ArticleForensic sciences research2024
Bullet ricochet mark plan-view morphology in concrete: an experimental assessment of five bullet types and two distances using machine learning.
Article in Forensic sciences research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic firearm examination, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Elliptical Fourier analysis of bullet ricochet impact site plan-view shape in concrete.Forensic sciences research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bullet ricochets are common occurrences during shooting incidents and can provide a wealth of information useful for shooting incident reconstruction. However, there have only been a small number of studies that have systematically investigated bullet ricochet impact site morphology. Here, this study reports on an experiment that examined the plan-view morphology of 297 ricochet impact sites in concrete that were produced by five different bullet types shot from two distances. This study used a random forest machine learning algorithm to classify bullet types with morphological dimensions of the ricochet mark (impact) with length and perimeter-to-area ratio emerging as the top predictor variables. The 0.22 LR leaves the most distinctive impact mark on the concrete, and overall, the classification accuracy using leave-one-out cross-validation is 62%, considerably higher than a random classification accuracy of 20%. Adding in distance to the model as a predictor increases the classification accuracy to 66%. These initial results are promising, in that they suggest that an unknown bullet type can potentially be determined, or at least probabilistically assessed, from the morphology of the ricochet impact site alone. However, the substantial amount of overlap this study documented among distinct bullet types' ricochet mark morphologies under highly controlled conditions and with machine learning suggests that the human identification of ricochet marks in real-world shooting incident reconstructions may be on occasion, or perhaps regularly, in error. Key points: Bullet ricochet impact sites can help with shooting incident reconstruction.A random forest machine learning algorithm classified bullet type from ricochet morphology.Results suggest that unknown bullets can potentially be determined from ricochet impact site morphology.Human identification of bullet types from ricochet sites may be erroneous.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.