Shooting Sports Retailer - July/August 2010

Each firearm would have a unique IFM code, maintained on record by the manufacturer or other entity. A similar mechanism has been proposed for another part of the firearm’s chamber (usually the breech face) to add some redundancy.

After this technology was brought to light, a number of facilities conducted research to ascertain just how reliable this might be for its intended purpose. One such study was conducted by George G. Krivosta at the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in Hauppauge, New York, and published in 2006 by the

AFTE (Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners) Journal.

In this study, the researcher investigated three questions: (1) Would the markings be readily decipherable (in other words, how reproducible would the

Krivosta’s conclusion? “Certainly this research has shown that
implementing this technology will be much more complicated than
burning a serial number on a few parts and dropping them into
firearms being manufactured.”

markings be)? (2) How resistant to wear would such an engraved firing pin be under normal use? ( 3) How susceptible would the firing pin be to intentional defacement?

The study results indicated that in a large percentage of trials ( 46 out of

100), the resultant stamp on the test cartridge was rated as “unsatisfactory,” meaning that at least one of the sequence’s characters was indecipherable. Although Krivosta found that the engraving on the pin itself appeared to maintain legibility after repeated firings (100 rounds through his test firearm), he nevertheless reported that he was able to intentionally deface the firing pin: “The entire process was easily accomplished in approximately one minute’s time with no special equipment or knowledge needed,” he wrote in the study’s report.

Additionally, he reported that the now-defaced firing pin, after reinsertion into the firearm, still functioned well.

Krivosta’s conclusion? “Certainly this research has
shown that implementing this technology will be much
more complicated than burning a serial number on a
few parts and dropping them into firearms being manu-
factured.”
Despite these seemingly unambiguous results and
conclusions, Lizotte believes that they may not be repre-
sentative of the technology’s actual potential.

“This research’s premise was that there had to be 100 percent transfer of the mark; it had to be 100 percent legible by a layman,” Lizotte said.

Based on that criteria, he said that 54 percent of
the time the cartridge marked was 100 percent legible.
“What this means is that every other cartridge found
at a crime scene would have 100 percent of the informa-
tion.”
Lizotte went on to state that it is also possible to “ex- Source Code: CJ7