No Fingerprints ?

H

HankL

New member
While the news was rattling off about Our Govt. starting a class action law suit in behalf of ? they made mention of a fingerprintless finish as advertised by some manufacturer. Anyone know about this? I don't mind leaving my prints but I would think that this would be a great anticorrosion finish as well.
Hank
 
I don't know if the anti-fingerprint story is apocryphal or not. I was under the impression, not sure why, that the company in question was Intratec. I think the company was lauding the rustproof properties of a coating, saying they protected the finish from fingerprints. Of course this is considered some sort of devious intent.

I think this is all nonsense anyway. Probably a minute number of crimes are ever solved by finding fingerprints on a gun. If someone was worried about fingerprints they could always just wear gloves or wipe the piece down.
 
Valdez...
I agree, however, look at Cali. They've succeeded in making cosmetic properties a benchmark of lethality and illegality.

Your rifle has a bayonet lug and a bipod? Thats an evil assault weapon. Haven't heard of any driveby bipod killings :)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Well, the FBI sez they can determine DNA from natural oil from your fingers/hands left on most anything.

There won't be identifiable fingerprints on grooved or checkered surfaces. If the surface of the frame or the slide of a pistol is in anyway similar to "Wrinkle Finish" paint (seen that?), prints won't show.

But your oils will be there, which might explain why the Feebies want to build a file of DNA samples from all felons.

Felons first; you and me, later.

:), Art
 
As I remember, it was Intertec that advertised a "wipeless" finish on their Tec series. I'm not sure if it was wipeless because, being plastic or coated the way it was, it didn't get fingerprint rust spots like blueing often does.
 
IIRC, there was ONE ad about 10-20 years ago for the Tec-9 that did mention that the finish resisted fingerprints. I did see a copy of the ad. Of course, that's ONE ad out of many tens of thousands (or more), some TEN or more years ago.

This morning on the radio (WHAM), the morning 10-minute four-person blab session talked about the HUD lawsuit. When one reporter mentioned the "ads geared toward criminals", the pundit replied "when was the last time you saw a gun ad of any kind ANYWHERE?" No reply.
 
I said on another thread:

What Clinton is claiming is that gun makers are marketing guns to criminals. Logically, why would a company market it's product to .02% of users? 99.8% of guns are never used in crimes! It makes no sense for gun makers to make guns for criminals because they are an infintismally small portion of their users.
And that is, of course, assuming that criminals buy and use new guns rather than steal them.
 
This move is pretty clearly racist. The Clinton administration says that those in HUD housing (read "blacks") are having guns marketed to them(read "criminals").

The funny thing is that the NAACP seems to be supporting these suits, even though I'm sure that the Klan completely agrees with the goal if not the method.

The NRA, etc, would be smart to start screaming racism on this one.
 
I've pulled 'prints from a checkered grip on a rifle by the cyanoacrilate process (Super-Glue).
SPR will pull the prints from a heavily-oiled section, and Gentian Violet will get a pretty set from the adhesive side of tape.

Don't tell any critters this, but they never, ever wear gloves to load the magazines. Never.

LawDog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top