NISTIR 7362

Surface Topography Analysis

for a Feasibility Assessment

of a National Ballistics Imaging Database

T.V. Vorburger, J.H. Yen, B. Bachrach1

T.B. Renegar, J.J. Filliben, L. Ma

 H.-G. Rhee, A. Zheng, J.-F. Song 

M. Riley, C.D. Foreman, S.M. Ballou

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

1

Intelligent Automation, Inc.

15400 Calhoun Drive

Rockville, MD 20855

A Report Prepared for the National Academies Committee to Assess

the Feasibility, Accuracy, and Technical Capability

of a National Ballistics Database under National Institute of Justice Grant

2003-IJ-R-029 with the NIST Office of Law Enforcement Standards

May 2007 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

 William Jeffrey, Director 

3

Table of Contents 

 

Glossary of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................4 

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................................5 

1. Background.................................................................................................................................................15 

2. NIST Participation in the National Academies’ Study..............................................................20 

3. Workplan .....................................................................................................................................................26 

4. Topography Measurements..................................................................................................................31 

5. NBIDE – Experiment..............................................................................................................................36 

6. Topography Data......................................................................................................................................38 

7. 2D Image Acquisitions and Results...................................................................................................42 

8. Data Processing for Topography Measurements.........................................................................47 

9. Statistical Analysis: General.................................................................................................................68 

10. Statistical Analysis: Gun Distinguishability.................................................................................145 

11. Observations and Continuing Work...............................................................................................167 

12. Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................168 

13. References..................................................................................................................................................168 
4

Glossary of Abbreviations 

ACCF Areal Cross Correlation Function, a statistical function of three dimensional 

surface topography 

ANOVA Analysis of Variance 

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

BF Breech face 

CCF Cross Correlation Function, a statistical function of two dimensional surface 

topography 

DAS Data Acquisition Station, a component of IBIS (below) 

EEEL Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, an organizational unit of NIST 

FP Firing pin 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FTI Forensic Technology, Inc., Montreal, Canada 

IAI Intelligent Automation, Inc., Rockville, MD 

IBIS Integrated Ballistics Identification System 

ITL Information Technology Laboratory, an organizational unit of NIST 

I-2D IBIS 2D system using BrassCatcher software Version 3.4.5. 

I2 I-2D in some charts 

MEL Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, an organizational unit of NIST 

NA The National Academies, Washington, DC 

NBID National Ballistics Imaging Database 

NBIDE NIST Ballistics Imaging Database Evaluation 

NIBIN National Integrated Ballistics Identification Network 

NIJ National Institute of Justice 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 

NLC National Laboratory Center, ATF, Ammendale, MD 

NRC National Research Council, Washington, DC 

NTC The ATF’s National Tracing Center, 

N-3D Experimental topography measurement and correlation system developed at NIST 

N3 N-3D in some charts 

OLES Office of Law Enforcement Standards, a division-level unit of NIST 

Ra Roughness Average, a statistical parameter of a surface profile 

RBID Reference Ballistics Imaging Database 

Rq, rms Root mean square roughness, a statistical parameter of a surface profile 

SAS Signature Analysis Station, a component of IBIS 

Sa, Sq Parameters analogous to Ra and Rq for areal (3D) surface topography 
5

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

This document reports on a study to determine the feasibility and utility of a national ballistics 

database of casing and bullet images. The purpose of such a proposed database would be to 

provide a reference collection of ballistic images against which casings or bullets found at the 

scene of a crime may be compared, with the intent of uniquely identifying the weapon that 

generated the spent casing or bullet. In the same fashion that the national fingerprint database 

serves as a forensics tool for person identification for law enforcement officers, this ballistics 

database would serve as an important tool for weapon identification. To construct the database, 

the proposed plan would be to conduct test firings for every weapon sold over the counter, with 

the hope that if any such weapon is subsequently used in a crime, it may be identified and traced 

back to the original owner. 

The study was conducted in support of a National Academies (NA) Committee to Assess the 

Feasibility, Accuracy, and Technical Capability of a National Ballistics Database. The study was 

sponsored by the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (NIJ), through the Office of 

Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) under the Electronics and Electrical Engineering 

Laboratory (EEEL) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The study 

was conducted by members of OLES, NIST's Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL), 

NIST's Information Technology Laboratory (ITL), and the private company, Intelligent 

Automation, Inc. (IAI). The purpose of this report is to inform the NA Committee about the 

results and observations of the NIST study. The NA Committee issues its own report of its 

investigations and findings, which may include results from this report. 

Project Questions 

The critical question for this feasibility study is 

1. Can we distinguish and identify guns based on casings information sufficiently well to 

support a national ballistics identification system? That is, are the markings (firing pin, 

breech face, ejector markings), which an individual gun leaves on its fired casings, unique 

enough to distinguish it from other guns of the same type? 

Note: Due to time limitations, most of the work so far has been limited to casings. The issue 

of bullets will be addressed in another report. 

Other important questions are 

2. Is our ability to distinguish guns and gun types affected by different ammunition types? 

3. Are guns from some manufacturers easier to discriminate than guns from other 

manufacturers? 
6

4. What is the relative usefulness of each casing region (firing pin impression, breech face 

impression, ejector marks) for gun discrimination? 

5. How do three-dimensional (3D) surface topography imaging methods compare with the 

optical imaging technologies currently in wide use? 

Our project goal is to carry out a rigorous study to provide unambiguous answers to the above 

questions and related questions of interest. 

Casing Collections 

To date, this study investigated two collections of fired casings, identified here as the De Kinder 

collection and the NBIDE (NIST Ballistics Imaging Database Evaluation) collection. The De 

Kinder collection was created several years ago by De Kinder et al. [7] to test the performance of 

the widely used Integrated Ballistics Identification System∗

 (IBIS) [3] in a large database. The 

NBIDE collection was created in May 2005 by NIST personnel as a part of the current feasibility 

study. These collections are described in more detail below.

De Kinder

The De Kinder experiment used 600 autoloading pistols, all the same Model P226 Sig Sauer, to 

make 4200 test fires, seven for each gun. We used the test fired casings from ten of these guns, 

providing us with 70 casings for analysis as part of this feasibility study. The 70 casings were 

also among those originally studied by De Kinder. As part of the present study, these 70 De 

Kinder casings were imaged by both reflectance based (2D) and surface topography (3D) 

methods and analyzed via a cross-correlation method. 

The advantage of the De Kinder database is that it allows us to observe the variability in the 

surface markings caused by different ammunition and to assess the implications for gun 

distinguishability. The data set also allows for the assessment of how distinguishable nominally 

identical guns can be. One limitation of the De Kinder database is that all conclusions are 

limited in scope to the single gun manufacturer and model employed, the Sig Sauer P226. 

Another limitation is that almost all the cartridges are of different manufacture (brand), making it 

difficult to quantify variability of markings within the same brand as opposed to different brands. 

NBIDE

The NIST study, also referred to as NBIDE, attempted to answer questions left unanswered in 

the De Kinder study. A central component in the NIST study was to determine the effect of gun 

type (manufacturer) on gun identifiability. As noted above, the De Kinder study was limited to a 

single gun type (Sig Sauer P226). To go beyond this, the statistical design included three gun 

types (Sig Sauer, Ruger, and Smith&Wesson), four guns of each type, three ammo types, and 

three firing repetitions for each ammo type taking place over three days. This design helped us 

to ascertain the existence and magnitude of gun type and ammo type on gun distinguishability. 

However, the NBIDE study had several limitations. First, the conclusions are, strictly speaking, 

limited in scope to the three gun types and the three ammo types studied. Second, the total 

 

∗

 Certain commercial equipment are identified in this paper. Such identification does not imply recommendation or 

endorsement by NIST, nor does it imply that the equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 
7

number of firings (144) and analyzed casings (108) are small compared to the large sizes 

envisioned for a national ballistics database. Third, all the guns used for NBIDE are brand new. 

Image Analysis Methods 

We compared two image analysis methods used to collect reflectance (2D) and topography 

images (3D), respectively: 

• An IBIS 2D system [3], based on reflection optical microscopy and running the 

BrassCatcher software application, Version 3.4.5. This system has been widely used for 

forensic ballistic examinations. The software has the capability for acquiring images of 

three marks on spent cartridge cases, namely firing pin impressions, breech face 

impressions, and ejector marks. We will refer to this system as I-2D. 

• An experimental system, not intended for commercialization, based on imaging of 3D 

surface topography using confocal microscopy and having correlation software developed 

by the NIST/IAI analysis team. We will refer to this system as N-3D. 

These two systems were applied to both of the above casing collections and compared. 

The purpose of the NBIDE Study was not restricted to ascertaining the feasibility of a national 

ballistics database based on the existing I-2D technology used in the NIBIN. Constraining the 

scope of this feasibility study to existing technology would have limited our efforts to testing 

whether some previous disappointing results [6-8] from research with I-2D would be supported 

or refuted with another set of test firings. The National Academies’ charge to NIST was broader 

than that. The broader charge was to assess the feasibility of a high-success ballistics national 

database by any means—not just I-2D. NIST was thus free to explore other imaging/analysis 

systems, and decided to emphasize the topography imaging approach as the most feasible 

alternative or enhancement to existing technology. 

The experimental N-3D system consists of five components: 

1. An optical topography imaging system that produces a computer-resident digitized 3D 

surface image, 

2. A filtering/outlier-rejection system for pre-processing the 3D image data, 

3. A registration process by which the optimal alignment of the individual characteristics of 

two compared casing images is determined, 

4. A statistical calculation to provide a best-alignment correlation metric, which we call 

ACCFmax, quantifying how well the two images match, 

5. A statistical data analysis methodology that provides a ranked list of best-matched guns 

as well as other information, such as gun-type and ammunition effects. 

Statistical Analysis 

Top Ten Analysis 

One way to evaluate and compare the I-2D and N-3D technologies is by examining their 

performances on Top Ten list exercises. This is a list of the ten other entries in the database that 
8

have the highest correlation scores with respect to a reference entry. We first summarize the 

results for the De Kinder set. For each of the 70 De Kinder casings, there are six correct 

matches. For a technology to be feasible for a very large database, the Top Ten lists should 

include all six correct matches nearly all of the time in this database of 70 entries. After all, if a 

casing that should match does not make the Top Ten list here, then that implies that there are at 

least five non-matching casings that had higher correlations. Such a low-correlating match is 

unlikely to make a Top Ten list for a very large database. 

Out of a maximum six matches for each casing, the I-2D system produced an average of 3.1 

matches using firing pin impressions and an average of 1.0 matches using breech face 

impressions. The experimental N-3D technology using cross-correlations was somewhat better 

on firing pin impressions, producing an average of 3.3 matches per Top Ten list, and 

substantially better on breech face impressions, with an average of 2.8 matches per Top Ten list. 

Further refinements may well lead to even better results. Using both the breech face and firing 

pin Top Ten lists for each casing leads to an average of 3.4 correct matches for I-2D and 4.8 

correct matches for N-3D. 

The De Kinder results by themselves would imply that firing pin impressions produce somewhat 

better results than breech face impressions, but that neither area of the casing and neither 

technology yet produces results that are accurate enough for a large database. However, the 

results from the NBIDE casings make any conclusions drawn from both sets more complicated. 

Each of the 108 NBIDE casings has eight casings among the other 107 that should match with it; 

hence, if a casing that should match does not make the Top Ten list, then there are at least three 

non-matching cases that correlated more highly with the reference casing. The I-2D technology 

produced an average of 3.7 out of eight correct matches for the firing pin impressions and 5.6 for 

the breech face impressions. The N-3D technology produced an average of 5.6 correct matches 

out of eight for the firing pin impressions and 7.9 for the breech face impressions. Using both 

the breech face and firing pin Top Ten lists for each casing leads to an average of 6.2 correct 

matches for I-2D and 7.99 correct matches for N-3D. 

The NBIDE breech face impressions analyzed with 3D methods stand out from the other datasets 

here. Not only did most of the NBIDE breech face impressions have all eight correct matches in 

the Top Ten, most had the correct matches in the top eight ranks. However, while there was 

considerable separation between matching and non-matching distributions for most of the 

reference NBIDE breech face impressions, especially those fired from Rugers, some had much 

less margin for error in that the correlation metrics for matches were only slightly larger than the 

largest of the correlation metrics for non-matches. Those matching correlation metrics would be 

in danger of being overtaken by some non-matching correlation metrics in a very large database. 

The results of the Top Ten list analysis are summarized in Table 1. The N-3D results for the 

NBIDE breech face impressions are much better than any other results seen. They suggest that 

topographic imaging of breech face impressions is good enough to distinguish most of the guns 

in the study. However, any resulting claims for topographic imaging of breech face impressions 

have to be reconciled with the much less impressive performance of the same technology on the 

De Kinder casings. Gun-brand differences might have been a main cause of the differences, as 

the De Kinder casings all were fired from Sig Sauers; however, the NBIDE study also included 
9

casings fired from Sig Sauers, and the subset of topographic results from those Sig Sauer-fired 

casings are still much better than the topographic De Kinder breech face results. Alternatively, 

these differences may arise from differences between new and used Sig Sauer guns or from 

differences in the ammunition used in the two studies. Just how promising this technology is for 

very large databases depends on whether the NBIDE or De Kinder results are more 

representative of the challenges faced by a national database. 

In the NBIDE study, only 108 casings fired by only 12 guns covering 3 different brands were 

studied. Presumably, a larger population of guns would increase the likelihood of “rogue” large 

correlations from non-matching guns. Also, gun brands and models not covered in the NBIDE 

study (e.g., low-cost guns high on the list of crime gun usage developed by the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) [37] but not available as new purchases) 

may well be more difficult to distinguish and identify than those included. There will likely be 

guns for which any system will not perform well. We have considered only a minute fraction of 

the possible gun/ammo combinations, and it is likely that some of these combinations will not be 

conducive to an easy identification, even by a human examiner. 

Table 1. Summary of Top Ten list performance results for I-2D vs. N-3D for De Kinder and NBIDE data sets. 

Feature under Comparison Data Set Firing Pin Breech Face Combined 

I-2D 3.1/6 51 % 1.0/6 17 % 3.4/6 57 % De Kinder N-3D 3.3/6 54 % 2.8/6 47 % 4.8/6 80 % 

I-2D 3.7/8 46 % 5.6/8 70 % 6.2/8 78 % NBIDE N-3D 5.6/8 70 % 7.9/8 99 % 7.99/8 99.9 % 

Direct comparison between the I-2D results and the N-3D results shows that the N-3D research 

system was more accurate for both breech face and firing pin impressions for both the NBIDE 

and De Kinder casing collections studied here. The results also show that both I-2D and N-3D 

perform much better on the NBIDE breech face impressions than on the De Kinder breech face 

impressions. This further suggests that the differences between NBIDE and De Kinder results 

are due to physical differences between the two sets of casings. Of course, any firm conclusions 

require further analysis and data. 

Database Feasibility Issues 

A typical scenario in which ballistics imaging technology would be used is one where a casing 

found at a crime scene is then correlated with all the casings in a database that have the same 

class characteristics. The casings in the database that are chosen for closer scrutiny by a 

ballistics examiner are those that correlate most highly with the crime scene casing, which we 

will call the reference casing. 

Suppose that there is actually a casing from the same gun in the database, so that it should be a 

match for the reference casing. Let there be N other casings in the database, where N is a 

suitably large number. For the real match to make a Top Ten list like those produced by the I-2D 
10

system, only nine or fewer of the N cross correlations with non-matching casings may be greater 

than the correlation with the real match. 

For a first pass model, given several simplifying assumptions, the number of casings in the 

database that yield a higher cross correlation with the reference casing than does the real match 

can be modeled as a binomial distribution, Binomial (N,p), where p is the relevant overlap metric 

(see Sec. 9.5). In this model, the average number of non-matching correlations higher than the 

true matching correlation increases linearly with N. 

This crude probability model enables some observations to be made on how good the correlation 

methods have to be in order to be successful. For instance, for a given value of N, how small 

does p have to be in order to have the correct casing in the top 10 at least 90 % of the time? If N 

is very large, then p has to be very small. In fact, p needs to be around 6.2/N to get the right 

match in the Top Ten 90 % of the time. From this we can make statements of the sort, “If your 

database is that big, then your imaging and correlation techniques better be that good to have a 

reasonable probability of finding a match in it.” For instance, if the database has 100 000 guns, 

then p needs to be on the order of 6.2 × 10-5 to have a 90 % chance of getting the correct match 

in the Top Ten. 

Note that all of the above have been applied to the chances for a single casing. Producing a 

model that describes the performance of a group of casings or a group of guns is more 

complicated. Grouping materials with the same class characteristics is a fundamental method 

used to distinguish groups. Beyond that, for materials with the same class characteristics, there 

are several levels to which the model can be refined. 

Single p – One Group

Suppose we can use the same matching and non-matching distribution for all casings and guns, 

then a single probability model can be used without modification to refer to all casings. 

Grouped by Guns

Results showed there is variability between guns. When we have multiple firings from each gun, 

we can form separate matching and non-matching distributions for each gun, resulting in a 

different p for each gun. Thus if a certain gun has an overlap metric p, its casings would tend to 

make the Top Ten list with Probability P(N,p). For a set of guns, each with its own p and 

P(N,p), then the success rate of the group of guns is the average of the gun success rates, i.e. the 

mean of the P(N,p) values. For a given target success rate, say 90 %, it is also useful to see what 

proportion of the guns have a success rate as high as that target rate. 

Grouped by Casings

There can also be variability between casings fired from the same gun. When we have multiple 

firings from each gun, we can form separate matching and non-matching distributions for each 

casing, resulting in a different p for each casing. For a set of casings, each with its own p and 

P(N,p), the success rate of the group of casings is the average of the casing success rates, i.e. the 

mean of the P(N, p) values. Again, for a given target success rate, say 90 %, it is also useful to 

see what proportion of the casings have a success rate as high as that target rate. 
11

Note the requirement for multiple firings for guns. If each gun fired m + 1 casings, then each 

casing has only m correct matches. It may be difficult to get good estimates of p using pair-wise 

comparisons because of the relatively small number of comparisons that can be made. This can 

be especially problematic because we are most interested in very small values of p, and the pairwise comparisons can yield estimates of p only as multiples of 1/(mn), where n is the number of 

non-matching correlations per casing. This may lead to too many estimates of 0 for the value of 

p. 

One solution to this problem is to fit continuous distributions to the matching and non-matching 

samples. These distributions can yield estimates of p that are non-zero but very small. Of course 

there would remain the issues of whether the fitted distribution is an appropriate fit and how 

good the fit is, given the limited sample size. In this report, we fit normal distributions using the 

estimated means and variances of each sample. When compared with the non-symmetrical 

histogram distributions shown in Section 9, the fitted normal distributions may yield only 

approximate estimations. 

We have considered the above types of groupings. Other types are also possible, such as 

groupings by casing brand or gun brand or a combination of those. 

Discussion of Groups

Suppose that there are differences between groups. Then one can draw different conclusions 

depending on the level of grouping. In general, having more numerous and more refined groups 

will lead to more optimistic conclusions, while having fewer groups that are more pooled will 

lead to more pessimistic conclusions. That is because success in a very large database demands 

a very small p. Thus casings that have bad distinguishability will tend to increase the estimated p 

value of their member group to unacceptably high levels. Having a smaller group limits the 

damage done by a single casing. To use a golfing analogy, playing extremely poorly on one hole 

is much more harmful in stroke play (where every stroke counts) than in match play (where only 

holes won or lost count). 

To address these questions, we use the N-3D results, which were more accurate than the I-2D 

results for the two collections studied here. For all except the NBIDE breech faces, the 

calculated values of p are orders of magnitude too large to be consistent with the requirements of 

a large database. For a database of size N = 100 000, at most 24 % of the firing pins, and a much 

lower proportion of the De Kinder breech faces, satisfy a 90 % success rate. The NBIDE breech 

face impressions are drastically different from the other types of impressions. Under the most 

optimistic scenario (grouping by casing), for a database of size N=100 000, around 90 % of the 

paired comparison estimates of p would lead to success rates of 90 % or over , but that 

proportion is significantly lower if the normal model estimates of p are used. If instead, there is 

grouping by guns, then the average success rate of the guns is only about 50 %. Under the 

pessimistic scenario of a single group, then p needs to be on the order of 6.2 × 10-5, so that the 

estimate of p = 0.002 remains over 30 times too large, despite being orders of magnitude smaller 

than anything else seen. 
12

Discussion 

In summary, our responses to the Project Questions are as follows: 

Distinguishability (Question 1)

For a technology to be feasible for a very large database, its Top Ten lists should have obtained 

close to all possible correct matches in a relatively low sample size experiment like those 

described in this report. Nothing we have seen here comes close to achieving such high 

performance standards except for the N-3D performance on the NBIDE breech faces, which 

suggests that 3D topographic methods are a significant advance for breech face analysis. How 

promising this technology is for very large databases depends on whether the NBIDE or De 

Kinder results are more representative of the challenges faced by a national database. In the 

NBIDE study only 108 casings were fired by only 12 guns covering 3 different brands. A larger 

population of guns would make more likely the presence of ‘rogue’ large correlations from nonmatching guns. Also, gun brands and models not covered in the NBIDE study (e.g., low-cost 

guns high on the ATF’s list of crime gun usage [37] but not available as new purchases by us) 

may well be more difficult to distinguish and identify than those included. 

Also, in order to perform at levels necessary for very large databases (say around 100 000), the 

error rates must be very low—so low in fact that for experiments with only 70 or 108 casings as 

in the report, there can be no overlap between the matching and non-matching sample 

distributions. While there was considerable separation between matching and non-matching 

distributions for many of the reference casings, especially those fired from Rugers, others had 

much less margin for error. Those matching correlations would be in danger of being overtaken 

by non-matching correlations in a very large database with a much larger population of nonmatching correlations. For each individual casing in the NBIDE set, there were only 8 

correlations of casings in the matching sample and 99 correlations of casings in the nonmatching sample. Thus, one can try to estimate the distributions by pooling the matching and 

non-matching samples for each gun; however, this likely makes the estimated distributions wider 

than they should be and in fact would estimate that only half the guns would be successfully 

matched using the NBIDE breech face data. Estimating very low probabilities with moderately 

low sample sizes continues to be a challenging problem. We used normal distribution models for 

the correlation scores themselves in an attempt to ameliorate the problem. Use of the normal 

models lowered the success rate for the optimistic scenario of grouping by casing (see Sec. 

9.10.4). 

Gun and Ammunition Factors (Questions 2 and 3)

There seemed to be only marginally significant differences between ammunition types. For the 

De Kinder breech face impressions, Remington ammunition yielded the largest number of 

correct gun matches. However, two Remington cartridges were fired from each gun versus one 

cartridge for each of the other brands. Therefore when a Remington cartridge was compared to 

the rest of the cartridges of the same gun, there was at least one cartridge of the same brand in 

that group. This was not true for the other ammunition brands. Therefore, Remington had an 

“advantage” with respect to the rest. Likewise, the De Kinder firing pin data did not show 

significant differences among ammunition types. For the NBIDE collection, ammunition type 
13

was marginally significant for both the firing pin and the breech face impressions, with PMC 

ammunition yielding the highest number of correct gun matches for both regions. 

There was a statistically significant difference between the three gun types for the NBIDE firing 

pin impressions, with Ruger yielding the largest number of correct matches, and Sig Sauer the 

fewest. However, the gun types did not show significant differences for the NBIDE breech face 

impressions. 

Region Differences (Question 4)

Much work remains to be done on this question. Because the breech face impression is larger 

than the firing pin impression and ejector mark, it generally contains more peaks and valleys that 

in turn figure to carry more information than the other two regions. In addition, the flat base 

surface of the breech face impression should make the individual characteristics easy to 

recognize. However, the firing pin impression and the ejector mark may carry strong individual 

characteristics that support positive identifications. The breech face region was clearly superior 

to the firing pin only for the NBIDE casings. The firing pin data were slightly superior for the 

De Kinder casings. 

A further helpful metric might come from the topography of the ejector marks, which would be 

particularly useful for exclusion filtering of nonmatches. However, we have not developed a 

technique for correlating different ejector marks because of their widely varying outer 

boundaries. It is difficult to develop automated software to correlate the shapes of such regions, 

particularly when many ejector marks are partially obliterated by the manufacturer’s headstamp. 

Common practice for the I-2D is a manual operation whereby the users draw the ejector mark 

boundaries themselves when making entries. One of our tasks for future work is to develop a 

similar analysis program for the existing ejector mark data. 

As with ejector marks, class characteristics were not used to differentiate between cartridge cases 

fired by guns of different manufacture. Class characteristics can provide a valuable filter of nonmatching pairs. The overall shape of the firing pin impression, for example, could be used as a 

class characteristic. Although such a shape will most likely be the same for all guns of a given 

brand, it may differ for guns of different brands. 

Topography (3D) Imaging and Current Optical Imaging Technology (Question 5)

The experimental N-3D results were more accurate than the I-2D results for four experiments. 

Topography (3D) methods have three advantages: 

1. Ballistics signatures are mainly geometrical topographies and N-3D is based on the direct 

measurement of surface topography. 

2. Results for conventional optical images are more sensitive to illumination conditions and 

surface appearances than topography images. 

3. Topography measurements are traceable to dimensional metrology standards. 

In addition, the N-3Danalysis scheme of outlier removal, filtering, registration, matching, and 

statistics is non-proprietary, and this openness should facilitate development of improved 

algorithms by the technical community. For example, standard topography analysis methods 
14

[30] may be adapted to separate micro- from macro-topography and extract individual 

characteristics of the surfaces for correlation and identification. 

In short, an "open-box" ballistic imaging/analysis methodology has been developed and 

investigated with accuracy comparable with (and at times higher than) the widely used I-2D 

methodology. Aside from the question as to whether a large database is feasible, topographv 

measurement methods can help the ballistics imaging community to improve both ballistics 

matching systems and the feasibility of such a database. Being of relatively recent vintage, these 

techniques are still being refined and improved. Questions remain on the best way to handle data 

processing and optimal correlation metrics. Improvements may also be made using other 

approaches, such as feature extraction techniques and alternative modes of decomposition 

(wavelets, principal component analysis, neural nets, etc.). It is possible that refinements will 

result in great improvements some time from now. However, the requirements of a very large 

database will likely require substantial improvements. 

A disadvantage of the current prototype of the topography approach is that the time required to 

record the data is much longer than the current I-2D technology. The data gathering and perhaps 

the correlation algorithms will need to become much more efficient for practical application to a 

large database. 
15

1. Background 

Guns leave telltale markings on fired casings and bullets that enable firearms examiners to link 

weapons to crimes or one crime to another by comparing fired casings or bullets in an optical 

microscope. The inspection technology used for this is generally a comparison optical 

microscope [1] (see for example Fig. 1-1). Evidence evaluated in this way may be used in 

criminal court to help convict perpetrators of crimes where guns were involved. 

Figure 1-1. Photo of a forensic comparison microscope used to inspect pairs of objects and match images of similar 

objects. Inspection of the bases of a pair of cartridge casings is illustrated here (photo from Leitz* product 

literature). 

However, the confirmation of a link using a comparison microscope is a manual and relatively 

time consuming process, so automated optical systems have been developed to aid crime lab 

investigators by processing large volumes of evidence more efficiently. Such work can produce 

a small set of likely matches, which the firearms examiner can positively confirm using the 

comparison microscope. A widely used technology [2,3] for this is the Integrated Ballistics 

Identification System*

 (Fig. 1-2), sometimes referred to as IBIS 2D, where the surface image is 

acquired by reflection optical microscopy. We will use the abbreviation I-2D here. This system 

was developed by Forensic Technology, Inc. (FTI). I-2D workstations generally comprise: 

• A data acquisition station (DAS), consisting of a computerized optical microscope capable 

of generating digitized images of small areas of casings or bullets with the individualized 

surface markings that help identify a weapon, 

 

*

 Certain commercial equipment are identified in this report. Such identification does not imply recommendation or 

endorsement by NIST, nor does it imply that the equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 
16

• A signature analysis station (SAS) providing access to a large database of the digitized 

images so that one entry can be compared with many others, 

• Correlation software to provide a quantitative estimate of the most likely matches. 

 

Figure 1-2. Photo of an I-2D system (photo from Forensic Technology Inc. product literature). 

Such a system reduces the time for initial inspection of ballistics evidence and increases 

enormously the number of comparisons that can be performed, allowing lab personnel to sift 

through relatively large amounts of evidence. Using the I-2D technology, the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has led the development of a nationwide set 

of regional databases called the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) 

[4,5] to facilitate the sharing of information among crime labs in different jurisdictions and to 

increase the number of confirmed matches, called “hits.” Over the last decade, NIBIN has been 

collecting casings and bullets associated with crimes nationwide. This database is accessible to 

approximately 230 forensic laboratories distributed across the United States. The cornerstone of 

the NIBIN is the I-2D, which first acquires a reflection microscopy image of the casing or bullet 

and then applies proprietary analysis code to determine if an incoming crime-related casing or 

bullet image matches another casing or bullet image entered into the NIBIN database. 

For several years I-2D has been the dominant ballistics imaging/analysis technology available 

commercially [5]. In collaboration with NIBIN, the system has evolved over the past decade and 

the coordination, placement, and networking of the I-2D devices has been supported by the ATF. 

For participating forensic laboratories with the I-2D equipment installed, there is a well-defined 

procedure for acquiring images of given crime-scene casings or bullets, searching roughly 

860 000 images in the NIBIN database, and receiving a ranked list of the Top Ten matches from 

the database that best match the crime-scene casings or bullets in hand. 

One issue of the I-2D implementation is that the correlation algorithm for finding hits is 

proprietary. If the algorithm were openly available, it might receive beneficial enhancements 

from the technical community at large, in addition to the advances made by the manufacturer 

with the support of its clients. Another issue is that several experimental reports raise concerns 

about the performance of the I-2D system for large databases. For example, in a California 

Department of Forensic Services study [6] consisting of an image database of 792 

Smith&Wesson semiautomatic pistols and a reference subset of 50 of the same model pistols, 

Tulleners observed that the I-2D placed the correct weapon in its top 15 list only 62 % of the 
17

time−even though the ammunition were all the same type. More sobering was the fact that the 

success rate fell to 38 % if the ammunition were different. Studies by De Kinder [7] and George 

[8] obtained similar results. By comparison, for a practical imaging/searching system, one might 

envision a success rate criterion of about 90 %. 

In contrast to the above articles, a study by Beauchamp and Roberge from FTI studied 2D 

methods and drew favorable conclusions about the feasibility of a large database having up to 

millions of entries [9]. Another study of the parameters of correlation databases and experiences 

with the I-2D methods was performed by Nennstiel and Rahm [10]. 

The overall success of the NIBIN with the law enforcement community is a contributing 

influence to the interest in developing a much larger National Ballistics Imaging Database, which 

would include entries from casings or bullets taken from all newly manufactured handguns in the 

country. Instead of the approximately 860 000 entries from crime guns estimated in NIBIN [4], 

this new database would need to handle entries for roughly four million new handguns [11] sold 

per year. The potential gain would be that any casing or bullet connected with a crime could be 

matched back through its ballistics signature to the identity of the gun and the original owner, a 

potentially powerful crime-solving method. The governments of New York [12] and Maryland 

[13] took the lead in developing state-level Reference Ballistic Imaging Databases (RBIDs) of 

their own, but the state of California after researching the question [6,14] has not created an 

RBID. The question of whether to do so or not depends in large part on whether the gains in the 

number of matches and the aid to investigators will be sufficient to warrant the cost of 

developing and maintaining the huge database. 

At the request of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Academies (NA) 

have formed the Committee to Assess the Feasibility, Accuracy, and Technical Capability of a 

National Ballistics Database. The Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) at the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was selected to manage a research project to assist 

the NA Committee’s work. The research utilized members of OLES, NIST’s Manufacturing 

Engineering Laboratory (MEL), and NIST’s Information Technology Laboratory (ITL). To take 

advantage of the latest research, this team contracted with a private company, Intelligent 

Automation, Inc. (IAI) of Rockville, Maryland, to assist in the project. In preparation for the 

collaborative research, we made use of materials and results developed in a previous IAI 

repetitive fire study [15], the De Kinder et al. study [7], and an existing NIST project on standard 

bullets and casings [16,17]. Each of these studies had information applicable to the database 

evaluation. The IAI repetitive-fire study examined bullets fired from gun barrels of different 

manufacture and brands to assess the validity of firearm identification using topographical data. 

The NIST project developed information on standard bullets and casings using surface 

topography techniques and described statistical methods to compare repetitive measurements. 

The De Kinder project [7], along with the earlier Tulleners project [6], were relevant studies of 

the application of casing inspection techniques to large databases. 

For the NBIDE experimental design, we considered parameters that would produce a typical case 

scenario in regard to a ballistic database where the first test fires are used and a range of weapons 

are included. This scenario would reflect the type of cartridge cases that would be collected 

from the weapons manufacturers for inclusion in a national database. To capture these attributes, 
18

ammunition and weapon types were discussed with the NA Committee, the ATF, and 

representatives from the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners. The aim was to select 

weapons that cover a range of quality and precision tooling. Given the limited time available for 

the analysis of the fired casings, the number of weapons used was restricted. 

Ammunition also was chosen carefully in the NBIDE and the selection was guided by casing 

data gathered by De Kinder (see Attachment D of Ref. 12), which provided information on the 

primer, hardness, and primer type. The final selection of ammunition was refined by the NA 

Committee and the ATF. 

We used a NIST Standard Reference Material (SRM) 2460, Standard Bullet, and prototypes for 

SRM 2461, Standard Casings, as check standards. The Precision Engineering Division at NIST, 

in collaboration with Intelligent Automation, Inc. (IAI) of Rockville MD, initiated testing of 

three optical methods for imaging topography: the interferometric microscope [18], the Nipkowdisk confocal microscope [19], and the scanning laser confocal microscope [19]. The obtained 

results were correlated with those measured with a stylus instrument [20], which uses a 

physically contacting diamond probe to scan the surface and obtain a surface profile. As 

discussed later in Sec. 2.1.2, the Nipkow-disk instrument was selected to support further 

research. The research involved the measurements and analysis of the existing casing and bullet 

collections from the previous studies by De Kinder et al. [7] and Bachrach of IAI [15], 

respectively. NIST then supplemented these collections with test fires and data developed 

according to an experimental design procedure. According to the procedure, NIST purchased the 

specific weapons and ammunition, under the guidelines described earlier, and performed test 

fires and analyses using double blind methods [21]. 

It was anticipated that the test results would provide answers to several questions raised by the 

NA Committee and the research team. These questions focused on such issues as: Are the 

individual firearms self-consistent? Are they distinguishable? What are the contributing factors 

to the topographic markings: the firearm, the selected image region, the ammunition type? What 

are the preferred response metrics: parameters from the I-2D, the topography cross-correlation 

function (CCF), surface roughness? The research team was aware that the choices of imaged 

region would play a major role in evaluating answers to the offered questions. For example, how 

much does each imaged region contribute to making an identification of ballistics evidence and 

what is the cumulative effect of these regions on attaining the highest “hit” rate in a numerical 

association? Discussion between the NA Committee and the NIST research team also touched 

on the topics of weapon wear and environmental factors. These topics, although taken under 

consideration by forensic examiners, were not considered in this portion of the NIST research. 

The main question to be addressed by this research is the feasibility of a National Ballistics 

Imaging Database (NBID) of firearms manufactured for sale in the United States. Test fires 

taken just after firearm manufacturing would constitute the casings or bullets that would be 

imaged in this database. The information in the database would therefore be from new weapons. 

The remainder of this report is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we describe initial observations 

and the overall goal of the NIST research. In Sec. 3, we describe the work plan in detail. In Sec. 

4, we describe the instrument and methods used for surface topography measurement. In Sec. 5, 

we describe the overall goals and detailed plans of the designed experiment of test fires. In Secs. 
19

6 and 7, respectively, we describe topography images taken with the Nipkow-disk confocal 

microscope and measurements taken with I-2D. The data processing and cross correlation of the 

topography images is described in Sec. 8, and the statistical results are described in Secs. 9 and 

10. In Sec. 11, we make several concluding observations from the work and emphasize 

questions to answer in future work. 
20

2. NIST Participation in the National Academies’ Study 

A primary goal of the NA Committee study is to determine whether the marks on casings or 

bullets fired from guns are sufficiently gun-specific and reproducible to make it feasible to build 

a national database of test fires of new guns to help solve crimes. In support of the Committee’s 

work, NIST and IAI have been performing surface measurements and experiments. The 

emphasis of this work has been the measurement and analysis of surface topography because 

ballistic signatures are mainly geometric topographies and test fires produce obvious changes in 

the surface topography of casings and bullets. Direct measurement of surface topography seems 

to be the most likely way to enhance the surface information from fired casings and bullets in 

order to increase the accuracy of ballistics identification to a level consistent with the 

requirements of an NBID. 

The use of surface topography data of casings is the main focus of the test fires, measurements, 

analysis, and statistical studies we have performed at NIST and IAI. NIST has also collaborated 

with the ATF and compared the results of topographic measurements with the I-2D acquisitions 

of the same casings. Topography measurement of bullets is planned for a future report, although 

some considerations and results are also discussed here. 

2.1 Initial Observations 

2.1.1 Surface Topography Measurement 

We begin, therefore, with the observation that surface topography changes are likely the 

important, reproducible effects produced by firearms on casings and bullets. Surface topography 

for these small objects is considered to include both form deviations, with a size close to the 

scale of the casing or bullet, and fine roughness structures observable down to the resolution of 

the measuring instrument, usually an optical microscope. Direct measurement and analysis of 

these topographic structures on fired ballistics evidence should be important for identifying the 

weapon that fired them. By comparison, the most widely used method, optical reflectance 

microscopy, produces images that are not so closely related to the topography itself. That is, 

optical image contrast, which may be represented by the symbol I(x,y), is mainly a function of: 

• lighting conditions, 

• surface slope, 

• shadowing effects, 

• multiple reflections, and 

• changes in the optical properties (index of refraction and extinction coefficient) over the 

surface, which produce changes of observed reflectivity over the surface. 

Surface topography, therefore, affects the image contrast in a complex fashion through its slope 

variations, through shadowing effects, and through multiple reflections. The image contrast is 

also affected by changes in reflectivity over the surface, a non-topographic property that might 

be related to changes caused by firing but to other causes not related to firing, such as 

inhomogeneities in the casing or bullet material itself. 
21

Topographic microscopy, on the other hand, is directly sensitive to surface height and spacing 

variations z(x,y) and can measure these directly, independent of illumination and shadowing 

effects. This makes it advantageous for studying the marks on bullets and casings left by the 

gun-firing process. A disadvantage of topographic microscopy, as we will discuss later, is the 

noise arising during the signal processing required to create a topography image, resulting in 

dropouts and outliers in the data points. A complication is the need to develop a data separation 

method whereby the fine roughness signature can be separated from form deviations of the 

casings or bullets. 

We choose an optical topography measurement method here because the traditional method of 

topography measurement by stylus profiling is a direct mechanical contact technique, which 

would not be acceptable for use on ballistics evidence. Another technique, optical scattering 

[22], does not provide enough discrimination of individual peak-valley characteristics to be 

effective as an identification tool, and scanning electron microscopy [23] is comparatively 

difficult and exotic to apply to the millions of objects expected for a national database of newgun test fires. 

2.1.2 Primary Measurement Method 

The experimental NIST Topography Evaluation System (N-3D) consists of five components: 

1. An optical topography measurement system that produces a computer-resident digitized 

3D surface topography image, 

2. A filtering/outlier-rejection system for pre-processing the topography image data, 

3. A registration process by which the optimal alignment of the individual characteristics of 

two compared casing images is determined, 

4. A statistical calculation to provide a best-alignment correlation coefficient, a metric 

quantifying how well the two images match, 

5. A statistical data analysis methodology that provides a ranked list of best-matched guns 

as well as other information, such as gun-type and ammunition effects. 

We chose Nipkow-disk confocal microscopy for measurement of the surface topography after 

brief tests of its accuracy and a comparison with two other optical techniques. A description of 

this technique is given in Sec. 3. The other techniques we tested were white light interferometric 

microscopy and laser scanning confocal microscopy. 

Figure 2-1 shows surface profiles measured with these three methods compared with a profile 

measured with a stylus instrument [24]. The stylus method is taken as the reference method, 

mainly because of its demonstrated accuracy and because it is less prone to produce data outliers 

and dropouts than the three optical methods. 

The measurements were taken on a land engraved area (LEA) of a standard bullet, Standard 

Reference Material (SRM) 2460 [16,17]. The illustration shows qualitatively that all four 

methods agree fairly well. The three optical profiles were stitched together [25] from several 

profiles measured over about a 1.4 mm length of profile. The peaks and valleys of all four 

profiles are similar and match up well in position with one another. Pair wise quantitative 
22

comparisons between each optical profile and the stylus profile are indicated by the maximum 

values of the cross-correlation function (CCFmax) also shown. The CCFmax value, described later 

in Sec. 8, is a metric to indicate the agreement between two time series, in this case two surface 

profiles, when the two correlated profiles are matched in phase as well as possible. If the two 

profiles were exactly the same, the CCFmax value would be unity or 100 %. 

Figure 2-1. The profile of LEA 1 of a standard bullet measured by four techniques [24]. 1) stylus instrument; 2) 

interferometric microscope, CCFmax = 92.1 % with respect to the stylus profile; 3) Nipkow-disk confocal 

microscope, CCFmax = 98.9 %; 4) laser scanning confocal microscope, CCFmax = 95.3 %. The vertical unit is μm, 

the horizontal unit is mm. 

The CCFmax values are given for comparison between each of the three optical profiles and the 

stylus profile. Initial studies showed that all three optically measured profiles agreed about the 

same with the stylus profile because the CCFmax value representing agreement with the stylus 

profile was approximately 92 % for all three. There was little to choose between the techniques 

from an accuracy point of view. We chose the Nipkow-disk approach to pursue further because 

this technology is already being used commercially by FTI for topography measurement of 

bullets [27], and a Nipkow-disk system was already in place at IAI. In addition, the laser 

scanning confocal microscope available to us was more difficult to use than the other 

microscopes because its capabilities did not include automated stitching software. With the 

interferometric microscope, we have also observed significant profiling anomalies [28, 29] for 

roughness measurement of smooth surfaces, with roughness average (Ra) [30] on the order of 

100 nm. Surfaces that might be encountered later could have roughness in the 100 nm range. 

We then refined the measurement procedure with the Nipkow-disk confocal microscope. 

Profiles 1 and 3 for Fig. 2-1 are shown again in Fig. 2-2. The top profile is the stylus profile and 

the second is the profile measured with the Nipkow-disk confocal microscope. Both profiles had 

curvature removed with a high-pass Gaussian filter [30] with 0.25 mm long-wavelength cutoff 

and were smoothed with a moving average Gaussian filter with a 2.5 μm short-wavelength 

cutoff. The sampling interval (point spacing) of the stylus profile is approximately 0.25 μm, and 
23

the sampling interval of the profile obtained with the confocal microscope is approximately 

0.625 μm. This profile was then interpolated so that the sampling interval matched that of the 

stylus profile. The cross correlation function is the third profile. Its maximum value, CCFmax, 

occurring when the two upper profiles are in phase, is 98.9 %. This metric will be discussed in 

Sec. 8. 

Figure 2-2. Computer screen showing a comparison of stylus (top) and Nipkow-disk (second) confocal profiles of 

LEA 1 of a standard bullet. 

Three dimensional topography data taken with the Nipkow-disk confocal microscope are shown 

in Fig. 2-3. These are topography images of firing pin impressions on two prototype NIST 

standard casings [31] (P21 and P31), which were nickel replicas of the same master casing. The 

replicas were fabricated by electroforming [32]. The evident similarity between the data shows 

qualitatively that both the electroforming process and the measurement process are reproducible. 

A preliminary calculation of the cross correlation function yields a value of the CCFmax of 97 %. 

However, the calculation of this function depends sensitively on the cutoff of the high-pass filter 

and hence on how much the overall form of the firing pin impression is attenuated in the 

analysis. 
24

Figure 2-3. Topography images of two prototype standard casings measured with Nipkow-disk confocal 

microscopy. The casings are electroformed replicas of the same master. Left–casing P21, right–casing P31. 

2.2 Further Investigation of Topography Measurement Technology for Ballistics 

Identification 

2.2.1 Two Methods for Representing Casing and Bullet Signatures: Optical Imaging and 

Topography Imaging 

From the point of view of ballistic identification, both the optical images and topography images 

could be used for representing casing and bullet signatures. The optical image represents the 

surface appearance of the casing or bullet signatures when observed under an optical microscope. 

It is well known that tool-marks, including casing and bullet signatures, are mainly geometrical 

features by nature. When these geometrical features are observed under a microscope, the 

appearance of the optical image is significantly affected by the optical properties of the surface, 

such as color, refractive index, and extinction coefficient, as well as by multiple reflections and 

the lighting conditions that cause the shadowing effects. As a result, the optical image does not 

precisely represent the surface geometry, especially the micro geometry, which is an important 

part of the casing and bullet signatures. 

On the other hand, a topography map can more precisely represent the surface geometric and 

micro-geometric characteristics of the casing or bullet signatures, independent of the effects 

caused by optical properties of the surface and lighting conditions. Furthermore, calibration and 

check standards, measurement methods and uncertainty procedures for topography 

measurements have been well established for surface metrology and standardized nationally and 

internationally. As a result, topography measurements could be a better alternative for ballistics 

identification, and make the ballistics measurements traceable to national and international 

standards. 
25

In the following discussions, we use the names “optical imaging” and “topography imaging” (or 

“topography” for short) to specify these two different methods for representing casing and bullet 

signatures. 

2.2.2 Two Techniques for Ballistics Identification: Optical Image Comparison and 

Geometric Topography Measurement 

The comparison of tool-marks was admitted as evidence in a criminal case as early as 1879 [33]. 

The first binocular comparison microscope using optical image comparisons for ballistic 

identification was invented by A. Inostranzeff [33] in 1925. The later versions of the comparison 

microscopes, such as that developed by Leitz (Fig.1-1) and the I-2D developed by FTI (Fig.1-2), 

were all based on optical image comparisons. However, with the development of several types 

of topography measurement techniques [29,34] having high resolution, measurement traceability, 

large measurement area, and automation software, optical topography measurements of casing 

and bullet signatures could yield excellent results. Recently, IAI [35] developed a research 

system and FTI [27,36] developed a commercial one for bullet topography measurement based 

on confocal microscopy. 

2.2.3. NIST Participation: Investigate and Develop Topography Measurement for 

Ballistic Identification 

It is therefore important to investigate the use of topography measurement technology, including 

its associated hardware and software issues, as an alternative approach for ballistic 

identifications. That includes the following questions: 

• Is it possible to use topography measurement techniques as an alternative approach for 

ballistics identification?

• Compared with the I-2D technology currently deployed in the NIBIN, which one is 

better for ballistics identification?

• What parameter, algorithm and measurement program must be developed for 

quantitative comparisons of the 2D and 3D surface topographies of casing and bullet 

signatures?

• How to improve upon existing correlation results [6-10]?
26

3. Workplan 

In order to test the usefulness of topography images as ballistics evidence, we have been 

developing three data sets of topography images and have been testing how reliably ballistics 

matchups can be identified from these data. These were 

• 70 casings chosen at random from the collection of De Kinder test fires, used previously 

in the study by them [7], 

• 108 casings recently test-fired at NIST from twelve new guns as part of a designed 

experiment, 

• 176 bullets fired from eight guns in the experiment previously conducted by Bachrach 

[15]. 

The primary goal of measuring these materials and performing the subsequent correlation 

analysis was to test how reliably casings or bullets fired from the same guns could be identified. 

Details of these materials and data sets are given below. 

3.1 De Kinder Casings 

In the DeKinder study, 4200 test fires [7] were performed by the California Department of 

Justice Sacramento Laboratory to assess the feasibility of developing a state-wide database of 

new test fires in California using I-2D technology. Approximately 600 Sig Sauer 9 mm pistols 

were used for the test fires, and seven rounds of ammunition were fired in each pistol. The 

ammunition used was: 

1. CCI 

2. Winchester (Win) 

3. Remington Peters (R-P), also referred to as Remington (Rem) here and elsewhere 

4. Speer 

5. Wolf 

6. Federal (Fed) 

7. Rem (a repeat). 

I-2D optical imaging technology was used to record the surfaces of the fired casings. One 

purpose of that study was to test whether the individual identities of highly similar pistols could 

be distinguished sufficiently accurately by the imaging technology. The results of that study [7] 

and a previous, similar one [6,14] were not promising. We remeasured 70 of the De Kinder 

casings with topographic imaging to assess whether the new technology can augment or improve 

upon the conventional optical imaging technology. For each of the 70 casings, we measured the 

topography of the firing pin impression, breech face impression, and ejector mark. We then used 

standard correlation algorithms to generate metrics intended to distinguish casings fired by the 

same pistol. We also compared the accuracy of these results with those obtained with an I-2D 

system located at the ATF National Laboratory Center (NLC), Ammendale, MD. 
27

3.2 BIDE Casings 

Although a good deal of knowledge has been gained from work on the De Kinder casings, 

aspects of the experimental design there were not optimized for learning about certain noise 

factors in the identification process for test fires. We therefore carried out a set of 108 new testfires under a different experimental design to test the relative effects of gun identity, gun type, 

ammunition type, and drift on the topographic markings. The experimental design included 

twelve new 9 mm handguns (four each from Sig Sauer, Ruger, and Smith&Wesson (S&W)), 

three types of ammunition (PMC, Remington, and Winchester), and three repetitions for each 

combination, for a total of 108 test fires carried out over three different days. An additional 36 

rounds of Speer ammunition were also mixed into the test-fire design and test fired in case the 

analysis of the 108 casings indicated a need for more entries in the experimental design. This 

design enables us to discern similarities and differences in topography when 

• the same gun and the same ammo are fired at different times, 

• different ammos are used in the same gun, 

• different guns of the same brand are fired, with the same or different ammos, and 

• guns of different brands are fired. 

The test fires were carried out in the NIST firing range. After the test fires, the topography of the 

firing pin impressions, breech face impressions, and ejector marks were measured with Nipkowdisk confocal microscopy [19]. Using procedures of a double-blind study [21], the identities of 

the fired casings were remixed and kept secret from the people performing the measurements and 

data analysis so that the weapons were not known to them a priori before a set of predictions 

were made by them about which casings were fired from the same gun. These predictions were 

based on correlations performed on the topography images. After that, the identities of the 

remixed casings were revealed, and the predictions were compared with the true matches of 

casings actually fired from the same guns. 

The serial numbers and IDs of the BIDE guns are as follows: 

Brand Model Serial Number Short ID 

Ruger P95D 31545341 Ruger 41 

Ruger P95D 31545342 Ruger 42 

Ruger P95D 31545346 Ruger 46 

Ruger P95D 31545348 Ruger 48 

Sig Sauer P226 U702930 Sig Sauer 30 

Sig Sauer P226 U702931 Sig Sauer 31 

Sig Sauer P226 U702932 Sig Sauer 32 

Sig Sauer P226 U703333 Sig Sauer 33 

Smith&Wesson 9VE PBV8305 S&W 305 

Smith&Wesson 9VE PBV8306 S&W 306 

Smith&Wesson 9VE PBV8314 S&W 314 

Smith&Wesson 9VE PBV8401 S&W 401 
28

3.3 IAI Bullets 

Since 1997, Bachrach et al. [15,35] of IAI have been researching the use of topography data for 

describing both firearms and toolmark forensic evidence with support from NIJ, the National 

Science Foundation, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). These projects have 

provided IAI personnel with expertise in the acquisition, processing, and comparison of firearmsrelated forensic evidence. 

As part of the ongoing NIJ study [35], IAI created a substantial collection of sample bullets fired 

by a variety of guns and barrels of various levels of quality. Table 3-1 summarizes the barrel 

brands comprising this collection and includes information regarding the manufacturing 

technique used in the rifling of these barrels, the number of land impressions found on the 

bullets, and their basic geometrical characteristics. Table 3-1 also includes information 

regarding the origin of these barrels. This information is coded in the “Notes” column as 

follows: 

a) Consecutive: barrels that were consecutively manufactured (a higher control of ordering), as 

stated by the manufacturer, 

b) Sequential: barrels that were sequentially manufactured (a less stringent control of ordering), 

as stated by the manufacturer, 

c) Standard: barrels that were purchased through a supplier. 

Table 3-1. Selected gun/barrel manufacturers and manufacturing techniques. 

Manufacturer Number 

of Barrels 

Manufacturing 

Technique 

Number of 

Land 

Impressions 

Width of 

Impressions 

[mm] 

Barrel 

Length [cm] Notes 

1 Beretta 11 Gang Broach 6 2.0 10.8 Consecutive 

2 Ruger 11 Gang Broach 6 2.0 9.5 Consecutive 

3 S&W 11 Elect.-chem mach. 5 2.5 9.5 Standard 

4 Taurus 6 Gang Broach 6 1.3 6.4 Consecutive 

5 Browning 15 Hammer Forged 6 1.8 10.2 Sequential 

6 HiPoint 11 Button Rifling 6/9 1.3/1.6 7.0 Consecutive 

7 Sig Sauer 12 Hammer Forged 6 1.7 9.3 Consecutive 

8 Bryco 11 Gan Broach 6 1.3 7.9 Consecutive 

9 Glock 11 Hammer Forged 6 -- 9.5 Standard 

These gun types were selected based on the following criteria: a) frequency of association with 

crime scenes, b) availability of barrels for purchase, c) availability of reliable information 

regarding their manufacture, and d) degree to which the overall group of selected guns spans the 

spectrum of commonly used manufacturing techniques. The selection process began with a 

study of gun models most commonly associated with crimes, using resources such as the ATF’s 

National Tracing Center (NTC) [37]. The NTC maintains statistics of every gun that is “traced” 

as part of a crime investigation. At IAI’s request, NTC provided the statistics of the 25 gun 

models most often associated with crimes over the last twelve years. That list of candidate guns 

was narrowed based on the availability of guns for purchase and the availability of information 

regarding the manufacturing techniques involved in the rifling of their barrels. The nine brands 

selected were a compromise between all these factors. 

The NIJ study includes three main components, and bullet samples were created to address the 

needs of each of these elements of that study: 
29

a) The first element of the study is referred to as the “Barrel Wear Study.” The purpose of 

this portion of the study is to assess the effect of barrel wear on the features transferred 

between the barrel and the bullets fired through it. 

b) The second element of the study is referred to as the “Pristine Bullet Study.” The 

purpose of this portion of the study is to validate the degree to which a one-to-one 

association between a barrel and a bullet is possible, including an assessment of the 

probability of erroneous classification (false positive match, false negative match). 

c) The third element of the study is referred to as the “Damaged Bullet Study.” The purpose 

of this portion of the study is to validate the degree to which the conclusions reached for 

pristine bullets apply to damaged bullets. 

Bullet samples were created for each of these three portions of the NIJ study as follows: 

a) Barrel Wear Study: For each barrel brand listed in Table 3-1, one barrel was selected for 

the Barrel Wear Study. A total of 220 bullets were fired with each barrel, and 80 of these 

bullets were retrieved using a water tank. These 80 bullets correspond to the bullets 01 

through 50, bullets 101-110, bullets 201-210, and bullets 211-220. The order in which 

these bullets were fired was preserved so that any possible wear effect could be assessed. 

All bullets fired for the Barrel Wear Study were of Winchester manufacture. The total 

number of bullets test fired and retrieved under this portion of the project was 720 bullets. 

b) Pristine Bullet Study and Damaged Bullet Study: For each barrel brand listed in Table 3-

1, ten barrels (except in the case of Taurus, where only five were available) were used for 

these two studies. Twenty four bullets were test fired with each of the barrels. Of the 24 

bullets, 12 were of Winchester manufacture and 12 were of Remington manufacture. For 

each of these sets of 12 bullets, ten were retrieved in pristine condition and two bullets 

were fired in such a manner as to “damage” them. The total number of bullets test fired 

and retrieved under this portion of the project was 2 040 bullets. 

Details of the test firing process for the bullets used in these studies can be found in [15]. 

As part of the present feasibility assessment for a national ballistic imaging database, it was 

decided that a small portion of the bullets already available from the NIJ project could be used as 

sample bullets for this project. 

Overall eight of the nine gun barrel brands and 176 sample bullets are selected to be used as part 

of the present feasibility study. Bullets fired through Glock barrels are excluded because of the 

nature of the rifling of the Glock barrels. These barrels have polygonal rifling, which makes 

them extremely challenging for any image acquisition system. 

The bullets selected for the present feasibility study are: 

a) Bullets 1, 2, 5, 10, 31, 32, 209, 210, 211, 212 fired through barrel No. 1 of each brand. 

These bullets were associated with the Barrel Wear Study. All these bullets are of 
30

Winchester ammunition. Altogether, in this group there are 10 bullets from each gun 

brand and eight brands for a total of 80 bullets. 

b) Bullets 1, 2, (of Winchester ammunition), 11, 12 (of Remington ammunition) fired 

through barrel No. 2 and barrel No. 6 of each brand. These bullets are associated with the 

Pristine Bullet Study. In this group, there are 4 bullets × 2 barrels × 8 gun brands for a 

total of 64 bullets. 

c) Bullets 21 (of Winchester ammunition), 23 (of Remington ammunition) fired through 

barrel No. 2 and barrel No. 6 of each brand. These bullets are associated with the 

Damaged Bullet Study. In this group there are 2 bullets × 2 barrels × 8 brands for a total 

of 32 bullets. 

The above bullets are selected for measurement and analysis. We plan to measure these and 

report on the results in a subsequent report. 
31

4. Topography Measurements 

A Nipkow-disk confocal microscope [38] was used to perform the surface topography 

measurements. This measurement technology has been observed to be reasonably accurate over 

a wide range of roughness average (Ra) from 3 nm to 500 nm [29] and to correlate well with 

stylus profiling for measurement of curved bullet surfaces as discussed in the previous section. 

Figure 4-1. Schematic diagram of a Nipkow-disk confocal microscope [38]. 

A schematic diagram of this measurement approach is shown in Fig. 4-1. Illumination from a 

white light source is reflected from the surface under investigation and is focused onto a pinhole 

aperture. If the surface is at the correct height, the reflected light will be focused through the 

pinhole and a strong optical signal will pass onto the detector. If the surface is not at the correct 

height, the light will be defocused on the aperture and little or no signal arrives at the detector. 

Scanning the surface vertically enables one to determine the surface height at a single lateral 

location by looking for a maximum in the light transmitted to the detector. The Nipkow disk, 

which spins and consists of multiple apertures, enables the rapid collection of surface heights 

over all lateral positions in the field of view of the microscope. 

4.1 Measurement Conditions 

As is customary in ballistics examination, three areas (Fig. 4-2) were measured on the casings—

the firing pin impression on the primer, the breech face impression on the primer, and the ejector 
32

mark on the edge of the base. A 20× objective was used, but different fields of view were 

needed for the three areas. 

Figure 4-2. Casing signatures include firing pin impression (A), ejector mark (B), and breech face impression (C). 

Photo by Forensic Technology Inc. 

In addition, two microscopes were used for the measurements, with cameras having slightly 

different fields of view. For the De Kinder firing pin impressions and ejector marks, a single 

field-of-view of the 20× objective was rectangular with approximate dimensions 0.8 mm × 0.772 

mm. For the De Kinder breech face and all NBIDE impressions, a single field-of-view of the 

20× objective was square with approximate dimensions 0.8 mm × 0.8 mm. Both cameras used 

512 × 512 pixels. Therefore, the nominal pixel size was 1.5625 μm × 1.5078 μm for the 

rectangular image and 1.5625 μm × 1.5625 μm for the square image. 

The firing pin impressions were measured with a single field of view of the objective. The 

vertical slice (z-slice) interval was approximately 300 nm, and about 400 image slices were 

measured for a total vertical measurement range of 120 μm. Topography images of four of these 

impressions from four different Sig Sauer 9 mm semi-automatic pistols are shown in Fig. 4-3. 

The breech face impressions required a much larger field of view. The topography images 

consisted of usually 6 × 6 images stitched into one large image using the commercial stitching 

software of the instrument. These large images were approximately 4 mm × 4 mm in size and 

consisted of approximately 2600 × 2600 pixels (see Fig. 4-4). The z-slice interval was about 1 

μm, and about 300 slices were measured for a total vertical measurement range of about 300 μm. 

The ejector marks were small but elongated, and required either 1 × 2 or 1 × 3 stitched images of 

0.8 mm × 0.8 mm patches (see Fig. 4-5). The z-slice interval was about 300 nm and about 300 

image slices were measured for a total vertical travel range of about 90 μm. 
33

SS 375 SS 535 

SS 007 SS 009 

Figure 4-3. Topography images of firing pin impressions using the same CCI ammunition from four different Sig 

Sauer 9 mm guns with IDs shown. 

At this writing, the 9 mm bullets have not yet been measured. The areas to measure on the 

bullets are the 6 LEAs (see Fig. 4-6). The geometry of the bullet LEAs is quite different from 

that of the casings described above. The LEA markings are nearly uniaxial, but the areas are 

curved with a radius of curvature of approximately 4.5 mm. For this geometry, we plan to 

measure rectangular areas having 1 × 3 stitched images with size approximately 0.8 mm × 2 mm 

and consisting of about 506 × 1370 pixels. The z-slice interval will be about 0.5 μm and about 

500 image slices will be measured for a total vertical range of 0.25 mm. The total amount of 

data for each bullet will consist of six topography images, one for each LEA. 
34

Speer Winchester

Figure 4-4. Topography images of two breech face impressions fired by the same Sig Sauer #117, 9 mm pistol but 

with different ammunition, Speer and Winchester. 

Sig Sauer 009, CCI

Sig Sauer 117, 

Winchester

Figure 4-5. Topography images of ejector marks of casings fired by different Sig Sauer 9 mm pistols, SS 009 and 

SS 117, used in the De Kinder study. The hole on the left side of the upper image is part of the manufacturer’s 

headstamp.
35

4.2 Calibration and Quality Control 

We also checked aspects of the microscope calibration by measuring several types of calibration 

and check standards. These included: 

• A smooth, optical flat reference standard for eliminating any wavefront distortion of the 

microscope and for checking the vertical resolution limit for measuring roughness. The 

procedure for eliminating wavefront distortion is a standard procedure from the 

microscope manufacturer. The rms roughness of the sample is less than 1 nm. 

• An internal NIST step height master, one with step height equal to 10.52 μm, or another 

with step height equal to 12.668 μm, for checking the overall z-scale calibration of the 

microscope. 

• Two sinusoidal roughness standards, a Rubert Model 528 having a roughness average 

(Ra) of about 0.5 μm and spatial period of about 50 μm, and a NIST SRM 2073a having 

Ra of about 3 μm and spatial period of about 100 μm, for testing the accuracy of the 

microscope for straightforward measurements of roughness. 

• A prototype NIST Standard Reference Material (SRM) standard casing was used as a 

check standard. 

Wavefront calibration with the optical flat was performed each day that the instrument was used. 

The SRM 2073a was also measured each day to provide a general control check of the vertical 

scale and roughness measurement calibration. The step height and 0.5 μm roughness samples 

were measured at the beginning and end of each major series of data, such as before and after the 

entire set of firing pin impressions, to provide additional checks on the z-scale calibration. The 

SRM standard bullet or casing was measured several times as a general control sample with 

geometry similar to the samples being measured. For example, the firing pin impression of the 

control casing was measured about five times over several days during the series of 

measurements of the NBIDE or De Kinder firing pin impressions. 

Figure 4-6. One of several land engraved areas (LEAS) on a fired bullet. Most common 9 mm bullets have 6 

LEAS. Photo by Forensic Technology, Inc. 
36

5. NBIDE – Experiment 

 

The NIST study attempted to go beyond a re-analysis of the De Kinder casing collection and 

address questions not addressed by the De Kinder design. A central component in the NIST 

study was to determine the effect of gun type (manufacturer) on gun identifiability. As noted 

above, the De Kinder study was limited to a single gun type (Sig Sauer 9 mm). To go beyond 

this, the NBIDE statistical experimental design included the following specifications: 

1. Number of gun types: 3 (Smith&Wesson [S&W or often Sm-W], Ruger, Sig Sauer) 

2. Number of guns (total): 12 

3. Number of ammo types: 4 (Remington, Winchester, PMC, Speer (extra)) 

4. Number of days: 3 (48 firings per day × 3 days) 

5. Total number of test firings: 144 = 12 guns × 4 ammos × 3 days 

6. Total number of casings subsequently analyzed: 108 (Remington, Winchester, and PMC 

ammos only) 

The experiment was designed and conducted in accord with rigorous statistical design principles 

and techniques. Within a given day, there were 4 sets of 12 firings. Within each set of 12 

firings, a given gun was fired once. Across the 3 days, there were a total of 12 sets of 12 gun 

firings. In a latin square fashion, for each time position (1 to 12) within a set, each gun was fired 

once, and only once, across the 12 sets. The twelve guns are shown in Fig. 5-1. 

Figure 5-1. Photograph of the 12 guns used for the NBIDE designed experiment. 
37

All 4 ammos were used every day. The ordering of the ammos for the 4 sets of 12 firings within 

a day was balanced in an incomplete latin square fashion. Each firing was done remotely using a 

magnetically actuated trigger pull of the gun held in a fixture (Fig. 5-2). One cartridge at a time 

was loaded into the fixtured gun according to the order of the experimental design, then fired. 

The casing was ejected into a bag, not shown, then manually removed, and an entry of the test 

fire was recorded. Finally, after the 144 test fired casings were collected and recorded, they were 

re-randomized for the topography acquisitions and analysis so as to assure that the analysis was 

done in a double blind fashion. 

Figure 5-2 Photograph of one of the BIDE guns held in the fixture for remote test firing. 

The advantage of the resulting NBIDE database is that it allows one to ascertain the existence 

and magnitude of gun type and ammo type on gun distinguishability. Because a given gunammo combination occurs three times across the experiment, this NBIDE data set also allows for 

an assessment of how distinguishable (or indistinguishable) a given gun can be across the three 

firings. As with all experiments, the limitations of the NBIDE database are that 1) the 

conclusions are limited in scope to the three gun types utilized and the three ammo types and 2) 

the total number of firings (144) and analyzed casings (108) is still relatively small compared to 

the large sizes envisioned for a national ballistics database. 

 
38

6. Topography Data 

Topography images were obtained for firing pin impressions, breech face impressions, and 

ejector marks for 70 De Kinder casings and 108 NBIDE casings. Topography images will also 

be obtained for the IAI bullets in future studies. Examples of the data are discussed in the 

following sections. 

6.1 De Kinder Casings 

6.1.1 De Kinder Firing Pin Impressions 

Figure 4-3 shows four topography images of firing pin impressions from the De Kinder casings. 

All of them may be characterized as roughly spherical depressions with superimposed form 

deviations and roughness deviations. These images were selected to show the topographic 

differences that may be obtained among different guns of the same model using the same CCI 

brand ammunition. The image from SS 007 is smooth and has few striking form deviations. The 

image for SS 375 has a distinctive crater that the other images lack. The images from SS 009 

and SS 535 have somewhat similar winged patterns, but for SS 009 this pattern is imposed on a 

concave form whereas for SS 535 the pattern is imposed on a slightly convex form. 

Figure 6-1 shows a contrary case, significantly different images obtained from the same gun. All 

four of these images resulted from different ammunition fired by SS 139. The upper left image 

is rather smooth and spherical with very low form deviations. The upper right image clearly 

shows a crater, not seen in the upper left hand image. The lower left shows a pattern of uniaxial 

marks that in fact are associated with Wolf ammunition, not with marks from the gun itself. The 

lower right image is rather featureless except for the convex form deviation overall. These 

differences suggest that this gun, SS 139, would be difficult to identify from its firing pin 

impressions. 

6.1.2 De Kinder Breech Face Impressions 

The topography images of the breech face impressions were significantly larger in size and 

contained about eight times as many data points as those for the firing pin impressions. Two of 

these images are shown in Fig. 4-4. Both of these were obtained from casings fired by gun SS 

117. Here again, there seem to be significant differences between these two breech face 

impressions for both roughness striations and form. However, this is only an initial, qualitative 

impression. Quantitative tests of similarity are described below. 
39

CCI Winchester 

Wolf Rem 

Figure 6-1. Topography images of casing firing pin impressions on different ammunition from the same gun, SS 

139. 

6.1.3 De Kinder Ejector Marks

Significant differences are apparent in the images of ejector marks for the De Kinder casings. 

Two of these are shown in Fig. 4-5 for Sig Sauer guns SS 009 and SS 117. SS 009 produces an 

elongated pattern on the casing, whereas SS 117 produces a clearly triangular pattern. One of the 

complicating factors of the ejector mark images is the presence of the manufacturer’s headstamp 

lettering on the base of the casing, which obliterates sections of the ejector marks for many of the 

images. The hole on the left side of the upper image from SS 009 is part of the headstamp, 

which in this case does not overlap and obliterate the ejector mark. 

6.2 NBIDE Casings 

6.2.1 NBIDE Firing Pin Impressions 

The firing pin impressions on the NBIDE casings were measured with the confocal microscope 

having a 0.8 mm × 0.8 mm field of view, slightly different from the field of view used for the De 

Kinder casings, but the other measurement parameters (objective, vertical slice interval) were the 
40

same. The topography images are similar to those of the De Kinder casings. Two of these are 

shown in Fig. 6-2. 

BIDE RR002 BIDE RR003 

Figure 6-2. Topography images of two NBIDE firing pin impressions. The field of view is approximately 0.8 mm ×

0.8 mm. The vertical range of the central bowl is approximately 60 μm. 

In general the patterns in the center of these images have less structure than those of the De 

Kinder casings, perhaps because the pistols were new. There are more outliers on the outer areas 

of these impressions as well. We do not yet know the reason for this. One new type of feature is 

the coliseum type of circular structure, shown in the image on the left, which was not apparent 

for any of the De Kinder casings. Also, two of the NBIDE firing pin impressions clearly had 

holes in the bottom, a characteristic that was easily picked up in the topography images. 

6.2.2 NBIDE Breech Face Impressions 

The NBIDE casing breech face impressions were measured with the same microscope and the 

same parameters as the De Kinder casing breech face impressions. A number of differences 

between the individual casings can be discerned. The most remarkable is the large bump near 

the center of the impression on some of the casings, as shown on the left in Fig. 6-3. This 

characteristic was present on all of the casings fired by Rugers and on several casings fired by 

Smith&Wessons. 

6.2.3 NBIDE Ejector Marks 

The NBIDE casing ejector marks have similar characteristics to the De Kinder casing ejector 

marks. They vary significantly, primarily because of the unpredictable position of the 

manufacturers’ headstamps. For about half of the images, the ejector mark is partially 

obliterated by the presence of lettering from the headstamp. Beyond that, ejector marks seem 

fairly consistent and mostly fall into two categories, triangular marks and long rectangular 

marks. Two examples are shown in Fig. 6-4. The upper image shows a triangular ejector mark 

cleanly imprinted on the casing edge. The lower image shows a long rectangular mark cut in two 

places by the manufacturer’s headstamp. 
41

BIDE RR001 BIDE RR008

Figure 6-3. Topography images of two NBIDE breech face impressions, showing a large protrusion on the left 

image and a drag mark on the right image. The lateral field of view is approximately 4 mm × 4 mm; the vertical 

range is about 0.4 mm for the left image and about 0.2 mm for the right image. 

EJE RR005 

EJE RR020 

Figure 6-4. Topography images of ejector marks of two NBIDE casings used in the designed experiment of test 

fires. 
42

7. 2D Image Acquisitions and Results 

The measurements and correlations of the topography images were compared with acquisitions 

and correlations using I-2D. As stated earlier, I-2D consists of a DAS using optical microscopy; 

a database for storage, retrieval, and cataloguing of the images; and a SAS with correlation 

software to compare the acquired images and select potential matches. The I-2D was used here 

to acquire images of the De Kinder casings, NBIDE casings, and IAI bullets. The accuracy of 

the predicted matches from the I-2D method may then be compared with the N-3D method for 

these materials. The image acquisitions were performed by M. Ols and R. Simmers using the I2D at the ATF NLC. 

Typical I-2D optical microscope images are contained in Figs. 7-1 and 7-2. They emphasize the 

variation of reflectivity, shadows, and highlights over the surface, rather than the topography 

directly. Therefore, 2D images and 3D images could be used in a complementary way to 

enhance the information acquired from casings and bullets, and hence the accuracy of ballistics 

databases. Fusing the 3D and 2D images into a single image containing both methods of contrast 

is one approach to this. Such a data fusion approach to surface imaging has recently been 

implemented by FTI in a bullet imaging system [27]. Similar techniques for surface microscopy 

have also been developed elsewhere [39]. 

Figure 7-1. I-2D images of the primer section of a Wolf casing fired by Sig Sauer 215 in the De Kinder et al. study. 

Center−image of both the firing pin and breech face impressions; left−circles selected to demarcate the breech face 

impression; right−circle selected to demarcate the firing pin impression. 

I-2D images were acquired for all three sample sets, and correlations were performed using each 

entry in the set as a reference. Typical results of I-2D correlations are shown in Figs. 7-3 to 7-5. 

Figure 7-3 shows the I-2D correlation scores of a Remington casing, fired from Sig Sauer 117 in 

the De Kinder collection, compared with other casings in the collection. The Top Ten 

correlation rankings for both the breech face impression and the firing pin impression are shown. 

The ejector marks (EM) were not used in this correlation analysis. As shown in the top table in 

Fig. 7-3, the highest correlation score matching the breech face impression of the reference 

exhibit was 39, obtained for the other Remington casing fired by Sig Sauer 117. As shown in the 

lower table, the highest correlation score matching the firing pin impression of the reference 

exhibit was 78, obtained for the Speer casing fired by the Sig Sauer 117. Altogether, two 

casings, fired by the same gun (SS 117), out of a possible six casings, appear in the Top Ten list 
43

for breech face impressions, and four casings appear in the Top Ten list for firing pin 

impressions. 

Figure 7-2. Two I-2D acquisition images for LEA 2 of NIST standard bullet #001, measured at two different times 

by the same operator. 

A similar study was also performed for the NBIDE casings. Because of the double blind nature 

of the NBIDE experiment, the initial results are expressed in terms of RR numbers. An example 

of one of the sets of correlation results is shown in Fig. 7-4 

Simmers and Ols [40] also performed I-2D correlations for the IAI bullets. An example of their 

results is shown in Fig. 7-5. The correlation results for bullets are more complex than for casings 

because six different LEAs on the reference exhibit may be compared with six LEAs on each of 

the other bullet exhibits in the data set. Therefore each pair of bullets are compared six times as 

the LEAs on the reference bullet are clocked with respect to the LEAs on the compared bullet. 

Three types of correlation metrics are recorded, as shown in Fig 7-5. The “Max Phase” score is 

the sum of the scores for all six lands when the compared bullet is rotated into the most favorable 

orientation with respect to the reference bullet. The “Peak Phase” score is the result for the 
44

highest scoring pair of LEAs in that “Max Phase” orientation. The “Max LEA” is the highest 

scoring pair of LEAs (out of a possible 36 pairings) when the two bullets are rotated into any 

position. The three tables in Fig. 7-5 show the Top Ten correlation scores for each of those 

metrics. 

Figure 7-3. I-2D Top Ten correlation scores for a Remington casing fired from Sig Sauer (SS) 117. Two other 

casings fired from SS 117 appear on the Top Ten list for breech face impressions and four appear in the Top Ten list 

for firing pin impressions. Casing SS117-CCI is labeled here as SS317-CCI. 
45

Figure 7-4. I-2D correlation scores for NBIDE casing RR #001 showing the Top Ten correlation scores for the 

breech face impression and the firing pin impression. 
46

Figure 7-5. I-2D correlation scores for IAI bullet E11-11 as the reference, showing Top Ten rankings by three 

different metrics: Max Phase, Peak Phase, and Max LEA. 
47

8. Data Processing for Topography Measurements 

The topography images are compared in pairs in order to determine quantitatively how well one 

image matches another. A large number of these pair-wise correlations is required to 

characterize a modest size data set. For example, for the 70 De Kinder casings, 70 x 69 (= 4830) 

pair-wise matches are required to correlate all the casings with all the others in the set. 

In order to perform the correlations, the topography images undergo several processing steps. 

These steps are: 

• data trimming and decimation, 

• removal of dropout data points, 

• removal of outlier points, 

• filtering, and 

• registration and cross-correlation. 

These steps are discussed in Secs. 8.1-8.5 and are depicted in Fig. 8-1. Here we show the 

topographies in terms of top-down, color-coded images instead of the monochromatic isometric 

views shown before. Briefly, for each topography image, after thinning the data and identifying 

and interpolating the dropouts and outliers, a long-wavelength cutoff filter is used to remove the 

low-spatial frequency structures, including the curvature and waviness, and a short-wavelength 

cutoff filter is used to reduce instrument noise. Then a pair of images is registered and correlated 

iteratively to find the optimum overlap position between them and a quantitative metric of the 

similarity between the two images. 

In order to accomplish these calculations, two codes with slightly different algorithms and 

parameters were developed in parallel. One was developed at NIST and was used for calculating 

exploratory results and for developing the illustrative graphs shown in this section. The other 

code was developed at IAI and was refined from a code previously developed there. The most 

significant difference between these codes is that the code developed by IAI has the ability to 

identify and ignore dropout and outlier points during correlation as well as during the earlier 

processing steps. We call these codes the NIST code and the IAI code. The IAI code was used 

for generating the bulk of the results shown in Secs. 9 and 10. 

8.1 Data Trimming and Decimation 

Pair-wise cross-correlations of large numbers of large data sets can take a long time. For the 

breech-face impressions of the NBIDE data sets, the cross-correlation analysis running on three 

3 GHz PCs took approximately two days. In order to minimize this running time, a number of 

data points may be removed from the images to reduce the size of the data sets being analyzed. 

Two data removal approaches are used, trimming of unneeded areas and decimation (or thinning) 

of points in the areas that are used. These procedures are summarized below. 
48

Nanofocus Instrument

Reference Surface Compared Surface

Compare the overlapped area 

Data Trimming Data Trimming

and Decimation and Decimation

Registration

(Rotation and Translation)

Long Gaussian Filter Long Gaussian Filter

Interpolate Outliers Interpolate Outliers

Interpolate Dropouts Interpolate Dropouts

Identify and Identify and

Reference Raw Surface Compared Raw Surface

Identify and Identify and

Figure 8-1. Generic data flow of NIST and IAI topography comparison programs. 

8.1.1 Trimming 

When the breech face images are acquired, they contain extraneous information, which is not 

useful in the correlation process. Trimming is applied systematically to the breech face 

impression data to eliminate the extraneous areas. This includes any information captured 

outside the primer area, and inside the firing pin impression area. 

To trim these unnecessary data points in the breech face impression images, the image is loaded 

into a software trimming program. The user selects and adjusts a circle that inscribes the inner 

rim of the breech face image. Any data points inside this circle will be excluded (Fig. 8-2). The 

user then selects and adjusts a circle that circumscribes the outer rim of the breech face image. 
49

Any data points outside of this circle will also be excluded. Once the user has finished these 

operations, the program removes the unnecessary data points from the 3D topography and saves 

the data to a new electronic file. This file can then be used for later processing and correlations. 

Because the trimming is done manually, it is a subjective process, which relies on the user’s 

expertise to trim the edges of the data consistently. However, results shown in Sec. 8.6 indicate 

a high correlation between similar data sets trimmed by a skilled person. 

Figure 8-2. Breech face data before trimming (left) and after trimming (right). 

8.1.2 Decimation 

In order to decrease the computation requirements of the system, it is often useful to work with 

data sets of lateral resolution lower than that available in the raw data set. Decimating the 

amount of data to be used for comparison saves both storage and computational requirements. 

For this reason, the processing of the breech face impressions includes a decimation component 

wherein the number of data points in the breech face images is reduced significantly. The 

images are decimated from approximately 2600 × 2600 data points to approximately 650 × 650 

points. Data decimation is not a necessary step, but often a convenient one. Decimation was not 

performed on the firing pin impressions. 

8.2 Handling Dropouts and Outliers 

The purpose of the data pre-processing module is to “clean” the data from unreliable data points, 

which include dropouts (points that the sensor was not able to acquire) and outliers (points that 

the sensor managed to acquire, but which are inaccurate or noisy). For this reason, the data preprocessing module consists of a four step process: 1) identification of dropouts, 2) identification 

of outliers, 3) recording of both types of unreliable points, and 4) interpolation of the unreliable 

data points. These steps are described below. 

1) Identification of dropouts: Most 3D imaging systems provide the user with a “level of 

confidence” value associated with each data point taken (for optical systems, the level of 
50

confidence usually corresponds to the percentage of light reflected by the target). If the level 

of confidence is too low, the point is deemed “unreliable,” or in other words a dropout. 

2) Identification of outliers: As opposed to dropouts, “outliers” are data points inaccurately 

measured but not reported as inaccurate to the user by the acquisition hardware. For this 

reason, they are much more challenging to identify. We use two approaches to identify such 

outliers. The first approach is by estimating the local slope between a point and its 

neighbors. If the slope is above a certain threshold, the adjacent points will be identified as 

outliers. The second approach is by considering the statistical distribution of the data. If a 

particular point is excessively far from the local median in terms of standard deviations, it is 

identified as an outlier. 

3) Recording of unreliable points: Once all dropped and outlier points are identified, a “mask” 

is created to store this information for use during the comparison stages so that the unreliable 

points can be excluded from the comparison. In the current software implementation, the 

mask is an array of the same dimensions as the data, and its entries are “1’ for those points 

deemed to be reliable, and “0” for those points identified as dropouts or outliers. The left side 

of Fig. 8-3 shows an example of raw firing pin data, where the third dimension (z-axis) is 

color coded. The right side of Figure 8-3. shows the corresponding mask, where the points 

identified as dropouts or outliers have been colored blue, while the points deemed “reliable” 

have been colored red. 

Figure 8-3. Example of raw firing pin topography data (left) and masked data (right) after dropout and outlier 

identification. 

4) Interpolation: For display purposes and in order to accommodate the digital filtering 

performed at a subsequent stage, the values of dropouts and outliers are replaced by 

interpolated values based on the neighboring points. 

At this stage the IAI code allows for additional data trimming by implementing, at the user’s 

discretion, an algorithm that selects the most promising portion of the available data. This 

process takes place as follows. Having automatically identified the unreliable points (both 

dropouts and outliers), the system identifies a section of pre-defined dimensions within the 

acquired data that: a) shows the least number of unreliable points, and b) satisfies some desirable 
51

constraint, such as being closest to the center of the region of interest, or being to the left of the 

region of interest, etc. The region thus selected will be isolated and used for the remainder of the 

process. This step is taken as an aid to the user because often the boundaries of the region of 

interest include a relatively large number of unreliable points. 

8.3 Filtering 

The main purpose of the filtering module is to separate those features that are unique to the 

marking under consideration (individual characteristics) from those that are common to all 

markings of the same type (class characteristics). Consider, for example, the case of a batch of 

firing pins manufactured for a given gun model. As all these pins are meant to be used by the 

same gun model, they are manufactured to the same specifications. The overall geometric shape 

of these components is therefore very similar. On the other hand, as no two manufactured parts 

are ever identical, there are microscopic variations unique to each firing pin. It is these unique 

features that may be of use to identify those cartridge cases struck by the same firing pin. The 

challenge associated with the development of an effective automated firearm identification 

system is to separate class characteristics from individual characteristics, and to treat them in the 

appropriate manner. Filtering helps to isolate those individual characteristics. 

We should add that although an assessment of individuality can only be made by considering 

individual characteristics, class characteristics can also have significant value in forensic 

identification. For example, a pair of impressions, for which the class characteristics do not 

match, could not have been created by the same weapon. Therefore, class characteristics can be 

a powerful tool to exclude a match and hence can be taken as the first step of ballistics 

identification. Class characteristics were not considered in this study. 

In order to emphasize the individual characteristics of the casings, which are mostly represented 

by the roughness structures, the longest and shortest spatial wavelengths in the topography 

images are attenuated by applying high-pass and low-pass digital filters, respectively. The 

longest wavelengths are associated with waviness and shape deviations, which tend to dominate 

over roughness in topographic comparisons but which may not be as closely related to individual 

gun characteristics as roughness. The shortest spatial wavelengths are usually associated with 

system noise. 

In the NIST code, the filter algorithm is a close approximation of a Gaussian digital filter [30] 

developed for high speed computation [41]. The short wavelength cutoff is 2.5 μm and the long 

wavelength cutoff is 0.25 mm for all topography images, values that coincide with recommended 

values in standards [30]. In the IAI code, the filter is essentially a moving average series with a 

finite number of terms tapered by a Gaussian weighting function. The effective cutoff is limited 

either by the number of terms in the series or the sharpness of the taper. The net effect is that the 

short wavelength cutoff is about 4 μm and the long wavelength cutoff is about 40 μm for the 

firing pin impression data, and the short wavelength cutoff is about 37 μm and the long 

wavelength cutoff is about 150 μm for the breech face impression data. 
52

Figure 8-4. Example of a firing pin impression before (left) and after (right) applying filters with long wavelength 

cutoff λc = 40 μm and short wavelength cutoff λs = 4 μm. 

Figure 8-4 shows an example of a firing pin impression before (left) and after (right) the 

application of a high-pass Gaussian filter with long wavelength cutoff of 40 μm. A low-pass 

Gaussian filter with cutoff of 4 μm is also applied in order to produce a mild smoothing effect on 

the image. The image to the left has a non-distinct shape, which may be similar for many other 

firing pins manufactured for a weapon of the same model. This image is dominated by class 

characteristics. The firing pin in this example corresponds to a Sig Sauer P226 gun. The image 

to the right, on the other hand, captures unique features, which in this case did transfer between 

the firing pin and the primer of the cartridge under consideration. This image is dominated by 

individual characteristics. 

Figure 

8-5. Matching unique features found on two different firing pin impressions. Left−firing pin signature of a 

Remington cartridge case (No. 7) fired by the Sig Sauer 007 gun; right−firing pin signature of a Remington cartridge 

case (No. 3) fired by the same gun; middle−the two signatures aligned in their optimal correlation position and 

orientation. 
53

Figure 8-5 shows an example of the alignment of the individual markings (often referred to as a 

signature) of the firing pin impression shown in Fig. 8-4 with those of a firing pin impression on 

another cartridge casing fired by the same firearm. As can be seen, the degree of similarity in 

this case is quite high. 

8.4 Registration and Correlation 

To find the maximum correlation position, a registration program is used to compare two surface 

topographies while shifting along the x- and y-directions and rotating around the z-axis. For this 

process the two software codes use different procedures, which seem to function about equally 

well with the important exception that the IAI code is able to ignore dropout and outlier points, 

making it advantageous in the case of breech face impressions where the large area of the firing 

pin impression needs to be excluded from the comparison. For the comparison of firing pin 

impressions and breech face impressions, both codes use a correlation metric based on the areal 

autocorrelation and cross-correlation function. Details of the procedures are described below. 

8.4.1 Details of the NIST Code 

The NIST code uses an affine and rigid rotation and translation image registration method, as 

described by Bergen, et al [42]. The multi-scale registration scheme is described further by 

Heeger [43] and implemented by Heeger as a suite of MATLAB functions [44], which were 

integrated into our 3D-topography comparison software codes. 

The areal cross-correlation function, ACCF is given by 

(A) (B)

(A B, , ) (A B, ) Sq SqACCV , ACCF , , x y

x y

τ τ

τ τ = , (1) 

where ACCV represents the areal cross-covariance function: 

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = Z x y Z x+ y + dxdy L L

ACCV y

y

x

x y x

L

L

L

L x y

x y L L x y ∫ ∫/2

- /2

/2

- /2 A B , → ∞ ( , ) ( , ) 1 (A,B,τ ,τ ) lim τ τ , (2) 

where Z(x,y) is the measured topography, and τx and τy are the shift distances in the x- and ydirections, respectively. For a finite digitized profile, the analytical formula is approximated in 

the NIST code by its biased estimator [45]: 

( , ) ( , ) 1 (A,B, , ) ≈ ' '

-

1

B

-

1

∑ ∑ A

' '

Z j k Z j j k k

MN

ACCV

M k

k

N j

j

x y + +

= =

τ τ , (3) 

where x dx j

' τ = , y

'

y τ = k d , and dx and dy are the sampling intervals of the data points in the xand y-directions. The areal root-mean-square roughness Sq of topography A and B is given by 

[30] 
54

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

=

= =

1/2

1

2

1

1/2 / 2

- / 2

2 / 2

- / 2 ( , )] 1 ( , ) ] ≈ [ 1 [ ∫ ∫ ∑ ∑

N

j

M

k

L

L

L

L x y

Z j k

MN

Z x y dxdy L L Sq x

x

y

y

, (4) 

where Z(x,y) is sampled by a set of M points over the evaluation length Lx in the x direction and

N points over the evaluation length Ly in the y direction. 

From the cross-correlation function we calculate a parameter called ACCFmax, which is the 

maximum value of the cross correlation function when the two topographies are shifted to 

provide the best match. When two casing surface topographies are compared, one is taken as the 

reference topography A and the other is the compared topography B. In that case: 

• If the two topographies are exactly the same (A = B), their ACCF function achieves the 

maximum value (1.00 or 100 %) when the shift distance and rotation angle are zero. 

• If two compared topographies A and B have essentially the same pattern but small 

differences in the topography details, then A ≈ B. For example, when two casings are fired 

from the same gun, their topographies may have strong correlation. When these two 

topographies are shifted, their ACCF function will have a clear maximum value but not as 

large as 1.00, because there are some differences between the two topographies. 

• If two compared topographies A and B are not correlated, for example, when two casings are 

fired from different guns, then A ≠ B. Their ACCF function will have only random 

variations without a significant correlation peak. 

8.4.2 Details of the IAI Code 

The variety of approaches that can be followed to develop a similarity metric for firing pin 

impressions or breech face impressions (or impressed tool marks in general) is virtually 

unlimited. In making a selection, it is important to remember that the registration problem will 

in all likelihood become an optimization problem. From this perspective, practical 

considerations play an important role in the selection of the similarity metric. For example, the 

amount of data required to describe impressed tool marks is usually quite significant, so it is 

important to choose a similarity metric that lends itself to fast computation even for large 

amounts of data. As an example, it is advantageous to make use of frequency domain methods 

to speed up the computation of the similarity metric. In addition, it is advantageous to select a 

similarity metric amenable to multi-resolution computation. The benefit of this approach is that 

low-resolution versions of the data sets can be used to estimate the neighborhood of the solution 

to the optimization problem. This neighborhood can be more thoroughly evaluated using 

sequentially higher resolution versions of the data sets until an optimal solution is obtained. 

Both these approaches are used in the IAI code. 

In the current implementation of the IAI code, a 2D extension of the statistical correlation 

coefficient is used. However, as mentioned earlier, the code is designed to ignore both dropouts 

and outliers. Given a data set ZA, we create a mask MA defined as follows (see Section 8.2): 

⎩

⎨

⎧ = 0, if ( , ) is an outlier or dropout.

1, if ( , ) is not an outlier or dropout, ( , ) A i j

i j M i j (5) 
55

Further, we define ZA(i, j,θ) and MA(i, j, θ) as the rotated versions of ZA and MA respectively. 

Finally, we define the index set IA(θ) as follows: 

( ) {( , ) | ( , , ) 1} IA θ = i j MA i j θ = . (6) 

In other words, for a given rotation angle θ, IA(θ) corresponds to the set of all the points on the 

data set ZA(i, j,θ) that are considered valid (i.e. which are not dropouts nor outliers). We can 

now define the similarity metric: 

1/ 2

( , )

2

B

1/ 2

( , )

2

A

( , )

A B

A B

( ( , )) ( ( , , ))

( , ) ( , , )

(A,M ,B,M , , , ) 

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

− −

=

∑ ∑

∑

∈ ∈

∈

M M

M

i j I i j I

i j I

x y

x y

Z i j Z i j

Z i j Z i j

ACCF

θ

τ τ θ

τ τ θ , (7)

where ( ) I Mθ = I A ∩ I B θ . In other words, all summations are computed only for those points that 

are valid (i.e., excluding dropout or outlier points) for both ZA and ZB(θ). The ability to ignore 

unreliable points during correlation is crucial when comparing breech face impressions because 

of the large number of invalid points inside the firing pin impression and outside the primer 

boundary. Further, this function correlates only with respect to overlapping points. The set of 

overlapping points will vary due to the rotation of the data set ZB, even if no dropouts or outliers 

are present. 

It is important to mention that the similarity metric ACCF is implemented using frequency 

domain techniques in order to increase the speed of the calculation. 

The optimization of the right hand slide of Eqn. (7) with respect to τx, τy, and θ is performed in a 

sequential manner. The first step is to estimate the neighborhood of the optimal value of θ. 

Given a pair of data sets, we denote the optimal correlation value for a given relative orientation 

as: 

corr( ) max (A, ,B, , , , ) A B ( , )∈ x y i I i ACCF M M x yθ τ τ θ τ τ Δ= , (8) 

where the index set ΔI corresponds to the maximum lateral translations allowed, and is 

determined a priori in IAI’s implementation as a percentage of the dimensional sizes of the data. 

The estimate of the optimal τx and τy is computed using a frequency domain approach. 

As part of the first step of the optimization approach, low resolution versions of ZA and ZB are 

used to solve Eqn. (8) at a discrete number of relative orientations defined by the set 

= {−180°,−175°,...,175°} θ I . The results of this evaluation are used to identify a neighborhood 

of the optimal θ. 
56

Once the neighborhood of optimal θ has been identified, the process is repeated within this 

neighborhood using full resolution versions of ZA and ZB. The peak correlation value, to be 

denoted as ACCFmax, is defined as: 

max ∀ 2 max(corr( )), θ θ θ ACCF I = i i = , (9) 

where the set θ 2 I corresponds to a set of angles within the neighborhood identified in the first 

step, and their resolution is 1 degree. 

We now discuss an example of the registration process used to find the best matching relative 

position between a pair of images. Figure 8-6 shows the topographies obtained by applying the 

pre-processing and filtering algorithms to a pair of breech face impressions found on two 

different cartridge cases fired by the same firearm. The striated marks seen on these breech face 

impressions seem to be unique to the gun that fired these cartridge cases. 

The results of comparing these breech face signatures can be seen in Fig. 8-7. The top image in 

Fig. 8-6 and the left image in Fig. 8-7 show the breech face for casing #3 fired by Sig Sauer #30 

in the original De Kinder collection. The bottom image in Fig. 8-6 and the right image in Fig. 8-

7 show the breech face for casing #7 fired by the same gun. The middle image in Fig. 8-7 is a 

“split screen” image derived from the other two. The right side of this image is the right half of 

the optimally aligned (rotated and translated) breech face signature of cartridge #7. The two 

halves match very well, which indicates a high degree of similarity between the two images. 

Figure 8-8 shows the corresponding plot of ) corr(θ i . As seen in this image, the ) corr(θi plot 

peaks at a relative orientation close to zero degrees, achieving a correlation value ACCFmax of 

0.65. 
57

Figure 8-6. Topography images of breech face impressions of two Remington casings fired by the same Sig Sauer 

#30 gun, one of the original guns studied by De Kinder et al.[7]. The scales represents the pixel positions in the 

images. The actual diameter is approximately 4 mm. 

Figure 8-7. Results of alignment and similarity computation for the pair of matching breech face impressions shown 

in Fig. 8-6. Left−casing 3, right−casing 7, middle−a split screen image comparing the two images. Note: these 

images have been rotated by about 90° from those of Fig. 8-6. 
58

Angle Shift – θ (degrees)

corr (θ) 

Angle Shift – θi (degrees) 

corr (θi ) 

Figure 8-8. corr (θi) vs. alignment angle shift θi for a pair of topography images, showing a clear peak near 0°. 

8.5 Consideration of Additional Metrics 

In order to improve the ability of the code to produce accurate matches of casings fired by the 

same gun, we consider other metrics besides ACCFmax for assessing similarity. These are 

described briefly below. 

8.5.1 Relative Distance 

The correlation value of 0.65, shown in Fig. 8-8, seems to be rather significant because it is 

“much higher” than the correlation values for all other rotation angles. In order to quantify the 

degree of significance of this peak, we introduce an additional metric, developed at IAI, which 

we refer to as the “relative distance.” We define the relative distance as follows: 

θ θ θ

θ I ACCF ACCF i

i

i = ,∀ = std dev(corr( ))

- median(corr( )) relDist( ) max

max . (10) 

Having computed the correlation between a pair of cartridge case breech face signatures for all 

relative orientations of interest, we define the relative distance as the difference (relative to one 

standard deviation) between the maximum correlation value and the median correlation value for 

all relative orientation angles under considerations. Shown in Fig. 8-9 is a histogram of the 

correlation values plotted in Fig. 8-8. From these data, the relative distance is computed to be 

6.09, a very high value indicating that the peak correlation value is significantly greater than the 

median of correlation values obtained for all other rotational angles under consideration. 
59

Histogram 

 Density 

corr (θi)

relative distance: 6.09

Histogram 

 Density 

corr (θi

)

relative distance: 6.09

Figure 8-9. Histogram of cross-correlation values for the data shown in Fig. 8-8. 

The relative distance can be interpreted in a number of ways. One interpretation is that the 

relative distance provides a metric of how “out of the ordinary,” or significant, a particular 

relative orientation is with respect to a representative sample of random orientations. Another 

interpretation is that the median of the correlation values obtained for all rotational angles 

provides us a “baseline” of the correlation values, which would be achieved by pairs of nonmatching breech face signatures. In other words, if we assume that the median of the correlation 

value for a representative sample of relative orientations is approximately the same for pairs of 

matching and non-matching cartridge cases (which will be true if the optimal peak for matching 

pairs is sufficiently narrow), then the relative distance provides a metric of the probability of 

obtaining the particular maximum correlation value given that the pair under consideration is a 

non-matching pair. Viewed from this perspective, a relative distance of 6.09 is a very 

convincing indication of a matching pair. 

Figure 8-10 shows a graphical representation of results obtained from a comparison of matching 

and non-matching signatures of breech face impressions. The peak correlation and relative 

distance results from the comparison of each pair of such signatures is indicated by either a blue 

square (for non-matching pairs) or a red rhomboid (for matching pairs). The horizontal axis of 

Fig. 8-10 corresponds to ACCFmax while the vertical axis corresponds to relDist. As expected, 

the majority of matching breech impression pairs achieve both high maximum correlation and 

high relative distance values, while the non-matching pairs only achieve relatively low values. 

Nevertheless, there are a few matching pairs that fail to achieve high values and a few nonmatching pairs that achieve relatively high values. These pairs might become false negative 

identifications and false positive identifications respectively. 

 
60

ACCFmax

relative distance

Figure 8-10. Graphical representation of correlation (ACCFmax ) and relative distance results for the comparison of 

matching (red) and non-matching (blue) pairs of breech face signatures of Remington casings fired from guns 007, 

009, 213, 375, 430, and 535 in the De Kinder collection. 

The graphical representation shown in Fig. 8-10 lends itself to the definition of non-overlapping 

regions of the 2D space corresponding to matching, non-matching, and possibly “undetermined” 

pairs of signatures. One can construct an overall “score” metric based on a linear combination of 

the maximum correlation and the relative distance, which effectively projects the two 

dimensional results into a single dimension. The linear transformations used for this study 

(based on empirical observations) were: 

* relDist *( - corr) s = Gd + Gc ACCFmax Δ , (11) 

with the empirical constants Gd = 0.77 , Gc = 6.4 and Δcorr = 0.1 for firing pin impressions, 

and Gd = 0.89 , Gc = 4.5 and Δcorr = 0.1 for breech face impressions. The constant Δcorr is the 

x-intercept in Fig. 8-10. We have used the relative distance and the combined parameter s shown 

in Eqn. 11 above for one of the correlation calculations shown later in Sec. 8.

8.5.2 Parameters Related to rms Roughness 

Although the ACCFmax can be used for signature comparison, we observed during previous 2D 

bullet signature measurements [17] that ACCFmax does not characterize the uniqueness of a 

topography image. Based on the definition of the cross-correlation function, if two compared 

signatures have the same shape but different vertical scales, their ACCFmax is still 100 %. We 

have, therefore, developed a parameter called the signature difference, Ds, which is highly 
61

correlated with ACCFmax but which directly quantifies bullet signature differences [26]. For 3D 

topography comparisons, the 3D version of the parameter Ds is calculated in the following way: 

• At the registration position where the ACCFmax value between topography B and A occurs, 

after shifting along the x- and y-directions and rotating around the z-axis, construct a new 

topography ZB – A (x), which is equal to the difference of the compared topography ZB and the 

reference topography ZA. 

• Calculate the areal rms roughness for the new topography ZB – A (X), Sq(B - A). 

• Calculate the topography difference Ds between topography B and A defined as the ratio 

Ds (3D) = Sq2 (B – A) / Sq2 (A). (12) 

A similar parameter to Ds is the difference in mean square roughness between the two surfaces 

being compared. This metric is given by Sq2

(B) – Sq2(A). Both metrics are directly related to 

scale differences in roughness between two surfaces that might have otherwise similar shapes. 

We have calculated these parameters in some of the studies undertaken here but have not yet 

performed a systematic appraisal of their usefulness as metrics for correlating two surfaces, 

which would effectively supplement information provided by the cross-correlation maximum. 

8.6 Uncertainty Arising from Topography Measurements 

As suggested by the NA Committee, uncertainty in the ACCFmax results was estimated by 

repeating topography measurements on two of the casings over four days. The correlations 

between topography images of the same surfaces and the variations in those correlations enable 

us to estimate uncertainty in the correlation results due to variation in the topography 

measurements. The two casings were the Remington casings #3 and #7, both fired by the Sig 

Sauer 535 gun in the De Kinder collection. 

The results for ACCFmax correlation values for pairs of these casings are shown in Fig. 8-11 for 

breech face impressions and Fig. 8-12 for firing pin impressions. The ACCFmax values are 

shown plotted along the x-axis, and the relative distance values are plotted along the y-axis. The 

results of Fig. 8-11 clearly separate themselves into three groupings: correlations among the 

breech-face-impression images of Remington casing #3, correlations among the breech-faceimpression images of Remington casing #7, and correlations between the images of #3 and #7. 

The results also include the images from these two casings taken when they were first measured 

as two of the casings in the set of 70 casings. The grouping of diamonds in Fig. 8-11, for 

example, includes the pair-wise correlations between the four topography images of the 

Remington #3 breech face impression measured over the four days and the original image 

measured about half a year earlier. Altogether there were 20 correlation values calculated over 

all of the pair-wise comparisons for the five images. Likewise the grouping of squares comprises 

the 20 pair-wise correlations for images of the Remington #7 casing fired by the Sig Sauer 535. 

The triangles comprise the intercomparisons of the #3 casing images discussed above with the #7 

casing images. There are 50 of these. For all groupings, each pair-wise comparison is included 

twice, with the reference and compared casings switching places. 
62

Breech Face Reproducibility

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

ACCFmax

relative distance

Correlations among

Rem#3 images

Correlations among

Rem#7 images

Correlations between

3s and 7s

Figure 8-11. Reproducibility of topography measurements of Remington #3 and #7 breech face impressions as 

given by the ACCFmax and the relative distance parameters. 

Firing Pin Reproducibility

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

ACCFmax

relative distance

Correlations among

Rem#3 images

Correlations among

Rem#7 images

Correlations

between 3s & 7s

Figure 8-12. Reproducibility of topography measurements of Remington #3 and #7 firing pin impressions as given 

by the ACCFmax and the relative distance parameters. 
63

Reproducibility of the firing pin impressions is shown in Fig. 8-12. There are a smaller number 

of data points here because the original data for the firing pin impressions were measured on a 

different model of the confocal microscope with the camera having a different pixel spacing 

along the y-axis. Therefore we did not include those two images in this comparison. The 

clusters of diamonds and squares represent twelve correlations among four images each and the 

cluster of triangles represent 32 correlations between the two sets of four images. 

We now discuss estimated uncertainties in the ACCFmax values arising from sources of error in 

the topographic measurements. We expect that uncertainties in the relative distance parameter 

are based on similar considerations but do not discuss those here. The mean ACCFmax values for 

these groupings and their standard deviations are shown in Table 8-1: 

Table 8-1. Average correlation values and standard deviations for topography measurements of De Kinder 

Remington casings fired from Sig Sauer 535.

 Breech Face Impressions Firing Pin Impressions 

Components Being Compared ACCFmax ± 1 std. dev. ACCFmax ± 1 std. dev. 

Rem #3, Sig Sauer 535 0.920 ± 0.018 0.944 ± 0.010 

Rem #7, Sig Sauer 535 0.947 ± 0.013 0.954 ± 0.011 

Rem #7 vs.Rem#3 0.349 ± 0.030 0.647 ± 0.010 

The results clearly indicate a high similarity between different topography measurements of the 

same casing but significant differences between measurements of the two different casings, even 

though those casings were fired by the same gun. The correlation values of 0.920, 0.944, 0.947, 

and 0.954 are both high and consistent with one another and have small standard deviations. 

However, they are slightly less than unity. This suggests that there are variations between 

topography images of the same object giving rise to an attenuation of the ACCFmax value by 5 % 

to 8%. This variation arises from variation in the measured surface topography along all three 

coordinate axes, x or y or z. The fact that the standard deviations are so low suggests that the 

variation between images is consistent and random, probably with high spatial frequency 

components. By contrast the low scores, averaging 0.349 when comparing the two breech faces 

and 0.647 for the two firing pins, indicate large differences between the #3 and #7 surfaces, even 

though the casings were fired by the same gun. 

We, therefore, conclude that the correlation value is biased below unity by about 5 % to 8 % by 

measurement-related differences and noise in the topography images, but the statistical 

uncertainty of this bias is only about 1.8 % (standard uncertainty). This source of uncertainty is 

much smaller than the changes in ACCFmax due to the topography of the surface, which are the 

principal sources of the differences we aim to observe. 

8.6.1 Uncertainty Budget for Breech Face Impressions 

For the breech face impressions, the trimming process leads to a second source of variation and 

bias. Figure 8-13 shows the topography of the breech face impressions of Remington casings #3 

and #7 from Sig Sauer #007. It reveals a prominent ridge around the firing pin impression. If 

such inner ridges are trimmed out of the breech face impressions to be matched, then the average 

correlation value is 0.349 for gun #535 as shown in Table 8-1. If, however, the inner ridges are 

included in the breech face impressions, the correlation score is more influenced by the 

prominent ridge, and the average score for the topography comparisons of the #3 casing with the 
64

#7 casing increases by about 0.06 to 0.402 with a variation that is several times larger than the 

0.01 levels we record in Table 8-1 above. 

Figure 8-13. Topography images of the breech face impressions of Remington casings #3 and #7 fired in the Sig 

Sauer gun 007 showing the raised section around the inner radius. 

As a result, one might include another factor of 0.06 as an added component of uncertainty for 

ACCFmax. However, including the inner ridge or other form deviations in the breech face 

topography is not regarded as good practice because this form component obscures the real 

individual characteristics of the surfaces present in the fine roughness structure. A good areaselection procedure should not include the ridge. The trimming procedure leading to Fig. 8-11 

and the entries for breech face impressions in Table 8-1 correctly excluded the ridge from the 

topography images that were correlated. The average difference of 0.06 is therefore regarded as 

an upper limit of the variation in ACCFmax that may arise from variation in the selection of areas 

to correlate for the breech face impression. This is a limitation of current algorithms. Further 

development could lead to automated algorithms for area selection that are more accurate. 

Because the ACCFmax cross-correlation parameter depends on relative differences between 

images, we believe that there are very few other significant sources of uncertainty arising from 

the measurement process, as long as a systematic protocol for measurement and the areas to be 

measured have been determined. If instrument-related errors occur in one of the images being 

compared, those errors produce a change in the ACCFmax value. These types of changes should 

be captured by the Type A [46,47] statistical uncertainty discussed above. 

The uncertainty budget for ACCFmax, for the breech face impressions therefore contains two 

components. The first (u1) is the statistical type A uncertainty arising from instrument variations. 

We estimate this to be 0.018 (k = 1) by using the largest of the standard deviations shown in 

Table 8-1. The second source of uncertainty (u2) arises from selection and variation of the 

measured areas. Using the value of 0.06 discussed above as an outer limit of error and assigning 

a uniform probability distribution to the error, we derive a Type B uncertainty [46,47] for u2

equal to 0.034 (k = 1). Combining these two components quadratically, we arrive at a combined 
65

standard uncertainty uc (k = 1) for ACCFmax equal to 0.038. In addition, we expect the ACCFmax

value to be consistently biased low by 0.065. The biases of 0.05 to 0.08 recorded in connection 

with Table 8-1 are consistent with that estimate and with the Type A uncertainty component 

discussed above. 

8.6.2 Uncertainty Sources for Firing Pin Impressions 

The data in Fig. 8-12 suggest that the uncertainties for firing pin impressions are smaller than the 

uncertainties for breech face impressions. However, correlation of the firing pin impressions is 

more susceptible to two sources of uncertainty, relocation error of the measured area and 

dropouts and outliers, than correlation of the breech face impressions. The measured area of the 

firing pin impressions is 800 μm × 800 μm, several times smaller than the 4 mm × 4 mm area of 

the breech face impressions. Modest changes in the measurement location between two 

matching images can produce relatively large offsets between the compared areas, thus reducing 

the overlap of matching features and leading to a decrease of the ACCFmax value. Relocation 

error is especially likely when the firing pin impression is wide and flat, as seems to be the case 

for the Rem image in Fig. 6-1. In addition, because a large part of the field of view of the firing 

pin impression is on steeply sloped walls of the impression, outliers are more difficult to 

distinguish and eliminate while preserving the good data. Due to these effects, the uncertainty for 

calculating the ACCFmax metric for firing pin impressions may be larger than the uncertainty for 

breech face impressions. In future work, we intend to estimate these effects by comparing 

matched pairs of images independently measured on each of the 70 De Kinder firing pin 

impressions. 

8.7 Some Cross-Correlation Results 

We now examine several cases for pair-wise correlation of the De Kinder firing pin impressions.

First, the same gun with different ammos can produce similar firing pin impression topographies 

producing a high ACCFmax value. Figure 8-14 shows an example of a pair of casings fired from 

the same gun, Sig Sauer 007. The reference topography is obtained from a Remington casing 

and the compared topography from a Speer casing. The ACCFmax value is about 95 %. The Sq

values of the two topographies are quite similar, 1.43 μm and 1.47 μm. The topography 

difference Ds is 6.9 %. 

The same gun with different ammos can also produce firing pin impressions with different forms 

yielding a low ACCFmax value. Figure 8-15 shows an example from the Sig Sauer 139 gun. The 

reference topography was obtained from a CCI casing and the compared topography from a 

Federal casing. The ACCFmax is about 46 %. Their Sq values are quite different, 0.46 μm and 

0.86 μm, respectively. The topography difference Ds is large, about 222 %. 

By contrast, different guns with different ammos can produce firing pin impressions with similar 

topographies leading to a high ACCF max value. Figure 8-16 shows the topographies of the firing 

pin impressions from gun 314 with CCI ammo and gun 215 with Winchester ammo. The 

ACCFmax value is about 82 %. However, their Sq values are 1.31 μm and 2.55 μm, respectively, 

and the topography difference Ds is about 164 %. From this observation, it is clear that a high 
66

ACCFmax value does not necessarily confirm a match. The Ds parameter provides supplementary 

information that can improve the accuracy of proposed matches. 

Figure 8-14. Comparison of the topography images of the firing pin impressions from a Remington casing 

(reference surface) and a Speer casing (compared surface) fired by the same Sig Sauer 007 gun. The value of 

ACCFmax is approximately 95 %. All axes have units of μm. 
67

Figure 8-15. Comparison of the topography images of the firing pin impressions from a CCI casing (reference) and 

a Federal casing (compared) fired by the same Sig Sauer 139 gun. The value of ACCFmax is approximately 46 %, 

indicating that the same gun with different ammos can also produce firing pin impressions with different forms. All 

axes have units of μm. 

Figure 8-16. Topography images of firing pin impressions from Sig Sauer 314 gun with CCI ammo and Sig Sauer 

215 gun with Winchester ammo. 
68

9. Statistical Analysis: General 

9.1 Introduction 

This section analyzes the available data using several methods in order to answer the following 

questions: 

1. Are the firing pin and breech face impressions left by individual guns on casings distinct and 

repeatable enough to distinguish them from those of other guns? 

2. How does a 3D topography technology, such as N-3D, perform relative to an I-2D system? 

3. What factors (e.g. gun manufacturer, ammunition type, etc.) affect the performance of the 

systems? 

4. Which are more helpful−firing pin or breech face data? Does the answer depend on the 

imaging system or the set of casings used? 

The section begins with a descriptive recap of the experimental data obtained in this study. 

Then, using these data sets as test databases, the N-3D and I-2D imaging systems are tested using 

Top Ten searches of the type routinely output by the I-2D system. These tests give a clear 

picture of the performances of the systems over the various data sets. 

Later sub-sections analyze the full round-robin correlation data obtained by the N-3D system. A 

probabilistic overlap metric p is introduced as a useful heuristic for comparing the empirical 

distributions of correlation scores. This metric is later used as an input for probability models 

that project how a system performs for very large databases. 

9.2 Recap of Casings Databases 

This study investigated two sets of casing data: "De Kinder" and "NBIDE". The De Kinder data 

are "historical," with the casings produced by De Kinder et al. [7] several years ago. NIST 

created the NBIDE database in 2005 as a part of this ballistics study. 

9.2.1 De Kinder 

What is referred to as the De Kinder casing set is actually a subset of a much larger experiment 

discussed in the paper by De Kinder et al. [7]. The casings described here involved 10 guns all 

of the same model (Sig Sauer 9 mm Model P226) and 7 ammunitions (cartridge types) of which 

two are repeats of the same brand (Remington): 

1. CCI 

2. Winchester 

3. Remington (Rem) 

4. Speer 

5. Wolf 

6. Federal 

7. Rem (a repeat) 
69

A total of 10 × 7 = 70 test firings were used. The corresponding 70 casings were originally 

studied via the I-2D imaging method, and a report on the findings appears in Ref. 7. As part of 

the NIST study, these 70 De Kinder casings were also imaged for topography (3D) and analyzed 

via the N-3D method. 

9.2.2 NBIDE 

A central component in the NIST study was to determine the effect of gun type (manufacturer) 

on gun identifiability. As noted above, the De Kinder study was limited to a single gun type (Sig 

Sauer 9 mm). To go beyond this, a statistically designed experiment was developed as part of 

the NBIDE. The specifications for this experiment were as follows: 

1. Number of gun types: 3 – Smith&Wesson, Ruger, Sig Sauer P226 

2. Number of guns (total): 12 

3. Number of ammo types: 4 – Remington, Winchester, PMC, Speer (extra) 

4. Number of days: 3 – 48 firings per day 

5. Total number of test firings: 144 = 12 guns × 4 ammos × 3 days 

6. Total number of casings subsequently analyzed: 108 – only 3 ammos 

The experiment was designed and conducted in accordance with rigorous statistical design 

principles and techniques. Within a given day, there were four sets of 12 gun firings. Across the 

three days, there were a total of 12 sets of 12 gun firings. In a latin square [48] fashion, for each 

time position (1 to 12) within a set, each gun was fired once and only once across the 12 sets. 

Each set of 12 firings used the same ammo. All four ammo types were used every day. The 

ordering of the ammos for the four sets within a day was balanced in an incomplete latin square 

fashion. Finally, after the 144 fired casings were collected and annotated, the casings were rerandomized for the first part of the analysis so as to assure that the analysis was done in a double 

blind fashion [21]. 

The advantage of the resulting NBIDE database is that it allows one to ascertain the existence 

and magnitude of gun type and ammo type on gun distinguishability. Because a given gunammo combination occurs three times across the experiment, this NBIDE database also allows 

for the assessment of how distinguishable or indistinguishable a given gun can be across the 

three firings. The limitation of the NBIDE database is that the conclusions are, strictly speaking, 

limited in scope to the three gun types utilized and the three ammo types. Also, the total number 

of firings (144) and analyzed casings (108) is still relatively small compared to the large sizes 

envisioned for a national ballistics database. 

9.3 System Performance Analysis 

When we compare a single reference casing to an existing database of casings, how do we 

determine if the comparison was a "success"? What is the criterion for "success"? In practice, 

an imaging/analysis system will yield a short (e.g., ten item) list of best-matching casings, which 

will then be subject to further examination by a human forensics expert. Thus for this single 

trial, the performance of an imaging/analysis system might be declared a "success" if the correct 

database casing, if existent, appears in the short list produced by the imaging/analysis system, 
70

since frequently that list is what the human expert will limit his/her search to. The system will 

have "failed" if a matching database casing exists and the "TopTen" list does not include that 

casing. 

The analysis of the performance of a system will thus be centered on the questions: Was it a 

"success" (for a given reference casing trial)? What percentage of the time was it a success (for a 

set of reference casings)? 

For the two data sets at hand (De Kinder with 70 test firings and NBIDE with 108 test firings), 

we have many opportunities to achieve success. For the I-2D system, a Top Ten list is produced 

automatically via proprietary software. In the present study, we used the topography data, 

described in earlier sections, estimated the similarity of pairs of casings based on the crosscorrelation function maximum (ACCFmax) described in Section 8, and formed Top Ten lists from 

the relative rankings. 

We can use the 70 De Kinder test firings as an opportunity for 70 reference-casing trials. For 

each such reference casing, we use the remaining 69 test casings as our "database". Thus the 

casing from the first test firing was compared against 70 - 1 = 69 other casings from the 

remaining test firings. Out of those 69 casings, six came from the same gun as the reference 

firing, and 63 (= 9 guns × 7 ammos) came from other guns. Thus in an ideal world we would 

expect the system's Top Ten list to contain all six of those remaining casings. A less stringent 

criterion would expect five out of the six casings to appear in the Top Ten list, and so forth. A 

very weak criterion would expect at least one out of the six casings in the Top Ten list. A 

complete failure would yield none out of the six casings in the Top Ten list. Thus for a fixed 

inclusion criterion (6, 5, ..., 1), the imaging/analysis system will be judged as a "success" or a 

"failure". 

In a similar fashion, we choose the casing from the second test firing and compare it to the 69 

casings from the remaining firings. Again, for a fixed inclusion criterion, the imaging/analysis 

systems may be declared a success or a failure. 

Repeating the process for all 70 casings yields a sequence of 70 successes or failures. The 

proportion of those 70 cases that were a success defines the performance of the imaging/analysis 

system for this particular casing database and a fixed inclusion (6,5,...,1) criterion. 

For the NBIDE database, we have 12 guns, three ammos, and three days (repeats), and so the 

same sort of process would yield a comparison of the casing from the first test firing against the 

108 - 1 = 107 casings from the remaining firings. Of those 107 casings, 8 (= 3 ammos × 3 days -

1) come from the same gun as the first test firing, and 99 (= 11 guns × 3 ammos × 3 days) come 

from different guns. Again in an ideal world, an excellent-performing imaging/analysis system 

would have all eight of those same-gun casings in the Top Ten list, a good performing system 

might have seven out of the eight in the Top Ten, and so forth, down to a weak performing 

system having only one out of the eight, and a poor-performing system having none out of the 

eight. Thus for a given reference casing and a fixed inclusion criterion (8, 7, ..., 1), the system 

may be judged as "successful" or "failing". Repeating the process for all 108 test-fire reference 
71

casings will yield the percentage of the time the imaging/analysis system performed well; this 

will be our performance metric. 

9.3.1 De Kinder Top Ten System Performance Analysis 

In light of the above, the following listing shows the performance metric for the I-2D and N-3D 

imaging/analysis systems for the 

Database = De Kinder (70 casings: 10 guns × 7 ammos) 

Region = Firing pin impressions only 

Total number of items in the system output list = 10 (i.e., Top Ten) 

"Success" criterion: at least 1 of the 7-1 = 6 casings appears in the Top Ten 

 (a very weak criterion) 

 i ≥ 1 

 I2 N3 

 FP (%): 94 74 

where I-2D is shortened to I2 here and N-3D is shortened to N3 and the casing region is 

designated by “FP” for firing pin. 

This listing says that for the firing pin region of the De Kinder data, 94 % (= 66) of the 70 I-2D 

Top Ten lists were "successful”−containing one or more of the remaining six correct casings. It 

further says that 74 % (= 52) of the 70 N-3D "Top Ten" lists were "successful"—containing one 

or more of the remaining six correct casings. Thus for this particular case and (very weak) 

criterion, the I-2D system performed better. 

The expanded listing, which contains stronger criteria, is as follows: 

 i ≥ 1 i ≥ 2 i ≥ 3 i ≥ 4 i ≥ 5 i ≥ 6 

 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 

 FP (%): 94 74 83 63 66 57 39 51 17 47 7 33 

This listing shows that for the firing pin region of the De Kinder data, and for both 

imaging/analysis methods, as the inclusion criterion becomes more stringent, the success 

proportion decreases. For example, only 7 % (= 5) of the 70 I-2D Top Ten lists were fully 

"successful"—containing all six of the remaining six correct casings, and only 33 % (= 23) of the 

70 N-3D Top Ten lists were "successful"—containing all six of the remaining six correct 

casings. Thus for this particular case and very strong criterion, the two imaging/analysis systems 

performed poorly, but with N-3D performing better than I-2D. Note that for the less stringent 

criteria, I-2D performs better than N-3D, but as the stringency increases, N-3D performs 

increasingly better relative to I-2D. The reason may be because N-3D performed very well on 

some guns and very poorly on others, while the I-2D performance tended to be between those 

two extremes. 
72

 

The above analysis was for the firing pin region only. A similar analysis could be done for the 

breech face (BF) region only. Doing so yields the following augmented listing: 

De Kinder/ Top Ten 

i ≥ 1 i ≥ 2 i ≥ 3 i ≥ 4 i ≥ 5 i ≥ 6 

 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 

FP (%): 94 74 83 63 66 57 39 51 17 47 7 33 

BF (%): 67 90 30 74 4 57 0 37 0 19 0 6 

This listing shows that for the breech face region of the De Kinder data, as the inclusion criterion 

becomes more stringent, the success proportion decreases for I-2D from 67 % to 0 % and for N3D from 90 % to 6 %. For the most stringent criterion requiring all six of the six matching 

casings to be in the Top Ten list, none of the 70 I-2D Top Ten lists were "successful", and only 

6 % (= 4) of the 70 N-3D Top Ten lists were "successful." Thus for this particular case and very 

strong criterion, the I-2D system failed and the N-3D system performed only slightly better. 

General De Kinder/Top Ten findings (valid across both Firing Pin and Breech Face) that may be 

drawn from the above listing are as follows: 

1. Success proportions for both I-2D and N-3D decrease as stringency increases, a 

mathematical necessity. 

2. The most drastic decrease is I-2D/Breech Face. 

3. The least drastic decrease is N-3D/Firing Pin. 

4. I-2D does not do well for Breech Face. 

5. For Firing Pin, I-2D performs better than N-3D in the three least stringent cases, but N3D performs better than I-2D in the three most stringent cases. 

6. For Breech Face, N-3D performs better than I-2D in all 6 out of 6 cases. 

7. For I-2D, Firing Pin is a better discriminator than Breech Face. For N-3D, Firing Pin is a 

better discriminator for the most stringent cases, but not for the least stringent cases. 

9.3.2 De Kinder: Table of Top Ten Results 

As a reference, the following table of Top Ten testing results gives some more information on 

how the systems performed with respect to the area imaged and the technology used. 
73

Table 9-1. Comparison of the numbers of correct matches (out of the ten highest scoring matches) for the I-2D 

correlation metric and the N-3D ACCFmax metric applied to firing pin and breech face impressions for 10 De Kinder 

guns . Rem sep denotes the second Remington casing filed separately. 

Number of Correct Matches (Maximum 6) 

 Firing Pin Breech Face 

Ref. Casing Ammo I-2D N-3D I-2D N-3D 

Means 3.06 3.26 1.01 2.83 

 

007-01 CCI 4 4 0 2 

007-02 WIN 5 6 0 1 

007-03 Rem 6 6 2 2 

007-04 SPEER 6 6 1 0 

007-05 WOLF 6 5 1 1 

007-06 FC 6 5 2 1 

007-07 Rem sep 6 6 1 4 

 

009-01 CCI 3 5 0 2 

009-02 WIN 0 1 0 0 

009-03 Rem 2 5 0 4 

009-04 SPEER 4 5 1 0 

009-05 WOLF 4 5 0 1 

009-06 FC 4 5 1 3 

009-07 Rem sep 4 5 2 3 

 

117-01 CCI 3 1 1 5 

117-02 WIN 0 3 0 1 

117-03 Rem 4 2 2 5 

117-04 SPEER 5 4 1 3 

117-05 WOLF 5 4 1 4 

117-06 FC 5 3 0 4 

117-07 Rem sep 3 0 1 6 

 

139-01 CCI 3 1 0 4 

139-02 WIN 3 0 1 1 

139-03 Rem 4 0 2 3 

139-04 SPEER 3 0 2 3 

139-05 WOLF 2 0 0 2 

139-06 FC 1 0 1 5 

139-07 Rem sep 3 0 3 5 

 

213-01 CCI 1 0 2 4 

213-02 WIN 4 0 0 0 

213-03 Rem 4 1 2 5 

213-04 SPEER 3 0 0 3 

213-05 WOLF 3 0 1 3 
74

213-06 FC 1 0 0 1 

213-07 Rem sep 0 0 2 5 

 

215-01 CCI 1 3 1 6 

215-02 WIN 2 0 0 4 

215-03 Rem 3 0 1 6 

215-04 SPEER 1 3 0 4 

215-05 WOLF 1 1 2 3 

215-06 FC 2 2 0 3 

215-07 Rem sep 2 1 1 5 

 

314-01 CCI 4 1 2 4 

314-02 WIN 2 0 0 0 

314-03 Rem 5 0 1 4 

314-04 SPEER 2 2 2 2 

314-05 WOLF 3 1 1 1 

314-06 FC 3 2 1 0 

314-07 Rem sep 3 0 1 4 

 

375-01 CCI 3 6 3 1 

375-02 WIN 3 6 0 2 

375-03 Rem 4 6 2 2 

375-04 SPEER 5 6 2 0 

375-05 WOLF 4 6 1 2 

375-06 FC 4 6 2 1 

375-07 Rem sep 4 6 2 4 

 

430-01 CCI 2 5 1 5 

430-02 WIN 0 6 0 2 

430-03 Rem 3 6 2 6 

430-04 SPEER 3 6 1 1 

430-05 WOLF 3 6 1 4 

430-06 FC 2 6 1 3 

430-07 Rem sep 5 6 1 5 

 

535-01 CCI 1 5 0 3 

535-02 WIN 4 6 1 2 

535-03 Rem 1 6 3 3 

535-04 SPEER 3 6 0 3 

535-05 WOLF 2 6 0 2 

535-06 FC 2 6 0 2 

535-07 Rem sep 2 6 2 3 

The table shows large performance differences between individual guns. 
75

System Gun Differences: Firing Pin 

For further analysis of the performance differences, we define for the firing pins: 

Y = (# of N-3D correct matches) – ( # of I-2D correct matches). 

We find that: Median (Y) = 0, Mean(Y) = 0.2, Standard Deviation (Y) = 2.5. 

This implies a slight advantage for N-3D. However, one wonders if that holds across the guns or 

whether it depends on the particular gun. Figure 9-1 charts the difference variable Y by reference 

gun. 

Figure 9-1. Graph of Y = (# of correct N-3D matches) – (# of correct I-2D matches) of De Kinder firing pin 

impressions arranged by reference gun. The points above the zero-line depict those casings where N-3D performs 

better than I-2D, while the points below the zero-line depict those where I-2D does better. 

The performance differences are very gun-dependent. It is clear that the 3D and 2D methods are 

not making the same mistakes; the 3D method does better for guns 009, 375, 430, and 535, while 

the 2D method does better on 139, 213, and 314. Further inspection of the actual images for 

these casings may give clues as to what characteristics drive the differential performance of the 

two methodologies. A detailed analysis of differences between the guns is given in Sec. 10. 

Casing

# Correct NTES Matches - # Correct IBIS Matches

0 20 40 60

-4 -2 0 2 4 6

007 009 117 139 213 215 314 375 430 535

# Correct N-3D Matches - # Correct I-2D Matches
76

System Gun Differences: Breech Face 

For further analysis of the performance differences, we define for the breech faces: 

Y = (# of N-3D correct matches) – (# of I-2D correct matches). The summary statistics for Y are: 

Median (Y) = 2.0, Mean (Y) = 1.9, Standard Deviation (Y) = 1.8. 

This implies a clear advantage for the 3D method. Again, one wonders if that holds across the 

guns or whether it depends on the particular gun. Figure 9-2 charts the difference variable Y by 

reference gun. 

Casing

# Correct NTES Matches - # Correct IBIS Matches

0 20 40 60

-2 0 2 4 6

007 009 117 139 213 215 314 375 430 535

# Correct N-3D Matches - # Correct I-2D Matches

Casing Casing

# Correct NTES Matches - # Correct IBIS Matches

0 20 40 60

-2 0 2 4 6

007 009 117 139 213 215 314 375 430 535

# Correct N-3D Matches - # Correct I-2D Matches

Casing

Figure 9-2. Graph of Y = (# of correct N-3D matches) – (# of correct I-2D matches) of De Kinder breech face 

impressions arranged by reference gun. The points above the zero-line depict those casings where N-3D performs 

better than I-2D, while the points below the zero-line depict those where I-2D does better. 

The 3D method is doing somewhat better than the 2D method across the board except for gun 

375. Again, a detailed analysis of the differences between the guns is given in Section 10. 

9.3.3 NBIDE: Top Ten System Performance Analysis 

 

In addition to the De Kinder data, the NBIDE study also created and analyzed its own casings 

database (NBIDE). Whereas the De Kinder data set had one gun type (Sig Sauer), ten guns, and 

seven ammo types (including a replicated Remington ammo) for a total of 70 (= 10 × 7) test 

firings, the NBIDE experiment had three gun types (Smith&Wesson, Ruger, and Sig Sauer), four 

physical guns of each type, for a total of 12 guns, three ammo types (Remington, Winchester, 

and PMC), and three repeat days, for a total of 108 (= 3 × 4 × 3 × 3) test firings. Carrying out a 
77

similar analysis as that described above for the De Kinder data, we compare a given test fired 

casing with the remaining 107 test fired casings and compute an appropriate similarity metric 

(e.g., the ACCFmax) to yield a total correlation data base consisting of 108 × 107 = 11 556 

comparisons. For a given test fired casing, there will be eight (3 ammos × 3 days – 1) other 

compared casings that "match" (come from the same physical gun), and a total of 99 (= 11 guns 

× 3 ammos × 3 days) compared casings that do not match. 

In carrying out a Top Ten analysis as above, we may thus define our comparison to be a 

"success" if (as before) one or more of the matching casings appear in the Top Ten list, or if two 

or more do, or if three or more do, all the way up to all 8 matching cases showing up in the Top 

Ten list. Summing up these "successes" over the 108 reference casings (and converting them to 

percentages out of the 108), we thus get the following listing: 

 NBIDE/ Top Ten 

 i≥1 i≥2 i≥3 i≥4 i≥5 i≥6 i≥7 i≥8 

 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 I2 N3 

 FP (%): 98 100 92 97 71 93 53 83 38 69 18 56 2 41 0 23 

 BF (%): 100 100 99 100 94 100 86 100 73 100 56 100 35 100 12 94 

From this listing we conclude: 

1. In stark contrast to the De Kinder data, Breech Face was the better discriminator over 

Firing Pin for both I-2D and N-3D. 

2. For Breech Face, both I-2D and N-3D performed much better on NBIDE than on De 

Kinder. 

3. Success proportions for N-3D and I-2D decrease as stringency increases—more 

dramatically for Firing Pin, less so for Breech Face. 

4. For Breech Face, N-3D was perfect (= 100%) for 7 out of the 8 criteria. 

5. Across Firing Pin and Breech face, N-3D performed better than I-2D. 

9.3.4 NBIDE: Table of Results 

The following table of Top Ten testing results gives detailed information on how the systems 

performed with respect to the area imaged and the technology system used for the NBIDE 

casings. 
78

Table 9-2. Comparison of the numbers of correct matches out of the ten highest scoring matches for N-3D and I-2D 

applied to both firing pin and breech face. Note that the ammunition codes for the first column are 

 [ 1=Winchester, 2=Remington, 3=PMC].

Number of Correct Matches in Top Ten (Maximum 8) 

Firing Pin Breech Face 

Gun – Ammo – RR# I-2D N-3D I-2D N-3D 

 

Means 3.72 5.63 5.57 7.94 

 

Ruger 41 - 1 - RR 78 4 7 7 8 

Ruger 41 - 1 – RR 102 4 6 6 8 

Ruger 41 - 1 - RR 111 5 7 7 8 

Ruger 41 - 2 - RR 45 1 5 3 8 

Ruger 41 - 2 - RR 94 0 8 6 8 

Ruger 41 - 2 - RR 134 2 7 1 8 

Ruger 41 - 3 - RR 118 5 6 2 8 

Ruger 41 - 3 - RR 129 5 7 2 8 

Ruger 41 - 3 - RR 142 5 7 2 8 

 

Ruger 42 - 1 - RR 28 6 8 7 8 

Ruger 42 - 1 - RR 43 4 8 3 8 

Ruger 42 - 1 - RR 75 4 8 5 8 

Ruger 42 - 2 - RR 2 3 8 6 8 

Ruger 42 - 2 - RR 35 6 8 5 8 

Ruger 42 - 2 - RR 50 4 8 6 8 

Ruger 42 - 3 - RR 16 5 8 5 8 

Ruger 42 - 3 - RR 54 5 8 7 8 

Ruger 42 - 3 - RR 72 5 8 6 8 

 

Ruger 46 - 1 - RR 95 3 6 5 8 

Ruger 46 - 1 - RR 120 3 5 5 8 

Ruger 46 - 1 - RR 125 1 3 5 8 

Ruger 46 - 2 - RR 1 2 4 6 8 

Ruger 46 - 2 - RR 67 2 5 3 8 

Ruger 46 - 2 - RR 82 4 5 5 8 

Ruger 46 - 3 - RR 19 3 6 5 8 

Ruger 46 - 3 - RR 53 3 6 5 8 

Ruger 46 - 3 - RR 136 3 4 4 8 

 

Ruger 48 - 1 - RR 31 7 8 7 8 

Ruger 48 - 1 - RR 80 6 6 7 8 

Ruger 48 - 1 - RR 96 7 8 6 8 

Ruger 48 - 2 - RR 22 0 8 5 8 

Ruger 48 - 2 - RR 130 2 3 6 7 

Ruger 48 - 2 - RR 138 5 4 8 8 

Ruger 48 - 3 - RR 49 5 8 6 8 

Ruger 48 - 3 - RR 55 6 8 6 8 

Ruger 48 - 3 - RR 139 6 7 8 8 
79

 

Sig Sauer 30 - 1 - RR 40 1 4 4 8 

Sig Sauer 30 - 1 - RR 60 1 4 5 8 

Sig Sauer 30 - 1 - RR 89 2 4 6 8 

Sig Sauer 30 - 2 - RR 8 2 4 3 8 

Sig Sauer 30 - 2 - RR 10 3 5 3 8 

Sig Sauer 30 - 2 - RR 17 2 1 5 8 

Sig Sauer 30 - 3 - RR 21 2 4 6 8 

Sig Sauer 30 - 3 - RR 30 3 4 4 8 

Sig Sauer 30 - 3 - RR 135 2 6 5 8 

 

Sig Sauer 31 - 1 - RR 27 4 2 4 8 

Sig Sauer 31 - 1 - RR 48 4 5 7 8 

Sig Sauer 31 - 1 - RR 114 1 1 4 8 

Sig Sauer 31 - 2 - RR 15 3 3 7 8 

Sig Sauer 31 - 2 - RR 65 1 2 2 8 

Sig Sauer 31 - 2 - RR 92 2 2 7 8 

Sig Sauer 31 - 3 - RR 20 3 3 6 8 

Sig Sauer 31 - 3 - RR 62 1 1 5 8 

Sig Sauer 31 - 3 - RR 119 5 5 6 8 

 

Sig Sauer 32 - 1 - RR 87 5 7 7 7 

Sig Sauer 32 - 1 - RR 90 3 5 7 8 

Sig Sauer 32 - 1 - RR 91 6 6 8 8 

Sig Sauer 32 - 2 - RR 12 5 7 7 8 

Sig Sauer 32 - 2 - RR 25 5 7 7 8 

Sig Sauer 32 - 2 - RR 115 3 6 7 8 

Sig Sauer 32 - 3 - RR 42 3 8 3 8 

Sig Sauer 32 - 3 - RR 56 5 8 7 8 

Sig Sauer 32 - 3 - RR 100 5 8 7 8 

 

Sig Sauer 33 - 1 - RR 23 6 6 4 8 

Sig Sauer 33 - 1 - RR 66 5 6 5 8 

Sig Sauer 33 - 1 - RR 99 4 5 4 7 

Sig Sauer 33 - 2 - RR 32 4 2 3 8 

Sig Sauer 33 - 2 - RR 34 4 2 3 8 

Sig Sauer 33 - 2 - RR 141 2 6 3 8 

Sig Sauer 33 - 3 - RR 61 4 7 4 8 

Sig Sauer 33 - 3 - RR 79 5 6 4 8 

Sig Sauer 33 - 3 - RR 128 4 6 4 8 

 

S&W 305 - 1 - RR 57 6 8 8 8 

S&W 305 - 1 - RR 64 6 7 6 7 

S&W 305 - 1 - RR 97 6 7 8 8 

S&W 305 - 2 - RR 24 6 8 7 7 

S&W 305 - 2 - RR 103 2 7 5 8 

S&W 305 - 2 - RR 137 2 8 5 8 

S&W 305 - 3 - RR 4 6 8 7 8 

S&W 305 - 3 - RR 5 6 8 8 8 

S&W 305 - 3 - RR 59 6 8 8 8 
80

 

S&W 306 - 1 - RR 7 4 6 8 8 

S&W 306 - 1 - RR 26 2 4 7 8 

S&W 306 - 1 - RR 71 3 3 8 8 

S&W 306 - 2 - RR 106 2 4 8 8 

S&W 306 - 2 - RR 121 2 3 7 8 

S&W 306 - 2 - RR 131 2 3 7 8 

S&W 306 - 3 - RR 13 3 6 8 8 

S&W 306 - 3 - RR 41 3 7 8 8 

S&W 306 - 3 - RR 143 2 3 8 8 

 

S&W 314 - 1 - RR 85 3 7 4 7 

S&W 314 - 1 - RR 112 6 8 5 7 

S&W 314 - 1 - RR 127 5 7 6 8 

S&W 314 - 2 - RR 36 6 6 5 8 

S&W 314 - 2 - RR 39 6 7 6 8 

S&W 314 - 2 - RR 116 2 4 6 8 

S&W 314 - 3 - RR 6 5 7 6 8 

S&W 314 - 3 - RR 29 5 7 7 8 

S&W 314 - 3 - RR 117 5 5 6 8 

 

S&W 401 - 1 - RR 3 2 5 6 8 

S&W 401 - 1 - RR 46 3 4 4 8 

S&W 401 - 1 - RR 63 2 5 7 8 

S&W 401 - 2 - RR 9 5 5 6 8 

S&W 401 - 2 - RR 84 3 3 2 8 

S&W 401 - 2 - RR 110 4 3 7 8 

S&W 401 - 3 - RR 44 4 5 6 8 

S&W 401 - 3 - RR 51 3 4 7 8 

S&W 401 - 3 - RR 76 3 4 4 8 

 

The N-3D Breech Face results are much better than the other results. As an example of gun 

differences, all methods seemed to work relatively well with Ruger 42. 
81

9.3.5 Findings: System Performance Analysis 

A summary of some of the results of the previous sections is given in the following listing. 

 Proportion of Correct Matches in Top Ten Listings 

 I-2D De Kinder FP 3.06/6=0.51 

 I-2D De Kinder BF 1.01/6=0.17 

 N-3D De Kinder FP 3.26/6=0.54 

 N-3D De Kinder BF 2.83/6=0.47 

I-2D NBIDE FP 3.72/8=0.46 

I-2D NBIDE BF 5.57/8=0.70 

N-3D NBIDE FP 5.63/8=0.70 

N-3D NBIDE BF 7.94/8=0.99 

Based on these results and others in the previous six sections, we thus extract the following 

observations: 

1. For both the De Kinder and the NBIDE data, N-3D generally performed better on the 

average than I-2D. 

2. For the De Kinder data, Firing Pin was usually a better discriminator than Breech Face. 

3. For the NBIDE data, Breech Face was a better discriminator than Firing Pin. 

4. The worst discriminator case was De Kinder Breech Face. 

5. The best discriminator (near perfect) was N-3D on NBIDE Breech Face. 

9.4 Matching and Non-matching Distributions of Correlation Scores

The previous sections on system performance analysis have demonstrated performance 

variations between systems and between imaged regions. For instance, N-3D performed better 

on the NBIDE breech face impressions than anything else, meaning that the topographic breech 

face images of casings fired from the same gun almost always correlated more highly with each 

other than with breech face images of casings fired from different guns. In contrast, for the De 

Kinder breech face impressions, a casing would often correlate more highly with certain casings 

fired from other guns than with casings fired from the same guns. In this section, we describe a 

probabilistic model for such findings. 

A pair of casings fired from the same gun is called a “match,” and a pair of casings fired from 

different guns is called a “non-match.” Therefore, for each particular casing in the De Kinder 

set, there are six other casings that produce a match with that casing, and 63 that produce a nonmatch with that casing. The correlations from the six matching pairs should ideally be 

considerably higher than the 63 non-matching correlations. Similarly, for each casing in the 

NBIDE set, there are eight matching correlations, which should be higher than the 99 non-
82

matching correlations. How well the different technologies succeed in differentiating matches 

and non-matches will be the topic of this section. 

Supposing that a ballistics database contains a casing from the same gun that fired the reference 

casing, this database search will yield consistently good results only if a pair of objects that 

should match each other (i.e., fired from same gun) will correlate much more highly than a pair 

that should not match each other (i.e., fired from different guns). However, as has been seen 

from the Top Ten results from the previous sections, there can be considerable variability in 

behavior between guns and even between casings fired from the same gun. For instance, it is 

possible that two casings fired from different guns may correlate highly with each other, but two 

other casings fired from the same gun may not correlate as well. Thus, the marks left by guns 

and the correlations found between images are not deterministic but have random components.

A probabilistic interpretation of these variations is to envision correlation scores of pairs of 

casings fired from the same gun as being generated by one distribution (which we call the 

matching distribution), and correlations of casings fired from different guns as following another 

distribution (the non-matching distribution). These distributions can be purely empirical in 

nature, rather than having specific parametric forms. A large degree of overlap between these 

two distributions will result in a significant number of false matches occurring during a database 

search for a match. If there is almost perfect separation, as shown in Fig. 9-3, then there will be 

minimal mistakes. Note that for most of this section, the ACCFmax values will be scaled so that 

the maximum (perfect correlation) is 100 %. 

ACCFmax (%)

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

ACCFmax for Matches

ACCFmax for Non-Matches

ACCFmax (%)

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

ACCFmax for Matches

ACCFmax for Non-Matches

Figure 9-3. Idealized histograms of a matching distribution and a non-matching distribution of cross-correlation 

scores of ballistics surface topography. 
83

The N-3D data contain the full round-robin of correlations between each pair of casings in the 

De Kinder 70-casing set, and also between each pair of casings in the NBIDE set. A complete 

round-robin correlation data set is usually not available, and indeed would not be feasible for 

much larger data sets because of the computational burden. These data provide an opportunity to 

explore the respective variabilities of matching and non-matching correlation scores and their 

dependence on underlying factors such as gun model. 

For example, for each of the 70 De Kinder casings, the topography image of its firing pin 

impression was correlated with that of each of the 69 other casings. It is as if each casing were a 

reference casing found at a crime scene and were compared with 69 casings in a database (i.e. 69 

compared casings). For arbitrary casings A and B, we denote ACCFmax(A,B) as the maximum 

ACCF value between the reference casing A and the compared casing B. Each such casing pair, 

A and B, has two associated cross-correlations, since ACCFmax(A,B) and ACCFmax(B,A) are not 

necessarily identical (although they are usually very close). Thus, for the 70 casings, there are a 

total of 70 × 69 correlations = 4830 correlations that will serve as our basic data set for the De 

Kinder firing pin analysis. Note that ACCFmax(A,A) is presumed to be 100 %. 

It is natural to display such round-robin correlation matrix data as a color matrix. For instance, if 

the 70 De Kinder casings are labeled from 1 to 70, the correlation matrix is depicted as a 70 × 70 

pixel chart, where the color of the pixel in, say, row 31 and column 45, is indicative of the size of 

the ACCFmax between casing 31 as the reference and casing 45 as the compared casing. 

Figure 9-4 displays what a fictional hypothetical ACCFmax matrix for the De Kinder guns would 

look like with ideal discrimination properties. Here the casings in the matrix are ordered by 

reference gun, with the white lines partitioning different guns but grouping together the casings 

fired by the same gun. Those correlations depicted by the pixels inside the boxes with white 

numbers are ACCFmax values of those casing pairs where both the reference casing and compared 

casing are fired from the same gun. Hence, those pixels depict the matching scores. The pixels 

outside the numbered boxes depict the non-matching scores. 

For the hypothetical idealized case represented by Fig. 9-4, the matching scores are depicted by 

the orange and reddish pixels inside the numbered boxes; hence the matching scores are almost 

all above 70 %. A casing is presumed to correlate perfectly with itself, leading to the dark red 

line of pixels along the diagonal having ACCFmax = 100 %. The non-matching scores are 

represented by the bluish pixels outside the numbered boxes; thus, the matching scores are 

almost all below 25 %. There appears to be no overlap between matching and non-matching 

scores, which precludes mistakes by Top Ten selection procedures as discussed in previous 

sections. 
84

Figure 9-4. ACCFmax matrix for the 70 De Kinder casings with ideal discrimination between guns. The color of the 

pixel in row I and column J indicates the value of the ACCFmax (in %) between casing I as the reference casing and 

casing J as the compared casing. A casing correlates perfectly with itself. The casings in the matrix are ordered by 

reference gun. The white lines partition the casings into groups that are fired by the same reference gun or 

compared gun. Those correlations depicted by the pixels inside the boxes with white numbers are ACCFmax values 

of those casing pairs where both the reference casing and compared casing are fired from the same gun. Hence, 

those pixels depict the matching scores. The pixels outside the numbered boxes depict the non-matching scores. 

9.5 Overlap Metric p

There are many possible ways to quantify the degree of separation, or distance, between the 

matching and non-matching ACCFmax distributions. One way we use here is to compute an 

overlap metric p, which is the probability that the ACCFmax value of a randomly chosen member 

of the non-matching distribution is larger than a randomly chosen member from the matching 

distribution. 

Since matching scores should ideally be near 100 % and non-matching correlations should 

ideally be near 0, the probability that a non-matching score exceeds a matching score should be 

at or near zero. If the two distributions were the same, then p would be 0.5. Such an overlap 

metric is commonly used in other fields; and it is referred to in the psychometric literature as the 

Probability of Superiority [49,50]. It is also related to the area under a Receiving Operating 

Characteristic (ROC) Curve [51] in the statistics literature. 
85

A simple way to estimate p is to look at all pair-wise comparisons between single observations 

from each of the matching and non-matching samples and calculate the proportion in which the 

non-matching observation score is higher than the matching observation score. Such 

calculations are similar to those used in the Mann-Whitney Test [52]. Unfortunately, it is very 

difficult to accurately estimate very small p using sample sizes as small as those used in this 

study, leading to too many estimates of zero for p. Another way to estimate p is to fit a 

continuous distribution, such as the normal distribution, to the empirical ACCFmax distributions. 

This ameliorates the problem by using tail values of the continuous distribution to provide 

estimates of very small probabilities. We will do this especially in those cases where there is 

little overlap, leading to very small estimates of p. 

In the following sub-sections, we use the p and average p of ACCFmax values grouped by gun as 

a descriptive method to compare the guns and the imaging methods. Since the behavior of 

casings fired from even the same gun can differ (as will be seen in some of the ACCFmax

matrices below), the p’s estimated from individual casings will also be explored. Since the 

sample sizes for individual casings are smaller, fitting the matching and non-matching 

distributions using parametric distributions makes sense here. Again, the average and median of 

the casing p’s are displayed for descriptive and comparison purposes. How they will be used and 

combined to predict the performance of the ACCFmax measures in Top Ten lists (similar to those 

produced by I-2D) is a more complicated procedure that will be described in the later sub-section 

on binomial models. 

The calculation of p for different levels of grouping can be visualized in terms of comparisons 

made within the ACCFmax matrix. The hypothetical ACCFmax matrix in Fig. 9-4 will be used for 

an intuitive view of the overlap calculations. We discuss three types of groupings below. 

Single p 

Suppose the same matching and non-matching distributions can be used for all casings and guns. 

In terms of the ACCFmax matrix in Fig. 9-4, the sample of scores inside all of the numbered 

boxes constitutes the matching scores, and all those outside the numbered boxes are the nonmatching scores. It turns out for this idealized case that all the matching scores are large in 

magnitude (orange-red colors), while all the non-matching scores are small (bluish color). 

Unfortunately, there usually will not be this much separation between matching and nonmatching scores.

Gun specific p 

There can be different matching and non-matching distributions for each gun, resulting in a 

different p for each gun. Referring back to Fig. 9-4, the matching scores for gun 007 are those 

represented by the pixels inside the white-bordered box numbered “007”; the corresponding nonmatching scores are those depicted by the pixels contained in the nine other white-bordered 

boxes in the first row (the same level as the box labeled “007”). For gun 007, there are 7×6=42 

matching scores (not counting the self-correlations on the main diagonal) and 7×7×9=441 nonmatching scores. 
86

Casing specific p 

There can be different matching and non-matching distributions for each casing, resulting in a 

different p for each casing. Referring back to Fig. 9-4, suppose that the pixels on the first row of 

the matrix depict the ACCFmax scores when casing 1 is the reference casing. Thus casing 1 is 

compared with six other casings fired from the same gun (gun 007), and with 7×9 = 63 casings 

fired from different guns. Having only six matching scores can make the estimation of p 

problematic, especially if p is very small. For this reason, estimating the matching and nonmatching distributions here can be useful, although estimating the parameters of a distribution 

using only 6 observations is problematic as well.

9.6 Data Analysis of Correlation Distributions

For each of the N-3D data sets (De Kinder Firing Pin, De Kinder Breech Face, NBIDE Firing 

Pin, NBIDE Breech Face), we thus present the data on the round-robin correlations in several 

stages: first, with a color depiction of the entire data set using a color ACCFmax matrix, then by 

examination of the matching and non-matching empirical distributions at three levels of 

grouping: 1) overall, 2) by gun, and 3) by casing.. 

9.6.1 De Kinder Firing Pin Correlation Analysis 

This subsection contains analysis of the firing pin image data of the De Kinder casings. Recall 

that the De Kinder set consists of 70 casings fired from ten guns, with seven casings fired from 

each gun. Thus, given any particular casing, the other 69 (= 70 – 1) casings include six (= 7 – 1) 

casings fired from the same gun, and 63 (= 70 – 7) casings that were fired from different guns. 

Therefore, for each particular casing in the De Kinder set, there are six other casings that produce 

a match with that casing, and 63 that produce a non-match with that casing. The correlations 

from the six matching pairs should ideally be considerably higher than the 63 non-matching 

correlations. 

Recall the hypothetical ACCFmax matrix of Fig. 9-4 in which there was no overlap between the 

matching and non-matching scores. Is such clear separation between matches and non-matches 

present with actual data? Figure 9-5 contains the color depiction of the actual ACCFmax matrix 

for the De Kinder firing pin topography images. 
87

Figure 9-5. ACCFmax matrix of the De Kinder firing pin data. The color of the pixel in row I and column J indicates 

the value of the ACCFmax (in %) between casing I as the reference casing and casing J as the compared casing. The 

pixels are ordered by gun ID, and within gun by ammunition in the following order: CCI, Winchester, Speer, Wolf, 

Federal, Remington, Remington. 

Looking at the color ACCFmax matrix for the actual data shows that separation between matching 

and non-matching scores is not close to the ideal situation depicted in the hypothetical ACCFmax

matrix of Fig. 9-4. There are many casings that should correlate highly with each other that do 

not, especially for guns 139, 213, 215, and 314. Guns 007, 009, 375, 430 and 535 have much 

better (but not perfect) separation. One can see many other patterns from the ACCFmax matrix. 

For instance, the Winchester casing from gun 009 does not correlate with the other casings from 

that gun. The highest non-match scores are between the casings from guns 009 and 535. The 

scores generated by gun 139 seem particularly low for both matches and non-matches. 

Let’s try to summarize the data depicted in Fig. 9-5 in useful groupings. How clearly separated 

are the distributions of the matching and non-matching correlation scores? Is it close to the ideal 
88

situation of Fig. 9-3? Figure 9-6 contains a histogram of the matching scores and a histogram of 

the non-matching scores in a plot analogous to Fig. 9-3. 

Figure 9-6. De Kinder firing pin correlations: The green lines depict a histogram of the matching scores, while the 

brown lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. 

Instead of the clear separation between distributions of Fig. 9-3, there is a large degree of 

overlap, suggesting that there would be many misidentifications using these correlation data. 

The patterns in Fig. 9-5 as well as the multimodal nature of the matching scores in Fig. 9-6 

strongly suggest that the matching and non-matching distributions may be gun-dependent. 

Figure 9-7 breaks down the results by reference gun, with the overlap metric p given for each 

grouping. 
89

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

All : p=0.3154

CCF: Matches

CCF: Non-Matches

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

007 : p= 0.0388

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

009 : p= 0.1250

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

117 : p= 0.3079

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

139 : p= 0.7495

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

213 : p= 0.6621

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

215 : p= 0.3378

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

314 : p= 0.6032

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

375 : p= 0.0003

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

430 : p= 0.0161

CCF

Percentage

0 40 80

0 20 60

535 : p= 0.0012

Figure 9-7. De Kinder firing pin correlations: Above each of the individual plots is a heading with the ID of the 

reference gun and the overlap metric p estimated for that group. In each plot, the green lines depict a histogram of 

the matching scores, while the brown lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. The horizontal scale is 

the same as Fig. 9-6 (%). The symbol CCF stands for ACCFmax. 

Figure 9-7 shows that while the guns have similar non-matching score distributions, they have 

differing matching distributions. Guns 139, 213 and 314 have match scores that are even more 

concentrated in the lower end of the scale than their non-match scores. Other guns show much 

better, though not perfect, separation. 

Table 9-3 lists the overlap metric information for the firing pin data of individual gun groupings 

ordered by size of overlap metric. Small p values would indicate better discrimination between 

matching and non-matching distributions. 
90

Table 9-3. Overlap metric p for the topographic signatures of the firing pin impressions of 10 De Kinder guns. 

Gun ID p 

375 0.0003 

535 0.0012 

430 0.0161 

007 0.0388 

009 0.1250 

117 0.3079 

215 0.3378 

314 0.6032 

213 0.6621 

139 0.7495 

 

Mean 0.2842 

Despite all guns being of the same Sig Sauer model, there are large differences in the overlaps 

produced by the different guns, with guns 139, 213 and 314 producing so much overlap that they 

are even worse than random chance. While the other guns have much better separation, the level 

of wrong matches for them are likely still too high for satisfactory performance in a very large 

database. 

It makes sense to further refine overlap metric results by individual casings rather than just by 

guns. We will continue to use the overlap metric applied to gun scores as a convenient 

descriptor of gun properties, but we will also calculate p for individual casings to examine 

possible performance in very large databases. As an example, a look back at the ACCFmax

matrix in Fig. 9-5 reveals some casing-specific patterns. For instance, note that inside the boxes 

labeled “009” and “007”, the matching scores are larger than the non-match scores except for the 

scores associated with particular pixels. Figure 9-8 breaks down the data by casing, by dividing 

the data into groups by reference casing. Each of the smaller plots depicts for each casing, its 

correlations with the 6 casings fired from the same gun (matches, lower triangles), and the 

correlations with the 63 casings fired from other guns (non-matches, upper triangles). The label 

above each plot indicates the gun ID and ammunition manufacturer of the reference casing. The 

main value of these plots (called “strip plots”) is to see the degree of overlap between the six 

triangles depicting the matching scores with the mass of points representing the non-matching 

scores. Does the overlap vary greatly among casings fired from the same gun (which are on the 

same row of the diagram)? Again, ideally there should be clear separation between the matching 

and non-matching scores. 

From Fig. 9-8, it can be seen that guns 375 and 535 produce the greatest separation. Note that 

because the triangles in Fig. 9-8 have non-zero width, some of the casing plots may give the 

impression of somewhat more overlap than actually exists. 
91

ACCFmax (%)

Figure 9-8. De Kinder Firing Pin: Correlations for individual casings. The above figure plots for each casing its 

correlations with the six casings fired from the same gun (matches, lower triangles), and the correlations with the 63 

casings fired from other guns (non-matches, upper triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun ID and 

ammunition manufacturer (1-CCI, 2-Win, 3-Rem, 4-Speer, 5-Wolf, 6-Fed, 7-Rem) of the reference casing. 

For each of the 70 casings, an overlap metric for the matching and non-matching correlation 

scores produced by that casing can be estimated by looking at all pair-wise comparisons between 
92

matching and non-matching correlations for it. The histogram in Figure 9-9 shows the empirical 

distribution of those overlap metrics. How do these estimates compare with estimates by gun? 

The histogram in Fig. 9-9 shows that while some casings produce small overlaps, most produce 

substantial overlaps between matching and non-matching correlation scores that would lead to 

mistakes in a large database search. 

0

10

20

30

40

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

p

Percent of Total

0

10

20

30

40

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

p

Percent of Total

Figure 9-9. Histogram of the overlap metric p estimated for each of the 70 De Kinder casings using topographic 

signatures of the firing pin impressions and pair-wise comparison methods. The mean p is 0.29 and the median is 

0.17. While 24 % of the estimates are zero, there are a considerable proportion of large estimates over 0.3. 

9.6.2 De Kinder Breech Face Correlation Analysis 

Figure 9-10 contains the ACCFmax matrix for the topographic breech face analyses for the De 

Kinder casings. How does the pattern of separation and overlap between matching and nonmatching scores compare with the firing pin data? 
93

Figure 9-10. ACCFmax matrix of the De Kinder breech face data. The color of the pixel in row I and column J 

indicates the value of the ACCFmax between casing I as the reference casing and casing J as the compared casing. 

The pixels are ordered by gun ID, and within gun by ammunition in the following order: CCI, Winchester, Speer, 

Wolf, Federal, Remington, Remington. 

It appears that most ACCFmax values, including both matching scores and non-matching scores 

are in the 20 % to 40 % range, indicating more overlap and less separation than was seen with 

the firing pins. The green-colored pixels in the lower right corner of most boxes on the diagonal 

show that the breech faces from the two Remington casings are correlating more highly with 

each other than with the other casings fired from the same guns. 

Figure 9-11 depicts histograms of the matching and non-matching scores for the De Kinder 

breech face impressions. What is the degree of overlap or separation between the two 

distributions? 
94

ACCFmax (%)

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

NonMatch

Match

ACCFmax (%)

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

NonMatch

Match

Figure 9-11. De Kinder breech face correlations: The green dashed lines depict a histogram of the matching scores, 

while the brown solid lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. 

Figure 9-11 shows that there is a considerable degree of overlap between the matching and nonmatching scores, which is not ideal. Figure 9-12 breaks down these results by reference gun, 

with the overlap metric p given for each grouping. For the firing pin impressions, there were 

considerable performance variations between guns. Does the same hold true for breech faces? 
95

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

All: p=0.253

CCF for Matches

CCF for Non-Matches

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

007 : p= 0.36

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

009 : p= 0.28

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

117 : p= 0.16

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

139 : p= 0.2

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

213 : p= 0.22

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

215 : p= 0.1

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

314 : p= 0.31

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

375 : p= 0.44

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

430 : p= 0.12

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60

535 : p= 0.33

Figure 9-12. De Kinder breech face correlations: Above each of the individual plots is a heading with the ID of the 

reference gun and the overlap metric p estimated for that group. In each plot, the green lines depict a histogram of 

the matching scores, while the brown lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. The symbol CCF stands 

for ACCFmax. The horizontal scale for ACCFmax is the same as Fig. 9-6 (%). 

No gun has good separation between the matching and non-matching distributions. Also for the 

De Kinder breech face distributions in Fig. 9-12, we find less variation between the guns than we 

did for the De Kinder firing pin data. All the non-matching distributions look similar. 
96

Table 9-4 contains the overlap metric statistics for the breech face data, ordered by performance 

of the gun. Small p values indicate better separation between matching and non-matching 

distributions. None of the guns have a large degree of separation. Even the gun with the most 

separation (215) still would produce many errors in a large database search scenario. 

Table 9-4. Overlap metric p for the topographic signatures of the breech face impressions of 10 De Kinder guns. 

Gun ID p 

215 0.098 

430 0.124 

117 0.158 

139 0.201 

213 0.219 

009 0.283 

314 0.314 

535 0.332 

007 0.358 

375 0.442 

 

Mean 0.253 

Figure 9-13 breaks down the data more finely by dividing the data into groups by reference 

casing. Each of the smaller plots depicts, for each casing, its correlations with the six casings 

fired from the same gun (matches, lower triangles), and the correlations with the 63 casings fired 

from other guns (non-matches, upper triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun ID 

and ammunition of the reference casing. Although there is some variation in the matching 

distributions, there is a consistently high degree of overlap or lack of separation between 

matching and non-matching casings for nearly all reference casings. From Fig. 9-13, it can be 

seen that only one casing, 215-3, has good separation between matching and non-matching 

scores, and even for that case, there is a very small margin between the smallest matching score 

and the largest non-matching score. Some of the other casings from gun 215 are among the next 

best performers in terms of separation between matching and non-matching scores. 

For each of the 70 casings, an overlap metric for the matching and non-matching correlation 

scores produced by that casing can be estimated by looking at all pair-wise comparisons between 

matching and non-matching correlations for each casing. The histogram in Fig. 9-14 shows the 

empirical distribution of those overlap metrics. While some casings produce small overlaps, 

most produce substantial overlaps between matching and non-matching correlation scores that 

would lead to mistakes in a large database search. 
97

ACCFmax

Figure 9-13. De Kinder Breech Face: The above figure plots, for each casing, its correlations with the six casings 

fired from the same gun (matches, lower triangles) , and the correlations with the 63 casings fired from other guns 

(non-matches, upper triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun ID and ammunition manufacturer (1-

CCI, 2-Win, 3-Rem, 4-Speer, 5-Wolf, 6-Fed, 7-Rem) of the reference casing. 
98

0

5

10

15

20

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

p

Percent of total

0

5

10

15

20

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

p

Percent of total

Figure 9-14. Histogram of the overlap metric p estimated for each of the 70 De Kinder casings using topographic 

signatures of the breech face impressions and pair-wise comparison methods. The mean is 0.26 and the median is 

0.23. 

9.6.3 De Kinder: Combining Firing Pin and Breech Face Results 

A combination of the correlation metrics from both regions of the casings, e.g., firing pin and 

breech face, should perform better than the use of one region alone. There has been similar 

research on multi-modal biometrics, i.e. combining several fingerprints or combining face and 

fingerprint algorithms [53]. There are many possible methods of combining metrics, but we will 

just look at two of the simplest here. In the De Kinder article [7], casings that make the Top Ten 

of either I-2D breech face or I-2D firing pin correlations are included in the combined list. Such 

a combined list obviously must do at least as well as either metric alone, although it results in 

potentially twice as many candidate casings requiring manual examination. Most other 

combination schemes require more information than just Top Ten lists. 

For example, if the ACCFmax values are available, they can be combined in a multitude of ways. 

The simplest way is first to normalize the metrics, then add them together. Here, since the 
99

ACCFmax values are bounded by a perfect score of 100 %, we can produce a combined 

correlation metric by merely averaging the breech face and firing pin ACCFmax values for each 

casing pair. Of course, the average and sum produce the same results, so here we call it the Sum 

Method, which is more prevalent in the literature. Unlike the ‘make either list’ method above, 

the Sum Method can perform worse for a particular casing than either or both of the constituent 

methods. Table 9-5 shows the results of the two combined metrics for the De Kinder casings. 

Of course, using both metrics results in more, or at least no fewer, correct matches. The number 

of correct matches using both metrics cannot be more than the sum of correct matches for either, 

and it is equal to the sum only if there is no overlap. Thus, for I-2D, the strong measure (Firing 

Pin) cannot be helped much here by the weak method (Breech Face), especially since firing pin 

impressions caught all 6 correct matches for several casings. The 3D breech face impressions 

were more of a help to the 3D firing pin impressions. 

Table 9-5. Results combining breech face impressions and firing pin impressions for 70 De Kinder casings. 

Columns 3 and 4 – number of correct matches appearing in the Top Ten List of either the breech face or the firing 

pin impressions. Column 5 – number of correct matches appearing in the Top Ten list for the sum of ACCFmax 

values for the breech face and firing pin impressions. 

Number of Correct matches (Max 6) 

Ref.Casing Ammo I-2D N-3D N-3D 

 Either Either Sum 

 List List 

Means 3.39 4.77 4.23 

 

007-01 CCI 4 5 4 

007-02 WIN 5 6 5 

007-03 R-P 6 6 6 

007-04 SPEER 6 6 5 

007-05 WOLF 6 5 6 

007-06 FC 6 6 4 

007-07 R-P.sep 6 6 5 

 

009-01 CCI 3 5 5 

009-02 WIN 0 1 0 

009-03 R-P 2 5 5 

009-04 SPEER 4 5 5 

009-05 WOLF 4 5 5 

009-06 FC 5 6 5 

009-07 R-P.sep 5 5 5 

 

117-01 CCI 3 5 4 

117-02 WIN 0 4 3 

117-03 R-P 4 6 6 

117-04 SPEER 5 6 3 

117-05 WOLF 6 6 5 
100

117-06 FC 5 5 3 

117-07 R-P.sep 3 6 6 

 

139-01 CCI 3 4 3 

139-02 WIN 3 1 0 

139-03 R-P 4 3 3 

139-04 SPEER 4 3 2 

139-05 WOLF 2 2 1 

139-06 FC 2 4 3 

139-07 R-P.sep 3 5 3 

 

213-01 CCI 2 4 3 

213-02 WIN 4 0 0 

213-03 R-P 5 5 4 

213-04 SPEER 3 3 3 

213-05 WOLF 3 3 3 

213-06 FC 1 1 1 

213-07 R-P.sep 2 5 4 

 

215-01 CCI 2 6 6 

215-02 WIN 2 4 4 

215-03 R-P 3 6 6 

215-04 SPEER 1 6 5 

215-05 WOLF 2 3 3 

215-06 FC 2 5 4 

215-07 R-P.sep 2 5 3 

 

314-01 CCI 4 5 3 

314-02 WIN 2 0 0 

314-03 R-P 5 4 4 

314-04 SPEER 3 4 2 

314-05 WOLF 4 2 1 

314-06 FC 4 2 0 

314-07 R-P.sep 4 4 3 

 

375-01 CCI 4 6 6 

375-02 WIN 3 6 5 

375-03 R-P 4 6 5 

375-04 SPEER 5 6 6 

375-05 WOLF 5 6 6 

375-06 FC 4 6 6 

375-07 R-P.sep 4 6 6 

 

430-01 CCI 3 6 6 

430-02 WIN 0 6 6 

430-03 R-P 5 6 6 

430-04 SPEER 3 6 6 

430-05 WOLF 3 6 6 
101

430-06 FC 3 6 6 

430-07 R-P.sep 5 6 6 

 

535-01 CCI 1 5 6 

535-02 WIN 4 6 6 

535-03 R-P 3 6 6 

535-04 SPEER 3 6 6 

535-05 WOLF 2 6 6 

535-06 FC 2 6 6 

535-07 R-P.sep 2 6 6 

Table 9-6 shows the overlap metric statistics for the sum method of N-3D firing pin and breech 

face impressions. 

Table 9-6. Overlap metric p for the sum of the ACCFmax values for topographic signatures of the breech face 

impressions and firing pin impressions of 10 De Kinder guns, ordered by value of overlap metric. 

Gun ID p 

535 0.0013 

375 0.0056 

430 0.0082 

007 0.0706 

117 0.0820 

215 0.0843 

009 0.0981 

213 0.3303 

139 0.3513 

314 0.3660 

 

Mean 0.140 

The mean p was 0.284 for N-3D firing pins and 0.253 for N-3D breech faces, so the sum 

measure does somewhat better than either of the two measures. A comparison of the results of 

Table 9-1 and Table 9-5 shows that this is consistent with the marginal improvement of the mean 

number of correct matches in the N-3D top ten lists from 2.8 (breech face) and 3.3 (firing pin) to 

4.2 (sum). 

Although all the ACCFmax values are on nominally the same scales, the firing pin ACCFmax

values are more spread out from 0-100 and thus tend to dominate the sum. This domination can 

be lessened by a different normalization scheme, e.g., using a z-score that divides by the standard 

deviation. However, that normalization is more difficult to apply because it requires knowledge 

of the population or the sample of scores to obtain the standard deviations. 
102

Although it may be true that the use of more and more measures to be combined may always 

improve performance, there may also be diminishing returns, where each added measure adds 

only a marginal amount of improvement that may not be worth the extra effort. This will be 

especially true if one measure dominates or performs better than the others, or if there is 

dependence between the measures. If one measure performs extremely well by itself, combining 

it with much weaker measures may not help much. 

9.6.4 NBIDE Firing Pin Correlation Analysis

Recall that the NBIDE set contains 108 casings fired from 12 guns, with nine casings fired from 

each gun. Thus, for any particular casing in the NBIDE set, there are eight (=9 – 1) casings fired 

from the same gun and 99 (=108 – 9) casings fired from different guns. Therefore, for each 

particular casing in the NBIDE set, there are eight other casings that produce a match with that 

casing, and 99 casings that produce a non-match with that casing. The correlations from the 

eight matching pairs should ideally be considerably higher than the correlations from the 99 nonmatching pairs. 

Figure 9-15 depicts the ACCFmax matrix of the NBIDE firing pin data, where the casings are 

ordered by gun (Ruger 41, Ruger 42, Ruger 46, Ruger 48, Sig Sauer 30, Sig Sauer 31, Sig Sauer 

32, Sig Sauer 33, S&W 305, S&W 306, S&W 314, S&W 401) and within gun by ammunition 

(1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and within ammunition by repetition number (RR#). Recall that there 

are four guns of each brand; each gun fires three shots of each of the three ammunition brands 

for a total of 4×3×3×3 = 108 firings. 

Recall the ACCFmax matrices for the De Kinder set (Figs. 9-5 and 9-10) and remember how 

greatly they differed from the “ideal” fictional case of Fig. 9-4. How do the results for the 

NBIDE firing pin images in Fig. 9-15 compare? It can be seen that most of the non-matching 

correlations are quite small in magnitude (bluish). Some of the guns have matching correlations 

that are higher in magnitude (greenish or orange). It looks more like the pattern of the ideal 

ACCFmax matrix in Fig. 9-4, though still far from ideal. 

Figure 9-16 depicts histograms of the matching and non-matching scores for the NBIDE firing 

pin N-3D data. It shows that there is still a considerable degree of overlap between the matching 

and non-matching scores, which is not ideal. 
103

Figure 9-15. ACCFmax matrix of the NBIDE firing pin N-3D data. The color of the pixel in row I and column J 

indicates the value of the ACCFmax between casing I as the reference casing and casing J as the compared casing. 

The pixels are ordered by gun ID (Ruger 41, Ruger 42, Ruger 46, Ruger 48, Sig Sauer 30, Sig Sauer 31, Sig Sauer 

32, Sig Sauer 33, S&W 305, S&W 306, S&W 314, S&W 401) with Rugers in the upper left and S&W’s in the lower 

right), and within gun by ammunition (1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and within ammunition by RR#. 

ACCFmax (%)

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Non-Match

Match

Percentage

ACCFmax (%)

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Non-Match

Match

Percentage

Figure 9-16. N-3D data for NBIDE firing pin impressions: The green lines depict a histogram of the matching 

scores, while the brown lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. 
104

Figure 9-17 breaks down these results by reference gun, with the overlap metric p given for each 

grouping. For the De Kinder firing pin impressions, there was considerable performance 

variation between guns. Does the same hold true for the NBIDE firing pin impressions? 

Figure 9-17. NBIDE firing pin N-3D data: Above each of the individual plots is a heading with the ID of the 

reference gun and the overlap metric p estimated for that group. In each plot, the green dotted lines depict a 

histogram of the matching scores, while the brown solid lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. The 

horizontal scale for ACCFmax is the same as Fig. 9-6 (%). 
105

Figure 9-17 shows considerable differences between guns. While the non-matching distributions 

appear similar for each gun, the matching distributions are quite different for each. There is 

variability within the gun brands: each brand (depicted by row) has one gun that has much more 

separation than the others of the same brand (Ruger 42, Sig Sauer 32, and S&W 305); and each 

brand has at least one gun with large overlap and p metric greater than 0.2. 

Table 9-7 contains the overlap metric statistics for the firing pin data ordered by performance of 

the gun as estimated by the overlap metric. 

Table 9-7. Overlap metric p for the ACCFmax values for topographic signatures of the firing pin impressions of 12 

NBIDE guns. 

Gun ID p 

Ruger 42 0 

S&W 305 0.004 

Sig Sauer 32 0.038 

S&W 314 0.052 

Ruger 48 0.065 

Ruger 41 0.129 

Sig Sauer 33 0.139 

S&W 401 0.157 

S&W 306 0.213 

Sig Sauer 31 0.243 

Ruger 46 0.244 

Sig Sauer 30 0.249 

 

Mean 0.128 

There are considerable differences within guns of the same brand. 

Figure 9-18 breaks down the data even more finely, by dividing the data into groups by reference 

casing. Each of the smaller plots depicts for each casing, its correlations with the eight casings 

fired from the same gun (matches, lower triangles), and the correlations with the 99 casings fired 

from other guns (non-matches, upper triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun ID 

#, ammunition #, and RR # of the reference casing. How does the degree of overlap or 

separation between matching and non-matching vary among casings fired from the same gun, 

which are shown on the same row in the diagram? 

From Fig. 9-18, it can be seen that Ruger 41 is not consistent because the row for this gun 

contains some casings that possess separation between matching and non-matching scores and 

other casings that have considerable overlaps. For the other guns, there is a lesser but still 

considerable variability within casings fired from the same gun. 
106

ACCFmax

Figure 9-18. NBIDE Firing Pin N-3D data: Correlations for each casing with the eight casings fired from the same 

gun (matches, lower triangles), and with the 99 casings fired from other guns (non-matches, upper triangles). The 

label above each plot indicates the gun ID and ammunition manufacturer (1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and RR# of the 

reference casing 
107

For each of the 108 casings, an overlap metric for the matching and non-matching correlation 

scores produced by that casing can be estimated by looking at all pair-wise comparisons between 

matching and non-matching correlations for each casing. The histogram in Fig. 9-19 shows the 

empirical distribution of those overlap metrics. How do these estimates compare with the 

estimates by gun? 

From Fig. 9-19, it can be seen that the NBIDE firing pins produce greater separation between 

matching and non-matching distributions than do the De Kinder firing pins, but most still have a 

degree of overlap that will produce mistakes in a large database scenario. 

Figure 9-19. NBIDE Firing Pin N-3D data: Histogram of the overlap metric p estimated for each of the 108 NBIDE 

casings using pair-wise comparison methods. The mean value of p is 0.11 and the median value of p is 0.08. About 

75% of the values are larger than 0.01. 

9.6.5 NBIDE Breech Face Correlation Analysis

Figure 9-20 depicts the ACCFmax matrix of the NBIDE breech face impression data, where the 

casings are ordered by gun (Ruger 41, Ruger 42, Ruger 46, Ruger 48, Sig Sauer 30, Sig Sauer 

31, Sig Sauer 32, Sig Sauer 33, S&W 305, S&W 306, S&W 314, S&W 401), and within gun by 

ammunition ((1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and within ammunition by RR#. Recall that there are 

four guns of each brand; each gun fires three shots each of each of the three ammunition brands 

for a total of 4×3 ×3×3=108 firings. 
108

Recall the ACCFmax matrices for the De Kinder set (Fig. 9-5 and 9-10) and for the NBIDE firing 

pin impressions (Fig. 9-15) in the previous section. How do the results for the NBIDE breech 

face N-3D images in Fig. 9-20 compare? 

Figure 9-20. ACCFmax matrix of the NBIDE Breech Face N-3D data. The color of the pixel in row I and column J 

indicates the value of the ACCFmax between casing I as the reference casing and casing J as the compared casing. 

The pixels are ordered by gun ID (Ruger 41, Ruger 42, Ruger 46, Ruger 48, Sig Sauer 30, Sig Sauer 31, Sig Sauer 

32, Sig Sauer 33, S&W 305, S&W 306, S&W 314, S&W 401, with Rugers at upper left and S&W’s in lower right), 

and within gun by ammunition ((1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and within ammunition by RR#. 

The ACCFmax matrix in Fig. 9-20 is much closer to the “ideal” ACCFmax matrix in Fig. 9-4 than 

anything else seen so far. 

Figure 9-21 depicts histograms of the matching and non-matching scores for the NBIDE breech 

faces. Figure 9-21 reveals a much greater degree of separation between matching and nonmatching scores than has been seen in the other data sets. 
109

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Non-Match

Match

ACCFmax (%)

Percentage

CCF

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Non-Match

Match

ACCFmax (%)

Percentage

Figure 9-21. NBIDE Breech Face: The green lines depict a histogram of the matching scores, while the brown lines 

depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. 

Figure 9-22 breaks down these results by reference gun, with the overlap metric p given for each 

grouping. For the NBIDE firing pin impressions, there was considerable variation between guns. 

By comparison, Fig. 9-22 shows better separation between matching and non-matching 

distributions for all the guns. However, it should be noted than even for some cases where there 

is little or no overlap, there may not be the wide separation between distributions that we find 

ideal; examples would be Sig Sauer 33 and S&W 401. 

Table 9-8 contains the overlap metric statistics for the breech face data, ordered by performance 

of the gun as estimated by the overlap metric, and calculated from all pair-wise comparisons. 

How do the guns perform? 
110

Figure 9-22. NBIDE Breech Face N-3D data: Above each of the individual plots is a heading with the ID of the 

reference gun and the overlap metric p derived for that group. In each plot, the green dotted line depicts a histogram 

of the matching scores, while the red solid line depicts a histogram of the non-matching scores. The symbol CCF 

stands for ACCFmax. The horizontal scale for ACCFmax is the same as Fig. 9-6 (%). 
111

Table 9-8. Overlap metric p for topographic signatures of the breech face impressions of 12 NBIDE guns 

Gun ID p 

Ruger 42 0 

Ruger 46 0 

Sig Sauer 30 0 

Sig Sauer 31 0 

S&W 306 0 

Ruger 41 0.00003 

S&W 401 0.00017 

S&W 314 0.00056 

Sig Sauer 32 0.00142 

Sig Sauer 33 0.00192 

Ruger 48 0.00809 

S&W 305 0.01353 

 

Mean 0.00214 

While some of the guns seem to have no overlap, note that as stated earlier, the estimation of 

very small probabilities by pair-wise comparisons can be problematic. 

Figure 9-23 breaks down the data more finely by dividing the data into groups by reference 

casing. Each of the smaller plots depicts for each casing its correlations with the eight casings 

fired from the same gun (matches, lower triangles), and the correlations with the 99 casings fired 

from other guns (non-matches, upper triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun ID, 

ammunition, and RR number of the reference casing. 

From Fig. 9-23 it can be seen that for most of the guns the degree of overlap or separation 

between matching and non-matching casings varies significantly among casings fired from the 

same guns, which are shown on the same row in the diagram. For some casings (e.g. Ruger 42-

1-28), there is considerable space between matching and non-matching scores. For others (e.g., 

those from Ruger 46), the matching and non-matching scores also do not overlap but may come 

close enough to cause overlapping observations for very large sample sizes. 

The histogram in Fig. 9-24 charts the estimates of p of each of the 108 casings using the all pairwise comparisons methods. How many are essentially zero and how high do the estimates go? 
112

ACCFmax

Figure 9-23. NBIDE breech face N-3D data: Correlations, for individual casings with the eight casings fired from 

the same gun (matches, lower triangles), and with the 99 casings fired from other guns (nonmatches, upper 

triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun ID, ammunition (1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and RR# of the 

reference casing. 
113

0

20

40

60

80

0.0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Percent of Total Percent of total

p

0

20

40

60

80

0.0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Percent of Total Percent of total

p

Figure 9-24. NBIDE breech face N-3D data: Histogram of the overlap metric p estimated for each of the 108 

casings using pair-wise comparison methods. The mean value of p is 0.0022, and the median p is zero. In fact, 97 of 

the 108 estimates are exactly 0 (no overlap). The other eleven estimates range from 0.0013 to 0.0707. 

The estimates of p=0 indicate no overlap between matching and non-matching distributions. It 

may be problematic to estimate very small probabilities when each casing has only eight 

observations in its matching sample and 99 observations in the non-matching samples. If a 

larger number of samples were available, there would likely be more overlaps and non-zero 

estimates. 

Fitting continuous distributions to the samples involved may ameliorate the difficulty associated 

with low probability events and relatively small sample sizes. To assess this, we fit normal 

distributions to each of the matching and non-matching samples of correlation scores and derive 

the estimated means and variances of each sample of correlations. The effect of using different 

distributions is a topic for further investigation. Using this normal approximation, we obtain a 

new group of 108 estimates of p. Figure 9-25 contains a histogram of these estimates. Is it very 

different than that for the pair-wise comparison estimates shown in Fig. 9-24? 
114

0

20

40

60

80

0.0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Percent of Total Percent of total

p

0

20

40

60

80

0.0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Percent of Total Percent of total

p

Figure 9-25. NBIDE breech face N-3D data: Histogram of the overlap metric p estimated for each of the 108 

casings using normal distribution estimates. The mean value of p is 0.0016 and the median p is 2.8 × 10-7. 

A comparison of the histograms shown in Fig. 9-25 and Fig. 9-24 suggests that the two 

estimation methods produce very similar results; however, there are differences between the two 

that do not show up in the histograms. The primary difference is that the normal distribution 

method should enable a finer resolution in estimating very small probabilities. This difference is 

shown in the following listing, which breaks down the distribution of the estimates of p. It 

shows that 55 % of the estimates are less than or equal to 1×10-6, while 94 % are less than or 

equal to 0.01. 

Proportion 

 of p estimates ≤ 0 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 0.01 0.1 

 0.11 0.55 0.63 0.72 0.81 0.94 1 

The listing shows that most estimates of p for the individual casings are not exactly 0, but are 

close to 0. This is more useful since p needs to be extremely small for that casing not to call up 

many mismatches from an extremely large database. This is discussed further in Sec. 9.10 on 

probability models. 
115

9.6.6 NBIDE: Combining N-3D Firing Pin and Breech Face Analyses 

The NBIDE Top Ten results in Table 9-2 show that when using the N-3D breech face impression 

data, 101 of the 108 NBIDE casings had the maximum eight correct matches and the other seven 

casings each had seven correct matches, included in their corresponding lists of ten most highly 

correlated compared casings. When combining measures by including all casings that make the 

Top Ten correlation list of either breech face or firing pin, 107 of the 108 NBIDE casings had 

the maximum eight correct matches. Only one casing (RR #99, Winchester, fired from Sig Sauer 

33) had only seven correct matches using either region. The compared casing that was omitted 

from both these Top Ten lists was RR #34 Remington. Conversely, when Casing RR #34 was the 

reference casing, its Top Ten list for breech face impressions did include RR #99, albeit in the 

10th and final position on the list. One summary statistic of the benefit of using both regions is 

that the average number of correct matches per Top Ten list improved to 7.99 (out of a maximum 

8 correct matches) from 7.94 for breech face alone and 5.63 for firing pin alone for N-3D. 

9.7 I-2D Correlation Scores 

9.7.1 I-2D Scores of NBIDE Firing Pin Impressions 

Figure 9-26 contains the color score matrix of the I-2D correlation scores of the 108 NBIDE 

firing pin impressions. The I-2D correlations were performed using BrassCatcher Software 

Version 3.4.5.The I-2D results in this section are based on searches involving the extended 

NBIDE set of 144 casings, but any results involving the 36 Speer casings were omitted before 

the analysis. Are any gun and ammunition brand patterns evident? 
116

Figure 9-26. Color score matrix of the NBIDE Firing Pin I-2D scores. The color of the pixel in row I and column J 

indicates the value of the correlation score between casing I as the reference casing and casing J as the compared 

casing. The pixels are ordered by gun ID (Ruger 41, Ruger 42, Ruger 46, Ruger 48, Sig Sauer 30, Sig Sauer 31, Sig 

Sauer 32, Sig Sauer 33, S&W 305, S&W 306, S&W 314, S&W 401, with Rugers at upper left and S&W’s at lower 

right), within gun by ammunition (1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and within ammunition by RR#. The self-correlation 

scores on the main diagonal were arbitrarily assigned the color of the maximum score present (204). 

The Sig Sauers are responsible for the dark blue cross in the middle of the above figure. These 

guns do not correlate with guns of the other two brands. However, matching scores of the Sig 

Sauers are also lower than those from the other two gun brands. The opposite is true of the 

S&W’s, in that they have higher matching scores, but also higher non-matching scores, 

especially with the other S&W’s and with Ruger 48. Also, the matching scores for most of the 

guns appear to be higher if the ammunition brands as well as the guns are the same. 

Figure 9-27 depicts histograms of the matching and non-matching scores for the firing pin 

impressions. 
117

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 10 20 30 40

Percentage

Score Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 10 20 30 40

Percentage

Score

Figure 9-27. NBIDE Firing Pin I-2D data: The green lines depict a histogram of the matching scores, while the 

brown lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. 

There is a considerable degree of overlap between the two distributions of scores. Given the gun 

differences seen in Fig. 9-26, it makes more sense to examine Fig. 9-28 below, which groups 

these results by reference gun, with the overlap metric p given for each grouping. The figure 

shows some differences between gun brands. Clearly, the Sig Sauers have both matching and 

non-matching scores of low magnitude, while the S&Ws have matching and non-matching 

scores of higher magnitude, with the Rugers in between. All guns appear to have considerable 

overlap. 

Table 9-9 contains the statistics for the firing pin impression data ordered by performance of the 

gun as estimated by the overlap metric. How do the gun brands differ? 
118

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ruger 41 : p= 0.36

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ruger 42 : p= 0.17

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ruger 46 : p= 0.32

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ruger 48 : p= 0.17

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sig 30 : p= 0.28

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sig 31 : p= 0.26

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sig 32 : p= 0.12

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sig 33 : p= 0.21

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sm-W 305 : p= 0.14

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sm-W 306 : p= 0.19

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sm-W 314 : p= 0.13

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sm-W 401 : p= 0.14

Figure 9-28. NBIDE Firing Pin I-2D data: Above each of the individual plots is a heading with the ID of the 

reference gun and the overlap metric p estimated for that group. In each plot, the green lines depict histograms of 

the matching scores, while the brown lines depict histograms of the non-matching scores. 
119

Table 9-9. Estimated overlap metric p for the I-2D scores of the firing pin impressions of 12 NBIDE guns. 

Gun ID p

 

Sig Sauer 32 0.12 

S&W 314 0.13 

S&W 401 0.14 

S&W 305 0.14 

Ruger 48 0.17 

Ruger 42 0.17 

S&W 306 0.19 

 Sig Sauer 33 0.21 

 Sig Sauer 31 0.26 

 Sig Sauer 30 0.28 

Ruger 46 0.32 

Ruger 41 0.36 

 

Mean 0.21 

There are differences within guns of the same brand. However, the S&W’s are on the average 

doing better than the Sig Sauers. A couple of Rugers are hurt by having some very low matching 

scores, as can be seen from Figures 9-26 and 9-28. 

Given the differences even within the same gun, let’s look at Fig. 9-29, which breaks down the 

data even more finely, by dividing the data into groups by reference casing. Each of the smaller 

plots depicts for each casing, its I-2D correlation scores with the eight casings fired from the 

same gun (matches, lower triangles), and the correlation scores with the 99 casings fired from 

other guns (non-matches, upper triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun number 

and ammunition of the reference casing. 

Most casings appear to have substantial overlaps between matching and non-matching scores. 

Ruger 48 produces better separation than most except for one casing, which does not correlate 

well with the other casings fired from that gun. Casing RR 94 fired from Ruger 41 resembles the 

Sig Sauers in having uniformly low matching and non-matching scores. For each of the 108 

casings, an overlap metric for the matching and non-matching correlation scores produced by 

that casing can be estimated by looking at all pair-wise comparisons between matching and nonmatching correlations for each casing. The histogram of Fig. 9-30 shows the empirical 

distribution of those overlap metrics. 

The mean estimated p is 0.19, and the median estimated p is 0.16. The minimum estimated p is 

0.04, and around 75 % of the estimates are larger than 0.11. All have a degree of overlap that 

would produce mistakes in a large database scenario. 
120

Scores

Figure 9-29. NBIDE Firing Pin I-2D data: Correlations, for individual casings, with the eight casings fired from the 

same gun (matches, lower triangles), and with the 99 casings fired from other guns (non-matches, upper triangles). 

The label above each plot indicates the gun ID, ammunition (1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and RR# of the reference 

casing. 
121

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Percent of Total Percent of total

p

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Percent of Total Percent of total

p

Figure 9-30. NBIDE Firing Pin I-2D data: a histogram of the overlap metric p estimated for each of the 108 NBIDE 

casings. 
122

9.7.2 I-2D Scores of NBIDE Breech Face Impressions 

Figure 9-31 depicts the I-2D scores of the 108 NBIDE breech face impressions in the form of a 

color matrix. Are the same gun and ammunition brand patterns evident as in the firing pin 

impressions? 

Figure 9-31. Color score matrix of the NBIDE breech face I-2D scores. The color of the pixel in row I and column

J indicates the value of the correlation score between casing I as the reference casing and casing J as the compared 

casing. The pixels are ordered by gun ID (Ruger 41, Ruger 42, Ruger 46, Ruger 48, Sig Sauer 30, Sig Sauer 31, Sig 

Sauer 32, Sig Sauer 33, S&W 305, S&W 306, S&W 314, S&W 401, with Rugers at upper left and S&Ws at lower 

right), and within gun by ammunition (1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and within ammunition by RR#. The selfcorrelation scores on the main diagonal were arbitrarily assigned the color of the maximum score present (202). 

The Sig Sauers again produce lower matching and non-matching scores than do the other gun 

brands, although the pattern is not nearly as pronounced as for the firing pin impressions. The 

Rugers have the highest matching scores, especially when both the reference and compared 

casings are PMCs. However, the highest non-match scores occur when both guns are Rugers; 

Ruger 41 is an exception to that observation in having several very low matching and nonmatching scores. 
123

Figure 9-32 depicts histograms of the matching and non-matching scores for the breech face 

impressions. What is the degree of overlap or separation between the two distributions? 

Score

P ercentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0

Percentage

Score Score

P ercentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0

Percentage

Score

Figure 9-32. NBIDE Breech Face I-2D data: The green lines depict a histogram of the matching scores, while the 

brown lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. 

There is a considerable degree of overlap between the matching and non-matching scores, 

although less than for the firing pin impressions. Given the gun differences seen in Fig. 9-31, it 

makes more sense to examine Fig. 9-33, which groups these results by reference gun, with the 

overlap metric p given for each grouping. Are the gun brand differences evident? 
124

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Ruger 41 : p= 0.16

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Ruger 42 : p= 0.04

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Ruger 46 : p= 0.06

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Ruger 48 : p= 0.03

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Sig 30 : p= 0.11

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Sig 31 : p= 0.09

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Sig 32 : p= 0.05

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Sig 33 : p= 0.22

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Sm-W 305 : p= 0.05

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Sm-W 306 : p= 0.02

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Sm-W 314 : p= 0.11

Score

Percentage

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60 80

Sm-W 401 : p= 0.09

Figure 9-33. NBIDE Breech Face I-2D data: Above each of the individual plots is a heading with the ID of the 

reference gun and the overlap metric p estimated for that group. In each plot, the green lines depict a histogram of 

the matching scores, while the brown lines depict a histogram of the non-matching scores. 

As with the firing pin impressions, the Sig Sauers have both matching and non-matching scores 

of low magnitude. However, there is less overlap between both matching and non-matching 

scores than with the firing pin impressions. 

Table 9-10 contains the statistics for the breech face data ordered by performance of the gun as 

estimated by the overlap metric. There is much greater separation between matching and nonmatching scores than existed with the firing pin impressions. Also, there are again wide 

differences within gun brands. 
125

Table 9-10. Estimated overlap metric p for the I-2D scores of the breech face impressions of 12 NBIDE guns. 

Gun ID p 

 

S&W 306 0.02 

Ruger 48 0.03 

Ruger 42 0.04 

S&W 305 0.05 

Sig Sauer 32 0.05 

Ruger 46 0.06 

Sig Sauer 31 0.09 

S&W 401 0.09 

S&W 314 0.11 

Sig Sauer 30 0.11 

Ruger 41 0.16 

Sig Sauer 33 0.22 

 

Mean 0.08 

Given the differences even within the same gun, let’s look at Fig. 9-34, which breaks down the 

data even more finely, by dividing the data into groups by reference casing. Each of the smaller 

plots depicts for each casing, its correlations with the eight casings fired from the same gun 

(matches, lower triangles), and its correlations with the 99 casings fired from other guns (nonmatches, upper triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun # and ammunition of the 

reference casing. 

From Fig. 9-34, most but not all casings have some overlap between matching and non-matching 

scores; however, there is less overlap than is present with the firing pin impression data. For each 

of the 108 casings, an overlap metric for the matching and non-matching correlation scores 

produced by that casing can be estimated by looking at all pair-wise comparisons between 

matching and non-matching correlations for that casing. 

Figure 9-35 shows the empirical distribution of those estimated overlap metrics grouped by 

casing. How does it compare with that of the firing pin estimated scores shown in Fig. 9-30? 

The estimated overlap metrics are significantly better (closer to 0) than those for firing pin 

impressions. The mean of the estimated p is 0.09, and the median estimated p is 0.06. About 

75 % of the estimated overlap metrics are larger than 0.027. Seven of the 108 casings have no 

overlap, leading to estimates of p = 0. 

Note that because the triangles in Fig. 9-34 have non-zero width, some of the casing plots may 

give the impression of somewhat more overlap than actually exists. For example, casing RR# 41 

fired from S&W 306 (ammunition 3) has no overlap between matching and non-matching scores. 

Several of those casings with no overlap have little separation between the largest non-matching 

score and the smallest matching score. 
126

Scores

Figure 9-34. NBIDE Breech Face I-2D data: Correlations, for individual casings, with the eight casings fired from 

the same gun (matches, lower triangles) and with the 99 casings fired from other guns (non-matches, upper 

triangles). The label above each plot indicates the gun ID, ammunition (1-Win, 2-Rem, 3-PMC), and RR# of the 

reference casing. 
127

0

10

20

30

40

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Percent of Total Percent of total

p

0

10

20

30

40

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Percent of Total Percent of total

p

Figure 9-35. NBIDE Breech Face I-2D data: Histogram of the overlap metric p estimated for each of the 108 

NBIDE casings. 

9.7.3 NBIDE: Combining I-2D Firing Pin and Breech Face Analyses 

The I-2D Top Ten results in Table 9-2 show that the I-2D breech face impression data produce 

an average of 5.57 correct matches out of a maximum eight correct matches per Top Ten list. 

Using the I-2D firing pin impression data yields an average of 3.72 correct matches per Top Ten 

list. Combining measures by including all casings that make the Top Ten correlation list of either

breech face or firing pin set yields an average of 6.20 correct matches out of eight, which is 

certainly better than either region alone, but still does not come close to eliminating the existing 

coverage mistakes. 
128

9.7.4 Correlation Software and Algorithm Uncertainties 

The I-2D correlations of the NBIDE casings were performed in two different ways. First, 

correlations were performed at the ATF shortly after the I-2D image acquisitions were made. 

Rankings of the top 30 to 40 breech face and firing pin correlations for each NBIDE casing were 

calculated and printed. The database for this correlation included all 144 NBIDE test fires and 

the 70 De Kinder casings. The top results for the NBIDE PMC, Remington, and Winchester 

ammunition were then entered manually into a spreadsheet and analyzed in a manner similar to 

that shown in Sec. 9.3 to produce Top Ten results among the 108 NBIDE casings. Afterwards, 

the data were moved to FTI, Montreal, where the entire collection of 144 NBIDE test fires were 

analyzed. This calculation produced an array of 144 by 143 I-2D correlation scores, which 

produced the results in Secs. 9.3 and 9.7. 

Although the two correlations produced similar results, there were two types of differences. 

First, some pairs produced different scores in the ATF and FTI correlations. Although these 

differences were small in most cases, a few gave significantly different results. For example, the 

pair of breech face impressions from RR #16 as the reference casing and RR #28 as the 

compared casing produced an I-2D score of 89 in the ATF correlation but a score of 82 in the 

FTI correlation. Second, some pairs scoring in the Top Ten in the FTI correlation were 

completely missing in the ATF correlation. 

The first type of difference suggests that there were slightly different versions of software used 

in the two correlation runs. The second type of difference is ascribed to a coarse filter procedure, 

which was likely used for the correlation run at the ATF but not for the correlation run at FTI. 

Because the correlations are generally used with large databases, the I-2D system routinely 

applies a coarse filter to correlation runs. That is, a preliminary correlation procedure is applied 

to all the entries in the database. Then for each reference casing only the highest scoring 

acquisitions, approximately 20 %, are used for a more extensive correlation calculation. The 

scores from the second correlation are recorded in the printed correlation results, but some of 

these high scoring pairs may be missing if they do not pass the coarse screening filter test. The 

frequency of missing entries in the correlation run at ATF was particularly significant when the 

reference casing was a Sig Sauer test fire because the database there included 36 Sig Sauer test 

fires from the NBIDE collection and 70 Sig Sauer test fires from the De Kinder collection. 

Therefore, the probability that a genuine match of casings would fall below the top 20 % (about 

44 entries) in the first correlation pass was higher for a Sig Sauer test fire than for a Ruger or 

S&W, given that there were many similar Sig Sauer test fires in the ATF database. 

The software differences discussed above produced differences in the Top Ten scores for the I2D correlations. Referring to Table 9-2, the ATF average score for breech face impressions was 

about 5.1 correct matches versus the value of 5.57 given in the Table and derived from the FTI 

correlations. For the firing pin impressions the average scores were both about 3.7. 

A third type of difference in the I-2D scores was also recorded. The matching score for a pair 

could change depending on which member was used as the reference. However, the differences 

were insignificant except for a few cases. This asymmetry was also present in the ACCFmax

scores for the topography correlations. 
129

9.8 NBIDE Topographic Analysis for Gun Brand and Ammunition Effects 

The NBIDE-designed experiment with its three gun types and four guns per type allows us to 

conduct a third kind of analysis that is not available from the De Kinder casings experiment with 

its single gun type. The experiment enables exploration of ammunition and gun brands on cross 

correlations. For instance, will casings fired from the same gun be more highly correlated if the 

ammunition brands are the same? Conversely, will the casings fired from different guns be more 

likely to be falsely matched if the ammunition are the same brand and/or the guns are of the same 

model? 

For this analysis, we can divide the 108 × 107 casing permutations into six groups shown below 

with varying degrees of separation. Note that there are 108 × 107 pairs because the 

ACCFmax(A,B) and ACCFmax(B,A) are not necessarily the same, so both are included for each 

combination of casings A and B. This accounts for the final ‘× 2’ in each group enumeration 

below. 

In that regard, we note the following categories of casing pairs: 

1) Same gun, same ammo: 

( 12 guns × 3 ammos ) × [3 casing combinations × 2 ] 

= 36 × 6 = 216 

2) Same gun, different ammo: 

(12 guns × 3 ammo combinations) × [9 casing permutations × 2] 

 = 36 × 18 = 648 

3) Different guns of same brand, same ammo: 

(3 ammo brands × 3 gun brands ) × [6 gun pairs × 9 casing permutations × 2 ] 

= 9 × 108 = 972 

4) Different guns of same brand, different ammo: 

(3 gun brands × 3 ammo combinations) × [12 gun permutation pairs × 9 casing 

permutations × 2 ] = 9 × 216 = 1944 

5) Guns of different brands, same ammo: 

(3 ammo brands × 3 gun brand pairs) × [16 gun permutations] × 9 casing permutations ×

2] = 9 × 288= 2592 

6) Guns of different brands, different ammos: 

(6 gun brand permutations × 3 ammo brand pairs) × [16 gun permutations × 

9 casing permutations × 2 ] = 18 × 288 = 5184 

The six sub-totals above total to 108 × 107 = 11556. 
130

In this section, we tabulate and explore the averages of the different groups in the first 5 

categories above 

9.8.1 NBIDE Firing Pin Images: Topographic Analysis of Ammunition Effects 

Table 9-11 shows average ACCFmax values for various matching casing pairs divided into groups 

by guns and ammunition combinations. The first four columns of numbers are for the groups 

where both casings are the same ammunition brand. The last four columns are when the casings 

are from different ammunition brands. 

Table 9-11. Average ACCFmax values from firing pin impressions for NBIDE casing pairs fired by the same firearm. 

All values are expressed in % where 100 % is the value 1.0, indicating perfect correlation. 

Gun ID Same Ammo Brand Different Ammo Brands 

 Winchester Remington PMC Average 

 WinRem  WinPMC  Rem.-

PMC Average

 

Ruger 41 55 27 67 49.7 33 59 33 41.7 

Ruger 42 54 66 69 63.0 60 60 66 62.0 

Ruger 46 45 24 42 37.0 26 46 25 32.3 

Ruger 48 42 27 45 38.0 36 46 35 39.0 

 

Sig Sauer 30 33 24 41 32.7 32 40 37 36.3 

Sig Sauer 31 27 27 29 27.7 29 30 30 29.7 

Sig Sauer 32 32 53 51 45.3 31 32 51 38.0 

Sig Sauer 33 34 42 58 44.7 24 41 33 32.7 

 

S&W 305 48 53 63 54.7 54 54 53 53.7 

S&W 306 24 52 37 37.7 27 34 41 34.0 

S&W 314 43 33 48 41.3 37 47 37 40.3 

S&W 401 45 50 46 47.0 26 38 43 35.7 

 

Average 40.2 39.8 49.7 43.2 34.6 43.9 40.3 39.6 

There is obviously a large degree of variability in the category-pair means between gun brands, 

between guns of the same brand, and even between categories from the same gun. There are 

ammo effects, but they are not consistent, e.g., lower ACCFmax values for Remingtons with 

Rugers. 

The standard deviations of ACCFmax values of casing-pair groups, fired by the same gun and 

having the same ammunition brand, range from 1 % to 23 %, with the very largest standard 

deviations occurring with the Sig Sauer pairs. The matching casing-pair groups with different 

ammunition have group standard deviations ranging from 2 % to 20 %, with again the very 

largest standard deviations occurring with the Sig Sauer pairs. 
131

Table 9-12 shows the average ACCFmax values of casings from non-matching guns of the same 

brand. The columns are organized by ammunition brand combination. The standard deviations 

of the ACCFmax groups in this table range from 3 % to 8 %, with the higher standard deviations 

occurring with the S&W’s. 

Table 9-12. Average ACCFmax values from firing pin impressions for casing pairs fired by different firearms of the 

same brand. All values are expressed in %. 

 Winchester Remington PMC Win-Rem Win-PMC Rem.-PMC 

 

Ruger 22 18 23 20 23 20 

Sig Sauer 25 26 24 24 23 25 

S&W 24 34 32 26 27 31 

Table 9-13 shows the mean ACCFmax values from firing pin impressions for casing pairs of the 

same ammunition brand, but fired from different brands of guns. The standard deviations of the 

ACCFmax groups in this table range from 4 % to 7 %. 

Table 9-13. Average ACCFmax values from firing pin impressions for casing pairs fired by different brands of guns. 

All values are expressed in %. 

 Winchester Remington PMC 

 

Ruger-Sig Sauer 21 21 21 

Ruger-S&W 23 22 26 

Sig Sauer-S&W 20 26 24 

For the large pool of pairs of casings that have both different gun brands and different 

ammunition brands, the mean of the ACCFmax value is 23 % and the standard deviation is 6 %. 

These appear quite similar to the ACCFmax values with the same brand ammunition but different 

brands of guns. 

9.8.2 NBIDE Breech Face Images: Topographic Analysis of Ammunition Effects 

Table 9-14 shows average ACCFmax values for various matching casing pairs divided into groups 

by guns and ammunition combinations. The first four columns of numbers are for the groups 

where both casings are the same ammunition brand. The last four columns are when the casings 

are from different ammunition brands. 
132

Table 9-14. Average ACCFmax values from NBIDE breech face impressions for matching casing pairs fired by the 

same gun. All values are expressed in %. 

Gun ID Same Ammo Brand Different Ammo Brands 

 Win. Rem. PMC Ave. 

 Win- 

 Rem Win-PMC Rem.-PMC Ave. 

 

Ruger 41 78 68 82 76.0 68 76 66 70.0 

Ruger 42 76 80 83 79.7 76 78 74 76.0 

Ruger 46 51 64 75 63.3 57 64 60 60.3 

Ruger 48 81 50 77 69.3 70 80 69 73.0 

 

Sig Sauer30 63 73 64 66.7 58 62 62 60.7 

Sig Sauer 31 78 71 69 72.7 74 74 72 73.3 

Sig Sauer32 67 74 62 67.7 66 65 67 66.0 

Sig Sauer 33 45 55 51 50.3 41 48 40 43.0 

 

S&W 305 51 54 50 51.7 44 52 49 48.3 

S&W 306 51 67 70 62.7 54 56 63 57.7 

S&W 314 40 57 53 50.0 47 46 50 47.7 

S&W 401 62 48 58 56.0 44 56 50 50.0 

 

Average 61.9 63.4 66.2 63.8 58.3 63.1 60.2 60.5 

 

The standard deviations of ACCFmax values of those casing pairs from the same gun and the 

same ammunition brand range from 1 % to 20 %, with the very largest standard deviations 

occurring with the Sig Sauer pairs. The matching casing pair categories with different 

ammunition have standard deviations ranging from 5 % to 11 %. The Rugers have higher 

ACCFmax values, and the S&W’s have lower ACCFmaxvalues. Sig Sauer 33 has particularly low 

ACCFmax values. 

Table 9-15 shows the average ACCFmax values of non-matching casing pairs with common gun 

brands, organized by ammunition brand combination. The standard deviations of the ACCFmax

groups in this table range from 3 % to 7 %, with the higher standard deviations occurring with 

the Sig Sauers and the lower standard deviations occurring with the S&Ws. The one pattern that 

seems evident is that there are lower ACCFmax values between non-matching S&W casings as 

opposed to non-matching casings of the other two brands. 
133

Table 9-15. Mean ACCFmax values from NBIDE breech face impressions for non-matching casing pairs fired by 

different guns of the same brand. All values are expressed in %. 

 Ammunition Ammunition Pair 

 Winchester Remington PMC Win-Rem Win-PMC Rem-PMC 

Gun Brand 

Ruger 22 26 21 24 21 23 

 

Sig Sauer 26 23 24 24 24 23 

S&W 19 19 18 19 18 18 

Table 9-16 shows the mean ACCFmax values of casing pairs of the same ammunition brand, but 

fired from different brands of gun. The standard deviations of the ACCFmax values in this table 

range from 3 % to 5 %. 

Table 9-16. Mean ACCFmax values from NBIDE breech face impressions for casing pairs of the same brand fired by 

different brands of guns. All values are expressed in %. 

 Winchester Remington PMC 

 

Ruger-Sig Sauer 22 24 20 

 

Ruger-S&W 19 21 19 

 

Sig Sauer-S&W 22 19 20 

For the large pool of casing pairs that have both different gun brands and different ammunition 

brands, the mean of the ACCFmax values is 21 % and the standard deviation is 4 %. These values 

are similar to the ACCFmax values with the same brand ammunition but different brands of guns. 

Any variabilities due to ammunition are smaller than the variabilities due to guns. We have seen 

considerable variability even within guns of the same model. In any case, ammunition brand 

effects are relatively modest compared to gun effects, because the non-matching scores tend to 

be around the same magnitude regardless of whether the ammunition brands are the same or 

whether the gun brands are the same. An exception may be the higher firing pin non-matching 

ACCFmax values for Smith&Wesson guns using non-Winchester ammunition. On the other hand, 

the matching scores vary most according to the gun brand and between individual guns within 

the same gun brand. 

Some analyses of variance found that gun and ammunition effects, as well as interactions, were 

statistically significant for the matching scores. For the non-matching scores, gun and 

ammunition effects were also significant. In all cases, the largest effects were the gun effects. 

Section 10 contains an analysis of gun and ammunition effects using the Top Ten experiments. 
134

9.9 NBIDE I-2D Analysis for Gun Brand and Ammunition Effects 

9.9.1 NBIDE Firing Pin Impressions 

Table 9-17 contains average I-2D score values for various matching casing pairs divided into 

groups by guns and by ammunition combinations. The first three columns of numbers are for the 

groups where both casings are the same ammunition brand. The columns on the right are when 

the casings are from different ammunition brands. What are the effects of the brand pairings for 

gun and ammunition? 

Table 9-17. Average I-2D scores from firing pin impressions for casing pairs fired by the same weapon.

Gun ID Same Ammo Brand Different Ammo Brands 

 Win. Rem. PMC Average Win-Rem

WinPMC Rem.-PMC Average

 

Ruger 41 125 39 136 100 15 102 25 47 

Ruger 42 80 54 146 93 71 108 75 85 

Ruger 46 66 70 122 86 32 89 22 48 

Ruger 48 136 46 144 109 87 127 85 100 

 

Sig Sauer 30 33 38 47 39 26 27 29 27 

Sig Sauer 31 29 20 33 27 27 39 24 30 

Sig Sauer 32 57 72 62 64 51 48 46 48 

Sig Sauer 33 56 65 97 73 23 62 25 37 

 

S&W 305 158 81 184 141 102 159 100 120 

S&W 306 69 104 123 99 86 91 107 95 

S&W 314 106 120 162 129 99 98 128 108 

S&W 401 177 126 152 152 89 115 96 100 

 

Average 91 70 117 93 59 89 64 70 

For every gun except Sig Sauer 31, the average score is higher when the reference and compared 

ammunition brands are the same rather than different. When the ammunition brand is the same 

for both casings, the average scores are highest when both casings are PMC for every gun except 

S&W 401 and Sig Sauer 32. The Sig Sauers produce lower match scores, but as will be seen 

below, they also produce lower non-match scores. The standard deviations of the scores within 

each group vary widely (from 2 to 40). 

Table 9-18 shows the average I-2D scores of casings from non-matching guns of the same brand. 

The columns are organized by ammunition brand combination. What are the effects of gun 

brand and ammunition brand? 
135

Table 9-18. Average I-2D scores from firing pin impressions for casing pairs fired by different weapons of the same 

brand. 

Gun Brand Ammunition 

 Win. Rem. PMC Win-Rem Win-PMC Rem.-PMC 

 

Ruger 66 33 73 34 67 32 

Sig Sauer 33 26 36 25 31 32 

S&W 93 95 114 85 99 94 

 

In a pattern that can seen from the score matrix in Fig. 9-26 and from the histograms in Fig. 9-28, 

the Sig Sauers produce lower non-match scores along with the lower match scores seen in Table 

9-17. In contrast, different guns that are both S&W produce larger scores than for the other two 

gun brands. When the different guns are both Ruger, there are larger scores in some cases. The 

standard deviations of the scores within each group vary widely (from 10 to 50). 

Table 9-19 shows the mean I-2D scores of casing pairs of the same ammunition brand, but fired 

from different brands of guns. The standard deviations of the I-2D groups in this table range 

from 5 to 27. Are there ammunition effects and gun brand interactions? 

Table 9-19. Average I-2D scores from firing pin impressions for casing pairs fired by different brands of weapons 

with the same brand ammunition. 

Win. Rem. PMC 

 

Ruger-Sig Sauer 16 16 17 

 

Ruger-S&W 64 42 76 

 

Sig Sauer-S&W 21 20 19 

 

The Rugers and S&Ws correlate much more with each other than with the Sig Sauers, especially 

when PMC and Winchester ammunition is used for both casings. For the large pool of pairs of 

casings that have both different gun brands and different ammunition brands, the mean score is 

31 and the standard deviation is 26. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that ammunition 

and gun brand effects, as well as interactions, were significant. 
136

9.9.2 NBIDE Breech Face Impressions 

Table 9-20 shows average I-2D score values for various matching casing pairs divided into 

groups by guns and by ammunition combinations. The first three columns of numbers are for the 

groups where both casings are the same ammunition brand. The columns on the right are when 

the casings are from different ammunition brands. What are the effects of the gun and 

ammunition brands? 

Table 9-20. Average I-2D scores from NBIDE breech face impressions for casing pairs fired by the same weapon. 

Gun ID Same Ammo Brand Different Ammo Brands 

 Win. Rem. PMC Average Win-Rem

WinPMC Rem.-PMC Average

 

Ruger 41 81 62 153 99 46 40 28 38 

Ruger 42 80 108 185 124 73 101 84 86 

Ruger 46 78 170 148 132 42 101 51 65 

Ruger 48 89 89 183 120 93 118 102 104 

 

Sig Sauer 30 47 40 63 50 23 38 18 26 

Sig Sauer 31 38 42 35 38 25 42 38 35 

Sig Sauer 32 71 65 35 57 52 51 35 46 

Sig Sauer 33 22 48 37 36 19 24 13 19 

 

S&W 305 72 49 69 63 46 66 43 52 

S&W 306 56 61 91 69 48 41 64 51 

S&W 314 26 44 75 48 24 33 54 37 

S&W 401 66 51 67 61 34 39 38 37 

 

Average 61 69 95 75 44 58 47 50 

For every gun, the average score is higher when the reference and compared ammunition brands 

are the same rather than different. The scores are especially high when both casings are PMC 

and the gun is a Ruger. The Sig Sauers produce lower match scores, but as will be seen below, 

they also produce lower non-match scores, although not as much lower as for the firing pin 

impressions tabulated in the previous subsection. The standard deviations of the scores of those 

casing pairs from the same gun vary widely from 5 to 67. 

Table 9-21 shows the average I-2D score values of non-matching casing pairs fired from 

different guns of the same brand, organized by ammunition brand combination. What are the 

effects of gun and ammunition brand? 
137

Table 9-21. Mean I-2D scores from NBIDE breech face impressions for casing pairs fired by different weapons of 

the same brand. 

Gun Brand Ammunition 

 Win. Rem. PMC 

WinRem WinPMC Rem.- 

PMC 

 

Ruger 36 51 66 34 41 35 

Sig Sauer 19 23 13 17 14 11 

S&W 18 24 19 18 15 18 

The average non-match scores are highest when both the reference gun and the compared guns 

are Rugers. The standard deviations of the scores in the group run from 4 to 11 for the Sig 

Sauers and S&Ws, but from 14 to 40 for the Rugers. 

Table 9-22 shows the mean I-2D scores of casing pairs of the same ammunition brand, but fired 

from different brands of gun. Are there ammunition and gun interaction effects? 

Table 9-22. Mean I-2D scores from NBIDE breech face impressions for casing pairs of the same ammunition brand 

fired by different guns. 

Win. Rem. PMC 

 

Ruger-Sig Sauer 11 10 9 

 

Ruger-S&W 17 20 17 

 

Sig Sauer-S&W 11 12 10 

 

These average non-match scores are low, but again the lowest scores occur when one of the guns 

is a Sig Sauer. The standard deviations of the I-2D scores in this table range from 4 to 9. For the 

large pool of pairs of casings that have both different gun brands and different ammunition 

brands, the mean score is 12 and the standard deviation is 7. An analysis of variance showed that 

ammunition and gun brand effects, as well as interactions, were significant. 

There is more evidence of gun and ammunition brand effects and interactions for the I-2D 

NBIDE data than for the N-3D data of the same casings. The most prominent effects in the I-2D 

data are: 

1. Matching scores are higher if the casings are the same ammunition brand, especially 

PMC. 
138

2. Sig Sauers give lower scores both for matches and non-matches. The Rugers and S&Ws 

are better correlated with each other than with the Sig Sauers. 

For the N-3D NBIDE data, there are hints of similar trends, but ammunition and gun brand 

effects appear more pronounced for the I-2D data. Further study is needed for a fuller 

quantification of these effects. 

9.10. Probability Models 

The first three subsections of this section discuss some theoretical models and their implications. 

In Sec. 9.10.4, these models are applied to the N-3D data of the NBIDE casings. It will be clear 

that all but one of the data sets examined, De Kinder or NBIDE, suggest that current technology 

is not good enough to support a very large ballistics database. The case of the N-3D analysis of 

the NBIDE breech faces is a special case and merits a separate discussion, including why it is so 

different from the De Kinder breech face results. 

9.10.1 Simple Binomial Model 

In this section we use a binomial model with the overlap metric parameter p to analyze the 

scenario of a casing from a crime scene being correlated with all the casings in a database. The 

casings in the database that are chosen for closer scrutiny by a ballistics examiner are those that 

correlate most highly with the crime scene casing, which will be called the reference casing. 

Suppose that there is actually a casing from the same gun in the database, so that it should be a 

match for the test casing. Let there be N other casings in the database, where N is a suitably 

large number. For the real match to make a Top Ten list like those produced by the I-2D system, 

only nine or fewer of the N cross-correlations with non-matching casings may be greater than the 

cross-correlation with the real match. 

For a first pass model, given several simplifying assumptions (Nair [54] has developed a 

formulation that goes beyond these assumptions), the number of casings in the database that 

yield a higher cross correlation with the reference casing than does the real match can be 

modeled as a binomial distribution, Binomial (N, p), where p is the relevant overlap metric. In 

layman’s terms, this is akin to flipping N coins, each with p being the probability of tails, and 

hoping to get 9 or fewer tails. 

In this model, the average number of non-matching correlations higher than the true matching 

correlation increases linearly with N. De Kinder found empirical evidence of such a linear 

relationship in his study when investigating the average rank of the true matching casing 

compared to the other casings. 

9.10.2 Some Numbers 

This crude probability model makes possible some approximate statements on how good the 

correlation methods have to be in order to be successful. For instance, suppose that the database 

has N = 10 000 members with the same class characteristics. How small does p have to be in 
139

order to have the correct casing in the Top Ten at least 99 percent of the time? In probabilistic 

terms, how small does p have to be in order that, if X is a Binomial (N, p) [55] random variable, 

the probability, 

(1- ) 0.99

!( - )!

! Prob ( 10) - 9

0

< =∑ × ≥ ⋅ =

N i

i

i

p p i N i

N X ? (13) 

One concrete relationship to keep in mind is that by the properties of the Binomial distribution, if 

N × p = 10, then the probability of the matching casing being in the Top Ten is only around 0.46. 

Therefore, if N is very large, then p has to be accordingly small. In fact, p needs to be 

approximately 4/N to get the right match in the Top Ten 99 percent of the time. To get in the 

Top Ten 90 percent of the time, p can be around 6.2/N. 

From this we can make statements of the sort, “If your database is that big, then your imaging 

and correlation techniques better be that good to have a reasonable probability of finding a match 

in it.” For instance, if the database has 100 000 entries, then p needs to be on the order of 

6.2×10-5 or smaller to have a 90 percent chance of getting the correct match in the Top Ten. 

100 000 entries has been suggested as a reasonable size for a national database of 9 mm Luger 

type ammunition [56]. For sake of specificity, this is a typical, representative, and reasonable 

value for the population size.” 

9.10.3 Levels of Grouping for Casings and Guns

Note that all of the above applies to the chances for a single casing. Producing a model that 

describes the performance of a group of casings or a group of guns is more complicated. There 

are several levels to which the model can be refined. We consider three grouping levels here: a 

single grouping with a single value of p for all casings and guns, a different grouping for each 

gun, and a different grouping for each casing. Other types of grouping are also possible, such as 

grouping by casing brand or by gun brand or by a combination of those. 

Single p

Suppose the same matching and non-matching distributions can be used for all casings and guns. 

Then the probability model in the previous sections can be used without modification to refer to 

all casings such that the same coin with the same p is being flipped for each reference casing. If 

X is a Binomial (N, p) random variable and we define 

P(N, p) = Prob (X <10), 

then P(N, p) is essentially the probability that the real match successfully makes it to the Top Ten 

list, and thus we refer to it as a success rate. Suppose that the specified performance goal is that, 

given a single matching casing mixed with N non-matching casings in the database, the matching 

casing is included in a Top Ten list D % of the time. Then, performance is considered 

satisfactory if P(N, p) ≥ D/100. 

Here we usually set D = 90. The criterion of 90 % seems to be a conservative and reasonable 

criterion for estimating a desirable efficiency of a large database. This target success rate then 
140

enables us to extrapolate to criteria that might be expected for an experimental database with a 

small number of entries such as the two collections we studied. The success rate for a small 

database needs to be extremely high in order to be consistent with the accuracy needs of a large 

database. More generally, the accuracy criterion depends on whether the gains in the number of 

matches and the aid to investigators will be sufficient to warrant the cost of developing and 

maintaining a large database.

Grouped by Guns 

There is variability between guns. When there are multiple firings from each gun, we can form 

separate matching and non-matching distributions for each gun, resulting in a different p for each 

gun. Thus if a certain gun has an overlap metric p, its casings would tend to make the Top Ten 

list with probability P(N, p). For a set of guns, each with its own p and P(N, p), then the average 

success rate of the group of guns is the average of the gun success rates, i.e. the mean of the 

P(N,p) values for each gun. 

To give a simple example, suppose for a fixed database size N there are ten guns of which eight 

have perfect discrimination (p = 0 and P(N, p) = 1), and two guns have p so large that P(N, p) = 

0. Then the average success rate P(N, p) = 0.8, so 80 % of the guns’ casings would make the 

Top Ten list. 

Another useful success criterion is to consider the proportion of guns that would satisfy a 

particular success rate for a given N. For the simple example above, suppose that the target 

success rate is 90 %; then eight of ten would meet the target success rate. For very large N, such 

as N=100 000, this success criterion will often be close to the average success rate because the 

individual gun success rates tend to be close to either zero or one for most target success rates. 

Grouped by Casing 

There can also be variability between casings fired from the same gun. When there are multiple 

firings from each gun, we can form separate matching and non-matching distributions for each 

casing, resulting in a different p for each casing. Thus if a certain casing has an overlap metric p, 

it would tend to make the Top Ten list with probability P(N, p). For a set of casings, each with 

its own p and P(N, p), then the success rate of the group of casings is the average of the casing 

success rates, i.e. the mean of the P(N, p) values for each casing. The percentage of casings that 

satisfy the target success rate for a given N can also be used. Similar to the case for guns, this 

percentage tends to be close to the average success rate for very large N. 

Note the requirement for multiple firings from the same gun. If each gun fired m+1 casings, then 

each casing has only m correct matches. It may be difficult to get good estimates of p using pairwise comparisons because of the relatively small number of comparisons that can be made. This 

can be especially problematic because we are most interested in very small values of p, and the 

pair-wise comparisons can yield estimates of p only as multiples of 1/(mn), where n is the 

number of non-matching ACCFmax values per casing. This may lead to too many estimates of 

zero for the value of p, as well as estimates of p that may be substantially high, as these estimates 

depend on how many values from the two samples overlap. 
141

One solution to this problem is to fit continuous distributions to the matching and non-matching 

samples. These distributions can yield estimates of p that are non-zero but very small. Of course 

there would remain the problem of whether the fitted distribution is an appropriate fit, and how 

good the fit is, given the limited sample size. In this report, we fit normal distributions using the 

estimated means and variances of each sample. It is of course possible to use different 

distributions. 

Discussion of Groups 

Suppose that the different levels of groups produce substantially different overlap metrics. Then 

one can draw different conclusions depending on the level of grouping. In general, the more 

numerous and more refined groups will lead to more optimistic conclusions, while having fewer 

groups that are more pooled will lead to more pessimistic conclusions. That is because success 

in a very large database demands a very small value of p. Thus, individual casings that have bad 

distinguishability qualities will increase the estimated p of their member group to high levels. 

Having a smaller group limits the damage done by a single casing. To use a golfing analogy, 

playing extremely poorly on one hole is much more harmful in stroke play (where every stroke 

counts) than in match play (where only holes won or lost count). This phenomenon is seen with 

the NBIDE breech faces. 

9.10.4 Experimental Results

Tables 9-23 and 9-24 recap some of the N-3D overlap metric results for the individual casings. 

Refer to Figs. 9-9, 9-14, 9-19, 9-24, and 9-25 for histograms of the overlap metric estimates. 

Table 9-23. Distribution of pair-wise comparison estimates of the overlap metric (p) for the individual casing 

model. 

Fraction of estimated p measures =0 ≤0.01 ≤0.1 Data plotted in 

 

De Kinder FP 0.24 0.31 0.46 Fig. 9-9 

De Kinder BF 0.014 0.03 0.21 Fig. 9-14 

NBIDE FP 0.18 0.25 0.56 Fig. 9-19 

NBIDE BF 0.90 0.95 1.0 Fig. 9-24 

Table 9-24. Distribution of the overlap metric (p) obtained from normal model estimates for NBIDE BF; data 

plotted in Fig. 9-25. 

Fraction of estimated p measures = 0 ≤10-6 ≤10-5 ≤10-4 ≤10-3 ≤0.01 ≤0.1 

 0.11 0.55 0.63 0.72 0.81 0.94 1 

The results are clear-cut for all pair-wise comparison estimates except the NBIDE breech face 

impressions, which will be discussed at the end of the section. For the other three, let’s assume 

the case of the most optimistic grouping (by casing). For a very large database of size N = 

100 000, given the limited resolution of the estimates possible for limited sample sizes, the only 

estimated values of p small enough for a reliable ballistics identification system are those that are 

essentially zero. From Table 9-23, only 18 % to 24 % of the firing pin impressions satisfy this 

criterion; the percentage is much lower for the De Kinder breech face impressions. Essentially 
142

the same results occur if N = 10 000. By making use of the relationship described in Sec. 9.10.2, 

we estimate that even if N is as small as 100, the proportion of casings meeting the target success 

rate of 90 % for Top Ten lists for the De Kinder sets is still less than 50 %. The analogous 

proportion of casings meeting the target success rate would be less than 56 % for the NBIDE 

firing pin impressions. For comparing the various technologies applied to different impression 

sites, the proportion of correct matches found in the Top Ten experiments described earlier can 

serve as a useful guide to system performance comparisons. These averages are summarized in 

Table 9-25. 

Table 9-25. Proportion of correct matches in Top Ten experiments 

I-2D De Kinder FP 3.06/6 = 0.51 

I-2D De Kinder BF 1.01/6 = 0.17 

 

N-3D De Kinder FP 3.26/6 = 0.54 

N-3D De Kinder BF 2.83/6 = 0.47 

 

I-2D NBIDE FP 3.72/8 = 0.46 

I-2D NBIDE BF 5.57/8 = 0.70 

 

N-3D NBIDE FP 5.63/8 = 0.70 

N-3D NBIDE BF 7.94/8 = 0.99 

 

I-2D De Kinder BF & FP 3.39/6 = 0.57 

N-3D De Kinder BF & FP 4.77/6 = 0.80 

N-3D De Kinder BF + FP 4.23/6 = 0.71 (Sum Method) 

I-2D NBIDE BF & FP 6.20/8 = 0.78 

N-3D NBIDE BF & FP 7.99/8 = 0.999 

Again, both I-2D and N-3D did much better on NBIDE Breech Face than on De Kinder Breech 

Face, and N-3D did very well. The I-2D performance for Firing Pin was similar for the two data 

sets. For N-3D, the performance for NBIDE Firing Pin was somewhat better than for De Kinder 

Firing Pin. For the De Kinder set, I-2D was much better and N-3D somewhat better for Firing 

Pin than for Breech Face. In contrast, for the NBIDE data, both N-3D and I-2D were 

substantially better on Breech Face than on Firing Pin. 

NBIDE Breech Face

The NBIDE Breech Face impressions are drastically different than anything else seen. Under the 

most optimistic scenario of grouping by individual casings, for a database of size N=100 000, 

90 % of the casings meet the target success rate, using the pair-wise comparison estimates of p 

(See Table 9-23). For fitted normal model estimates of p, Table 9-24 suggests that between 63% 

and 72% of the casings have p metrics of 6.2×10-5 or less, a value of p small enough to be 

consistent with the accuracy requirement suggested in Sec. 9.10.2. 

If instead, there is grouping by guns, then only about 50% of the guns have a p metric of 6.2×10-

5 or less (see Table 9-8). Under the pessimistic scenario of a single group, the estimated mean 

value of p = 0.002 remains over 30 times too large, despite being orders of magnitude smaller 

than anything else seen. 
143

Discussion 

For a technology to be feasible for a very large database, its Top Ten lists should have obtained 

close to all possible correct matches in a relatively low sample size experiment like those 

described in this report. Nothing we have seen comes close to achieving such high performance 

standards except for the N-3D performance on the NBIDE breech face impressions, which 

suggests that topography methods are a significant advance for breech face analysis. However, 

any resulting claims for topography images of breech face has to be reconciled with the much 

less impressive performance of the same technology on the De Kinder casings. Gun differences 

may be a main cause of the differences, as the De Kinder casings all were fired from Sig Sauers. 

However, the NBIDE study also included casings fired from Sig Sauers, and the subset of 

topography results from those Sig Sauer casings are still much better than the topography results 

for De Kinder Breech Face. It also has been speculated that the higher quality ammunition used 

in the NBIDE study produced clearer breech face markings. How promising 3D technology is 

for very large databases depends on whether the NBIDE or De Kinder results are more 

representative of the challenges faced by a national database. Also, one must remember that 

only 108 casings were fired by only twelve guns from three different brands. Presumably a 

larger population of guns would make more likely the presence of unfortunate large correlations 

from non-matching guns. Also, gun brands and models not covered in the NBIDE study (e.g., 

low-cost guns that were no longer available as new purchases) may well be more difficult to 

distinguish and identify than those included. 

In order to perform at levels necessary for very large databases, say around 100 000 guns of the 

same class, the error rates must be very low—so low in fact that for experiments with only 70 or 

108 casings, as in this report, essentially the only way to achieve such low error rates is for there 

to be no overlap between the matching and non-matching samples. While there was 

considerable separation between matching and non-matching distributions for many of the 

reference casings, especially those fired from Rugers, others had much less margin for error in 

that the matching correlations were only slightly larger than the largest of the non-matching 

correlations. Those matching ACCFmax values would be in danger of being overtaken by nonmatching ACCFmax values in a very large database with a much larger population of nonmatching ACCFmax values. For each individual casing in the NBIDE set, there were only eight 

ACCFmax values of casings in the matching sample and 99 ACCFmax values of casings in the nonmatching sample. Thus, one can try to estimate the distributions by pooling the matching and 

non-matching samples for each gun; however, this likely makes the estimated distributions wider 

than they should be (and in fact would estimate that only half the guns would be successful using 

the NBIDE breech face impression data). Estimating very low probabilities with moderately low 

sample sizes continues to be a challenging problem. We used normal probability models for the 

correlation scores themselves in an attempt to ameliorate the problem. Use of the normal models 

lowered the success rate for the optimistic scenario of grouping by casing. 

The topography methods are of relatively recent vintage, and as such are still being continually 

refined and improved. There are still questions on the best way of handling data processing and 

optimal cross correlations, including measures different from the ACCFmax. It is possible that 

refinements will result in great improvements in future. The topography methods look promising 

for breech face impressions, but improvements are still needed, as is investigation into the factors 

necessary to obtain the required accuracy. 
144

9.10.5 Normal-Binomial Models 

Nair’s [54] probabilistic formulation goes beyond the simple binomial model described in Sec. 

9.10.2 in dealing with dependencies. In addition, he produces a framing of the problem in terms 

of modeling the matching and non-matching score distributions by normal models, although he 

notes that the model does not rely on adherence to normality to produce useful results. Sections 

9.8 and 9.9 of this report contain the means and standard deviations of groups of ACCFmax values 

for various pairings of gun and ammunition types. The standard deviations of the combined 

groups tend to be larger if the groups are disparate. Nair notes that there will be better database 

performance if the standard deviations of matching scores are lower than those of non-matching 

scores (his ‘optimistic scenario’) and worse if the standard deviations are equal (‘pessimistic 

scenario’). Unfortunately, we have found that in most cases, the matching scores contain more 

variability (and thus have higher standard deviations) than the non-matching score distributions. 

Thus, these results using his model would be even less promising than those for his pessimistic 

scenario. Note for some fingerprint algorithms, it is similarly the case that the non-matching 

scores are more tightly bunched, and the matching scores are more spread out [53]. 
145

10. Statistical Analysis: Gun Distinguishability 

10.1 Introduction 

The main purpose of the present study is to determine if guns are uniquely distinguishable and 

identifiable, and if so—for the two data sets at hand (De Kinder and NBIDE)—what that implies 

about distinguishability/identifiability for a much larger (e.g., national) database of guns. 

The starting point for this analysis is the Top Ten list that the N-3D analysis produced. For the 

De Kinder data, the N-3D cross-correlation analysis produced a Top Ten list for each of the 70 

test fired casings. For each of these 70 reference casings, a correlation ACCFmax was computed 

using all of the remaining 69 casings as a comparison group. Since the De Kinder experiment 

consisted of ten guns and seven ammos per gun, that means that of the 69 comparison casings, 

63 (= 9 guns × 7 ammos) will not be a match, while six (= 1 gun × the 6 remaining ammos) will 

be a match. Hence ideally, a gun would be considered "distinguishable" if all 6 of the remaining 

ammo firings from that gun show up in the Top Ten list. On the other hand, if only a few (or 

none) of the six matching casings show up in the Top Ten list for a given reference gun, that 

particular gun has poor distinguishability. Thus for the De Kinder study, our distinguishability 

metric is the number of comparative matches (0 to 6) that a particular reference gun ID had in the 

N-3D Top Ten list. Six represents excellent distinguishability, while zero represents no 

distinguishability. Further, an individual gun would be considered distinguishable if all seven 

test firings that used that gun as a reference had all six of their correct matches in the seven Top 

Ten lists. If all ten guns behaved in this desirable fashion, we would have universal 

distinguishability for the ten guns (and seven ammos) used in this test. 

Similarly, an analogous metric was used for the analysis of the NBIDE data. In this case, 

however, there were twelve distinct guns, 3 ammos, and 3 repeats (yielding a total of 108 firings) 

and so a gun would be considered "distinguishable" if for any of its fired casings, all eight (= 3 

ammos × 3 repeats – 1) remaining casings fired from that gun appear in the Top Ten list when 

compared with it. If all twelve of the guns behaved in this fashion, then we would have universal 

distinguishability for the twelve guns (and three ammos) used in this test. 

We now examine the individual gun distinguishability for each of the four combinations of two 

databases (De Kinder and NBIDE) and two imaging regions (Firing Pin and Breech Face). 

10.1.1 Individual Guns (De Kinder / Firing Pin) 

The De Kinder experiment had one gun type, ten distinct guns, and seven ammos, for a total of 

70 firings. We address the following five questions: 

Q1. Are the ten guns distinguishable? 

Q2. Are some guns more distinguishable than others? 

Q3. What is the best (easiest) gun to distinguish? 

Q4. What is the worst (most difficult) gun to distinguish? 

Q5. What is the distinguishability ranking (best to worst) of the ten guns? 
146

To address these questions, see the pair of plots in Fig. 10-1. The top plot is a scatter plot; the 

bottom plot is a mean plot. The horizontal axis of both plots is gun ID. There are ten De Kinder 

reference gun IDs: 7, 9, 117, 139, 213, 215, 314, 375, 430, and 535. These ten IDs reflect the 

fact that the De Kinder experiment had ten guns randomly drawn from a larger population of 

guns. 

Figure 10-1. De Kinder / Firing Pin ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for a gun effect . 

The vertical axis of Fig. 10-1 is "score" for an individual gun as a result of the 70 De Kinder 

firings. Out of those 70 firings, an individual gun is involved in seven such firings. The casings 

for those seven firings —with each used as a reference with the remaining 69 casings used as a 

comparison set—result in seven Top Ten lists, and these seven Top Ten lists contain some 

number of its six matching casings. The vertical axis is 0 to 6. A score of 6 represents perfect 

distinguishability—for any reference casing, all six remaining casings fired by the same gun 

appear in the Top Ten list. A score of 0 says that none of the six matching casings appear in the 

Top Ten list, and hence that reference casing (and gun) is indistinguishable. 
147

Above each reference gun ID on the horizontal axis, there should be 7 marks (one for each time 

the gun was used in a test firing). To accommodate overstriking, the plot character represents the 

number of times a score occurs. Hence for the first gun (gun 007), the "4" appearing at the 

vertical axis value of "6" means that out of the seven firings for this gun, exactly four of the 

seven Top Ten lists contain all six matches. Moreover for gun "007" there are two Top Ten lists 

that have five of six matches, and one Top Ten list which has four of six matches. 

The ideal distinguishable gun would have "7" at Y = 6 —all seven test firings for this individual 

gun yielding Top Ten lists having all six of its matching casings. Universal distinguishability 

would have all ten guns with 7's at Y = 6. 

The top plot is the scatter plot of raw scores. The bottom plot is the mean of the seven raw 

scores for each gun. A reference gun with high (= 6) mean score implies distinguishability; low 

mean score indicates non-distinguishability. The numbers above the lower horizontal axis (5.4, 

4.4, 2.4,...) are the mean scores for each gun. 

From Fig. 10-1 we conclude that the guns are not universally distinguishable. Only gun 375 has 

a perfect score of 6. Six of the ten guns have at least one score of 1 (= poor). The 

distinguishability ranking of the ten guns is as follows: 

1. 375 (mean score = 6.0) The best gun in terms of distinguishability. 

2. 430 (mean score = 5.9) This gun is near-distinguishable. 

3. 535 (mean score = 5.9) This gun is near-distinguishable. 

4. 007 (mean score = 5.4) Distinguishable for some ammos but not others. 

5. 009 (mean score = 4.4) Distinguishable for some ammos but not others. 

6. 117 (mean score = 2.4) Poor distinguishability for most ammos. 

7. 215 (mean score = 1.4) Poor distinguishability for all ammos. 

8. 314 (mean score = 0.9) Poor distinguishability for all ammos. 

9. 139 (mean score = 0.1) The co-worst. This gun is not distinguishable. 

10. 213 (mean score = 0.1) The co-worst. This gun is not distinguishable. 

These De Kinder findings are poor. With ten nominally identical guns, one would expect more 

consistency across all ten guns. Such consistency is not in evidence. We note finally that the 

observed differences across the ten guns are statistically significant at the 5 % level (that is, the 

observed data could happen by chance at most 5 % of the time). 

In the ideal, the ten guns should all have perfect scores of 7 at Y=6, and there should not be a 

statistically significant difference across the ten guns. Neither condition was observed for the De 

Kinder firing pin impression data, which implies insufficient distinguishability (and hence nonfeasibility) for the issue of the much larger national database. 
148

10.1.2 Individual guns (De Kinder / Breech Face) 

To address the same five questions as in the previous section, but to focus on the De Kinder 

breech face data, we make reference to Fig. 10-2. From the figure we conclude that the guns are 

also not universally distinguishable. At the 5 % level, the differences between guns are 

statistically significant. Further, the best guns (375, 430, and 535) from the De Kinder firing pin 

analysis are not the best guns for the De Kinder breech face analysis. The best Breech Face gun 

(215) was the third worst Firing Pin gun. No Breech Face gun achieved a perfect score of 6, 

contrary to gun 375's perfect score for Firing Pin. 

The average score for the breech face analysis is 2.83 (out of 6), which is smaller than the 

average score (3.26) for the firing pin analysis, which reaffirms that for the De Kinder data, 

Firing Pin was a better discriminator than Breech Face. 

Figure 10-2. De Kinder / Breech Face ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for a gun effect. 

With 6 being a perfect score, the ranking of the guns for De Kinder / Breech Face is as follows: 

1. 215 (mean score = 4.4) 
149

2. 117 (mean score = 4.0) 

3. 430 (mean score = 3.7) 

4. 139 (mean score = 3.3) 

5. 213 (mean score = 3.0) 

6. 535 (mean score = 2.6) 

7. 314 (mean score = 2.1) 

8. 009 (mean score = 1.9) 

9. 375 (mean score = 1.7) 

10. 007 (mean score = 1.6) 

Gun 215 is the most distinguishable gun, with high or moderate scores for all ammos. Guns 117 

and 430 are next best, but their scores range from 6 to 1. The remaining guns have only 

moderate to poor distinguishability. The worst two guns are 007 and 375, which for some 

ammos had no matches in the Top Ten list. 

10.1.3 Individual Guns (NBIDE / Firing Pin) 

The NBIDE experiment had three gun types, four replicates of each gun type, a total of twelve 

distinct guns, three ammos, and three days(reps), for a total of 108 test firings. We here address 

five questions similar to those of Sec. 10.1.1: 

Q1. Are the twelve guns distinguishable? 

Q2. Are some guns more distinguishable than others? 

Q3. What is the best (easiest) gun to distinguish? 

Q4. What is the worst (most difficult) gun to distinguish? 

Q5. What is the distinguishability ranking (best to worst) of the twelve guns? 

To address these questions, we use Fig. 10-3. The horizontal axis of both plots in Fig. 10-3 

shows the twelve NBIDE reference gun IDs: 1, 2, 3, ..., 11, 12. Below these horizontal axis tic 

labels is a second row of identifying labels: S1, SW5, R1, etc. The labels refer to the gun types 

as follows: 

Gun 1 Sig Sauer 31 S1 

Gun 2 S&W 305 SW5 

Gun 3 Ruger 41 R1 

Gun 4 S&W 306 SW6 

Gun 5 Ruger 42 R2 

Gun 6 Sig Sauer 32 S2 

Gun 7 S&W 401 SW1 

Gun 8 Sig Sauer 30 S0 

Gun 9 Ruger 46 R6 

Gun 10 Sig Sauer 33 S3 

Gun 11 S&W 314 SW4 

Gun 12 Ruger 48 R8 
150

The last digit of each gun's serial number was used for the digit in the abbreviated ID name (e.g., 

gun 2 is shortened to SW5 where the 5 comes from the last digit of its serial number: PBV8305). 

With these identifiers and from Fig. 10-3, we can arrive at initial conclusions about the effect of 

the three gun types, but we postpone that gun type discussion to a later section (10.2.3), and 

continue now to focus on the core question at hand of distinguishing between the twelve 

individual guns. 

The vertical axis of Fig. 10-3 shows the results of all 108 firings. There should be a total of 108 

data points on the plot (and 9 data points above each reference gun ID), but again due to the 

over-striking, the plotted character represents the frequency of identical scores. The vertical axis 

is 0 to 8. A score of 8 represents perfect distinguishability—that is, the chosen reference casing 

has all eight matching comparison casings (3 ammos × 3 days minus the reference casing) 

appearing in the Top Ten list. A score of 0 indicates that none of the eight matching casings 

appeared in the Top Ten list and hence that reference casing/gun is indistinguishable. 

As before for the ideal, if a gun were perfectly distinguishable, then there would appear on the 

plot above the gun ID a "9" at the Y=8 level. If all twelve guns were universally distinguishable, 

every one of the twelve reference gun IDs would have a "9" at the Y=8 level. 

Also as before, the bottom half of Fig. 10-3 is not the nine individual scores, but rather the mean 

of the nine scores. A reference gun with high mean score implies distinguishability; low mean 

score indicates non-distinguishability. 

From Fig. 10-3 we find that there is a (statistically significant) difference in the twelve guns and 

the average score is 5.63 (out of 8). Hence we find that the twelve guns are not universally 

distinguishable. Some guns are more distinguishable than others. Gun 5 has a perfect mean 

score of 8, followed by gun 2 with a mean score of 7.7. At the other extreme, gun 1 is poor, with 

none of its nine reference casings having more than five matches in the Top Ten lists. The 

ranked list of guns is as follows: 

1. 5 (mean score = 8.0) 

2. 2 (mean score = 7.7) 

3. 6 (mean score = 6.9) 

4. 3 (mean score = 6.7) 

5. 12 (mean score = 6.7) 

6. 11 (mean score = 6.4) 

7. 10 (mean score = 5.1) 

8. 9 (mean score = 4.9) 

9. 4 (mean score = 4.3) 

10. 7 (mean score = 4.2) 

11. 8 (mean score = 4.0) 

12. 1 (mean score = 2.7) 
151

Figure 10-3. NBIDE / Firing Pin ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for a gun effect. 

10.1.4 Individual Guns (NBIDE / Breech Face) 

To address the same five questions as in the previous section, we make reference to Fig. 10-4. 

From this figure we conclude that the guns for NBIDE / Breech Face are very distinguishable. 

For seven out of the twelve guns, all nine of their reference test fires had all eight of the correct 

matching casings show up in the Top Ten lists. All twelve of the guns had at least seven test 

fires with eight correct matches. The ranked list of guns is as follows: 

Rank 1 to 7. Guns 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 (mean score = 8.0) 

Rank 8 to 10 . Guns 6, 10, 12 (mean score = 7.9) 

Rank 11 to 12 Guns 2, 11 (mean score = 7.8) 

The average score across all guns is high (7.94 out of 8), and the twelve guns are not statistically 

different. Hence, of the four data set / image region combinations considered, the NBIDE 
152

Breech Face comes closest to satisfying the visual and statistical requirements for 

distinguishability. 

 

Figure 10-4. NBIDE / Breech Face ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for a gun effect. 
153

10.1.5 Individual guns (Summary) 

From the above four sections—and especially the mean plots—we find that distinguishability is 

highly dependent on the source of the data (De Kinder versus NBIDE) and the casing region 

being imaged (Firing Pin versus Breech Face). Based on the mean number of matches in the Top 

Ten list, the four cases are ranked as follows (best to worst): 

1. NBIDE / Breech Face (mean score = 7.94 out of 8 = 99.3 %) 

2. NBIDE / Firing Pin (mean score = 5.63 out of 8 = 70.4 %) 

3. De Kinder / FiringPin (mean score = 3.26 out of 6 = 54.3 %) 

4. De Kinder / Breech Face (mean score = 2.83 out of 6 = 47.2 %) 

As to the core question regarding the feasibility of a (large) national database and whether the 

imaging and analysis technology is accurate enough to make such a large scale database 

practical, it is clear that the only one of the four cases that might yield an affirmative is case 4 

(NBIDE / Breech Face), with a mean score of 99.3 %. It is of research interest to determine and 

understand what made this particular combination perform so well. Even at that, major practical 

hurdles (processing/algorithm speed, gun wear/aging, etc.) would need to be addressed and 

overcome before the behavior for this small (= 108 firings) data set could be safely extrapolated 

to a large national system. 

10.2 Other Factors Affecting Gun Distinguishability 

The prior section deals with the central question of this study, namely whether it is feasible to 

identify (from a reference casing) the individual gun that fired the casing. We found that the 

NBIDE Breech Face data provided excellent identifiability, whereas the other cases (NBIDE / 

Firing Pin, De Kinder / Breech Face, and De Kinder / Firing Pin) yielded unacceptably poorer 

identifiability. 

Given that, a related question arises as to what other factors affect the likelihood of matching a 

casing with an individual gun. We examine four such factors: 

1. Database 

2. Imaging Region 

3. Gun Type 

4. Ammo Type 

10.2.1 Database 

Database (De Kinder versus NBIDE) is a statistically significant factor. From the discussion in 

Secs. 10.1.1 through 10.1.4, we find that: 

1. The two databases (De Kinder versus NBIDE) are significantly different. 

2. The ranking of the two databases (better to worse) is: 
154

NBIDE, mean of 7.94 and 5.63 (= 6.79 out of 8, or 84.9%), 

De Kinder, mean of 3.26 and 2.83 (= 3.05 out of 6, or 50.8%). 

3. Overall, the best combination is NBIDE / Breech Face. 

10.2.2 Imaging Region 

Imaging Region is a statistically significant factor. Again, from the discussion in Secs. 10.1.1 

through 10.1.4, we find that: 

1. The two imaging regions (Firing Pin versus Breech Face) are significantly different. 

2. The ranking of the two regions (better to worse) is: 

 i. Breech Face (mean of 7.94 out of 8 (99.3%) and 2.83 out of 6 (47.2%) 

 = 73.2% overall), 

 ii. Firing Pin (mean of 5.63 out of 8 (70.4%) and 3.26 out of 6 (54.3%) 

 = 62.4% overall). 

3. There is an interaction between region and database: 

 Firing Pin is better than Breech Face for De Kinder, but 

 Breech Face is better than Firing Pin for NBIDE. 

4. As before, the best combination is NBIDE / Breech Face. 

10.2.3 Gun Type 

Note that the question as to whether the matching scores are affected by gun type cannot be 

addressed from the De Kinder data, inasmuch as all 70 firings came from the same gun type, 

namely the 9 mm Sig Sauer P226. The NBIDE experiment does, however, shed light on this 

question with its 108 firings, twelve individual guns, and three gun types: 

1. Sig Sauer 

2. Smith&Wesson 

3. Ruger 

Are these three gun types distinguishable? We address this question separately for each of the 

two imaging regions: Firing Pin and Breech Face. 

Gun Type (NBIDE / Firing Pin) 

For universal distinguishability, gun type should not have an effect—individual guns should be 

distinguishable irrespective of gun type. To assess the gun type effect for NBIDE / Firing Pin 

data, note Fig. 10-5. 
155

Figure 10-5. NBIDE / Firing Pin ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for a gun type effect. 

The three gun types are noted on the horizontal axis. As before, the numeric plot character 

indicates data frequency at that plot point. For example, for Ruger, out of its (108/3 =) 36 test 

firings, there were fully 15 instances in which all eight of the remaining Ruger casings showed 

up in the N-3D Top Ten list. 

Figure 10-5 indicates that there is in fact a gun type effect—the three gun types are not 

equivalent in terms of their distinguishability. Some gun types are more amenable to being 

distinguishable than other gun types. The ranking (best to worst) of the three gun types is as 

follows: 

1. Ruger (mean score = 6.6), 

2. Smith&Wesson (mean score = 5.7), 

3. Sig Sauer (mean score = 4.7). 

The difference across the three gun types is statistically significant at the 5 % level. 
156

Gun Type (NBIDE / Breech Face) 

The analysis of gun effects for the NBIDE / Breech face is given in Fig. 10-6. 

Figure 10-6. NBIDE / Breech Face ACCFmax Top Ten Analysis for a gun type effect. 

For NBIDE / Breech Face, the three gun types are not statistically significant. This is not 

unexpected because for this case, almost all of the 108 firings yielded a full score of 8. 

NBIDE / Breech Face is the ideal: high distinguishability for the twelve guns, with other factors 

(in particular, gun type) not being statistically significant. 
157

10.2.4 Ammunition Type 

Conclusions about the distinguishability of gun type should ideally not be affected by 

ammunition type. However, it is useful common practice for examiners to use the same brand of 

ammunition for a testfire as that recovered from a crime scene. Because both the De Kinder and 

the NBIDE experiments were balanced with respect to ammo (seven ammo types for De Kinder 

and three ammo types for NBIDE), the analysis for ammo effects is straightforward. We assess 

the effect of ammo for the usual four cases: De Kinder versus NBIDE, Firing Pin versus Breech 

Face. 

Ammunition Type (De Kinder / Firing Pin) 

The De Kinder data set utilized ten guns, all of the same model (Sig Sauer 9 mm Model P226) 

and seven ammunition (cartridge types): 

1. CCI 

2. Winchester 

3. Remington 

4. Speer 

5. Wolf 

6. Federal 

7. Remington (a repeat) 

Figure 10-7 examines whether an ammo effect exists. The horizontal axis shows the seven 

ammo types. The vertical axis is the usual matching score and mean matching score as used in 

previous figures. For the De Kinder data, each of the seven ammos should have ten points 

associated with it. If there were no ammo effect, Fig. 10-7 should be near flat, with about the 

same spread for all ammos. Visually, the ammos are near-equivalent. Quantitatively, at the 5 % 

level, the seven ammos are not statistically different. 

Note that ammo types three and seven are both Remington and thus serve as an internal check on 

natural variability. As it turns out, the response for the two Remington ammos are near-identical 

and not statistically different. 

Though not statistically different, the ranking of the 7 ammos is as follows: 

1. Speer (mean score = 3.8) 

3. Federal (mean score = 3.5) 

4. Wolf (mean score = 3.4) 

5. Remington (mean score = 3.2) 

6. CCI (mean score = 3.1) 

7. Remington2 (mean score = 3.0) 

8. Winchester (mean score = 2.8) 
158

Figure 10-7. De Kinder / Firing Pin ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for ammo type. 
159

Ammunition Type (De Kinder / Breech Face) 

Figure 10-8 shows the De Kinder / Breech Face data for the question as to whether an ammo 

effect exists. 

Figure 10-8. De Kinder / Breech Face ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for ammo type.

The seven ammos are not equivalent. The seven ammos are statistically different at both 

the 5 % level and the 1 % level. The two Remington ammos are consistent and higher than 

the remaining five ammos. The ranking of the seven ammos is as follows: 

1. Remington2 (mean score = 4.4) 

2. Remington (mean score = 4.0) 

3. CCI (mean score = 3.6) 

4. Wolf (mean score = 2.3) 

5. Federal (mean score = 2.3) 

6. Speer (mean score = 1.9) 

7. Winchester (mean score = 1.3). 
160

Ammunition Type (NBIDE / Firing Pin) 

The NBIDE experiment utilized twelve guns and three ammo types; three days of replication 

yielded a total of 108 firings. The three ammos were: 1-Remington, 2-Winchester, 3-PMC. 

 

Figure 10-9. NBIDE / Firing Pin ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for ammo type.

Figure 10-9 examines whether an ammo effect exists for NBIDE/Firing Pin. Though 

considerable overlap exists in all three ammos, the graph with PMC having an 11 at Y= 8 

suggests that there may be a difference. Statistically, the ANOVA test statistic falls at the 

94.5 % point, and so just misses significance at the 5 % level. In short, we reckon ammo type to 

be marginally significant, with PMC tending to yield more accurate matchings. The ranking of 

the three ammos is as follows: 

1. PMC (mean score = 6.1) 

2. Remington (mean score = 5.7) 

3. Winchester (mean score = 5.0).
161

Ammunition Type (NBIDE / Breech Face) 

Figure 10-10. NBIDE / Breech Face ACCFmax Top Ten analysis for ammo type.

Figure 10-10 investigates for an ammo effect for NBIDE/Breech Face. Because for this case the 

twelve guns are very distinguishable, the ammo data will necessarily cluster near the Y=8 level. 

There appears to be little difference between the three ammos, although with PMC achieving a 

perfect score with all of its values at Y=8, there is again the hint that PMC may be doing slightly 

better than the other two ammos. Statistically, the ANOVA test statistic again falls at the 94.5 % 

point, and so just misses significance at the 5 % level, which would lead it to being marginally 

significant. With a maximum difference in the three averages being 0.1, this appears to be a case 

where the observed differences are statistically significant, but not practically different. The 

ranking of the three ammos is as follows: 

1. PMC (mean score = 8.0) 

2. Remington (mean score = 7.9) 

3. Winchester (mean score = 7.9)
162

10.3 Relative Importance of Factors 

10.3.1 Relative Importance of Factors (Graphical)

Subsection 10.2 examined individual factors and assessed whether they were significant or not. 

We finish this section on distinguishability by addressing what is the relative importance of the 

factors. In particular, we focus on the 3 factors: 

1. individual gun 

2. gun type 

3. ammo 

Figures 10-11 through 10-14 examine the relative importance of factors for the usual four cases: 

1. De Kinder / Firing Pin` (Fig. 10-11) 

2. De Kinder / Breech Face (Fig. 10-12) 

3. NBIDE / Firing Pin (Fig. 10-13) 

4. NBIDE / Breech Face (Fig. 10-14) 

Each individual plot has the multiple factors and the individual factor levels on the horizontal 

axis, and has the usual mean matching score on the vertical axis. Ideally, for universal 

distinguishability of gun type, the mean score for the gun should be high, there should be no 

statistical difference between the individual guns, and there should be no statistical difference 

among the secondary factors (gun type and ammo). 

More to the point, previous analyses have indicated that the various factors are statistically 

significant in many cases, but here we would like to assess their relative significance. The two 

De Kinder plots will not have any gun type effect information, since there was only one gun type 

used (Sig Sauer) in that experiment. From the four plots we conclude: 

1. De Kinder / FP: The individual gun effect is more important than the ammo effect. 

2. De Kinder / BF: The individual gun effect and the ammo effect are about the same. 

3. NBIDE / FP: The individual gun effect is more important than the gun-type effect and the 

ammo effect, both of which appear to be about the same. 

4. NBIDE / BF: The individual gun effect, the gun type effect, and the ammo effect all appear 

to be negligible. Appearance-wise, this category is markedly different than the other three 

categories (mean = 7.94). 
163

Figure 10-11. De Kinder / Firing Pin ACCFmax Top Ten, relative importance of factors. 

Figure 10-12. De Kinder / Breech Face ACCFmax Top Ten, relative importance of factors.
164

Figure 10-13. NBIDE / Firing Pin ACCFmax Top Ten, relative importance of factors. 

Figure 10-14. NBIDE / Breech Face ACCFmax Top Ten, relative importance of factors. 
165

10.3.2 Relative Importance of Factors (ANOVA)

The final subsection deals with examining the relative importance of factors by means of 

classical (fixed-effect) analysis of variance (ANOVA), which emphasizes the significance testing 

aspect, in contrast with the random-effects ANOVA, which emphasizes the variance components 

aspect. We present these ANOVA results for completeness because it allows the assessment of 

the relative importance of the various factors to be carried out in a formal statistically rigorous 

complementary fashion. The summary of the ANOVA results is given in Table 10-1 for the four 

cases graphically presented in Figs. 10-11 through 10-14. The ANOVA does not change the 

conclusions for the study as a whole. The table is organized as follows: 

Column 1: Database and imaging region 

Column 2: Summary statistics 

Column 3: Results from 1-way ANOVA on gun 

Column 4: Results from 1-way ANOVA on gun type 

Column 5: Results from 1-way ANOVA on ammo 

Column 6: Results from 2-way ANOVA on gun and ammo 

From the table we conclude: 

1. Gun: Significant at the 1% level for the first 3 cases. 

 Not significant for NBIDE / Breech Face. 

2. Gun Type: Significant for NBIDE / Firing Pin 

 Not significant for NBIDE / Breech Face 

3. Ammo: Not significant for De Kinder / Firing Pin 

 Significant for De Kinder / Breech Face 

 Marginally significant for NBIDE / Firing Pin & Breech Face 

Finally, a reminder that “gun” being significant is not good per se. In the ideal situation of 

universal distinguishability, we do not want statistical significance. Rather, we want nonsignificance in combination with high mean match scores for each and every gun. 
166

Table 10-1. ANOVA Summary Table. 

y – the mean of Top Ten Scores. 

s – the standard deviation of Top Ten scores. 

FCDF – value of the cumulative distribution function for the F–statistics; values ≥ 95% imply significance. 

ResSD – residual standard deviation.

Database 

& Imaging 

Region

Summary 

Stat

Gun (k=1) Gun Type (k=1) Ammo (k=1) Gun & Ammo (k=2)

n = 70 FCDF = 100% FCDF = 1.44% 1. FCDF = 100%

Range: 0-6 ResSD =0.91 ResSD = 2.63 2. FCDF = 78.27%

y = 3.26 Highest Gun: 375 N.A. Highest Ammo: Speer ResSD =0.89

s = 2.53 Lowest Guns: 139 & 213 Lowest Ammo: Win 1. Gun: Significant

Significant Not Significant 2. Ammo: Not Sig

n = 70 FCDF = 99.64% FCDF = 99.98% 1. FCDF = 100%

Range: 0-6 ResSD = 1.51 ResSD = 1.85 2. FCDF = 100%

y = 2.83 Highest Gun: 215 N.A. Highest Ammo: Rem2 ResSD = 1.01

s = 1.63 Lowest Guns: 7 & 375 Lowest Ammo: Win 1. Gun: Significant

Significant Significant 2. Ammo: Significant

n = 108 FCDF = 100% FCDF = 99.98% FCDF = 94.46% 1. FCDF = 100%

Range: 0-8 ResSD = 1.26 ResSD = 1.85 ResSD = 1.95 2. FCDF = 99.95%

y = 5.63 Highest Gun: Rug2 Highest GT: Rug Highest Ammo: PMC ResSD = 1.17

s = 1.99 Lowest Gun: Sig1 Lowest GT: Sig Lowest Ammo: Win 1. Gun: Significant

Significant Significant Marg. Significant 2. Ammo: Significant

n = 108 FCDF = 67.55% FCDF = 65.01% FCDF = 94.50% 1. FCDF = 70.89%

Range: 0-8 ResSD = 0.245 ResSD = 0.247 ResSD = 0.243 2. FCDF = 94.78%

y = 7.94 Highest Gun: Many Highest GT: Rug Highest Ammo: PMC ResSD = 0.240

s = 0.25 Lowest Guns: SW4&5 Lowest GT: S&W Lowest Ammo: Rem 1. Gun: Not Sig.

Not Significant Not Significant Marg. Significant 2. Ammo: Marg. Sig.

NBIDE 

Breech 

Face

NBIDE 

Firing Pin

DeKinder 

Firing Pin

DeKinder 

Breech 

Face
167

11. Observations and Continuing Work 

The topography data and analysis shown here indicate that surface topography measurements 

may significantly enhance the capability of matching casings fired from the same firearm, 

particularly for data gathered from breech face impressions. Although the error rate for 

matching casings was roughly 60 times smaller when topographic data of the NBIDE breech 

faces were analyzed than when the next most accurate metric was calculated, the error rate would 

have to decrease by roughly another factor of 35 to adequately support a large database with the 

assumptions of 

• 100 000 guns having the same class characteristics, 

• with a single probability distribution of correlation scores, 

• and an accuracy goal of 90 %, 

• for placing real matches in a Top Ten listing. 

Two or three more independent metrics with equal or smaller error rate than that obtained here 

for matching NBIDE breech face impressions may need to be developed to bring the overall 

error rate to an acceptable level with the above assumptions. 

Segmenting the databases using class characteristics, such as firing pin shape, has been proposed 

as a way to reduce the sizes of the datasets to be correlated within a large database in order to 

improve the efficiency of searching a national database for matches. Segmenting by 

demographic patterns, such as zip code, has also been proposed [57]. 

The results of the experimental N-3D approach were more accurate than the I-2D results for four 

experiments. This observation is consistent with results reported by Brinck indicating improved 

accuracy using IBIS BulletTrax-3D methods to find correct bullet matches as opposed to I-2D 

methods [58]. Another report by Roberge and Beauchamp reports the successful matching of ten 

pairs of bullets using IBIS BulletTrax-3D methods [59]. Topography (3D) methods have several 

advantages: 

• Ballistics signatures are mainly geometrical topographies, so a method to measure 

topography directly should be preferable to reflection microscopy. 

• The topography images are not as sensitive to the illumination conditions as reflection 

microscopy images indicating increased accuracy for 3D methods 

• Topography measurements are traceable to dimensional metrology standards. 

In addition, the N-3D analysis scheme of outlier removal, filtering, registration, matching, and 

statistics is non-proprietary, and this openness should facilitate development of improved 

algorithms by the technical community. For example, standard topography analysis methods 

[30] may be adapted to separate micro- from macro-topography and extract individual 

characteristics of the surfaces for correlation and identification. 

A disadvantage of the current prototype topography approach is the time required to record the 

data, which is considerably longer for casings than that required for I-2D. The data gathering 

procedure and likely the analysis algorithms would need to become much more efficient for 
168

practical application to a large database. The system described here is experimental and is not 

intended for commercialization. 

A second metric might come from using the topography of the ejector marks. During this study 

we have not used the information from the ejector marks. In particular, we have not developed a 

technique for correlating different ejector marks because of their widely varying outer 

boundaries. It is difficult to develop automated software to correlate the shapes of such regions, 

particularly when some ejector marks are partially obliterated by labels imprinted on the casing 

by the manufacturer. Common practice for the I-2D is a manual operation whereby the users 

draw the ejector mark boundaries themselves when making entries. One of our tasks for future 

work is to develop a similar analysis program for the existing ejector mark data. 

A second task not yet completed here is the correlation analysis for the 176 IAI bullets we are 

measuring. The correlation results could then be compared both with I-2D correlations from 

image acquisitions at ATF by Ols and Simmers, and with topography images previously 

measured by Bachrach et al. [15,35] using a single point confocal system. We will also be able 

to explore whether a sufficiently reliable metric can be developed for bullets to be consistent 

with a large database of bullet entries. 

12. Acknowledgements 

We are grateful to D. Cork of the National Academies and J. Rolph and V. Nair of the National 

Academies’ Panel for their valuable guidance during the course of this work and to W. Eddy also 

of the Panel for valuable discussions. We are also grateful to M. Ols of the ATF for key 

discussions related to firearms and ballistics selection, to R. Simmers of the ATF for expertise 

with I-2D acquisitions, and to D. Xiang of IAI for topography data acquisition and analysis. We 

also thank M. McLean of Forensic Technology Incorporated for providing special data analysis 

of I-2D acquisitions and correlations. N. Waters of NIST kindly assisted in the NBIDE test 

firing procedure. The cover was designed by B. Young. Thanks also go to K. Rice and R. 

Rhorer for their careful reading of the manuscript. The project was supported by the Department 

of Justice under National Institute of Justice Grant Number 2003-IJ-R-029 with the NIST OLES. 

13. References 

1. P.L. Kirk, Crime Investigation, 2nd Ed. (Krieger Publ. Co., Malabar FL, 1985) p. 364. 

2. A.A. Braga and G.L. Pierce, Linking Crime Guns: The Impact of Ballistics Imaging 

Technology on the Productivity of the Boston Police Department’s Ballistics Unit, Paper 

ID JFS2003205, J. Forensic Sci. 49, 1 (2004). 

3. http://www.forensictechnologyinc.com/p7.html, IBIS Heritage Systems (2006) 

4. W.C. Boesman and W.J. Krouse, CRS Report to the Congress, National Integrated 

Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) for Law Enforcement, Order Code RL31040

(Congressional Review Service, Library of Congress, Washington DC, 2001). 

5. http://www.nibin.gov/nibin.pdf, ATF’s NIBIN Program, June 2005. 

6. F.A. Tulleners, Attachment A, Technical Evaluation: Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging 

Database for all New Handgun Sales in B. Lockyer, Feasibility of a California Ballistics 
169

Identification System, Assembly Bill 1717 (Hertzberg) (Stats. 2000, ch. 271) Report to the 

Legislature (California Department of Justice, Sacramento CA, 2003). 

7. J. De Kinder, F. Tulleners, and H. Thiebaut, Reference Ballistic Imaging Database 

Performance, Forensic Sci. Int. 140, 207 (2004). 

8. W. George, A Validation of the Brasscatcher Portion of the NIBIN/IBIS System, AFTE J.

36, 286 (2004) and A Validation of the Brasscatcher Portion of the NIBIN/IBIS System 

Part Two: “Fingerprinting Firearms” Reality or Fantasy, AFTE J. 36, 289 (2004). 

9. A. Beauchamp and D. Roberge, Model of the Behavior of the IBIS Correlation Scores in 

a Large Database of Cartridge Cases, http://www.forensictechnology.com/d4.html, 

accessed 16 April 2007. 

10. R. Nennstiel and J. Rahm, A Parameter Study Regarding the IBIS Correlator, J. Forensic 

Sci. 51, 18 (2006) and An Experience Report Regarding the Performance of the IBIS 

Correlator, J. Forensic Sci. 51, 24 (2006). 

11. http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt, J. Travis, Guns in America: National Survey on 

Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NIJ Research in Brief (National Institute of 

Justice, Washington DC, May 1997) p. 12. 

12. http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/Firearms/CoBIS/ , New York State Division of State 

Police, Combined Ballistic Identification System, Accessed, 06 Dec 2005. 

13. J.J. Tobin, Jr. Maryland- IBIS Integrated Ballistics Identification System (Maryland State 

Police Forensic Sciences Division, Pikesville MD, 2003). 

14. B. Lockyer, Feasibility of a California Ballistics Identification System, Assembly Bill 

1717 (Hertzberg) (Stats. 2000, ch. 271) Report to the Legislature (California Department 

of Justice, Sacramento CA, 2003), including Attachments A (Ref. 6), B, C, and D. 

15. B. Bachrach, A Statistical Validation of the Individuality of Guns Using 3D Images of 

Bullets, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213674.pdf, March 2006. 

16. J. Song, E. Whitenton, D. Kelley, R. Clary, L. Ma, S. Ballou, and M. Ols, SRM 

2460/2461 Standard Bullets and Casings Project, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 109, 

533 (2004). 

17. L. Ma, J. Song, E. Whitenton, A. Zheng, T. Vorburger, and J. Zhou, NIST Bullet 

Signature Measurement System for RM (Reference Material) 8240 Standard Bullets, J. 

Forensic Sci. 49, 649 (2004).

18. A. Harasaki, J. Schmit, and J. C. Wyant, Improved Vertical Scanning Interferometry, 

Appl. Opt. 39, 2107 (2000). 

19. M.A. Schmidt and R.D. Compton, Confocal Microscopy, in ASM Handbook Volume 18 

Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, P.J. Blau, ed., (ASM International, 1992), 

p. 357. 

20. T.R. Thomas, ed., Rough Surfaces (Longman, Harlow, UK, 1982), Chap. 2. 

21. J.M. Utts and R.F. Heckard, Statistical Ideas and Methods (Thomson Brooks/Cole, 

Belmont CA, 2006). 

22. J.M. Bennett and L. Mattsson, Introduction to Surface Roughness and Scattering (Optical 

Society of America, Washington DC, 1989). 

23. O.C. Wells, Scanning Electron Microscopy (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974). 

24. J. Song, T. Vorburger, T. Renegar, H. Rhee, A. Zheng, L. Ma, J. Libert, S. Ballou, B. 

Bachrach and K. Bogart, Correlation of Topography Measurements of NIST SRM 2460 

Standard Bullets by Four Techniques, Meas. Sci. and Technol. 17, 500 (2006). 
170

25. M. Bray, Stitching Interferometry and Absolute Surface Shape Metrology: Similarities, 

Proc. SPIE. 4451 (2001); http://www.mboptique.com/common/publications/

MBO_2001_SPIE_4451-40_(Stitching_Interferometry).pdf. 

26. J. Song and T. Vorburger, Proposed Bullet Signature Comparisons Using Autocorrelation 

Functions, Proc. 2000 Nat. Conf. Standards Laboratories (Toronto, July 2000). 

27. http://www.fti-ibis.com/en/s_4_1_5.asp, Bulletrax-3D, Accessed, 06 Dec. 2005. 

28. H.-G. Rhee, T.V. Vorburger, J.W. Lee, and J. Fu, Discrepancies between Roughness 

Measurements Obtained with Phase-Shifting and White-Light Interferometry, Appl. Opt. 

44, 5919 (2005). 

29. T.V. Vorburger, H.-G. Rhee, T.B. Renegar, J.-F. Song, and A. Zheng, Comparison of 

Optical and Stylus Methods for Measurement of Surface Texture, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. 

Technol. DOI 10.1007/s00170-007-0953-8, 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0851313276m3t772/, online February 2007 (in 

press). 

30. ASME B46.1-2002, Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness, and Lay) (Amer. 

Soc. Mech. Engrs., New York, 2003). 

31. J.F. Song, T.V. Vorburger, R. Clary, E. Whitenton, L. Ma, and S. Ballou, Standards for 

Bullets and Casings, Materials Today 5 (11), 26 (2002). 

32. P. Rubert, Properties of Electroformed Calibration Standards for Surface Topography 

Measurement Systems, in Tenth International Colloquium on Surfaces, edited by M. 

Dietzsch and H. Trumpold (Shaker-Verlag, Aachen, 2000) p. 245. 

33. A. Moenssens et al., Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases, 4th Edition (the 

Foundation Press Inc., 1995, New York) p. 375. 

34. ISO 25178-6, Committee Draft, Geometrical product specification (GPS)—Surface 

texture: Areal— Part 6: Classification of methods for measuring surface texture

(International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2005). 

35. B. Bachrach, Development of a 3D-based Automated Firearms Evidence Comparison 

System, Journal of Forensic Sciences 47, 1253 (2002). 

36. J.H. Dillon, Three Dimensions: The Next Level for Firearms Examination, Evidence 

Technology Magazine, July-August, 34 (2005), www.EvidenceMagazine.com. 

37. Crime Gun Trace Reports (2000) National Report (Department of the Treasury, Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Washington DC, 2002). 

38. μsurf, Non contact 3D-measurement of complex surfaces, http://www.nanofocus.info/ 

product_overview.php?productId=7, Dec 2005, accessed 06 Dec. 2005. 

39. Infinite Focus,http://www.alicona.com/. 

40. R. Simmers and M. Ols, private communication. 

41. Y. B. Yuan, T.V. Vorburger, J. F. Song, T. B. Renegar, A Simplified Realization for the 

Gaussian Filter in Surface Metrology, in X. International Colloquium on Surfaces, M. 

Dietzsch, H. Trumpold, eds. (Shaker Verlag GmbH, Aachen, 2000), p. 133. 

42. Bergen, J. R., Anandan, P., Hanna, K., and Hingorani, R., Hierarchical model-based 

Motion Estimation, in Proceedings of Second European Conference on Computer Vision, 

(Springer-Verlag, 1992), pp. 237-252. 

43. Heeger, D., Notes on motion estimation, prepared by Prof. David J. Heeger for Courses 

Psych 267/CS 348D/EE 365, New York University, 20 Oct. 1996. 

44. Heeger, D., MATLABTM Software for Image Registration, Copyright 1997, 2000 by 

Stanford University, available at URL http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~david/registration.html. 
171

45. G.M. Jenkins and D.G. Watts, Spectral Analysis and Its Applications, (Holden-Day, San 

Francisco, 1968) p. 171 ff. 

46. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) (International 

Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1995). 

47. B. N. Taylor and C. E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty 

of NIST Measurement Results, NIST Tech. Note 1297, (1994). 

48. Latin Square and Related Designs, in Engineering Statistics Handbook, Sec. 5.3.3.2.1, 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/ div898/handbook/, updated 18 July 2006. 

49. R.J. Grissom, Probability of the superior outcome of one treatment over another, Journal 

of Applied Psychology 79, 314 (1994). 

50. D.M. Green and J. Swets, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (John Wiley, New 

York, 1966). 

51. J.A. Hanley and B.J. McNeil, The Meaning and Use of the Area under an ROC Curve, 

Radiology, 143, 129 (1982). 

52. H.B. Mann and D.R. Whitney, On a Test of Whether One of Two Random Variables is 

Stochastically Larger than the Other, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18, 50 (1947). 

53. L. Hong and A.K. Jain, Integrating Faces and Fingerprints for Personal Identification, 

IEEE Transactions PAMI 20, 1295 (1998). 

54. V. Nair, private communication. 

55. R.S. Burington, Handbook of Mathematical Tables and Formulas (McGraw-Hill, New 

York, 1965) p.357. 

56. F. A. Tulleners, Ref. 6, Secs. 1.5 and 4.5. 

57. Forensic Technology, Inc., Segmenting Tool Mark Image Reference Files (TMIRF) to 

Identify Crime Guns More Effectively, http://www.forensictechnology.com/d4.html, 

accessed 16 April 2007 

58. T. Brinck, Comparing the Performance of IBIS and Bullet TRAX-3D Technology Using 

Bullets from Ten Consecutively Rifled Barrels, AAFS Meeting, San Antonio, February 

2007, http://www.forensictechnologyinc.com/d4.html, accessed 16 April 2007. 

59. D. Roberge and A. Beauchamp, The Use of BulletTrax-3D in a Study of Consecutively 

Manufactured Barrels, AFTE Journal 38, 166 (2006).