Ballistic forensics = junk science?

Jmoser

Jmoser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,634
Location
Greater Charlotte Area
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Last edited:
Forensic Ballistics has been questionable since day 1. Some of the techniques pan out, most. Nope
 
I always wondered about this. My recovered hunting bullets are usually wildly deformed. How could you prove anything with such a random deformed object. It really depends on what they hit.
 
I made pistol barrels for Kris's Vectors in 9mm before. We would drill center 72" long 3" think bar stock a 8.9mm hole. Then button rifle it to 9mm 1/10 twist. After stress relief the ban saw cut the 72" barrel blank into 8x 9" barrel blanks for milling.

So that's 9 barrels made at the same time with the same rifling. And some "expert" is going to tell me that if you shot all 8 barrels that the rifling marks are going to be uniquely different?

GTFO of here.

Now I will say, that the odds of the 8 barrels being in the same town might be sketchy.
 
Last edited:
I have worked around criminal law & have read numerous studies & legal briefs all agreeing it is total junk. In fact, almost all forensics apart from DNA analysis are total junk. People just believe in them because they get air time on law & order.
 
The FBI used to testify that THIS bullet from the victim came from THAT box of ammo in the guilty parties house. Strictly from the chemical make up of the lead tin copper etc. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/n...s-discontinuation-of-bullet-lead-examinations AND on the state level technicians hanging around gun stores would pose what if questions and write up shop lore as their research and report. Heck we were even told don't talk to XXX at matches because they were writing up gossip as their findings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom