NIST developing firearms toolmark database

[Vistar]

This linked news release may be of interest to the techies among us.

https://medium.com/@usnistgov/building-a-firearms-toolmark-database-43f207adeb4d#.jfy0zt7as

[DaveTN]

In the aerospace industry ever tool I use and the software that runs my inspection equipment must have a cert that can be traced back to NIST standards and certifications. It appears they are trying to do the same thing.

[Sidecarist]

This is much like the micro-stamping of cartridge cases that was tried and failed. There are simply too many variables. If a gun is purchased new and used in a crime almost immediately then this may work IF its in the database.

Many of my guns don;t have original parts such as firing pins, barrels, ejectors because I have shot them so much. Changing the recoil spring, re crowning a barrel, polishing the breach face for reliability etc. will make this effort meaningless. It's a feel good project to let someone spend our tax dollars....

Dave, I don;t think this is along the lines of NIST traceable tooling, but you likely have more experience than I do. All of the NIST traced tools I ever used were measuring devices, micrometers, calipers, gauges, etc. This to me looks like a database of individual parts and the surface marks created during manufacture.

To make this work they would have to collect EVERY gun in the US, then fire it under ideal conditions as well as take the time to fully disassemble it and use high powered microscopes to image every part. It would take a VERY long time IF the guns could be obtained....

 

[DWARREN123]

A little 2000 grit wet/dry paper will make this unusable.

[DaveTN]

6 hours ago, Sidecarist said:

Dave, I don;t think this is along the lines of NIST traceable tooling, but you likely have more experience than I do. All of the NIST traced tools I ever used were measuring devices, micrometers, calipers, gauges, etc. This to me looks like a database of individual parts and the surface marks created during manufacture.

I don’t think NIST is going to maintain a traceable database of samples. I think they are defining the way they will be defined and the format for the X3P file type.

All my measuring tools are certified with standards traceable to NIST. However my software that creates programs for the CMM machine also has to be NIST certified. For example, the math in how it measures a cylinder in least squared or max/min inscribed needs to be correct. So the aircraft companies require my software to have a NIST cert. Every time I upgrade the software to a new version; I need a new cert.

I would guess they need this standard to prove their results in court? (Otherwise it’s all smoke and mirrors) But that’s just a guess.

While they may want a searchable database of bullets; I think they want a certified way to show the science of how they match a gun they have to a bullet they have.

[Sidecarist]

You may very well be right. I was looking at this from the same angle as the microstamped ammo...

[Chucktshoes]

3 hours ago, DaveTN said:

I would guess they need this standard to prove their results in court? (Otherwise it’s all smoke and mirrors) But that’s just a guess.

While they may want a searchable database of bullets; I think they want a certified way to show the science of how they match a gun they have to a bullet they have.

This is probably very close to the truth. In the last few years so much of the forensic "science" used to convict folks of crimes has turned out to be utter crap. Widespread fabrication of results in crime labs (even the much vaunted FBI forensics lab) has put a lot of heat of folks to actually be able to prove that crap is real, repeatable and verifiable. Tons of possibly innocent folks sittin in prison right now with cases on appeal over the outright lies of forensics techs. 

[vontar]

Similar has already been tried and found to be a waste of time and money.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/10/scrapped-maryland-ends-bullet-id-program-after-15-years-5m-and-zero-cases.html

 

" State authorities have conceded that the bullet ID program, enacted in 2000, cost $5 million, was plagued by technical problems and did not solve a single crime. "

[Sam1]

After reading the article it looks like the purpose is a refresh on the approach to firearms forensics, not a 'database'.  Sort of like when the ability to test for DNA in blood started being used of the simple type of blood.

Have to remember, any time someone gets a government grant, they are going to be successful and create the findings that keep that money coming in.  Global warming/global cooling/climate change/climate disruption is a perfect example.  If the .gov cut off research grants, that whole mess would disappear.