Here's an interesting question?

[cee-dee]

Stick with the story........ Let us suppose that 70 years ago a man was accidentally shot dead while out shooting Grey squirrels in a large wood with a group of other people.

An inquest decided it was an accident and that one of the group was the unfortunate shooter. There was no charges as it was deemed an accident.

Now, long after the death of the victims wife, some old diaries, notes and papers were read through by an interested party who was shocked to discover that the victims wife had detailed in her notes a few days before her death that she'd got away with killing her husband in revenge after discovering his infidelity.

The family were "of means" and lived on a large estate where "Hunt'n, shoot'n and fish'n" was the norm and they had a large selection of guns. The way the wife had "got away with it" was that she'd taken one of the .22 rifles and fired a bullet in to a water barrel, then taken that bullet and fitted it in to another .22 cartridge case after carefully pulling out its bullet. She'd then loaded one of their old "garden guns" with the doctored round and hid it in the woods.

When the party went squirrel shooting (at the wife' suggestion), she'd taken her own personal rifle and the party guests had taken the other .22 rifles. The garden gun was smooth bore, ie, not rifled. When she used the garden gun to shoot her husband, the fatal bullet was found to be rifled but didn't match the wife's rifle.

Now, 70 years ago, forensics were not as advanced as they are today so the fact that the rifling on the fatal bullet may have been a bit..... er.... scored(???) after being fired again in a smooth bore gun wouldn't have been noticed.

The question is....:-

After all that time, would the revellation result in re-opening the inquest or would the powers-that-be decide that there was no useful purpose in wasting time and effort in doing that as the murderer was long dead as was the person who'd wrongly been identified as the accidental shooter?

[cee-dee]

If it was fired in to a water tank, how would it be distorted by being fired??????

It's travelled down a barrel in to a tank of water, it hasn't hit anything (except water) so what's distorted it so it wouldn't fit back in to a cartridge case from which another bullet has just been removed?

Have you ever had a .22 rimfire cartridge, a fired cartridge case, an unfired bullet or a fired bullet in your hands?

[malacandran]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

If it was fired in to a water tank, how would it be distorted by being fired??????

It's travelled down a barrel in to a tank of water, it hasn't hit anything (except water) so what's distorted it so it wouldn't fit back in to a cartridge case from which another bullet has just been removed?

Have you ever had a .22 rimfire cartridge, a fired cartridge case, an unfired bullet or a fired bullet in your hands?

---

No, cee-dee,  I've never had  any of them in my hands.  Are you an American?  I only ask because US citizens seem more familiar with guns. With some troublesome results, as we see on the news.

[cee-dee]

No, I'm not American!

[malacandran]

Well, I thought you were American, as it seemed to come across, but let it go!

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

If it was fired in to a water tank, how would it be distorted by being fired??????

It's travelled down a barrel in to a tank of water, it hasn't hit anything (except water) so what's distorted it so it wouldn't fit back in to a cartridge case from which another bullet has just been removed?

Have you ever had a .22 rimfire cartridge, a fired cartridge case, an unfired bullet or a fired bullet in your hands?

---

You try hitting water at several hundred miles an hour - bet you wouldn't fit in your shell suit!!!!!!!!

[malacandran]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@cee-dee wrote:

If it was fired in to a water tank, how would it be distorted by being fired??????

It's travelled down a barrel in to a tank of water, it hasn't hit anything (except water) so what's distorted it so it wouldn't fit back in to a cartridge case from which another bullet has just been removed?

Have you ever had a .22 rimfire cartridge, a fired cartridge case, an unfired bullet or a fired bullet in your hands?

---

You try hitting water at several hundred miles an hour - bet you wouldn't fit in your shell suit!!!!!!!!

---

See that's what I thought - if a bullet hits water at several hundred mph, it's bound to get distorted.  But that American lady, said it wouldn't.

[cee-dee]

I'm not made of Lead so that doesn't apply.

Ballistic tests are usually done by firing bullet in to either water or ballistic gel.

[upthecreekyetagain]

This is a link to the Mythbusters site

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/mythbusters_bulletproof_water.html

They switched to a .223 rifle, which shoots at 2500 ft/s

• .223 rifle @ 10 ft: the full metal jacket bullet shattered into tiny bits upon hitting the water -- nonfatal
• 223 rifle@ 3 ft: once again the bullet broke up. The tip of the bullet was resting on the ballistics gel -- nonfatal (myth confirmed)

[cee-dee]

http://www.verisis.co/en/solutions/ballistic-water-tank

[joamur_gosof]

I don't think a .22 from range can kill someone ,unless it was fired with the barrel of water ,and that might be how C got away with no evidence of the pellet being tampered with found ? You know the barrel of water hitting D at a couple of hundred miles an hour may have kept the pellet in tip top fired once shape .

[cee-dee]

Pellet? It wasn't an air rifle.

There's three common .22 cartridges, .22 short, .22 long and .22 long rifle. There are others but they're..... uncommon!

A garden gun would be used for short range so it would be chambered for a .22 short. There's also .22 shotshells which can be used inside buildings for birds or rats.

You can fire .22 shorts in a rifle chambered for the longs but you can't fire a long or long rifle in a gun like a garden gun chambered for shorts.

There's also reduced velocity, low velocity and high velocity. The bullets are either solid or hollow point.

Bearing in mind lady C and friends were after Grey Squirrels, they wouldn't be wanting bullets flying a mile away so would all be using shorts.

A short would be used in a garden gun so lady C could quite easily stuff a low velocity bullet (that she'd fired in to a water barrel) back in to the end of another short case from which she'd removed the original bullet and load it in the garden gun which she'd hidden in a convenient place in the wood chosen for the squirrel shoot.

Would you be prepared to allow someone to test fire a .22 short from a smooth bore gun in to your head at 25 yards?

[joamur_gosof]

Only if it was you CD  🙂

[joamur_gosof]

I am only trying to help 😄 ...

.a barrel of water is a good way of getting rid of D though,that will have em baffelled as to which pellet killed who.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

http://www.verisis.co/en/solutions/ballistic-water-tank

---

Typically when a water tank is used for ballistic matching a cartridge has to be down loaded to prevent it breaking up.  I suppose Lady C was capable of carrying out this task without killing herself.

[joamur_gosof]

D would then have gone to prison for causing C's death by accidental suicide brought about by D forcing C to drastic measures..............so I for one am glad she hit him with a water barrel.

Where the hell is my editor alan,dave vincent whatever they're called..I have mispelt loads of times and no edit message ????  

[cee-dee]

UTCYA, have you ever taken a bullet out of a live .22 cartridge?

I have, I survived and to prove it I'm here.

A rimfire cartridge requires the rim (obviously) to be struck quite hard to fire it, it's not difficult to get the bullet out if you're careful.

What do you mean by "downloading" for ballistic matching?????

[******lynda******]

A .22 bullet most certainly could kill a person within a range you would go for squirrels, ...though for squirrels, I use an air rifle because I don't want a bullet going off into the distance and a .22 would pass through a squirrel at 25 yards.

[******lynda******]

When ballistics teams fire into water tanks, they use a special tank the allows them to fire in at the side, not the top where the surface tension of the water would affect the bullet. A .22 fired onto the top of water would usually ricochet and come out at the same angle it went in, so I have read by those who played at 'skipping' bullets the way most of us skim stones. If recovering a bullet up damaged and safely was possible from just firing from the top, I doubt they would go to the expense and trouble of constructing special tanks with a hole in the side and a swing gate to minimise water loss.

[cee-dee]

If you're using .22 LV short solids, they don't do as much damage as a long or a LR.

Have you fired a .22 bullet in to water or recovered any from something you've shot? Try it and see the results eh?

Yes, I've messed about with .22 rifles and ammo and before anyone asks, with FC.

[******lynda******]

I haven't fired into water. I suppose it could be arranged. I have recovered bullets. We had shotguns, .22 air rifles..I have one now...
.22 rifles and
.22 hornet (long) , .243 rifles and .303 rifles. We shot mostly foxes and deer and rabbits, tho my OH also went elk and wild boar hunting abroad. He also was the police and zoo contractor for tranquillizing lions and tigers etc