Discussion:
The Rifle in the Archives-Not Lee's
(too old to reply)
Raymond
2007-04-21 05:20:49 UTC
Permalink
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=520627
Anthony Marsh
2007-04-21 21:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=520627
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos. But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
Italians had sent them documentation on this matter, which the WC dare
not make public. Rifles were made in several different factories, all
using the same numbering system. So the same model of rifle might have
the same serial number as a rifle made in another factory. And different
models may have the same serial number. And as the author correctly
points out there should be other rifles of the same model which have the
same numbers, but without a letter or with a different letter, so a
forger could theoretically turn a serial number "2766" into "C2766" by
adding a "C." The process of altering the serial number is not as easy
as the author suggests and no indication was found on this rifle to
indicate that someone changed the serial number. Regardless of that, the
serial number on the rifle is unique to that model made in that factory.
So there can not be a duplicate rifle with the same serial number,
unless someone altered the serial number of an identical rifle. Now, how
could we rule that out for the case of Oswald's rifle. There is more to
the rifle to identify it beyond just the serial number. The HSCA
identified the rifle seen in the backyard photos as being the same rifle
discovered in the TSBD and now in the National Archives by the unique
pattern of wear marks on the stock. Same stock in all photos. Same
serial number. Same model. Hence, same rifle.
The rest of his article is weak supposition built upon weak supposition.
Maybe the Paines were working for the CIA so therefore they had access
to Oswald's rifle and gave it to the CIA for duplication. This is an
unnecessary step as the FBI could have done all this based only on
information from Klein's.
But there is one good point which is worth quoting. As I have said many
times and others have questioned, Klein's switched from selling the
carbines to shipping the short rifle shortly after Oswald had mailed in
his order and I doubt that Oswald knew the difference.

". . ., it should be remembered that the February ad, used by Oswald,
was the last ad, in American Rifleman, advertising the 36 inch, 6.5 mm
Italian Carbine. The next ad for a Mannlicher-Carcano was in April 1963
and Klein's then started advertising the 40 inch heaver Short Rifle."
Given the lead time in advertising this means that Klein's knew in
February that it was running out of carbines and would be able to sell
only the short rifles. Oswald ordered the carbine as per the February
ad, but Klein's shipped him the short rifle.
Raymond
2007-04-22 13:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raymond
2007-04-22 13:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Anthony Marsh
2007-04-23 02:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos. But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
Italians had sent them documentation on this matter, which the WC dare
not make public. Rifles were made in several different factories, all
using the same numbering system. So the same model of rifle might have
the same serial number as a rifle made in another factory. And different
models may have the same serial number. And as the author correctly
points out there should be other rifles of the same model which have the
same numbers, but without a letter or with a different letter, so a
forger could theoretically turn a serial number "2766" into "C2766" by
adding a "C." The process of altering the serial number is not as easy
as the author suggests and no indication was found on this rifle to
indicate that someone changed the serial number. Regardless of that, the
serial number on the rifle is unique to that model made in that factory.
So there can not be a duplicate rifle with the same serial number,
unless someone altered the serial number of an identical rifle. Now, how
could we rule that out for the case of Oswald's rifle. There is more to
the rifle to identify it beyond just the serial number. The HSCA
identified the rifle seen in the backyard photos as being the same rifle
discovered �in the TSBD and now in the National Archives by the unique
pattern of wear marks on the stock. Same stock in all photos. Same
serial number. Same model. Hence, same rifle.
� The rest of his article is weak supposition built upon weak supposition.
Maybe the Paines were working for the CIA so therefore they had access
to Oswald's rifle and gave it to the CIA for duplication. This is an
unnecessary step as the FBI could have done all this based only on
information from Klein's.
But there is one good point which is worth quoting. As I have said many
times and others have questioned, Klein's switched from selling the
carbines to shipping the short rifle shortly after Oswald had mailed in
his order and I doubt that Oswald knew the difference.
". . ., it should be remembered that the February ad, used by Oswald,
was the last ad, in American Rifleman, advertising the 36 inch, 6.5 mm
Italian Carbine. The next ad for a Mannlicher-Carcano was in April 1963
and Klein's then started advertising the 40 inch heaver Short Rifle."
Given the lead time in advertising this means that Klein's knew in
February that it was running out of carbines and would be able to sell
only the short rifles. Oswald ordered the carbine as per the February
ad, but Klein's shipped him the short rifle.
When Did Oswald Order the Rifle?
We don't know what time of day Oswald mailed the letter. He bought the
money order on March 12, 1963 and mailed the order some time that day.
The order was received on March 13th, the next day at Klein's. Yes, I
know that sounds suspicious, but a long time ago mail did not take a
week to get from Texas to Chicago. Here is what the WC said in its report.

According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a
rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963
issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in
handprinting, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." (See Commission
Exhibit No. 773, p. 120.) It was sent in an envelope bearing the same
name and return address in handwriting. Document examiners for the
Treasury Department and the FBI testified unequivocally that the bold
printing on the face of the mail-order coupon was in the handprinting of
Lee Harvey Oswald and that the writing on the envelope was also his. 5
Oswald's writing on these and other documents was identified by
comparing the writing and printing on the documents in question with
that appearing on documents known to have been written by Oswald, such
as his letters, passport application, and endorsements of checks.6 (See
app. X, p. 568-569.)

In addition to the order coupon the envelope contained a. U.S. postal
money order for $21.45, purchased as No. 2,202,130,462 in Dallas, Tex.,
on March 12, 1963.7 The canceled money order was obtained from the Post
Office Department. Opposite the printed words "Pay To" were written the
words "Kleins Sporting Goods," and opposite the printed word "From" were
written the words "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915 Dallas, Texas." These words
were also in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. 8 (See Commission
Exhibit No. 788, p. 120.)
There have long been problems with how the rifle allegedly used in the
assassination of President Kennedy came to be linked with Oswald.
Raymond Gallagher shows us, astonishingly and with documentation, that
the rifle was shipped before Oswald had ordered it. How could that be?
Raymond Gallagher, you say? Gee, what a coincidence. Your first name is
also Raymond and every message that YOU post gives a link to an article
written by Raymond Gallagher. Could it be that YOU are really Raymond
Gallagher. Or are you just posting with the same account from the same
computer in the same city using the same ISP? Coincidence?
So, if you are just a proxy are you willing to defend the articles of
Raymond Gallagher which you point us towards? Especially after I have
made pointed criticisms?
Evidence from official records suggests that the sixth floor rifle was
not the rifle delivered to Lee Oswakl in March 1963
No, that is not true. I have explained this before.
The rifle found on the sixth floor that Oswald ordered in March of
1963, using the coupon from the February issue of THE AMERICAN
RIFLEMAN magazine
.
(Warren Comission Report p.119). A copy of this ad did not appear in
the Warren Commission. Instead, a copy of the November 1963 Klein;s
ad, as pointed out by Sylvia Meager, appeared in FIELD and STREAM
(Accessories After the Fact p.48). therefore, it had nothing to do
with the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.
That is the WC's error. Do you have the February 1963 issue to American
Rifleman? The Dept. # in the address is unique to that issue.
Remember that Louis Feldscott of Cresent Firearms told the FBI that C
2766 was sold to Klein's on June 18,1962, yet Waldman, at Klein's, did
not order the rifles until June 18, 1963.... Waldman testified that
I highly doubt that the month and day would be exactly the same, but
different years. Maybe your copy of the document is so poorly reproduced
that the "2" looks like a "3." Or maybe it was a typo.
Have you read George Michael Evica's book?
Klein's received Oswald's money order of $21,45 on March 13 1963 and
it was deposited, along with other money orders and checks, into
company accounts at First National Bank of Chicago. Waldman testified
to Commission attorney David Belin that the postmark date of the order
leaving Dallas was March 12th.( WC Vol. 7, p.366) Waldman further
testified that the deposit was made on the 13th. and was a total of a
deposit of $13,827.98 (Belin did not ask him to explain how, before
the advent of computers, an order could be shipped 700 miles,
received. processed and deposited in 24 hours) But yet, the bank
Well, were you even alive then? In the old days it was physically
possible to mail a letter and have it arrive the next day.
deposit slip, the extra copy provided by the bank at the time of
transfer, reads February 15th, 1963, not March 13th. This is about one
month before the coupon for the rifle by air mail to Chicago. (see
Wakdman Exhibit No.10, WC Vol.21 p.706. ) of course, if the February
date is correct, then C2766 could not be the correct serial number on
the rifle in the so-called backyard photographs.
Why should the February 15th date be correct.
"I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which indicated
that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting goods Inc. ,
Chicago, Illinois on June 18,1962. I conveyed this information to the
FBI during the evening of November 22, 1963".
/s/ louis Feldscott
See Affadavit of Louis Feldscott and Waldman, Exhibit No.10,, WC Vol.
21.p.706.
How did Raymond Gallagher, new to PROBE delve into the unique sale of
Oswald;s money order for the weapon before Oswald wrote it?
False assumption.
The article traces the history of the rifle from the ordering by
Oswald to Dallas , then to New Orleans and back to Dallas into the
Paine's garage and finally to the TSBD.
Because of the serious evidentiary problems presented here in the
tracing of rifle C 2766, can we really believe the Warren Commission
when it tells us this is the rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy ?
No, throw out the WC. It is all lies. The HSCA did more extensive
investigation and proved that C2766 was the rifle that Oswald ordered.
Because of this and other failed tests, the Warren Commission failed
in its assignment and is responsible for much of the protestation,
some of it commercial and bizarre, that has flooded the market since.
Of course. That goes without saying.
-- Jim DIEugenio Chairman CTKA (Citizens For Truth About the kennedy
Assassination
--- PROBE Vol.5,No.6 Sept-Oct,1998
For information on Italy;s method of numbering the Carcanos and
details of the rifle , SEE THE BOOK OF RIFLES by W.H.B. Smith and
Joseph E. Smith
Over 200 photos Copyright 1948 by the National Rifle Association
Copyright 1960 and 1963 by the Stackpole Company Harrisburg, Pa.
Printed by the Telegraph Press. Harrisburg, Pa. First printing
December 1948. Second printing luly 1965
J.B. Sweet
Brig. Gen., USA, Ret.
Senior Editor
Book on JFK Assassination Rifle
CARCANO: ITALY'S MILITARY RIFLE,
by Hobbs, Richard-
An excellent reference book on the Carcano
Covering various models, ammo, bayonets, slings and more. . Soft
cover. Illustrated. Published in 1998. 63 pages Includes the Oswald
rifle Caliber 6.5 x 52mm with "Ordnance Optics Inc." scope and strap
from a U.S.A.F. holster kit being used for a sling Serial number
C-2766.
Regular selling price from author
$ 29.00
Hobbs has been gun collecting since he was 11 years old and is an
expert on the Carcano
Yes, but Hobbs is not 100% correct about every detail.
With this book, you should be able to properly identify the Oswald
Carcano and be able to properly identify any of the Carcanos that you
encounter.
There were many other references even before Hobbs's excellent book.
By far the best available reference work on the Carcano in English
language
Assassination students should own this book
--- Raymond
Also should visit the Carcano Home page to see comparison photos.

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/


Loading Image...

Also should own their own model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano as I do.
Raymond
2007-04-23 13:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Raymond
2007-04-23 17:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Anthony Marsh
2007-04-23 22:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos. But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
Italians had sent them documentation on this matter, which the WC dare
not make public. Rifles were made in several different factories, all
using the same numbering system. So the same model of rifle might have
the same serial number as a rifle made in another factory. And different
models may have the same serial number. And as the author correctly
points out there should be other rifles of the same model which have the
same numbers, but without a letter or with a different letter, so a
forger could theoretically turn a serial number "2766" into "C2766" by
adding a "C." The process of altering the serial number is not as easy
as the author suggests and no indication was found on this rifle to
indicate that someone changed the serial number. Regardless of that, the
serial number on the rifle is unique to that model made in that factory.
So there can not be a duplicate rifle with the same serial number,
unless someone altered the serial number of an identical rifle. Now, how
could we rule that out for the case of Oswald's rifle. There is more to
the rifle to identify it beyond just the serial number. The HSCA
identified the rifle seen in the backyard photos as being the same rifle
discovered ?in the TSBD and now in the National Archives by the unique
pattern of wear marks on the stock. Same stock in all photos. Same
serial number. Same model. Hence, same rifle.
? The rest of his article is weak supposition built upon weak supposition.
Maybe the Paines were working for the CIA so therefore they had access
to Oswald's rifle and gave it to the CIA for duplication. This is an
unnecessary step as the FBI could have done all this based only on
information from Klein's.
But there is one good point which is worth quoting. As I have said many
times and others have questioned, Klein's switched from selling the
carbines to shipping the short rifle shortly after Oswald had mailed in
his order and I doubt that Oswald knew the difference.
". . ., it should be remembered that the February ad, used by Oswald,
was the last ad, in American Rifleman, advertising the 36 inch, 6.5 mm
Italian Carbine. The next ad for a Mannlicher-Carcano was in April 1963
and Klein's then started advertising the 40 inch heaver Short Rifle."
Given the lead time in advertising this means that Klein's knew in
February that it was running out of carbines and would be able to sell
only the short rifles. Oswald ordered the carbine as per the February
ad, but Klein's shipped him the short rifle.
When Did Oswald Order the Rifle?
We don't know what time of day Oswald mailed the letter. He bought the
money order on March 12, 1963 and mailed the order some time that day.
The order was received on March 13th, the next day at Klein's. Yes, I
know that sounds suspicious, but a long time ago mail did not take a
week to get from Texas to Chicago. Here is what the WC said in its report.
According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a
rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963
issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in
handprinting, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." (See Commission
Exhibit No. 773, p. 120.) It was sent in an envelope bearing the same
name and return address in handwriting. Document examiners for the
Treasury Department and the FBI testified unequivocally that the bold
printing on the face of the mail-order coupon was in the handprinting of
Lee Harvey Oswald and that the writing on the envelope was also his. 5
Oswald's writing on these and other documents was identified by
comparing the writing and printing on the documents in question with
that appearing on documents known to have been written by Oswald, such
as his letters, passport application, and endorsements of checks.6 (See
app. X, p. 568-569.)
In addition to the order coupon the envelope contained a. U.S. postal
money order for $21.45, purchased as No. 2,202,130,462 in Dallas, Tex.,
on March 12, 1963.7 The canceled money order was obtained from the Post
Office Department. Opposite the printed words "Pay To" were written the
words "Kleins Sporting Goods," and opposite the printed word "From" were
written the words "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915 Dallas, Texas." These words
were also in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. 8 (See Commission
Exhibit No. 788, p. 120.)
There have long been problems with how the rifle allegedly used in the
assassination of President Kennedy came to be linked with Oswald.
Raymond Gallagher shows us, astonishingly and with documentation, that
the rifle was shipped before Oswald had ordered it. How could that be?
Raymond Gallagher, you say? Gee, what a coincidence. Your first name is
also Raymond and every message that YOU post gives a link to an article
written by Raymond Gallagher. Could it be that YOU are really Raymond
Gallagher. Or are you just posting with the same account from the same
computer in the same city using the same ISP? Coincidence?
So, if you are just a proxy are you willing to defend the articles of
Raymond Gallagher which you point us towards? Especially after I have
made pointed criticisms?
Evidence from official records suggests that the sixth floor rifle was
not the rifle delivered to Lee Oswakl in March 1963
No, that is not true. I have explained this before.
The rifle found on the sixth floor that Oswald ordered in March of
1963, using the coupon from the February issue of THE AMERICAN
RIFLEMAN magazine
.
(Warren Comission Report p.119). A copy of this ad did not appear in
the Warren �Commission. Instead, a copy of the November 1963 Klein;s
ad, as pointed out by Sylvia Meager, appeared in FIELD and STREAM
(Accessories After the Fact p.48). therefore, it had nothing to do
with the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.
That is the WC's error. Do you have the February 1963 issue to American
Rifleman? The Dept. # in the address is unique to that issue.
Remember that Louis Feldscott of Cresent Firearms told the FBI that C
2766 was sold to Klein's on June 18,1962, yet Waldman, at Klein's, did
not order the rifles until June 18, 1963.... Waldman testified that
I highly doubt that the month and day would be exactly the same, but
different years. Maybe your copy of the document is so poorly reproduced
that the "2" looks like a "3." Or maybe it was a typo.
Have you read George Michael Evica's book?
Klein's received Oswald's money order of $21,45 on March 13 1963 and
it was deposited, along with other money orders and checks, into
company accounts at First National Bank of Chicago. Waldman testified
to Commission attorney David Belin that the postmark date of the order
leaving Dallas was March 12th.( WC Vol. 7, p.366) Waldman further
testified that the deposit was made on the 13th. and was a total of a
deposit of $13,827.98 (Belin did not ask him to explain how, before
the advent of computers, an order could be shipped 700 miles,
received. processed and deposited in 24 hours) But yet, the bank
Well, were you even alive then? In the old days it was physically
possible to mail a letter and have it arrive the next day.
deposit slip, the extra copy provided by the bank at the time of
transfer, reads February 15th, 1963, not March 13th. This is about one
month before the coupon for the rifle by air mail to Chicago. (see
Wakdman Exhibit No.10, WC Vol.21 p.706. ) of course, if the February
date is correct, then C2766 could not be the correct serial number on
the rifle in the so-called backyard photographs.
Why should the February 15th date be correct.
"I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which indicated
that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting goods Inc. ,
Chicago, Illinois on June 18,1962. I conveyed this information to the
FBI during the evening of November 22, 1963".
/s/ louis Feldscott
See Affadavit of Louis Feldscott and Waldman, Exhibit No.10,, WC Vol.
21.p.706.
How did Raymond Gallagher, new to PROBE delve into the unique sale of
Oswald;s money order for the weapon before Oswald wrote it?
False assumption.
The article traces the history of the rifle from the ordering by
Oswald to Dallas , then to New Orleans and back to Dallas into the
Paine's garage and finally to the TSBD.
Because of the serious evidentiary problems presented here in the
tracing of rifle C 2766, �can we really believe the Warren Commission
when it tells us this is the rifle Oswald used to kill Kennedy ?
No, throw out the WC. It is all lies. The HSCA did more extensive
investigation and proved that C2766 was the rifle that Oswald ordered.
Because of this and other failed tests, the Warren Commission failed
in its assignment and is responsible for much of the protestation,
some of it commercial
...
read more �- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Throw out the WC. It is all lies. The HSCA did a more extensive
investigation."
However, notice that he frequently uses the WC to make a point, if it
is also his point to begin with.
"... Here is what the WC said in its report....."
--- Marsh
No, I merely point out what the WC actually said when people
misrepresent what it said. You can count on the fingers of one hand when
the WC was accurate about anything.
Raymond
2007-04-23 13:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"

The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.

Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."

On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock. The Warren Commission rifle had an oblong ring
mounted to the side. The author of A Carcano Homepage theorizes that
the ring is part of the bush behind Oswald, a contention nearly
impossible to take seriously. Another explanation I have seen is that
the rifle that Oswald holds is turned enough to where the oblong ring
on the far side of the Warren Commission rifle is visible, providing
the illusion that it is a circular, bottom-mounted ring strap. I am
skeptical of that explanation also. The rifle appears slightly
rotated, as can be seen by looking at the riflescope, but it appears
far from being rotated onto its side, especially far enough to make
the Warren Commission rifle side ring produce the alleged illusion.
The only way to know for sure is to get the "murder weapon" and
perform the reconstruction (I will not hold my breath waiting for the
federal government's cooperation on that matter). Also, the cheap
rifle strap seen in the backyard photos is markedly at variance with
the strap found on the murder weapon, a strap that appears dyed black,
as well as the rifle stock itself. It is difficult to imagine a
starving commie shelling out for a designer strap for his rifle (which
appears to be designed for the rifle, dyed that same color as the
rifle's stock), when he already had one.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard

The rifle being removed from the TSBD: Notice sling swivels well on
side of weapon. In the backyard photos, Oswald would have had to turn
the rifle over for the swivels to be visible.
Loading Image...

The sling strap in the photo is from a U.S.A.F. holster kit being used
for a sling

SEE CARCANO: ITALY'S MILITARY RIFLE,
by Hobbs, Richard-

Hobbs has been gun collecting since he was 11 years old and is an
EXPERT on the Carcano With this book, you should be able to properly
identify the Oswald Carcano and be able to properly identify any of
the Carcanos that you
encounter. Hobbs also tells his audience that the Mannlicher Carcano
was one of the superior rifles used in World War II. and that the
rifle found in the TSBD was a special rifle used in the Mussolini
special guard. Toward the end of the war, the Italians were
manufacturing the Carcano for Germany ( a different caliber)

Of all the manually operated military rifles in use since the end of
the last century, the one which has the worst reputation and that has
always been viewed with approbation is probably the poor Carcano. When
one considers that the rifle was in use by an industrialized nation
for 54 years, with very few changes, that seems odd.

By the time manufacture ceased in 1945 at least eleven versions of 'Il
91' in three different calibers had been made.

Late, and post war they were still being used by Greeks, Albanians,
Yugoslav and Ethiopian troops. It could not have been all bad?

It was developed at Turin Arsenal (F.A.T., Fabrica Armas Torino) by
Lt.Col. Salvatore Carcano in co-operation with General Gustavo
Parravicini. It was officially adopted on 5 March 1892. Its baptism of
fire came in Ethiopia during Italy's' 'civilizing' adventure there
from 1893 - 1896.

At Adowa late in February of 1896 a force of 20.000 Italian
'colonizers' were defeated by King Menelik's forces.

Inaccurate maps and failures to communicate whittled the force down to
9200 shocked survivors of which some 1500 were wounded. This debacle
finished Italy's colonial aspirations there until the thirties. Then
they would be back with aerial bombing and poison gas.

This was not an auspicious beginning for the new rifle. The defeat was
not due to the rifle, but those who used it. The '91 would be used at
the siege of Peking in 1900, as well as Italy's attempt to annex Libya
early in the new century.

The first World War saw it used on all the fronts where the Italians
fought. The climatic conditions ranged from searing heat to bone-
numbing cold. There were no complaints about the performance of the
rifle. At that time (1914-18) the 91 was not markedly inferior to the
rifles used by Italy's allies (Us, that time) or their opponents.

Many variations of the basic rifle were produced, mainly in the form
of various carbines. One such model anticipated the M203 grenade
Launcher in that it too had the launcher mounted on the right side of
the carbine (Italy's M1928)
The launcher was constructed from another '91 action which used the
bolt unit from the carbine to fire the special launch cartridge and
send the little grenade on its way. It was a bulky clumsy unit, which
occasionally turn up at Gun Shows.
The 'Il 91' as the Italians called it was a combination of several
designs current at the time of its adoption. The receiver was
reminiscent of the M1888 Mauser with its split bridge. The magazine
system using the en-bloc clip to load the magazine was pure
Mannlicher. It has been referred to as a Parravicini-Carcano, but
ultimately became know as the Mannlicher-Carcano. The '91 also had an
unusual type of rifling known as gain-twist or progressive rifling.
That is the projectile was gripped by the rifling whose twist got
faster as it neared the muzzle! This rifling was dropped when Italy
introduced their 91/41. It used conventional rifling.

Rumor has it that one of the Italian carbines, the 91/24, won't shoot
worth a damn because the projectile is barely spinning when it leaves
the much shortened. All they did was shorten the barrel, add a new
front sight, and away you went. Watch out for that one!

So, if you don't have a lot of money, are interested in history and
the rifles of history, you could do worse than beginning a collection
of these pretty much despised rifles.Doing so will build your
character as you will have to learn to handle criticism and laughter
from your fellow shooters. But, be assured that you will be a member
of a small select group, and that's not a bad thing.
Enjoy them.

Article Written by: Finn Nielsen
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/mannlichercarcano/index.asp
Post by Anthony Marsh
But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
Italians had sent them documentation on this matter, which the WC dare
not make public. Rifles were made in several different factories, all
using the same numbering system. So the same model of rifle might have
the same serial number as a rifle made in another factory. And different
models may have the same serial number. And as the author correctly
points out there should be other rifles of the same model which have the
same numbers, but without a letter or with a different letter, so a
forger could theoretically turn a serial number "2766" into "C2766" by
adding a "C." The process of altering the serial number is not as easy
as the author suggests and no indication was found on this rifle to
indicate that someone changed the serial number. Regardless of that, the
serial number on the rifle is unique to that model made in that factory.
So there can not be a duplicate rifle with the same serial number,
unless someone altered the serial number of an identical rifle. Now, how
could we rule that out for the case of Oswald's rifle. There is more to
the rifle to identify it beyond just the serial number. The HSCA
identified the rifle seen in the backyard photos as being the same rifle
discovered in the TSBD and now in the National Archives by the unique
pattern of wear marks on the stock. Same stock in all photos. Same
serial number. Same model. Hence, same rifle.
The rest of his article is weak supposition built upon weak supposition.
Maybe the Paines were working for the CIA so therefore they had access
to Oswald's rifle and gave it to the CIA for duplication. This is an
unnecessary step as the FBI could have done all this based only on
information from Klein's.
But there is one good point which is worth quoting. As I have said many
times and others have questioned, Klein's switched from selling the
carbines to shipping the short rifle shortly after Oswald had mailed in
his order and I doubt that Oswald knew the difference.
". . ., it should be remembered that the February ad, used by Oswald,
was the last ad, in American Rifleman, advertising the 36 inch, 6.5 mm
Italian Carbine. The next ad for a Mannlicher-Carcano was in April 1963
and Klein's then started advertising the 40 inch heaver Short Rifle."
Given the lead time in advertising this means that Klein's knew in
February that it was running out of carbines and would be able to sell
only the short rifles. Oswald ordered the carbine as per the February
ad, but Klein's shipped him the short rifle.
Anthony Marsh
2007-04-24 00:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"
The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.
Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."
On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock. The Warren Commission rifle had an oblong ring
You mean on the backyard photos? That is not true.
Post by Raymond
mounted to the side. The author of A Carcano Homepage theorizes that
the ring is part of the bush behind Oswald, a contention nearly
impossible to take seriously. Another explanation I have seen is that
the rifle that Oswald holds is turned enough to where the oblong ring
on the far side of the Warren Commission rifle is visible, providing
the illusion that it is a circular, bottom-mounted ring strap. I am
skeptical of that explanation also. The rifle appears slightly
rotated, as can be seen by looking at the riflescope, but it appears
far from being rotated onto its side, especially far enough to make
the Warren Commission rifle side ring produce the alleged illusion.
You are performing poor quality analysis on a poor copy of a poor
photograph.
Post by Raymond
The only way to know for sure is to get the "murder weapon" and
perform the reconstruction (I will not hold my breath waiting for the
federal government's cooperation on that matter). Also, the cheap
rifle strap seen in the backyard photos is markedly at variance with
the strap found on the murder weapon, a strap that appears dyed black,
Jeez, try to pay attention. He just got the rifle and had not yet found
a proper sling, so he used a rope. He later found a holster strap and
jerry-rigged that. This is old news.
Post by Raymond
as well as the rifle stock itself. It is difficult to imagine a
The stock is not black.
Post by Raymond
starving commie shelling out for a designer strap for his rifle (which
appears to be designed for the rifle, dyed that same color as the
rifle's stock), when he already had one.
He may have picked up the holster strap for a couple of bucks at an
Army&Navy store.
The rifle was not shipped with a sling.
Post by Raymond
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard
The rifle being removed from the TSBD: Notice sling swivels well on
side of weapon. In the backyard photos, Oswald would have had to turn
the rifle over for the swivels to be visible.
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/clpmybe.jpg
The sling strap in the photo is from a U.S.A.F. holster kit being used
for a sling
I believe a colleague of Lattimer was responsible for figuring that out.
Post by Raymond
SEE CARCANO: ITALY'S MILITARY RIFLE,
by Hobbs, Richard-
Hobbs has been gun collecting since he was 11 years old and is an
EXPERT on the Carcano With this book, you should be able to properly
identify the Oswald Carcano and be able to properly identify any of
the Carcanos that you
So what if Hobbs is an expert. People show him poorly reproduced copies
of poor quality photos and then tell him what they see.
Post by Raymond
encounter. Hobbs also tells his audience that the Mannlicher Carcano
was one of the superior rifles used in World War II. and that the
OK, the model 91/38 was one of the better rifles used by the Italians.
That is not saying much. It is a piece of junk.
Post by Raymond
rifle found in the TSBD was a special rifle used in the Mussolini
special guard. Toward the end of the war, the Italians were
manufacturing the Carcano for Germany ( a different caliber)
This old news is nonsense. Look at the rifle in all the photos. It is
not black.
Post by Raymond
Of all the manually operated military rifles in use since the end of
the last century, the one which has the worst reputation and that has
always been viewed with approbation is probably the poor Carcano. When
one considers that the rifle was in use by an industrialized nation
for 54 years, with very few changes, that seems odd.
No, it seems typical.
Post by Raymond
By the time manufacture ceased in 1945 at least eleven versions of 'Il
91' in three different calibers had been made.
Late, and post war they were still being used by Greeks, Albanians,
Yugoslav and Ethiopian troops. It could not have been all bad?
Because it was cheap.
Post by Raymond
It was developed at Turin Arsenal (F.A.T., Fabrica Armas Torino) by
Lt.Col. Salvatore Carcano in co-operation with General Gustavo
Parravicini. It was officially adopted on 5 March 1892. Its baptism of
fire came in Ethiopia during Italy's' 'civilizing' adventure there
from 1893 - 1896.
Yes, maybe it was state of the art in 1891. Not in 1944. Especially when
compared to the German, American, Russian, and British weapons. The only
thing worse were the Japanese weapons.
Post by Raymond
At Adowa late in February of 1896 a force of 20.000 Italian
'colonizers' were defeated by King Menelik's forces.
Inaccurate maps and failures to communicate whittled the force down to
9200 shocked survivors of which some 1500 were wounded. This debacle
finished Italy's colonial aspirations there until the thirties. Then
they would be back with aerial bombing and poison gas.
This was not an auspicious beginning for the new rifle. The defeat was
not due to the rifle, but those who used it. The '91 would be used at
the siege of Peking in 1900, as well as Italy's attempt to annex Libya
early in the new century.
Used properly the original 1891 was a fine rifle for its time, as in
19th Century.
Post by Raymond
The first World War saw it used on all the fronts where the Italians
fought. The climatic conditions ranged from searing heat to bone-
numbing cold. There were no complaints about the performance of the
rifle. At that time (1914-18) the 91 was not markedly inferior to the
rifles used by Italy's allies (Us, that time) or their opponents.
Which explains why Italy won WWII???
Post by Raymond
Many variations of the basic rifle were produced, mainly in the form
of various carbines. One such model anticipated the M203 grenade
Launcher in that it too had the launcher mounted on the right side of
the carbine (Italy's M1928)
The launcher was constructed from another '91 action which used the
bolt unit from the carbine to fire the special launch cartridge and
send the little grenade on its way. It was a bulky clumsy unit, which
occasionally turn up at Gun Shows.
The 'Il 91' as the Italians called it was a combination of several
designs current at the time of its adoption. The receiver was
reminiscent of the M1888 Mauser with its split bridge. The magazine
system using the en-bloc clip to load the magazine was pure
Mannlicher. It has been referred to as a Parravicini-Carcano, but
ultimately became know as the Mannlicher-Carcano. The '91 also had an
unusual type of rifling known as gain-twist or progressive rifling.
That is the projectile was gripped by the rifling whose twist got
faster as it neared the muzzle! This rifling was dropped when Italy
introduced their 91/41. It used conventional rifling.
All of your quoting this is silly. I have quoted exactly the same things
myself before and constantly point to the Carcano Home Page as an
excellent resource.
Post by Raymond
Rumor has it that one of the Italian carbines, the 91/24, won't shoot
worth a damn because the projectile is barely spinning when it leaves
the much shortened. All they did was shorten the barrel, add a new
front sight, and away you went. Watch out for that one!
Exactly what I explained to the WC defender to explain how a different
rifle could produce keholing using the same ammo. That was done by the
exporter to refurbish surplus rifles.
Post by Raymond
So, if you don't have a lot of money, are interested in history and
the rifles of history, you could do worse than beginning a collection
of these pretty much despised rifles.Doing so will build your
character as you will have to learn to handle criticism and laughter
from your fellow shooters. But, be assured that you will be a member
of a small select group, and that's not a bad thing.
Enjoy them.
Article Written by: Finn Nielsen
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/mannlichercarcano/index.asp
Post by Anthony Marsh
But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
Italians had sent them documentation on this matter, which the WC dare
not make public. Rifles were made in several different factories, all
using the same numbering system. So the same model of rifle might have
the same serial number as a rifle made in another factory. And different
models may have the same serial number. And as the author correctly
points out there should be other rifles of the same model which have the
same numbers, but without a letter or with a different letter, so a
forger could theoretically turn a serial number "2766" into "C2766" by
adding a "C." The process of altering the serial number is not as easy
as the author suggests and no indication was found on this rifle to
indicate that someone changed the serial number. Regardless of that, the
serial number on the rifle is unique to that model made in that factory.
So there can not be a duplicate rifle with the same serial number,
unless someone altered the serial number of an identical rifle. Now, how
could we rule that out for the case of Oswald's rifle. There is more to
the rifle to identify it beyond just the serial number. The HSCA
identified the rifle seen in the backyard photos as being the same rifle
discovered in the TSBD and now in the National Archives by the unique
pattern of wear marks on the stock. Same stock in all photos. Same
serial number. Same model. Hence, same rifle.
The rest of his article is weak supposition built upon weak supposition.
Maybe the Paines were working for the CIA so therefore they had access
to Oswald's rifle and gave it to the CIA for duplication. This is an
unnecessary step as the FBI could have done all this based only on
information from Klein's.
But there is one good point which is worth quoting. As I have said many
times and others have questioned, Klein's switched from selling the
carbines to shipping the short rifle shortly after Oswald had mailed in
his order and I doubt that Oswald knew the difference.
". . ., it should be remembered that the February ad, used by Oswald,
was the last ad, in American Rifleman, advertising the 36 inch, 6.5 mm
Italian Carbine. The next ad for a Mannlicher-Carcano was in April 1963
and Klein's then started advertising the 40 inch heaver Short Rifle."
Given the lead time in advertising this means that Klein's knew in
February that it was running out of carbines and would be able to sell
only the short rifles. Oswald ordered the carbine as per the February
ad, but Klein's shipped him the short rifle.
Raymond
2007-04-24 04:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Walt
2007-04-25 14:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"
The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.
Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."
On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock. The Warren Commission rifle had an oblong ring
You mean on the backyard photos? That is not true.
LOOK at the Klein Sporting Goods ad. The illustration accompanying the
ad shows a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle with the rare
BOTTOM sling loop. No MC ever came equipped with ROUND sling loops.
The front sling loop on the rifle in the ONE and ONLY ...AUTHENTIC...
Back Yard photo clearly shows the OVAL loop just like the sling loop
on the rifle in the Klein illustration. The FACT that the rifle seen
in the only AUTHENTIC BY photo (CE 133A) has the OVAL sling is proof
that the rifle in Oswald's hands in that photo is NOT the rifle that
was found in the TSBD ( C2766.) Since the bottom sling loop
( actually a dual loop ) version of the rifle is a pretty rare find, I
would not be surprised if the rifle illustrated in the Klein ad is the
very same rifle that Marina photographed in Lee's hands on March 31,
1963.

Walt
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Raymond
mounted to the side. The author of A Carcano Homepage theorizes that
the ring is part of the bush behind Oswald, a contention nearly
impossible to take seriously. Another explanation I have seen is that
the rifle that Oswald holds is turned enough to where the oblong ring
on the far side of the Warren Commission rifle is visible, providing
the illusion that it is a circular, bottom-mounted ring strap. I am
skeptical of that explanation also. The rifle appears slightly
rotated, as can be seen by looking at the riflescope, but it appears
far from being rotated onto its side, especially far enough to make
the Warren Commission rifle side ring produce the alleged illusion.
You are performing poor quality analysis on a poor copy of a poor
photograph.
Post by Raymond
The only way to know for sure is to get the "murder weapon" and
perform the reconstruction (I will not hold my breath waiting for the
federal government's cooperation on that matter). Also, the cheap
rifle strap seen in the backyard photos is markedly at variance with
the strap found on the murder weapon, a strap that appears dyed black,
Jeez, try to pay attention. He just got the rifle and had not yet found
a proper sling, so he used a rope. He later found a holster strap and
jerry-rigged that. This is old news.
Post by Raymond
as well as the rifle stock itself. It is difficult to imagine a
The stock is not black.
Post by Raymond
starving commie shelling out for a designer strap for his rifle (which
appears to be designed for the rifle, dyed that same color as the
rifle's stock), when he already had one.
He may have picked up the holster strap for a couple of bucks at an
Army&Navy store.
The rifle was not shipped with a sling.
Post by Raymond
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard
The rifle being removed from the TSBD: Notice sling swivels well on
side of weapon. In the backyard photos, Oswald would have had to turn
the rifle over for the swivels to be visible.
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/clpmybe.jpg
The sling strap in the photo is from a U.S.A.F. holster kit being used
for a sling
I believe a colleague of Lattimer was responsible for figuring that out.
Post by Raymond
SEE CARCANO: ITALY'S MILITARY RIFLE,
by Hobbs, Richard-
Hobbs has been gun collecting since he was 11 years old and is an
EXPERT on the Carcano With this book, you should be able to properly
identify the Oswald Carcano and be able to properly identify any of
the Carcanos that you
So what if Hobbs is an expert. People show him poorly reproduced copies
of poor quality photos and then tell him what they see.
Post by Raymond
encounter. Hobbs also tells his audience that the Mannlicher Carcano
was one of the superior rifles used in World War II. and that the
OK, the model 91/38 was one of the better rifles used by the Italians.
That is not saying much. It is a piece of junk.
Post by Raymond
rifle found in the TSBD was a special rifle used in the Mussolini
special guard. Toward the end of the war, the Italians were
manufacturing the Carcano for Germany ( a different caliber)
This old news is nonsense. Look at the rifle in all the photos. It is
not black.
Post by Raymond
Of all the manually operated military rifles in use since the end of
the last century, the one which has the worst reputation and that has
always been viewed with approbation is probably the poor Carcano. When
one considers that the rifle was in use by an industrialized nation
for 54 years, with very few changes, that seems odd.
No, it seems typical.
Post by Raymond
By the time manufacture ceased in 1945 at least eleven versions of 'Il
91' in three different calibers had been made.
Late, and post war they were still being used by Greeks, Albanians,
Yugoslav and Ethiopian troops. It could not have been all bad?
Because it was cheap.
Post by Raymond
It was developed at Turin Arsenal (F.A.T., Fabrica Armas Torino) by
Lt.Col. Salvatore Carcano in co-operation with General Gustavo
Parravicini. It was officially adopted on 5 March 1892. Its baptism of
fire came in Ethiopia during Italy's' 'civilizing' adventure there
from 1893 - 1896.
Yes, maybe it was state of the art in 1891. Not in 1944. Especially when
compared to the German, American, Russian, and British weapons. The only
thing worse were the Japanese weapons.
Post by Raymond
At Adowa late in February of 1896 a force of 20.000 Italian
'colonizers' were defeated by King Menelik's forces.
Inaccurate maps and failures to communicate whittled the force down to
9200 shocked survivors of which some 1500 were wounded. This debacle
finished Italy's colonial aspirations there until the thirties. Then
they would be back with aerial bombing and poison gas.
This was not an auspicious beginning for the new rifle. The defeat was
not due to the rifle, but those who used it. The '91 would be used at
the siege of Peking in 1900, as well as Italy's attempt to annex Libya
early in the new century.
Used properly the original 1891 was a fine rifle for its time, as in
19th Century.
Post by Raymond
The first World War saw it used on all the fronts where the Italians
fought. The climatic conditions ranged from searing heat to bone-
numbing cold. There were no complaints about the performance of the
rifle. At that time (1914-18) the 91 was not markedly inferior to the
rifles used by Italy's allies (Us, that time) or their opponents.
Which explains why Italy won WWII???
Post by Raymond
Many variations of the basic rifle were produced, mainly in the form
of various carbines. One such model anticipated the M203 grenade
Launcher in that it too had the launcher mounted on the right side of
the carbine (Italy's M1928)
The launcher was constructed from another '91 action which used the
bolt unit from the carbine to fire the special launch cartridge and
send the little grenade on its way. It was a bulky clumsy unit, which
occasionally turn up at Gun Shows.
The 'Il 91' as the Italians called it was a combination of several
designs current at the time of its adoption. The receiver was
reminiscent of the M1888 Mauser with its split bridge. The magazine
system using the en-bloc clip to load the magazine was pure
Mannlicher. It has been referred to as a Parravicini-Carcano, but
ultimately became know as the Mannlicher-Carcano. The '91 also had an
unusual type of rifling known as gain-twist or progressive rifling.
That is the projectile was gripped by the rifling whose twist got
faster as it neared the muzzle! This rifling was dropped when Italy
introduced their 91/41. It used conventional rifling.
All of your quoting this is silly. I have quoted exactly the same things
myself before and constantly point to the Carcano Home Page as an
excellent resource.
Post by Raymond
Rumor has it that one of the Italian carbines, the 91/24, won't shoot
worth a damn because the projectile is barely spinning when it leaves
the much shortened. All they did was shorten the barrel, add a new
front sight, and away you went. Watch out for that one!
Exactly what I explained to the WC defender to explain how a different
rifle could produce keholing using the same ammo. That was done by the
exporter to refurbish surplus rifles.
Post by Raymond
So, if you don't have a lot of money, are interested in history and
the rifles of history, you could do worse than beginning a collection
of these pretty much despised rifles.Doing so will build your
character as you will have to learn to handle criticism and laughter
from your fellow shooters. But, be assured that you will be a member
of a small select group, and that's not a bad thing.
Enjoy them.
Article Written by: Finn Nielsen
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/mannlichercarcano/index.asp
Post by Anthony Marsh
But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
2007-04-25 22:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"
The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.
Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."
On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock. The Warren Commission rifle had an oblong ring
You mean on the backyard photos? That is not true.
LOOK at the Klein Sporting Goods ad. The illustration accompanying the
ad shows a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle with the rare
BOTTOM sling loop. No MC ever came equipped with ROUND sling loops.
The front sling loop on the rifle in the ONE and ONLY ...AUTHENTIC...
Back Yard photo clearly shows the OVAL loop just like the sling loop
No, that is not true. The backyard photos do not show bottom sling loops.
Post by Walt
on the rifle in the Klein illustration. The FACT that the rifle seen
in the only AUTHENTIC BY photo (CE 133A) has the OVAL sling is proof
that the rifle in Oswald's hands in that photo is NOT the rifle that
was found in the TSBD ( C2766.) Since the bottom sling loop
( actually a dual loop ) version of the rifle is a pretty rare find, I
would not be surprised if the rifle illustrated in the Klein ad is the
very same rifle that Marina photographed in Lee's hands on March 31,
1963.
No, all of that is based on sloppy research.
Post by Walt
Walt
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Raymond
mounted to the side. The author of A Carcano Homepage theorizes that
the ring is part of the bush behind Oswald, a contention nearly
impossible to take seriously. Another explanation I have seen is that
the rifle that Oswald holds is turned enough to where the oblong ring
on the far side of the Warren Commission rifle is visible, providing
the illusion that it is a circular, bottom-mounted ring strap. I am
skeptical of that explanation also. The rifle appears slightly
rotated, as can be seen by looking at the riflescope, but it appears
far from being rotated onto its side, especially far enough to make
the Warren Commission rifle side ring produce the alleged illusion.
You are performing poor quality analysis on a poor copy of a poor
photograph.
Post by Raymond
The only way to know for sure is to get the "murder weapon" and
perform the reconstruction (I will not hold my breath waiting for the
federal government's cooperation on that matter). Also, the cheap
rifle strap seen in the backyard photos is markedly at variance with
the strap found on the murder weapon, a strap that appears dyed black,
Jeez, try to pay attention. He just got the rifle and had not yet found
a proper sling, so he used a rope. He later found a holster strap and
jerry-rigged that. This is old news.
Post by Raymond
as well as the rifle stock itself. It is difficult to imagine a
The stock is not black.
Post by Raymond
starving commie shelling out for a designer strap for his rifle (which
appears to be designed for the rifle, dyed that same color as the
rifle's stock), when he already had one.
He may have picked up the holster strap for a couple of bucks at an
Army&Navy store.
The rifle was not shipped with a sling.
Post by Raymond
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard
The rifle being removed from the TSBD: Notice sling swivels well on
side of weapon. In the backyard photos, Oswald would have had to turn
the rifle over for the swivels to be visible.
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/clpmybe.jpg
The sling strap in the photo is from a U.S.A.F. holster kit being used
for a sling
I believe a colleague of Lattimer was responsible for figuring that out.
Post by Raymond
SEE CARCANO: ITALY'S MILITARY RIFLE,
by Hobbs, Richard-
Hobbs has been gun collecting since he was 11 years old and is an
EXPERT on the Carcano With this book, you should be able to properly
identify the Oswald Carcano and be able to properly identify any of
the Carcanos that you
So what if Hobbs is an expert. People show him poorly reproduced copies
of poor quality photos and then tell him what they see.
Post by Raymond
encounter. Hobbs also tells his audience that the Mannlicher Carcano
was one of the superior rifles used in World War II. and that the
OK, the model 91/38 was one of the better rifles used by the Italians.
That is not saying much. It is a piece of junk.
Post by Raymond
rifle found in the TSBD was a special rifle used in the Mussolini
special guard. Toward the end of the war, the Italians were
manufacturing the Carcano for Germany ( a different caliber)
This old news is nonsense. Look at the rifle in all the photos. It is
not black.
Post by Raymond
Of all the manually operated military rifles in use since the end of
the last century, the one which has the worst reputation and that has
always been viewed with approbation is probably the poor Carcano. When
one considers that the rifle was in use by an industrialized nation
for 54 years, with very few changes, that seems odd.
No, it seems typical.
Post by Raymond
By the time manufacture ceased in 1945 at least eleven versions of 'Il
91' in three different calibers had been made.
Late, and post war they were still being used by Greeks, Albanians,
Yugoslav and Ethiopian troops. It could not have been all bad?
Because it was cheap.
Post by Raymond
It was developed at Turin Arsenal (F.A.T., Fabrica Armas Torino) by
Lt.Col. Salvatore Carcano in co-operation with General Gustavo
Parravicini. It was officially adopted on 5 March 1892. Its baptism of
fire came in Ethiopia during Italy's' 'civilizing' adventure there
from 1893 - 1896.
Yes, maybe it was state of the art in 1891. Not in 1944. Especially when
compared to the German, American, Russian, and British weapons. The only
thing worse were the Japanese weapons.
Post by Raymond
At Adowa late in February of 1896 a force of 20.000 Italian
'colonizers' were defeated by King Menelik's forces.
Inaccurate maps and failures to communicate whittled the force down to
9200 shocked survivors of which some 1500 were wounded. This debacle
finished Italy's colonial aspirations there until the thirties. Then
they would be back with aerial bombing and poison gas.
This was not an auspicious beginning for the new rifle. The defeat was
not due to the rifle, but those who used it. The '91 would be used at
the siege of Peking in 1900, as well as Italy's attempt to annex Libya
early in the new century.
Used properly the original 1891 was a fine rifle for its time, as in
19th Century.
Post by Raymond
The first World War saw it used on all the fronts where the Italians
fought. The climatic conditions ranged from searing heat to bone-
numbing cold. There were no complaints about the performance of the
rifle. At that time (1914-18) the 91 was not markedly inferior to the
rifles used by Italy's allies (Us, that time) or their opponents.
Which explains why Italy won WWII???
Post by Raymond
Many variations of the basic rifle were produced, mainly in the form
of various carbines. One such model anticipated the M203 grenade
Launcher in that it too had the launcher mounted on the right side of
the carbine (Italy's M1928)
The launcher was constructed from another '91 action which used the
bolt unit from the carbine to fire the special launch cartridge and
send the little grenade on its way. It was a bulky clumsy unit, which
occasionally turn up at Gun Shows.
The 'Il 91' as the Italians called it was a combination of several
designs current at the time of its adoption. The receiver was
reminiscent of the M1888 Mauser with its split bridge. The magazine
system using the en-bloc clip to load the magazine was pure
Mannlicher. It has been referred to as a Parravicini-Carcano, but
ultimately became know as the Mannlicher-Carcano. The '91 also had an
unusual type of rifling known as gain-twist or progressive rifling.
That is the projectile was gripped by the rifling whose twist got
faster as it neared the muzzle! This rifling was dropped when Italy
introduced their 91/41. It used conventional rifling.
All of your quoting this is silly. I have quoted exactly the same things
myself before and constantly point to the Carcano Home Page as an
excellent resource.
Post by Raymond
Rumor has it that one of the Italian carbines, the 91/24, won't shoot
worth a damn because the projectile is barely spinning when it leaves
the much shortened. All they did was shorten the barrel, add a new
front sight, and away you went. Watch out for that one!
Exactly what I explained to the WC defender to explain how a different
rifle could produce keholing using the same ammo. That was done by the
exporter to refurbish surplus rifles.
Post by Raymond
So, if you don't have a lot of money, are interested in history and
the rifles of history, you could do worse than beginning a collection
of these pretty much despised rifles.Doing so will build your
character as you will have to learn to handle criticism and laughter
from your fellow shooters. But, be assured that you will be a member
of a small select group, and that's not a bad thing.
Enjoy them.
Article Written by: Finn Nielsen
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/mannlichercarcano/index.asp
Post by Anthony Marsh
But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Walt
2007-04-28 02:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"
The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.
Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."
On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock. The Warren Commission rifle had an oblong ring
You mean on the backyard photos? That is not true.
LOOK at the Klein Sporting Goods ad. The illustration accompanying the
ad shows a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle with the rare
BOTTOM sling loop. No MC ever came equipped with ROUND sling loops.
The front sling loop on the rifle in the ONE and ONLY ...AUTHENTIC...
Back Yard photo clearly shows the OVAL loop just like the sling loop
No, that is not true. The backyard photos do not show bottom sling loops.

Hey Marsh.... Where did you learn to read? I specifically said that the
front sling loop on the ONE ( SINGULAR) and ONLY authentic Back Yard PHOTO
( not PHOTOS) CE 133A is on the bottom of the rifle.

Walt
Walt
2007-04-25 19:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"
The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.
Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."
On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock.
The front sling loop on the Mannlicher Carcano in CE 133A ( the only
authentic BY photo) is NOT round. It is on the bottom of the rifle
just as you said but it is ovular. Look at the Kleins illustration,
to see what that bottom sling loop actually looks like. I believe I am
the person who made the discovery of the bottom sling swivel, ( the
FBI knew it long before I discovered it)
There are several problems with the "sling" in CE 133A. First off if
you attempt to compare CE 133A with CE 133B or 133C you wil just
become confused, because CE 133B and 133C are both fakes and the rifle
is NOT the same rifle that Oswald had in the ONE and ONLY authentic BY
photo. Now... referring to CE 133A...LOOK at the so called "sling"
on that rifle....There IS NO SLING on that rifle. Someone has drawn
in a light colored "handle" which appears to be hanging in thin air
below the rifle. The "artist" intended to give the illusion that the
rifle had a sling but she didn't have a clue where a real sling should
be attached to the rifle. She apparently thought a sling served the
same purpose as the handle on her hand bag , so she drew a handle like
the one on her purse.

Walt

The Warren Commission rifle had an oblong ring
Post by Raymond
mounted to the side. The author of A Carcano Homepage theorizes that
the ring is part of the bush behind Oswald, a contention nearly
impossible to take seriously. Another explanation I have seen is that
the rifle that Oswald holds is turned enough to where the oblong ring
on the far side of the Warren Commission rifle is visible, providing
the illusion that it is a circular, bottom-mounted ring strap. I am
skeptical of that explanation also. The rifle appears slightly
rotated, as can be seen by looking at the riflescope, but it appears
far from being rotated onto its side, especially far enough to make
the Warren Commission rifle side ring produce the alleged illusion.
The only way to know for sure is to get the "murder weapon" and
perform the reconstruction (I will not hold my breath waiting for the
federal government's cooperation on that matter). Also, the cheap
rifle strap seen in the backyard photos is markedly at variance with
the strap found on the murder weapon, a strap that appears dyed black,
as well as the rifle stock itself. It is difficult to imagine a
starving commie shelling out for a designer strap for his rifle (which
appears to be designed for the rifle, dyed that same color as the
rifle's stock), when he already had one.
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard
The rifle being removed from the TSBD: Notice sling swivels well on
side of weapon. In the backyard photos, Oswald would have had to turn
the rifle over for the swivels to be visible.http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/clpmybe.jpg
The sling strap in the photo is from a U.S.A.F. holster kit being used
for a sling
SEE CARCANO: ITALY'S MILITARY RIFLE,
by Hobbs, Richard-
Hobbs has been gun collecting since he was 11 years old and is an
EXPERT on the Carcano With this book, you should be able to properly
identify the Oswald Carcano and be able to properly identify any of
the Carcanos that you
encounter. Hobbs also tells his audience that the Mannlicher Carcano
was one of the superior rifles used in World War II. and that the
rifle found in the TSBD was a special rifle used in the Mussolini
special guard. Toward the end of the war, the Italians were
manufacturing the Carcano for Germany ( a different caliber)
Of all the manually operated military rifles in use since the end of
the last century, the one which has the worst reputation and that has
always been viewed with approbation is probably the poor Carcano. When
one considers that the rifle was in use by an industrialized nation
for 54 years, with very few changes, that seems odd.
By the time manufacture ceased in 1945 at least eleven versions of 'Il
91' in three different calibers had been made.
Late, and post war they were still being used by Greeks, Albanians,
Yugoslav and Ethiopian troops. It could not have been all bad?
It was developed at Turin Arsenal (F.A.T., Fabrica Armas Torino) by
Lt.Col. Salvatore Carcano in co-operation with General Gustavo
Parravicini. It was officially adopted on 5 March 1892. Its baptism of
fire came in Ethiopia during Italy's' 'civilizing' adventure there
from 1893 - 1896.
At Adowa late in February of 1896 a force of 20.000 Italian
'colonizers' were defeated by King Menelik's forces.
Inaccurate maps and failures to communicate whittled the force down to
9200 shocked survivors of which some 1500 were wounded. This debacle
finished Italy's colonial aspirations there until the thirties. Then
they would be back with aerial bombing and poison gas.
This was not an auspicious beginning for the new rifle. The defeat was
not due to the rifle, but those who used it. The '91 would be used at
the siege of Peking in 1900, as well as Italy's attempt to annex Libya
early in the new century.
The first World War saw it used on all the fronts where the Italians
fought. The climatic conditions ranged from searing heat to bone-
numbing cold. There were no complaints about the performance of the
rifle. At that time (1914-18) the 91 was not markedly inferior to the
rifles used by Italy's allies (Us, that time) or their opponents.
Many variations of the basic rifle were produced, mainly in the form
of various carbines. One such model anticipated the M203 grenade
Launcher in that it too had the launcher mounted on the right side of
the carbine (Italy's M1928)
The launcher was constructed from another '91 action which used the
bolt unit from the carbine to fire the special launch cartridge and
send the little grenade on its way. It was a bulky clumsy unit, which
occasionally turn up at Gun Shows.
The 'Il 91' as the Italians called it was a combination of several
designs current at the time of its adoption. The receiver was
reminiscent of the M1888 Mauser with its split bridge. The magazine
system using the en-bloc clip to load the magazine was pure
Mannlicher. It has been referred to as a Parravicini-Carcano, but
ultimately became know as the Mannlicher-Carcano. The '91 also had an
unusual type of rifling known as gain-twist or progressive rifling.
That is the projectile was gripped by the rifling whose twist got
faster as it neared the muzzle! This rifling was dropped when Italy
introduced their 91/41. It used conventional rifling.
Rumor has it that one of the Italian carbines, the 91/24, won't shoot
worth a damn because the projectile is barely spinning when it leaves
the much shortened. All they did was shorten the barrel, add a new
front sight, and away you went. Watch out for that one!
So, if you don't have a lot of money, are interested in history and
the rifles of history, you could do worse than beginning a collection
of these pretty much despised rifles.Doing so will build your
character as you will have to learn to handle criticism and laughter
from your fellow shooters. But, be assured that you will be a member
of a small select group, and that's not a bad thing.
Enjoy them.
Article Written by: Finn Nielsenhttp://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/mannlichercarcano/index.asp
Post by Anthony Marsh
But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
Italians had sent them documentation on this matter, which the WC dare
not make public. Rifles were made in several different factories, all
using the same numbering system. So the same model of rifle might have
the same serial number as a rifle made in another factory. And different
models may have the same serial number. And as the author correctly
points out there should be other rifles of the same model which have the
same numbers, but without a letter or with a different letter, so a
forger could theoretically turn a serial number "2766" into "C2766" by
adding a "C." The process of altering the serial number is not as easy
as the author suggests and no indication was found on this rifle to
indicate that someone changed the serial number. Regardless of that, the
serial number on the rifle is unique to that model made in that factory.
So there can not be a duplicate rifle with the same serial number,
unless someone altered the serial number of an identical rifle. Now, how
could we rule that out for the case of Oswald's rifle. There is more to
the rifle to identify it beyond just the serial number. The HSCA
identified the rifle seen in the backyard photos as being the same rifle
discovered in the TSBD and now in the National Archives by the unique
pattern of wear marks on the stock. Same stock in all photos. Same
serial number. Same model. Hence, same rifle.
The rest of his article is weak supposition built upon weak supposition.
Maybe the Paines were working for the CIA so therefore they had access
to Oswald's rifle and gave it to the CIA for duplication. This is an
unnecessary step as the FBI could have done all this based only on
information from Klein's.
But there is one good point which is worth quoting. As I have said many
times and others have questioned, Klein's switched from selling the
carbines to
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
2007-04-26 04:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"
The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.
Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."
On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock.
The front sling loop on the Mannlicher Carcano in CE 133A ( the only
authentic BY photo) is NOT round. It is on the bottom of the rifle
just as you said but it is ovular. Look at the Kleins illustration,
to see what that bottom sling loop actually looks like. I believe I am
the person who made the discovery of the bottom sling swivel, ( the
FBI knew it long before I discovered it)
All of your theory is nonsense.
Post by Walt
There are several problems with the "sling" in CE 133A. First off if
you attempt to compare CE 133A with CE 133B or 133C you wil just
become confused, because CE 133B and 133C are both fakes and the rifle
is NOT the same rifle that Oswald had in the ONE and ONLY authentic BY
photo. Now... referring to CE 133A...LOOK at the so called "sling"
on that rifle....There IS NO SLING on that rifle. Someone has drawn
in a light colored "handle" which appears to be hanging in thin air
below the rifle. The "artist" intended to give the illusion that the
rifle had a sling but she didn't have a clue where a real sling should
be attached to the rifle. She apparently thought a sling served the
same purpose as the handle on her hand bag , so she drew a handle like
the one on her purse.
Your fakery theories seem to expand exponentially.
Post by Walt
Walt
The Warren Commission rifle had an oblong ring
Post by Raymond
mounted to the side. The author of A Carcano Homepage theorizes that
the ring is part of the bush behind Oswald, a contention nearly
impossible to take seriously. Another explanation I have seen is that
the rifle that Oswald holds is turned enough to where the oblong ring
on the far side of the Warren Commission rifle is visible, providing
the illusion that it is a circular, bottom-mounted ring strap. I am
skeptical of that explanation also. The rifle appears slightly
rotated, as can be seen by looking at the riflescope, but it appears
far from being rotated onto its side, especially far enough to make
the Warren Commission rifle side ring produce the alleged illusion.
The only way to know for sure is to get the "murder weapon" and
perform the reconstruction (I will not hold my breath waiting for the
federal government's cooperation on that matter). Also, the cheap
rifle strap seen in the backyard photos is markedly at variance with
the strap found on the murder weapon, a strap that appears dyed black,
as well as the rifle stock itself. It is difficult to imagine a
starving commie shelling out for a designer strap for his rifle (which
appears to be designed for the rifle, dyed that same color as the
rifle's stock), when he already had one.
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard
The rifle being removed from the TSBD: Notice sling swivels well on
side of weapon. In the backyard photos, Oswald would have had to turn
the rifle over for the swivels to be visible.http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/clpmybe.jpg
The sling strap in the photo is from a U.S.A.F. holster kit being used
for a sling
SEE CARCANO: ITALY'S MILITARY RIFLE,
by Hobbs, Richard-
Hobbs has been gun collecting since he was 11 years old and is an
EXPERT on the Carcano With this book, you should be able to properly
identify the Oswald Carcano and be able to properly identify any of
the Carcanos that you
encounter. Hobbs also tells his audience that the Mannlicher Carcano
was one of the superior rifles used in World War II. and that the
rifle found in the TSBD was a special rifle used in the Mussolini
special guard. Toward the end of the war, the Italians were
manufacturing the Carcano for Germany ( a different caliber)
Of all the manually operated military rifles in use since the end of
the last century, the one which has the worst reputation and that has
always been viewed with approbation is probably the poor Carcano. When
one considers that the rifle was in use by an industrialized nation
for 54 years, with very few changes, that seems odd.
By the time manufacture ceased in 1945 at least eleven versions of 'Il
91' in three different calibers had been made.
Late, and post war they were still being used by Greeks, Albanians,
Yugoslav and Ethiopian troops. It could not have been all bad?
It was developed at Turin Arsenal (F.A.T., Fabrica Armas Torino) by
Lt.Col. Salvatore Carcano in co-operation with General Gustavo
Parravicini. It was officially adopted on 5 March 1892. Its baptism of
fire came in Ethiopia during Italy's' 'civilizing' adventure there
from 1893 - 1896.
At Adowa late in February of 1896 a force of 20.000 Italian
'colonizers' were defeated by King Menelik's forces.
Inaccurate maps and failures to communicate whittled the force down to
9200 shocked survivors of which some 1500 were wounded. This debacle
finished Italy's colonial aspirations there until the thirties. Then
they would be back with aerial bombing and poison gas.
This was not an auspicious beginning for the new rifle. The defeat was
not due to the rifle, but those who used it. The '91 would be used at
the siege of Peking in 1900, as well as Italy's attempt to annex Libya
early in the new century.
The first World War saw it used on all the fronts where the Italians
fought. The climatic conditions ranged from searing heat to bone-
numbing cold. There were no complaints about the performance of the
rifle. At that time (1914-18) the 91 was not markedly inferior to the
rifles used by Italy's allies (Us, that time) or their opponents.
Many variations of the basic rifle were produced, mainly in the form
of various carbines. One such model anticipated the M203 grenade
Launcher in that it too had the launcher mounted on the right side of
the carbine (Italy's M1928)
The launcher was constructed from another '91 action which used the
bolt unit from the carbine to fire the special launch cartridge and
send the little grenade on its way. It was a bulky clumsy unit, which
occasionally turn up at Gun Shows.
The 'Il 91' as the Italians called it was a combination of several
designs current at the time of its adoption. The receiver was
reminiscent of the M1888 Mauser with its split bridge. The magazine
system using the en-bloc clip to load the magazine was pure
Mannlicher. It has been referred to as a Parravicini-Carcano, but
ultimately became know as the Mannlicher-Carcano. The '91 also had an
unusual type of rifling known as gain-twist or progressive rifling.
That is the projectile was gripped by the rifling whose twist got
faster as it neared the muzzle! This rifling was dropped when Italy
introduced their 91/41. It used conventional rifling.
Rumor has it that one of the Italian carbines, the 91/24, won't shoot
worth a damn because the projectile is barely spinning when it leaves
the much shortened. All they did was shorten the barrel, add a new
front sight, and away you went. Watch out for that one!
So, if you don't have a lot of money, are interested in history and
the rifles of history, you could do worse than beginning a collection
of these pretty much despised rifles.Doing so will build your
character as you will have to learn to handle criticism and laughter
from your fellow shooters. But, be assured that you will be a member
of a small select group, and that's not a bad thing.
Enjoy them.
Article Written by: Finn Nielsenhttp://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/mannlichercarcano/index.asp
Post by Anthony Marsh
But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The two
models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for the
possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to reach
any conclusions.
Contrary to the WC fiction, serial numbers are not unique to all rifles.
And they knew it because it was explained to them off the record as the
Italians had sent them documentation on this matter, which the WC dare
not make public. Rifles were made in several different factories, all
using the same numbering system. So the same model of rifle might have
the same serial number as a rifle made in another factory. And different
models may have the same serial number. And as the author correctly
points out there should be other rifles of the same model which have the
same numbers, but without a letter or with a different letter, so a
forger could theoretically turn a serial number "2766" into "C2766" by
adding a "C." The process of altering the serial number is not as easy
as the author suggests and no indication was found on this rifle to
indicate that someone changed the serial number. Regardless of that, the
serial number on the rifle is unique to that model made in that factory.
So there can not be a duplicate rifle with the same serial number,
unless someone altered the serial number of an identical rifle. Now, how
could we rule that out for the case of Oswald's rifle. There is more to
the rifle to identify it beyond just the serial number. The HSCA
identified the rifle seen in the backyard photos as being the same rifle
discovered in the TSBD and now in the National Archives by the unique
pattern of wear marks on the stock. Same stock in all photos. Same
serial number. Same model. Hence, same rifle.
The rest of his article is weak supposition built upon weak supposition.
Maybe the Paines were working for the CIA so therefore they had access
to Oswald's rifle and gave it to the CIA for duplication. This is an
unnecessary step as the FBI could have done all this based only on
information from Klein's.
But there is one good point which is worth quoting. As I have said many
times and others have questioned, Klein's switched from selling the
carbines to
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Walt
2007-04-28 02:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"
The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.
Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."
On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock.
The front sling loop on the Mannlicher Carcano in CE 133A ( the only
authentic BY photo) is NOT round. It is on the bottom of the rifle
just as you said but it is ovular. Look at the Kleins illustration,
to see what that bottom sling loop actually looks like. I believe I am
the person who made the discovery of the bottom sling swivel, ( the
FBI knew it long before I discovered it)
All of your theory is nonsense.

Pssssst....Marsh There is NO "theory" involved. It is simply a matter of
actually opening yer eyes and SEEING what the PHOTO CE 133A shows.

Walt
Anthony Marsh
2007-04-29 03:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Walt
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
There are several errors in that article. The second rifle hypothesis is
a red herring. Just like the second Oswald hypothesis.
He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal could not
print photos.
Marsh Said: "There are several errors in that article. The second
rifle hypothesis is a red herring. Just like the second Oswald
hypothesis. He shows only sketches of the rifles because that journal
could not print photos"
The Journal could print photos and did in many issues. The author
elected to draw his own images of the rifle long before he submitted
the article to Fourth Decade.
Marsh also said: "But looking at photos explains why he is wrong. The
two models, carbine and short rifle, were not "identical except for
the possible location of the sling mounts." There are enough subtle
differences in appear outside of the sling mounts that an expert could
see which model is which. And the theory that the backyard photos show
bottom mounts is based on sloppy research by people unqualified to
reach any conclusions."
On the rifle's stock, about a foot from the barrel's end, on its
underside, is a circular ring about an inch in diameter. It is used
to attach a strap. The ring is quite clear in good reproductions of
the photograph. The ring is round, and appears on the underside of
the rifle stock.
The front sling loop on the Mannlicher Carcano in CE 133A ( the only
authentic BY photo) is NOT round. It is on the bottom of the rifle
just as you said but it is ovular. Look at the Kleins illustration,
to see what that bottom sling loop actually looks like. I believe I am
the person who made the discovery of the bottom sling swivel, ( the
FBI knew it long before I discovered it)
All of your theory is nonsense.
Pssssst....Marsh There is NO "theory" involved. It is simply a matter of
actually opening yer eyes and SEEING what the PHOTO CE 133A shows.
Walt
Like Badge Man, you see phantoms.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...