New Study Proves Microstamping Technology Works

[slackmaster]

27. LOL @ use of the term "peer-reviewed"

Here is the peer-review process for articles submitted for publication in the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) Journal:

...AFTE Peer Review Process – August 2009

The AFTE Peer Review Process starts with the submission of an article to the Editor. After recording when the article was received, author’s name and title of the submission, the Editor assigns the article to a member of the Editorial Review Panel. An email is sent to both the author and the reviewer informing both of the assignment and how the two can contact each other.

Once in the reviewer’s hands, the article is reviewed for grammatical and technical correctness. Only major revisions are addressed with the author. Minor revisions include corrections to grammar or spelling and rewording for clarity.

If a reviewer accepts a manuscript with only minor revisions, it is returned to the Editor. The manuscript is then assigned to one of the Assistant Editors for a secondary review of grammar and technical content.

If the manuscript is approved by the Assistant Editor, it is returned to the Editor for formatting and publication.

Once the article has been electronically formatted, it is assembled in a journal with other approved articles. The assembled journal undergoes one last review by all three Assistant Editors and the Editor. Final corrections are made by the Editor and the journal is sent to the printer....

Source: http://www.afte.org/Journal/PeerReviewProcess.htm

For those unfamiliar with publication of scientific research, the above describes an editorial review process and not an academic one. The people who do the reviewing are checking for grammar, spelling, and clarity and not for scientific validity. They are writers and editors who may or may not have any knowledge of the subject matter, i.e. they are not necessarily technical experts. The publication is a trade association journal, not a scientific one.

I haven't read the paper, but in the absence of information about the test I suspect it involved clean, new firearms in perfect working condition that were prepared or selected specifically for the test; and that the test was intended to prove that the micro-stamping technology can produce legible marks on ammunition that was also selected for the test.

I know from experience that there is a lot of variability in the hardness, finish, and other properties of materials used to make cartridge cases. I would bet that the output of a micro-stamp equipped firearm varies depending on the quality and condition of the ammunition. For example, most cartridge cases are made of brass. Sometimes brass cases are plated with nickel, which is much harder than brass. The finish of the metal ranges from near mirror polish to very rough.

Some cases are made of aluminum. Still others, painted steel. I'm not going to sit here and take it for granted that this test in any way validates that the technology would work equally well on all types of cases.

If I were to design a test, I'd include a broad cross-section of ammunition, different firearms with a realistic range of operating characteristics, and a variety of real-world circumstances such as the presence of dirt, oil, and powder residue. I'd run tests across a variety of environmental conditions. I would also test the effects of deliberate attempts to defeat the technology.

This story looks to me like an attempt to sell something.