Mr. Eisenberg. And therefore it can vary?
Mr. Nicol. Yes. This is not a part of the photographic process.
Mr. Eisenberg. What is the magnification here, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. Nicol. It would be pretty close to 25 to 30 diameters. I cannot measure exactly the magnification.
Mr. Nicol. This illustrates some of the lines, not all of them, that I saw on a comparison of 502 and K-3. At the position of the arrow, you are looking at the top of the groove; adjacent to it in the lower portion is a land impression. And on that shoulder there are approximately five or six matching lines. They are very fine striations. These would be indicative of the fact that the same portion of the barrel had ridden on both projectiles.
Mr. Eisenberg. Well, now, there seems to be significantly less markings here than on the bullets which were seen earlier, which had come from the rifle. Does that same condition pertain when the bullet is viewed under the microscope?
Mr. Nicol. Yes. Of course, we are dealing with two different types of ammunition. One is a lead projectile, and the other is a metal-case projectile. And the ability of the metal-case projectile to pick up and retain fine striations, even in spite of distortion and mutilation, far exceeds what the lead projectile will do.
Furthermore, the lead being a soft and low-melting-point material is more subject to erosion of hot gases. So that there are many more variables in the reproduction in terms of a lead projectile as over against a metal-case projectile.
Mr. Eisenberg. You found enough similarities to satisfy yourself that there is an identification here?
Mr. Nicol. I am satisfied that the two projectiles came from the same weapon.