Traditional bullet matching lacks foundational scientific validation

09/18/2025 / By Ramon Tomey

The claim that bullets can be uniquely matched to specific firearms has never been conclusively proven. National reports (NAS 2009, PCAST 2016) found the discipline lacks foundational scientific validation.
Reported error rates (about one percent) are artificially low because “inconclusive” results are wrongly counted as correct. When properly classified, error rates jump to 93 percent, exposing severe reliability issues.
Examiners often contradict themselves (Same bullets, same examiner: 66 percent consistency). Different examiners agree less than one-third of the time, undermining objectivity.
Courts now restrict examiners from using terms like “match” or claiming “scientific certainty.” Landmark cases (e.g., Maryland Supreme Court briefs) declare the methodology unreliable, risking past convictions.
Emerging tech (3D microscopy, statistical databases) offers more objective analysis but is costly and years away from adoption. Meanwhile, juries still trust flawed testimony, leaving defendants vulnerable to wrongful convictions.

In a revelation that threatens the foundations of the American criminal justice system, the long-held belief that ballistic evidence can definitively link a bullet to a single firearm is being exposed as a scientifically unproven assumption – potentially invalidating thousands of past convictions and challenging ongoing prosecutions.

The central claim of forensic firearms examiners – that every gun leaves a unique, identifiable mark on bullets and cartridge casings – has never been conclusively proven. This crisis of confidence stems from a growing body of research and legal analysis.

National reports from the National Academy of Sciences in 2009 and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in 2016 were among the first to sound the alarm, finding the discipline lacked foundational validity and sufficient studies to understand its reliability. Despite these critiques, examiners continue to testify in court, often citing validation studies that report astonishingly low error rates of around one percent.

However, these rates are deeply misleading as they are artificially deflated by the practice of counting “inconclusive” results as correct answers rather than errors. When these inconclusive findings are properly classified, error rates in studies can skyrocket to as high as 93 percent – revealing a field in a state of crisis.

In response, scientific institutions like the National Institute of Standards and Technology are pioneering new, more objective methods using high-resolution 3D microscopy to create virtual models of toolmarks. This technology allows for more repeatable, data-driven comparisons and the development of statistical databases. However, this transition is years away from being routine, costly to implement and does not address the legacy of cases built on the old methods.

Bullet matching: Juries trust it, but science debunks it

Further undermining the field’s credibility are studies on repeatability. The Ames II study found that when the same examiner was presented with the same bullets a second time, they reached the same conclusion only two-thirds of the time. Even more damning, different examiners looking at the same evidence agreed less than one-third of the time.

Moreover, Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch points out that “bullet matching is inaccurate because the marks left on bullets are inconsistent and unreliable for identifying specific gun barrels, often failing under forensic scrutiny. Additionally, slight variations in sight alignment can drastically alter bullet trajectory – making exact matches impossible.” (Related: Questions Raised Over FBI Evidence Handling in Charlie Kirk Case; Kash Patel Criticizes Investigation.)

This lack of consistency and objectivity stands in stark contrast to the certainty conveyed to juries. “It’s deadly evidence,” said Jeff Gilleran, chief attorney in the Forensics division of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, noting that juries rarely doubt a firearms examiner’s testimony.

The situation has prompted a slow judicial reckoning. Some courts are now placing strict limitations on what examiners can say, barring them from using terms like “match” or stating opinions “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.”

Moreover, a pivotal amicus brief filed in the Maryland Supreme Court concluded that the core methodology of forensic firearms examination lacks the rigorous scientific validation required to be considered reliable evidence. The implications are profound for defendants like Kobina Ebo Abruquah, serving a life sentence for a 2012 murder conviction based largely on such testimony, and for a legal system that has long treated this evidence as infallible.

For now, the legal system relies on the courtroom emergence of “anti-expert experts” – research scientists like biostatistician Michael Rosenblum who can deconstruct the flawed studies presented as proof of validity.

Read more stories like this at FakeScience.news.

Watch this edition of “Brighteon Broadcast News” where the Health Ranger Mike Adams exposes fake forensics pushed by the FBI.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.