The View From North Central Idaho

That's fire and brimstone.  This is pure gun geekery, and even for gun geeks its nerdy because it's about percussion guns of the 1800s.  You've been warned.

Saturday, Nephew and I tried some heavy loads for the repro 1858 Remington revolver.  I'd been using a 28 grain powder charge and a round ball with decent results, but wanted to try something with more pep.  Civil War era military loads ranged from very light, to as much powder and lead as could be stuffed in the cylinder.  To start, we tried round ball (~140 grains) over a charge of 39 grains of 3F Goex with a greased felt wad in between.  That load filled the chambers completely and delivered an average of 925 fps at 10 feet with an extreme spread of 46.  Not too bad.  The 29 grain charge was yielding a velocity of about 850 fps.

It's like pulling teeth to find acceptable "conical" bullets ("bullet shaped" as opposed to a round ball) for these ".44" percussion revolvers unless you cast your own, which I don't.  I did find some Buffalo Bullets 180 grain jobs that fit the chambers nicely, and ordered 100 of them to try.  Since the bullet takes up more room in the chamber, the most powder I could get in and still seat the bullet below the cylinder face was 30 grains.  But, wow.  Average velocity was 1047 fps.  That's a tad better than a .40 S&W, and matches the V of a .45 Auto load in the Speer manual for their 185 gr GDHP.  Extreme spread was 67, with a standard deviation of 21.

That was with two different people doing the loading.  I'm going to guess that with the same person loading all the rounds, the charge weight and ramming pressure would be a little more consistent, and so too the velocity.  Groups with this load opened up slightly from last week's all-ball venture, but not enough to be sure.  This time was in direct sunlight, which makes aiming a little more difficult.

The extra pressure it takes to move the heavier bullet, which also has more friction surface against the bore, I will assume ramps up the powder's burn rate.  More velocity with less powder and a heavier bullet.  Neat.  We've found a performance, or efficiency, zone.  More pressure equals more heat, equals a faster, more complete burn inside the bore, equals yet more pressure.

This is how guns (and sometimes chemical factories, engines, etc.) blow up-- things look great as you increase the pressure and temp a little.  The reaction speeds up, a little bit more, things are doing fine, a little bit more and, Boom!.  A threshold is reached and a runaway reaction takes place.  You shear some bolt lugs, or burst a cylinder, etc. and maybe you go home with slightly fewer or slightly misshapen body parts.  That can be embarrassing.

I wasn't worried about this load in a modern repro made with modern steel.  When these revolvers were designed and built originally, metallurgy wasn't anything like it is today, and even back then they were known to stuff the chambers full on a regular basis.  Further, it makes no sense to build a cylinder that will take more powder than it can handle with the commonly used "44-100" bullets of up to 250 grains.  That would take more material and make the gun bigger and heavier, for no other reason than to encourage over-pressure loads.  I'm also running on some faith that they wouldn't have done that (though the much longer 1847 .44 Colt "Walker" cylinder was known to occasionally let go).  Remember that back then there was only black powder, not the wide spectrum of nitro powders we have now.  All they had to control the powder's burn rate were different granulations of the same mixture (though brand and lot inconsistency would likely have thrown in some degree of uncertainty).  With smokeless propellants you can get into a LOT MORE TROUBLE making your own loads.

Here's Nephew torching off one of the heavy loads.  The bullet has been on its way for about a millisecond, as the gun is still in firing position and the hot gas (I mean hot-- this is in direct sunlight) has traveled a foot or so out from the muzzle;

Below is the same shot in full recoil a fraction of a second later.  Forget about quick follow-up shots.  You can't see the target until the smoke clears. By then you're re-cocked and ready to go.  A side wind would be a big help in this case;

Today's rapid fire guns wouldn't be worth as much if they had to run on black powder.  For one thing you wouldn't be able to see squat.  It is "interesting" to take a shot, and find that your target has simply disappeared after the smoke has cleared.  There's that moment of uncertainty.

I like the slow, frame-by-frame animations as below.  You can see the mechanics of the recoil (though a high speed camera would be nice).  You can watch the force wave travel from his wrist, into the arm, the shoulder, and whole torso.  Nephew's grip is fairly relaxed, which isn't a problem with a medium weight 44 revolver.  Some people hate animated gifs on a web page.  I'm one of them, but this is for science;

You shouldn't haul off and max out your charcoal burner just because I did.  I'm not saying it's the thing to do.  What I can say is; I still, for the moment, have all my body parts (and gun parts) and all are operating satisfactorily, thank you.  I have a load that's within the range of those used in the 1860s for the Remington New Model Army revolver and 1860 Colt Army, and it matches some of the .45 ACP loads for a ~180 grain bullet.

Now here's a puzzler.  I've had barrel leading in modern revolvers and autos firing bare lead, hard-cast or swaged bullets.  Using pure, soft lead bullets in the '58 Remington and '51 Colts, no leading has been observed, even with these loads that achieve modern handgun KE levels.  I don't know why.  Is it the grease?  But we're told in no uncertain terms never to lubricate a modern gun bore, while black powder guns are greased all to hell.  Is it the propellant temp?  But the KE is the same.

It Was a Bright and Calm Morning...

My son and I both decided to hunt Late Muzzleloader season this year for a simple reason-- there are far more does and "antlerless" bucks in our little hunting spot than antlered bucks, and this season allows harvesting of "three point minimum or antlerless" white tail deer.  Hunting muzzleloader season gives us a high probability of harvesting deer within walking distance of home.

We have one functioning muzzleloader rifle (step one food processor) so Son was given the first watch at the tree stand.  The second time out he took a decent young buck (small nubs for antlers) on Thanksgiving Day.  He spotted it while climbing down the tree, and shot it with the rifle still tied to the cord we use for raising and lowering things from the stand.  After that I started going out to the stand, but saw nothing in several days.  That's unusual, but a deer had just been taken right there by Son.  Maybe they're a bit spooked.  Don't know, but on the morning of the last day of this one-week season, I got tired of sitting in the stand (besides, it was cold) and decided to take a walk.

It was a beautiful morning, just after sunrise, so if I never got a deer, it would still be worth the nice walk along the top of the picturesque basalt cliffs above the Palouse River.  There are always a lot of deer tracks up there, as it's their only option for traveling between their feeding grounds (farmer's fields) and their primary source of water.  My trouble that morning was that if there were any deer, they'd be immediately alerted to my presence.  Every 50 yards or so as I was walking along the ridge, a pheasant or two, or about 50 quail, would explode up from near my feet.  I might as well have been blowing an air horn every 50 yards and carrying a boom box playing rap music.

There's a place along that ridge that's down in a depression, and has some flat land with 360 degree concealment.  I knew in advance that if I was going to see a deer along the ridge away from our tree stand, it would likely be there.  As I topped the rise, getting ready to look down into the depression, I went slowly, making no sudden movements.

Sure enough, there were two deer, and one of them was a very nice eight-point buck!  About 200 yards away, he's looking in my direction.  The sun being directly behind me, I was casting a 100 yard-long shadow right in his direction.  Pure stealth isn't much of an option, but I was moving very slowly so as not to alert them too much.  Whack-a-Whack-a-Thump-a-Thump-a-Thump!!!  A pheasant exploded up at that moment about six feet away from me, so the buck got real nervous and trotted away.  It's been years since I saw a nice buck up there, and, aware of my presence, this one and the doe are now on the move away from me.  Oh well. (but they didn't bolt, as often happens)

I can either back-track less than a mile, cross the bridge for home and get ready to go to work, or I can go on, crossing another bridge about a mile ahead.  That's an easy choice-- I keep going forward in the direction of those two deer.  Wham, Slam, Whack!-- quail and pheasants continue to announce my presence.  This is getting hopeless.  But it's sure a nice day for a walk.

The deer never panicked, I guess, so what ended up happening was that I was dogging them.  They'd put some distance between us,  I'd close in, and they'd make some more distance.  Repeat.  Eventually they made a wrong move.  Some more quail (announcing my presence, but not telling exactly where) must have startled them out of the thick brush and into the open field.

I did not expect that.  They were in range, barely, but moving away fast.  Too far away to attempt a shot on a moving target.  No shot.  What do you do in this situation?  I whistled.  Deer whistle (I guess it's more of a fast hiss than a whistle) at each other as an alert message.  Anyhow, it worked.  They stopped, turned 90 degrees broadside and looked back at me.  From that moment, circumstances dictate action.  No time for kneeling, and that might scare them off, so standing it is.  We're all in the open.  Lock to full cock.  Backstop?  Check (there's a hill a couple hundred yards behind them).  Front sight.  This is a longish shot for this weapon with open sights from standing-- about 80 to 90 yards (I've never fired this rifle at anything more than 100 yards distant - maybe that has to change, but I'm confident at 100 and this is a bit less).  Some vacillating takes place for about a second.  One shot, one chance.  Too far?  Wobble area looks good.  Too far?  They're still standing there, stone still.  This is a hair trigger.  Sight's right on the sweet spot, what’re you waiting for?  Too far?  Nope.  Bang!

The two deer took off running.  The usual question comes to mind; did I miss?  They're running fast and far.  200 yards and they're out of sight over a rise in the undulating fields.  Oh well.  It's a nice day for a walk.  Should I reload?  Maybe.  Have to cover 200 yards to look over that rise and try to spot them.  Better do that.  There they are; waaaay out there and still running.  I must have missed, though the let-off felt fine.  Damn.  But wait.  The doe's way ahead of the buck.  Buck slows down and stops.  Then he looks like he got tired and decided to have a little lie down.  That's odd.  They only ran about 1,000 yards.  No, it can only mean I got him.

He's lying down with his head up.  Better reload.  I carry two reloads-- plastic cartridges that contain a measure of black powder, a ball with lubricated patch, and a percussion cap.  They're nice because you can use the cartridge structure as a short ball starter.  It's easy-- you just place the ball end over the muzzle and smack the other end, like so... Oops!  Forgot to pour the powder in first.  I have just dry-balled the gun and there's an injured buck (I don't know how injured) down there.  He could get up and run away.  I could lose an injured deer.  This sucks.  My chosen method of removing a dry ball is to seat the ball all the way down, remove the nipple and trickle a few grains of powder through the flash channel into the breech chamber, cap, then fire.  Works like a charm.  I have no nipple wrench.  Who needs to remove a nipple in the field on a half-day hunt? (it's coming with me from now on)  The nipple's seated tight-- can't break it free with the Leatherman tool.  Damn, damn, damn.  I eventually was able to pry the ball out at the muzzle, using the awl accessory (if I'd rammed it down I'd be hosed).  Cool.  Didn't scratch the muzzle 'cause the patch protected it.  That ball is toast, but I have one more reload.

Meanwhile, the buck is lying there, looking around...head up, head down, head up, head down again.  Did he die?  Head comes back up.  Crap.  I had to get close enough for a 100% sure CNS (Central Nervous System) shot.  Walk slowly.  40 yards, take aim.  No.  Why not get closer?  30 Yards, kneel, full cock, put a shot through the neck at the base of the skull.  He drops like a stone.

This is not a good place from which to pack out a large deer.  Good net coverage.  Kamiak Butte, with the cell towers, is only 6 miles to the southwest.  I call Son on the phone.  No answer.  I wait and call again.  No answer.  I call my wife-- she should be getting ready to drive to school.  Maybe she can meet me on the Colfax highway a few hundred yards over a hill and bring me home to get the pickup.  No answer.  I'd also been dogging a coyote along the way, and I'd seen the 'yote running along the same path as the deer.  Can't gut this buck yet.  That's just inviting that 'yote in to come and mess up my deer while I'm gone.  Leave it whole.  I walk a couple miles home, get Son out of bed and drive back to the Colfax highway.  We get permission to drive over a planted field to the deer.  No dice.  The frozen mud had thawed enough at the surface that a 4x4 with studded snows can't get a grip to climb over the hill.  We're on foot.  We go back home to grab a saw and a sled.

Below; the buck fell about a 1,000 yards from where he was hit, which was out of the frame to the upper right.

Looking closely, I find an entry wound in the deer's left hind quarter.  Odd.  I could have sworn he was broadside to me when the gun fired, and I know I didn't pull the shot that much.  And there's a ball, just under the skin behind the right shoulder, exactly opposite where I was aiming, but I can't find a corresponding entry wound.  Oh well, I'll find it when I skin the carcass.  Someone else must have shot this deer before me, which would explain the entry wound in the hip.  That's plausible, since I've been hearing shots in the area all week.  Weird.

Hours later we had the big buck hanging in the garage after getting the workout of the year.  Man, this hunting business is getting more like hard work.  After gutting (in the field) and skinning the deer (in the garage) there was only the one entry wound to be found.  The ball had struck the left "ham" at a shallow angle, passed through the intestines doing very little damage, passed through the stomach, blew a three-finger-sized ragged hole through the liver, punctured the diaphragm, punctured a lung, glanced off a rib and stopped just short of exiting the hide on the right side.  I measured 25 inches of penetration, from a ~180 grain round ball that left the muzzle at ~1,920 fps.  That deer ran about a thousand yards with all that damage.

My best guess is that the buck was all wound up tight, having spotted me, knowing that I'd been following him.  The cow-sized cloud of backlit, white smoke that erupted at extra-sonic speed from the muzzle must have made him jump slightly, changing the angle of impact from broadside to less than 45 degrees.  I calculate he had about a quarter second to move from the emergence of the smoke cloud.  I dunno.  Maybe he wasn't so fully broadside to begin with as I'd thought.  The "act of grace" neck shot did not penetrate more than three inches, but shattered the vertebra.

Here's one reason to have children.  They can pull your sled;

Observations on penetration and "stopping power"
Starting last season, we've shot three deer with the same exact load from the same muzzleloading rifle.  The first shot penetrated an adult whitetail fully, straight through the ribcage, severing a rib fully on each side, from <30 yards.  The same shot from Son hit a smaller deer broadside through the ribs, hit the heart and blew it completely apart, such that you could lay it out like a pancake, and did not exit the hide on the far side.  Less than 14 inches penetration.  Hitting the big buck in the heavy hip muscle from almost three times the distance, the ball went through 25 inches of animal, and the second ball (on the buck's neck) was demolished after about three inches.  The same load (110 grains of Old Black pushing a ~180 grain .495" round ball) penetrated between 3 and 25 inches (a factor of 8.33) depending on shot placement.  Sort of makes you wonder about penetration figures given for defense loads.  It all depends and what's being penetrated, from hide, to muscle, to the liquid chambers inside the heart, to lung and liver tissue that doesn't explode like that heart did.  And stopping power?  Each one of these deer was hit with a 100% lethal shot, and they ran from eighty to one thousand yards after being hit.

We've had similar "stopping power" experiences using modern rifles, but never has a modern rifle load failed to penetrate completely, regardless of what it hit inside.  I've been wondering whether the stories of recovered, modern hunting rifle bullets are just mythology, but if the differences in penetration can be so great with the muzzleloader they must be fairly large with modern systems too.

(With that I think I’ve outdone myself—- 2,000+ words.  It’s my first nice buck.  Can’t I prattle on and on about it?)

Below; Along the bottom, near that ditch behind the small rise is where the buck fell.  Kamiak Butte is in the distance, top right in the frame.

Below; this .495" (well, formerly .495") lead ball traveled 25 inches into the animal.  I'd not believe it if I hadn't seen it.  I bet I could load it again and kill another deer with it next year.

So maybe I'm an idiot.  I was out firing a Colt AR-15 HBAR with a Trijicon ACOG scope.  I'd gone the extra step and drilled through the A2 carry handle on this otherwise pristine Colt so as to add the second mounting screw for the scope.  The BDC (Bullet Drop Compensating) reticle has different crosshairs for elevation at different ranges (wind is of course still up to your doping skills).  You zero at, say, 100 using the main crosshair, and your elevation is supposed to be correct at all the other indicated distances.  One comment on that; it would be much better to refine your zero at greater distances, using that other crosshair, say, at 500 using the number 5 crosshair or etc.

Out in the real world though, your targets aren't placed at nice, even, measured distances, so it gets just a little bit more complicated.  I'd brought a laser with me to do range measurements.  The laser registered a particular target at 385 yards.  Said right there, so it couldn't be wrong, "385 yd".  That's close enough to 400 that I opt for the number 4 crosshair.  Shot went high.  "Not possible-- I called that shot dead on."  Same thing again.  Walking the shots onto the target, I find I have to hold halfway between the number 3 and 4 crosshairs*.  "Crap.  This shouldn't be happening.  I have nigh on three grand worth of equipment in top condition, the right ammo, and a standard length barrel.  What the hell?"

Some of you will already have figured out the problem (I seem to recall something about an interplanetary probe oblitorating itself on Mars due to a similar error).  The ACOG scope is calibrated in meters and the laser was set to display in yards.  A yard is 0.9144 meters.  In realistic rifle shooting distances, we can simplify that to either adding or subtracting 10% to do the conversion in our heads, and be close enough.  At 385 yards I was rounding up to 400, which made sense, but I was still thinking all in yards.  I didn't convert.  385 - 10% (simplify further and subtract 38) =  about 347 meters, or close enough to the 350 meter crosshair for this target.  *Ah Hah!

Better yet would have been to take all of half a minute (only because I don't mess with the settings much and I'd have had to take that long to figure it out) to set the laser to read in meters.

On a nice, relaxing day with a full belly and a Thermos-full of hot coffee (as backup this time) the sun shining and the birds chirping among the beautiful North Idaho scenery, this was more of an amusing lesson than anything serious.  If there is ever a situation in which it really matters, you'll want to be aware of these things in advance, and have taken the necessary steps already.

Part of my problem is that I fool around with so many different weapon systems, in addition to being an idiot.  How does that saying go?  "Beware the man with only one gun."  Something like that.  He knows his weapon backwards and forwards, right and left, upside down and every which way, in the dark, summer and winter, and with one hand tied behind his back just to make if fair he'll still kick your ass.  Hmm.  Maybe there's a new IPSC stage in there somewhere.

Update: With the low recoil of the 5.56 round and a low power optic, you can usually spot your own hits even at longer distances.  Take that for what it's worth.

John Fogh offers this advice from John Holschen:

Believing that the 5.56 “stopping power problem” is solved by a different bullet and/or cartridge is likely delusional in my opinion.

This statement doesn't stand on it's own because I'm pretty sure a 16" shell from the Missouri is an instantaneous (for all practical purposes) man stopper. Just the muzzle blast will kill. But that's the nit-picky engineer in me. And besides, Holschen qualifies it as referring to handheld firearms:

The stopping power “problem” is based on the misconception that there exists a hand-held firearm which can instantly terminate hostile behavior (reliably and repeatedly).

But the most interesting part to me was the conclusive evidence that:

...[A] BG was hit 12 times with an AR at a range of 9-12 yds.

• 10 rounds struck his torso producing fatal damage to his liver, spleen, heart and both lungs.
• 1 round struck his right femur fracturing same (and starting his fall toward the ground.)
• 1 round entered through his left eye and destroyed a significant portion of his brain (this was the last shot according to forensics but they noted the BG was already falling at the time this round hit him.)
• The shooting was captured on both video and (separate) audio recordings. The elapsed time from the LEO’s first shot to his 15th shot (total rounds fired) was just under 5 seconds.
• During those 5 seconds the BG continued to fight, firing 6 rounds from a .357 revolver.

The LEO fired three rounds per second and got 12 of his 15 shots on target and one of those was a head shot, all while being shot at by the bad guy. Impressive. Had he been shooting a .30 caliber rifle I doubt he could gotten near as many shots on target in that time frame. What this may mean is that in a similar event the .30 caliber rifleman would have put only two or three shots in the target and the BG stopped his attack in the same amount of time.

So which caliber has more "stopping power"? Remember, you can double the effectiveness of any bullet by putting another round through your target.

One of my more popular posts was Where does the bullet go?. I am somewhat of an expert on small arms exterior ballistics (I wrote Modern Ballistics) but while better than most people on terminal ballistics I usually refrain from saying much on the topic. Greg Hamilton and his colleagues at Insights Training are much higher on that food chain than I am. Although John Fogh doesn't mention it I know a little bit about the research Insights has done on the topic over the years.

John gives us some of the research results on Terminal Rifle Ballistics.

Via email from Jason comes this link to a proposal for a one mile range in central Washington State.

It sounds like they are talking greater than .30 caliber. My hottest loads with the highest BC bullets in my .300 Win Mag won't meet the requirement of being supersonic at the target.

For those of you that want to run the numbers yourself assume range conditions of 400 feet above sea level and 75F.

I've long been disgusted by Hollywood's portrayal of sounds.  Sounds in space, sound traveling at the speed of light, and the ridiculous sounds of gunfire made up in a studio.  Even the news services will often do a time-shift, to synchronize the sound of a distant event with the video even though anyone who's been alive long enough to understand what they're seeing on TV knows that sound and light travel at different rates.  I just, do, not, get why TV and movie people have to screw up reality so much.  Far from adding anything, it subtracts from the final product.

For example, I think the long delay in the sound of a distant explosion at Boomershoot makes the experience more awesome.  It adds to the perception of enormity.  The movie, "Band of Brothers" is an attempt to show it like it really was, and for the most part they seem to have done a good job.  Not when it comes to sound editing though.  Super-sonic bullets whiz by, "whoosh-whoosh, zip, zip" and so on, and of course the sound always travels at the speed of light.  It's taking a serious subject and turning it into slapstick.

In the interest of universal understanding, I made this recording of .308 rifle fire from about 380 yards while setting up some rifles for Boomershoot.  The camera is about 20 yards from the targets (yeah, I was holding the camera, but I was behind a hill from the gun and in radio communication with the shooter-- completely safe).  Each shot delivers multiple sonic effects or events.  First is the "CRACK-hiss" (mini sonic boom) from the bullet.  Take the sonic boom from a jet flying over, speed it up a few octaves, and you'll have about the same thing.  That bit is interesting in that it does not come from the gun, but from the bullet.  You have no sense of the direction from which the bullet came.  Imagine standing in the water on the shore of a lake and feeling the wake from a passing boat on your legs.  From that sensation alone, you have no idea of where the boat came from, and little or no information about its direction of travel.  The bullet's wake, as sound, gives you no more information-- just a "snap" that seems to come from nowhere.  Next is the sound of impact, which is only audible in the first shot in this recording.  Then comes the "boom" from the muzzle blast, followed by the reverberation in the surrounding hills and trees.

Note that the reverb almost seems louder than the crack-boom.  That's due to the AGC (Automatic Gain Control) circuitry, A.K.A. "compression" built into the camera.  The initial crack drives circuitry into gain reduction, and the gain comes back up for the reverb.  To get the relative levels of the events portrayed accurately, I'll have to take a full-range stereo recorder into the field on another day and use its un-compressed level mode.  If you have some nice speakers (and pretty powerful, as the dynamic range is quite wide) you’ll hear it as if you were actually standing there.  Regular CD audio has a dynamic range of about 100dB, IIRC-- close enough.  This recording isn’t all that bad, though.  Crank up the volume, use good speakers, and boost the bass to get the full effect (the mini electret mic on the camera isn’t great for bass response);

My wife reads a lot of "who dunnit" mystery novels.  The one she's reading now addresses long-range marksmanship and the use of hollowpoint "match" bullets.  As a person normally 100% uninterested guns and shooting, she had a very good question for me; "Why do they use hollowpoints for accuracy"?  This lead to a very interesting discussion-- one uninterested in guns was trying to understand something that few gun enthusiasts understand completely and rarely discuss in such detail.

I had to admit I was at something of a loss.  My best understanding is that the hollowpoint bullet jacket can be manufactured to higher standards of concentricity (the mass being better centered around the mechanical center so as to avoid wobble in flight) and consistency of mass and shape.  That is all true, but exactly why it is true I was at a loss to explain with certainty.  My best guesses are that it has to do with the process of forming the jacket's shape, and with the insertion of the bullet's lead core, but I don't know the actual processes used in bullet manufacturing.

I also told her it was my opinion that since the hollowpoint jacket (having a closed copper base due to the way it's constructed) allows none of the bullet's lead base to melt away during the intense heat of firing, it is going to retain its mass, and therefore its consistency of mass from shot to shot, better than the open base of a standard full metal jacket bullet.  I've also read that the open-base FMJ can allow the jacket to partially separate from the core at the base under the pressure of firing.  If so, that would certainly alter its flight slightly and at random.

She explained that it was her understanding that hollowpoints were used to cause more trauma inside the target, and I told her that she was correct.  She was having a hard time understanding that there is no direct correlation between the objectives behind hollowpoint "match" bullet designs, and the hollowpoint bullets designed to expand and cause more damage.  This was getting too technical for a layperson, but her interest was piqued by the story she was reading.  I had to explain that hollowpoints designed specifically for expansion on impact have a wide range of designs, operating velocities and applications, and that match hollowpoints have nothing to do with any of that.  The match bullets are only designed for accuracy, with no regard to their effects on a target.

That being the case, one can nonetheless do a little experimentation.  Manufacturers of match rifle bullets usually make a point of telling the customer that they are NOT intended, and should not be used for, hunting.  There is one company, Burger Bullets, that touts their match VLD (Very Low Drag) hollowpoints as hunting bullets.  I've been loading Berger 7 mm bullets in 280 Remington for my son's use at Boomershoot, and since he keeps his rifle zeroed for that load, he has also used the VLDs for hunting.  This particular bullet has a light (read weak) jacket, and while it is an awesome animal stopper, it explodes at high velocity inside the animal due to its light construction and causes major damage to any meat it comes near.  It also tears a large hole in the hide for those of us who keep the skins.  They make a tiny entry wound and a softball-sized exit wound.  That would be OK if the shot placement and angle were ideal because only the heart/lung cavity would be so effected (then too, we like to eat the heart if it's intact).  Other match hollowpoints have heavier jackets that don't behave much different, on impact, from a standard FMJ bullet.

Practicing for Boomershoot last week, we found one of our 30 caliber match bullet jackets behind a 2' diameter rotten, wet log that it had penetrated.  Just the jacket, turned nearly inside-out, with no lead core.  The hollowpoint tip was almost perfectly intact, and so behaved radically different from a hollowpoint hunting or defense bullet.  The bullet had traveled 400 yards, entered and then yawed violently sideways inside the log.  The intense pressure of deceleration caused the heavier lead core to burst out the side of the jacket, separating completely.  The open-sided jacket followed through to drop on the ground just behind the log.  These match bullets were loaded in .308 Winchester cartridges made by Black Hills Ammunition.  We were using 168 and 175 grain, "red box" new loads.  I think the bullets they use in these loads are from Sierra, but don't quote me on that.  You can call them and ask if you're curious.

Never mind the 1600+ yard (that is 0.91 miles) hit on a 12" diameter plate, the guy in the video (you get to see him toward the end) is someone I know. He has been to Boomershoot several times and Barb and I went to high school with his Aunt Shirley. He also used to shoot a lot of IPSC at the same events I went to.

Oh, he is also a gunsmith. I suspect he made the video to show off some of his work as well as his talent.

Thanks to Boomershooter Michael who had the following to say about the video:

Spring is coming, and a not-so-young man's thoughts turn to . . . Boomershoot.

Well, close enough for now.

As planned Caleb and I did some more tests with Ry's test target. Video and commentary by Caleb.

We went to the Boomershoot site expecting to find little or no snow. We should have called ahead. There was about two feet of snow and we were unable to make it to the Taj Mahal with all our gear. We made do at the first berm. We used a paper target to zero the gun for this range (25 yards) then took a single shot with each caliber at the stack of steel plates at the base of the stump. The bullets at the steel plate went over the chronograph.

This was our setup.

In the following video you see the result of SS-109 and 30.06 blacktip ammo shot at the stack of steel plates each 0.25 inches thick. There is a gap of about 0.75 inches between each plate. Estimated velocity of the .223 bullet at the target is 2600 fps. Estimated velocity of the 30.06 bullet at the target is 2360 fps.

The .223 went through one and almost penetrated the second plate. The 30.06 went through three plates and partially into the fourth.

The .300 Win Mag pushing hand-loaded 162 grain military surplus black tip bullets was able to hit the target with a velocity of about 3315 fps. It went through all six plates:

Update: See also this paper on AP ammo. It's just the first page (you have to pay for the rest of it) but it's interesting reading.

Details of the test, with pictures, are here. Ry stopped by the house yesterday and I got to handle the test target and we talked and speculated about the details of the test results. The next time I go back to Idaho I think I will borrow his target and do the same test with 30-06 AP.

Scott found a user interface bug. That is fixed now. There was a bug in the "Delete All Data" link that I found and fixed as well.

I have also created a new topic tag for this blog "Ballistics". I still have to add this tag to old posts but I should get that done sometime today.

I added another feature to Modern Ballistics for the Field. It now gives you the approximate maximum range for your bullet under the given environmental conditions.

My Modern Ballistics for the Field software is essentially completed (as long as there are a fair number of people using it software is never done). And I'm debating with myself as to whether I should start work on a Leftspeak to English conversion website or if I should work on some explosives modeling software.

The Leftspeak project would be easy and fun and only take a few days in my spare time. The explosives modeling software will probably take months but be far more useful.

Any votes?

I've fixed all the fixable bugs in my cell phone/PDA web based exterior ballistics program I announced last November and put it at it's permanent home at http://field.modernballistics.com/.

Enjoy and let me know if you run across any bugs not mentioned on the Known Bugs page. Suggestions for improvements are also welcome. Send them to "JoeH AT modernballistics.com".

I have worked with the mathematics of exterior ballistics for so long that I sometimes forget the general nature of the path of a rifle bullet to it's target is not mind boggling obvious. I was reminded of this by an email I received today:

Need a answer: I was told that when shot a 30 cal. bullet goes up and makes an arc to the target, when held level. What happens, say at 100 yards.?

This email caused me to have a flashback to when I was in grade-school (yes Kris, firearms had been invented by the time I left grade-school).

When I was about the fourth grade a friend of mind, Verl (yeah, kids had strange names back in those days), insisted that the bullet would rise after it left the barrel of a rifle. I didn't believe it and asked how long it took before it when into orbit (or some such thing that pointed out the absurdity of his claim). He didn't know but asked his dad and came back to school and explained it went up for a while then came back down. My knowledge of and ability to articulate the physics of gravity and moving objects was limited and although I was profoundly unsatisfied with this explanation I couldn't refute his assertion that it was true.

Later I made sense of it and eventually I wrote a computer programs that accurately predicts the path of a bullet as it leaves the muzzle. I am now much more capable of articulating the physics and will now attempt do so.

If you were to go to the range and instead of shooting the bullet you were to drop it from your fingers you would correctly expect the bullet to immediately accelerate toward the center of earth and pick up speed at the rate of about 32 feet per second for each second it is in the air until it hit something. It doesn't rise for a while then start falling. If you take a carpenter's level to the range and line up the bore with the level such that the bore was horizontal and fire the gun the bullet will drop, relative to the horizontal, from the instant it leaves the barrel. It does not rise and then fall. It also does not fall at the same rate as a bullet you dropped from your fingers but that is another, much more complicated issue that is beyond the scope of this post.

Because the bullet immediately starts falling as it leaves the barrel in order for the sights to predict the impact point they are not aligned exactly parallel with the bore. They are aligned such that when you view the target they line up where the bullet will actually hit after bullet has dropped by whatever amount on it's travel to the target. If the bore is horizontal the sights are pointed slight down. If the sights are horizontal then the bore will be pointed slightly up. In other words there is an angle between the line of sight and the bore of the gun. I call this angle the "Sight Angle".

As far as I know I am the first to use the phrase "Sight Angle". I use this to simplify the setting of the scope for long distance shooting. Most long range shooting instructors refer to your gun having a "Zero" that depends on the altitude, temperature, bullet velocity, and ballistic coefficient of the bullet. This is wrong. The gun is constant with respect to the environment. The drop of the bullet changes, not the scope setting.

Knowing the distance to the target and the drop the bullet makes when it goes this distance we can compute the proper angle the barrel should be with the horizontal to hit a target that is the same distance above the ground as the muzzle of the barrel. This angle is the proper angle required to have the gun exactly compensate for the drop of the bullet on it's way to the target. This angle is not the sight angle because there is another complication--the height of the sight above (almost always but not necessarily) the bore. For a typical scoped rifle the line of sight through the scope is about 1.5 inches above the center of the bore. I call this the sight height. Using some trigonometry the sight height and proper angles can all be number crunched into a single number that you can dial into your scope such that for any give range and bullet drop you can dial your scope to the proper angle and you have precisely compensated for the drop of the bullet such that where you line the sights up that is where the bullet is going to go (minus bullet inaccuracy, wind drift, and shooter error). This "proper angle" is my Sight Angle. If you know what the environment is and you know the angle of the scope (and its height) relative to the bore you will know where the bullet will hit for any given range.

So, the email asked for what happens at 100 yards. Here are the graphs (generated with Modern Ballistics, which I wrote).

First the drop for a bullet fired with the bore of the gun horizontal. This is for a .308 Winchester shooting Federal match 168 grain bullets at "standard conditions" (59 F, sea level). Yes, I know this graph is confusing. It is not the path of the bullet. This is the distance the bullet has dropped as it traverses from the muzzle to the target. The drop increases the further it travels:

By the time the bullet has traveled 100 yards it has dropped nearly 3 inches. If you point the bore up at a slight angle (4.23 Minutes of Angle to be exact) compared to a scope mounted 1.5 inches above the center of the bore, aim the scope at a target 100 yards the bullet will start out 1.5 inches below the line of sight of the scope. Because the barrel is pointed up slightly as the bullet travels forward it will rise as it travels to the target. The distance from the line of sight through the scope to the bullet at any given range is called the height of the bullet at that range. Hence at the muzzle the height is -1.5 inches. And since the proper angle for a 100 yard zero was dialed into the scope the height at 100 yards will be 0.00 inches as seen in this graph:

So, from the viewpoint of the scope the bullet does rise and then fall. Of particular interest is that there are actually two zeros for this scope setting. There is a "Near Zero" at 49.8 yards and there is the normal or "Far Zero" at 100 yards. At what is called the Midrange, 75.1 yards in this case, the bullet is at its maximum height of 0.2 inches above the line of sight.

So that is the path of the bullet for a 100 yard shot.

It is just my opinion but I don't think shooting at 100 yards is very interesting with a rifle. The errors involved for temperature changes, air pressure, wind drift, and bullet velocity variations just don't stack up enough to amount to much at that kind of range. For a .30 caliber rifle I don't find things particularly interesting until we start shooting targets at 500 yards and beyond. I'm not going to get into all the interesting details because 99.9% of the people will find what I think is fascinating as mind bogglingly boring. But here is a hint of 500 yard shooting. A graph of the height of a bullet, again relative to the line of sight of the scope, for the same rifle and cartridge as above but for a 500 yard target:

I have my software project ready for an alpha release (feature complete, but there are known bugs which must be fixed before release).

This was designed for cell phones not a desktop. It will work on desktop and laptop computers but whenever a user interface design was a trade-off between a desktop user and a mobile user the mobile user was given the advantage.

The software is a web based exterior ballistics calculator and can be found here: http://test.joehuffman.org/ http://field.modernballistics.com.This is much different that Modern Ballistics but uses the same algorithms and concepts. This web based version is for use in the field. Example, while at Boomershoot you can input the exact ranges and inclination to a set of targets combined with the weather conditions to get the scope setting needed for one shot, one "kill" hits on the boomers. I plan to have it running on a local server at Boomershoot 2009 so cell phones (and laptops) with WiFi support can get really fast results even with a heavy load of users.

I'm also thinking that maybe for Boomershoot 2010 I will have a weather station on site that will update the conditions for a special version of the software in real time.

Known bugs:

• The help page is for the desktop version not the web based version.
• If the bullet velocity at the target is less than 1400 fps all parameters such as elevation angle, windage, time to target, etc. are in error.
• Some optimization for response time and load handling should still be done.

All data is stored in cookies on your device. This means the website does not need to save the data on the site in order to save your data. The downside is that all your input from the desktop does not show up on your cell phone or if you get a new cell phone the data will have to be reentered.

At this point I’m mostly looking for user interface and device compatibility issues. Does it appear to work on your Blackberry? Does it work on your iPhone? Is the user interface easy enough to understand and use? If you have problems with your cell phone try using it on a desktop computer to make sure you are using the software right before assuming the cell phone is having problems with the website.

Leave comments here.

Thanks for your feedback.

Last Saturday most of the gun bloggers at the Rendezvous went to the range. Other reports and pictures from range day are here:

• gbr-iii-saturday-101108-range-day
• Gunbloggers Rendezvous III
• GBR-III Fabrique Nationale
• GBR-III Range Day or Bust
• Gun Pr0n: Boom!
• GBR-III Update: The Packing Rat goes Full Auto
• GBR-III Update: Range Day, with Gun Pr0n
• We're Either Dedicated or Crazy
• David’s Trigger Time
• GBR Day 3
• it goes boom
• Finally

Yes. As nearly everyone else noted, it was on the cold side of comfortable. The temperature was about 35 F and when we arrived the winds varied from 10 to 20 MPH.

Derek deals with the cold and wind.

These were not the best of conditions for long range shooting but this range is for long range shooting and I wanted to do some long range shooting. I had not shot my .300 Win Mag since the year before at this same range. This range has targets out to nearly 1000 yards and this, more than anything else, is why I wanted to go to the Rendezvous.

Traction Control brought his Barrett .50 BMG and was setting up at the very end bench. This minimized the impact of the vicious muzzle blast on other shooters. I set up on the empty bench next to him but stood behind the line when someone was shooting the .50 to avoid the vicious muzzle blast. This extended the time for my set up as I measured the wind speed, wind direction, air pressure, the inclination to the various targets, and used my laser range finder to get the exact range to each of the targets. I was still making measurements and taking notes as everyone else went through two cycles of shooting and shutting down the range to change targets. I then used my HP-41CV calculator running a special version of Modern Ballistics to compute the necessary sight angle between the scope and the gun for the elevation. I didn't bother with measuring the incline for the targets at 523 yards and under because they were all less than 8 degrees and the resultant shift in scope settings would be less than 0.1 MOA from assuming no inclination. By the time I was finally ready to shoot there was very little wind from side to side so I didn't bother to run the numbers through the calculator.

Here are my notes:

October 11, 2008

Apparent Elevation (based on air pressure): 3500'
Wind: 10 to 20 MPH 45 degrees

Target	Range (yards)	Incline (degrees)	Sight Angle (MOA)
Paper	197	0	4.87
Plate 1	342	-	7.83
Plate 2	412	-	9.51
Plate 3	523	-	12.38
Plate 4	637	8	16.63
Plate 5	957	11	27.19

Having done all this I finally took my first shots at the paper target:

Five shot group at 197 yards at the upper A-zone of a USPA target.

I should have put a orange target dot on the center of the 'A' to have a better aiming point. It was difficult to get the cross hairs centered on the outline as I couldn't see the 'A' itself. As it was I just concentrated on the horizontal because I was uncertain as to my windage zero but not my elevation zero. I expect most of the vertical was my fault and not the gun and/or ammo. Still, it was a less than 3/4 MOA group and I was satisfied with it.

I adjusted my windage zero and took some shots at the closer plates. I connected every time and was rewarded by seeing the plate swing and hearing a loud "thwack-clang" sound. I then asked Phil to spot for me as I adjusted for the 957 yard plate. The plate was difficult for a lot of people to find. Here is the context as seen through a 300 mm (think of it as 6X telescope) camera lens:

Plate and drum are in the upper left quadrant.

Close up of the 957 yard plate and 55 gallon drum.

A 55 gallon steel drum is about 22" x 34" and based on that the plate appears to be about 30" x 16". My mil-dot reticle estimates agree with this. The wind was very low but even a 3 MPH wind would result in a miss if I aimed dead on at this range. I waited until the wind appeared to be zero and pulled the trigger. Phil reported it hit just a bit to the right of center and dead on for elevation.

A first round hit at nearly 1000 yards. The geek wins!

The rest of the day was anti-climatic for me. I shot at the 957 yard plate a few more times but I ignored the wind and got hits only about half the time. I shot 10 rounds out of Traction Control's .50 (I brought my own ammo) and got 7 out of 10 hits on the drum. The .50 has a much better BC (1.05 on the 750 grain A-MAX versus 0.533 on the 190 grain Sierra Match Kings I was shooting) which helped on windage but I suspect that gun didn't have the inherent accuracy because the target was bigger and I got essentially the same hit ratio.

I emptied a magazine (four rounds) into each of the closer plates and knocked down the 523 yard target with my last shot. As it appeared everyone remaining from the Rendezvous was waiting on me I packed up and left. I was done as soon as I got the first round hit on the 957 yard plate. That was all I was really interested in anyway.

By the end of the day the apparent elevation had changed to 3700 feet but I ignored this as it made only about 0.1 MOA difference at 957 yards. Had it warmed up 10 degrees to 45 F that would have made a difference of 0.28 MOA in the same direction and I would have taken two clicks off of the scope setting for the most distant target to account for both.

Update: The picture below is from last year and the target is out of focus but it does give a sense of the size of the target as seen in a 14X scope. The drum is 2.5 Mils to the right of the plate which is almost centered in the crosshairs.

2007 view of the 957 yard target at the Reno Range.

Kevin is leaving tomorrow evening. Barb and I are packing tonight. Our plane leaves at noon tomorrow but we will be in Tonopah until Friday which means we will miss out on the super secret event on Thursday evening.

The gun stuff I'm packing includes:

• Gun Blog 45 and 200 rounds of ammo
• STI Eagle 5.1 and 200 rounds of ammo
• Shot timer
• Spotting scope (I hope I can find it!) and tripod
• .300 Winchester Magnum and 100 rounds of ammo
• Laptop computer with Modern Ballistics (yeah, I'm a geek)
• Some cleaning supplies

Anything I'm missing that I can legally take on the plane (no, I won't be bringing my chemistry set) and would be nice to have on the range Saturday?

Update: I can't find my spotting scope so I'm not bringing the tripod. I am bringing my laser range finder and a pair of good binoculars.

Earlier today Say Uncle sent me an email asking if I could help out a reporter looking for "someone of authority" to address the body armor versus deer hunting ammo issue. I know a lot more about exterior ballistics (I wrote Modern Ballistics) than terminal ballistics but I'm not totally ignorant of it either. So I agreed to "look up a few references" for the guy.

My email, with very minor edits, to the reporter follows. His email response indicated he was happy with my answers.

Say Uncle asked that I address your “deer ammo going through body armor” story. I’ll address it as best I can but strictly speaking I’m not an expert. I’m a very well informed hobbyist.

Although there is occasional some controversy over the National Institute of Justice testing procedures and standards they are still “the standard”. You can read their standard here.

Their main page on Body Armor is here.

Probably the part that is most relevant to your issue is the body armor classification. This can be found in section 2 starting on page 17. The basics are that body armor is classified according to the level of protection it provides. Those classes are, in order of increasing protection level:

• Type IIA (9 mm; .40 S&W)
• Type II (9 mm; .357 Magnum)
• Type IIIA (.357 SIG; .44 Magnum)
• Type III (Rifles)
• Type IV (Armor Piercing Rifle)

Most law enforcement officers wear type II or IIIA. Higher levels of protection require metal or ceramic inserts which increase the weight, bulk, and the body heat retention. See also Section 6, Selecting the Appropriate Level of Protection in this document. At some point in the tradeoff between comfort and protection the police officer will stop wearing the armor on an everyday patrol. In a high risk entry/arrest situation they are more likely to upgrade to type III armor if it is available.

The problem certain well intentioned politicians get into is that they don’t realize the body armor problem is as much a velocity problem as it is a bullet construction problem. Certainly sharp pointed Teflon coated tungsten carbide (a very hard metal used for metal working tools) bullets will penetrate a higher level of armor than a blunt nosed soft lead bullet. But that only goes so far. Increasing the velocity of the bullet by a few hundred feet per second will overcome the inferior construction in most applications. Rifle bullets are much faster than common pistol bullets. The typical handgun bullet is on the order of 1000 fps. A typical modern center fire rifle bullet leaves the muzzle at a velocity on the order of 2500 fps or greater.

I’ve done some informal testing with the 30-06 rifle on an engine block. The Speer Reloading Manual says of this rifle cartridge, “It is safe to say that the 30-06 Springfield is the best-known and most successful centerfire cartridge ever developed.” In a typical hunting load (see http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=260) at 100 yards from the muzzle the bullet is still traveling at over 2600 fps. The tests I did were with a target cartridge and bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=148). At the muzzle this bullet is traveling at about 2700 fps and is still going at over 2500 fps at 100 yards. I was shooting into the side of a six cylinder car engine from the early fifties from about 50 yards away. This was a very heavy engine block compared to today’s cars yet the target bullet would penetrate half way through the block penetrating the water jacket, one side of a cylinder and frequently one side of a piston. A very high velocity (1350 fps at the muzzle) 9mm bullet shot at the same engine block only knocked the rust off of the metal. It did not dent or crack the side of the engine.

It is a very different problem to stop a rifle bullet than to stop a handgun bullet. Although it isn’t quite this simple you can think of it as an energy problem. The energy of the projectile is proportional to the mass of the bullet times the velocity of the bullet squared. That is E = m V². The mass of a common hunting bullet is on the order of 150 to 180 grains. The mass of a pistol bullet is on the order of 125 to 200 grains with the heaver bullets moving much slower than the lighter ones. The rifle bullets typically are moving about 2.5 times as fast as the pistol bullets. Hence they will typically have about 2.5² or about 6 times as much energy as the pistol bullet.

Even the ancient 30-30 Winchester cartridge has a muzzle velocity of nearly 2400 fps with a 150 grain bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=28) which will cut through the typical concealable body armor worn by law enforcement on a daily basis. Higher end rifles for larger game such as, the still very common, .300 Winchester Magnum with a 165 grain bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=592) have muzzle velocities of over 3000 fps. Run the numbers on that and see the sort of problem the body armor is facing.

Hence, the NRA claim that outlawing ammunition on the basis of its ability to penetrate typical body armor would result in the banning nearly all common rifle hunting is true. It is possible the politician did not have that intention but that would be the result.

That is probably more information than you really wanted but I hope it answers your questions. If not or if you have any further questions please let me know.

As I reported in my previous post Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence, is now working from home to save money but that didn't stop him from talking about stuff he didn't know anything about to the D.C. City Council yesterday:

A gun-control advocate told the D.C. Council's public safety committee Wednesday that officials should consider adopting a complex method of ballistics tracking to help identify guns used in the city.

"In crime scenes, what we find are cartridges and no guns," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. "Microstamping can provide the link between the gun and cartridge."

Mr. Horwitz's comments came during a hearing before the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary regarding gun laws in the District.

Apparently he didn't realize one or more of the following facts:

• There are no microstamped guns in production.
• Requiring guns to be microstamped would indirectly be a ban on guns in D.C.
• The Supreme Court said complete gun bans are unconstitutional.
• There are over 200 million guns in the U.S. that are not microstamped and no criminal with room temperature I.Q. would use a microstamped gun. Those with sub room temperature I.Q. will get caught without having a microstamped gun.
• Microstamping is easily defeated:
  • Good choice of background music
  • Microstamping research
  • My opinion on microstamping

But we already knew these guys are clueless about guns and microstamping.

I really like what Ronnie Barrett has to say here:

Be aware there are more companies that will respect this position. If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50-caliber rifle, we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies. We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.

He already stopped sales to California as did STI.

I did a similar thing with my restrictions on Modern Ballistics. But I have no way to enforce this when the downloads are free and essentially anonymous. Plus I have only received a couple hundred dollars for all the hundreds of downloads and usage of the product over the years. Any income I lose from adhering to my principles is measured in pennies.

While I greatly admire and encourage the Barrett and STI actions it is not my pocket book that suffers from this. I know other manufactures that simply cannot afford to refuse sales to California because of the volume of business they would lose.

I've been doing a little research into microstamping. High emotions on either side are not productive. I've tried to gather facts and sources for your own research.

This was instigated at the suggestion of Justthisguy in the comments.

First off I would like to point out there are two types of microstamping. Neither of which should be confused with "ballistic fingerprints".

The Technologies

Ballistic Fingerprints are Dead for Now

"Ballistics fingerprints" are a system where law enforcement obtains a bullet and cartridge casing from the manufacture for every new gun. Maryland and New York have passed laws requiring this and at last check not a single crime had been solved with this additional data and Maryland State Police were advising the money should be spent on something more effective.

Microstamping of Bullets

This concept is about putting matching serial numbers on the bullet, shell casing, and bullet box. Of course there would have to be a database that tracked the bullets from manufacture to the end user. It is impractical for many reasons.

I don't expect this to go anywhere in the immediate future.

Microstamping of Firearms

This is about putting unique codes (essentially a serial number) on the firing pin, breach face, ejector and extractor. Typically you will hear the example of the firing pin being marked but actually there will be markings in other places as well. Some people pretend it's a secret where these markings will be. Anyplace that strikes or presses against the shell casing is a potential location for imprinting the codes. This includes inside the chamber but those marking are at high risk of being sheared or smeared away in semi-autos during the extraction while there is still some pressure in the barrel and casing.

These codes will correspond to the serial number of the gun. The manufacture of the gun will be required to cooperate with law enforcement to find the distributor->retailer->initial buyer -- just like current firearm traces when law enforcement has the make, model, and serial number of a firearm.

This technology poses the greatest potential to be generally implemented and California passed such a law on October 13, 2007. This law mandates the technology be used on all new firearms sold in California beginning on January 1, 2010. It requires the microscopic codes be put in two or more places such they are transferred to the cartridge case.

For more information see Wikipedia on microstamping.

The Debate

Overview

The claimed benefit of the proposed technologies is the promise of making it easier to solve crimes committed with firearms.

The arguments against the use of the technology center on the ease of a criminal defeating the technology, the difficulty of manufacturers implementing it, the risk of innocent people being framed, and the increased costs to all gun owners.

Anti-gun advocates

Gun control advocate appear to be in favor of any restrictions on firearms and are in favor of all of the technologies. See also microstamping webpages for The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and their PowerPoint presentation.

Pro-gun advocates

This report on a paper from UC Davis provides some support for the case against microstamping of firearms but probably made a lot of errors and should not be considered strong evidence for the case against microstamping.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. has a document on microstamping that outlines the problems from the manufacturer's viewpoint and the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners, and that it will not reduce crime. Other documents I found on the NSSF site probably have serious flaws and shouldn't be used as reference material.

Technology advocates

Todd Lizotte is a co-inventor of firearms microstamping. Here is a video of him describing and demonstrating the technology. He also commented on David E. Petzal's Field and Stream blog. I have extracted his comments from this blog and uploaded them here. One of his arguments is the following (a copy and paste with typos intact):

I am not sure a defensive strategy to protecting rights has ever worked. A proactive stretgy always keeps the fight off in the distance. Microstamping does not change the status quo, all data is at the manufacturer. No registration, no licensing and no imaging.

What many people are not aware of is there is a new 3D mapping imaging system being produced. We helped successfully defeat ballistic imaging for new firearms, however the ATF and its vendor are not giving up, the ATF has a $500 Million system in place for linking current ballistic imaging data from crime labs. The company who built that system, located in Quebec, needs to expand its market, it needs to capture the new firearm market.

The old system they built can not accurately imaging new firearms, however it is possible for the new 3D system to work at a much larger expense.

Microstamping neutralizes the need for imaging all togther.

In the end I am for being proactive, instead of being reactive.

If you want to see how bad it could really get, google 3D ballistic imaging and see how costly that system will be, since that system will require all info on the pruchaser and firearm to be entered into a government controlled criminal database.

I am not sure most people understand this fact.

Microstamping is a perfect technology --- completely benign and all data remains at the firearm manufacturer.

In essence of what he is saying is the alternative to microstamping the firearm is a much more expensive version of the "ballistic fingerprint" system implemented with better technology and the associated additional databases.

Conclusions

Because no new database is required, only an additional entry in the manufacturer's database with the serial number, firearm microstamping gets around a number of the arguments against "ballistics fingerprints" and bullet/casing microstamping. For this reason I expect the anti-gun people to push this technology the hardest and have the most success with it.

The best argument against microstamping of firearms is the manufacturing process does not lend itself to serialization of multiple parts. The firing pins are made by some supplier, the extractors, ejectors, and slides by other companies. The manufacture of the gun itself may just assemble the pieces. Each of the serialized parts must be matched with the frame that has the actual official firearm serial number. The code on these serialized parts are not visible without a microscope and all would have to be verified and recorded in database during the assembly process. This will make it expensive and error prone. This argument will not gain much traction with the anti-gun people because increasing the expense of firearms is not regarded as a problem.

The next best argument is probably that criminals can easily defeat the technology. This seems indisputable. Changing of firing pins, extractors, ejectors, and barrels is commonplace in the gun community. A few minutes with an grinding stone on a Dremel tool will obliterate the laser etching without affecting the functioning of the firearm. The counter arguments are somewhat weak; 1) Criminals aren't very smart; and 2) There are redundant markings.

The framing of innocent people is probably the weakest of the arguments against firearm microstamping. The powder residue and other forensic evidence will eliminate most planted shell casing from the real shell cases involved in the crime. Multiple stampings from reloaded shell cases also are probably easily eliminated with the available forensic evidence. It will slow down the process however, but probably no more than it would if they were to do it with existing forensic technology and this appears to be a non-problem. Of course this assumes the prosecutors and law enforcement are forthright and trustworthy in dealing with the evidence. I am inclined to believe this is generally the case but the actual instances of unethical actions of our government officials is much higher than I am comfortable with.

Pretty Pictures

The following pictures are from Forensic Technology and show the level of detail possible with modern microscopes.

Update: The following pictures are from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's PowerPoint presentation:

Primer after 2500 rounds through a Thompson SMG.
Glock firing pin after 1400 rounds (image reversed).
Primer from a Glock after 1400 rounds.

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image from Glock showing smearing of the primer.

Ry reports on a new Army sniping record from Afghanistan by a Arfcom member. Awesome!

If you are wondering at all the amazing sniping shots coming out of Afghanistan you aren't alone. I knew the high altitude would make a difference but I didn't know exactly how much until I ran some numbers through Modern Ballistics. Below you see the numbers for the .50 BMG shooting a high end bullet/cartridge with a gun zeroed at sea level for 1000 yards at a target at 2300 yards (2100 meters) away for various altitudes. Notice the difference in expected group size as the altitudes goes from 0 to 10000 feet. Notice the windage difference. All those things help but still, the shooter and spotter had to be top notch and have a little luck as well. Assuming a target of 18 inches wide and 24 inches tall the altitude difference changed the odds of a hit from about 10% to 20% (not shown).

Good job SnakeaterM24!

Firearm: Default
Cartridge: .50 BMG HMI with 750 gr. A-MAX
Conditions: Standard Conditions.
Range: 2300
Altitude (ft):           0   1000   2000   3000   4000   5000   6000   7000   8000  10000

I'm ready to go. Barb and I are leaving on a jet plane for Reno and the Gun Blogger Rendezvous this evening. That's assuming the TSA will allow me, my guns, and ammo on the plane. Alaska Airlines will only allow me to take 50 pounds of ammo [heavy sigh]. That would have been enough for what I want to do except that with all the other stuff I'm taking (Boomershoot give aways, knives, spotting scope, tripod, range bag, magazines, holsters, guns, shot timer, eye and ear protection, laser range finder, binoculars, spare batteries, gun cleaning gear, walkie-talkie, altimeter, wind gauge, thermometer, exterior ballistics calculator, targets, and a clean pair of socks) I started running up against a different weight limit without bringing all the ammo I wanted.

I have enough match rifle ammo and if I decide I want some more pistol ammo I'll buy it in Reno sometime tomorrow.

Update: We made it through security without incident. We are now sitting at our gate waiting to board. Pretty amazing considering all the electronics and cables I had in my computer bag. The holster in the computer bag apparently didn't raise an eyebrow either. And the empty water bottle... I thought for sure they would want to open my backpack to make sure it was actually empty. They were cool with me wearing a shirt with the picture of a gun on it and the Boomershoot coat too. All nice to know. Maybe they are happy with just infringing on one constitutionally guaranteed right at a time.

So far the flight is on time. You can track it in near real time here.

We spent this weekend out camping in an Idaho mountain meadow, in an "open range" area (where cattle wander free, and are branded for later roundup).  Aside from being stunningly beautiful, with the fall colors coming on and the abundant wildlife resulting from recent logging operations (you did know that logging results in copious new foliage for the grazing of deer and elk, and cover for small game, didn't you?) there are quite a lot of cow pies.

Grass and water go in one end of the bovine, you see, and cow pies are what come out of the other end.  The name applies whether the bovine in question is male or female.  That saves you the trouble of determining whether a given pie is a cow pie, a bull pie, or a heifer pie, etc..

I'd been doing some shooting out there with several firearms, and asked my 10 year-old daughter to get out her .22 rifle.  She wasn't much interested until I pointed out that she could try shooting at small pieces of wood floating in a pond.  She quickly discovered that if you place a bullet just under the floating stick it will jump 15 feet into the air.  That got her attention, and she was soon asking for more ammo.  She's a fairly new shooter, so her hit rate wasn't very good, and she lost interest until she discovered that a fresh cow pie will explode if hit with a .22 Long Rifle hollowpoint.

In other words, her shooting may not be minute-of-angle accurate (one M.O.A. equals one sixtieth of a degree) but she can shoot "Minute Of Cow pie" (M.O.C.) which allows her to enjoy a 100% hit rate on these impromptu, reactive targets.

She spent the rest of the afternoon shooting cow pies with a big grin on her face (and me laughing to myself, thinking how wonderfully stereotypical, North-Idaho-redneck an activity that was).

For further study, I picked up some beer cans (probably discarded by some pale, leftist San Franciscans who thought getting drunk and littering in Idaho would be a hoot) filled them with water and shot them with various calibers.  It happens that a .223 Remington cartridge, pushing a 55 grain, hard-jacketed spitzer at around 3,000 feet per second will cause the water-filled aluminum can to burst out in all directions, yet still hold together in one piece, whereas a soft lead sphere of .495" diameter (50 caliber patched round ball - the patched ball is an American innovation that was used with deadly effect against King George's officers during the Revolution) traveling at about half that velocity will blow the can into several pieces, scattering them up and out about 15 yards, leaving the base of the can still holding water where it stood (I picked up the pieces and took them home if you must know, leaving the meadow cleaner than we found it).

I also discovered that you can hit gallon jug-sized targets at 200 yards (you do travel with a rangefinder, don't you?) with a little youth model .22 rifle, zeroed at 20 yards, if you aim about 5 1/2 feet high.  You have enough time to bring the rifle down and listen/watch for the impact at that distance.

Ain't freedom grand?

After getting the suggestion from Ry I have been exploring the possibility of doing a 1000 yard Boomershoot.

I did a few calculations with Modern Ballistics last night to see what would happen if people just overshot the target area. My cousin's house is a mile away and pretty close to directly behind the proposed target area. The house is out of sight and I suspected the shots would over shoot the house and land in the fields behind his house. It turns out the answer depends on the caliber being shot:

• A 7.62 x 39 (yeah right!) bullet would land in the field several hundred yards in front of the house.
• A .50 BMG bullet would overshoot the house by a few feet.
• A .300 Win Mag shooting Blackhills Match ammo with a 15 MPH wind from the West would put a bullet through his living room window.

I haven't checked with my cousin yet but I suspect the safety margins are not acceptable.

It is very unlikely there be 1000 yard shooting at Boomershoot 2008. I need to find a different location before that becomes a reality.

When grabbing the link to the Berger VLD bullets to make the previous post something jumped out at me. The ballistic coefficient (BC) on my favorite bullet has been changed. It used to be listed as 0.640. They now list it as 0.631.

The first time I fired my rifle at 1000 yards I entered the temperature, air pressure, and wind speed/direction (I already had the scope height, muzzle velocity, BC, and inclination entered), into my little calculator. It reported back the sight angle for my scope, I tweaked my scope, and I happily aimed dead on and put my first three rounds into the bottom right of the X-Ring. I wasn't surprised my wind estimation was a little off but why the bottom of the ring? Since then I've had the nagging suspicion that the algorithm used in the calculator and Modern Ballistics wasn't quite right. Yes, it was close enough for all practical purposes. I couldn't argue with a X-ring hit at 1000 yards on the first shot from the gun beyond 200 yards from a cold clean barrel. But as years went by it always seemed the gun and cartridge was shooting just a tad low from what I expected.

Running the numbers through Modern Ballistics tells me the lower BC gives the bullet another 2.5 inches of drop and an inch of windage to the right under those conditions. Not quite enough to fully explain my results but enough that it accounts for 50% or more of the error. That gets us into the 1/8th MOA range. This is well into the "noise" of shooter ability, bullet jacket uniformity, muzzle velocity variations, and to the point where you have to start worrying about the direction of crosswinds relative to the direction of the spin of your bullet and Coriolis effects--which requires you to know your latitude and the direction you are shooting.

So with the updated BC my little calculator and Modern Ballistics are, as they say, good enough for government work (back when I worked at PNNL I wrote a proposal and made a presentation to Special Forces about the calculator program for their snipers).

Earlier I wrote about the entertainment industry giving magical powers to firearms.  More recently, the Discovery channel, on their new program, Future Weapons, did a bit about an "actual" 1.5 mile, one shot hit from a cold bore using the new .416 Barrett.  The shooter was depicted as firing his first shot ever from that rifle and hitting his target (a circle of about 5 feet diameter) at 1.5 miles.  My skepticism lead me back to Joe's exterior ballistics program.  Since Barrett had just sent us a write-up and the specs on his new cartridge, all I had to do was plug in his numbers.  I allowed, again, for the most amazing velocity standard deviation of 5 feet per second, with a 1/2 MOA accurate rifle/cartridge combination.  I reduced the effects of the atmosphere by raising the elevation to 3000 feet.  I enlarged the target to a 12 x 20 inch ellipse (roughly the one-shot kill area of the human body) and still I came up with a probability of a one shot hit (any hit) of about 8 percent at 1.5 miles.  The hit probability at that range on a 5-foot circle is about 58%.  Time if flight: 4.05 sec.  Extremely good, but you have to push the accuracy of the system to the edge of believability to get it, and with a perfect marksman.  It's certainly not what we're being led to believe by the TV producers.

Barrett's specs for the .416:

      Muzzle velocity: 3250 fps

Ballistic Coefficient: 0.943

           Bullet Mass: 400 grains – solid copper

I want one!  I wonder if they're going to come out with some light varmint bullets for it, or some frangible defense loads.  Heh.

I've said it before but talking with Lyle at UltiMAK yesterday I obtained some more evidence that gun owners are in many ways treated like blacks in this country were 50 or 60 years ago. Actual lynching don't occur. Ruby Ridge and Waco come close in many respects but no ropes and trees were involved. But what does happen is marginalization, shunning, firings (mine and I know of three other people that had similar problems), and signs such as this one (St. Louis Missouri August 13, 2006):

When I see a sign like that I can't help but think of signs like this:

From http://www.cah.utexas.edu/ssspot/lesson_plans/lesson_10.php

And read through this list and find how many similar restrictions apply to gun owners. A sample:

• Parks: It shall be unlawful for colored people to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the benefit, use and enjoyment of white persons.
• Education: Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent.
• Libraries: Any white person of such county may use the county free libraries under the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioners court and may be entitled to all the privileges thereof. Said court shall make proper provision for the Negroes of said county to be served through a separate branch or branches of the county free library, which shall be administered by a custodian of the Negro race under the supervision of the county librarian.
• Railroads: The conductors or managers on all such railroads shall have power, and are hereby required, to assign to each white or colored passenger his or her respective car, coach, or compartment. If the passenger fails to disclose his race, the conductor and managers, acting in good faith shall be the sole judges of his race.

Back to what Lyle told me--One of the limiting factors to growth in his business (gun accessories) is building stuff fast enough. For over a year he has been trying to find more machine shops to build his stuff. He has had something like seven or eight companies tell him they don't want his business because it is gun related. He has been unable to find any new suppliers in the last 18 months. Legally I support their right to refuse to do business with someone. For example I wouldn't do business with someone making "ovens" for Nazis. And I don't want my Modern Ballistics program sold to certain organizations opposed to basic human rights. But that so many companies have this bigoted viewpoint tells us a great deal about the attitudes of this country.

The advice I gave Lyle was, "Ask them if they have a similar policy about doing business with blacks."

Long story made short: There is a new version of Modern Ballistics available here.

Long story made long:  As many of you know I wrote the exterior ballistics program Modern Ballistics.  I had the free demo require a license to be updated once a month by contacting server which kept track of how many computers were using the demo.  The user interface to the server had a limit of 100 computers using any copy of the software at a time.  It turned out that more than 100 people were using the demo in a month and new users couldn't test out the software.  This happened just as I moved everything to a new computer and was in the middle of converting my code to use a new compiler.  I had deleted the old compiler off the old computer and I had no way to fix the problem people were having.  Last night (early this morning actually) I got the new build of the program tested.  To get things out quicker I just made the demo not require connecting to the server at all.  Then I had to update the installation process and test it.  Then I had to update the website.  I finished up about 0200 this morning.  Download the latest version here.

Let me know if you run into any bugs. The testing was rather "thin".  In particular I am concerned about it working on various operating systems.  I only tested it on Windows XP and XP-x64.  I have a Win98 and Win95 available at home but I'm not home now.  Send an email to bugs@modernballistics.com if you notice something broken.  Thanks.

I get the most interesting email.

There have been the room temperature I.Q. cases wanting help building a bomb which I talk about frequently.  There are also cases where I don't talk much, if any, but are just as interesting. 

There was a case where a public defender wanted help defending against federal bomb making charge.  I thought Ry and I were going to be doing some testing for them.  But the case was dropped after the public defender told the court they had an expert who didn't think it would explode but wanted to test a duplicate of the device to make sure. My guess is the the prosecutor knew it wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't explode but figured putting a 15 year old girl in the slammer was just another way to get a few laughs and get more points toward their next promotion.  Don't ever forget we have a legal system, not a justice system.

Due my Modern Ballistics program I have received lots of requests for ballistics help.  In one case (IIRC, it's been several years now) someone was investigating the possibility of a wrongful death case against a police officer.  It wasn't a problem my program was designed for and I couldn't help.  One request was the defense in a murder case.  Using all the data I had at my disposal I still had a couple unknown variables that could push the answer either way.  And even if those numbers were tied down the answer depended on the skill and knowledge of the shooter as much as the physics involved.

This week I received my first request for help in defending against a first degree murder charge (three shots to the center of mass from a large caliber semi-auto pistol) where the defendant had a concealed weapons permit.  I'll blog the details tomorrow.  The guy goes on trial Monday.

It was given up for lost almost two years ago but it was a mystery what happened to it.  Now they believe they have found the wreckage:

SCIENTISTS believe they have finally found the wreckage of the stricken Beagle 2 Mars probe, almost two years after it crashed on landing.

A sophisticated analysis of grainy images from a Nasa spacecraft has convinced the Beagle 2 team that the lander met its end in a small crater, into which it touched down in the early hours of Christmas Day 2003 with little chance of survival.

The pictures from Mars Global Surveyor, which have been pored over by an expert who once interpreted spy satellite images for the RAF, show an impact point in the crater and several objects that appear to be Beagle 2’s protective gas bags and, perhaps, the lander itself.

They suggest that the probe was lost because of cruel luck as it touched down in one of the worst possible places for a soft and successful landing. Rather than dropping to the surface on a flat plain, it appears to have first struck the downslope of a small crater about 18.5m (60ft) in diameter, before crashing into its opposite wall, bouncing several times around the rim and eventually coming to rest at the bottom. Even if the gas bags that were meant to cushion its impact were fully inflated, and there is some evidence that they were not, their design would not have allowed them to protect the probe properly under these unlikely circumstances.

Bummer.

I'm a big proponent of space exploration.  Long term getting off this planet is one of the necessary conditions for the survival of our species.  And in the medium term it represents one of the higher likelihood events to restore our freedoms.  Mars represents a good target for colonization and every time we go there it helps us to understand the problems of the journey and the habitation a little bit better. 

Another motivation for getting into space is I would like to be the first person to shoot 1000 yard groups on the moon.  With no wind and 1/5 gravity the group sizes will be awesome!  And you wondered why I had shooting conditions for the moon built into Modern Ballistics.  And no, despite a certain science fiction story you can't put bullets into orbit from the surface of the moon.  Shooting tangential to the surface I estimate you need to be about 550 970 miles above the surface to achieve a circular orbit with a .220 Swift. 

I sent in my application to NASA to be an astronaut 15 days before Challenger blew up which stymied that career path but I figure if my friend gets his immortality project working I still have a chance.  In addition to immortality he wants to carve his initials in the moon big enough to be seen from earth with the naked eye.  Since explosives are one of the best ways of carving rock he asked if I would do it for him.  If he figures out how to get us safely to the moon and back I'll figure out a way to carve the 70 mile wide LINES of his initials.  With all the other gear going up I figure there would be room for my rifle and a thousand rounds of ammo (especially if he uses the Orion concept).

Update: I rethought my back of the envelope (literally) calculations this morning and realize I had made an error.  I did some more number crunching and came up with some different numbers.  And since orbital mechanics is not my specialty I'm not guaranteeing any of these numbers.  Useful web pages to figure it out for yourself are here and here.  I'm assuming a muzzle velocity of 4000 fps out of the .220 Swift which has one of the highest muzzle velocities in a commerical load.

Now that Analog Kid has posted the results I'll explain how I was going to "game" the October postal rifle match Analog Kid called "The Black Death".  Because you can shoot the target as many times as you want what I was going to do was put up ten targets at 200 yards.  Then:

1. Take one shot at each of the smallest, 0.5", squares.  With no wind I can connect with a 0.5" square at 200 yards about 48% of the time as predicted by Modern Ballistics.  With 10 shots I should hit five of them.
2. On the five targets I hit the 0.5" square on I would shoot at the 0.75" inch square.  The odds of touching a 0.75" square is predicted to be 63%.  With five shots I should hit three of them.
3. On the three targets I hit the 0.75" square I would shoot at the 1.0" target.  The odds of touching a 1.0" square is predicted to be 75%.  With three shots I should hit two of them.
4. On the two targets I hit the 1.0 target I would shoot at the 1.25" target.  The odds of touching a 1.25" square is predicted to be 83%.  With two shots I should hit one of them.
5. On that target I would shoot the rest of the squares with the odds of 90%, 96%, 99%, 99.8%, and 99.99% of hitting the 1.5", 2.0", 2.5", 3.0", and 3.5" targets.  The odds of connecting on all of them is predicted to be 85%.

So...with 25 shots I have an 85% chance of creating a clean target at 200 yards.  With 50 shots I have a 98% chance of doing it.

Unfortunately I procrastinated too much and didn't make time to get out to the range until it was raining and almost dark.

This morning I finished cleaning my heavy barreled AR-15 and then cleaned my .300 Win Mag. It was raining but was supposed to stop by midday where I was headed (they were wrong). I packed up my rain gear (a poncho), gun gear, hunting knife, computer, some food, and water. I had to mail some stuff to one of my lawyers and finally got out of town a little after noon. I arrived at the Boomershoot site a little after 13:00. I walked from near the 380 yard line to the Taj Mahal about a quarter mile away taking about 1.5 hours going slowly around the area, nearly twice, in opposite directions. I expected to find a deer in the tall grass or under a tree where I had seen two deer before. Lyle and his son and I had seen three deer about two weeks ago. No such luck today. I got soaking wet from the knees down. I did a little work at the Taj Mahal and dried out a little bit. I didn't warm up any though. After an hour or so I left and as I drove south over the hill toward South Road on Meridian Road I saw two deer. One was stopped looking at me from about 100 yards away. I stopped and watched as the first one ran away and the other just stared at me. It was on land I didn't have permission to hunt on. On the other side of the road was more land I didn't have permission to hunt on. If it crossed the road I couldn't shoot it while it was on the road. It was safe from me for over 400 yards in any direction. I drove on and it ran away as I got closer.

I was cold and damp and was enjoying the warmth of the van. I decided to do some "road hunting." I would drive around for a while and see if I could see anything from the roads on any of the land I had permission to hunt on. I drove slowly north into a field we call "The 120". Nothing. I turned around and slowly drove back out to the main road. I drove east on South Road and then north on Newman Road. I turned west into another field where Lyle, his son, and I waited for dusk and deer to appear before. Last time dusk and then darkness had arrived without any deer.

About 16:00 I parked and set up to wait for dusk and the hoped for deer. An aerial image of the location is here. The top strip of green is trees and brush. Just to the south (down) is my parents land. In the middle of the picture, going north-south, is a strip of grass in a draw. It is called a grass waterway. I had parked my van just south of where the grass waterway bends to the east. Using the van for shelter from the breeze and the rain I setup and waited. I fired up my computer and used the hot air from the fan to dry the ocular lens that had water drops on it. I checked temperature, 46 F, and the barometric indicated altitude--3000 feet above sea level. I put the information into Modern Ballistics and used the laser range finder to get distances to the nearest trees and various landmarks in the grass waterway. I set the scope angle to an indicated 5.75 MOA. Using the 180 grain Federal Power-Shok cartridges for my .300 Win Mag that would give me a zero of 234 yards and a point blank range of 273 yards with a point blank size of 4.8 inches. The nearest trees were about 270 yards. Anything my side of the trees could be hit within 2.4 inches of my point of aim without adjusting for elevation--assuming perfect ammo, gun, and shooter. None of those were perfect but from 200 to 260 yards the point of impact should be +/- 1.4 inches assuming everything is perfect. The deer, almost for certain, would be within that range if it appeared.

At 16:40 my daughter Kim called to discuss snow tires for her car. I chatted for a while then saw two deer walk out of the woods and stroll slowly to the east. I told Kim, "I'm out hunting and I just saw two deer come out of the woods. I want to shoot them now." We said good-bye and I turned my attention to the deer. The deer were together in the center of the grass waterway having just come out of the woods. My laser range finder said I was 255 yards from the lead deer which was broadside to me and a better target. I was aiming just ahead of the shoulder as it was walking into the shot. The gun went off without a conscious thought from me--IPSC does that to you. In IPSC when I'm doing things right I find that as the sights are aligned on the target the gun goes boom without me knowing it was going to happen--even when it's happening three times a second. Just as I pulled the trigger the deer stopped and put it's head down to eat. In the 0.3 seconds the bullet took to reach it's target the deer would have put it's heart into the path of the bullet. But because it was stopped the bullet got it's spine instead of the heart and lungs--we both got lucky. It would be hard to get a cleaner, quicker death than a completely severed spine between it's head and heart. I got an easier job of cleaning the chest cavity and have more eatable meat.

The untouched deer after being shot. Click for a larger image, then click again for still larger.

Another example for doubters of Myth Busters. The deer fell toward the shooter (actually it turned 90 degrees toward me then fell over so the long axis of it's body was aligned with me). You are looking at the exit wound side of the deer. It did not get pushed or knocked down by the bullet impact. It's spine was severed and whatever muscle twitches remained caused it's only motion as it crumpled to the ground.

The other deer jumped and ran a few steps before stopping and looking in my direction. I wondered at first if I had missed and this was the deer I had shot at. I looked closely through the scope and could see the white from the belly of the deer I had shot. It was motionless. I quickly packed up enough to drive to the downed deer. The still standing deer didn't run away until I had started up and was moving toward it.

I parked the van next to the deer and started cutting on it. I then called Doug to tell him and hoped he would volunteer to come help. He did. When he and his son Brad arrived about 10 minutes later it was getting dark and it was still raining. I was doing this for the first time and progress was slow for me before Doug arrived. Doug brought a hatchet that we used to break open the pelvis and the sternum. After tagging it and emptying the body cavity we put it on the tarp in my van and drove back to his place to skin it while hanging up in the machine shed.

I called Kim back after the gutted deer was in the van and on the way to the shed for skinning. She asked if she was still going to get some of the meat. I told her, "Of course". After talking to Kim I called Xenia and told her I would be home a little late because I had got my deer.

In the shed we had artificial lights, a roof over our heads, and equipment to hoist the deer up to chest height for easy skinning. 1.5 hours after I took the shot it was gutted, skinned, and wrapped in a tarp in my van.

I went inside to visit with my parents and clean up a little. I wore plastic gloves and my poncho while working with the deer so I didn't get much blood on me. I just had to clean my knives and a little bit blood from one sleeve of my shirt. Mom fixed me a peanut butter, jelly, and lettuce sandwich and gave me a glass of milk for my supper. I left my parents place at 18:30 and was home, parked in the driveway with the carcass of a white-tailed deer in my van by 19:30. Tomorrow it will go to the meat cutter who will age it, then cut, and wrap the meat.

Interesting coincidences--I have harvested (using Barb's Jeep rather than my rifle) only one other deer before. It also was on Halloween and just seconds prior to downing it I got a call on my cell phone. That time I was on the phone talking to Barb when the deer jumped out in front of me and the impact caused compound fractures in both it's hind legs. I killed it with my pistol and again Doug came to field dress it.

Doug asked me if I got sick to my stomach as I pulled the trigger. He still does sometimes. Other people get very excited and can't shoot worth a darn when a deer gets into their sights. I didn't feel any excitement or sickness--just the recoil of the rifle on my shoulder. There was no particular joy or sadness either. Just another four legged, crop eating pest was dead and I would have some meat to share with my children over the next few months.

More pictures from my first hunting season are here. Tomorrow, after the light is better, I plan to update the photo album with pictures of the entrance and exit wounds.

Update: I took the deer to the meat processor Tuesday morning. While on the scales with head and legs still attached it weighed 79 pounds. The photo album has been updated with pictures of the entrance and exit wounds.

Update2: Information on whitetailed deer. Also of interest is that in Clearwater county, where this deer was harvested, a collision with a deer is the most common form of car accident.

The second printing of this book is coming out next month.  For gun geeks this is a great book.  Lots of math and experimental results to back up the theory.  I have a copy of the first printing someplace.  I got it probably 7 or 8 years ago and immediately went out and did some of my own experiments to verify things.  The results looked good.  From the web page:

Bullet Penetration describes the analysis and testing of a model of bullet penetration dynamics; this model  is a significant technical advance over what has been heretofore available.  This penetration model is directly related to understanding the production of an incapacitating wound by the bullet parameters (velocity, weight, shape, diameter).  Incapacitation from wound trauma is a complex subject that has been controversial for many decades, and all aspects of this subject are discussed in detail in Bullet Penetration.  The new results in this book are described in a style and vocabulary that make the basic principles and results understandable to the layman.  This outstanding book should be read by everyone who is critically dependent on handgun bullet performance as well as all those with an interest in any aspect of wound ballistics.

The topics covered in Bullet Penetration include physiological and psychological effects in incapacitation from wound trauma, modeling of bullet penetration, and modeling of bullet expansion.  The realities associated with the desired "one shot stop" and the ignorance and/or fraud in "combat data" claims are discussed in detail.  The primary focus is on handgun ammunition, but the principles and many of the results are also applicable to rifle ammunition.  The book has 303 pages, including 69 pages of bullet photographs and graphs of test results.

This is an even more blatant example of When Prophecy Fails related to the ballistic fingerprinting debacle.

Leah Barrett, executive director of CeaseFire Maryland, said police are not using the database enough, instead relying on a national ballistics database that only has ballistics images from crime scenes. As a result, she said, the national database can't lead investigators directly to the specific firearm that produced a recovered ballistic image unless the gun is eventually recovered.

She said scrapping the state program could deal a setback to better ballistics imaging.

"I think it's a real tragedy because other states are looking at New York and Maryland to see how we succeed with this," she said.

“To see how we succeed with this.”????  The possibility it has failed is apparently not in her domain of thought processes.

If you are even the slightest bit 'connected' in the gun rights movement you will already know about what happened in Maryland.  They implemented a database of fired bullets and shell casings from all new handguns sold in the state.. This was an attempt to track down the owner if a bullet or shell casing were found at the scene of a crime.  Gun owners and manufactures told them it wouldn't work.  They did it anyway.  Now they find out it didn't work for all the reasons they were told it wouldn't work plus some at least one new reason.  That reason is that different materials take on the markings differently.  Some bullets are made primarily of lead, some have copper jackets, and some even have steel jackets.  There are numerous alloys of lead too, some even use silver.  Shell casings are made of brass, aluminum, and steel.  If the manufacture supplied a bullet and shell casing made of one material and the criminal used another then the chance of a match is greatly reduced.

What amuses me the most about this is that the system failed and they suggest an alternate scheme that I am certain will also fail.  I have posted on it here:

• Update on ammo marking
• More info on bullet serial number scheme
• Naive gun control

This qualifies Maryland for a When Prophecy Fails mention.

Others have commented extensively on the report from Maryland:

• CCRKBA SAYS MARYLAND REPORT ON BALLISTIC IMAGING SHATTERS GUN TRACKING MYTHS
• Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn't Work (Kim du Toit)
• Nation of Rifleman Forum (Kim du Toit)
• Why Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn't (and Won't) Work (The Smallest Minority)
• That's one expensive way to say “Duh!“ (the Hobbesian Conservative)
• Told ya (Say Uncle)
• The failure of so called “ballistic fingerprinting“ (More Eclipse Ramblings)
• Ballistic Fingerprinting Fails (Chaos-In-Motion)
• Updated: State Police Call for Shutting Down Maryland`s Ballistic "Fingerprinting" System (From the NRA-ILA)

I have included the entire Maryland report below for those interested in the details.

2. Integrated Ballistics Information System Remains under Scrutiny

Background

The Maryland Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS), operational since October 1, 2000, provides police investigators with a tool to focus an investigation around a firearm. Chapter 2,

Acts of 2000 (Responsible Gun Safety Act of 2000), required that manufacturers submit a test-fired shell casing with each handgun shipped for resale in the State.

The dealer then sends the casing to the State Police after the gun has been sold. The IBIS system receives the casing from the dealer, and firearms investigators and technicians perform a full analysis of the casing. The investigator uses microscopic technology to identify striations and other markings

that are unique to each individual gun. The striations are formed when the gun is fired, as the firing pin strikes the back of the casing, creating a unique series of identifying marks. The aim of the system is to create a massive database of identifying marks, so that any spent shell casings recovered at a crime scene can be compared against the IBIS database, to try to identify the gun used in the commission of the crime. Based on then-current handgun sales statistics, the State Police anticipated that 30,000 cartridge casings would be received annually for input into the IBIS system. As such, the system was designed to hold around 300,000 casings over a 10-year period.

The system has thus far received around 35,000 cartridge casings for input, including around 2,000 from trooper-issued semi-automatic 40-caliber Beretta firearms. There have been 160 requests to match crime-scene casings with the IBIS system, resulting in four "hits" or matches.

Costs

DSP anticipates continued maintenance supplies and personnel costs of $435,269 for fiscal 2005 to continue to operate the IBIS system. Initial start-up costs of $1.4 million were absorbed in fiscal 2001. IBIS requires one full-time equivalent position to maintain the system. DSP’s Forensic Unit currently assigns three forensic examiners to this program, each devoting one-third of their time to the IBIS system.

Problems

The State Police are concerned about the lack of hits yielded by the IBIS system, and there have been problems with the system. Some of these problems are the result of operational failings and others simply the result of circumstance.

Number of Cartridges Stored – No Link to the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN): Chapter 2 of 2000 included ‘external safety lock’ requirements and the shell casing identification provision. Gun manufacturers were required to add ‘integrated mechanical safety devices’ to firearms, as well as external safety locks to any firearm sold in Maryland.

These two provisions made up an effort by the General Assembly to make the prospects of accidental shootings less likely. These two mechanical requirements, coupled with the requirement to test-fire the gun and submit the cartridge casings, has effectively reduced the number of firearms sold in the State. While DSP had anticipated 30,000 casings submitted annually from 215 qualifying manufacturers, the number of casings received since October 2001 stands at around 34,000 from only 49 manufacturers.

In essence, the guns most often recovered from crime scenes are not sold in Maryland, and therefore, not linked (via cartridge casing) to the IBIS system. DSP has also indicated that .38 mm revolvers are often used in crimes, and these guns are less likely to leave spent shell casings.

The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) division of the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have a system in place, similar to the Maryland IBIS system. The NIBIN is a system that uses identical technology to IBIS, to create a national database of crime scene shell casings and bullets. However, a memorandum of understanding between the ATF and State and local law enforcement agencies prohibits the linking of NIBIN to any State or local system, such as IBIS. In that the guns used in Maryland crimes are less likely to be sold in Maryland, the inability to link IBIS to NIBIN prevents the largest field of possible matches from being searched.

Time to Crime: The Maryland IBIS system has been in place since October 2000. Criminology research suggests that if a legally obtained firearm is going to enter the stream of criminal activity, it takes between three and six years for this to occur. This ‘time to crime’ statistic indicates that the guns and cartridge casings inventoried in IBIS since 2001 will start to match firearms used in crimes from 2004 to 2007. The statewide deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) inventory saw a similar preliminary waiting period until the number of matches increased dramatically. The DNA database began in 1994, had its first hit in 1998, and has had 72 hits to date. Of these 72 hits, 39 have come in 2003.

Glock Casings Unreliable: It has been learned that cartridge casings submitted by Glock firearms did not match the casings recovered from the same gun at crime scenes. As a result, all cartridge casings submitted by Glock were flagged in the IBIS system, and a list of the guns affected by the problem has been generated. Any firearm sold in Maryland from the list was also flagged. The Glock Company indicated that this problem has since been resolved.

Change in Striations As Firearms Age and Break-in: Research suggests that as firearms age and are broken-in the internal characteristics of the firing pin may change which will result in different striations being left on the spent casings. This makes the casings submitted by the manufacturer less reliable. The more the gun is fired, the more the striations will change.

Modification of Firing Pin by User: Gun users with working knowledge of the assembly process can alter the firing pin of the weapon, which would significantly change the striations left on the cartridge casing.

Different Cartridge Casing Materials Used: There is no standard material used to make cartridge casings. These different materials absorb the striations differently. Additionally, if a different material is used in the manufacture process and by the user, it is possible that a spent cartridge casing will not match the casing stored in IBIS.

Increase in Database Size Decreased Likelihood of "Hit": As the number of similar guns stored in the database increase, the likelihood of a match decreases. As an example, there are approximately 2,000 cartridge casings from Trooper-issued firearms. Tests have been run, using spent casings from these guns, and the system has not yielded a match in the top 15. However, the more experienced the examiner who inputs the casing, the more likely that the input will be accurate and reflect the unique characteristics of the gun.

Remote IBIS System Failure: DSP purchased a remote IBIS unit to run a search of the found cartridge casings and to submit the findings to the IBIS database to be tested for a match. This device has not worked due to overheating and data transmission problems. The manufacturer has since stopped producing these units. Not only can these casings found at crime scenes not be compared to IBIS while on-site, but DSP cannot link to any other State forensic facility.

Future and Alternatives

A new technology exists to perform a similar task as the IBIS system. This version of nanotechnology creates a ballistic ID or fingerprint on cartridge casings. The technology would create a number or symbol on the firing pin of the weapon, and this marking would be transferred to the cartridge casing each time the gun was fired. However, this technology would have to be done at the manufacturer level and would lead to resistance from the industry. Research suggests, however, that this ballistic fingerprinting method would be less expensive and more accurate than the IBIS, as the "serial number" imprinting removes the subjectivity inherit in digitizing a visual set of striations. DLS recommends that DSP comment on whether, in light of circumstantial difficulties, this program has justified continued operation.

The San Diego Tribune has more details.  The highlights I am interested in follow:

"Most of the guns used in crime – 80 percent – are handguns," said Randy Rossi, director of the firearms division at the state Department of Justice. "We want to see how well this works and give it a sunset. If it doesn't work, abandon it. But there is no reason in the world to believe it won't work."

The plan would require putting serial numbers on all handgun ammunition possessed in public, sold or imported into the state. To accommodate law-abiding sport shooters and those who reload their own cartridges, anyone on their way to or from a shooting range or hunting trip would be exempt. It's unclear how this provision would work, with supporters acknowledging that details on many aspects of the system need to be worked out.

This would require it be legal to have unmarked ammo in your home.  I love the part about “details... need to be worked out.“  Sort of like, “And then angels flew out of my ass and saved the day.“  These people live in a fantasy world.  They don't seem to understand that security is like a chain and when the weakest link breaks you have complete failure.

The microstamping system under study was developed by a Washington state company, Ravensforge. The company engraves shell casings and bullets with a matching serial number. All of the cartridges in a box packaged for retail sale would have the same serial number, which could be scanned and linked to a purchaser's driver license number, Rossi said.

This would help the serial number management problem some.  Instead of a billion numbers it would probably be 50 million or so.

The state's more than 1,600 licensed firearms dealers already have the electronic equipment to record the information – scanning the code on the ammunition box and electronically swiping the driver license – in the same way they collect required personal information for gun transactions.

Rossi initially was skeptical that a bullet's number would be legible after it was fired.

A test of 200 rounds fired from close range into walls, car doors, bulletproof vests, rubber matting and a gel designed to simulate a human target convinced him the technology is sound.

Of 181 slugs recovered – including soft lead bullets that largely flattened out – the tiny code could be read on 180 of them with a simple electronic magnifying scope.

"We tried to prove this doesn't work," he said. "To have it work virtually every time, I was very surprised."

Lockyer seized on the system as an alternative to ballistics fingerprinting, which relies on unique, microscopic imperfections in shell casings and slugs. The attorney general angered gun-control advocates last year when his office concluded that ballistics imaging required a massive database and would prove ineffective unless launched as part of national system.

By tracking ammunition, which Rossi said has a relatively short shelf life, the state could develop a much broader database than an alternative that applies only to new handguns.

Hmmm... in practice ammo may not sit on the shelf for very long but if stored in a cool dry place it can easily last for 50 to 100 years.  I suspect Rossi was just making things up as he went along on this particular point.

The attorney general's aides concede the microstamping proposal faces daunting political and financial obstacles. Manufacturers, gun-control and gun-rights activists – none of whom were involved in the initial study – are raising questions.

Gary Mehalik of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for manufacturers of ammunition and firearms, said the caliber of guns used in any test could have been a critical factor in the results.

The state tested 9 millimeter, .38, .40 and .45 caliber handguns. No .22 caliber weapons were used and microstamping has not yet been applied to .22 caliber ammunition, the most common used by sport shooters.

Rossi and Paul Curry, a lobbyist for Ravensforge, said the serial numbers could be applied for a penny or less per cartridge. But Mehalik predicted it would be expensive to add a manufacturing process that matches casings and bullets, and then packages them in a box with the same code number.

"We'd have to analyze the costs, but I can tell you that it would create a logistical nightmare inside the current production systems," Mehalik said.

It's been a while (35+ years) but I have receive a tour through an ammo manufacturing plant but from what I remember Mehalik is right on with this point.

A leading gun-rights group dismissed the proposal as an ill-conceived, high-tech version of gun registration.

"The technology is certainly there, but all of the technology can be defeated by anyone who wants to defeat it," said Sam Paredes of the 30,000-member Gun Owners of California.

Many gun owners make their own ammunition and reuse lead and shell casings, Paredes said.

"Gang members in South Central or East Los Angeles, they're going to know this ammunition is tainted," Paredes said. "So they're going to pay somebody a little bit of money to load some ammunition for them and they're clean."

But they won't be legal if caught with unmarked ammo in public, Rossi said.

And almost for certain they won't be legal if they are caught with a gun in public either.  Carrying a loaded gun in public is already illegal in CA except for the politically connected and certain celebrities.  And if they have a felony conviction they are illegally in possession as well.  So how would this help?  It's just one more way to demonize and increase the expense for people exercising their inalienable rights.  In that regard it will probably succeed.