Ballistic fingerprinting seems to have failed for technical reasons (hard to automatically match the patterns on a fired bullet to the patterns–if any–the gun normally leaves on it) that would be solved by having serial numbers. Provided a serial number (or at least portions of one) could be read off the bullet, no complex and unreliable graphical matching software would be needed, just a lookup of the number in a database.
Yeah, linking to three newspapers articles about planned crimes is better evidence that many criminals don’t engage in long-term planning for their crimes then a Justice Department analysis of crime statistics that states 40% of murders result from arguments. :rolleyes:
Of those 40%, how many go unsolved?
Just a wild guess:
Rather than not sell to CA, some ammunitions makers will retool ALL of their ammunition to be serialized.
I guess. Assuming it is in fact possible to comply with this law, which seems to be questionable.
Even if all of that 40% were ultimately solved, the additional evidence provided by the serial numbers would still be useful.
Aha, but you’re talking about murders Metacom, and I’m talking about gun crimes.
Now, the two are related, but they’re hardly the same thing. If someone holds up a 7-11 using a handgun, it’s a gun crime, but not a murder. Ted Bundy would strangle his victims - he was a murderer who didn’t use a gun.
I used to have to walk to work in a neighborhood that could be a bit sketchy at times, and I have to say, I never worried about an argument breaking out.
That would give a serial number sure, but how will that number be recovered AFTER the round is fired. Lead bullets essentially flatten into nothing resembling their former selves. The rifling in the barrel alone will do an excellent job of destroying any serial # that was originaly engraved on the bullet. So the serial number has a few things going against it:
1.) Rifled barrels tend to leave quite distinctive marks. That is how bullets are traced to the guns that fired them.
2.) The explosive nature of a gun shot produces intense heat that softens the bullet as it travels down the barrel. Thus increasing the chance that any identifying numbers will be eliminated
3.) Upon impact, the bullet will expand and distort, leaving all previous markings unreadable or…
4.) Upon impact a bullet will fragment into many small pieces, once again destroying any serials that had been previously attached.
One other point. If there are 15,000,000 bullets made every day, and countless BILLIONS of rounds of ammo laying around the world as we speak, who is going to track them all? Anyone want to put together the cost of a system that can track 15,000,000 new records daily, tie them to owners through the distribution chain, and then trace them to the final owner?
What happens if I want to sell my ammo to a friend? Do I need to go to the sporting goods store and re-register the ammo to my buddy now? Maybe I should go overburden the police instead and let them know that box 8a569x4t is now owned by someone else.
This legislation is a joke and totaly implausible.
I have a different concern. WOn’t this open up a huge liability to the ammo manufacturers and/or distributors? They’d have to register each and every sale, creating a public database of who own what, effectively. Aside from that, if the information was enterd incorrectly, “Hello lawsuit.”.
Actually, I don’t think so. The vast majority of them are blatantly obvious crimes, IIRC.
Good freaking grief, I didn’t insult you in any way, shape, or form, so I don’t know where the persecution tone is coming from. Nor did I cast you in any of the above ways.
First, the bill says that the numbers have to be visually inspectable. Pretty much anything put on the outside of the bullet is going to be destroyed by passing through the barrel and hitting the target or other items.
Second, the very tiny surface area of said bullet is going to make it very hard to inscribe a visible number or set of numbers. It will require, at best, a 10x lens. At worst, a microscope.
Third, these inscribed numbers have the potential to change the ballistics of the bullets - perhaps not in any real way for low-velocity handgun rounds, but for rounds like the .223 (which can be handgun-fired; see the Thompson contender), and other hunting rounds, there is likely to be an impact in accuracy. And I have to be opposed to anything which creates more variability in firearms and shooting, from a safety reason if nothing else.
Fourth, any criminal could easily mar or deface the numbers on the surface if they wanted with no more complicated a tool than a quarter.
Fifth, even if you are able to also put these same numbers on the bottom of the slug, we are talking about a very tiny area there. A .22 calibre round has an extremely small surface area. Some boat-tail rounds or other ballistic rounds may be smaller; I don’t know. And even then, we’re often talking about a round which is made of very soft lead, copper, or some other metal which in general is going to deform tremendously on impact. Even if the shape of the very end of the round is still sort-of rounded, the metal is going to twist, contort, and flow such that reading items on it is going to be anywhere from impossible to hit and miss.
Sixth, even with the bottom of the bullet marked somehow, we’re now in a situation where the police, upon investigating someone on a firearms charge, have to not only view perhaps thousands of rounds of ammunition, they must also disassemble every single round to ensure that the number on the bottom matches the number on the outside. And check to make sure that there are no duplicates or fake numbers. How many man-weeks of police work does that equate to?
Given that bullet making is a very high-volume low-overhead production process, involved in billions upon billions of rounds per year, adding a unique, trackable serial number, inscribed multiple times, on multiple regions of a bullet, will, IMO, possibly increase the cost by 10 to 50 times. We’re talking about a box of 9mm increasing in price from $10 to $100 at best, IMO.
Who handles the paperwork? It’s already a pain to buy a gun with a single form to fill out. When I go to the range I might buy 3-10 boxes - how do they track that? If I give bullets to someone, what good is tracking? If I go to a range and we share ammo, what good is tracking? In the case of a single, non-expendable item (a firearm) tracking is a reasonable burden. When we’re talking about the tens of thousands of rounds possibly fired from the gun over its lifetime, we’re talking about an insane level of tracking and complexity which boggles the mind.
The markings of concern in ballistics are the very markings made by the passage of the bullet through the gun - the ID, to what extent there is, is the deformation. We’re talking about conservation of information post-deformation - that’s a whole different thing aspect.
Master’s in Mechanical with a practical shop/tooling/manufacturing section as well in the undergrad. I picked up just a wee bit about machines and materials science during that time. I also worked in a metal-product manufacturing plant for a short time, designing machines to do, among many other things, add serial numbers to galvanized steel parts. I know I’m not one of the kewlies GD’ers, but I can also refer you to several thousand posts demonstrating some level of knowledge and familiarity with engineering, science, manufacturing, and firearms-related topics, as well as a Staff Report or two for Cecil - including one on bullets, as it happens. I know pretty much no one reads those, but comments on them do show up in the Search engine.
I tried to be nice and emphasize that people were not criticizing this out of oppositional-defiant disorders, but because it appears to be a politically-motivated impractical attempt at a solution. I don’t know if you intended it, but your responses above appear to be whiny and sarcastic, and that doesn’t help anyone, regardless of which side they’re on.
You and other posters (see posts 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 28) have characterized this bill as being obviously stupid and some have insulted (“complete and utter imbeciles”) the proposers/supporters of the bill (posts 2, 13). I asked politely for such statements to stop (post 15).
Do you not see how this can be insulting to people who don’t think it’s obviously stupid and who would like to actually discuss the issue? Do you think
without any further explanation as to why it’s obviously dumb and not workable helps anyone? If I thought it was obvious, would I be asking questions and trying to discuss it? And you were “trying to be nice”? 
That said, two wrongs don’t make a right, and I shouldn’t have responded sarcastically in GD; I apologize.
Granted.
Not to slight anyone else’s education or experience, but she’s the only one in this thread so far that I know speaks with unquestionable technical authority.
I just want to emphasize that I did not call you or your ideas “stupid”, although I did say that your ideas “appear(ed) to be unworkable”. That was why I put “as a sidebar”, to differentiate the conversational subject. I’m sorry if I did not write clearly and you thought I was calling you or your ideas stupid.
Thank you ExTank, but I have to say, I don’t put anything that I say as being unquestionable - not even about coal. The perception people have of me speaking from unquestionable authority is one of the reasons I take so much abuse from some of the Members and ex-Members of this place. If I act like I’m putting something as being of “unquestionable authority”, it would be nice if someone pointed it out to me so I can explain if I’m misunderstood, or stop if I’m in the wrong. :o
Fair 'nuf. I know that I would be extremely hesitant (and frankly, idiotic) to challenge your technical expertise and experience in your field(s) of endeavor.
Are we completely ignoring the idea that the numbers could be on the casing rather than the actual bullet itself?
Does anyone have an accurate idea of how much this would cost or are we all just assuming it to be too expensive? It seems to me that nearly eveything I buy especially electronics has a serial code on it. It certainly can’t be that cost prohibitive to etch, stamp or laser some numbers onto a casing.
Certainly a smart criminal can either file off the number or collect the casings after he shot someone but how likely is that? The fact is the majority of murders and shootings are not a result of a premeditated attack. Rather they are the result of an argument or an escalated confrontation.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PolsbyAndKates1.htm
I
What good would that do? If the shell doesn’t eject, then it’s no problem to dump the gun and the shell later. Even if several shells do eject, a smart criminal can just pick up the casings before leaving.
I admit I am not an expert on guns but I was under the impression that the shell always ejects? Regardless simply becuase a ‘smart’ criminal can work around a law does not make that law useless. You can use this argument against any law on the book becuase it is impossible to stop every violation of that law.
As long as it’s semi-auto, sure. Revolvers? No. Not at all. The spent shells remain in the revolver’s cylinder until such time as it’s opened and emptied, which the criminally minded can do at their liesure and convenience.
Then again, the revolver does put a crimp on your “firepower.”
But your idea of the shell casing bears considerably more merit that having the serial number on the soft metal bullet itself, in spite of the still considerable manufacturing problems (which I believe to be more logistical/administrative in nature, than technical).
Well, I have a couple of counterpoints. First, you would have to be very careful with engraving them on the sides of the casing for two reasons - the casing is often a very tight fit, and you couldn’t turn up the metal with any engraving tool or device without risking serious jams and misfeeds. Second, any reduction in the strength of the side of the casing is a risk factor when shooting - there is some leeway and safety factor, of course, but some redesign might be required (slightly thicker shell casing walls, different alloy, etc). That part need not be a showstopper.
Likely, the best bet is on the base. Here, it’s unlikely that would work with a .22, seeing as they are rimfired. It could work with larger rounds, however, and at that point we get into cost and effort and effectiveness, moreso than “could it be done”. Needless to say, engraving into brass is not nearly like tracing on electronic circuitry.
However, any revolver is going to keep the shells within the case unless purposefully ejected - and there are a lot of revolvers out there. And…well, I think there are a lot of logistical problems.
Putting the serial number on the case, the brass, would be tough on re-loaders. They tend to share brass. I always pick up my brass, but it’s easy to miss a few. I imagine a shooting range picks up thousands of these a week. If this legislation where to pass, I would have to be sure to destroy all my brass just like I cut up an old credit card.
At a crime, It would be rare that the criminal would have the time to chase after the brass that fell behind a couch. But if it was planned, or in the sad case of gang-bangers; expected, it would be simple to destroy the number first. Or, has been said, use a revolver.
Just a WAG, but aren’t those the crimes that are usually solved anyway? The crimes of passion?
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I thought. When a credit card is stolen, or a debit is contested, the creditors generaly just eat it. Not a big deal in the overall schem of things.
A murder trial would be a whole differnet animal.
Databases are not perfect, the people that design them and enter information into them aren’t perfect.