From: http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/09/on-microstampin.html Comments by Todd Lizotte: I am the co-invetor of microstamping. Many of the comments are good feedback, but over the last 14 years of development many of the arguments and concerns have been countered by the forensic scientisits who deal with firearm related crime. As for criminals tampering with the handguns, it is correct, if a criminal has intimate knowledge than they have a chance to inspect the parts, but if they do not have a microscope, than they are limited. However there are levels of redundancy to the technology, even on the pin and the breach. Not to get into specifics, but even if you remove 90% of the codes the last 10% will be able to give you the entire code. Next the code is linked to the make, model, date of manufacture and serial number, which means law enforcement will be able to identify the make, so they can call and run a standard trace to find that info. As far as law abiding citizens are concerned the system stays the same and the manufacturer holds all the codes. The status quo is retained, no new systems or databases. All remains within the firearm manufacturers facility. As for criminals in general, from what has been stated by the forensic community, common and gang related criminals do not tend modify the firearms ballistic signature. When they try they usaully do not sufficiently change the unique characteristics. In one case a serial killer, I was told modified the handgun after every murder, however he never touched the firing pin. As for the technologies goal: the most important crime fighting tool as we have been told is extracting rapid intel. Being able to identify the firearm to allow the trace to take place, inorder to find the source. From law enforcements point of view, trafficking of firearms is committed in a set pattern. the idea is to ID the firearm, the first time it is used, so that they can understand the trafficking pattern while the timeline is short and the lead is still hot, i.e. time-to-crime. The idea is by using current modern methods of law enforcement such as link analysis and social networking they will be bale to begin to focus resources to tackle theft rings who target law abiding gun owners, target gang related trafficking and crack down on straw purchasers who tend to have links to these types of criminal organizations. As for cost, the process is based on standard CNC equipment. Our latest cost estimate, which is based on our work in semiconductor and commercial inkjet printer components is approximately 50 cents per surface in volume production, which means with a healthy markup by the firearm industry, it could add about $2.00 to the price. I view this as a white hat technology. Initially when we approached this we were aksing to field test it on the firing pin only, the reason it is now two surfaces is because the NSSF stated that the only issue was survivability. So, the law makers came back with a new bill for two surfaces. What is humerous is that I have handed several firearms to some very intellegent people and they have not been bale to take the firearms apart. I agree, the people who make good arugments have specific knowledge, but we are talking about common criminals. I still think this technology is the type of benign and beneficial technology development that the industry could use to assist law enforcement. We are also providing a royalty free license to the technology for commercial firearm sales, so the firearm industry will not have to pay a royalty on a per gun basis for the life of the patent. They can also come up with their own techniques as well. I am not sure how this will go in California, but I do think it is an opportunity for the firearms industry. You can believe it or not, that is ok. The industry almost had ballistic imaging for new guns, and that technology was truely bad news. NY and MD are good case examples of the alternative. I think many people think ballistic imaging is gone, but the reality is a new 3D mapping system is being developed and field tested, in MD I think current imaging costs gun owners a $20 fee and it costs the industry a similar price to make sure the casings get into the package. Microstamping is a inexpensive alternative to the whole idea of ballistic imaging of new firearms and since the indsutry controls the data, i.e. the codes, than there is no registration. As for the arguments of littering crime scenes with spent cartridge casings, the forensic community laughs at that argument. They state that firearm ejection patterns, bullet locations and angles of impact, chemical analysis of gun shot residue would quickly isolate the obviously planted cartridges. But, they also said they are not sure planting cartridges would be a problem, since it would provide further leads. i.e. the cartridges would have had to come from a firing range, some ranges have video cameras and the owner of those cartridges would know which range he fired hem from, providing further leads or opportunities for eye witnesses of people pikcing up cartridages. The other thing was many times by handling those cartridges, further fingerprints could be found as well. Remember, the cartridges planted would have to be the same make model, powder, primer and fired from the same model firearm. that is a tall order for a common criminal to go find, he would also have to find a cartrdige microstamped. I also saw a good question on the blog talking about what it will cost for the forensic lab. In general, even if a current case is a cold case, i.e. No witnesses, but cartrdiges at the scene, they have to fully process the evidence. As for the cost to run down the trace, that is typically done by the BATF, they have dedicated teams where that is their job. From what I have heard, they want to focus on certain areas, and by getting fresh intel, they feel they can focus their resources more efficiently to target hotspots. People have also been cocnerned about the police targeting them as suspects if their gun is stolen. The reality is for instance, if my gun is stolen, and it is recovered at a crime scene .. well no matter what I am getting a knock at the door. However, I would file a report if my gun was stolen, so this woul dnot be an issue. Same situation if my gun was microstamped and stolen as well. However, what this allows police to understand is if there is a theft ring in my area or to understand if there is a theft ring who are staking out gun shops or firing ranges looking to follow people to their houses to case the house and await a time to break in a steal firearms. It's all about INTEL in real time. If you look at the bill, this is really a field test. It only applies to new models of semiauto handguns from 2010 on, not pre 2010 models at least that is what I am told. Also, the technology is not rocket sicence, the surfaces that currently make marks that are used for forensics are the same surfaces being used. What is good about the technology is that it augments the exisitng methods, it does not replace them. Just my thoughts from a gun owner from NH. As for Nugent, not sure it helps, but if it gets the liberals upset, it can't be half bad. I have heard worse statements from their side of the isle. Sincerely, Todd Posted by: Todd | September 18, 2007 at 01:57 AM Hello To All, Once again, I am Todd the co-inventor of microstamping. I like the dialogue of this blog. Mike M: Reload theory: This is actually a good theory, however, when reloading you have to use a new primer, a cartrdige which is marked on the head stamp area, but with no central primer mark is suspect, even still, you also have to remember reloads are detectable by the change in the hardness of the cartridge due to thermal cycling. The manufacture of the cartridge involves a series of drawing of the brass and selective tapered hardening inorder to ensure that the headstamp area is the hardess and then the material has a graident as it extends to the flare or crimp area for the projectile. In your scenario, it is possible, but the cartrdige will also have two seperate extractor and ejector marks .. as well as deformation due to the first firing. Once again, the guy criminal has to know that the cartrdiges are mictrostamped, the breach, ejector and extractor marks are smaller than the primer, it is not easy to do without a 80X microscope with proper lighting. This criminal would also need to have specific knowledge of reloading and the equipment. Ken Green from SAMMI gave a lecture on cartridge manufacturing at a National Academy Science meeting that I was inited to, when we were trying to derail ballistic imaging for all new firearms. The foresnic scientist have ammo databases for this type of analysis and it is part of their normal investigative apporach to evidence. Microstamping = registration: The status quo stays the same. All the info stays with the manufacturer. As a matter of fact, in California, if you find the cartridge, the code on it tells you the manufacturer and an ID code which then requires law enforcement "ATF" to use the existing trace system. I am not sure you are aware, but the ATF made a deal with the large firms years ago to pay for a system called Access2000, which most of them use. This system houses all the info on the firearms purchased and allows tracing of firearms to be done electronicly. That is something that exists today .. Microstamping does nothing except make it easier to identify a firearm by the cartrdige left at a crime scene without having to recover the firearm, but you still have to run it thrugh the trace system. No new database, no registration and everything stays the same. Microstamping Price: currently firearms have similar processes, for micromarking serial numbers under the grips. The price is inline with that technology. I agree, semi and inkjet are higher volumes, but the reality is the process is very fast. However, I understand your skepticism. As for White Hat technology, I stand by that comment. The technology puts the focus on people who are engaged in illegal trafficking of firearms. Best regards, Todd Posted by: Todd Lizotte | September 21, 2007 at 08:57 PM Hello Dr. Ralph, I am not sure what you are actually stating. Microstamping has been tested on the following firearms with nearly 98% readability of all 8 characters, 99.8% with >6 characters: 30-06 Cal Browning Automatic Rifle to 1400 rounds (All marks and even misfires marked) .45 Thompson Sub-machine gun to 2300 rounds (All marked and even misfires marked) .40 SIG P229, .40 S&W 4006 both fired (>5400 Round on the Sig and >2600 rounds on the S&W) All marked. .22 Cal Ruger Mark III - currently >1000 rounds, all marked, misfires marked as well. 9 mm Glock - >2300 Rounds, all marked and misfires (8 varieties of ammo including russian, chinese, vintage 40's, 50's and 70's loads. High shear as well. 30-06, Browning Water cooled machine gun to >1200 rounds all marked and misfires marked. .45 1911 - Vintage 1950 - >900 Rounds all marked. 30-30 Winchester- Western Rifle - >500 Rounds all marked. AR-15 - >1200 Rounds, all marked. I am not sure the premise of your idea. Most crime guns "that are new" are fired by the criminal <100 times. This is data supplied by the ATF and FBI and CA DOJ. The process we use creates a feature that we call a Protected recessed / raised character structure. Our features are not raised off the tip, but etched into the surface to maintain the profile of the firing pin radius / spherical surface. Think of it as a spot faced surface of a specific diameter, where the characters remain in the center. We use the mechanical forces of the firearm and the explosive force to induce a coining of the primer and breach face. What our testing shows, pre and post, is that the characters are work hardened, however, remember, because they do not raise off the surface they are protected from the main impact. As you can see above, we can go way beyond 100 rounds. As for the big brother comment. 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. Just my view on reality. Best regards, Todd Posted by: Todd Lizotte | September 22, 2007 at 06:31 PM Hello, If anyone wants a scanning electron image of the primer markings I will galdy send one. Post your email and I will send an image. Or provide a FTTp link and I will upload one. Best regards, Todd Posted by: Todd Lizotte | September 22, 2007 at 06:33 PM Hello Tyflier, Law enforcement is not concerned by legal purchasers of firearms. I understand your position. The fact remains, all criminals who get caught with a firearm, most do not modify the firearm now even though the firearm ends up linking them to the crime and previous crimes. In one case in California a serial killer used a handgun and killed five people. After each murder, he attempt to change the ballistic signature. When he was finally caught, it was found the only surface he forgot to touch was the firing pin. After 20 years of data, it shows most of these criminals feel they are never going to get caught anyway or that the firearm was used in the heat of the moment and they are too pumped to worry about the results of their actions. As for professional killers, well, different situation. It is similar to domestic violence with firearms, there tends to be far more evidence than random shooting in gang situations. Remember, you have specific insight to firearms, they do not. In most cases an intelligent person when handed a pistol could not take it apart even if their life depended on it. You need to read the bill closer, there is no penalty for modifying your firearm after you purchase it. I am not certain, but I am gathering that you feel that built up residue could create a problem with the technology. based on forensic data, these crininals tend to get a firearm and fire it once to make sure it works. Even people who have planned to kill, like the Vtech killer, only test fired the gun for less than 100 rounds. One of our tests using a S&W 4006, was fired continuously for 2500 rounds, no issues on the marking. Since the method we used is based on coining there are several ways to extract the the code. Even if an impression of 2 to 3 microns, we can still extract the code using scanning electron imaging. We have also found that were can enhance the impession using techniques based on the density change of the compressed metal. Another point is in our work we have tested extremely thick laquer coated primers on Russian, Chinese and US ammo, .45, .40 and 9 mm and still transferred through to the primer surface. Best regards, Todd Posted by: Todd Lizotte | September 23, 2007 at 02:07 PM Dr. Ralph, You’re passionate about your position. That is not a bad thing. In the end, if microstamping goes away, everyone moves on. However, the ATF has a $500 Million dollar imaging system “NIBIN” and database in place, they have nearly 10,000 people and infrastructure supporting this network, database and equipment, all supported by a Canadian company, who has access to the data. Part of this database is the registration information from the MD and NY databases which house legal gun owners ballistic images, of course in a criminal database. It is known that the NIBIN system installed at each site is a microscope, however the entire system was never developed or truly analyzed as a system, no GR&R studies, Not Capability studies and no shared standards are used to cross calibrate each automated microscope, no lighting standard, no magnification calibration standard, no known good bullet standard, no known good cartridge standard, to calibrate the network of imaging systems as a complete system. As a person “Dr. Ralph” who is in aerospace, think about that. However, because the self aggrandized protectors of our second amendment rights failed to be proactive, they adopted for the typical defensive posture “we don’t like it, it costs too much, and it will kill the industry” approach, they allowed this type of system to be installed. They failed to be proactive and watch for these issues on the horizon. The only way for the NIBIN system to continue to be fruitful is for an overhaul of the system. The ATF is working on this. They already have the beachhead. All they have to do is incrementally add new modules; it is just an acquisition issue, no public disclosure required. Where was the NRA or NSSF on Access2000 database? Same scenario, ATF gave it away, free, under the radar. The next iteration of the NIBIN imaging system will be a 3D imaging system. It will have resolution down to 0.2 microns and cost us as tax payers $1.0 Billion for equipment and infrastructure. And then the states will need to invest. Next, the cost of scanning a single cartridge into the system will be similar to standard confocal imaging systems on the market. Google, the LEXT system from Olympus that is a good example of a 3D imaging platform. That table top system starts at $150k, the current NIBIN microscope system started at $600,000 (10% per year maintenance fee) and that was just a simple low end microscope with a 480x480 pixel camera. Oh yeah, that system was a sole source to a foreign company. Currently, if I am not mistaken, MD and NY use to charge a fee, ~$20/firearm for the luxury of having a legal gun owner’s firearm placed into a criminal database. The new 3D system takes ~10X longer to image the cartridge. My guess is that the government will want the industry to do the imaging, similar to the test pilot system that Glock tried, when they attempted it. That will be an adder of nearly $200/firearm, possibly more, when you take into consideration that new ATF regulations will be needed. Further, take into consideration that the CA-DOJ report on AB1717, back in 2002 and the report by Jan de Kinder from Belgium , showed that ~70% of the time the system will show false positives. This has to do with the fact that the system has inadequate resolution capability and that each imaging microscope was never correlated to each scope within the network. So understand the current system “NIBIN”, if a guy in California is setting up the system now, they do not use a calibration standard for the lighting system or for calibrating the imaging systems magnification so that all the systems within the network are calibrated together. So, that means a guy in NY could have nearly a 15% variation, which means images of the same cartridge could provide two separate results or several false positives. The new system being secretly developed by the ATF and the Canadian firm using 3D will be better, because it is based on confocal microscopy, but once again the imaging system will look at unintentional “random” machining marks. I am not sure about you, but if I was given a choice, I would rather have intentional marks on my firearm instead of unintentional marks being used as a gauge of my innocence or guilt. Professional forensic investigators have unique skills and the resolution of the human eye to make such comparisons, not machines. Imaging allows physical evidence to be transformed into digital evidence, which is more secure? Digital image in a database or a alphanumeric code on your firearm? So, my idea, Microstamping is a simple 1.2 second process on two surfaces of a firearm. No databases, all codes are generated by the manufacturer. Microstamping would negate the need for imaging of new firearms. I enjoy the debate and I understand it is an uphill battle to convince anyone with your convictions. I accept that fact. However, I feel I must give it my best shot and in the end, if microstamping fails to be accepted into practice, I only hope that I am wrong about the coming 3D technology. Sincerely, Todd Posted by: Todd Lizotte | September 25, 2007 at 12:24 PM Hello Tyflier, Not sure the Hitler comment is necessary. I used that with my priest when he told me I had to use the barcoded envelopes for donations each week (Catholic Church like to do demographics). he wasn't amused as well. I would have to say your beginning to reach. Since the code on the microstamping is a generic code, "There is no information other than MAKE" The digits tell law enforcement the make of the gun and give them a code, that they use to call the firearm manufacturer to gain access to the serial number and other info ---- which is what they do now. actually my idea was to make this code search a paid envent, so that the indsutry could charge a fee to offset the cost of the technology further. No registration. The firearm industry has been hobbled by the defense strategy. If you engage the problem, than the antigun groups have no foothold. It is simple, want to control the argument, own the argument, own the solution, promote the work on teh solution and the antigun movement dies on the vine. As always I appreciate the debate. Best regards, Todd Posted by: todd lizotte | September 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM This is not the future I want, how about you? http://www.fti-ibis.com/DOWNLOADS/Publications/FastTRAX_BC_090307_v1.pdf http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/07/71420 Read the wired article, they state that the unit could cost $1 Million. Microstamping could stop 3D dead in in tracks. Posted by: todd lizotte | September 25, 2007 at 02:44 PM Hello SA, I understand your position. The key is getting ahead of it before the antigun people start pushing for legislation. The key is to not let go of the data. As for registration, the ATF has already got what it needs with Access2000. I am looking at it from a blocking position for 3D imaging of new firearms. I think Microstamping provides the same results, except Microstamping does not involve legal gun owners firearms ballistic image being loaded into a criminal database. My position is this an asymetric war with the antigun movement. Our representatives are fighting from fixed fortifications. Remeber the quote from Patton, "Fixed fortifications are a testiment to the stupidity of man. If mountains and oceans can be overcome, things made by man can be overcome". We need to target trafficking, law enforcment needs timely Intel. Google: link analysis and social netowrking for drug trafficking. Or check out the national gang assessment for 2005 produced by the FBI. It will give you an idea why Intel is important to identify networks, hotspots, so law enforcement can focus and to deploy resources more efficiently. Best regards, Todd Posted by: Todd Lizotte | September 26, 2007 at 10:20 PM Hello Dr. Raplh, I understand. All I can do is show the facts. You should check out the 3D imaging if you didn't go to those links. That is truely scary technology if it is applied to newly sold firearms, similar to what they have in NY and MD. I might not agree 100% with your position, but I respect it. Best regards, Todd Posted by: Todd Lizotte | September 26, 2007 at 10:23 PM