1920s Manufacturing Process

[bk43]

Originally posted by NobodyElse:
Hello,

I have two questions related to historical research I'm conducting:
1- Would "plunger" marks from one S&W .38 Revolver differ from other weapons of the same type?
2- Were all S&W .38 Revolvers made on the same machinery?

Thanks for your help,

RNS

My two cents. There is a lot of knowledge on this forum but we need more generalized info. You are asking about where you think the answers may lie. You need to ask so the group understands what you are trying to accomplish. For example, "can a certain gun be identified as having fired a certain cartridge if the gun was made in the 1920s?" would get more info than asking about the plunger or machinery. IOW be more specific about where you are trying to go. As it is now folks are having to guess about what you want.

Bob

 

[NobodyElse]

Thanks again for the informative and illuminating answers. You are really helping me clarify my thinking on this, but you're right that I'm not giving you the situation that inspired my query, so here is the conundrum:

In 1927, a man is shot and killed outside of his home in the middle of a Friday night. There are no eyewitnesses but three people hear the shooting. The gunman flees the scene.

The first witness arrives on the scene a few minutes after the shooting and pockets two spent .38 cartridges (shell-casings) but he does not give them to the investigators and they never come up in the subsequent trials.

More witnesses arrive on the scene (about 6 or so) and start searching for clues. They immediately find footprints, so they must have been looking at the ground and able to see. About an hour after the witnesses arrive, someone finds 4 spent .38 cartridges about 10 yards from where the shooting occured, and in plain sight, and gives them to the investigators.

The morning after the crime, another spent .38 cartridge is found a few miles from the scene where a hold-up is alleged to have occured before the murder. That .38 is later positively identified (using a magnifying glass and checking the indents made by the firing-pin "plunger") as having been fired from the same weapon as the batch found at the murder scene.

The following Monday, a man is arrested in his home 60 miles from the crime scene and a gun is found in his home. The investigators match the gun, a .38 S&W Special, to the 5 found spent cartridges.

I find it inconceivable that witnesses scouring the scene did not find the cartridges at the scene within the first hour of searching when they are all looking at the ground. Therefore, the suspicion is that the cartridges were introduced to the scene by one of the witnesses, at least one of whom was at both crime scenes where cartridges were found. But that leaves the problem of the S&W .38 Special being found at the alleged gunman's home, but that is only a problem if the weapon was positively identified as matching the cartridges. If the science connecting them is flawed, however, then it is possible to construct a narrative where the cartridges were introduced to the scene after the shooting and a gun, not neccesarily the gun, was found when the man was arrested. The police, believing they have their man, assume the connection between the weapon and the cartridges.

However, if the connection leaves no room for any other interpretation, then the narrative must be constructed where the alleged gunman had a gun in his possession which was used to kill someone. That central truth would then have to be reconciled with other issues, not firearms related, involved with the prosecution of the alleged gunman.

So, my broad question was; how can I know if the gun was truly connected to the cartridges? I thought that the answer must lie in understanding the technical aspects of weapon and cartridge production which would show that either the weapon and cartridges were truly connected, or that they were not neccesarily connected and the investigators connected them because they "must be" connected based on the assumption that they had the right man, they had the weapon, therefore the cartridges found at the scene must have belonged to that weapon.

The weapon is apparently not out there (I've asked about that), and the cartridges are not now available either. Tests were not conducted on the rifling or lands, and the only tests that were conducted were those that checked the firing pin indentations from test fired cartridges to those found at the scene. Only the test fired cartridges belonging to the alleged murder weapon were produced in the trial.

The S&W evidence was the primary evidence used to convict the alleged gunman who was later executed.[Note on agenda: I don't have one other than to find out what happened and why it happened]

I hope all that makes sense? But if I'm not asking the right questions, I am open to suggestions on the best way to understand the firearms and ballistic evidence.

Thanks.
ps I've read the book on the Little Big Horn archaeology and it is fascinating, as is the History Channel documentary. I wish I had the physical evidence from this case to do that kind of testing.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

Are we talking reality or fiction here?

First of all, I can't imagine why any murderer using a revolver would leave behind 4 spent 38 cartrdiges here, and 2 there, etc.

Revolvers are not like semi-autos. Semi-Autos eject the spent (empty) cartridge case after every shot. Unless the perp takes the time to find the empties and recover them, investigators usually find empties left behind at the scene of a crime that has been committed with a semi-auto. Revolvers don't leave spent cartridge cases behind unless someone is dumb enough to open it up and manually eject the empties. Normally, the empties stay in the gun, they have to be manually ejected.

If somebody is in a running gun battle, and empties his revolver, then he will open it up and dump out all 6 empties so he can reload.

I suppose if somebody has only fired 3 or 4 rounds from a revolver, he may want to 'top it off' by removing the empties and replacing them with live rounds. But I can't imagine a murderer dumb enough to do that and leave evidence behind.

I don't know exactly when science started looking at spent cartridge cases scientifically in order to identify murder weapons with them. Police departments have been studying bullets and have been able to match them to firearms for a long time, probably starting around the turn of the Century. Spent cases may have come a bit later.

When a cartrdige is fired, several things happen that are of importance to the investigator. The firing pin strikes the primer and dents it, and the brass expands violently to seal the chamber. This expansion may impress unique markings onto the brass from tooling marks on the chamber. The tooling marks are left over from making the hole in the first place. Other marks may be left behind on the case too, depending on the type of gun used. Guns that use the action of the gun to feed ammunition through the mechanism may leave unique markings on the cases. I have a rifle that always leaves a little dent on the mouth of the case when it ejects. This is called a 'pitcher mouth'. There may be other scratches or marks left on the case from running them through the gun, and a skilled technician can use all of these things to positively connect a spent case to a particular gun. Revolvers though, by their nature, are pretty much only going to have primer dents to identify them with, and most savvy criminals don't dump out their empties for investigators to find.

However, as I said, I'm not exactly sure when all this 'case technology' became technical knowledge. Bullets have been analyzed for a long time. The first police crime lab was opened in Los Angles in 1923. The FBI did not open the Federal Crime Laboratory until 1932.

 

[pbslinger]

There is something wrong with the story as noted, there is little reason to eject spent cartridge cases from a revolver. This is particularly true in a hit or robbery.

I don't know but would be surprised if firing pin markings were being used that long ago to match a spent cartridge case to a particular gun. Maybe the only matching was the exact caliber, make and bullet type of the ammunition.

Sounds like a setup to me.

 

[dinghysailer]

I just looked at fired and unfired 38 SPL shell casings, the fired ones from a 1915 vintage M&P, which might or might not match the alleged murder weapon. Looked under quite high magnification. The firing pin indentation was quite round, smooth and well centered. It would be very hard, in the case of this particular weapon, to say that there were identifying marks that would allow a positive link between shell and weapon.

There were other impressions that could possibly give a link. The primer and the brass seem to have picked up very fine indentations from the tooling marks on the frame of the revolver. the sample gun has not been fired a lot, so the tooling marks are quite sharp, even though fairly fine in texture. The force of the exploding powder appears to have thrown the shell casing back into the frame quite hard. While one gun isn't much of a sample, and I don't have others to compare it with, it seems possible that a good match could be made.

This obviously does not resolve the question of why the casings were on the ground in the first place, evidence custody problems, and not a whole lot of detail in the record of what forensic evidence was presented.

We all know that a lot of people in the past have been wrongly convicted based on eyewitness identifications and dubious science, as the well publicized recent DNA exonerations have shown.

The reference to a "plunger" is confusing. S&W center-fire hand ejectors all seem to have the firing pin attached to the hammer, if I am correct. The word plunger suggests a separate part, similar to what is found on the rimfire Bekeart 22/32 models of that vintage. Were there any S&W 38 specials of that vintage that had a firing pin not attached to the hammer?

 

[mikepriwer]

Well- I do think the wrong question was asked, but I think the right question
has more to do with preserving the integrity of the crime scene, than anything else.
The above comments do raise a couple of questions.

First, you've referenced two different cartridges : .38, and .38 special . Maybe
that was inadvertent on your part. If it was not, then this raises the possibility,
although it seems remote because of 1927, that the original murder weapon was a
.38 semi-automatic. It does fire a .38 auto, but it does eject each shell as it
is fired. If they were available in 1927 ( I thought they were introduced in 1930,
but maybe earlier ) then this could explain the cartridges on the ground.

Second, if the crime scene was tampered with, then any and every thing could be
wrong. Trying to make sense out of such conditions may not be possible, if you
don't know what was done.

Another possibility is poor, or intentionally bad, investigative work. I recently
just finished reading John Grishams "The Innocent Man". This is a true story - his
first real non-fiction work - about a killing in Ada, OK in early 1982. The
investigative work was bad and biased, and the legal aspects are beyond belief.
If you want to read about how badly things can go wrong, start with this book !

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[pbslinger]

I think the 380 Auto was introduced in 1908 in the Colt 1908 Pocket Hammerless.

 

[Jellybean]

I find it inconceivable that witnesses scouring the scene did not find the cartridges at the scene within the first hour of searching when they are all looking at the ground.

Here is a problem, you're thinking too much. (Don't cloud the facts with what "you" have been taught or what you know. The question to ask is "is it possible, or could it have happened this way") What were the witnesses looking for? Evidence? They may have looked at the cases several times, in fact they may have sifted through the cases looking for evidence they recognized. The fact they didn't acknowledge the cases doens't mean they weren't there.

There is a big gap in your story from the shooting to when they arrested the guy 60 miles away with the gun. What other evidence or information was given to suspect him?

The only way to tell if that gun fired those cartridges is to test it. The cases don't even have to be the same as it will not make much difference what ammo you use. There is a problem with the gun though even if you have the exact same one. If it has been shot since then the firing pin indent may have changed from normal use and, since it is replaceable, may not be the one that was on the gun at the time of the murder.

Anyway, as I said earlier, there must be more to the case. You said the S&W evidence was the primary evidence used to convict the gunman. The S&W evidence you have presented so far is only connecting the cases to the gun that fired them but has nothing to do with who pulled the trigger.

 

[mikepriwer]

PBS

Yes - 1908 is certainly early enough to have the gun be a semiauto.
That would explain the cases being on the ground.

Thing is, there is a lot of missing, or incomplete , information
here.

Later, Mike Priwer

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by NobodyElse:
Thanks again for the informative and illuminating answers. You are really helping me clarify my thinking on this, but you're right that I'm not giving you the situation that inspired my query, so here is the conundrum:

In 1927, a man is shot and killed outside of his home in the middle of a Friday night. There are no eyewitnesses but three people hear the shooting. The gunman flees the scene.

The first witness arrives on the scene a few minutes after the shooting and pockets two spent .38 cartridges (shell-casings) but he does not give them to the investigators and they never come up in the subsequent trials.<span class="ev_code_RED">No way to explain something like this 80 years after it happened. Even if you wanted to. The worst "witness" in the World is the so called "Eye Witness" since no two of them will agree on exactly what happened.</span>

More witnesses arrive on the scene (about 6 or so) and start searching for clues. They immediately find footprints, so they must have been looking at the ground and able to see. About an hour after the witnesses arrive, someone finds 4 spent .38 cartridges about 10 yards from where the shooting occured, and in plain sight, and gives them to the investigators. <span class="ev_code_RED">My first question here is just why these "witnesses" started searching for clues??? Did they have any training??? What brought them to the scene??? Were they just "busybodies" or what??? I'm wondering just what you call "...in plain sight..." since you are indicating that this incident occurred at midnight; which last time I checked would put the crime as occurring after dark and the "Flashlights" of 1927 aren't anything like they are today. </span>

The morning after the crime, another spent .38 cartridge is found a few miles from the scene where a hold-up is alleged to have occured before the murder. That .38 is later positively identified (using a magnifying glass and checking the indents made by the firing-pin "plunger") as having been fired from the same weapon as the batch found at the murder scene.

The following Monday, a man is arrested in his home 60 miles from the crime scene and a gun is found in his home. The investigators match the gun, a .38 S&W Special, to the 5 found spent cartridges.

I find it inconceivable that witnesses scouring the scene did not find the cartridges at the scene within the first hour of searching when they are all looking at the ground.<span class="ev_code_RED">I'm guessing that you've never been on an actual crime scene. I have been, more than one, and I don't find it inconceivable at all that clues were over looked by untrained personal(witnesses). I've seen it happen with "Trained" Investigators, as well as by well meaning 'witnesses' or others involved. The afore mentioned busybodies!</span> Therefore, the suspicion is that the cartridges were introduced to the scene by one of the witnesses, at least one of whom was at both crime scenes where cartridges were found. But that leaves the problem of the S&W .38 Special being found at the alleged gunman's home, but that is only a problem if the weapon was positively identified as matching the cartridges. If the science connecting them is flawed, however, then it is possible to construct a narrative where the cartridges were introduced to the scene after the shooting and a gun, not neccesarily the gun, was found when the man was arrested. The police, believing they have their man, assume the connection between the weapon and the cartridges.

However, if the connection leaves no room for any other interpretation, then the narrative must be constructed where the alleged gunman had a gun in his possession which was used to kill someone. That central truth would then have to be reconciled with other issues, not firearms related, involved with the prosecution of the alleged gunman.

So, my broad question was; how can I know if the gun was truly connected to the cartridges? <span class="ev_code_RED">Well, if you're unable to examine the original firearm used you are certainly out of luck proving one way or the other whether it was the actual murder weapon. This applies here as well as below.</span> I thought that the answer must lie in understanding the technical aspects of weapon and cartridge production which would show that either the weapon and cartridges were truly connected, or that they were not neccesarily connected and the investigators connected them because they "must be" connected based on the assumption that they had the right man, they had the weapon, therefore the cartridges found at the scene must have belonged to that weapon.<span class="ev_code_RED">The 'science' of crime scene ballistics has come a very long way since 1927 and yet without the original firearm and the original cartridges nothing more can be determined that would be relevant to a Court case. The 'science' of Crime Scene Investigation, itself, has also come a very long way since 1927. Unfortunately, you can't go back and take a better look at the evidence at this late date.</span>

The weapon is apparently not out there (I've asked about that), <span class="ev_code_RED">Well, if you're unable to examine the original firearm used you are certainly out of luck proving one way or the other whether it was the actual murder weapon.</span> and the cartridges are not now available either. Tests were not conducted on the rifling or lands, and the only tests that were conducted were those that checked the firing pin indentations from test fired cartridges to those found at the scene. Only the test fired cartridges belonging to the alleged murder weapon were produced in the trial.

The S&W evidence was the primary evidence used to convict the alleged gunman who was later executed.[Note on agenda: I don't have one other than to find out what happened and why it happened] <span class="ev_code_RED">Here is where you are simply out of luck. You can't make anything out of nothing and that is what you have in this case - NOTHING!!!</span>

I hope all that makes sense? But if I'm not asking the right questions, I am open to suggestions on the best way to understand the firearms and ballistic evidence.<span class="ev_code_RED">As far as I can see there are "No Right Questions" to be asked. It all goes back to the fact that you don't have the original evidence to examine.</span>

Thanks.
ps I've read the book on the Little Big Horn archaeology and it is fascinating, as is the History Channel documentary. I wish I had the physical evidence from this case to do that kind of testing.

 

[digi-shots]

NE...

This is an interesting case.

There was ammo available after 1908 but it was headstamped .380 ACP (Auto Colt Pistol).

There was another .38 called the .38 SUPER, also manufactured by Colt but not until 1929. This was for a semi-auto pistol and not a revolver.

Neither of these 2 types of ammo would have had S&W on them, be considered S&W .38 Special ammo, nor used in a Smith & Wesson .38 SPECIAL revolver.

To me everything points to a set up. I can't imagine anyone "dropping" fired shell casings after committing a crime, unless they were in a gun battle, reloading, firing, etc. I would think they'd want to make a quick exit ASAP. The Smith & Wesson top break revolver will auto eject when opened (intentionally or accidentally) however, this gun takes a .38 S&W cartridge and not a .38 S&W SPECIAL cartridge.

One of the first witnesses to the murder just "happened" to be there and picked up 2 spent cartridges. The next day a spent cartridge is found at the scene of a hold-up that occurred the night before. Another criminal who just "happens" to drop a spent cartridge?? And the spent cartridges from both crimes match a gun 60 miles away??

Based on the stated forensics, all that proved was the spent cartridges came from the gun located 60 miles away. It doesn't prove that this particular gun was used in the crimes. Another gun could have been used and the "set up" cartridges dropped at both scenes. It also doesn't prove who the shooter was.

You may never be able to prove that the fellow was innocent but you may be able to show how someone else could have committed the murder and the robbery. The bullet(s) is what killed the victim, not the spent cartridges.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by digi-shots:
...To me everything points to a set up. I can't imagine anyone "dropping" fired shell casings after committing a crime, unless they were in a gun battle, reloading, firing, etc. I would think they'd want to make a quick exit ASAP. The Smith & Wesson top break revolver will auto eject when opened (intentionally or accidentally) however, this gun takes a .38 S&W cartridge and not a .38 S&W SPECIAL cartridge....

Even my Military Training taught me to reload after firing 'almost any' number of rounds. It sounds like this is probably what happened. The two cartridges that were "picked up" may have still been loaded. Live Ammo was something that didn't just get left laying around in 1927. Or so I've been told.

My Maternal Grandfather was a "Meat Hunter" during the '20s and '30s and he once told me that for every deer he brought in he got two load rounds for his Rifle. Thus, it made very good sense to him to make every shot count. When he was 'teaching' me to shoot I was given a tin can and ten rounds of .22 ammo. When I came back I was expected to have a tin can with ten holes in it. If I came back with a can that had only 6 or 8 holes(anything less than ten) in it I was "scolded" and then I only got as many 'replacement' cartridges as I had hits to show for my next 'round' of shooting. Of course, he and my Father keep a fairly close eye on my practice because Safety always came first with them. Later, I was allowed to carry a .22 rifle to school and then I would walk "the long way" home, shooting as I went. None of the 'game' I brought home went into the house as my Mother and Grandmother would have had a "Fit" but the animals were taken to "neighbors in need". And, who says you can keep a secret in a small town???

MAK

 

[mikepriwer]

The first witness arrives on the scene a few minutes after the shooting and pockets two spent .38 cartridges (shell-casings) but he does not give them to the investigators and they never come up in the subsequent trials.

Digi & Mike

Note this quote - its his first mention of cartridges, and he says " two spent .38 cartridges".
Not loaded, but spent. Not S&W or special, just .38 . This could be several different cartridges.

Maybe it was .380, and some witer, back then, thought the zero on the end was meaningless, and
just wrote .38 .

Come to think of it, I wonder what cartridge just has .38 as its headstamp .

Later, Mike Priwer

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by mikepriwer:

The first witness arrives on the scene a few minutes after the shooting and pockets two spent .38 cartridges (shell-casings) but he does not give them to the investigators and they never come up in the subsequent trials.

Digi & Mike

Note this quote - its his first mention of cartridges, and he says " two spent .38 cartridges".
Not loaded, but spent. Not S&W or special, just .38 . This could be several different cartridges.

Maybe it was .380, and some witer, back then, thought the zero on the end was meaningless, and
just wrote .38 .

Come to think of it, I wonder what cartridge just has .38 as its headstamp .

Later, Mike Priwer

From a Post of NobodyElse on the Second Page of this Thread: "...The first witness arrives on the scene a few minutes after the shooting and pockets two spent .38 cartridges (shell-casings) but he does not give them to the investigators and they never come up in the subsequent trials..."

Mike; Just how do we "know" that they were "spent" cases??? Especially, if they were "taken" and not given to the Investigators? Thus, I think that the cartridges "MAY" have been loaded rounds and this "COULD" account for them disappearing. Of course, all of this is strictly guesswork since none of us, including NobodyElse, was present at the scene. Actually, "WE" don't even know if these casings existed in the first place. And, it would seem that the Evidence has not survived so more guesswork is ALL that is possible. MAK

 

[NobodyElse]

Thanks again for your thoughtful and illuminating comments.

Digi-shots: You wrote; "Based on the stated forensics, all that proved was the spent cartridges came from the gun located 60 miles away. It doesn't prove that this particular gun was used in the crimes. Another gun could have been used and the "set up" cartridges dropped at both scenes. It also doesn't prove who the shooter was."
---- this is what I think happened. I base my argument along your line of thinking. Someone killed this man and the police investigator took the shell-casings found at the scene and turned into the police and "made" them fit the narrative he had constructed for the crime. He did that by ensuring no other test-fired catridges were presented to the jury to cause any doubts in their minds. However, I think the 4 catridges found at the scene were planted by the real killer who came back to the scene to act as a searcher/witness.
---- from all the comments I've read on the various threads I started, the forensic evidence presented at trial was not "bulletproof" and there is no necessity to believe that the gun presented as the murder weapon matched the 4 cartridges found at the scene of the crime. Moreover, further testing was available at that time which could have determined whether this was the murder weapon or not.

----- just a brief note on history as "guesswork". I agree, but all history is guesswork to a certain extent, the key is preparing the best guesswork possible with the information available. I can't think of a historical event, small or large, that doesn't have some doubts which linger. The question in this case is whether those doubts could or should have been recognised at the time.

Again thanks for your comments.

 

[walnutred]

Don't forget the SAA. I know they were made in 38 Special, but I do not know when. A 38 WCF Colt is also a possibility. Someone firing a single action would easily have left just a few ctgs on the ground while reloading. In some parts of the country a SAA would have been more likely that a Smith. And a DA revolver chambered in 38 S&W much more likely than one in 38 Specal.