Talk:Microstamping

message: Are there any sources for the controversy section? For all those opponents and proponents sections? I am just wondering. Many of them sound logical but I would like to see if someone reputable has published their concerns like those or if it is just someone who cooked those up in their own heads. I am just concerned that there is a pocket of OR there that needs to be addressed. --Alandholder (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Salting the crime scene, wear, sole-source technology, swapping parts, impossibility of tracking a given gun to a criminal, and inadequate testing are all covered by this SAAMI bulletin:  http://saami.org/LL/CA-AB352.cfm  I'll start adding cites.  scot (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There would seem to be some original research (or information from fairly poor sources) in the criticisms section, such as saying that cases reloaded from a firing range would carry confusing marks (assuming that centrefire cartridges are used, the percussion cap - the part that will be 'stamped' - will require replacement, hence the original marks will be lost) and the part suggesting that criminals will 'frame' innocent shooters by collecting brass from the range (they can aready do this, as fired cases marked or not will likely carry the fingerprints of the person who loaded the mag/clip). Can someone check whether these arguments exist in verifiable sources, or whether they're just being made up by editors? Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: We need specifics about "Claims made by the opponents of the technology", which opponents, who specifically, where and what is their reputation. Litch 04:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims by opponents

message: Yet another source has been given showing that handgun life is MUCH larger than the number of rounds used in the studies in this article. Anyone who thinks that 2,500 rounds is the average life of a pistol simply needs to do a little research. That's an extremely low number for a pistol. Imagine a casual shooter who goes to the range 5-6 times a year and each time shoots 2 boxes of ammo, 100 rounds. This would give him less than a 5 year life-span for a pistol. I'm not aware of any pistol with such a short lifespan. -- Arthur (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I can't find a single source that gives an "average service life" (admittedly a damned hard thing to do) I've provided additional sources from Beretta for the XM-9 tests (168k rounds), a magazine article by Massad Ayoob about a Glock that's had 80k rounds through it, and a book that covers the H&K SOCOM gun, and the the JSOC offensive handgun requirements it had to meet (30k before any service (i.e. recoil spring replacement), then 30k more).  100,000 rounds isn't at all unusual.  -- scot (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevance is that guns used in crimes are frequently borrowed or stolen. The original owners may well have fired the gun in question thousands of times. -- Arthur (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are just pulling this stuff out of your rear ends. Most folks aren't gun nuts who spend their weekends shooting bullets for fun. If something wears out then replace it. Might as well get rid of seat belts because they're such a fucking inconvenience. Felsic (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handgun life 

message: As a result of the edit war going on on the article at the moment, I've protected the page for 1 day after being asked to look at the situation as an uninvolved admin. All of you involved should take the issue here and stop reverting each other. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Neranei (talk)</font> 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: This article deals almost exclusively with the legal and social issues associated with the technology of Firearms microstamping. Yet other than a few sentences there is almost nothing about the technology. What are the differences in firing pins? How long does the stamping last? What scale is the data encoded? What type of technology is necessary to view the microstamp? Does using different types of shell primers negates the stamp? imho this topic is missing the basis for the entire article. It explains what it is, and then has a huge volume on why or why not, but has next to nothing on HOW.
Wizardstorm (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they cannot speak to the technology. This is typical dirty socialist gun grabbing legislation aimed at nothing more than keeping firearms out of the hands of honest citizens. Why else would there be a law enforcement exemption?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, tell us how you really feel. Felsic (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The technology is, aside from the very small scale, not very interesting. As many have observed, the microstamping can be defaced in a few seconds. The whole thing smacks of a kickback deal for some politician. Nobody seems to have mentioned that revolvers will still be readily available, and that they don't throw brass all over the crime scene, so they defeat this "technology" without any effort.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.207.4 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: The article shouldn't bias the reader with "controversial" adjective in lede. Or maybe it should, depending on your POV. The California stuff was strewn all over the article. I put it under one heading. The lead was stupid - "Blah blah is a term". I fixed it.  My guess is someone will revert without any good reason.  162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And I bet they'll do it again too. Felsic (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course it was reverted yet again - still no discussion here. This is slow motion edit warring. Felsic (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Microstamping. Broad consensus that this is the best title.   — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Firearm microstamping →  – This would be more consistent with other firearm technical terms, such as Chamber (firearms), Fluting (firearms), Magazine (firearms), and Belt (firearms). Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

text: *Reply: , , , there is also microstamping for jewelry, but that seems much less notable.  There could be other uses for micro stamps in the future, but I suppose the page could always be moved once the other technology became notable.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Post-RM note: I'm happy to see it moved, but two comments in favor and one neutral doesn't constitute a "broad consensus".  Closes (non-admin or otherwise) need to accurately reflect the debate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 January 2015 

message: Lots of things have goals. The 2nd Amendment "has the goal" of protecting gun rights. The US Army "has the goal" of defending the country. A car "has the goal" of providing transportation. How many other articles use that same form in the intro? None, I bet. This is just there to cast doubts on the technology. Felsic (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited it out again. The "goal" crap serves no purpose other than to cast doubt on the technology using Wikipedia's voice. It ain't neutral. Felsic (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...has the goal of..." 

message: The issue of liability for the gun owner if the firing pin is replaced or experiences normal wear with use, or if the chamber marking is removed, may constitute violating federal and/or state statutes that impose strict penalties for defacing the serial numbers of firearms. However, in an amendment proposed to the bill passed in California AB 1471, this issue is addressed, at least at the state level:
::"The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice[of California], within the meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094."California Assembly (AB 1471)Sections 12090 and 12094 of the California Penal Code CA Penal Code
The microstamping is therefore not considered the serial number under California law, for the intents and purposes of the California penal code. It is still unclear if such penalties may be prosecuted at the federal level, as there is no firm definition of a "manufacturer's serial number."US Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 921 and 922(k) US Penal Code
-----------------
I don't see a single secondary source for this crap. Find someone who says this is an issue before shoving it back into the article. Felsic (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt
Who makes the point that microstamping is useless because most guns used in crime are stolen?  The link above doesn't mention microstamping, so it's just being used to support someone's original research. Prove me wrong. Felsic (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The "pro and con" stuff has gotta have sources.Felsic (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the unsourced material. Naturally, Miguel reverted me without any discussion. I deleted it again, after splitting out the one fact with a source. The material I took out shouldn't be put back without sources. Felsic (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More original research 

message: The original inventor of micro-stamping of bullets is Mr. Gaston Glock the founder and inventor of Glock Firearms.  During the late 1990's, Miami Dade county was having problem with crime and a number of incidents involving police involved shootings[1].  The problem that was identified was that because Miami Dade county used Glocks, it was near impossible to match the bullet fired to a specific officers firearm [1].  This led to the potential issue, that police agencies might turn away from Glock products to firearms which produced better "unintentional microstamps - e.g. tool marks".  Mr. Glock solved the problem.  Mr. Glock invented the ability to use a mechanical tool to create what was termed EBIS, "Enhanced Barrel Identification System" or simply known as the "Miami Barrel" or "intentional Microstamping - e.g. specific tool marks".  Mr. Glock Patented the invention; US Patent 6796073 "Method for producing a barrel marking"[2] and European Patent EP1327849A1 [3].
What he designed was a microstamping barrel marking method that could identify the firearm, based solely on the bullet itself.  Mr. Gabriel Hernandez presented a paper and research of the success of this EBIS product.  Also a Dr. Fadul researched the accuracy and reliability of he technology for his PhD dissertation [5].  Both the Hernandez and Fadul papers show >99% reliability [1][4].   The fact is the firearm industry; specifically the European firearm industry; is capable of developing microstamping technologies with high degrees of repeatability and accuracy when the need arises, such as when sales are in jeopardy.  I think this is a perfect example.
When you look at firing pins or breach faces the fact remains; Gaston Glock successfully placed microstamping into the barrel the most difficult part of the firearm and successfully created a means of identification to match a specific barrel to a specific bullet.  The research shows that the features he produced where on the scale of 25 microns or .001".  And it still worked.  
[1]2011 Paper Dr. Fadul http://projects.nfstc.org/ipes/presentations/Fadul_gun-barrels.pdf
[2]Gaston Glock Micro-stamping Barrel Patent https://www.google.com/patents/US6796073?dq=US+6796073&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1McQVbyVNLPhsATjtYGYBA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
[3]Gaston Glock EU patent https://www.google.com/patents/US6796073?dq=US+6796073&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1McQVbyVNLPhsATjtYGYBA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
[4]Glock Miami Barrel study http://www.ascld.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Hernandez-Glock-Study.pdf
[5]Dr. Fadul Thesis for PHD http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532815
[6]Police chief Magazine article  http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1893&issue_id=92009  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlockTalk (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ballistic fingerprinting, not microstamping.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Glock EBIS microstamping

message: California A.B. 1471 is short and mostly repeated on this page. Felsic2 (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge [[California A.B. 1471 ]] 

message: * What I think should be changed (include citations):
Original:
The proprietary technology was invented and patented by Todd Lizotte and is presently owned by a company he founded called NanoMark, a division of ID Dynamics of Seattle, Washington.[19] They are the only company from which this technology can be purchased.
New:
" The proprietary technology was invented and patented by Todd Lizotte and is presently owned by a company he founded called TACLABS, Inc.[19] They are the only company from which this technology can be purchased."
References: [19] https://tac-labs.com/forensics/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDyTUls4bYs
https://www.cabinet.com/news/bedford-news/2021/02/25/new-site-launches/
* Why it should be changed:
Most current information. 
71.232.236.192 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already done  Looking at the backlog this change appears to have been already made. I Am Chaos (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of company name in manufacturing section  

message: The article seems to imply that as of 2013, California's AB 1471 went into effect and all new handgun sales were required to be microstamped. However, throughout the article multiple references are made to the technology still being proprietary, costly, no mainstream compliant guns existing ("no production firearm has been able to meet this requirement"), etc. Which is it? Are guns simply not being sold in California anymore? 
It is additionally not clear if TACLABS' technology is being sold to gun manufacturers, or if they have contracted with any manufacturer to produce microstamped guns. 140.160.182.176 (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to the status/real use of microstamping?