In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

? on forensic ballistics

Henry0ReillyHenry0Reilly Member Posts: 10,878 ✭✭✭
edited February 2003 in Ask the Experts
I met someone who seems convinced that a black powder revolver leaves no identifiable ballistic markings. I am quite convinced he is incorrect but would like to be able to refer to expert advice. Anybody have the real skinny?

Remember Ruby Ridge.
I used to recruit for the NRA until they sold us down the river (again!) in Heller v. DC. See my auctions (if any) under username henryreilly
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Options
    22WRF22WRF Member Posts: 3,385
    edited November -1
    If it's rifled it's going to leave land and groove marks on the ball or bullet. If smooth bore maybe but probably not.

    t_gulfyc.jpg
    underwaysm.gif
    SOLD MY COW SO I DON'T NEED YOUR BULL
    A Grumpy Old Man
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,880 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's not strictly a "black powder" problem. About 20 years ago Remington made a "multi-ball" load for the .38 special that used 2 balls of 000 shot.

    While 22WRF is technically correct, the smaller bearing surface of a ball will yield a small engraved surface upon which to perform ballistics. While it is theoretically possible to make a match, it is highly unlikely that enough of a match will be made to persuade a jury.

    Neal
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    j1r11j1r11 Member Posts: 14 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Has anyone here heard of that little thing called "black powder"? These traces will be found on the projectile, and once they find a suspect that owns one, they will find a way to make that ball or slug fit that gun, there good at that.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SunraySunray Member Posts: 773 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not matter what Remington did a BP revolver will have rifling marks on a ball. If there's enough of the ball left to test. If it hits a bone, it'll be close to flat or heavily distorted so there may not be enough to identify rifling marks. Even a smooth bore would leave marks. Just not rifling marks. I have an amazing site on my home machine about forensics in general. I'll try to remember to post its url.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Henry0ReillyHenry0Reilly Member Posts: 10,878 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks for taking a moment to respond.

    Remember Ruby Ridge.
    I used to recruit for the NRA until they sold us down the river (again!) in Heller v. DC. See my auctions (if any) under username henryreilly
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    redcedarsredcedars Member Posts: 919 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Tool marks. Obviously, without a cartridge or primer, the only marks left to examine will be on the bullet. Patched ball may not have useful marks even if found undamaged. Soft lead is easily deformed on impact, so finding enough bullet to identify marks could be problematic.

    redcedars
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SunraySunray Member Posts: 773 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Geezuz, you can't imagine how stupid I feel. I deleted the url to the Forensic site. I'm sure I thought nobody would want it. Dam. It was by a real forensic type guy too.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.