And, I'll bet they didn't bother to state the fact that that ballistic gelatin DOES NOT accurately simulate the amount of resistance provided by real human flesh, either!

They are infamous for that kind of blooper.

CSI Miami had one where the .22 bullet that killed someone was slightly oval. The investigator concluded on the spot that it was from a sawed off gun. Yeah. The perp had clamped the rifle in a vise to saw it off, and, in so doing, had squeezed it out of round. Sure enough, they nailed him by the pattern his vise left on the barrel. That's a real howler.

If they want to do a show about science, they ought to at least get the science right. They clearly do not understand either guns or electricity, just to start a list.

Technically speaking, I think a lot of the "technical advisers" don't know their ass from a hot rock.

Duh...

And what makes you guys think that the REAL investigators don't do the same thing?

Ya know, all that stuff they do in the movies and on TV does not come from the writers' heads...they have a slew of "techincal advisors"...(unfortunately most are retired army or police)...and their "advice" is based on their real life experiences.

my old man used to say

"it's in the script"...

20% load... will that even leave the barrel?

and, if the yaahoo can then reference a load in a book, why didn't he back into it...


and then try to shoot a 9mm 1000 feet

jeffe

It's called "Poetic License" in writers language

Ricciardelli wrote

"Duh...And what makes you guys think that the REAL investigators don't do the same thing?"



Right On!



Yesterday I finished two months of Grand Jury duty. During that tenure, we heard several instances of court-recognized "Expert Witnesses" giving firearms testimony. In every instance, at least some of the material facts testified to were grievously & materially error-ridden.



In each instance, I consulted later with the DA and got the record straightened out before court time was wasted further on those specific items.



The first instance required that I provide the DA and each of the other Grand Jurors with documentary refutation of the "expert witness" testimony via copies of BATF documents I have on file, together with added testimony from a friend who just happens to be a currently certified BATF Firearms Examiner. (He is right now working to help straighten out the Washington, D.C. BATF Office's misinterpreted ruling that restricts many current import L1A1 kits...) After that first instance, things went a bit easier in correcting the evidence errors made by our "expert witnesses".



Anyway, the problem with many "expert witnesses" employed by Law Enforcement is that they are not really expert. They attend and graduate from a school or schools, the completion of which "qualifies" them in the eyes of most courts to testify as experts.



Of course, graduating from a school no more makes one an "expert" on firearms than graduating from Law School makes one an expert on Law. Graduation barely qualifies one to really begin to learn, by working in that field. Only long experience after completing school makes ANYONE an expert in either field.



As to the errors in testimony we heard, after the cases have gone to trial if anyone is interested I will be able to tell the stories here. Until then, the Grand Jury oath forbids discussion of ANY specifics of the cases.



Alberta Canuck

I was watching CSI the other night. A woman was killed by a FMJ 9MM slug that only penetrated 4". In order to determine from what range the projectile might have been fired, they loaded 3 rds. of 9MM. One at 100%, one at 70% and the last at 20%.
By the way, when the "loader" went down on the bullet seat stroke, he had to push like all get-out to complete the stroke. Y'all reckon the case mouth might be a tad crimped?
They fired these 3 "test" cartridges at blocks of ballistician's gell to determine which load produced a penetration of 4".
Wouldn't you know it? The 20% load just happened to produce exactly a 4" penetration. I'll be damned!
Each single test rd. was fired across a chrony and the M/V was recorded.
The crime lab's "super ballistician" broke out his 6" thick book of ballistics tables and extrapolated the velocity/penetration data to determine that the projectile was fired from 1000 ft. away at an upward angle of 28 degrees. With that "data", they were able to narrow their search for the shooter to a small area and eventually track down the suspect.

How come why for we ain't got no super ballisticians on this here forum that can figger that fancy stuff? Them fellas on that TV show shore is smart, ain't they, Ma?!

I ain't got no business watching stuff like that. Makes me wanna tell him he wouldn't make a pimple on a handloader's A$$!

I'm done.

When I was a sniper for my department's SWAT team, I had to attend autopsies to learn human anatomy for stopping a bad guy's action. I was lucky to be teamed up with a meat cutter who was a shooter and a reloader. He had done over 1000 shooting autopsies in his career and from that he had some really good in sight, I still use to this day.

The only consistency in bullet performance was the inconsistency!

The bigger the bullet the better!

Don't count on expansion, remember Murphy's law!

Use bullets that cut rather than push things out of the way!

He said he had a cop shoot a crook with a .44 magnum, using Super Vels (kind of time dates how long he had been at the game)in the arm. The bullet stopped at the bone, leaving the impression of the 180 gr. hollow point in the bone. The next shot hit the crook in the chest, side to side shot, and left an exit hole the size of a human fist. All witnesses said they could tell no difference in muzzle blast, sound of the shot, or apparent recoil, hence the inconsistencies of bullet performance.