Empty Cartridge forensics: Stanley Case

[Traveller11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Then why would too high of pressure cause the bolt to fly back and the bullet not to fly out as well? Pretty sure for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Can’t have force one way and not the other. Check out the video on the Ross rifle bolt on YouTube. I doubt that bullet stayed in the chamber.
https://youtu.be/EaSui_UqDX8

I am beginning to think, after watching this and other videos, that it may be possible, in a situation where the locking lugs have failed and there is nothing stopping bolt and casing from flying rearward, the bullet does actually exit the barrel muzzle. What velocity it is travelling, with the massive escape of propellant gases, and how lethal it is at this point is another question.

This seems like it would have been a very good task for the old Mythbusters crew. I'm sure Jamie and Adam would have loved tackling this problem.

After going over Mr. Stanley's testimony again, and re-watching your video on the Ross rifle being fired without the locking lugs engaged, two things about his testimony struck me as very unusual.

As I pointed out earlier, the Tokarev TT-33 has a VERY loud muzzle blast and Mr. Stanley, by his own admission, had purchased it for this very reason, as its loud report was very successful in scaring coyotes away from his cow/calf operation. Yet, when he testified, he stated that he believed the third and final cartridge in his gun had gone off when he was firing rounds into the air.

Is it really possible that he did not notice there was a complete lack of a LOUD muzzle blast when he pulled the trigger the third time? I find this hard to believe. Even the small pop heard in the 9mm Luger video you posted would have been absent, as I believe that sound was from gases escaping out of a punctured primer, and there is nothing in the evidence about the bulged casing having a punctured primer.

Not only would there be no muzzle blast, there would also be no recoil. The Tokarev is a powerful handgun, shooting a .30 calibre bullet, and videos of people shooting it show it to have a rather stiff recoil. Did he not notice that either?

The video of the Ross rifle being fired with no locking lugs engaged is a perfect demonstration of what I believe would have happened with the Tokarev if the cartridge was slightly out of the chamber when the gunpowder ignited as, for the casing to be out of the chamber, the Tokarev's bolt and barrel would have to be disengaged from each other, and the locking lugs released. As can be seen in the Ross rifle video, the sudden powerful slamming of the bolt rearward and the massive discharge of the majority of the propellant gases from the chamber (some likely still burning) would have been a very frightening and memorable event, and many people would believe they were witnessing a gun blowing up.

And yet, in his testimony, Mr. Stanley merely states "The gun just went off". Is that not the understatement of the year?

[Traveller11]

After reading some of the comments on this thread, it became apparent to me that not all of the posters here are completely familiar with the case as it was presented by the defense. I'll try to write a brief synopsis of their presentation.

According to the defense, Mr. Stanley had retrieved his Tokarev TT-33 semi-auto pistol from its storage place in a shed. He also retrieved its 8 round clip, into which he inserted 3 cartridges, and he then inserted the clip into the pistol and chambered the 1st round. The ammo was Czech milsurp ammo for the Tokarev, and it was made in 1953.

He then returned to the scene of the altercation and, on his way there, fired "two to three rounds" into the air. He did not testify to the last round being a hangfire, and testified he believed at this point he had fired off all of the rounds and the gun was empty; both in clip and chamber. He testified he was further convinced the gun was empty by glancing down and seeing a portion of the barrel and muzzle protruding from the slide.

( https://cdn1.epicgames.com/ue/produc...f023104e6b.png This photo shows a Tokarev after the last shot has been fired and its empty casing ejected. The slide action moves all the way to the rear and stays there, leaving the barrel exposed)

Believing his gun to be empty, Mr. Stanley also removed the empty clip from the gun, and then ran to the SUV occupied by Colten Boushie. Once there, he testified he leaned his right hand (with pistol) on the window sill of the driver's door and leaned in through the window with his left hand, in an attempt to turn the SUV's engine off and remove the keys.

At this point, he testified, the gun went off. He further testified he did not have his finger on the trigger when it went off. His son Sheldon testified that, immediately after the shooting of Boushie, his father turned to face him with the Tokarev pistol in his right hand and the empty clip in his left hand.

The 3rd casing, from which the fatal bullet was fired, was found on the dashboard of the SUV. Its base was unnaturally swollen out, and its bottleneck was expanded out to the diameter of the rest of the casing.

https://i.imgur.com/78FDbhrl.jpg

The theory for the odd casing, if a hangfire is assumed, goes like this:

The 3rd and last cartridge was picked up by the bolt and fully chambered in the Tokarev. When Mr. Stanley pulled the trigger the final time, the hammer was released and struck the firing pin. The firing pin then struck the primer of the 3rd cartridge and detonated the primer. Due to deteriorated gunpowder, only the primer detonated and the gunpowder did not ignite.

According to theory, the amount of gases released from the detonated primer was sufficient to drive the barrel and bolt rearward to the point where bolt and barrel would normally unlock from each other. The barrel stopped moving but the bolt continued rearward for a small distance; equal to the length of the bulge at the base of the deformed casing. This, of course, meant the casing, still loaded with gunpowder and a bullet, was slightly extracted from the chamber.

[dgl1948]

In his testimony said he put two cartridges in the magazine.

[AndrewM]

If you are in the heat of the moment and scared for your life, you can’t assume one would remember everything nor every minute detail nor expect to count perfectly. Pretty sure the guy was a farmer and not trained to count shots like the military.
Regardless the thread is getting off topic. The only point of discussion was the bulged case as the rest has been discussed in detail and the threads are locked and closed.
When you have a minute please attach a video of a semi shooting a hot load where the timing is off and the case bulges.

[Traveller11]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

In his testimony said he put two cartridges in the magazine.

He also testified to firing two to three shots into the air. Anyways, there is no doubt that three shots were fired in total.

[Newview01]

Traveller, the reality is that what you are describing did not happen. Stanley testified under oath that he did not intentionally kill the intruder. The jury looked at the evidence and determined that he was not guilty. Do you want this to go to trial again? Do you believe Stanley is lying? If he wanted to lie about the incident, he could have gotten away with numerous other storylines. He took the high road and told the truth.

[Traveller11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

If you are in the heat of the moment and scared for your life, you can’t assume one would remember everything nor every minute detail nor expect to count perfectly. Pretty sure the guy was a farmer and not trained to count shots like the military.
Regardless the thread is getting off topic. The only point of discussion was the bulged case as the rest has been discussed in detail and the threads are locked and closed.
When you have a minute please attach a video of a semi shooting a hot load where the timing is off and the case bulges.

This is true. However, he was firing shots into the air with the intention of scaring people, not much different than what he was doing when he was scaring coyotes away from newborn calves. I'm sure he experienced many heated moments doing that and, by his own admission, he seemed to have no difficulty identifying hangfires in those incidents. When you are firing for effect, you are anticipating a particular event to occur, just to see the effect it has.

Yes, it would be nice to have a video of a defective pistol firing a hot load and producing a bulged and deformed casing. It would also be nice to see a video of a hangfire that produced a bulged and deformed casing; something that has not been produced so far either.

[Traveller11]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Traveller, the reality is that what you are describing did not happen. Stanley testified under oath that he did not intentionally kill the intruder. The jury looked at the evidence and determined that he was not guilty. Do you want this to go to trial again? Do you believe Stanley is lying? If he wanted to lie about the incident, he could have gotten away with numerous other storylines. He took the high road and told the truth.

As I have stated, I believe it entirely possible Mr. Stanley could have accidentally discharged his Tokarev when Colten Boushie was killed. I am having trouble believing it occurred as he described, though, and I believe it worthy of discussion solely on those grounds. What is done with any revelations brought about by discussion is of no interest to me.

"If he wanted to lie about the incident, he could have gotten away with numerous other storylines."

Such as....?

[bat119]

Conspiracy theories aside
12 people were convinced that there was a problem with the pistol they voted not guilty.
Nuff said

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by bat119

Conspiracy theories aside
12 people were convinced that there was a problem with the pistol they voted not guilty.
Nuff said

I agree. I am done with the thread. To compare scaring coyotes to people is ludicrous. I would trust the coyote over drunk people any day of the week. It has been warped into Traveller trying to prove that he is guilty rather than a discussion on a deformed case and how it happened. It has become a thread about hypotheticals and one in a million chances that can’t be replicated. He is innocent and I have no intention on discussing that. Travellers true intention of joining the forum has came to light.

[ctd]

Traveller11
Watch the videos in post 83 and 84.
(Tell me what you notice with the ammo).

One shows how a pistol can fire our of battery and cause a bulged casing.
The second shows how a gun can fire both with the breech opened and still discharge a round out the barrel.
There are other videos on line where misfired have taken up to 28seconds to discharge.


Please when you are stating facts stick to facts unless you can substantiate what it is you are saying. Stating that he loaded 3 rounds.
In fact he stated he loaded 2 rounds. Unless you can show where Mr Stanely mentioned he loaded three rounds stick to the facts. Unless you propose it as a theory. Then State it as such.
This is how the truth gets stretched and mismanaged and people get swayed with EMOTIONS.

[dgl1948]

The trial is over and this thread should be as well.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Traveller11

As I have stated, I believe it entirely possible Mr. Stanley could have accidentally discharged his Tokarev when Colten Boushie was killed. I am having trouble believing it occurred as he described, though, and I believe it worthy of discussion solely on those grounds. What is done with any revelations brought about by discussion is of no interest to me.

"If he wanted to lie about the incident, he could have gotten away with numerous other storylines."

Such as....?

Self defense is one that comes to mind.

[Traveller11]

Originally Posted by ctd

Traveller11
Watch the videos in post 83 and 84.
(Tell me what you notice with the ammo).

One shows how a pistol can fire our of battery and cause a bulged casing.
The second shows how a gun can fire both with the breech opened and still discharge a round out the barrel.
There are other videos on line where misfired have taken up to 28seconds to discharge.


Please when you are stating facts stick to facts unless you can substantiate what it is you are saying. Stating that he loaded 3 rounds.
In fact he stated he loaded 2 rounds. Unless you can show where Mr Stanely mentioned he loaded three rounds stick to the facts. Unless you propose it as a theory. Then State it as such.
This is how the truth gets stretched and mismanaged and people get swayed with EMOTIONS.

Yet, not one of those videos shows a fully seated cartridge experiencing a hangfire, pus a subsequent deformed casing, and this was the argument put forth by the defense. It was one of the firearms experts who later suggested an "out of battery" discharge, and neither he nor the other expert could explain how this occurred.

No one is stretching or distorting the truth. Mr. Stanley testified to shooting two to three rounds into the air. One round discharged into Boushie. Three empty casings were found by the RCMP; two on the driveway and one in the car. Simple mathematics tells us he loaded at least three cartridges into the clip, unless the clip was not empty when he retrieved it.

[Traveller11]

What I find unacceptable about this case is the limited amount of testing performed on Mr. Stanley's Tokarev, despite the astronomical odds against the alleged hangfire occurring in the fashion it did and producing the oddly deformed casing.

The first test I would have performed on this particular gun would be to take some of his Czech milsurp ammo to a reputable handloader and have him pull the bullet from one of the casings. The gunpowder would then be emptied from it and replaced with an equal volume of some inert powder such as salt, in order to displace the same amount of air the gunpowder did. Then, the bullet would be re-seated in the casing.

This test cartridge would then be chambered into Stanley's Tokarev and fired. If the defense's theory is correct, there should be enough gas pressure produced from just the primer to drive the bolt and barrel far enough rearward to disengage them from each other, plus drive the bolt even further back to cause the casing to be out of the chamber far enough to set it up to produce the bulge in the base.

This is the only test that need be done to prove or disprove the defense's hangfire theory.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by Traveller11

What I find unacceptable about this case is the limited amount of testing performed on Mr. Stanley's Tokarev, despite the astronomical odds against the alleged hangfire occurring in the fashion it did and producing the oddly deformed casing.

The first test I would have performed on this particular gun would be to take some of his Czech milsurp ammo to a reputable handloader and have him pull the bullet from one of the casings. The gunpowder would then be emptied from it and replaced with an equal volume of some inert powder such as salt, in order to displace the same amount of air the gunpowder did. Then, the bullet would be re-seated in the casing.

This test cartridge would then be chambered into Stanley's Tokarev and fired. If the defense's theory is correct, there should be enough gas pressure produced from just the primer to drive the bolt and barrel far enough rearward to disengage them from each other, plus drive the bolt even further back to cause the casing to be out of the chamber far enough to set it up to produce the bulge in the base.

This is the only test that need be done to prove or disprove the defense's hangfire theory.

The defence doesn’t ever have to prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty. Try to understand that.

[ctd]

Traveller11

The video does show a pistol that fired out of Battery and has a bulges case. Yes or no?

The other video shows a hang fire of a few seconds where the round went out the barrel and the casing came out the breech. Yes or no?

Both videos although not the same firearm and not the same type of firearm show that
A. Bulge casing similar to The one in question can happen with a out of Battery firing.
B Hang fire can happen in a firearm that does not fire off within a few million seconds.

Your looking for facts and you have been shown a few examples by more then one person yet you are still trying to comprehend how any of what Mr Stanley stated in his Testimony was or is true.

The only way to test this theory of firing out of Battery with a hang fire is to actually do a test. The problem with testing this way is that there is a high probability of a total destruction of the firearm involved and then no further ballistic testing could be performed.

In order for all the events to of happend in the same sequence are unknown as we have no recorded or reported incidents.

Ballistics which is what we are talking about and the theory of motion are never constant when dealing with Firearms.
Some said a pistol cannot fire out of Battery, that was proved wrong.
Some stated a hang fire could not of happend in the context of what was explained (referring to the length of time). That to has been proved wrong.


The problem with testing your way is that you cannot prove or disprove that some or all of the powder ignited or partially ignited.
While using Salt.

[bat119]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

The defence doesn’t ever have to prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty. Try to understand that.

I think our new friend is one of the mob outside the court house supporters that thinks the verdict should have been reached by a show of hands rather than due process.

Coming up next JFK's magic bullet

[Headdamage]

I think that you would also have to look at the terminal ballistics evidence to try and figure out what sort of velocity/engery the bullet was carrying when it left the muzzel.

However, what the hell was he doing storing a handgun in a shed and using it to scare stuff on a farm in the first place? The fact he was leaning into a vehicle with a handgun has also reduced my simpathy level from what it was when I first heard of this incident. There are a whole lot of bad decissions involved in this case on both sides.

[Traveller11]

"Both videos although not the same firearm and not the same type of firearm show that
A. Bulge casing similar to The one in question can happen with a out of Battery firing.
B Hang fire can happen in a firearm that does not fire off within a few million seconds."

Once again, apples and oranges. Placing the two incidents side by side will not transfer facts between them.

The basic theory was that a fully chambered cartridge was struck by a firing pin and, within only the primer detonated, enough force was created to move bolt and barrel rearward past the point where bolt and barrel disengage from each other. With the cartridge set up in this position, slightly out of the chamber, the later combustion of the gunpowder fire formed it into the shape seen in this photo.

THAT is the video I would like to see; a fully seated hangfire producing an empty casing with a bulged out base.

[ctd]

Traveller11
"a fully seated hangfire producing an empty casing with a bulged out base"

Lets break this down.
Ask yourself can you have a hangfire. Yes or No?

Can you have a bulged casing, Yes or No?

Think of the process of a hangfire.

Ask yourself this, How does a case get bulged when fired from a hand gun?



Here is a theory

1. Two bullets loaded. (3rd was already in the magazine did not notice as was in a rush under stress)
2. Fired two rounds off into the air.
3. Pulled the trigger a few times more released the magazine.
3. Primer only fired during one of the few trigger pulls, moving the slide slightly out of battery. Extruding the muzzle slightly. (did not hear or notice a primer only fire as to the other noise, distractions and stress happening)
4. went to the driver side of the vehicle reached inside to remove keys. BOOM round ignites off due to a slow burn.
5. Casing ejects with bulge due to firing out of battery due to a slow burn, alternately round exits the barrel.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by Traveller11

What I find unacceptable about this case is the limited amount of testing performed on Mr. Stanley's Tokarev, despite the astronomical odds against the alleged hangfire occurring in the fashion it did and producing the oddly deformed casing.

The first test I would have performed on this particular gun would be to take some of his Czech milsurp ammo to a reputable handloader and have him pull the bullet from one of the casings. The gunpowder would then be emptied from it and replaced with an equal volume of some inert powder such as salt, in order to displace the same amount of air the gunpowder did. Then, the bullet would be re-seated in the casing.

This test cartridge would then be chambered into Stanley's Tokarev and fired. If the defense's theory is correct, there should be enough gas pressure produced from just the primer to drive the bolt and barrel far enough rearward to disengage them from each other, plus drive the bolt even further back to cause the casing to be out of the chamber far enough to set it up to produce the bulge in the base.

This is the only test that need be done to prove or disprove the defense's hangfire theory.

How about you go and purchase one and load a few hot rounds and see if you can replicate your theory. Better yet take 400 surplus rounds and try and bake them or age them in such a way that only one round fires hot and causes the timing to be off while the rest fire normal. Rather than trying to prove the other theory as false, you can prove yours as plausible. Be very careful you don’t injure your hand or face in the process....

[ctd]

AndrewM



LOL.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by ctd

AndrewM



LOL.

Lol. I haven’t even seen a Tokerev before! It is clear there is a specific agenda as all he replies with is theory and zero proof.

[ctd]

Andrewm.
It may just be some good discussion.
There are a few red flags from his posts about his wording and his theories.
But I take a person at their word that they want a good discussion until proven otherwise.

All we can do is stick to facts and come up with theories based on the facts.

Proceed with caution, hopefully some great discussion will keep coming up. maybe everyone who is interested may learn something new. We never know.

[AndrewM]

I joined the thread for the discussion. Got frustrated with the agenda when it started to get to accusations and tearing apart how Stanley acted. Until a person is in the situation we could never imagine the feelings and fear that happened that day as the events unfolded.

[Cheyenne 1]

Has anyone read the judges orders to the jury??
Speculate all you want. The gun went off when it was not in full battery.
That is the only way for the case to look like it did
How it happened well we will never actually know. Watch all the u tube videos yah want. Stay in a holiday inn express won't change anything

Can you actually imagine how chaotic he scene would have been at the yard that afternoon. Things are not as calm as and relaxed as we are now.
There was stuff happening and it was happening fast. I don't know if some one
Punched out my wife and ran into vehicles on my yard what I would do.
Has anyone been in this situation??
Has anyone had an intruder at the door that is threatening to kill you ? And you know the rcmp are a minimum of 40 minutes away.
I actually have. And when I told the guy I was calling the rcmp he said go ahead they are 40 min away and I will have you all F-_-- up before they get there.
I told him it was for his safety not mine. Very lucky that he decided to leave.
Would have put every one in a bad spot.
Gerald Stanley was put in a position he never asked to be in and never wanted to be in. This all is a very bad deal. And he will have to live with it for the rest of his life.

So the prosecution needs to prove there case beyond a reasonable doubt as to what happened.
Everyone so far has made it very clear there is a lot of doubt in what happened.

[Cheyenne 1]

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...a-jurors-shoes

Not sure if I am supposed to copy links.
Here is a transcript of the judge.

[propliner]

Everyone's getting wound up like a cheap watch because Traveller is trying to dissect the hangfire/out-of-battery scenario. It's a great mystery and the theories are interesting. Keep it to the pure science of the gun and ammo and don't get wound up about anything else. That's what the thread is about... trying to solve the mystery of the fired case and how it might have happened. Considering how many gun experts there are, it's surprising that the mystery still remains. It goes to show that this is an extremely rare occurrence that happened at a most unfortunate time.

[Headdamage]

The fired casing looks like what might happen if it was fired in a T33 that had a 9mm conversion barrel.