Accurate reporting? Yeah right!!

[X-ray]

(ltstanfo you will love this)

Another fine example of the media not knowing what the hell they are talking about. Is there no research done at all before they print this garbage?

Click

I've seen more accurate facts on CSI  :lol:

[X-ray]

@ Karlos

Well, I will first point out all the bollox, then I will tell you a little about ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------

The .22 calibre short round bullet was found at the entrance

There is no such thing as a short round bullet. Anyway the thing they found was a cartridge. The bullet is the projectile that is loaded in that cartridge. It is not illegal to have bullets (unless they are hollowpoints). You can order a bag of bullets online legally (as I have done). It is live cartridges that are illegal without a firearms certificate.

The bullet, of Swiss origin, was still in its brass casing, complete with enough gunpowder for it to fire itself.

Okay here they change their tune and say the bullet was in a case, but the rest is crap. Firstly there is no way to determine how much powder is in the cartridge just by looking at it. It may not even have powder in it. It may not even have primer compound. And it definitely can't fire itself.

Mr Khan said that if it had been struck hard enough or exposed to heat it could have gone off.

Not the paper's fault, this is Khan's lack of knowledge. Firstly the .22 short is a rimfire cartridge and therefore has to be struck on the rim at the back before it will discharge. Secondly, tests have been done to determine how much heat is required to set these off, and it is quite a bit. For example it won't go off if left in a hot car or on a hot pavement.  Even if it does goes off (let's say somebody set it off by means of a blowtorch) there is little chance for injury. The item most likely to cause injury is the case, not the bullet. This has been proven in house fires where ammunition has been involved.

It was live, primed and active," he said.

Not the paper's fault, Kahn's fault. He had no way of knowing whether it was a live cartridge or not. It is not a centerfire cartridge so he cannot comment on whether it is primed or not. Even if it was a centerfire cartridge with an intact primer cup, there is no way of telling whether there is primer compound within the cup, without opening the cartridge or discharging it (firing it).

Ammunition of this kind would ordinarily be used in a small handgun or pistol, and both can be owned legally under licence.

Bollox. Those handguns are banned. You can't license those. But the legality of handguns isn't a factor because those cartridges can be fired in .22 rifles, which are legal to own (even in semi-automatic) with a license (a firearms certificate). I have fired all lengths of .22 cartridges in the same rifle.

[X-ray]

@ Karlos

Here is a picture of a .38 Special and a .22 Long Rifle cartridge. The .22 short in the story will be the same calibre but a shorter case. It is therefore less 'powerful.'



Don't worry about what sort of bullet is loaded in that cartridge, generally they will either be lead like the .38 seen there or they will be lead but with a jacket (like what you see in the movies). The .22 bullet in a short or long rifle case is never jacketed. That copper look you see there is a 'wash' that can be scraped off even with your fingernail.

At the back of the cartridges there is a difference between centerfire and rimfire:



These are live cartridges. The .38 has a proper central primer cup and the .22 has no obvious primer, but there is primer compound inside the rim. The location of the primer in each case is arrowed. In the .22 the primer compound will be in the rim all the way around the base. Those imprints on the bases of the cartridges identify the manufacturer and have nothing to do with primers.

Here you can see where the firing fin of the gun in each case has hit the base of the cartridge in order to discharge it (arrowed):



And here is a longitudinal section through those cases to show the difference between the two primers. The main capacity of the case is for the gunpowder (not shown):



It is very unlikely that you can set off a cartridge by dropping it on the ground. However I wouldn't do it. If you find a cartridge like that, it will be impossible to manually pull the bullet out with your fingers. They are crimped into the case and have to be fired out or extracted with a tool. These cartridges are safe to handle, and even if you were able to discharge one by hitting the back with a nail, it wouldn't go very far because it wouldn't be in a barrel where it could be propelled for any length of time by the gases of combustion.

So what do you do if you find one of those?

1) Get a clear plastic bag and pick it up like a dog turd.
2) Don't touch the case, because you might leave fingerprints on there.
3) Don't touch the cartridge with any tools and avoid unnecessary handling. Forensic tests can match that cartridge to a gun if it has been chambered and then unchambered.
4) That item could be evidence in a crime and you definitely don't want to add your prints or make extra impressions on that.
5) When the cartridge is in the bag, call the police to collect it (saves you a trip).

If you find a firearm: well that is a whole different kettle of fish...

[X-ray]

"...I can see that the story is factually ropey..."
----------------------------------------------------

It isn't factually ropey, it is downright misleading and devoid of any research. There is a definite difference between a bullet and a cartridge, and it isn't just semantics. It is a critical element in the story. It is the difference between going free and perhaps having 5 years in jail. It also is the difference between having forensic experts at the scene for trajectory analysis and having a cop show up to collect a cartridge.
The legality of weapons and the nature of the item found, and the apparent danger it poses to somebody who handles it, is not something that is subject to dramatic license. You don't have the liberty of semantics when discussing arms and ammunition.
Certainly they offered several pieces of information as fact, when they clearly aren't.

The bottom line is:

1) The cartridge cannot go off by itself.
2) It cannot go off because of environmental heat.
3) It cannot go off if handled with fingers.
4) It is very unlikely to go off if dropped.
5) If it did go off without being chambered, the damage would be minimal. Mythbusters did a test with the larger .22 long rifle cartridges, held in a fuse clip and those cases had very little penetration. The .22 short will have even less.

As to how it got there, it probably dropped out of somebody's bag or clothing.
It's no excuse, the person who dropped that is liable. I've come home from a day at the range and found a cartridge in my bag before. Trouble was, it wasn't a brand of cartridge that I was firing. It was ejected from a weapon in an adjacent bay when the shooter was clearing a jam and the round just happened to go into an outside pouch on a shoulder bag I had. But it became my problem after I discovered it.
You do get all manner of replicas, blanks and deactivated ammunition. These are more likely to be seen than a real round lying in a doorway. Live ammunition is more difficult for criminals to get than illegal handguns.
Of course if you find a heap of cartridges in a crack den then those are probably not going to be replicas  ;-)

You're right about handling it as if it is real: that is the safest way, but that doesn't mean you can make statements about its composition to the press, or that the press can entertain guesswork on the composiion and 'lethality' of the round.

[X-ray]

 :-?

I don't get that, Cannon Fodder

[X-ray]

Armed Robber: No nonsense. Just give me all your money.

Mr Logic: I shall commence by pointing out to you that my demeanour is not one which could be described as nonsensical. Consequently I can attest you have no cause to reprimand me on your first point. On to your second point: Bearing in mind the potentially lethal situation in which I find myself, to wit: your presence in conjunction with the presumably loaded firearm which is presently levelled at my cranium, I will comply with your request comprehensively, albeit reluctantly. Here, twenty-seven pence.
------------------------------------------------------------

 :lol:

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

I reckon the papers could use some help from Mr Logic instead of spreading bollox most of the time.
That's made me want to find old Viz comics now. I can see that dude being a real favourite  :-)

[X-ray]

@ alewis

"...I see commonalities with your post, then..."
--------------------------------------------------
Oh really? Where was my post factually ropey and devoid of research?


"...But is it of interest to, say, the 98% (whatever) of the readership who are not [ex-]Forces, or acquainted with firearms. No. To such a person a "bullet" is a bullet, not a round or live ammunition..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just because something ahs been erroneously described or misrepresented by a majority does not make it acceptable. That might be appropriate for Chavs discussing sports player nicknames, but it isn't appropriate for a piece that is written about the technicalities and hazards of a cartridge found in a doorway.


"...No it isn't. The critical element of the entire story is that a round of live ammunition was found in a shop doorway. This is hardly a common ocurence, and was deemed newsworthy. The find itself is *the* critical element..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, well in that case I will have to notify those reporters that I found a multicoloured bird-dropping on my front step this morning. You don't see too many of those around here, perhaps that find will be the critical element in their next story.


"...If they found the bullet itself, I doubt they would recognise it for what is is..."
--------------------------------------------------------
You are right on that point, but it doesn't take into account all the inputs into the story. If they have gone so far as to get a police opinion on the cartridge, they might as well call it a cartridge. It wasn't just Khan's opinion being reported, after all.


"...Yes it is when it is in the public interest to over-emphasise the danger. Ammunition is fairly harmless, but there is a risk regardless. It is not the role of a newspaper to educate their readership how to handle live ammunition, so better to over-emphasise the potential danger..."
----------------------------------------------------------
You call it over-emphasising, I call it misrepresenting. That is the first step in media scaremongering.


"...And frankly, like any other subject, weaponry is subject to semantics. You use it yourself, with the phrase "go off"..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am guilty of making that slip, but then again I did it in the coffee house, not a news publication. Please don't be over-critical of me when I am not being paid to post  ;-)


"...Where in the article are these offered..."
----------------------------------------------------------
I offered them, as a bottom line and adjunct to the pictures I posted, as a rebuttal for their statement that the cartridge could 'fire itself'


"...The article does not mention environmental heat, it states "exposed to heat". That includes fire, and ammunition can "cook off" in a fire..."
----------------------------------------------------------
And that would be the least dangerous of any possible discharge of a loose cartridge. Unless you are suggesting somebody sat with the cartridge in the fire until such time it discharged.


"...it does not state that it can go off if handled with fingers, nor if dropped."
----------------------------------------------------------
That was my information, as part of my bottom line.


"...As per the Police quote - "if it goes bang, it is still lethal..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have not heard of a single case where a fatality has resulted from the loose discharge of a .22 short cartridge. In fact I have not heard of any significant injuries sustained from the discharge of a loose .22 LR cartridge either. Don't trust the police for accurate information about ballistics, I have first hand experience that tells me that the majority of them know very little about the subject. They might know the difference between a cartridge and a bullet, but not the effects of a loose discharge. The danger is vastly overstated and does not even approach the danger posed by a simple firework. The issue is more the legality of it. Do you think they would be up in arms if someone left an unlit firework in a doorway? Of course not.


"...Mr Khan was perfectly accurate to treat the round as live, describe the risks as per live, and echo the sentiment that one certainly wouldn't want a child to pick it up..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I agreed to that in my response to Karlos (although I don't agree with how they described the risks).


"...regarding the earlier comments how he should be better informed if he was a member of a gun club and owns a firearm licence, sorry, thats assumptive. There is no reason why those two facts would bestow much more knowledge other than the safe handling of weapons and ammunition..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry but that is nonsense. There are range restrictions related to calibre, velocity, projectile composition and ammunition compatibility with club and members' weapons. These are per range, per club and sometimes even per bay/lane. Members should know this, especially if they have had their 13 visits as a probationer. Probationers generally cannot shoot alone for their first 6 visits and have to be signed off per weapon category after that. Are you a member of a rifle club here in the UK?


"..Mr Khan did not state where it had to be struck, nor did he say that it was a centrfire or rimfire..."
----------------------------------------------------
I know he didn't provide that information, I provided it. Next you'll be saying Khan didn't provide the pictures in this thread. I provided those as a reference for users to see what the differences are externally between the two.


"...His "live, primed and active" comment was inacurrate, sure, but made a newsworthy soundbite..."
---------------------------------------------------------
You've got to be kidding, right? Why didn't they go the whole hog and say it's guidance system was locked on? You can't make an excuse for that one, or the comment that it 'had enough gunpowder to fire itself'


"...But again, as one treats all ammunition as live, its only sensible to pass this on (which perhaps he did, but the newspaper edited it down considerably, passing the substance rather than the wordage..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I fully acknowledge that the press makes things up to spice up a story. Where did they get the 'substance' of the legal handguns though? That is quite a specific comment.


"...yes, there were errors in the reporting (as you picked up, the illegality of handguns), but nothimg that amounts to a public dis-service..."
----------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that this happens too often. There is no accuracy in the reporting. In an upscaled version of this, Panorama covered the risks associated with having X-rays in a hospital. They completely misrepresented what procedures are in place and the nature of the radiation involved. To use your description for it, they 'over-emphasized' the danger that is posed by ionizing radiation used for medical diagnosis. I had patients harassing me in the corridors, demanding to know what dose they had recieved in previous examinations because the program insinuated that hairloss and erythema were common occurences in radiography today.
They made a mountain out of a molehill with that cartridge story and I think you know why they did it: lack of research and a desire for sensationalism. At a forensic conference in 2004 a Sky News guy admitted to us that in a major incident they would find whatever sources they could (whether accurate or not) to provide background material for the incident if they felt that the authorities were not supplying them with information about the incident quickly enough. Stories such as this one are the delight of those who would like any ammunition (if you excuse the pun) to call for a total ban on firearms in the UK.