Well thats a new one !

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
how does it help them? knowing a stolen gun had been fired at 5 crimes helps them how
Because if you catch the perpetrator of ONE of those crimes a police collator will be able to then produce a list of people associated with that individual and they may then become "of interest" as possibly involved in the other four crimes or the original theft of the weapon. So the actual recovery of the gun itself is less important than the chain of connection that the fired cases gives you.
 

Stalker1962

Well-Known Member
... a police collator will be able to then produce a list of people associated with that individual...

"A Police Collator" how very retro.

Usually an "old timer" PC in charge of all the intelligence cards within a Police Station - think of a Librarian Sherlock cross.
They had usually spent most of their service at that station and what and who they did not know was not worth knowing.
It was also obligatory that they wore a pair of spectacles on a chain,

Whenever you asked them for information the response was always the same:- "Why do you want to know?" Guardians of peoples' privacy.

Long since been replaced by computers. Not sure that is an entirely good thing...
 

Chanty Wrassler

Well-Known Member
Because if you catch the perpetrator of ONE of those crimes a police collator will be able to then produce a list of people associated with that individual and they may then become "of interest" as possibly involved in the other four crimes or the original theft of the weapon. So the actual recovery of the gun itself is less important than the chain of connection that the fired cases gives you.
Yes, but having a case from the time before the gun was stolen is of no help in recovering it or finding the perpetrator(s) of subsequent crimes involving its use.
 

Stalker1962

Well-Known Member
.. how is anyone to carry out a 'ballistic examination' on a cartridge case?
The idea is that if (God forbid) your firearm is stolen, you then supply your retained fired cartridge for that rifle/shotgun to the Police, who will pass it on to their Firearms laboratory.
I happen to shoot with one of their scientists and have had the pleasure (professionally) of seeing their work.

They can then compare that cartridge with others, which may have been left at the scene of a crime - or compare it to the stolen (now recovered) firearm to confirm that a particular cartridge/shell was fired by a particular firearm.

In short.
You do nothing other than hand over your fired cartridge - they do all the magic.
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
As STALKER 1962 said. One of the early forensic pioneers, Sydney Smith, used this to identify who was involved in the murder of a British colonial administrator.


Taking as support for his proposal three, or six, consecutively MADE Webley pistols off the production at Webley and firing cartridges in each. He showed that whilst there were close similarities between pistol A, pistol B, pistol C and etc., etc., that but yet each pistol produced unique marks on the cartridge and (when the same was done with consecutive barrels) unique marks on the bullets.

What he proved was that a breech machined immediately after another identical breech on the same tool would show similarities to it, yes, yet nevertheless be uniquely different as would a barrel. Similar, showing some of the same similarities but, yes, uniquely different too.

The pistols used in the murder being as I've now checked a Colt .32 but yes, the theory was proved using consecutive Webley pistols.
 
Last edited:

geoshot

Well-Known Member
Interesting, don't agree with the statistic statement though
Absolutely this!
I wouldn't mind doing this but it implies that the criminal element are taking & using legally held firearms - there is little or no evidence to support that contention
The crims want pistols and fully auto - kit that we're no longer allowed to have
The days of using sawn-off SG in bank robberies are long gone

All that said though, if they want a spent case from my rifles I'll happily supply a couple of hundred if they think it would help
Their flase-flag justification undermines trust though, why use a falsehood to engender a response and why make it sound like you must comply when it's not (yet) a requirement?
Those two elements of the letter are what I have to take issue with
 

Top