The antique bullet


How would you date a bullet, and why would you want to? There's nothing about an FMJ bullet manufactured during WWI that's any different than ones made today, so there's no reason to even suspect it was an antique to begin with. On top of that, military surplus ammunition is a thing, and some of it is ancient. Also, there's a lot of ammunition that sits around in people's houses for years or decades too; nothing unusual about it at all.

Even if someone did, inexplicably, try to date it, how would they do it? Radiocarbon dating only works on organic material, and neither lead nor copper are organic. They might be able to date gun powder residue on the bullet (nitrocellulose is organic), but the results would show that it was relatively new, because it had time-traveled, i.e., it didn't have decades' worth of radiocarbon decay for the same reason that Willis' character didn't have decades' worth of aging when he went from WWI era to 1996.

reply

I'm sketchy on the exact science, but ballistics experts would be able to take traits like the bullet markings, dimensions, firing scratches, etc. and compare those to other bullets from known battles to provide an estimate on the age. It wouldn't be outlandish for an expert to draw those distinctions between Cole's bullet and ones that were dug out of the WWI trenches.

reply

"I'm sketchy on the exact science, but ballistics experts would be able to take traits like the bullet markings, dimensions, firing scratches, etc. and compare those to other bullets from known battles to provide an estimate on the age."

Marks on a bullet are unique to a particular gun, not to a particular era. There is no marking that a WW1 rifle could make on a bullet that can't also be made by a modern rifle, not to mention the fact that there's nothing remarkable about old guns still being in use today, as well as the fact that old guns can fire new bullets. For example, a box of .30-06 Springfield cartridges from your local Walmart will work just fine in an M1903 Springfield rifle (first manufactured in 1903 and used heavily in WWI).

"It wouldn't be outlandish for an expert to draw those distinctions between Cole's bullet and ones that were dug out of the WWI trenches."

Not only would it be outlandish, but it would be utterly baseless as well, because there is nothing about the bullets used in WWI that's unique to that era.

Also, where would anyone even get the idea that the bullet was particularly old to begin with? From the time it was manufactured to the time it was fired was probably only a matter of weeks or months, and then add a couple of days or whatever for however long it was in Cole's leg. In other words, it was a ~new bullet. It isn't standard procedure for a police ballistics lab to attempt to date a bullet that was recently extracted from someone, and dating attempts on this particular bullet would be futile anyway, for reasons I've already mentioned.

reply

I'm just going off of the authority of someone I know who happens to be an obsessive antique firearms collector. There are indeed grooves, dimples, and other physical design characteristics that are consistent with certain eras and may primarily be associated with particular battles. I'm recalling a bullet in his collection, for instance, that was never produced in the US and mainly issued during the Crimean War. I'm not a gun expert, so please excuse me for not understanding how the information you present necessarily refutes the possibility of identifying an older bullet.

Also, I haven't seen the movie in a while, but doesn't Madeline Stowe's character receive the information secondhand? Some secondary character says something like: "The ballistics report indicates the bullet is an antique..." We're not getting a close-up view of the detailed lab analysis, just another character relaying that information. It's plausible that the actual analysis was loaded with some doubt of the bullet's actual origins - a case of the analyst seeing all the signs but not believing the impossible nature of a bullet fired during WWI freshly dug out of a lunatic's leg. Maybe it was a case of the person seeing the lab report and assuming the conclusion because that was what the report indicated.

reply

"There are indeed grooves, dimples, and other physical design characteristics that are consistent with certain eras and may primarily be associated with particular battles."

No, there aren't. All of the firearms used in WWI had ordinary rifling which can be found in countless types of guns manufactured before and since then. It can be matched to a specific gun if have the specific gun to fire a bullet from in order to make a comparison, but it can't be matched to any particular era (aside from "modern era", which for firearms is from the late 1800s until today).

"I'm recalling a bullet in his collection, for instance, that was never produced in the US and mainly issued during the Crimean War."

There's a big difference between the Crimean War and WWI. Minie balls used in rifled muskets are very distinctive looking, and were relatively short-lived, thus era specific. Even then, if a minie ball were extracted from someone today it wouldn't necessarily be old, because reproductions of both the rifled muskets and the minie balls have existed for a long time, as well as molds for casting your own from molten lead.

On the other hand, WWI was in the modern era. They used metallic cartridges with FMJ bullets in the .30 caliber range and smokeless powder, just as is still commonly used today. The cartridge that the United States military used for example, the .30-06 Springfield, is still one of the most popular rifle cartridges to this day, and one from WWI isn't structurally any different than one made in 1996, or 2018 for that matter.

"Maybe it was a case of the person seeing the lab report and assuming the conclusion because that was what the report indicated."

She was told by a cop. Also, there was nothing which could have possibly indicated that it was fired more than a couple/few days prior, because that's when it effectively was fired.

reply

She was told by a cop.


So she was told by someone else who himself may have reached an assumptive conclusion based on the information in the report.

reply

"So she was told by someone else who himself may have reached an assumptive conclusion based on the information in the report."

She was told by the investigating officer, and there's nothing onscreen which supports your speculation, therefore it can be dismissed out of hand. On top of that, your speculation is a non sequitur anyway, because there should be no "report" about dating the bullet to begin with, because nothing would have indicated it is particularly old, plus there's no way to date it, plus there's no reason to attempt to date it.

As for the 99% of my post that you failed to address, your tacit concession on all of that is noted.

reply

It is something to do with the shape and weight, which changed around 1930 onwards. Whether or not they could be that accurate though is another matter

reply

"It is something to do with the shape and weight, which changed around 1930 onwards."

There is no shape and weight bullet that is unique to pre-1930.

reply

I didn't say there was a shape unique to pre - 1930. What I said was the shape (design if you like)and weight of bullets changed after 1930. That's not to say the pre 1930 wasn't still used. Probably that it was not widely available. As you say though, it's a big leap to assume that the bullet taken out of Cole was fired in the First World war or whatever. I was simply trying to answer the method of ascertaining the age of the bullet.

reply

"I didn't say there was a shape unique to pre - 1930. What I said was the shape (design if you like)and weight of bullets changed after 1930."

But that isn't correct. For military rifle bullets (and their civilian counterparts), spitzers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzer_(bullet)) in the .30 caliber range have been predominate since the early 1900s, i.e., since before WWI. There have always been a variety of bullet weights used in various cartridges. For example, the standard .30-06 cartridge used by the U.S. military in WWI originally used a 150-grain bullet. In 1925 the standard was changed to a 173-grain bullet. In 1937 they went back to a 150-grain bullet, and have stayed with that ever since. On the civilian market the .30-06 has been available in bullet weights ranging from 110 to 220 grains (and perhaps lighter and heavier than those two extremes), and in the form of a spitzer FMJ, spitzer boattail FMJ, round nose FMJ, spitzer jacketed hollow point, round nose semi-jacketed soft point, spitzer semi-jacketed soft point, and others.

For the sake of argument, let's say the bullet appeared to be from a "Ball, M1906" cartridge, which was made from 1906 until 1925. Keep in mind that there were/are plenty of .30-06 cartridges on the civilian market which use/used copies of the "Ball, M1906" bullet, but let's say that somehow you've conclusively proven that it is from an original "Ball, M1906" cartridge. So what does that prove? Just because a bullet was manufactured a long time ago doesn't mean it was also fired a long time ago. The movie treats it like it's some big mystery that needs explaining; i.e., the cop asks the woman if she wants to change her story, when in reality, the obvious conclusion would just be that Cole was shot recently with an old military surplus cartridge. For example, this guy picked up a box of M1906 ball at a gun show in 2014 - http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=147012.

reply

According to this site https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=174509, the military used to have the year of manufacture on them, though this was the cartridge. Measurement and weight are also a factor.
And sometimes the screenwriters just get their facts wrong.
As for your premise that even if you could tell the year of manufacture, what does that prove? I agree

reply

I guarantee that the the metal itself has changed, or is able to be identified as to where it was mined, which would narrow down the date, based on its specific properties. I have my doubts as to why they would bother testing that thoroughly though.

reply

Isn't it basically just a plot device to drive home a plot point? In this case to get Railly to have another look at the old photos. The line that it had to have been fired before 1920 is very sketchy indeed, but dramatic and narratively necessary.

As a layman I'll respect your expertise on the military and weapons matter, it makes sense, as does the reasoning that the bullet was in fact fresh, recently fired, and could not be dated to a period by regular means. Even if it was somehow possible to identify a bullet as specifically pre-1920, coming from a uniquely identifiable weapon of a similar era, it would be a massive coincidence that the police department in question just happened to have a weapons specialist of that level of knowledge of military weapon history, that would likely not come in handy any time in their line of police work.

These types of coincidences are midly annoying at best, and ridiculous at worst. There seems to always be knowledge when needed, like a detective knows exactly where the soil, or pollen from the bottom of a suspect's shoes comes from, and can only come from there. It's poor script writing, really, to resolve the plot in an expedient and orderly fashion.

reply

Trace levels of mercury from corrosive primers not used in modern ammunition? Trace levels of other materials in the copper or lead not present in modern formulations? I'm also guessing its a Mauser round, which is kind of unusual in modern use and there may be anachronisms of manufacture which can help place its date of manufacture.

The larger question isn't whether it can be dated, its whether a police crime lab would bother once they identified the caliber and maybe the markings to identify the firearm.

reply

Corrosive primers were used by some ammo manufacturers for many decades after WWI, and there may even be some e.g., ComBloc manufacturers that still use them. There was even at least one company, an American military contractor no less (Lake City), using mercuric primers (the older of the two types of corrosive primers) in some of its ammo as recently as the 1960s, and who knows when they were last used if you include the entire world? There's nothing about the copper or lead / lead alloys used in bullets from WWI that you couldn't find in bullets made today, or at any point in between.

"The larger question isn't whether it can be dated, its whether a police crime lab would bother once they identified the caliber and maybe the markings to identify the firearm."

I don't believe it could be dated, and even if it could, I don't believe they would bother, but if it could and they did bother to do it, it wouldn't be a "gotcha" moment. At best it could be considered a minor lead that might help them find the shooter, such as by questioning e.g., gun shop owners to find out who may have bought some WWI surplus ammo in that particular caliber recently.

reply

All refined metals will have different spectrographic signatures due to the source of the ore (or recycled metal sources) and some of the materials used in producing them. Potash is used to refine lead, potash has trace contaminates of radon, uranium and thorium.

I'd also bet that refining techniques have changed and this would also alter the trace element sigantures.

There's also radionuclides which would be missing from a bullet made in 1918 that would possibly be present in a modern round thanks to atmospheric weapons testing in the 1950s that could have contaminated the inputs with cobalt-60.

The question really isn't whether you can identify it as being not contemporary, it's whether the police would ever bother or even have some of the equipment in a city police lab.

reply

"All refined metals will have different spectrographic signatures due to the source of the ore (or recycled metal sources) and some of the materials used in producing them."

Different spectrographic signatures wouldn't have anything to do with the source of the ore, it would have to do with the final chemical composition of the metal, and it would not establish, nor even suggest, a date of manufacture for a bullet.

"Potash is used to refine lead, potash has trace contaminates of radon, uranium and thorium."

First, that wouldn't help date the bullet, and second (not that it's relevant), where's your proof that potash is inevitably present in the finished refined lead? Also, there are many methods of refining lead. In some cases potash (potassium hydroxide) is used as a drossing agent, but not always. Other drossing agents include coal, ammonium chloride, sodium hydroxide, sulfur, phosphorus, and even air (and that's not an exhaustive list).

"I'd also bet that refining techniques have changed and this would also alter the trace element sigantures."

That's sheer conjecture, unless you can point out a specific refining technique that was never used by anyone in the world after WWI, and how that specific refining technique would "alter the trace element signatures". Also, even if you could do that, it still wouldn't establish a date of manufacture for a bullet, since the dates that the metals are refined and the dates that they are used to manufacture a bullet aren't necessarily the same nor are they necessarily even close together.

"There's also radionuclides which would be missing from a bullet made in 1918 that would possibly be present in a modern round thanks to atmospheric weapons testing in the 1950s that could have contaminated the inputs with cobalt-60."

That's more conjecture.

"The question really isn't whether you can identify it as being not contemporary"

You can't, but feel free to try to prove otherwise by firing a bullet from a WWI surplus cartridge into a carcass, and then see if there's any lab in the world that can conclusively establish when it was manufactured.

reply

I don't recall them saying who shot the bullet.

It seems that the German army had pretty specific models of bullets that were made during WWI.

It is not unreasonable that a police ballistics expert would be knowledgeable buff regarding historical bullets.

reply

Their standard infantry rifle was chambered for 7.92×57mm Mauser, AKA: 8mm Mauser, common as dirt, even today (and lots of different cartridges use 8mm / .312" bullets) Also, regardless of whether or not it could be identified as a bullet made during WWI (highly unlikely), that would be mostly useless information, not a "gotcha" moment, because knowing when a bullet was manufactured doesn't tell you anything at all about when it was fired. The only thing that information might be good for is as a possible lead, i.e., they could check with gun shops in the area to get a list of people who bought WW1 surplus ammunition recently.

reply

Perhaps already mentioned, but beyond the difficulty of dating the bullet is the fact when a bullet hits a target, even without hitting bone, the rapid deceleration causes immediate malformation of the lead. Usually mashed up. Yet, the bullet Dr. Railley pulled from James appears pristine, like it just came out of the mold. (In addition to the odd fact that she would have retained the bullet after taking it out of him).

reply