?

Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
muppetology beaker meep meep

forgive them father for they don't have a clue

I know unrifled guns do leave marks on the bullets, but I'm not sure Castle should have hung an entire plot on ballistics comparisons of 18th century duelling pistols...

Comments

*boggle*
You and me both.
I didn't think the whole plot hung on it, really. It hung more on the general inaccuracy of that style of gun and the finding of the extra bullet. And the plot's rarely the point of Castle, anyway.
They only started looking for the third gun because of ballistics.

And FWIW, those guns are not quite as inaccurate as the episode made them out to be.

Not having seen the episode.

On the other hand, the metal composition of the unfired bullets (Should there have been any left with the particular gun set.) will link to the fired bullet in a way that modern ones will not.

The mold markings would also do so, especially as each dueling pistol set tended to have an included mold.

Re: Not having seen the episode.

All the bullets came from the same source, in this case. But yeah, they would.
According to lore, some dueling pistol sets were set up to give the owner an advantage whichever pistol the opponent choose.

One pistol would have "hidden" rifling. It would be rifled, but the rifling would stop short of the muzzle so it wouldn't be seen by a casual inspection. Consquently it would be more accurate than standard. The trigger was normal weight. If the owner got this pistol he got the advantage of the rifling.

The second pistol in the pair would have an extra light trigger. A lighter trigger, if you are ready for it, also improves accuracy as you are less likely to pull the gun off target as you pull the trigger. But, if you don't know about the light trigger you could accidently fire the pistol too soon and waste your shot.

If the owner got this pistol, he'd know about the extra light trigger and would be able to take advantage of it. If the opponent got it, than the shot might be wasted.

At least that's how the lore goes...

I love this idea, it's so deliciously sneaky. (And underhanded, of course.)
TV makes MUCH ADO about the science of ballistics when in actual court cases it is supporting evidence only. Most DAs will not even consider taking a case to court on Ballistic evidence only. You need motive, opportunity, no solid alibi and corroborating evidence that a jury can understand without a expert to make it count. Very few cases exist where it actually was the single damning factor that I have seen.

Sean
I believe he was, yes. *g*
Can someone explain how they justified testing for 'holy water residue' on a previous episode? It still hurts!
But, its a universe where NYPD homicide detectives are cute and nerdy, or sexy women with attitudes, and where living at home with your Mom when you are over forty isn't sen as a turn off. I like this universe, its silly, but so much fun!
On a related note, I've decided that I would totally watch Bear, the story of a speculative fiction author who teams up with a police detective for frothy crime-fighting hijinks. :)
I bored my wife to a frenzy talking about this -- and the fact that they kept showing revolvers while talking about muzzle-loaders.

They did have some good Steampunk hats, though!
Oooh I'm glad this is a show I don't watch 'cause I would have been *yelling*...and I don't often yell at the TV. But that's just BAAAAAAAD. Even the worst Hollywood anti-gun activist should know the difference between a revolver and a muzzle loader. *sigh*

But then the first gun I ever shot, back when I was about 10, was a black powder musket. :)
Dr. Thorndyke did it once - but that's a while back.
To be fair I don't think they specifically said they were comparing marks on the bullet. They may have just tested each gun to see if had been fired in recent decades.

Edit: Which is what I would have done.

"Gun one: No GSR, not fired recently."
"Gun two: No flint in holder, dust undisturbed"
"Gun three: Squirrel in barrel."

Edited at 2010-10-19 01:08 pm (UTC)
Alas, they specifically said "ballistics." Repeatedly. I know because I winced every time.