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.
LMAO!!! Im on FAKE ignore by the nutter lefties.
- Thread starter Stone
- Start date
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.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
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.
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)?
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.
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.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
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?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
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.
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.
Last edited:
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
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.
You both are champions of the "fake ignore"... You both read every single word that I post and you know it.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.
TOP
Retired Teacher
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You should have led with that and I’d have been happy to help you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386329/
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
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.
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.
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.
TOP
Retired Teacher
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...