icepick, into the river.
Ditchtiger
Member
I think it also possible to examine the rifling on the bullet and find out what model of gun it was fired from. Rifle verses pistol, twist rate, land and groove depth, type of rifling.
1858rem
Member
better yet, regular cheap flea market shotgun with hand cast buckshot, no mfg. alloy to go on, if your far enough away, no powder residue either.
shotgun with lots of 30 cal slugs?
i think with the ML shotgun you have the distinct disadvantage there are far fewer shotguns fired off with either black powder or a substitute than smokeless and greatly increase the odds of being "traceable"
shotgun with lots of 30 cal slugs?
i think with the ML shotgun you have the distinct disadvantage there are far fewer shotguns fired off with either black powder or a substitute than smokeless and greatly increase the odds of being "traceable"
divemedic
Member
The method of performing analysis on the alloys in bullets has been completely debunked as junk science. Read this article from 60 Minutes.
Also, there is:
Forensics on trial: chemical matching of bullets comes under fire
Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis: A Case Study in Flawed Forensics
Also, there is:
Forensics on trial: chemical matching of bullets comes under fire
Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis: A Case Study in Flawed Forensics
sohcgt2
Member
The first few pages of this report prove what all of us have known all along. The legally purchased firearms are not the firearms being used in criminal actions.
LRaccuracy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 171
Watch CSI on TV sometime. They can even match the alloy's the bullet is made out of.
divemedic
Member
Read my last post. That method has been debunked. It is based upon junk science and was used to falsely convict hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I hope that statement was an attempt at sarcasm.
The teflon coating on KTW ammunition is/was no more than a jacket, and was there to protect the rifling from the tungsten bullet core and to give it something to bite into...since it couldn't engrave the uber-hard alloy if the bullet were bore diameter, not...as many believe...to cause it to penetrate further and/or easier.
Upon penetrating hard targets, the teflon jacket peels off, and only the core penetrates. Even in softer stuff, the bullet sheds most or all of its teflon jacket.
And if you'd ever played with any KTW, and examined the shed jacket...you'd know that the rifling does indeed leave striations on it.
sohcgt2
Member
I doubt if anyone was ever convicted based on bullet metalurgy. Bullet metalurgy may have suggested cause to extend a warrant, but if it was key evidence then the prosecutor is most certainly... SUPER LAYWER...able to leap the bench in a single bound.
divemedic
Member
Read this 60 minutes story. Lee Wayne Hunt tells Kroft he's been behind bars for over 22 years and 6 months, and maintains he's an innocent man. Hunt was convicted in 1986 of murdering two people in Fayetteville, N.C., based on the testimony of two questionable witnesses and what turned out to be erroneous ballistics testimony from the FBI lab.
For years, the FBI believed that lead in bullets had unique chemical signatures, and that by breaking them down and analyzing them, it was possible to match bullets, not only to a single batch of ammunition coming out of a factory, but to a single box of bullets. And that is what the FBI did in the case of Lee Wayne Hunt, tying a bullet fragment found where the murders took place to a box of bullets the prosecutors linked to Hunt.
Asked how important he thinks this was to his client's conviction, Rosen says, "I thought it was very important to our client's conviction. It was the single piece of physical evidence corroborating their story. And it came from, you know, it came from the mountaintop."
So 60 Minutes joined forces with The Washington Post to see if we could find some of the cases ourselves. Our producers and Post reporter John Solomon worked with The Innocence Project and a team of summer associates from the New York law firm Skadden, Arps, who conducted computer sweeps of court files.
We managed to identify 250 cases in which bullet lead testimony was a factor, and a dozen where it played a pivotal role in deciding the outcome. And that's after looking at only a small percentage of the total cases.
A half a dozen defendants, like a North Carolina pastor who was accused of killing his son-in-law, have already won their freedom or a new trial by appealing bullet lead testimony.
Others, like a Baltimore police sergeant convicted of murdering his girlfriend, and Lee Wayne Hunt, are still in jail.
sohcgt2
Member
Very few convicts admit guilt to outsiders. I had an aquaintance of over 10 years who maintained he was innocent after being released (served his full sentance). He recently killed his ex girlfriend and then himself. It is interesting that in this case you seem to trust the same "liberal media" that so many in this forum abhor. I guess whatever is convenient to the discussion.
divemedic
Member
When it is backed up by reports from the people who worked in the FBI lab admitting that the science is flawed, yes. Even the ATF lab has admitted that the flawed testimony has put people in jail.
In the case that you so handily dismiss, the only physical evidence that links the convicted man to the crime was a bullet fragment that supposedly was traced not only to a specific LOT of bullets, but to a particular BOX of cartridges that were in the defendant's possession.
Also, read this actual scientific study.
Isn't it odd that I have offered proof, and all you offer is running your gator?
jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
LOL!
Also if you put a bullet on a piece of construction paper I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to trace. The key would be to make sure it doesn't roll around.
The FBI used inexact science to convince juries for decades (as evidence primarily used in state cases as there is few federal homicide cases) that the exact lead alloy of a bullet could be traced and matched beyond a reasonable doubt.
The tecnique was Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis. Expert witnesses would testify in court that it was an exact and reliable science.
Essentialy it measures 7 other trace elements in lead to compare different batches of lead. However lead from many different batches matches regularly, and different size samples of one batch can accumulate different quantities of the trace elements. Essentialy it is so inexact that it was deemed no longer worth offering to Law Enforcement in 2004 because just the fact that it is used could taint cases.
This after being used since the 1960s to obtain convictions.
It can be used to show some correlation, but it can also match when there is no correlation, or not match when it should.
I hope that is a joke. CSI shows so many things that have ruined the potential jury pools of our nation.
It shows great exaggerations in accuracy of actual forensics, shows unrealistic results, and gives the impression of reliable results based on unscientific and unrealistic or impossible tests.
It regularly states or references laws and databases that don't exist (like all guns in Florida being registered), science that does not exist and also gives the expectation of absolute forensics in court.
It has as a result greatly undermined both prosecutions and defenses. Prosecutions because it gives an expectation of super accurate forensics for any crime. So guilty go free if such evidence is not what TV's expectations have given them (which is better than the reverse.)
Defenses because it gives greatly exaggerated accuracy and incorruptibility of forensics. Leading to convictions if even any forensic evidence is available, when it shouldn't. (So some innocent are proven guilty.)
In reality even inaccurate science often does result in guilty being convicted or innocent being set free when combined with the rest of the case, circumstantial evidence and motives. It is greatly exaggerated as evidence, effecting the overall outcome far more than it should. Flipping a coin to determine someone's fate would be accurate 50% of the time too, but certainly does not mean it should be used in trials.
In trials evidence is exaggerated by prosecutors on a regular basis. "Expert witnesses", some of whom have a career based on being an expert in a less than absolute science also exaggerate because it essentialy elevates thier value. While some merely parrot what others have taught them, without fully understanding the science behind it and its strong and weak points but knowing enough to perform basic analysis.
That is just when the evidence itself is honestly collected. A bias of those collecting the evidence can also greatly determine the result, even without corruption.
Having once lived in an area that had a very corrupt police force I am fully aware how forensics and other things are abused to result in convictions. While the word of a lying officer may not always result in a conviction if challenged, falsified forensics ususaly will.
Many of the corrupt were actualy otherwise good guys, tired of seeing bad guys get away with crimes or remain on the street. So they were merely insuring arrests and convictions of people they thought were guilty by planting evidence, moving a little hair or DNA here or there, planting drugs or weapons taken from others etc. Many times those they created false evidence to convict really were bad guys they wanted off the street, some with long previous rap sheets. They were cleaning up the streets, and were quite effective through corrupt practices. Of course they also would take down innocent or less guilty ( of minor or lesser offenses) people if they ever fell into the crosshairs as well. They were essentialy insuring those arrested were denied real due process because the scales were always tipped in favor of conviction with false evidence. Such LEO were bad cops, but certainly wouldn't have seen themselves that way as they cleaned up neighborhoods by denying criminals (or those they believed were criminals) thier rights while giving an official appearance of honest due process.
Last edited:
Basically...'tracing' any Bullet, when it can be done at all, amounts to very little more than IF one has the suspect Gun on hand, to fire test rounds into Water or Cotton, and, compare those to the Bullet in question.
And that's about it.
If the suspect Gun is not on hand, you can pretty well forget any honest conlusions of specific provenance being made on the basis of the Bullet only, as far as any real particulars of the Arm it had come out of, other than they can weigh and measure and desribe technically, the Bullet they have and compare it to known Ammunition manufacturers or Calibres...rate of twist of Rifling...and guess from there.
This alone will not per-se be able to distinguish the Arm that fired it...let alone all the endless other examples where they will not be able to say conclusively, even the Calibre designaion, let alone make of Arm the Bullet came from.
Handloads of course are even harder to pronounce conclusions about.
And that's about it.
If the suspect Gun is not on hand, you can pretty well forget any honest conlusions of specific provenance being made on the basis of the Bullet only, as far as any real particulars of the Arm it had come out of, other than they can weigh and measure and desribe technically, the Bullet they have and compare it to known Ammunition manufacturers or Calibres...rate of twist of Rifling...and guess from there.
This alone will not per-se be able to distinguish the Arm that fired it...let alone all the endless other examples where they will not be able to say conclusively, even the Calibre designaion, let alone make of Arm the Bullet came from.
Handloads of course are even harder to pronounce conclusions about.
sohcgt2
Member
I just said that I don't believe that anyone has ever been convicted based on that evidence (bullet metalurgy). Did it help support a case? Yes, probably. Was it the only evidence linking the accused to the crime? I don't think so. If you can get the court transcript and show the prosecution only showed bullet metalurgy as evidence I will concede your point, otherwise I will continue to believe that other evidence of guilt was presented.
So you maintain he had no relationship with the co-defendant? Have you ever fired a weapon that belonged to a friend? I have. Babies are innocent Lee Wayne Hunt was not.
Last edited:
The 'Warren Report' had a lot of yamering at one point, about having supposedly hired the National Atomic Laboratory or somesuch, to analyse and compare metalurgy of Bullet Fragments and Bullets, attribued to what was supposedly Oswald's Mauser, errrr, then, 'Mannlicher-Carcano'...in support of the accusations against him...
sonier
Member
so if you ever were accused, just rebarrel the rifle, and keep your brass
- Status
