Here is an excellent article that explains what forensic firearms examiners face routinely. “Gun nuts” or “Shooting enthusiasts” who have an opinion about the properties of a given firearm or ammunition type, and will argue their opinions based on those often incorrect assumptions.
Give it a try. Walk into a few gun stores and ask employees about “stopping power” of a particular handgun. Be prepared for wild and varied answers.
I’ve personally encountered this before, many times in the past. It isn’t even worth correcting people.
Now imagine if you are a retained “consulting expert” by an attorney in a criminal case, and the attorney who has retained you starts arguing with you about the science behind forensic firearms examination (ballistics if you were). I’ve only had it happen once. I was shocked, it was like they were trying to “bully” me into agreeing with their position. After around a half-hour of trying to explain the “chemistry” and why they were wrong, I finally gave up, and showed them a Wikipedia page on the internet. It was only then that they believed me.
See the below example:
The opinion of those with just enough information to be dangerous:
Armchair ballisticians in some local agencies pontificated that a .25 Auto could not produce a through-and-through wound to an adult male skull.
The results of scientific testing:
It was a crimp groove running across the bullet. No .45 ACP bullets used by either officer at the gas station were grooved. However, almost all .25 Auto FMJ bullets at the time were cannelured, including the brand fired by the suspect. The cannelure absolutely ruled out either .45 ACP. Had the picture been taken with a different camera, from a different angle, or a few minutes earlier or later, we would not have been able to close the case. To us, the most rewarding aspect of that case was easing the mind of a fine police officer who needed truth, not speculation.
Please read the rest of this article to learn about another forensic firearms examiner’s experience in this matter.
Related posts:
