Discussion:
Carcano Debate: Fact vs Opinion
Add Reply
claviger
2017-07-20 00:26:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512

page 493

But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate as
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, the
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.

https://books.google.com/books?id=q1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA493&lpg=PA493&dq=italy+nato+rifle+team&source=bl&ots=6AV8U4QFmb&sig=ww8OaUrXK-Dg-NluAr2j5p66KxY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=italy%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=false
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-20 19:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512
page 493
But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate as
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, the
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=q1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA493&lpg=PA493&dq=italy+nato+rifle+team&source=bl&ots=6AV8U4QFmb&sig=ww8OaUrXK-Dg-NluAr2j5p66KxY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=italy%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=false
Bullshit.
claviger
2017-07-22 00:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The Locater: The Story of a Super Computer
By James J. Doherty

The information was this: "Investicom" verified that there were
in fact four shots fired. It gave the locations of the shots. Three from
the area of the Texas Book Depository. One from the area of the grassy
knoll. And then it identified the make, model of the firearm used.
Three shots fired by a MANNLICHER CARCANO Rifle. The same as used by
Oswald. This meant that the shooter from "the grassy knoll" had used the
same kind of rifle as Oswald. "Why not?" said Jim. "It makes sense."
"The only bullets they found were from a MANNLICHER."
Now could "Investicom" go further in the investigation? Jim
went into the and found the following information: The rifle found on the
sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository was a 6.5 Millimeter Mannlicher
Carcano model 91/38 made in Italy between 1939 and 1940. The rifle found
was 40.2 inches long and the weight of it was eight pounds. Attached to
it was a four power telescope sight made in Japan.
The Depository rifle could not fire two shots in less than 2.3
seconds. The Warren Commission established that between the first and
last shot there were no more than seven seconds, so that only one bullet
could have caused Kennedy and Governor Connally's wounds. When the FBI
tried to re-enact the assassination with the same rifle, not one of their
expert shooters could repeat Oswald's performance, considering the
characteristics of the rifle. There was some speculation who bought the
rifle at the Klein's Sporting Goods Company. All of the experts did not
agree it was Oswald's signature on the order. That made for more mystery
about the assassination.
"Now what about the second rifle" thought Jim. There had been
disparaging remarks made about the Mannlicher which had tainted it's
reputation. The most damaging was a story about a WWII Allied Soldier who
was killed firing a Mannlicher. Allegedly the firing pin ruptured the
primer causing the gases to propel the firing pin backward into the face
of the shooter. No one knew the name of the alleged soldier or the
circumstances or any other probable facts of the incident. It had also
been reported Mussolini knocked the Mannlicher as part of his for the
performance of the Italian army. Some believed that the Mannlicher
displayed a greater accuracy than the M1 Garand rifle used by the US Army.
It was also interesting to note that the Italian Army NATO rifle team used
the M91 rifle in matches and came out in the top positions.
All of this information only proved that the rifle was a
competent weapon and there were an awful lot of the out there. How could
anyone find the second Mannlicher? At least there was evidence showing
where Oswald had allegedly purchased the rifle. The second rifle would
never be recovered so tracing it would be impossible. It was at this
point that Jim and Alex terminated their research of the Assassination.
They did however pass along the information to Congress since they felt
obligated because of the grant awarded to them by the government. This
would prove to create a problem.




https://books.google.com/books?id=xtLMyU22GGQC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=italy+nato+rifle+team&source=bl&ots=16SPINLShg&sig=V5N2KL10Lu8q0kLa5Kt7M8FR-oo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=italy%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=false
Bill Clarke
2017-07-21 00:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <7bbc5d69-96c4-4762-8547-***@googlegroups.com>, claviger
says...
Post by claviger
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512
page 493
But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate as
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, the
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=3DPA493&lpg=3DPA493&dq=
=3Ditaly+nato+rifle+team&source=3Dbl&ots=3D6AV8U4QFmb&sig=3Dww8OaUrXK-Dg-Nl=
uAr2j5p66KxY&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIMDAC=
#v=3Donepage&q=3Ditaly%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=3Dfalse
Emary reported shooting some good groups with the Carcano. Not Oswald's
rifle but still a Carcano.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-21 19:10:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512
page 493
But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate as
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, the
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=3DPA493&lpg=3DPA493&dq=
=3Ditaly+nato+rifle+team&source=3Dbl&ots=3D6AV8U4QFmb&sig=3Dww8OaUrXK-Dg-Nl=
uAr2j5p66KxY&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIMDAC=
#v=3Donepage&q=3Ditaly%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=3Dfalse
Emary reported shooting some good groups with the Carcano. Not Oswald's
rifle but still a Carcano.
Same difference. Apples are the same thing as oranges.
mainframetech
2017-07-22 00:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512
page 493
But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate as
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, the
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=3DPA493&lpg=3DPA493&dq=
=3Ditaly+nato+rifle+team&source=3Dbl&ots=3D6AV8U4QFmb&sig=3Dww8OaUrXK-Dg-Nl=
uAr2j5p66KxY&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIMDAC=
#v=3Donepage&q=3Ditaly%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=3Dfalse
Emary reported shooting some good groups with the Carcano. Not Oswald's
rifle but still a Carcano.
It appears that you left out some of Simmons' testimony. One of the
things you forgot to mention is that they found that the scope had been
improperly mounted and they send the rifle to their gunsmith and he
shimmed up the scope so that it could be adjusted and sighted in
correctly. He also mentioned that their expert marksmen each had time to
work the sticky bolt before shooting it.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-22 16:48:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512
page 493
But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate as
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, the
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=3DPA493&lpg=3DPA493&dq=
=3Ditaly+nato+rifle+team&source=3Dbl&ots=3D6AV8U4QFmb&sig=3Dww8OaUrXK-Dg-Nl=
uAr2j5p66KxY&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIMDAC=
#v=3Donepage&q=3Ditaly%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=3Dfalse
Emary reported shooting some good groups with the Carcano. Not Oswald's
rifle but still a Carcano.
It appears that you left out some of Simmons' testimony. One of the
things you forgot to mention is that they found that the scope had been
improperly mounted and they send the rifle to their gunsmith and he
shimmed up the scope so that it could be adjusted and sighted in
correctly. He also mentioned that their expert marksmen each had time to
work the sticky bolt before shooting it.
Chris
Irrelevant to the question of whether the model was junk.
Bill Clarke
2017-07-22 17:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <9b6466c0-a4b4-48f8-b75a-***@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
ger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512
page 493
But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked=20
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate a=
s=20
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, t=
he=20
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3D3Dq1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=3D3DPA493&lpg=3D3D=
PA493&dq=3D
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
=3D3Ditaly+nato+rifle+team&source=3D3Dbl&ots=3D3D6AV8U4QFmb&sig=3D3Dww8O=
aUrXK-Dg-Nl=3D
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
uAr2j5p66KxY&hl=3D3Den&sa=3D3DX&ved=3D3D0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQ=
Q6AEIMDAC=3D
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by claviger
#v=3D3Donepage&q=3D3Ditaly%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=3D3Dfalse
=20
Emary reported shooting some good groups with the Carcano. Not Oswald's=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
rifle but still a Carcano.
It appears that you left out some of Simmons' testimony. One of the
things you forgot to mention is that they found that the scope had been
improperly mounted and they send the rifle to their gunsmith and he
shimmed up the scope so that it could be adjusted and sighted in
correctly. He also mentioned that their expert marksmen each had time to
work the sticky bolt before shooting it.
Chris
1. I left out his testimony all together. I dare say he is the one that
taught you about "double Triggers" and "sticky bolts", confusing you to
eturnitity.

2. I'm of the opinion the scope was not used. Have you leaned about side
mounts yet?

3. How many time must one work the bolt to make it acceptable
bigdog
2017-07-22 21:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512
page 493
But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate as
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, the
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=3DPA493&lpg=3DPA493&dq=
=3Ditaly+nato+rifle+team&source=3Dbl&ots=3D6AV8U4QFmb&sig=3Dww8OaUrXK-Dg-Nl=
uAr2j5p66KxY&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIMDAC=
#v=3Donepage&q=3Ditaly%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=3Dfalse
Emary reported shooting some good groups with the Carcano. Not Oswald's
rifle but still a Carcano.
It appears that you left out some of Simmons' testimony. One of the
things you forgot to mention is that they found that the scope had been
improperly mounted and they send the rifle to their gunsmith and he
shimmed up the scope so that it could be adjusted and sighted in
correctly. He also mentioned that their expert marksmen each had time to
work the sticky bolt before shooting it.
You continue to disregard the inconvenient fact that Oswald's Carcano was
the only rifle in the world that could have fired the only recovered
bullets and shells.

Checkmate.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-23 23:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi pages 491 - 512
page 493
But in point of fact, the Carcano was not a piece of junk that lacked
accuracy. Ronald Simmons the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation
Branch of the Department of the Army, had his people test-fire Oswald's
Carcano rifle (not a Carcano rifle, but Oswald's, the one found on the
sixth floor, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 139) forty-seven times, and
testified the rifle was "quite accurate" --- in fact, just as accurate as
the American military rifle being used at the time, the M-14. Indeed, the
exact type of rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy was still being used at
the time by the Italian NATO rifle team in competition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=3DPA493&lpg=3DPA493&dq=
=3Ditaly+nato+rifle+team&source=3Dbl&ots=3D6AV8U4QFmb&sig=3Dww8OaUrXK-Dg-Nl=
uAr2j5p66KxY&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwjLk-bEtOHUAhWLKiYKHWvADCQQ6AEIMDAC=
#v=3Donepage&q=3Ditaly%20nato%20rifle%20team&f=3Dfalse
Emary reported shooting some good groups with the Carcano. Not Oswald's
rifle but still a Carcano.
It appears that you left out some of Simmons' testimony. One of the
things you forgot to mention is that they found that the scope had been
improperly mounted and they send the rifle to their gunsmith and he
shimmed up the scope so that it could be adjusted and sighted in
correctly. He also mentioned that their expert marksmen each had time to
work the sticky bolt before shooting it.
You continue to disregard the inconvenient fact that Oswald's Carcano was
the only rifle in the world that could have fired the only recovered
bullets and shells.
You keep repeating false things because you are a WC defender. You keep
saying bullets, plural. Only one bullet was recovered.
Post by bigdog
Checkmate.
claviger
2017-07-25 22:31:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/



General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html

Quality of the Carcano

There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.

The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.

This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.

Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
to Bloomgarden, on the sporting (competitive) use of the Model 91:

"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)

"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)

According to Hobbs:

"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.

You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.

"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-26 15:16:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
claviger
2017-07-29 18:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.

The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.

A 6.5 mm bullet cannot squeeze through a 6.0 mm hole in the most solid
part of the calvaria. In fact rifle bullets produce a reaming effect on
skull bone. What would pass through a 6.0 mm hole is a 5.56 mm AR15
projectile that is prone to shatter because of the thin metal jacket
combined with very high velocity causing extreme thermal loads on the
projectile from friction passing through the barrel at such ultra high
speed.

The term "hot lead" would literally describe an AR15 bullet fired at a
target. Some ballistic experts theorize the combination of thin metal
jacket and lead core actually softens due to extreme heat overload causing
the projectile to fail on contact with a hard object. The devastating
wounds caused by the original AR15 sent to ARVN troops in 1963 caused the
later M16 to be modified to a lower the spin rate of this military bullet.
Even with this modification international organizations have pressured
NATO to have this projectile classified as a frangible bullet and replaced
by a more acceptable military projectile.
mainframetech
2017-07-30 12:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot. Since it was
shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar bill, the combined
shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy to try an explain more
wounds and not enough bullets.
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head. And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came from the front. And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well, that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
Post by claviger
A 6.5 mm bullet cannot squeeze through a 6.0 mm hole in the most solid
part of the calvaria. In fact rifle bullets produce a reaming effect on
skull bone. What would pass through a 6.0 mm hole is a 5.56 mm AR15
projectile that is prone to shatter because of the thin metal jacket
combined with very high velocity causing extreme thermal loads on the
projectile from friction passing through the barrel at such ultra high
speed.
The term "hot lead" would literally describe an AR15 bullet fired at a
target. Some ballistic experts theorize the combination of thin metal
jacket and lead core actually softens due to extreme heat overload causing
the projectile to fail on contact with a hard object. The devastating
wounds caused by the original AR15 sent to ARVN troops in 1963 caused the
later M16 to be modified to a lower the spin rate of this military bullet.
Even with this modification international organizations have pressured
NATO to have this projectile classified as a frangible bullet and replaced
by a more acceptable military projectile.
bigdog
2017-07-31 15:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot. Since it was
shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar bill, the combined
shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy to try an explain more
wounds and not enough bullets.
The SBT is simply the only plausible explanation for the recovered bullets
and shells and the wounds suffered by JFK and JBC. If another one was
available, somebody would have come up with it by now.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in the X-ray?
He seems to be arguing the headshot was an accidental discharge of a 5.56
AR-15 round by Hickey which miraculously hit the same guy Oswald was
aiming at.
Post by mainframetech
That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head. And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came from the front. And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well, that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
It's not proof of a different type of bullet. It's an indication the
bullet hit different type of tissue than the single bullet.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
Every medical examiner who saw the full body of evidence is convinced a
bullet struck JFK in the back of the head. It's much less stressful to
dismiss your opinion than theirs. If, I dismissed theirs, I would have to
start making silly arguments like yours.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-01 15:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot. Since it was
shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar bill, the combined
shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy to try an explain more
wounds and not enough bullets.
The SBT is simply the only plausible explanation for the recovered bullets
and shells and the wounds suffered by JFK and JBC. If another one was
available, somebody would have come up with it by now.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in the X-ray?
He seems to be arguing the headshot was an accidental discharge of a 5.56
AR-15 round by Hickey which miraculously hit the same guy Oswald was
aiming at.
Post by mainframetech
That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head. And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came from the front. And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well, that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
It's not proof of a different type of bullet. It's an indication the
bullet hit different type of tissue than the single bullet.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
Every medical examiner who saw the full body of evidence is convinced a
bullet struck JFK in the back of the head. It's much less stressful to
dismiss your opinion than theirs. If, I dismissed theirs, I would have to
start making silly arguments like yours.
You mean all the professional liars.
Like saying that a 6.8mm bullet caused a 6.5mm hole in the skull.
mainframetech
2017-08-02 02:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot. Since it was
shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar bill, the combined
shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy to try an explain more
wounds and not enough bullets.
The SBT is simply the only plausible explanation for the recovered bullets
and shells and the wounds suffered by JFK and JBC. If another one was
available, somebody would have come up with it by now.
Completely FALSE! That is not the only explanation. Bullets were fired
and NOT recovered, and shells can be picked up or in some cases never
ejected from the gun they were in (like a revolver or bolt action rifle).
The wounds point up a second shot at the least. 7 hits on 2 men including
2 bone strikes just won't produce the resultant 'pristine' bullet. Yes,
yes, I know it wasn't completely pristine, but close to it. Here's an
example of a bullet fired into the wrist of a cadaver:

Loading Image...

The rightmost (CE856) is the bullet in question. It made only ONE bone
strike. You can show all the pine boards that a bullet can go through and
not change this test result.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in the X-ray?
He seems to be arguing the headshot was an accidental discharge of a 5.56
AR-15 round by Hickey which miraculously hit the same guy Oswald was
aiming at.
Don't be ridiculous! I argued for nothing of the kind. I simply
pointed out that there was a lead snowstorm in the skull X-ray, meaning
that a different kind of bullet was used. In such I would be foolish to
name a specific weapon and bullet for such. And the heads shot was
certainly NOT an accident, since it was clear that JFK was the target.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head. And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came from the front. And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well, that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
It's not proof of a different type of bullet. It's an indication the
bullet hit different type of tissue than the single bullet.
Oh, crap! The FMJ MC bullets were made to stay together and not
shatter into tiny particles which do more damage. Do you have an example
of an FMJ bullet making a path of tiny particles after striking a bone?
What type of tissue would an FMJ bullet have to hit to become so many tiny
particles?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
Every medical examiner who saw the full body of evidence is convinced a
bullet struck JFK in the back of the head. It's much less stressful to
dismiss your opinion than theirs. If, I dismissed theirs, I would have to
start making silly arguments like yours.
Being convinced after reading a phony AR that said there was a bullet
strike in the BOH, is not an answer. And not one of the panels ever saw
the FULL body of evidence. There were photos missing, and they never got
to see inside the body with the organs removed and there were many other
clues that they never got to deal with. I repeat the point...show me the
bullet hole in the BOH in the 'leaked' autopsy photo:

Loading Image...

The left hand photo is a photo, the right hand picture is a drawing by
Ida Dox of the left hand photo. Strange that the drawing shows a bullet
hole and the photo does not. Of course, LNs will not wonder, they will
become anesthetized and forget they saw the photo.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-02 20:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot. Since it was
shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar bill, the combined
shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy to try an explain more
wounds and not enough bullets.
The SBT is simply the only plausible explanation for the recovered bullets
and shells and the wounds suffered by JFK and JBC. If another one was
available, somebody would have come up with it by now.
Completely FALSE! That is not the only explanation.
Why don't you present one of these alternatives. You don't even have to
prove it. Just give us another way it could have happened. Explain where
shots COULD have been fired from for each of the wounds and where those
bullets COULD have gone. I seriously doubt you will even try but in case
you do, I haven't had a chance to shoot fish in a barrel lately.
Post by mainframetech
Bullets were fired
and NOT recovered, and shells can be picked up or in some cases never
ejected from the gun they were in (like a revolver or bolt action rifle).
The wounds point up a second shot at the least. 7 hits on 2 men including
2 bone strikes just won't produce the resultant 'pristine' bullet. Yes,
yes, I know it wasn't completely pristine, but close to it. Here's an
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*PjuNZgH2CM_WzYAH5h1-Cw.jpeg
I guess you missed the experiments done by an Australian research team for
Inside the Target Car which used animal carcasses to simulate the bodies
of JFK and JBC. They produced a bullet which had passed through flesh and
bone just as CE399 did and came out looking very similar to CE399.
Slightly bent and flattened on one side. One of the significant things
about CE399 is that the flattening is only on one side of the bullet. That
indicates the bullet hit something hard by traveling sideways which in
turn indicates the bullet was tumbling when it hit the hard surface. In
the past I have encountered CTs who claim the flattening could have been
done in a vise. Never mind why someone would even got to the trouble of
doing that. A vise would put equal pressure on both sides and flatten both
sides. You have claimed that CE399 was one of the test bullets fired by
the FBI. How do you suppose they produced that flattening on one side of
the bullet? If they wanted to substitute CE399 for the stretcher bullet,
why would they have selected that one? Why not select one of the ones with
the nose of the bullet smashed?
Post by mainframetech
The rightmost (CE856) is the bullet in question. It made only ONE bone
strike. You can show all the pine boards that a bullet can go through and
not change this test result.
So why didn't they substitute CE856 for the stretcher bullet?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in the X-ray?
He seems to be arguing the headshot was an accidental discharge of a 5.56
AR-15 round by Hickey which miraculously hit the same guy Oswald was
aiming at.
Don't be ridiculous! I argued for nothing of the kind. I simply
pointed out that there was a lead snowstorm in the skull X-ray, meaning
that a different kind of bullet was used.
I guess you think wound ballistics is another area in which no expertise
is required. I don't supposed you can find a ballistics expert who shares
that opinion with you either.
Post by mainframetech
In such I would be foolish to
name a specific weapon and bullet for such. And the heads shot was
certainly NOT an accident, since it was clear that JFK was the target.
This is one of the few times I will agree with you. JFK was the target. He
was Oswald's target. He hit him twice with three shots. Not exactly top
caliber shooting, but good enough to get the job done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head. And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came from the front. And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well, that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
It's not proof of a different type of bullet. It's an indication the
bullet hit different type of tissue than the single bullet.
Oh, crap! The FMJ MC bullets were made to stay together and not
shatter into tiny particles which do more damage.
So why did the bullet found in the limo shatter?
Post by mainframetech
Do you have an example
of an FMJ bullet making a path of tiny particles after striking a bone?
What type of tissue would an FMJ bullet have to hit to become so many tiny
particles?
Just how many Carcanos do you think are in evidence as murder weapons. I'm
sure during wars fought by the Italian army that Carcanos were used to
kill lots of their enemies but only rarely are autopsies performed on war
casualties and then only to advance knowledge about wound ballistics. This
is just one more of the red herring demands you like to make.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
Every medical examiner who saw the full body of evidence is convinced a
bullet struck JFK in the back of the head. It's much less stressful to
dismiss your opinion than theirs. If, I dismissed theirs, I would have to
start making silly arguments like yours.
Being convinced after reading a phony AR that said there was a bullet
strike in the BOH, is not an answer.
That's not what the review panels did. They looked at the medical evidence
to determine if the conclusions of the AR were valid. With just a minor
adjustment they concurred with the original report.
Post by mainframetech
And not one of the panels ever saw
the FULL body of evidence.
Funny how that doesn't disqualify you from making a judgement about the
medical evidence.
Post by mainframetech
There were photos missing, and they never got
to see inside the body with the organs removed and there were many other
clues that they never got to deal with. I repeat the point...show me the
https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/media/k2/items/cache/1e6006496cec394e7da669516f53f970_Generic.jpg
The left hand photo is a photo, the right hand picture is a drawing by
Ida Dox of the left hand photo. Strange that the drawing shows a bullet
hole and the photo does not. Of course, LNs will not wonder, they will
become anesthetized and forget they saw the photo.
I'm really not too concerned with what is in a drawing and unlike you I am
not silly enough to look at one photo and dispute the unanimous opinions
of some of the top forensic pathologists in the country. They all
concluded after looking at the photos (lots of them) and the x-rays of not
only the scalp but the skull bone that the bullet had entered from the
year. They did that by looking at the fracture pattern in the skull which
was consistent with a rear entry and also the inward beveling in the rear
skull wall, also an indication of a rear entry. But why go with those
tried and true methods of determining whether a bullet wound was an entry
or an exit when we have your amateurish opinions available to us.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 14:50:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot. Since it was
shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar bill, the combined
shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy to try an explain more
wounds and not enough bullets.
The SBT is simply the only plausible explanation for the recovered bullets
and shells and the wounds suffered by JFK and JBC. If another one was
available, somebody would have come up with it by now.
Completely FALSE! That is not the only explanation.
Why don't you present one of these alternatives. You don't even have to
prove it. Just give us another way it could have happened. Explain where
shots COULD have been fired from for each of the wounds and where those
bullets COULD have gone. I seriously doubt you will even try but in case
you do, I haven't had a chance to shoot fish in a barrel lately.
Post by mainframetech
Bullets were fired
and NOT recovered, and shells can be picked up or in some cases never
ejected from the gun they were in (like a revolver or bolt action rifle).
The wounds point up a second shot at the least. 7 hits on 2 men including
2 bone strikes just won't produce the resultant 'pristine' bullet. Yes,
yes, I know it wasn't completely pristine, but close to it. Here's an
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*PjuNZgH2CM_WzYAH5h1-Cw.jpeg
I guess you missed the experiments done by an Australian research team for
Inside the Target Car which used animal carcasses to simulate the bodies
of JFK and JBC. They produced a bullet which had passed through flesh and
bone just as CE399 did and came out looking very similar to CE399.
Nice, so what? THeir bullet failed to hit a wrist.
Just make up an alternative SBT which leaves out the wrist.
Post by bigdog
Slightly bent and flattened on one side. One of the significant things
about CE399 is that the flattening is only on one side of the bullet. That
indicates the bullet hit something hard by traveling sideways which in
turn indicates the bullet was tumbling when it hit the hard surface. In
No, not traveling sideways. You know nothing about ballistics. The
bullet hit a curved surface at an angle.
Post by bigdog
the past I have encountered CTs who claim the flattening could have been
done in a vise. Never mind why someone would even got to the trouble of
doing that. A vise would put equal pressure on both sides and flatten both
sides. You have claimed that CE399 was one of the test bullets fired by
the FBI. How do you suppose they produced that flattening on one side of
the bullet? If they wanted to substitute CE399 for the stretcher bullet,
why would they have selected that one? Why not select one of the ones with
the nose of the bullet smashed?
Why go through all that? Just shoot it into a barrel of water and it
will come out looking like CE 399.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The rightmost (CE856) is the bullet in question. It made only ONE bone
strike. You can show all the pine boards that a bullet can go through and
not change this test result.
So why didn't they substitute CE856 for the stretcher bullet?
Who? Are you suggesting an inside job by the FBI?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in the X-ray?
He seems to be arguing the headshot was an accidental discharge of a 5.56
AR-15 round by Hickey which miraculously hit the same guy Oswald was
aiming at.
Don't be ridiculous! I argued for nothing of the kind. I simply
pointed out that there was a lead snowstorm in the skull X-ray, meaning
that a different kind of bullet was used.
I guess you think wound ballistics is another area in which no expertise
is required. I don't supposed you can find a ballistics expert who shares
that opinion with you either.
Post by mainframetech
In such I would be foolish to
name a specific weapon and bullet for such. And the heads shot was
certainly NOT an accident, since it was clear that JFK was the target.
This is one of the few times I will agree with you. JFK was the target. He
was Oswald's target. He hit him twice with three shots. Not exactly top
caliber shooting, but good enough to get the job done.
Oh really? So where did the other shot go? What did it hit?
Show me the bullet.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head. And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came from the front. And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well, that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
It's not proof of a different type of bullet. It's an indication the
bullet hit different type of tissue than the single bullet.
Oh, crap! The FMJ MC bullets were made to stay together and not
shatter into tiny particles which do more damage.
So why did the bullet found in the limo shatter?
Which bullet? You mean the two large fragments?
Some people think because it hit the chrome topping.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Do you have an example
of an FMJ bullet making a path of tiny particles after striking a bone?
What type of tissue would an FMJ bullet have to hit to become so many tiny
particles?
Just how many Carcanos do you think are in evidence as murder weapons. I'm
sure during wars fought by the Italian army that Carcanos were used to
kill lots of their enemies but only rarely are autopsies performed on war
casualties and then only to advance knowledge about wound ballistics. This
is just one more of the red herring demands you like to make.
Finck said he saw a lot of wounds in WWII.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
Every medical examiner who saw the full body of evidence is convinced a
bullet struck JFK in the back of the head. It's much less stressful to
dismiss your opinion than theirs. If, I dismissed theirs, I would have to
start making silly arguments like yours.
Being convinced after reading a phony AR that said there was a bullet
strike in the BOH, is not an answer.
That's not what the review panels did. They looked at the medical evidence
to determine if the conclusions of the AR were valid. With just a minor
adjustment they concurred with the original report.
And criticized the autopsy doctors.
So, mving the head wound entrance up from the EOP to the cowlick is just
a minor adjustment to you?

You probably say that changing the torso wound from the upper back to
the neck is just a minor adjustment.
Facts don't matter to you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And not one of the panels ever saw
the FULL body of evidence.
Funny how that doesn't disqualify you from making a judgement about the
medical evidence.
Post by mainframetech
There were photos missing, and they never got
to see inside the body with the organs removed and there were many other
clues that they never got to deal with. I repeat the point...show me the
https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/media/k2/items/cache/1e6006496cec394e7da669516f53f970_Generic.jpg
The left hand photo is a photo, the right hand picture is a drawing by
Ida Dox of the left hand photo. Strange that the drawing shows a bullet
hole and the photo does not. Of course, LNs will not wonder, they will
become anesthetized and forget they saw the photo.
I'm really not too concerned with what is in a drawing and unlike you I am
You should be when it was released to LIE to the public. They did not
publish the autopsy photos. You are not allowed to see them because you
are a WC defender.
Post by bigdog
not silly enough to look at one photo and dispute the unanimous opinions
of some of the top forensic pathologists in the country. They all
Is this a dictatorship now?
Post by bigdog
concluded after looking at the photos (lots of them) and the x-rays of not
only the scalp but the skull bone that the bullet had entered from the
year. They did that by looking at the fracture pattern in the skull which
was consistent with a rear entry and also the inward beveling in the rear
skull wall, also an indication of a rear entry. But why go with those
tried and true methods of determining whether a bullet wound was an entry
or an exit when we have your amateurish opinions available to us.
And you believed them when they said a 6.5mm hole proved it was caused
by one of Oswald's bullets.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 14:45:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot. Since it was
shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar bill, the combined
shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy to try an explain more
wounds and not enough bullets.
The SBT is simply the only plausible explanation for the recovered bullets
and shells and the wounds suffered by JFK and JBC. If another one was
available, somebody would have come up with it by now.
Completely FALSE! That is not the only explanation. Bullets were fired
and NOT recovered, and shells can be picked up or in some cases never
ejected from the gun they were in (like a revolver or bolt action rifle).
The wounds point up a second shot at the least. 7 hits on 2 men including
2 bone strikes just won't produce the resultant 'pristine' bullet. Yes,
yes, I know it wasn't completely pristine, but close to it. Here's an
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*PjuNZgH2CM_WzYAH5h1-Cw.jpeg
The rightmost (CE856) is the bullet in question. It made only ONE bone
strike. You can show all the pine boards that a bullet can go through and
not change this test result.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in the X-ray?
He seems to be arguing the headshot was an accidental discharge of a 5.56
AR-15 round by Hickey which miraculously hit the same guy Oswald was
aiming at.
Don't be ridiculous! I argued for nothing of the kind. I simply
pointed out that there was a lead snowstorm in the skull X-ray, meaning
that a different kind of bullet was used. In such I would be foolish to
name a specific weapon and bullet for such. And the heads shot was
certainly NOT an accident, since it was clear that JFK was the target.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head. And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came from the front. And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well, that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
It's not proof of a different type of bullet. It's an indication the
bullet hit different type of tissue than the single bullet.
Oh, crap! The FMJ MC bullets were made to stay together and not
shatter into tiny particles which do more damage. Do you have an example
of an FMJ bullet making a path of tiny particles after striking a bone?
What type of tissue would an FMJ bullet have to hit to become so many tiny
particles?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
Every medical examiner who saw the full body of evidence is convinced a
bullet struck JFK in the back of the head. It's much less stressful to
dismiss your opinion than theirs. If, I dismissed theirs, I would have to
start making silly arguments like yours.
Being convinced after reading a phony AR that said there was a bullet
strike in the BOH, is not an answer. And not one of the panels ever saw
the FULL body of evidence. There were photos missing, and they never got
to see inside the body with the organs removed and there were many other
clues that they never got to deal with. I repeat the point...show me the
https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/media/k2/items/cache/1e6006496cec394e7da669516f53f970_Generic.jpg
The left hand photo is a photo, the right hand picture is a drawing by
Ida Dox of the left hand photo. Strange that the drawing shows a bullet
hole and the photo does not. Of course, LNs will not wonder, they will
become anesthetized and forget they saw the photo.
Baden ordered her to draw in details to make it look like a wound.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
claviger
2017-08-01 00:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot.
No magic at all, just natural science. This full metal jacket projectile
followed Newton's Law of Physics in everything it did.
Post by mainframetech
Since it was shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar
bill, the combined shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy
to try an explain more wounds and not enough bullets.
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
claviger
2017-08-01 18:50:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't answer the question.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-02 13:45:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't answer the question.
Asked whom? We can't tell because you are replying to yourself. I showed
you where the bullet came from. 8 feet west of the corner of the fence.

I answered your question many times. Don't ask the kook for any facts.
mainframetech
2017-08-02 02:40:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot.
No magic at all, just natural science. This full metal jacket projectile
followed Newton's Law of Physics in everything it did.
Post by mainframetech
Since it was shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar
bill, the combined shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy
to try an explain more wounds and not enough bullets.
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
You reveal basic ignorance of the information form the autopsy. It
was shown that the back wound bullet did NOT leave the body of JFK. It
stopped at the pleura, a covering for the lungs just inside the back
muscles. The bullet never exited the body, and therefore never hit
Connally.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Never heard of it. Why don't you give us a definition?
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
The question was answered many times, but if you don't believe the
answer, you might forget it. As to there being no evidence of a bullet
fired from the front, you're way off there. Many people have admitted
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead over the right eye in the
photo shown below. Only LNs were unable to recognize the bullet wound.
Others knew it easily with out coaching. ENLARGE the photo and look just
under the hair hanging down:

Loading Image...
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Robinson was wrong, but then he wasn't a pathologist. And he wasn't
the only person to see the small bullet hole in the forehead, there's a
list of folks that saw it, including 2 members of the autopsy team.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
Don't be ridiculous! The photo you THINK showed that was not showing
the wound, they had it covered up with a piece of gauze, probably to hide
it, because it was too obvious when someone saw it. Here's the right
photo to ENLARGE:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg

Chris
claviger
2017-08-02 20:13:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot.
No magic at all, just natural science. This full metal jacket projectile
followed Newton's Law of Physics in everything it did.
Post by mainframetech
Since it was shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar
bill, the combined shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy
to try an explain more wounds and not enough bullets.
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
You reveal basic ignorance of the information form the autopsy. It
was shown that the back wound bullet did NOT leave the body of JFK. It
stopped at the pleura, a covering for the lungs just inside the back
muscles. The bullet never exited the body, and therefore never hit
Connally.
This autopsy was reviewed by the Clark Panel and HSCA including leading
experts in the field of wound pathology. There was a US Army expert on
combat wounds present during the autopsy. They carefully analyzed the
wounds and after looking at the X-rays agreed there was no bullet inside
the back or chest on the President. They examined the head closely and
found an entrance wound on back of the head and a large avulsive wound on
top of the head. An experienced mortician noticed a triangular wound in
the temple and explained why it was an exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Never heard of it. Why don't you give us a definition?
Why don't you look it up on the internet since you are a self professed
computer expert?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
The question was answered many times, but if you don't believe the
answer, you might forget it. As to there being no evidence of a bullet
fired from the front, you're way off there. Many people have admitted
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead over the right eye in the
photo shown below. Only LNs were unable to recognize the bullet wound.
Others knew it easily with out coaching. ENLARGE the photo and look just
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
So you're claiming entrance wounds in the temple and the forehead?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Robinson was wrong, but then he wasn't a pathologist. And he wasn't
the only person to see the small bullet hole in the forehead, there's a
list of folks that saw it, including 2 members of the autopsy team.
Where is this list?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
Don't be ridiculous! The photo you THINK showed that was not showing
the wound, they had it covered up with a piece of gauze, probably to hide
it, because it was too obvious when someone saw it. Here's the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Chris
You say there were two incoming shots from somewhere in front of the
Limousine. If you could establish the incoming trajectories for these
bullets then we can follow them back to the position they came from. Why
not put some effort into that kind of analysis?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 19:55:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot.
No magic at all, just natural science. This full metal jacket projectile
followed Newton's Law of Physics in everything it did.
Post by mainframetech
Since it was shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar
bill, the combined shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy
to try an explain more wounds and not enough bullets.
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
You reveal basic ignorance of the information form the autopsy. It
was shown that the back wound bullet did NOT leave the body of JFK. It
stopped at the pleura, a covering for the lungs just inside the back
muscles. The bullet never exited the body, and therefore never hit
Connally.
This autopsy was reviewed by the Clark Panel and HSCA including leading
experts in the field of wound pathology. There was a US Army expert on
combat wounds present during the autopsy. They carefully analyzed the
wounds and after looking at the X-rays agreed there was no bullet inside
the back or chest on the President. They examined the head closely and
found an entrance wound on back of the head and a large avulsive wound on
top of the head. An experienced mortician noticed a triangular wound in
the temple and explained why it was an exit wound.
No.
Don't be a mainframe tech.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Never heard of it. Why don't you give us a definition?
Why don't you look it up on the internet since you are a self professed
computer expert?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
The question was answered many times, but if you don't believe the
answer, you might forget it. As to there being no evidence of a bullet
fired from the front, you're way off there. Many people have admitted
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead over the right eye in the
photo shown below. Only LNs were unable to recognize the bullet wound.
Others knew it easily with out coaching. ENLARGE the photo and look just
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
So you're claiming entrance wounds in the temple and the forehead?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Robinson was wrong, but then he wasn't a pathologist. And he wasn't
the only person to see the small bullet hole in the forehead, there's a
list of folks that saw it, including 2 members of the autopsy team.
Where is this list?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
Don't be ridiculous! The photo you THINK showed that was not showing
the wound, they had it covered up with a piece of gauze, probably to hide
it, because it was too obvious when someone saw it. Here's the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Chris
You say there were two incoming shots from somewhere in front of the
Limousine. If you could establish the incoming trajectories for these
bullets then we can follow them back to the position they came from. Why
not put some effort into that kind of analysis?
I did.

Loading Image...
bigdog
2017-08-02 20:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot.
No magic at all, just natural science. This full metal jacket projectile
followed Newton's Law of Physics in everything it did.
Post by mainframetech
Since it was shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar
bill, the combined shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy
to try an explain more wounds and not enough bullets.
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
You reveal basic ignorance of the information form the autopsy. It
was shown that the back wound bullet did NOT leave the body of JFK. It
stopped at the pleura, a covering for the lungs just inside the back
muscles. The bullet never exited the body, and therefore never hit
Connally.
You have to be extraordinarily gullible to believe that nonsense. It isn't
even physically possible that could have happened. A bullet has far too
much penetrating power to be stopped by a few inches of soft tissue.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Never heard of it. Why don't you give us a definition?
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
The question was answered many times, but if you don't believe the
answer, you might forget it. As to there being no evidence of a bullet
fired from the front, you're way off there. Many people have admitted
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead over the right eye in the
photo shown below. Only LNs were unable to recognize the bullet wound.
Others knew it easily with out coaching. ENLARGE the photo and look just
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Robinson was wrong, but then he wasn't a pathologist.
Aren't you the guy who is always telling us experts aren't required? Where
would you be without your double standards?
Post by mainframetech
And he wasn't
the only person to see the small bullet hole in the forehead, there's a
list of folks that saw it, including 2 members of the autopsy team.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
Don't be ridiculous! The photo you THINK showed that was not showing
the wound, they had it covered up with a piece of gauze, probably to hide
it, because it was too obvious when someone saw it. Here's the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Still no bullet hole in that photo. If only there was a way you could
provide us with a link to your imagination.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 14:51:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot.
No magic at all, just natural science. This full metal jacket projectile
followed Newton's Law of Physics in everything it did.
Post by mainframetech
Since it was shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar
bill, the combined shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy
to try an explain more wounds and not enough bullets.
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
You reveal basic ignorance of the information form the autopsy. It
was shown that the back wound bullet did NOT leave the body of JFK. It
stopped at the pleura, a covering for the lungs just inside the back
muscles. The bullet never exited the body, and therefore never hit
Connally.
You have to be extraordinarily gullible to believe that nonsense. It isn't
even physically possible that could have happened. A bullet has far too
much penetrating power to be stopped by a few inches of soft tissue.
Which bullet? You ASSuME it was a Carcano bullet.
Maybe he is not ASSuMING it is a Carcano bullet.
Watch Mythbusters to see some bullets which just barely penetrate. In
one autopsy the .45 bullet was stopped by a vertebra.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Never heard of it. Why don't you give us a definition?
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
The question was answered many times, but if you don't believe the
answer, you might forget it. As to there being no evidence of a bullet
fired from the front, you're way off there. Many people have admitted
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead over the right eye in the
photo shown below. Only LNs were unable to recognize the bullet wound.
Others knew it easily with out coaching. ENLARGE the photo and look just
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Robinson was wrong, but then he wasn't a pathologist.
Aren't you the guy who is always telling us experts aren't required? Where
would you be without your double standards?
Post by mainframetech
And he wasn't
the only person to see the small bullet hole in the forehead, there's a
list of folks that saw it, including 2 members of the autopsy team.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
Don't be ridiculous! The photo you THINK showed that was not showing
the wound, they had it covered up with a piece of gauze, probably to hide
it, because it was too obvious when someone saw it. Here's the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Still no bullet hole in that photo. If only there was a way you could
provide us with a link to your imagination.
So, you can't see a bullet hole that everyone else can see. What does
that prove?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 14:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot.
No magic at all, just natural science. This full metal jacket projectile
followed Newton's Law of Physics in everything it did.
Post by mainframetech
Since it was shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar
bill, the combined shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy
to try an explain more wounds and not enough bullets.
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
You reveal basic ignorance of the information form the autopsy. It
was shown that the back wound bullet did NOT leave the body of JFK. It
stopped at the pleura, a covering for the lungs just inside the back
muscles. The bullet never exited the body, and therefore never hit
Connally.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Never heard of it. Why don't you give us a definition?
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
The question was answered many times, but if you don't believe the
answer, you might forget it. As to there being no evidence of a bullet
fired from the front, you're way off there. Many people have admitted
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead over the right eye in the
photo shown below. Only LNs were unable to recognize the bullet wound.
Others knew it easily with out coaching. ENLARGE the photo and look just
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Robinson was wrong, but then he wasn't a pathologist. And he wasn't
the only person to see the small bullet hole in the forehead, there's a
list of folks that saw it, including 2 members of the autopsy team.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
Don't be ridiculous! The photo you THINK showed that was not showing
the wound, they had it covered up with a piece of gauze, probably to hide
it, because it was too obvious when someone saw it. Here's the right
The gauze is sticking out from the head wound where Bowron stuffed gauze
squares to prepare the body for shipping.
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-02 13:41:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Rifle: Italian Carcano M1891
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
General Information on the Carcano
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html
Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which -
over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are
hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so
frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II
Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the
Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin
backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the
unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one
seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the
incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other
reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either
suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in
the Warren Commission Report.
This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is
so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when
actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that
is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so
insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually,
this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early
1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil
the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by
blaming e.g. equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate. According
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the
mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to
make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta,
displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)
"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition
and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army
NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and
still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against
all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own
original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old
minimum.'" (p. 133)
"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it
seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the
first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the
Arisakas." Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall.
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read,
"Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a
hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last.
And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising
of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap
wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to
shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the
Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle
used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier
with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"
Apples and oranges.
Some critics claim the outdated WWI 6.5 Carcano was an inferior bullet
that could not have caused all the body wounds on two men sitting in
tandem. Especially compared to the powerful .30 cal M1 used in WWII.
Actually the 6.5 Carcano was designed to do exactly that, punch narrow
holes in enemy targets. It was basically a lead drill bit made for human
targets. In Dealey Plaza the 6.5 Carcano did what it was designed to do
when it punctured two adult males in a row. There was nothing magic about
it. The projectile was carefully engineered to do what it did.
There was a great deal of 'magic' about the SBT shot.
No magic at all, just natural science. This full metal jacket projectile
followed Newton's Law of Physics in everything it did.
Post by mainframetech
Since it was shown that the SBT was dead and phony as a 3 dollar
bill, the combined shot didn't happen, and it was a lawyer's fantasy
to try an explain more wounds and not enough bullets.
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
Excactly. You reveal your ignorance of hunting ammo. In some areas it is
illegal to hunt using FMJ bullets like Oswald's ammo because the bullet
will go clean through the buck and hit Aunt Beth hanging out the laundry
half a mile away.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
Except the bullet hole in his forehead.
Post by claviger
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
What photo? You are a WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
autopsy photos.
claviger
2017-08-03 19:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
Excactly. You reveal your ignorance of hunting ammo. In some areas it is
illegal to hunt using FMJ bullets like Oswald's ammo because the bullet
will go clean through the buck and hit Aunt Beth hanging out the laundry
half a mile away.
Glad you brought this up. Some states ban FMJ bullets for hunting due to
the danger of high penetration by these military projectiles. They've
been known to wound two men sitting in tandem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
Except the bullet hole in his forehead.
A photo shows this wound?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
What photo? You are a WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 21:54:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
Excactly. You reveal your ignorance of hunting ammo. In some areas it is
illegal to hunt using FMJ bullets like Oswald's ammo because the bullet
will go clean through the buck and hit Aunt Beth hanging out the laundry
half a mile away.
Glad you brought this up. Some states ban FMJ bullets for hunting due to
the danger of high penetration by these military projectiles. They've
been known to wound two men sitting in tandem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
So what? There is a vast difference between the unhardened lead of
Oswald's bullets and the hardened lead of an AR-15 bullet. Even you should
be able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 20,000.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you've tried to make the bullet come from the rear, when it came
from the front.
No evidence whatsoever a bullet struck the President fired from in front
Except the bullet hole in his forehead.
A photo shows this wound?
Yes. You are not allowed to see it because you are a WC defender.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of the Limousine. The President did not go back and to the left. He went
straight back into the seat cushion, bounced forward and fell into
Jackie's lap. You have been asked several times where did any bullet
fired from the front come from? Since you don't understand trajectory
analysis you won't the question.
Post by mainframetech
And that can be seen by the unbiased people that look at the right photo. As well,
that explains the small bullet hole in the right forehead that Humes seems to have
forgotten to put into his Autopsy Report (AR).
Robinson saw the temple wound up close and said it was an exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone trying to make the bullet come from the rear will have the
problem that was had before in trying to determine which part of the BOH
the bullet struck, especially since the 'leaked' autopsy photos show no
bullet hole in the BOH at all!
What leaked autopsy photos? You're confused by the black & white autopsy
photo you depend on. The color version of that photo proves it was a blood
spot on the forehead.
What photo? You are a WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Fox 8.
claviger
2017-08-06 03:58:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
Excactly. You reveal your ignorance of hunting ammo. In some areas it is
illegal to hunt using FMJ bullets like Oswald's ammo because the bullet
will go clean through the buck and hit Aunt Beth hanging out the laundry
half a mile away.
Glad you brought this up. Some states ban FMJ bullets for hunting due to
the danger of high penetration by these military projectiles. They've
been known to wound two men sitting in tandem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
So what? There is a vast difference between the unhardened lead of
Oswald's bullets and the hardened lead of an AR-15 bullet. Even you should
be able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 20,000.
Why do so many protest groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and
banned under international law?

WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Fox 8.
Link please.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-07 14:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You reveal basic ignorance of physics and rifle ammunition. It is very
obvious you are not a hunter. Even standard hunting softnose bullets will
puncture all the way through a large buck. Experienced hunters do not
shoot a deer if another animal is standing behind it. Anyone familiar
with the history of the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet is not surprised it can
puncture two human beings in tandem at short range.
Excactly. You reveal your ignorance of hunting ammo. In some areas it is
illegal to hunt using FMJ bullets like Oswald's ammo because the bullet
will go clean through the buck and hit Aunt Beth hanging out the laundry
half a mile away.
Glad you brought this up. Some states ban FMJ bullets for hunting due to
the danger of high penetration by these military projectiles. They've
been known to wound two men sitting in tandem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The head shot is a completely different issue. It had the opposite
effect. A thick metal jacket prevented the Carcano 6.5 from shattering on
a human target. Even when the bullet hit a hard object like bone it would
break into a few larger fragments. It was engineered to NOT cause a lead
snowstorm. The back of the head is the thickest part of the human skull.
There is no elasticity to that area of the cranium.
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
So what? There is a vast difference between the unhardened lead of
Oswald's bullets and the hardened lead of an AR-15 bullet. Even you should
be able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 20,000.
Why do so many protest groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and
banned under international law?
WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Fox 8.
Link please.
You mean the same one I've posted 39,618 times before and you refused to
look at? Please don't click on links to MY website or the FBI will put
you on their Watchlist.

Loading Image...

I marked the entrance hole in purple for you to thank for for posting
the Purple video.
claviger
2017-08-11 17:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
So what? There is a vast difference between the unhardened lead of
Oswald's bullets and the hardened lead of an AR-15 bullet. Even you should
be able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 20,000.
Why do so many protest groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and
banned under international law?
WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Fox 8.
Link please.
You mean the same one I've posted 39,618 times before and you refused to
look at? Please don't click on links to MY website or the FBI will put
you on their Watchlist.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/f-8_orientation.jpg
I marked the entrance hole in purple for you to thank for for posting
the Purple video.
Why not answer this question?

Why do protest groups want M16 ammo classified as a frangible bullet
and banned under international law?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-12 00:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
So what? There is a vast difference between the unhardened lead of
Oswald's bullets and the hardened lead of an AR-15 bullet. Even you should
be able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 20,000.
Why do so many protest groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and
banned under international law?
WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Fox 8.
Link please.
You mean the same one I've posted 39,618 times before and you refused to
look at? Please don't click on links to MY website or the FBI will put
you on their Watchlist.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/f-8_orientation.jpg
I marked the entrance hole in purple for you to thank for for posting
the Purple video.
So you can't even admit that you saw Fox 8 and that even you can see the
bullet hole. Maybe because you aren't an anatomist.
Post by claviger
Why not answer this question?
I don't know that I have to answer a nonsensical question based on false
premises.
Post by claviger
Why do protest groups want M16 ammo classified as a frangible bullet
and banned under international law?
Show me what you mean about protest groups. Give me a quote.
I did not say FRANGIBLE bullet. I said explosive bullet.
Two different things.

I suspect that many people complained about the M-16 producing horrific
wounds in violation of the Hague Convention. But experts have explained
that it is not the same as a Dum-Dum or frangible bullet or explosive
bullet.

One expert wrote an excellent paper on it which should be unclassified
and online now. Various experts have explained it in gun magazines.
claviger
2017-08-13 03:11:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[PDF]International Legal Initiatives to Restrict Military Small Arms
Ammunition
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2010/armament/TuesdayLandmarkBHaysParks.pdf
“the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement, which encourage it ... contemporary military small arms weapons
and ammunition. .... century, other than Sweden's complaint about the M16
and its 5.56x45mm M193 projectile ... protested the consequences of use of
Spitzer-tip projectiles. This was ...


The Effectiveness of Short Barrel Rifles in 5.56/.223 | For the Love of ...
https://fortheloveofthegun.wordpress.com/.../the-effectiveness-of-short-barrel-rifles-in...
Aug 24, 2014 - The debate of whether the 5.56x45mm round is effective in
the M16 ... Under a certain velocity, the round fails to tumble and
fragment, ... The 5.56 was designed for the M16, which features a 20 inch
barrel, and the bullet uses ...


Tumbling 223 controversy; another view - Gun Rights Media
Oct 25, 2009 - 8 posts - ‎7 authors
This allows the bullet to fragment, increasing the lethality of the wound
.... When the M16 was first used in Vietnam, it was assumed that the ...
http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?413583-Tumbling-223-controversy-another-view


Military bullet wound patterns - Lutz Möller KJG
Although bullet fragments were not recovered and photographed (the
importance ... a 7.62 mm military bullet that caused far more extensive
wounds than the M16. .... The full metal-jacketed bullet designed for this
weapon has a copper-plated ...
http://kjg-munition.de/Zielwirkung/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html


Why 5.56 / .223 is BOTH the Best and Worst AR-15 Cartridge - Abe's ...
Nov 17, 2015 - The M16 and it's 5.56 cartridge was only going to be used at
close range for security guards, ... 5.56 Fackler Bullet Fragmentation vs
Velocity.
http://abesguncave.com/why-556-223-is-both-the-best-and-worst-ar-15-cartridge/


Shoot to Maim - Israel's favored ammo is crippling a generation of ...
The M16 ammunition often breaks into tiny pieces after penetration, ripping
up muscle ... injuries, much like those of the internationally banned dumdum
bullets. ... disperse the protests, Israeli soldiers have repeatedly fired
live ammunition into ...
http://ifamericaknew.org/stat/shoot_to_maim.html


Terminal ballistics - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics
Terminal ballistics a sub-field of ballistics, is the study of the behavior
and effects of a projectile when it hits its target and transfers its energy
to the target. Bullet design and the velocity of impact determine the
effectiveness of its .... Frangible bullets, made of tiny fragments held
together by a weak binding, are often sold as an ...
Bill Clarke
2017-08-13 18:02:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
So what? There is a vast difference between the unhardened lead of
Oswald's bullets and the hardened lead of an AR-15 bullet. Even you should
be able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 20,000.
Why do so many protest groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and
banned under international law?
WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Fox 8.
Link please.
You mean the same one I've posted 39,618 times before and you refused to
look at? Please don't click on links to MY website or the FBI will put
you on their Watchlist.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/f-8_orientation.jpg
I marked the entrance hole in purple for you to thank for for posting
the Purple video.
So you can't even admit that you saw Fox 8 and that even you can see the
bullet hole. Maybe because you aren't an anatomist.
Post by claviger
Why not answer this question?
I don't know that I have to answer a nonsensical question based on false
premises.
Post by claviger
Why do protest groups want M16 ammo classified as a frangible bullet
and banned under international law?
Show me what you mean about protest groups. Give me a quote.
I did not say FRANGIBLE bullet. I said explosive bullet.
Two different things.
I suspect that many people complained about the M-16 producing horrific
wounds in violation of the Hague Convention. But experts have explained
that it is not the same as a Dum-Dum or frangible bullet or explosive
bullet.
Good work General. Nothing particularly unique about the M-16 round. It
is a light weight full metal jacket bullet that can travel at high speeds.
It has a tendency to tumble when striking meat and bone. So do many other
calibers shooting light bullets at high speed; the .222 and .22-250 come
to mind. In fact, I don't know why they just didn't take the .22-250 and
go with it instead of developing a new round.
Post by Anthony Marsh
One expert wrote an excellent paper on it which should be unclassified
and online now. Various experts have explained it in gun magazines.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 14:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
So what? There is a vast difference between the unhardened lead of
Oswald's bullets and the hardened lead of an AR-15 bullet. Even you should
be able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 20,000.
Why do so many protest groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and
banned under international law?
WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Fox 8.
Link please.
You mean the same one I've posted 39,618 times before and you refused to
look at? Please don't click on links to MY website or the FBI will put
you on their Watchlist.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/f-8_orientation.jpg
I marked the entrance hole in purple for you to thank for for posting
the Purple video.
So you can't even admit that you saw Fox 8 and that even you can see the
bullet hole. Maybe because you aren't an anatomist.
Post by claviger
Why not answer this question?
I don't know that I have to answer a nonsensical question based on false
premises.
Post by claviger
Why do protest groups want M16 ammo classified as a frangible bullet
and banned under international law?
Show me what you mean about protest groups. Give me a quote.
I did not say FRANGIBLE bullet. I said explosive bullet.
Two different things.
I suspect that many people complained about the M-16 producing horrific
wounds in violation of the Hague Convention. But experts have explained
that it is not the same as a Dum-Dum or frangible bullet or explosive
bullet.
Good work General. Nothing particularly unique about the M-16 round. It
Yes, there is, but it does not violate any internation accords.
Post by Bill Clarke
is a light weight full metal jacket bullet that can travel at high speeds.
It has a tendency to tumble when striking meat and bone. So do many other
calibers shooting light bullets at high speed; the .222 and .22-250 come
to mind. In fact, I don't know why they just didn't take the .22-250 and
go with it instead of developing a new round.
Yeah, so what? I never argued that it was DESIGNED to violate
international law. Go argue with those who make that claim.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
One expert wrote an excellent paper on it which should be unclassified
and online now. Various experts have explained it in gun magazines.
Bill Clarke
2017-08-14 23:47:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Well, wait a minute! If the MC bullet was "engineered to NOT cause a lead
Post by claviger
snowstorm", then why was there a lead snowstorm in the skull as shown in
the X-ray? That's proof of a different type of bullet that struck the head.
You just explained the Mortal Error Theory.
Garbage. Antimony.
Hardened vs unhardened lead.
" Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional
bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned forensic
technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones
possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique
elemental makeup. "
So what? There is a vast difference between the unhardened lead of
Oswald's bullets and the hardened lead of an AR-15 bullet. Even you should
be able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 20,000.
Why do so many protest groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and
banned under international law?
WC defender so you are not allowed to see the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
autopsy photos.
A few photos from the autopsy were leaked. Which one shows a bullet wound
in the forehead?
Fox 8.
Link please.
You mean the same one I've posted 39,618 times before and you refused to
look at? Please don't click on links to MY website or the FBI will put
you on their Watchlist.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/f-8_orientation.jpg
I marked the entrance hole in purple for you to thank for for posting
the Purple video.
So you can't even admit that you saw Fox 8 and that even you can see the
bullet hole. Maybe because you aren't an anatomist.
Post by claviger
Why not answer this question?
I don't know that I have to answer a nonsensical question based on false
premises.
Post by claviger
Why do protest groups want M16 ammo classified as a frangible bullet
and banned under international law?
Show me what you mean about protest groups. Give me a quote.
I did not say FRANGIBLE bullet. I said explosive bullet.
Two different things.
I suspect that many people complained about the M-16 producing horrific
wounds in violation of the Hague Convention. But experts have explained
that it is not the same as a Dum-Dum or frangible bullet or explosive
bullet.
Good work General. Nothing particularly unique about the M-16 round. It
Yes, there is, but it does not violate any internation accords.
Point them out then, General. Don't wander around, just list any unique
fact about the M-16 round. I don't believe you can.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
is a light weight full metal jacket bullet that can travel at high speeds.
It has a tendency to tumble when striking meat and bone. So do many other
calibers shooting light bullets at high speed; the .222 and .22-250 come
to mind. In fact, I don't know why they just didn't take the .22-250 and
go with it instead of developing a new round.
Yeah, so what? I never argued that it was DESIGNED to violate
international law. Go argue with those who make that claim.
I didn't say you did Marsh. In fact I agreed with you but you missed
that. Gee Marsh!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
One expert wrote an excellent paper on it which should be unclassified
and online now. Various experts have explained it in gun magazines.
claviger
2017-07-25 22:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operations-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.

Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.

Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.

Research shows that both rounds will “stay supersonic longer, have
less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm
ammunition,” SOCOM officials said.

Hauquitz said that the research is focused on the popularity and
availability of the cartridge, and finding out the benefits and drawbacks
of the different rounds.

At the same time, SOCOM is working to develop polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm
to reduce the load for operators, Hauquitz said. Research is showing a
one-third weight reduction for 7.62 mm ammunition, allowing the 6.5 mm to
come in at 5.56 mm weight ranges.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-26 15:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operations-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
Unrelated to Oswald's Carcano.
Post by claviger
Research shows that both rounds will “stay supersonic longer, have
less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm
ammunition,” SOCOM officials said.
Hauquitz said that the research is focused on the popularity and
availability of the cartridge, and finding out the benefits and drawbacks
of the different rounds.
At the same time, SOCOM is working to develop polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm
to reduce the load for operators, Hauquitz said. Research is showing a
one-third weight reduction for 7.62 mm ammunition, allowing the 6.5 mm to
come in at 5.56 mm weight ranges.
Bill Clarke
2017-07-29 22:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operations-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
Unrelated to Oswald's Carcano.
Marsh, who was the nut that claimed Oswald used some "slightly used .264
bullets" for the assassination? He might have been over in the nut group
come to think of it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Research shows that both rounds will ???stay supersonic longer, have
less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm
ammunition,??? SOCOM officials said.
Hauquitz said that the research is focused on the popularity and
availability of the cartridge, and finding out the benefits and drawbacks
of the different rounds.
At the same time, SOCOM is working to develop polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm
to reduce the load for operators, Hauquitz said. Research is showing a
one-third weight reduction for 7.62 mm ammunition, allowing the 6.5 mm to
come in at 5.56 mm weight ranges.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-31 15:47:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operations-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
Unrelated to Oswald's Carcano.
Marsh, who was the nut that claimed Oswald used some "slightly used .264
bullets" for the assassination? He might have been over in the nut group
come to think of it.
Sounds like Ben. You could Google it, but it might take centuries to
find the exact message.

I don't mind badmouthing the Carcano rifle, but the CIA's ammo was
excellent.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Research shows that both rounds will ???stay supersonic longer, have
less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm
ammunition,??? SOCOM officials said.
Hauquitz said that the research is focused on the popularity and
availability of the cartridge, and finding out the benefits and drawbacks
of the different rounds.
At the same time, SOCOM is working to develop polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm
to reduce the load for operators, Hauquitz said. Research is showing a
one-third weight reduction for 7.62 mm ammunition, allowing the 6.5 mm to
come in at 5.56 mm weight ranges.
Bill Clarke
2017-07-29 22:01:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <8ea6cd30-62fc-4098-a3f1-***@googlegroups.com>, claviger
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
Post by claviger
Research shows that both rounds will =E2=80=9Cstay supersonic longer, have
less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm
ammunition,=E2=80=9D SOCOM officials said.
Hauquitz said that the research is focused on the popularity and
availability of the cartridge, and finding out the benefits and drawbacks
of the different rounds.
At the same time, SOCOM is working to develop polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm
to reduce the load for operators, Hauquitz said. Research is showing a
one-third weight reduction for 7.62 mm ammunition, allowing the 6.5 mm to
come in at 5.56 mm weight ranges.
claviger
2017-07-30 21:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
Bill Clarke
2017-07-31 20:15:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <7bf3d0e5-c650-4329-92ec-***@googlegroups.com>, claviger
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
John McAdams
2017-07-31 20:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
Note that the Soviets ditched the AK47 for a rifle that followed the
M-16 philosophy: small caliber high velocity rounds, of which the
infantryman could carry a lot.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/AK-47_vs_AK-74

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2017-08-01 15:09:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
Note that the Soviets ditched the AK47 for a rifle that followed the
M-16 philosophy: small caliber high velocity rounds, of which the
infantryman could carry a lot.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/AK-47_vs_AK-74
It also goes along with the military philosophy that it is better to wound
an enemy combatant than to kill him because a wounded soldier will need to
be carried and cared for.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-02 03:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
Note that the Soviets ditched the AK47 for a rifle that followed the
M-16 philosophy: small caliber high velocity rounds, of which the
infantryman could carry a lot.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/AK-47_vs_AK-74
It also goes along with the military philosophy that it is better to wound
an enemy combatant than to kill him because a wounded soldier will need to
be carried and cared for.
Something like that.
bigdog
2017-08-01 15:09:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
I was watching a History Channel program about guns and their expert said
when firing the M-14 in full auto, the first shot would be on target, the
second one a little high, the third one way high and by the fourth round
you had an anti-aircraft gun.
claviger
2017-08-02 03:45:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
I was watching a History Channel program about guns and their expert said
when firing the M-14 in full auto, the first shot would be on target, the
second one a little high, the third one way high and by the fourth round
you had an anti-aircraft gun.
Correct. The M-14 was a 3 burst semi-auto not suitable for full auto and
much better at long-range. It was not a spray gun. This WWII style rifle
was heavy for ARVN troops who were smaller in stature. The M-16 plus ammo
weighed less. The idea was the lighter the rifle the more ammo could be
carried in combat.

The problem is spray-gun fighting used up a lot of ammo. Our troops
needed something to compete with the AK-47 in close combat. Eugene Stoner
invented the perfect rifle with the AR-10 that was scaled down to the
AR-15. The US Army Ordinance Department screwed us this outstanding rifle
with a PWPF decision to tinker with the design. That fatal decision
killed a lot soldiers in the middle of a firefight when their weapons
jammed.

In Iraq and Afghanistan the M-14 became an excellent poor-man's sniper
rifle for long distance combat. At medium range it could drop an enemy
with one shot whereas the M-16 and M-4 needed more than one shot to finish
the enemy. Many of these enemy forces prepared for battle by using
hashish before the attack. I asked one Army vet about his opinion. He
said it might take a whole burst to kill one doped up enemy soldier
charging his position. If anyone in the squad had an M-14 it was one shot
one kill.

Had the Stoner AR-15 become the M-15 our troops would've had a superior
weapon to fight in Vietnam and the Middle East.
claviger
2017-08-03 02:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The problem is spray-gun fighting used up a lot of ammo. Our troops
needed something to compete with the AK-47 in close combat. Eugene Stoner
invented the perfect rifle with the AR-10 that was scaled down to the
AR-15. The US Army Ordinance Department screwed up this outstanding rifle
with a PWPF decision to tinker with the design. That fatal decision
killed a lot soldiers in the middle of a firefight when their weapons
jammed.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 14:45:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
I was watching a History Channel program about guns and their expert said
when firing the M-14 in full auto, the first shot would be on target, the
second one a little high, the third one way high and by the fourth round
you had an anti-aircraft gun.
Correct. The M-14 was a 3 burst semi-auto not suitable for full auto and
much better at long-range. It was not a spray gun. This WWII style rifle
was heavy for ARVN troops who were smaller in stature. The M-16 plus ammo
weighed less. The idea was the lighter the rifle the more ammo could be
carried in combat.
The problem is spray-gun fighting used up a lot of ammo. Our troops
needed something to compete with the AK-47 in close combat. Eugene Stoner
invented the perfect rifle with the AR-10 that was scaled down to the
AR-15. The US Army Ordinance Department screwed us this outstanding rifle
with a PWPF decision to tinker with the design. That fatal decision
killed a lot soldiers in the middle of a firefight when their weapons
jammed.
Yes. Maybe it was a conspiracy!
Post by claviger
In Iraq and Afghanistan the M-14 became an excellent poor-man's sniper
rifle for long distance combat. At medium range it could drop an enemy
with one shot whereas the M-16 and M-4 needed more than one shot to finish
the enemy. Many of these enemy forces prepared for battle by using
hashish before the attack. I asked one Army vet about his opinion. He
said it might take a whole burst to kill one doped up enemy soldier
charging his position. If anyone in the squad had an M-14 it was one shot
one kill.
Is Hashish effective against a head shot?
Post by claviger
Had the Stoner AR-15 become the M-15 our troops would've had a superior
weapon to fight in Vietnam and the Middle East.
Had the top brass been more honest there would have been no problems.
Bill Clarke
2017-08-03 02:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <9ef19388-fc59-4c0a-b9aa-***@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
I was watching a History Channel program about guns and their expert said
when firing the M-14 in full auto, the first shot would be on target, the
second one a little high, the third one way high and by the fourth round
you had an anti-aircraft gun.
From the people I know with experience with the M-14 on full auto I
believe this to be true.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-01 15:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
Unfortunately the M-16 suffered from a bad reputation due to early
errors which were corrected later.

Reliability
M16 direct impingement gas system
M16 direct impingement gas system
101st Airborne trooper carrying an M16A1 during the Vietnam War (circa
1969). Note: 20-round magazine.
101st Airborne troopers on the line with M16A1s during the Vietnam War
(circa 1969)
101st Airborne trooper on patrol with M16A1 during the Vietnam War
(circa 1969)
101st Airborne troopers on patrol with M4s in Sadr City, Iraq (circa 2006)

During the early part of its career, the M16 had a reputation for poor
reliability and a malfunction rate of two per 1000 rounds fired.[67] The
M16's action works by passing high pressure propellant gasses tapped from
the barrel down a tube and into the carrier group within the upper
receiver, and is commonly referred to as a "direct impingement gas
system". The gas expands within a donut shaped gas cylinder within the
carrier. Because the bolt is prevented from moving forward by the barrel,
the carrier is driven to the rear by the expanding gasses and thus
converts the energy of the gas to movement of the rifle???s parts. The
bolt bears a piston head and the cavity in the bolt carrier is the piston
sleeve. It is more correct to call it an "internal piston" system."[68]
This design is much lighter and more compact than a gas-piston design.
However, this design requires that combustion byproducts from the
discharged cartridge be blown into the receiver as well. This accumulating
carbon and vaporized metal build-up within the receiver and bolt-carrier
negatively affects reliability and necessitates more intensive maintenance
on the part of the individual soldier. The channeling of gasses into the
bolt carrier during operation increases the amount of heat that is
deposited in the receiver while firing the M16 and causes essential
lubricant to be "burned off". This requires frequent and generous
applications of appropriate lubricant.[23] Lack of proper lubrication is
the most common source of weapon stoppages or jams.[23]

The original M16 fared poorly in the jungles of Vietnam and was infamous
for reliability problems in the harsh environment. As a result, it became
the target of a Congressional investigation.[69][1] The investigation
found that:[1]

The M16 was billed as self-cleaning (when no weapon is or ever
has been).[1]
The M16 was issued to troops without cleaning kits or
instruction on how to clean the rifle.[1]
The M16 and 5.56??45mm cartridge was tested and approved with
the use of a DuPont IMR8208M stick powder, that was switched to Olin
Mathieson WC846 ball powder which produced much more fouling, that
quickly jammed the action of the M16 (unless the gun was cleaned well
and often).[1]
The M16 lacked a forward assist (rendering the rifle inoperable
when it jammed).[1]
The M16 lacked a chrome-plated chamber, which allowed corrosion
problems and contributed to case extraction failures (which was
considered the most severe problem and required extreme measures to
clear, such as inserting the cleaning-rod down the barrel and knocking
the spent cartridge out).[1]

When these issues were addressed and corrected by the M16A1, the
reliability problems decreased greatly.[59] According to a 1968 Department
of Army report, the M16A1 rifle achieved widespread acceptance by U.S.
troops in Vietnam.[51] "Most men armed with the M16 in Vietnam rated this
rifle's performance high, however, many men entertained some misgivings
about the M16's reliability. When asked what weapon they preferred to
carry in combat, 85 percent indicated that they wanted either the M16 or
its [smaller] submachine gun version, the XM177E2." Also "the M14 was
preferred by 15 percent, while less than one percent wished to carry
either the Stoner rifle, the AK-47, the carbine or a pistol."[51] In March
1970, the "President???s Blue Ribbon Defense Panel" concluded that the
issuance of the M16 saved the lives of 20,000 U.S. servicemen during the
Vietnam War, who would have otherwise died had the M14 remained in
service.[70] However, the M16 rifle's reputation continues to
suffer.[59][71]
claviger
2017-08-01 18:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by claviger
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/04/18/special-operatio=
ns-command-is-looking-at-a-new-6-5-mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle/
7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5
short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its
semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action
sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the
preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm
caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the
.260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The 6.5 Creedmmor has become very popular with civilian shooters. Many
manufacturers now build rifles for the caliber and ammo to go with it.
I'm a fan of the M-16 round but it isn't meant for a long range sniper
rifle.
When I read some of the ex-military blogs the M-16 is not well liked.
The M-14 became the superstar in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally received
praise and recognition it deserved as an excellent combat rifle.
I have some Marine friends that had to turn in their M-14 when the M-16
arrived in Vietnam. They will hate the M-16 to their dying day but
remember that the M-16 had several major problems at this time. By the
time I got there the bugs had been corrected and the M-16 was an excellent
weapon. The main complaint I've heard from men that used the M-14 is that
it was uncontrollable when firing on full automatic. I've fired the M-14
but never on full auto.
Also remember the AR-15 designed by Eugene Stoner was a phenomenal high
tech weapon but the US Army Ordinance Corps dumbed it down and in so doing
created several problems with the M-16. The AR-15 was designed for a
specific high tech gunpowder but the USAOC changed the powder for the
M-16. Most of the problems stem from this fatal decision.

Was the M16 really bad?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-M16-really-bad
Loading...