Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
Now thats some impressive forensics Robert!!! What you say seems very true, though I am far from being any expert on this kind of stuff. What I do know is that one of the biggest dilemmas in many campaigns and battles well into 19th century with guns was powder and the lack of quality that was usually an issue.
Even in the Sudan, natives firing muskets had such lousy powder (not to mention poor training) that many British troopers were hit numerous times and not seriously injured.
It does not seem far fetched that 'battle damage' might be so inflicted by creative sellers.
|
Well, it's a real bullet hole. It seems premature to charge it to a creative faker. There's little question that the actual hole is far from recent.
The hole in the blade is the size of a .32 caliber bullet. The thickness of the metal in that part of the blade is about 0.065" to 0.075". (~1.6-1.8mm)
Reasonably modern smokeless powder was in use at the time, not black powder, nor were muskets in use, at least on the US side of the issue.
The .38 caliber revolver was the smallest handgun in use by the US Army at the ime; the Krag-Jorgenson rifle used a .30 caliber round, so if the barong was from the period, that might well have created the hole. (Good call, Rick!)
I have no information at this time regarding firearms available on the Filipino side of the fray. Friendly fire is always a possibility. It might be well to consider what the Spanish troop were using, as well. The Mauser C96 pistol was in use from its initial release in 1896, and was in use by the First Philippine Republic's forces. The 7.63x25 round used in these pistols was certainly potent enough to inflict the level of damage seen in the barong.