Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, the Western Cartridge Co. It bears the head stamp
"WCO" and "6.5. mm."
Representative BOGGS. These are not difficult to obtain? You can buy
them anywhere?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, you can buy them from mail-order houses primarily,
or a few gun shops that have accumulated a supply by ordering them. The
information we have is that two million rounds were imported into the
United States in one lot, one shipment--and they have been transmitted
over the country and are for sale by several different surplus gun
shops--used guns--mail-order houses and places of that nature--and
gunsmiths, and firearms shops sell this ammunition.
Representative BOGGS. Go ahead.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what is the basis of the statement you made
earlier that no two bolt faces would be the same?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because the marks which are placed on any bolt face are
accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there intentionally
in the first place. They are residual to some machining operation,
such as a milling machine, in which each cutter of the milling tool
cuts away a portion of the metal; then the next tooth comes along and
cuts away a little more, and so on, until the final surface bears the
combination of the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following
that operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched--until
you have numerous--we call them microscopic characteristics, a
characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain place on
the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a certain size, it has
a certain contour, it may be just a little dimple in the metal, or a
spot of rust at one time on the face of the bolt, or have occurred from
some accidental means such as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having
flattened or smoothed off the surface of the metal.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why doesn't a series of the same machines, or repeated
use of the same machines, cause the same results, apart from future
accidental markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. In some instances a certain type of cutter will duplicate
a certain pattern of marks. In general you will find for a milling
cutter a circular mark. And you may find the same pattern of circles.
But that milling cutter does not actually cut the steel; it tears it
out, it chips it out, and the surface of the metal then is rough--even
though the circle is there, the circle is not a smooth circle, but it
is a result of tearing out the metal, and you will have a very rough
surface. When magnified sufficiently, you can detect the difference
even between two similarly milled surfaces because of the minor
variations in the cutting operation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine such similarly-milled
surfaces?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; many times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go into detail on that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, part of my work in the laboratory is dealing
with tool-marks of all types, from drills, mills, files, cutting
instruments, and so on. And when you are dealing with filing marks
or milling marks and so on, it is sometimes possible to identify a
particular mill as having made a certain mark on the basis of the
grinding marks on that particular mill. But such as a case like this,
where the cutting marks have now been altered through use of the weapon
and corrosion, or in wear or in filing, some of the original marks
are removed, and other marks are in their place, until eventually you
reach a condition where that bolt face will be entirely different from
any other bolt face. It is a matter actually--when you get down to the
basis of it, it is a matter of a mathematical impossibility in the
realm of human experience for any two things to ever be exactly alike.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is because the original markings will not be
exactly alike, and then you have added accidental markings on top of
the original ones?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is right; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning for a moment to the original markings, as
I understand it, you have worked with the tools themselves and the
impressions the tools themselves leave, as opposed to a tooled surface,
such as this.
Mr. FRAZIER. I have worked with both. In other words, in comparing
tool-marks, you examine not only the tool, but the marks they produce.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in working with these tools, as I understand your
testimony, you have found that the markings which a tool leaves, which
the same tool leaves, will be distinctive.
Mr. FRAZIER. That is true, yes. When it is a scrape or an impression
from its surface, or something of that nature, it can be very readily
identified. But if it is a drill or something of that nature, where you
have a tearing operation, then it is not readily identified, but it
occasionally can be identified.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, how many such examinations do you think you have
made?
Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands of them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you noticed whether the marks left by a given
tool--that you have examined--change over the course of the use of the
tool?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they change very rapidly when a tool is used to cut a
hard object.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "very rapidly"?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, when using a pry bar, for example,
one insertion of a pry bar into the hard insulation of a safe, with
pressure applied to it can change the entire blade of the tool to the
extent that you could not identify a succession of marks, because of
the abrasion by the insulation. But that same tool, used to mark a soft
steel or brass or copper, could make mark after mark without changing,
or only a small portion of it may change with each impression. Or it
may gradually change over a period of time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the metal in the bolt face a hard metal or a
soft metal?