Topic: Forensic Buddy

[Stojan Kostic]

Hello Everybody,

I wonder, does anybody has some expirience with Forensic Baddy bullet catcher and want to share opinion

Thank you advance

Stojan

[Matthew Kurimsky]

Stojan,
We have had good luck with ours. We use it as a back up in case our water tank is down or when we have to capture hollow point handgun bullets that would otherwise break up when shot into a water tank.
The down side, in our exp. it seems that bullets shot into the forensic buddy seem to have the marks "muted" and are not as distinct as the same bullet shot into the water tank.

[Stojan Kostic]

Thank you Matthew for your quick response. May I ask you, if it's not too much trouble for you, to post here two pictures of bullets, one captured in water tank and another in Forensic Buddy. This will help me to see difference.

Best regards, Stojan

[Matthew Kurimsky]

Stojan,
I will try to get that done today.
 

[Samantha Harter]

I am posting this for coworker Matt Kurimsky...a photograph comparing a bullet fired in the water tank to a bullet fired in the Forensic Buddy using the same firearm and ammunition. Hope this helps.

[Aaron Brudenell]

I used one for years and agree with the previous comments--the affect seems to be more significant when the rubber spheres are dirty and have been used a while.  It was nice to have access to a water tank for certain cases (such as polygonal rifling) but most of the time it was sufficient for our needs. 
 
I'm even more impress with shreded kevlar traps because they work better than water when it comes to limiting bullet deformation and they don't have any down side as to the quality of tool marks.

[Stojan Kostic]

Thank you all,  for your comments and specialy Samantha for posting image but I am slightly dissapoint. It seems that there is a significant difference between traces striae in favour of water tank. 

[Nat Pearlson]

Cotton boxes are a relatively inexpensive option also.  Nancy McCombs’ article (AFTE Journal, Vol 39, No. 4, fall 2007) provides a nice plan for a really inexpensive, yet very functional, cotton trap.  I made one very similar to one she describes and have had good luck producing high quality test fired bullets from handguns and rifles.  Our lab has also had cotton traps fabricated for us from stainless steel for around $2000 that are very nice.  The key is to pack the cotton tightly to avoid the burnishing/polishing of the exterior of the bullets.  I also helped plan one for another lab with a hand-cranked piston at the back (sort of like the clamp on a chop saw) to insure that the cotton was packed tightly.  You can actually pack the cotton too tightly this way, but I doubt you would be able to over pack the cotton manually.  Just another option…
 
Nat

[Bob Kennington]

Somewhere around this place, I have a large collection of objects that have prevented the expansion of hollowpoints. Ask for the collection, and I'll start looking for it.

I've used tacks, stainless steel sheet metal screws, tapped out the mandrel of pop rivets, (etc.), and found identical markings with those untouched tests that broke up in our watertanks. 

As to "other materials" damaging the bore, we took a S&W about to be destroyed, and filled the  bore with sheet metal screws, steel tacks and pop rivets (etc.), and fired away from a Ransom rest. We got a satisfying shower of sparks from the metal baffles and scant damage to the bore.

The bore was later milled open to show a small gouge; still, all of the tests were easily identified successfully.

Pop rivets were used for the center posts of those Federal hollowpoints—mostly screws for the rest.

Epoxy was disappointing, messy and time-consuming, whereas the "hardware" was easy to use again and again. This technique didn't catch fire, but I must have written something about it!

 

Oh yes—almost forgot—someone in our lab discovered a smoldering fire in our ancient cotton box!

 

[Cole]

Bob,
What method has given you the most success?  Stikki wax or plumber's putty from the bullet retrieval wand have normally been my go-to trick, but I don't seem to be having as much reliable success as I used to. 

[Evan Thompson]

Have used Duct Seal on the end of a four foot fiberglass pole for years.  Most local hardware stores carry both. 

[Kent Weber]

My old supervisor (many years retired) used to insert whatever screws he could find that fit tightly enough in the HP cavity, then shoot into the water tank.  It usually worked pretty well, although it was a little frankenstein-esque to see your retrieved bullet with that thing sticking out of it.  We have had a kevlar trap for quite a few years now, and that does the trick for HPs.

[Bob Kennington]

Bob,
What method has given you the most success?  Stikki wax or plumber's putty from the bullet retrieval wand have normally been my go-to trick, but I don't seem to be having as much reliable success as I used to.

I had very limited success with wax or putty, which had me looking elsewhere for a solution. Even two-part epoxy is a poor substitute for "hardware".

No question that selecting from a collection of short sheet metal screws will stop unwanted expansions. The screw should not be loose, but tightened "enough". 

Hollowpoints with a center post require a collection of pop rivets to do the job. Remove the "nail" part of the pop rivet. What works best is a screw or rivet that covers the entire opening.

About 30 years ago, a 38 Spl. cartridge was actually marketed with a Phillips-head screw stuck in a hollowpoint—perhaps a selling point for "maximum expansion".   

[Bob Kennington]

'Just stumbled on a photograph of my collection of various hardware items for non-destructive recovery of hollowpoint tests:

(left-click to enlarge)



If examiners wanted just two types of countermeasures, I'd go with pop-rivets and an assortment of sheet metal screws. In water tanks, those two hardware types will "cover" most of the hollowpoint expansion/break-up problem.