User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 1:52:21 AM EDT
[#1]
Several large LE agencies already use this for their Glock pistols as I recall. Miami, I believe, is one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 1:54:31 AM EDT
[#2]
In today's news barrel orders for Jarvis and Bar-Sto are up 300%......
S.O. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 2:01:42 AM EDT
[#3]
+1  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 2:03:45 AM EDT
[#4]
So if a state or the Federal govt want to register the gun, they would get this register this pattern, but barrels are not serial numbered(yet) and controlled like the recievers, so how can then say, if you change the barrel then you must re-register your rifling.
The US Patent office is filled with patents that is not practical in the real world production. We'll see where this one leads. How many patents are actually put into real world production? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 2:25:36 AM EDT
[#5]
I see nothing wrong with uniquely marking barrels of weapons. If anything it is to your benefit to have a very unique pattern left on the bullet. If the weapon is only used in self defense you will admit to putting that bullet in the person and it will not matter. If the weapon was used in the commission of a crime then it will help prove beyond a shadow of a doubt a persons guilt or innocence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 2:40:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Screw 'em. Get a KKM drop-in replacement and you can shoot lead and you have a safer barrel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 2:44:07 AM EDT
[#7]
The problem comes up when you need a system to (1) mandate that only "marked" barrels are used, (2) require registration of individual barrels to owners, and (3) put together a huge computer database to track owners, barrels, and registration markings. Sorta like Canada's national registry. Oh yeah, and (4) build the death camps. Mustn't forget the death camps. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:40:44 AM EDT
[#8]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:43:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Combined, yes... 1, 2, and 3 violate RKBA, just as a "registry" of printing pressess and technology that would allow any "printed" materials to be traced back to a particular registred press would. Its called an unconstitutional chilling effecton the exercise of a right recognized and protected (but not granted, as the rights exist outside of man's law) by the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:44:44 AM EDT
[#10]
My Glock has a serial number stamped on the barrel. Plue this is nothing a rat tail file could not take care of. Or a barrel swap. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:45:11 AM EDT
[#11]
That is the straw that breaks the camels back as far as I am concerned... goodbye glock
Too much privacy violations with them -- what is next with them -- ??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:46:09 AM EDT
[#12]
Reason #487 why I won't buy one of Gaston's abominations
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:47:21 AM EDT
[#13]
so can you erode these marks and can they change or fade over time?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:49:36 AM EDT
[#14]
Do (1), (2), and (3) solve crime? or serve any other purpose other than possibly harassment of citizens. I guess if the bullet isn't marked and they can't match it to any database then a criminal must've violated the law.  Stop the Presses!!!!
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:53:02 AM EDT
[#15]
I wonder what effect this has on accuracy?
What if I shoot someone with a frangible bullet? No marks on dust... Honestly, only bullets shot into a water trap are going to come out pristine enough to read the barcode or whatever. A badly deformed hydrashok is not going to be much help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:00:01 AM EDT
[#16]
Barrels that use conventional rifling ALREADY MARK THE BULLETS FIRED THROUGH THEM IN A UNIQUE WAY. Glocks, H+Ks, etc with "polyagonal" rifling DO NOT MARK THE BULLETS FIRED THROUGH THEM ENOUGH TO IDENTIFY WHICH GUN FIRED WHICH BULLET. That's also why "ballistic fingerprinting" became an issue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:00:24 AM EDT
[#17]
I dont understand why some people here still want to give their money to Glock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:02:43 AM EDT
[#18]
Any one want to buy some realy good barrel lap compound?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:08:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Fuck Glock. I've always hated them anyway. I hope they get S&W'ed after this stunt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:17:00 AM EDT
[#20]
There are so many ways to defeat this that it's pathetic! It's another attempt to pacify the do-gooders.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:22:39 AM EDT
[#21]
I did not just give it to them, they gave me a G17 in return. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:29:20 AM EDT
[#22]
Thats the key, see us generaly law abiding people, we wil ladmit to putting a hot one in some POS. So doing this is pointless for weapons sold to law abiding citizens. As far as the criminals go. They are going to be ditching the gun in most situations or destroying it. That being the case the amount of criminals you'll be able to nail with something like this is small. Granted it's greater than the number you would nail with a ballistic finger printing data base, ask Cali how viable that is. MD how viable that is. It's not. But what this little invention does do is make ballistic fingerprinting databases viable. Because each barrel would be marked as unique. And guess what happens than. You have to register the gun, give the ballistic finger print to the state. But what good does it do. The vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen. Now what do you have when somone steals yer gun and uses it in a crime. You have the police matching up the ballistics to a gun that belongs to you, that you no longer posses and have reported stolen. So that takes the cops back to square 1. Ballistics fingerprinting, and marking barrels won't help solve crimes. It might be good for a PD so that they can determine what officer shot what rounds, where they went, who hit the BG or whatever. Thats a good thing, things can be learned from that and perhaps better training could result. But for guns not belonging to LE depts, it's not gong to do anything especially when it comes to stopping crime, because most all crime guns are stolen, or otherwise illegaly obtained. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:33:45 AM EDT
[#23]
That's it...I'm selling my glocks and going to a straight lineup of single-action autos.....
Oh, wait...I've never owned anything but 1911's and hi-powers anyway.  My bad.  Nevermind. What was I thinking?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:34:09 AM EDT
[#24]
 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:36:40 AM EDT
[#25]
Ummmm those weapon's barrels will leave unique marks on the bullets fired throught them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:37:35 AM EDT
[#26]
Whats the big deal, as mentioned before standard rifling imparts an "ID" anyways. Secondly, unless you're going to commit a crime why should it concern you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:39:39 AM EDT
[#27]
KKM stainless match barrels. Any questions?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:39:53 AM EDT
[#28]
Markings or not (all barrels leave unique marks on bullets) I still love Glock.
I love my Glock so much that would it be possible I would make sweet sweet love to my G17. And the result of our sweet love making would be love-child baby Glocks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:40:19 AM EDT
[#29]
The TRUE Value of this (and all patents) is that Glock will get a royalty for each barrel produced using this technology if the procedure is mandated. Anything else is just a side benefit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:46:52 AM EDT
[#30]
If you like glock try a baby XD it has a equipment rail unlike the baby glock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:48:04 AM EDT
[#31]
Which will leave, distinct, traceable marks on ALL bullets fired through that barrel. Just like conventional rifling in revolvers, AR-15's, M-14's, Garands, '03 Springfields etc. etc. Only guns with "polygonal" rifling or someting similar, will not mark the bullets enough to do a comparison later.............................. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:48:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Glad I changed to Kimber.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:50:44 AM EDT
[#33]
That would mean something is only 9mm diameter. I see that length, and not diameter, is what you were referring to. I |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:53:40 AM EDT
[#34]
Which has deep conventional rifling........................... that leave traceable marks on every round fired. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:54:08 AM EDT
[#35]
*yawn* Just to get this out of the way..... A cleaning rod, sandpaper, lapping compound, acid, salt, etcetera, ad nauseum can do wonders. It's not rocket science. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:54:29 AM EDT
[#36]
That is why it is not possible, both lenght and diameter wise. Plus Glocks don't have wombs in which our love-child baby glocks would be able to grow. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:54:35 AM EDT
[#37]
Which have conventional rifling, and leave disticnt, traceable marks on every rounf fired......... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:55:30 AM EDT
[#38]
Bad logic. Of course standard rifling imparts an "ID". But that "ID" isn't kept in some diabolical gov't database. And they would have to gather up whatever guns they thought were used and test them, not just get the "ID" and call up Glock and/or whatever Gov't office heads this up to see who bought the gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:56:16 AM EDT
[#39]
I'm safe my BabyEagle has the polygonal rifling. and after yesterday double murder here(another home invasion basicly) I'll be having it around a hell uva lot more, oh wait, I ALWAYS carry it around the house. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 6:57:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Yeah, all of the guns people have posted yet far, have since the day they were first made, left distinct, traceable marks, on every round fired throught them. H+K USP's, Glocks, don't leave those marks. Because Glock has a patent to put distinct marks on bullets fired from Glocks, they are suddenly evil. THEY ARE JUST CATCHING UP WITH EVERYONE ELSE. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:00:07 AM EDT
[#41]
Well, maybe it's time to start making a polygonal-rifled barrel for 1911's. FWIW, polygonal rifling was NOT invented as a solution to the problem of bullet-tracing. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:09:04 AM EDT
[#42]
Never claimed polygonal rifling was designed to defeat bullet tracing technology. It was designed, because someone thought it was a better idea. Better gas seal, lower friction etc. Afterwards it was discovered tracing bullets fired from a polygonal barreled weapon, was vitually impossible. Several PD's requested Glock modify rifling, so they could track, which officer fired which round in shootings. Glock has thus far been unable to do that. Now Glock holds a patent, to make distinct marking on bully fired through modified polygonal rifled barrels. Then there is a chorus of yips, from people that are saying their guns are better................... even though their guns have rifling that already leaves distinct marks on bullets fire through them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:15:34 AM EDT
[#43]
"Our guns" leave said marks by chance...not by design. A small, but important distinction. I would never buy a gun that did something like that intentionally. The chance markings a 1911 leaves on a bullet are rather hard to match to a particular gun, I would imagine. Everything I've ever saw has left me believing such 'matching' is an educated guess at best, a shot in the dark at worst. Maybe if one were to desire to shoot someone, one should plan on using a rifle with highly frangible ammo, or a weapon that would guarantee an exit wound and a projectile buried in a tree a half-mile away from the scene of the crime. Either way, ain't it amazing how we can argue about nothing?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:21:18 AM EDT
[#44]
Nope, watch CSI, any one of the 17 shows they have, they will show 2 bullets being examined under side by side microscopes, and mtaching the marks. That is how it works in real life. With enough of a bullet to compare. I believe the DC snipers's bullets were compared to one another, that is one of the ways the connected the shootings, by matching the marks on the bullet fragments. Polygonals make marks on bullets, that aren't distinct enough to match. They can generally tell gun charatersistics from the marks on the bullets, rifling pitch, number of grooves etc. But can't match it to a particular gun. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:24:40 AM EDT
[#45]
They have already implemented a failed plan like this and it is called IBIS. 10 Million dollars wasted on ballistic fingerprinting and it has not ever solved one crime. Not to mention that we don't even have a computer capable of referencing the number of bullet markings made from barrels today. Take a look at the peice the NRA did on the subject and you will see there is a dead end for this idea.
All one has to do is to alter the barrel and firing pin with a file and some abraisive paste. Not to mention that a barrel will change by itself through wear over time. Morley Safer did a report on this where he tried to push the liberal bullshit and benefits of this system and it ended up he proved himself wrong on national television. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:26:38 AM EDT
[#46]
Fixed, 'cause I want no part of this unnatural union. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:27:46 AM EDT
[#47]
Um....I think CSI tends to dramatize the process just a hair....I could be wrong. But as far as having enough of a bullet to compare.....if I don't WANT that to happen, it won't happen. Why not just commit your crime w/ a clean barrel and fill it full of salt and/or some nasty corrosive cleaning compound (sweet's 7.62 copper remover comes to mind), plug the barrel, and let time work in your favor? My point is that modifyng the pattern of marks left on the bullet is so ridiculously easy that it's a no-brainer........unless the barrel was designed to leave a VERY specific mark...like the new glocks supposedly are. I could be wrong...I'm no expert here.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:29:02 AM EDT
[#48]
Bingo! I am also curious about how many identifiable patterns this can produce, will it be used on all weapons produced or for LE weapons/upon request only, etc. This has the potential to be disturbing, but I will reserve judgement until more information is available. OTOH, I still think Glocks suck - barrel markings or not. YMMV. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:29:04 AM EDT
[#49]
Those of you complaining that regular rifling already presents identifiable marks are missing the point entirely.
First, the research has shown that barrels close to each other in a single production produce fired bullets that are indistinguishable from each other. Second, and most important, its not the technology that is the problem but the inevitiable laws (regulation of gun barrels at the serial number level, just like receivers), and defacto gun REGISTRATION (and ultimately, inevitably, confiscation) that will follow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:33:01 AM EDT
[#50]
So Glock has a patent on this.. Have they made any guns with the technology and sold them to civilians?
It probably costs Glock significantly more to mark barrels like this and keep track of which barrel has which marks. Maybe some police agency requested this feature to identify bullets fired by their officer's guns. In that case, why would they bother doing it on consumer guns? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
