Course LogoFirearm Examiner Training
Print Page Previous PageNext Page

AFTE Theory of Identification

Home > Bullet Comparison and Identification > Identification > AFTE Theory of Identification
Cut-away section of a handgun barrel showing rifling and marks

Cutaway section of a handgun barrel
showing class and individual characteristics

Courtesy of Jack Dillon

Click for larger image

In 1985, the AFTE Criteria for Identification Committee formalized the Theory of Identification as it Relates to Toolmarks. This theory articulates three principles that provide the conceptual basis for comparing fired bullets (and other toolmarked items). Class and individual characteristics provide the physical basis for the microscopic comparison.

For the purpose of this module, consider any use of the word “tool” as a reference to the rifled interior of a barrel and any use of the term “toolmark” as a reference to the impressions on a fired bullet.

The three principles of the AFTE Theory of Identification as it Relates to Toolmarks are: 

  1. The theory of identification, as it pertains to toolmarks, enables opinions of common origin to be made when the unique surface contours of two toolmarks are in sufficient agreement.
  2. This sufficient agreement is related to the significant duplication of random toolmarks as evidenced by the correspondence of a pattern or combination of patterns of surface contours. Significance is determined by the comparative examination of two or more sets of surface contour patterns comprised of individual peaks, ridges, and furrows.  Specifically, the relative height or depth, width, curvature, and spatial relationship of the individual peaks, ridges, and furrows within one set of surface contours are defined and compared to the corresponding features in the second set of surface contours. Agreement is significant when it exceeds the best agreement demonstrated between toolmarks known to have been produced by the same tool. The statement that sufficient agreement exists between two toolmarks means that the likelihood another tool could have made the mark is so remote as to be considered a practical impossibility.
  3. The current interpretation of individualization/identification is subjective in nature, founded on scientific principles and based on the examiner’s training and experience.

< Previous Page  ::  Next Page >

Submit Change Request