LMAO!!! Im on FAKE ignore by the nutter lefties.

[domer76]

I answered your question, Domer.

At this time I’m listing you as suspected of mental issues and/or simply young, angry and stupid.

I can’t fix your ignorance, pally boy, that’s something you have to live with. I can only suggest you (and RB) not put it on public display.

 

[Commander Dutch]

I can’t fix your ignorance, pally boy, that’s something you have to live with. I can only suggest you (and RB) not put it on public display.

Posted like a 20something college dropout living in his parent’s basement and blaming the older generation for all of his problems.

I’m torn between believe in you know you’re wrong but would rather play immature games (hence perception above) or are irrational in many aspects. Overly emotional is a main one. This is another indication of immaturity….or mental issues. Overall, I think it’s mainly the former as opposed to the latter.

 

[RB 60]

Just as I thought. Neither you or RB have a clue. Merely tossing out guesses and not very good ones.

A clue about what? The fact that there's powder residue on a fired bullet (unless it's a sabot, and those are about as rare as you having any knowledge of ballistics)?

 

[domer76]

Posted like a 20something college dropout living in his parent’s basement and blaming the older generation for all of his problems.

I’m torn between believe in you know you’re wrong but would rather play immature games (hence perception above) or are irrational in many aspects. Overly emotional is a main one. This is another indication of immaturity….or mental issues. Overall, I think it’s mainly the former as opposed to the latter.

You keep commenting on this subject as if you have ANY experience in it. You don’t. I sure as shit don’t know where you get the ideas that you’ve posted here, but it is neither from reality nor experience. Must be movies or TV.

 

[domer76]

A clue about what? The fact that there's powder residue on a fired bullet (unless it's a sabot, and those are about as rare as you having any knowledge of ballistics)?

Really? There’s powder residues on a projectile taken from the tissues of a victim that can be tested to identify the weapon? Tell us, Columbo, where in the world did you come up with that idea?

And, as I’ve pointed out before, that you use the term “ballistics” is an indicator of your ignorance.

Yet, you crow on and on, oblivious to that ignorance.

 

[TOP]

Good Morning! You all may have noticed...the "fake ignore" problem seems to be resolved...

 

[Commander Dutch]

You keep commenting on this subject as if you have ANY experience in it. You don’t. I sure as shit don’t know where you get the ideas that you’ve posted here, but it is neither from reality nor experience. Must be movies or TV.

What ideas/posts of mine are you claiming to be erroneous, Domer?

Do you disagree that each ammunition manufacturer’s gunpowder can have traceable chemical differences? Their bullets unique qualities? That the guns themselves leave traceable markings on the shell casing and bullet, even if fragmented upon impact?

Do you disagree that a prosecution’s case is based on the amount of corroborated evidence and that the items mentioned above are part of that evidence?

 

[Commander Dutch]

Really? There’s powder residues on a projectile taken from the tissues of a victim that can be tested to identify the weapon? Tell us, Columbo, where in the world did you come up with that idea?

And, as I’ve pointed out before, that you use the term “ballistics” is an indicator of your ignorance.

Yet, you crow on and on, oblivious to that ignorance.

The part you are missing is that the same powder residues have to be on the weapon. No one except you is claiming/disclaiming that the powder on the victim can tell if it was an AR-15 or a Ruger mini-14 in the same caliber.

Like TC, your posts are primarily emotional, not logical, Domer.

 

[domer76]

What ideas/posts of mine are you claiming to be erroneous, Domer?

Do you disagree that each ammunition manufacturer’s gunpowder can have traceable chemical differences? Their bullets unique qualities? That the guns themselves leave traceable markings on the shell casing and bullet, even if fragmented upon impact?

Do you disagree that a prosecution’s case is based on the amount of corroborated evidence and that the items mentioned above are part of that evidence?

You see, pal, I don’t know and either do you that any individual ammo manufacturer does or does not have sufficiently unique chemical patterns to do so. They buy their powder by the train car load from suppliers who supply the same stuff to other manufacturers.

And I don't know, nor either do you, whether any such residues will remain in sufficient quantities, unchanged, to relate back to a particular manufacturer.

The bullet DOES have unique characteristics. They are from the rifling of the weapon. I need no reminder of that because that’s what I did for over a decade. But the powder to weapon stuff is bullshit.

Here’s a little tidbit for you that you’re also ignorant of. The matching of rifling characteristics is sufficient to tie a weapon to a crime. TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS. Period. Any additional testing is unnecessary, superfluous and actually considered unethical.

 

[gfm7175]

I read everything you write, Stone. One...because I honestly like you. Two, because your argments often do more to help causes I champion than some offered by those on the left. I truly do like you, but you are not nearly as effective as you apparently think you are.

Nah, don't get such a swelled head. You're not on my ignore list. You're just mostly too insignificant, silly, and trollish to bother with. Sorry.

You both are champions of the "fake ignore"... You both read every single word that I post and you know it.

 

[TOP]

You both are champions of the "fake ignore"... You both read every single word that I post and you know it.

There is a reason fake ignore became a thing here...

 

[Commander Dutch]

You see, pal, I don’t know…

You should have led with that and I’d have been happy to help you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386329/

The identification of firearms is of paramount importance for investigating crimes involving firearms, as it establishes the link between a particular firearm and firearm-related elements found at a crime scene, such as projectiles and cartridge cases. This identification relies on the visual comparison of such elements against reference samples from suspect firearms or those existing in databases. Whenever this approach is not possible, the chemical analysis of the gunpowder and gunshot residue can provide additional information that may assist in establishing a link between samples retrieved at a crime scene and those from a suspect or in the identification of the corresponding model and manufacturer of the ammunition used. The most commonly used method for the chemical analysis of gunshot residue is scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray, which focuses on the inorganic elements present in ammunition formulation, particularly heavy metals. However, a change in the legal paradigm is pushing changes in these formulations to remove heavy metals due to their potential for environmental contamination and the health hazards they represent. For this reason, the importance of the analysis of organic compounds is leading to the adoption of a different set of analytical methodologies, mostly based on spectroscopy and chromatography

 

[RB 60]

Really? There’s powder residues on a projectile taken from the tissues of a victim that can be tested to identify the weapon? Tell us, Columbo, where in the world did you come up with that idea?

And, as I’ve pointed out before, that you use the term “ballistics” is an indicator of your ignorance.

Yet, you crow on and on, oblivious to that ignorance.

Powder, when ignited, scorches the base of the bullet.
The base is rarely deformed. You should know that, Mr. expert.

Yes, ballistics. Coefficients, energy and velocity. You wouldn't understand.

You're a funny potato. Having a sense of humor is good

 

[domer76]

You should have led with that and I’d have been happy to help you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386329/

Good article. Thanks. Although I’m sure you never got past the abstract, nor really understand what it means, I am wading through the paper and its hundreds of references.

So far, I have really found nothing that validates your claims. Mostly, research projects that may or may be useful or even practical in real world situations. Much less be accepted in court as a scientifically reliable technique. Additionally, you have to know that many of these analyses involve techniques, instrumentation and expertise far beyond the reach of most forensic labs. And suffer from their own limitations.

However, when I do find that article that says one can relate a projectile fragment removed from a victim back to the specific manufacturer or weapon beyond a reasonable scientific doubt, I’ll let you know.

Other than that, some pretty cool reading for me for awhile.

 

[domer76]

Powder, when ignited, scorches the base of the bullet.
The base is rarely deformed. You should know that, Mr. expert.

Yes, ballistics. Coefficients, energy and velocity. You wouldn't understand.

You're a funny potato. Having a sense of humor is good

You’re too ignorant to know better, but very few firearms examiners consider themselves ballistics experts. The reason being that the need for actual ballistic performance is exceptionally rare. Note the two words. EXCEPTIONALLY. RARE.

There are so many variables associated with ballistics to pass scientific and legal muster, and the meed to remain proficient, that so few are qualified as experts that it approaches zero.

 

[RB 60]

You’re too ignorant to know better, but very few firearms examiners consider themselves ballistics experts. The reason being that the need for actual ballistic performance is exceptionally rare. Note the two words. EXCEPTIONALLY. RARE.

There are so many variables associated with ballistics to pass scientific and legal muster, and the meed to remain proficient, that so few are qualified as experts that it approaches zero.

What I did say is that powder residue is left on the bullet (as well as residue in the barrel),
making a positive pairing identification very easy. That isn't ignorance, it's common sense.

I wouldn't think firearms examiners are ballistic experts. That's pretty much what I said.
Yep, there are many variables, including down-range energy, penetration (to name a few
more) that would confuse a firearms examiner. That knowledge would really only be needed
to determine where a shot(s) came from at a long distance. Many of us long-range shooters
use this ballistics knowledge to determine what bullet to use to shoot Bambi.

 

[Stone]

Good Morning! You all may have noticed...the "fake ignore" problem seems to be resolved...

Being on fake ignore can lead to some VERY spirited conversations,....if you play THEM right. As an added bonus, being on fake ignore can be a whole lot of fun !!!!

 

[Stone]

Domer= The goof that worked the gun counter at his Boise Walmart who thinks of himself as a ballistics expert and former FBI agent. Talk about a Mr potato head!

 

[TOP]

Domer= The goof that worked the gun counter at his Boise Walmart who thinks of himself as a ballistics expert and former FBI agent. Talk about a Mr potato head!

I think it's very sweet that he shared the picture of the FBI field trip...

 

[Stone]

I think it's very sweet that he shared the picture of the FBI field trip...

A movie clip. " Mr potato head goes to Quantico"