I don't know if that's what OP is saying, but it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary.

The states who pioneered its adoption (New York and Maryland) have both abandoned it for being costly and ineffective. The FBI has abandoned comparative bullet lead analysis for similar reasons[1]. The National Academy of Sciences found the tests to be "full of holes", and that not enough study was being done to ensure its reliability, which was a finding that the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Obama concurred with.

The general consensus now seems to be this[2]:

> An understanding of the metallurgical principles operative in the melting/casting process as well as the data acquired for this study, indicate that any forensic conclusions which associate unknown bullets with the “same source”, and/or “same box” should fail most or all Daubert criteria.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907380...