Ejected Shell Casings Can’t Reliably Tell Much About a Shooter’s Location

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Nearly 8,000 rounds fired by Los Angeles County (CA) sheriff’s deputies have now conclusively proved what the Force Science Research Center first asserted more than 2 years ago: The single greatest influence on where spent shell casings land when ejected from a semiautomatic handgun is how the pistol is physically manipulated by the shooter, not any rigid, intrinsic mechanical factor.

Indeed, the FSRC’s benchmark findings show that the ejection spread can vary up to 24 feet with the same gun, fired by the same shooter, depending on how the weapon is gripped and moved, according to the Center’s executive director, Dr. Bill Lewinski of Minnesota State University-Mankato.

FSRC’s scientific testing can have a significant impact in officer-involved shootings where LEOs are accused of lying about where they were positioned during a confrontation, based on where their ejected shell casings were found.

Just last week, for example, Lewinski testified on behalf of a federal agent in a major Eastern city who shot and killed an offender with a history of assaulting police officers who tried to drive into him during an off-duty traffic altercation. The agent was charged with intentional murder.

At trial, prosecutors, supported by a firearms and tool mark expert, framed the traditional argument that each model of semiauto handgun has an established ejection pattern, determined by the position of the ejection port and the internal mechanics of the weapon. A shooter’s location when firing can be calculated by where spent casings land, the prosecution team claimed. In this case, where the agent’s ejected casings were found cast doubt about where he said he was standing–in a position of jeopardy–when he shot.

However, Lewinski was able to present his fresh findings from the Los Angeles County study in his testimony as a defense expert. These soundly refute the concept of reliable, predetermined ejection patterns. When Lewinski finished explaining the scientifically documented reality, the prosecutors declined to engage in any cross-examination.

The new study, the most extensive ever undertaken of ejection patterns, involved 48 LASD deputies firing a total of 7,920 rounds across 2 weeks last month [5/05] at the department’s range under conditions closely monitored by Lewinski and another FSRC representative, Dave Karwoski.

Collectively the deputies completed 72 “trials” (tests), each consisting of firing 110 rounds through a particular gun. The guns used were 9mm Berettas and Glocks, .40-cal. Sig-Sauers and .45-cal. H&Ks, common law enforcement handguns. The shooters held the guns in 11 different hand grips and angles, including the barrel pointed slightly down, pointed slightly up, parallel to the ground and canted at various angles up to 90-degrees off-center. On some of the tests, the officers also moved the gun as they were shooting.

Although each gun had a supposedly “predictable” ejection pattern, “how the gun was held and manipulated had a significant and dramatic effect on the actual angular displacement of its spent shell casings and the distance they landed from the shooter,” says FSRC Deputy Director Bill Hudson, who is coordinating a minute analysis of the study’s results.

“Regardless of the gun, we documented the same phenomenon,” Lewinski says. Namely: as grip and positioning of the gun changed, so did the ejection “pattern.” With each type of gun, spent casings landed in all four quadrants radiating from the shooter’s location.

“We found that by manipulating a gun as officers actually do in real shooting situations, the placement of ejected shell casings changed across a broad range–from 12 feet to a shooter’s right rear to 12 feet to his left front, a total span of 24 feet,” Lewinski says.

“With each type of gun, shells landed at varying distances to the shooter’s right rear, 90 degrees to his right, directly in front of him, 90 degrees to his left and to his left rear–in short, everywhere! In some cases, even with the same gun held in the identical position by the same shooter, the places to which spent shells were ejected were as much as 10 feet apart. That’s with grip, ammo, everything the same.”

The ejection pattern of the Glock was most influenced by manipulation of the gun, Lewinski found, the Colt least so. “But even then, there could be a dramatic variance.”

The bottom line, Lewinski asserts, is this: “This study proves beyond doubt that the most significant factor determining where spent shell casings land is how the gun is held and moved by the officer when firing. There is no mechanical element associated with ejection that can have that radical an effect.”

Greg Karim, forensic firearms examiner for the Austin (TX) P.D. and a member of FSRC’s Technical Advisory Board, agrees. He points out that there are a multitude of mechanical factors that can influence how and where casings are ejected, including lubrication of the slide, condition of the ammunition, cleanliness and maintenance of the chamber area, condition of the magazine spring and lips, spring tension in the extractor and so on.

“But without doubt,” he says, “the mechanical factors are of minimal influence compared to how the gun is held and manipulated.”

Ideally, he adds, there is consistency in a shooting situation. “You know the gun, you know the shooter, you have eye witnesses and the placement of expended shells puts the officer just where he said he was.” But when there are inconsistencies, “the investigator must put appropriate weight on shell casing placement, given other factors in the situation. And when you don’t know how the gun was manipulated, shell casing placement could be of zero value.”

Tom Aveni, an internationally known firearms authority and a member of FSRC’s National Advisory Board, considers the new study’s findings from a trainer’s perspective. “Having trained police officers in handgun skills for over 22 years and having been personally exposed to the ejection of roughly 1.5 million pistol cartridges, I know there are many salient factors that bear on where ejected shells land. It’s rare to see 2 people pick up the same handgun, fire the same ammunition, and not have measurable deviations in their cartridge case ejection patterns.

“On the street, we’re likely to see a plethora of improvised shooting postures. In lethal confrontations, officers routinely find themselves firing when off-balance, or worse yet when falling.

“If the officer is firing around cover or concealment, the handgun is likely to be canted in a way that will also influence ejection patterns. The officer might find himself or herself firing from a seated or prone position, perhaps with the handgun resting against a surface or object. Or the officer might exhibit a crouching posture far in excess of anything exhibited in training. We should also take into consideration officers firing when moving, climbing stairs or struggling for retention of their weapon.”

All this considered, Aveni is appalled that an officer’s deadly force decision-making can be challenged and the officer criminally prosecuted on the basis of ejected shell casings. He calls this “bad science and misplaced faith.”

For an essay by Aveni of the same title, visit:

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/visuals/fs21.pdf

Yet such a prosecution is what got Lewinski interested in studying ejection patterns in the first place. Based on the placement of a single ejected shell, an officer in Arizona was accused of lying about an unjustified use of deadly force in the fatal shooting of a female suspect that the officer claimed tried to run over him with her car (“chillingly similar” to the more recent Eastern case involving the federal agent, Lewinski observes).

Rudimentary testing that Lewinski did with the officer on an Arizona range and with other subjects at FSRC headquarters in Minnesota in 2003 strongly suggested that gun manipulation could be the decisive factor in where ejected shells ended up. Lewinski’s testimony about those findings was considered instrumental in acquitting the officer of murder.

To confirm the preliminary results from those studies, Lewinski launched the broader investigation with the cooperation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. and Sheriff Leroy Baca. Detailed results of the testing will be published later this year in an issue of FSRC’s forthcoming e-journal, now in development.

Meanwhile, Lewinski expresses his deep appreciation to the deputies who participated in the latest study, and to others who helped make the research successful.

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: [email protected]
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.