Mr. Eisenberg. Now, apart from specially handmade or equivalent weapons, how many other types of weapons have you encountered which have these rifling characteristics?
Mr. Cunningham. Other than possibly a Spanish-made copy of the Smith—the Smith is the only one in .38 Special now that will have similar rifling characteristics.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, when you say Spanish-made, you are referring to the basement type of operation?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, this weapon did not produce, and does not produce—that is, the weapon 143—does not produce identical microscopic characteristics from bullet to bullet, you have testified. And you have told us that the reason might be that the weapon was rechambered but not rebarrelled, so that the .38 Special is slightly undersized for the barrel?
Mr. Cunningham. It has not been rebarrelled.
Mr. Eisenberg. That's right. So when you fire a .38 Special, it is slightly undersized, and this might affect the barrel characteristics? Wasn't that your testimony? That the .38 Special is slightly undersized?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes; approximately four-thousandths of an inch.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, could you therefore limit the number of possible weapons from which the bullets might have been fired, not only to the 2½ million S&W's which you discussed, plus the possibility of Spanish homemade weapons, but also to those weapons, that subcategory of weapons within those 2½ million, which does not produce microscopic characteristics such that you can identify bullets fired from them?
Mr. Cunningham. No, sir; you cannot, due to the fact that there was also the possibility that the inability to identify consecutive tests from that weapon could be caused from an accumulation of lead or from barrel wear—the barrel was actually physically changing.