I just don’t understand how you could define a “sniper rifle?” Any decent shooting centerfire rifle with a nice scope could probably be called a “sniper rifle.”
Maybe it has to be black? :rolleyes:
Johnny: I did a GoogleNews search for “california ban sniper rifles”, and all that came up was this, from September 24.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/092402_nw_ban_sniper_rifles.html
You knew that already.
And I can’t find anything on KNBC’s website, so I’m guessing that they were just rehashing the .50 caliber rifle “thing” as a short filler.
Duck Duck Goose: I haven’t heard anything more about ir on CH4, nor did I see anything on their site when I looked yesterday. I guess you and chriszarate are right that they are re-hashing old news.
FTR: I have heard of no airplanes or helicopters that have been fired upon by a civilian .50 rifle, nor have I heard of any ever being used in the commission of a crime.
Ah, don’t worry about it. Everyone mocks Republicans as the “Party of Evil”, and now I’m setting up vader’s campaign. 
This is perfectly typical of the ridiculous lies used by the anti-gun crowd to alarm voters into supporting absurd legislation. A thirty-pound, five-foot-long rifle that carries a price tag of over $7,000 and uses ammo that costs more than a dollar a pop is not quite my idea of a gang-type weapon. Has anyone heard of any gang that has used a .50 caliber weapon?
Mark Ridley-Thomas is a liberal black Democrat coucilman from LA’s eighth district who has a long history of backing environmental and community-action causes. Another of his claims to fame is that he authored legislation that banned the sale of plastic toy guns from ice cream trucks. (I am not making this up.)
can we now discuss fingerprinting ammo?
what is the NRA’s objection to that? (and don’t say “black powder” - I’d use that strawman for target practice 
)
yes, the DC shooter is doing torso shots from ~100 yds. hardly ‘sniper’ grade shooting.
-Oh yes, the cheapest of them can now be had for a mere $2,300, and the least expensive ammo, typically Vietnam-era military surplus, is as low as a buck or a buck and a half per shot.
The smallest of them are an easily-concealed 36" long (three feet) and a dainty twenty-one pounds. Most are single-shots, and some might take a minute or more to reload. Just the thing for sneaking into a 7-11 to mug the clerk for $50 and a carton of smokes.
Sarcasm aside, I distinctly recall being told that “assault rifles”, whatever they are, were becoming the “weapon of choice” of druggies and gang members… While the FBIs statistics showed rifles and long guns of all forms accounted for less than one percent of all gun-related crimes.
Wait a minute, ‘gang members’? But wait, Brady says they need to be banned to “keep them out of the hands of terrorists”!
[Helen Lovejoy]
"Won’t someone please think of the children?!?
[/Helen Lovejoy]
What good does fingerprinting firearms (not ammo) do when the vast majority of weapons used in crimes are illegally obtained (stolen)?
My objection is the fact that with the use of an abrasive cleanser, some emery paper, and a little elbow grease I can completely alter the ballistic fingerprint of a firearm in…oh…about 5 minutes…
Easy. It doesn’t work.
By “fingerprinting”, the idea is one of two things: To have a representitive example of a bullet fired through a particular gun, which shows the rifling pattern and style, and second, to have a representative of a fired case, which can show both firing pin and extractor and/or ejector marks.
Okay, some problems:
A) The bullet, as we’ve seen gruesomely depicted with this DC-area shooter, does not always stay intact. Hollow or softpoint ammo is designed to deform or fragment, making comparison to the rep. example almost impossible. Plus, what about the pellets in a smooth-bore shotgun?
B) Rifling marks don’t have anywhere near the sorts of variances that actual human fingerprints do. With modern computerized-production-run firearms, a ballistician could be very hard-pressed to identify which of two identical rifles may have fired which bullet, and that presumes A, above, that the bullet was intact when recovered.
C) Rifling wears over time. The rep. bullet, presumably fired when new, no longer reflects reality when the barrel has seen 200 or 500 or a thousand shots through it.
D) Barrels can be replaced fairly easily and typically somewhat inexpensively. Barrels are not a controlled item like a serial-numbered receiver.
Ea) Both firing-pin and extractor marks are subject to the same wear as the barrel: after a handful of shots, the marks are no longer representative. Worse, once the rep. case has been fired, the owner of the gun could spend (depending on the gun) less than ten minutes with a small bit of sandpaper to change the texture of both pin and extractor. Or, as with the barrel, both pin, extractor and even ejector can be replaced with new, used, factory or aftermarket items, which again are not controlled or serial-numbered.
Eb) The marks can vary, and considerably, with different types of ammunition. Primer cups vary in hardness; a “boat tail” bullet will have less bearing surface, and thus slightly different rifling marks than a flat-tail; case dimensions can vary slightly from manufacturer to manufacturer; reloaded ammo can have extractor/ejector marks from previous firings in different guns; an aluminum CCI “Blazer” cartridge case, or a steel Russian-import case, will have different markings than a brass Remington or Winchester case… ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Fa) The bureaucracy would be enormous. Instead of recording easily-transferred text data as today, IE, descriptions of make, model and serial number, now an actual physical cartridge case and fired bullet have to be stored, analyzed and catalogued. And, some method of analyzing and comparing a found case to the archived cases has to be developed- which means, probably, massive banks of computer-analyzed photographs.
Fb) Which begs the question, how does one make the comparison? In the given example of the DC shooter, he’s using a .223. There were probably a hundred thousand .223-caliber rifles (and a few handguns) made or imported last year, to add to the thirty-million-plus already in existence.
Which means that manual, hand-comparison is impossible, besides the fact that any handling of the bullet or case invites wear or damage, changing the “representative” specs. Meaning some sort of computerized analysis of photographs is required, which means databases, sophisticated alogrithms, highly specialized software… Perhaps not impossible, but we’re still perfecting face-recognition software, and faces vary FAR more than two or three minute marks on a 4-gram sleeve of brass.
G) There’s already 250 to 300 million guns out there that would somehow need to be “fingerprinted” and collated into the database. How would you know you’d printed them all? How would you know the owner didn’t lightly file the firing pin ten minutes after his gun was printed?
How would you know the guy with the old 8mm Mauser didn’t have it rechambered to 8mm-'06 the following year? Or simply replaced the barrel entirely with an inexpensive aftermarket Douglas barrel?
Any other questions?
how about chemical tags in powder?
could they be used to id mfg, caliber, batch?
as for reloads - the same kind of scheme should be able to pinpoint where/when the powder was sold?
Good Lord, this is getting ridiculous. Do you know anything about handloading ammunition?. It is a common hobby of target shooters, hunters, gunsmiths and hobbists. There is nothing hard or sinister about it. You can use whatever cases, bullets, and powder that you want. That renders this plan completely pointless for anyone willing to reload cartridges for a few minutes. Brass cartridges last almost indefinetly. You can use surplus ones from World War I if you desire. Bullets get severely deformed or destroyed on impact (like they are designed) and gunpowder is very easy to get from other cartridges or you can make it yourself rather easily if you are not able to get it from a legal source. Don’t you think that a sniper or terrorist might be willing to go that extra step?
I am becoming less pro-gun than anti-gun control as I get older. Gun control proponents are the group that I see most as having complete access to the mass media and having no freaking idea what they are talking about. I have seen it more times than I can count in the last couple of weeks. It makes me want to throw my “high powered” “high velocity” “assault rifle” at them even though I have no idea which one that is. Why is this the one subject that people are excused for total ignorance while spouting out plans for sweeping social legislation?
Yes, I know that serious shooters reload (that’s why I mentioned it - duh).
The point being - the chemical tags could id the mfg and batch id of the powder.
If the range of possibe tags is great enough, residue could tell me what batch of powder was used. With me so far?
If records are kept as to where the powder was sold, and when, then law enforcement could have a lead - if it went to an ammo mfg., that mfg. could id what kind of rounds were made using it.
If it went to a reloader, we would know where and when it was sold (it sould not be difficult to add “to whom” in either ammo or powder sales - having not purchased ammo in the last 25 years, I don’t know if buyer’s names are currently recorded)
The use of chemical tags in powder is not new - the argument I heard from the NRA (who, surprise! opposed it) was that such chemicals would interfere with the burn properties of black powder (which is why I mentioned black powder in the first Q).
Now: why not use such tags?
Yes, let’s go with “if un-tagged powder is outlawed, only outlaws will have un-tagged powder” Yeesh.
Yes, one could drain powder from one round and use in another. I’m not sure that your average shooter could assemble credible powder from scratch, but let’s say he could.
At the very least, we raise the level of effort required to shoot people anonymously.
We could now discuss the nature of security efforts (which are, in essence, means of raising the level of effort required…)
But let’s stick to fingerprinting ammo.
NOTE: the Q is about AMMO! NOT firearms
thank you.
So, happyheathen, do you have any evidence of the existing ‘ballistic fingerprinting’ databases in Maryland and New York actually working to solve a crime, or is this just another ‘hinder gun owners without actually doing anything about crime’ proposal?
Also, I note that your ‘fingerprinting powder’ proposal doesn’t have a cite for someone showing that the fingerprinting would work, and (I’m not suprised at all by this) would entail another massive set of records to be kept and another sweeping set of restirctions on gunowners to go along with the 20,000 gun laws we’ve got now (instead of just purchasing ammunition, all of a sudden we’ll have another form to fill out for your tracking scheme) all with no evidence whatsoever that it would help solve even a single crime. (Again, I point to the ‘ballistic fingerprint’ databses in NY and MA, which have cost a lot of money but haven’t actually produced any convictions of criminals).
20,000 gun laws? Really?
So if I, as an individual, purchase a gun, I have 20.000 gun laws that apply to me? Methinks us liberals aren’t the only ones who exaggerate just a little.
Y’know, I’m not anti-gun. Not at all. But .50 cal? Who care’s.
Johnny L.A.
What were you, an old-timer on the SDMB, thinking that made you post this here? 
Peace,
mangeorge
So we already keep records of who purchases ammo?
Then recording the bar code on a package to go with the existing record-keeping would not be so burdensome, no?
Notice I have not mentioned the NY or MA databases (maybe because I have never heard of them ), so pls don’t trot out that argument.
Now, does anyone know more about the tagging than I?
I’m sure you do.
-The term you’re looking for is “Taggant”.
To summarize the link, taggants can and do change the properties of the propellant and/or explosive in which they’re mixed- in one test, leading to the destruction of an entire Goex manufacturing facility.
Again, even if the taggants worked as desired- an extreme long shot, pardon the pun- it raises yet another bureaucratic nightmare. Ammunition makers mix up metric tons of powders at a time- a “large” cartridge might use as much as twenty grains of propellant (400 grains to the ounce.)The .223 in question might use 12 grains.
Meaning anywhere from half a million to ten million cartridges, of two dozen different calibers that could be loaded from that lot, could have the taggant of a single ton of propellant.
Given the usual distribution (no different than VCRs for Wal-Mart, beef patties for McDonalds or cans of Coke from a particular bottler) those millions of cartridges could wind up scattered over half the continental US.
As I recall, Winchester alone makes some ten billion .22lr cartridges each year.
To try and make specific taggants for specific lots of ammo, would double or triple the cost of ammunition. Which would lead to greater importation and expanded handloading.
In addition, since the taggants are supposed to be inert, they’re persistent- they stick around without breaking down. Meaning over a long period of time, site contamination could become a problem: is the taggant detected from a recent shooting, or did it get there on the shoes of someone who, say, walked through an indoor pistol range that day, or the previous week, or last year?
Such contamination increases by orders of magnitude given a sites’ traffic: in a convenience store, gas station or bank, for example, did the taggants come from that robbery this morning, or dusted off the coat or shoes of one of the hundred thousand people who walked through on regular business over the preceeding year?
Contamination can come from the responding police officers themselves: They’re at the range on Monday, qualifying. Taggants get on their shoes, both from that day’s firing, and the many months worth of shooting at the range previous. Those taggants get on the floormats of the patrol car, and onto the shoes of the next officer, or back onto the same officers shoes later. That officer is the first on the scene to a shooting, and runs to assist a victim.
If or when they find taggants on the scene, are they from the shooter? The officer? The officer that rode in the car the night before? The perp that was picked up from a shooting the week before?
Mass Murderers Agree,
Gun Control Works.
I think they’re aiming to outlaw only the guns that are MADE for sniping. Not just any and every .50 cal round gun.
InN certain calibers, including .223, the majority of ammo urchased in the US is imported and/or military surplus. Do you want to ban it all?
And pray tell, what the heck .50 is made for ‘sniping’?
Even the military only really uses them for anti-materiel, not anti-personel (generally). Not really the weapon of choice for the enlightened bell-tower type.