# bullet identification.



## midnightpoet (Aug 9, 2013)

My small town sheriff is investigating a crime, and the nearest forensics lab is like 100 miles away.  How long, in a situation like this, would it take to compare and identify bullets?  I understand that a small town might not be high priority for the lab.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 9, 2013)

How big is the crime? Just a minor crime? Or something ongoing?


----------



## midnightpoet (Aug 9, 2013)

ok, it's a cold case.  20 years prior, a woman was shot in the chest during the robbery.  She survived, and all the bullets removed except for one near her heart.  Ten years later, she decides to have the bullet removed despite the risks  - and she died.  The robbery and shooting were never solved.  So, was it murder?  In any case, the sheriff discovers a possible connection to another case involving her father, a former deputy sheriff - so she decides to take the case.  Other mysterious deaths follow, old secrets come to light, ect...

it's a very small town (in west central Texas), about 2000 people in the county seat, maybe 3000 in the whole county.  The closest city of any size is at least 100 miles away.


----------



## midnightpoet (Aug 9, 2013)

oops i meant 20 years later (present time) she decides to have the bullet removed.


----------



## DPVP (Aug 9, 2013)

Well their would be a medical malpractice investigation on the doctor. As for the bullet it would probably take awhile as it is a cold case. Time will very depending on what else is going on. If their was a recent murder then that would take president. if they get a match for a type of gun will also matter on the condition of the bullet that is removed and of the barrel of the weapon it is fired from.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 9, 2013)

Well the good thing if I understand correctly about small towns. Is that sending anything into forensics is usually tallied the same as any city crime. It being a small town cold case might be back burner. The other thing is while this will tell you what type of gun it was fired from; it can't tell you the exact gun, unless you have the gun already. 

The actual process differs. But a basic outline is. A lab tech will take a picture of the bullet. The actual bullet will have grooves. They will run the picture through a data base; comparing it essentially to thousands of other pictures already stored into the database. This process takes only a few minutes. So once they actually get to the case it will be done within a day. Then you can calculate the mail, but phones would also work. So you could have the information believably within a week. 

Now there is a relatively small percentage that this gun actually happens to be in the data base. It's compared to finding a needle in a haystack, but you could convincingly find the owner of the gun by the bullet, if the gun was registered into the ATF or FBI database. It's very unlikely the gun was, but if for story sake you needed it to be; then you could wing it that way.


----------



## FleshEater (Aug 10, 2013)

Wait, 20 years with a chunk of lead next to her heart? Your body would push that out, or the lead would poison your blood stream. If it was a .45 ACP, .44, or .357 from a small town revolver, it'd definitely be a huge chunk of lead to just "live with."


----------



## DPVP (Aug 10, 2013)

Lead poisoning is unlikely. The body will encase it in scar tissue to stop infection. From my understanding that I got is that unless it is close to a joint, where movement and joint fluids whould leach the lead of it, then lead poisoning is unlikely.

That scar tissue  itself may get pushed out eventually. Their are a lot of people out their that have a old bullet shot or some shrapnel in them.


----------



## FleshEater (Aug 10, 2013)

I've heard of shrapnel, but have you ever seen a mushroomed hollow point from a .9mm to a .45 ACP?


----------



## DPVP (Aug 11, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I've heard of shrapnel, but have you ever seen a mushroomed hollow point from a .9mm to a .45 ACP?


Yes i have, lots of times actully, seems to have a bad habit of comeign trough bronx hospital doors. And its from that and my discusions with doctors ove patiants their that i am drawing on. 

Rule one is alwase do not remove a bullet when you are in the feild. the question of removeing the bullet in hospital is about how mutch damage will be caused by removeing it. They are usually very steril and it's the stuff they drag in at leads to infection. For long term GSW it is infection that is the concern. Generally the bullet gets removed only if it presents a danger by staying in place, or is found during exploration in the hospital. When already in a sensitive area like the chest. It whould certainly make sense to leave it in place. Their certainly lots of cases ( from prisons) of bullets working their way out. What I don't know is if it whould from deep in the chest cavity.


----------



## FleshEater (Aug 11, 2013)

Still, after twenty years, wouldn't a doctor inform the character of these dangers in the OP's story? The whole thing seems strange, but they do say truth is stranger than fiction, so anything is possible I guess.


----------



## egpenny (Aug 11, 2013)

If they took the other bullets out at the time of the shooting, why would forensics be important on this particular bullet?  They should have the info from the other bullets, or were they so deformed that identifying them was impossible?  If the sheriff sends the bullet to a larger city, the thing is going to go to the end of the line of things waiting to be analyzed, it's first in-first out for most labs, unless it's a hot case; 20 years? Not so hot.  It may take quite a bit longer than a week to get results back.  Most labs will give an LEO a heads up by phone and then send a report via computer and/or snail-mail.


----------



## DPVP (Aug 11, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Still, after twenty years, wouldn't a doctor inform the character of these dangers in the OP's story? The whole thing seems strange, but they do say truth is stranger than fiction, so anything is possible I guess.


Yeah they whould. It seems like one of those "how is this not malpractice" situations.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 11, 2013)

I wonder at the old army veterans. Back then technique wasn't on par; so would it have been safer just to leave bullets in the body? I am sure in some cases it was. So with this OP's story in question. I think of it as a small town; so the doctors may not be up to par. I would think the woman would have been shipped to a bigger hospital, but if the nearest city is 100 miles away; then the doctors would just have to do what they could do. Sometimes the best option isn't available when you live so far out. So, malpractice wouldn't be such a gripe. Knowing the risk going in.


----------



## FleshEater (Aug 11, 2013)

Skodt said:


> I wonder at the old army veterans. Back then technique wasn't on par; so would it have been safer just to leave bullets in the body? I am sure in some cases it was.



More than likely, those old Army vets were hit with FMJ rounds. FMJ is used in war to create ultimate damage, and because NATO doesn't allow the use of JHP in war. They have designed FMJ rounds for war with a tip that is hollow, but still encased in a full metal jacket. This causes the round to tumble and yaw upon impact, making it even harder to trace the path of the bullet and stop the bleeding. The quicker the round tumbles, the more deadlier it is. 5.56/.223 (M16, M4, AR15, etc.) used by our armed forces is one of the deadliest rounds available, right up there with the Soviet 5.45 (AK74). Search "Poison Bullet" for some disturbing information about a round designed to specifically kill humans. They say the 5.45 can tumble and yaw in a human bicep or calf muscle. Intense. 

In a crime where a handgun is used, more than likely the round would be a JHP or HP, which would mushroom and lodge itself in the body. Armed guards and police officers use JHP so that when they hit their taget the round does not pass through and hit an innocent bystander. 

In a small town, I could easily see a man going into a crime armed with a .357 or .44 revolver. Using a semi-jacketed hollow point from a .44, I'm not sure anyone would survive a round to the chest. If it's a woman, a .38 would be very likely.


----------



## DPVP (Aug 11, 2013)

the question of malpractice would be pulling it out after 20 years not leaving it in. unless something changed that made a bullet in the chest a danger i cant understand why they would do surgery to remove it. 

humans are good at soaking up damage, we have a tendency to not notice we are shot and combined with modern medicine we make good on surviving GSW. i believe the current rate is that 95% of GSW brought in the the hospital alive leave the hospital alive. reality is getting hit by a bullet, yes even one that starts with a 4, is not a death sentence and it is perfectly feasible that this person would survive with modern medicine.


----------



## midnightpoet (Aug 11, 2013)

Thanks, guys.  You've given me a lot of things to think about.  As far as why the woman decided after 20 years to remove the bullet, that's part of the plot (She had her reasons).  The sheriff wanted the bullet that she was shot with to compare it against a bullet from another crime, one where her father, a former deputy, was shot and paralyzed from the waist down ( the two crimes happened very close together).  She's at first grasping at straws because of her obvious interest in finding the men who shot her father.  I will say, maybe 20 years is too long, maybe 10 would be better.  Such are the problems working out my plot.


----------

