Discussion:
Mannlicher Carcano Carbine
(too old to reply)
claviger
2012-11-07 04:51:33 UTC
Permalink
MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html - 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...

Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm - 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
claviger
2012-11-07 17:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Surplusrifle Forum • View topic - Carcano rifles and ammo ...
http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=56338 - 107k -
similar pagesMay 29, 2008 ... This article will discuss the
characteristics of the 6.5 X 52 mm and 7.35 x 51mm ... In fact, much
of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was ... From
my point of view the 6.5 X 52 is a very efficient cartridge,
offering ..... POWDER WEIGHT M41 VELOCITY (fps) M38 CAVALRY VELOCITY
(fps) ...


Previous topic - JFK Lancer Forums - Viewing message
http://www.jfklancerforum.com / dc / dcboard.php?az=show_mesg... - 25k
- similar pagesSep 18, 2011 ... Loading the 6.5 mm Carcano round with
a .264 slug will, according to the experts , ... The 6.5 mm slug was
longer and weighed 160 grains.


Web Blast: Italy's Mannlicher – Carcano | Guns Magazine
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/web-blast-italys-mannlicher-carcano/ - 67k
- similar pagesDec 17, 2010 ... In addition to the extremely flat
trajectory of the 6.5mm cartridge, the ... carbine weight also
includes the bayonet while that of the “TS” carbine does not. .... The
weapon was serviceable and effective and was much loved by the ...


Modern Firearms - Carcano M91
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/repeating-rifle/it/carcano-m91-e.html - 44k
- similar pagesParaviccini - Carcano M91 rifle (Italy) The Carcano M91
rifle is a manually operated, ... 6.5mm Carcano M91 Moschetto da
Cavalleria (cavalry carbine). ... Weight, empty, 3.8 kg, 3.4 kg with
integral bayonet, 3.4 kg ... of the 6.5mm M91 long rifles were
shortened to the M38 length, which was much more ... and can not be
used ...
claviger
2012-11-07 17:25:24 UTC
Permalink
the ce 399 bullet - Vectors
http://www.vectorsite.net/twjfk_11.html - 55k - similar pagesAug 1,
2012 ... FRAME 145-162: The weight of the evidence shows that the
first shot was ... However, the Western Cartridge Company 6.5
millimeter bullets .... at that time do not suggest that he was doing
much more than looking around for the shooter. .... disrupted by a
previous impact -- the Carcano bullet was known by ...
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-07 18:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
the ce 399 bullet - Vectors
http://www.vectorsite.net/twjfk_11.html - 55k - similar pagesAug 1,
2012 ... FRAME 145-162: The weight of the evidence shows that the
first shot was ... However, the Western Cartridge Company 6.5
millimeter bullets .... at that time do not suggest that he was doing
much more than looking around for the shooter. .... disrupted by a
previous impact -- the Carcano bullet was known by ...
Irrelevant, irrational and meaningless. What you are you attempting to
do here?
claviger
2012-11-08 22:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Bob Shell's Blog: August 2008
http://bobshellsblog.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html - 138k -
similar pagesAug 31, 2008 ... It is a very detailed book on reloading
including much info not found elsewhere. ... They felt and correctly
so that pure copper bullets will give superior ..... The 6.5 bullets
are long for their weight that helps with penetration. ..... The rifle
that shot J.F.K was a 6.5 Carcano and at that time they could be
bought ...


Compared: Mannlicher-Schoenauer and Ruger Mini-14
http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_mini-14_m-s_carbine.htm - 35k -
similar pagesHowever, they are about the same size and weight, hold
the same number of cartridges of ... At least conceptually, not much
has changed between the 1904 introduction of the 1903 ... As our
comparison moves along, we will explore the differences and ....
Fortunately, recoil is not a problem with the mild 6.5x54mm cartridge.


Rifle: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Rifle - 110k - similar
pagesuse because rifles were much more prone to problems due to powder
fouling the barrel. ... an English mathematician, realized that an
elongated bullet would retain the ..... Anti-materiel rifles can be
used against human targets, but the much higher weight of rifle ...
rifle, that used the 6.5?52mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge.
claviger
2012-11-09 05:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Carcano? [Archive] - The Firing Line Forums
http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-330017.html - 34k
- similar pagesThe Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (and its variants) was the
main service rifle of the Italian ..... Also, here's an article by
Dave Emary of Hornady.
claviger
2012-11-09 05:40:08 UTC
Permalink
[PDF] Introduction to the Ballistics Evidence - Assassination Research
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson2.pdf - similar
pagesBlack Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him
gun- smithing ..... til the 1990s that Dave Emory, chief ballistican
for Hornady Arms, was able to ... Mannlicher Carcano cartridges, and
one live round identified as an unfired ...
claviger
2012-11-09 05:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Mouseguns Links to Military Surplus Pistols and Rifles
http://mouseguns.com/milsurp.htm - 34k - similar pagesItaly's
Mannlicher-Carcano: how did such a good rifle get such a bad
reputation? Carcano Model 38 · Video of Someone Shooting the Carcano
at a Range ...


[13.0] The Balance Of Evidence (4)
http://www.vectorsite.net/twjfk_13.html - 36k - similar pagesAug 1,
2012 ... [13.3] ACCURACY & LETHALITY OF THE CARCANO RIFLE .....
Mannlicher- Carcano: How Did Such A Good Rifle Get Such A Bad
Reputation?
claviger
2012-11-07 17:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Mannlicher-Carcano M1891, Italian infantry rifle Modello 91.
http://ww2total.com / WW2 / Weapons / Infantry / Firearms / Italian /
Modello-91 / Mannlicher-Carcano.htm - 36k - similar pagesMannlicher-
Carcano M1891 : history, technical data, statistics, pictures, ...
With the Garand, the only other clip-loader in use during World War
II, it will ... Its principal drawback was the somewhat weak 6.5mm
cartridge which it fired; ... A new rifle with a 21in barrel but
otherwise much the same as the 1891/24 was developed.


Rifles in the UK: Choosing a rifle calibre
http://www.riflesintheuk.com/cartridges.htm - 69k - similar
pagesChoosing a calibre can be quite a bewildering task and really
depends on what ... One thing very noticeable if you study the bullet
weight versus energy figures is ... (or 12.7x99mm) is pretty much the
king of all the 'standard' centrefire cartridges. ..... 32) 6.5
Carcano The 6.5 Carcano, or 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano to give it it's ...


Bob Shell's Blog: September 2008
http://bobshellsblog.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html - 128k -
similar pagesSep 16, 2008 ... If you use 32-20 cases the bullet can be
seated out about ¼” or so ... They were . 310 and .314 in diameter
weighing 47 and 48 grains respectively. ... It was originally brought
out in 1891 created by Salvatore Carcano ... The 6.5 version isn't
rated much better but at least it has a more or less standard bullet.
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-08 03:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Mannlicher-Carcano M1891, Italian infantry rifle Modello 91.
http://ww2total.com / WW2 / Weapons / Infantry / Firearms / Italian /
Modello-91 / Mannlicher-Carcano.htm - 36k - similar pagesMannlicher-
Carcano M1891 : history, technical data, statistics, pictures, ...
With the Garand, the only other clip-loader in use during World War
II, it will ... Its principal drawback was the somewhat weak 6.5mm
cartridge which it fired; ... A new rifle with a 21in barrel but
otherwise much the same as the 1891/24 was developed.
Rifles in the UK: Choosing a rifle calibre
http://www.riflesintheuk.com/cartridges.htm - 69k - similar
pagesChoosing a calibre can be quite a bewildering task and really
depends on what ... One thing very noticeable if you study the bullet
weight versus energy figures is ... (or 12.7x99mm) is pretty much the
king of all the 'standard' centrefire cartridges. ..... 32) 6.5
Carcano The 6.5 Carcano, or 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano to give it it's ...
Bob Shell's Blog: September 2008
http://bobshellsblog.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html - 128k -
similar pagesSep 16, 2008 ... If you use 32-20 cases the bullet can be
seated out about ?? or so ... They were . 310 and .314 in diameter
weighing 47 and 48 grains respectively. ... It was originally brought
out in 1891 created by Salvatore Carcano ... The 6.5 version isn't
rated much better but at least it has a more or less standard bullet.
What exactly do you think you are trying to prove with your random
babbling?
Bill Clarke
2012-11-07 18:11:35 UTC
Permalink
In article <d2dd8d5a-46f1-473d-a46d-***@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...
Post by claviger
MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html - 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm - 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.

For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
bullet.

Bill Clarke
claviger
2012-11-07 20:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
claviger says...
Post by claviger
MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
bullet.
Bill Clarke
Agreed. Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a
military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind
of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
John Fiorentino
2012-11-08 03:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
years, and there are many variants of the:

"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.

Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.

So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.

John F.
Post by Bill Clarke
In article
claviger says...
Post by claviger
MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
bullet.
Bill Clarke
Agreed. Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a
military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind
of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
Bill Clarke
2012-11-08 19:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.
I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas. The article by Dave
Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.

Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-09 05:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.
I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas. The article by Dave
Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.
Bill Clarke
It would be nice if you would actually read what Dave Emary wrote:

6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint
the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and
simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight
being at 300 meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected
the trend of that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a
maximum height of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to
200 yards, depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian
soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Bill Clarke
2012-11-09 17:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.
I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas. The article by Dave
Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.
Bill Clarke
I've read the article. It would be nice if you wouldn't twist what he said with
the facts. The fact are that this foolish 300 yard zero was not used for long
and then the 200 yard zero was used. That gives you around a 4 inch mid
trajectory height and I doubt many Austrian soldiers were spared by 4 inches.

Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint
the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and
simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight
being at 300 meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected
the trend of that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a
maximum height of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to
200 yards, depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian
soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-09 23:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.
I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas. The article by Dave
Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.
Bill Clarke
I've read the article. It would be nice if you wouldn't twist what he said with
the facts. The fact are that this foolish 300 yard zero was not used for long
and then the 200 yard zero was used. That gives you around a 4 inch mid
trajectory height and I doubt many Austrian soldiers were spared by 4 inches.
Bill Clarke
You're right that 50 years is not long. But it was long enough to cause
the rifle to miss at close range.

Never having served in war you have your wars mixed up. Emary said World
War 1. The Great War. The War to end all wars. I doubt the Italians were
shooting at any Austrian soldiers in WWII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint
the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and
simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight
being at 300 meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected
the trend of that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a
maximum height of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to
200 yards, depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian
soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Bill Clarke
2012-11-10 04:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.
I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas. The article by Dave
Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.
Bill Clarke
I've read the article. It would be nice if you wouldn't twist what he said with
the facts. The fact are that this foolish 300 yard zero was not used for long
and then the 200 yard zero was used. That gives you around a 4 inch mid
trajectory height and I doubt many Austrian soldiers were spared by 4 inches.
Bill Clarke
You're right that 50 years is not long. But it was long enough to cause
the rifle to miss at close range.
Never having served in war you have your wars mixed up.
I put it to you Marsh that I have served in one more war than you have.
Easy done since you have yet to serve in your first war.

Bill Clarke
claviger
2012-11-08 19:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.

Everything you say about the M38 Fucile Corto is true. In fact all
Carcanos were good rifles, if not great rifles as some critics claim.
This rifle was certainly sufficient for the task at short range.
Almost any rifle is sufficient at short range as is any pistol.
Slingshots are deadly at short range. Cheap low quality Saturday
Night Specials have killed more people than any other handgun. My
point is a professional sniper would most likely prefer a rifle using
modern ammo with soft nose bullets that are devastating to the target
with one shot. What advantage would there be using military FMJ ammo
that took at least two shots to kill this target? It makes no sense
except for an amateur who didn't know better or could not afford a
better weapon. LHO was a low tech assassin with a low cost military
surplus weapon. After three tries he achieved his purpose. CTs like
to claim LHO was innocent and sitting in the lunchroom at the time
shots were fired from the 6th floor window. If so, why did it take
the pro hitman 3 shots to kill the target? Why did this pro miss the
first shot? Makes no sense at all. It does make sense a nervous
amateur with the shakes yanked the first shot because he was trembling
and took a bad angle shot to begin with. All evidence and logic
points to LHO as the assassin.
John Fiorentino
2012-11-09 05:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Claviger says.........

"All evidence and logic
points to LHO as the assassin."

I say.........

I thought we were talking about the rifle?

Just some brief comments:

1) the first shot miss *may* have an explanation other than just a "miss."

2) The second shot may well have been fatal to JFK, but we'll never be
sure of that.

3) Within about 8 seconds this bumbling fool (Oswald) had managed to shoot
off a large portion of the top of the President's head and approx. 40% of
his brain had been semi-liquefied.

4) I think Oswald was neither a fool or a poor shot.

5) The ammunition issue needs further investigation, which I am doing now.

John F.
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.

Everything you say about the M38 Fucile Corto is true. In fact all
Carcanos were good rifles, if not great rifles as some critics claim.
This rifle was certainly sufficient for the task at short range.
Almost any rifle is sufficient at short range as is any pistol.
Slingshots are deadly at short range. Cheap low quality Saturday
Night Specials have killed more people than any other handgun. My
point is a professional sniper would most likely prefer a rifle using
modern ammo with soft nose bullets that are devastating to the target
with one shot. What advantage would there be using military FMJ ammo
that took at least two shots to kill this target? It makes no sense
except for an amateur who didn't know better or could not afford a
better weapon. LHO was a low tech assassin with a low cost military
surplus weapon. After three tries he achieved his purpose. CTs like
to claim LHO was innocent and sitting in the lunchroom at the time
shots were fired from the 6th floor window. If so, why did it take
the pro hitman 3 shots to kill the target? Why did this pro miss the
first shot? Makes no sense at all. It does make sense a nervous
amateur with the shakes yanked the first shot because he was trembling
and took a bad angle shot to begin with. All evidence and logic
points to LHO as the assassin.
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-09 05:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Fiorentino
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.
Everything you say about the M38 Fucile Corto is true. In fact all
Carcanos were good rifles, if not great rifles as some critics claim.
This rifle was certainly sufficient for the task at short range.
Almost any rifle is sufficient at short range as is any pistol.
The rifles are even worse at short range.
Midrange trajectory height makes them miss high.


As Dave Emary said:

6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint
the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and
simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight
being at 300 meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected
the trend of that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a
maximum height of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175
to 200 yards, depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian
soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
Slingshots are deadly at short range. Cheap low quality Saturday
Night Specials have killed more people than any other handgun. My
point is a professional sniper would most likely prefer a rifle using
modern ammo with soft nose bullets that are devastating to the target
with one shot. What advantage would there be using military FMJ ammo
that took at least two shots to kill this target? It makes no sense
You assume too many things.
When AM/LASH requested a special assassination rifle from the CIA, did
he specifically ask for a Mannlicher-Carcano because he said it was the
best rifle to kill Castro? That idiot Robert Murrow claimed that the CIA
had him buy 4 Carcanos for the Castro assassination.
Does that make any sense to you?
Post by John Fiorentino
except for an amateur who didn't know better or could not afford a
better weapon. LHO was a low tech assassin with a low cost military
surplus weapon. After three tries he achieved his purpose. CTs like
to claim LHO was innocent and sitting in the lunchroom at the time
You still don't know the difference between the domino room and the
lunch room. The Domino Room is on the FIRST floor where the manual labor
ate lunch. The Lunch Room is on the second floor where the white collar
workers and bossed ate lunch. The Lunch Room on the second floor is also
where Oswald had to go to buy a Coke.
Post by John Fiorentino
shots were fired from the 6th floor window. If so, why did it take
the pro hitman 3 shots to kill the target? Why did this pro miss the
Because Oswald's rifle was a piece of junk.
The scope was damaged and defective. And it jammed after the second shot.
Post by John Fiorentino
first shot? Makes no sense at all. It does make sense a nervous
amateur with the shakes yanked the first shot because he was trembling
and took a bad angle shot to begin with. All evidence and logic
points to LHO as the assassin.
The shakes? What have you been smoking since the legalized it yesterday?
When Baker saw Oswald he was cool as ice.
Now for extra credit give us some examples of professional assassins who
missed with their first shot.
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-08 22:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination. He missed a
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged. The
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
As Dave Emary said:

6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
Post by John Fiorentino
John F.
Post by Bill Clarke
In article
claviger says...
Post by claviger
MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
bullet.
Bill Clarke
Agreed. Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a
military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind
of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
John Fiorentino
2012-11-09 05:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Anthony:

When you bone up on your manners, *maybe* I'll respond to you.

John F.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination. He missed a
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged. The
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to miss
is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll, which
revealed the conspiracy.
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
Post by John Fiorentino
John F.
Post by Bill Clarke
In article
claviger says...
Post by claviger
MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
bullet.
Bill Clarke
Agreed. Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a
military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind
of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-09 23:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Fiorentino
When you bone up on your manners, *maybe* I'll respond to you.
John F.
Never. Please killfile me.
Post by John Fiorentino
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination. He missed a
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
The iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim
at a point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches
about the point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing
it out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user
standpoint the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of
effectiveness and simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with
the fixed battle sight being at 300 meters was probably not the
greatest decision but reflected the trend of that time. With this
sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height of trajectory of
approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards, depending on
barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life was
spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
Post by John Fiorentino
John F.
Post by Bill Clarke
In article
claviger says...
Post by claviger
MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
bullet.
Bill Clarke
Agreed. Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a
military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind
of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
Bill Clarke
2012-11-09 05:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.

He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.

The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.

Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-09 23:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Post by Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-10 04:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.

You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.

http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.

Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-11 03:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-11 18:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-13 01:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
claviger
2012-11-13 01:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Anthony,
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
"One volunteer was unable to operate his rifle effectively so the
following statistics are based on the 10 remaining shooters. The average
time of all 10 was 5.64 seconds. The mode was 5.55 seconds and the mean
was 5.70 seconds. The average for the top five shooters was 5.12 seconds,
and for the bottom five shooters 6.16 seconds. There was a high occurrence
of jamming during the test. On average the rifles jammed after 6 rounds.
The most rounds fired without jamming were 14, 11, 10 in a row. The least
was 0 (back to back)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-13 02:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Anthony,
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
"One volunteer was unable to operate his rifle effectively so the
following statistics are based on the 10 remaining shooters. The average
time of all 10 was 5.64 seconds. The mode was 5.55 seconds and the mean
was 5.70 seconds. The average for the top five shooters was 5.12 seconds,
and for the bottom five shooters 6.16 seconds. There was a high occurrence
of jamming during the test. On average the rifles jammed after 6 rounds.
The most rounds fired without jamming were 14, 11, 10 in a row. The least
was 0 (back to back)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
Thanks for uploading the official cover-up story. Unfortunately for you
a CBS insider leaked the internal CBS memo.

CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)

Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.

On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
rounds each six times. Here were the results:

1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.

Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).

Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.

Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.

Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
the best):

1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)

5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target

We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.

I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."

Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.

-roger-

Now let's hear you dismiss all these KNOWN FACTS by calling me a
conspiracy kook. Pretty please with sugar and molasses on it.
claviger
2012-11-20 04:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Anthony,
Post by Anthony Marsh
Thanks for uploading the official cover-up story. Unfortunately for you
a CBS insider leaked the internal CBS memo.
Why is that unfortunate for me? Could prove otherwise.

First, who is -roger- and what part did he write? You failed to use
quotation marks which makes it look like you wrote the whole thing. By not
using proper quotation protocol you could be accused of plagerism. The
author should be clearly identified and receive credit for his research
and work product.

Second, the H P White Test Facility is located in Street, Maryland.
Their postal address is Bel Air, MD.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed
against the mouth of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about.
She's never handled a rifle in her life.
You know this for a fact or just your condescending attitude toward
women?
Post by Anthony Marsh
In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about 1/3 of the time.
Where did you get this statistic? Cite please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their internal
memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
We shall see.
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its
firing test, although the relevant information has found its way
into the discussion in other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired,
a dissatisfied associate producer of their 1967 series of
documentaries provided the raw data to several prominent critics
of the Warren Commission.
How can we be sure of this provenance and how was this data verified?
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was discussed by Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to
Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent
(1968).  Another poster has quoted extensively from a Village Voice
article that appeared in 1992, which incorporated the same information.
Who is this other poster?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I independently verified the accuracy of his information during the
mid-Seventies.
Please tell us more. By what process did you do this?
Post by Anthony Marsh
In evaluating the results of the CBS test it is important to bear
in mind the distinction between the following concepts: speed,
accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity for recent practice
with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that
Oswald is alleged to have used.  (Of course, CBS was not
permitted to use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Yes indeed. The 11 shooters did not have a liberal opportunity to
familiarize themselves with these rifles. That would require at least one
week of practice with the same rifle they would use in the CBS field test.
It's amazing they performed as well as they did. With more practice we
would expect them to score even better results.

1/3
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-21 03:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Anthony,
Post by Anthony Marsh
Thanks for uploading the official cover-up story. Unfortunately for you
a CBS insider leaked the internal CBS memo.
Why is that unfortunate for me? Could prove otherwise.
First, who is -roger- and what part did he write? You failed to use
You are so far out of the loop. Roger Feinman is a lawyer who worked for
CBS.
Post by claviger
quotation marks which makes it look like you wrote the whole thing. By not
I used cut and paste.
Post by claviger
using proper quotation protocol you could be accused of plagerism. The
Ridiculous.
Post by claviger
author should be clearly identified and receive credit for his research
and work product.
Done many years ago.
Post by claviger
Second, the H P White Test Facility is located in Street, Maryland.
Their postal address is Bel Air, MD.
Ask me if I care. Pretend that you don't know what White Laboratory is.
Are their offices in the same place as their field test facility? Clueless
as usual. When you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed
against the mouth of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about.
She's never handled a rifle in her life.
You know this for a fact or just your condescending attitude toward
women?
I know if for a fact.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about 1/3 of the time.
Where did you get this statistic? Cite please.
I just posted the damn memo. Can't you read?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their internal
memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
We shall see.
We already did.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its
firing test, although the relevant information has found its way
into the discussion in other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired,
a dissatisfied associate producer of their 1967 series of
documentaries provided the raw data to several prominent critics
of the Warren Commission.
How can we be sure of this provenance and how was this data verified?
Ask Roger.
Ask Tink.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was discussed by Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to
Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent
(1968). Another poster has quoted extensively from a Village Voice
article that appeared in 1992, which incorporated the same information.
Who is this other poster?
Not relevant and you'd have to be a researcher to know.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I independently verified the accuracy of his information during the
mid-Seventies.
Please tell us more. By what process did you do this?
Ask Roger. I didn't write the message.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
In evaluating the results of the CBS test it is important to bear
in mind the distinction between the following concepts: speed,
accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity for recent practice
with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that
Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not
permitted to use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Yes indeed. The 11 shooters did not have a liberal opportunity to
familiarize themselves with these rifles. That would require at least one
week of practice with the same rifle they would use in the CBS field test.
It's amazing they performed as well as they did. With more practice we
would expect them to score even better results.
1/3
claviger
2012-11-21 03:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Anthony,
Post by Anthony Marsh
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967,
at the H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me
first tell you about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same
motorized track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman,
USA (ret.) to do six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured
during the Zapruder interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire
at a standard FBI head and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a
4-by-4 foot (blue) background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower
platform the same relative height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The
slopoe of the track approximated the slope of Elm Street.  Remember
the colors of the target because they figure prominently in all the results.
Crossman fired clips of three rounds each six times.
1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in
blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots
in order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle
(live Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Actually they were looking for a cross section of riflemen.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for
CBS both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who
began his participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the
Warren Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same
direction.  The January results specify in detail the degree of Col.
Crossman's accuracy within the orange silhouette.  In May, however,
Lister was content merely with getting any hits anywhere within the
orange silhouette, and he did not specify to his bosses how good
those hits really were (i.e., shoulder, back, neck, head), except in the
single best result that he obtained.  If CBS ever releases the film
outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate
Oswald's feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as
they did back in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3
shots at the moving target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT
THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE
TEST.
What happened in the other 17 cases? Either a bullet jammed in the
bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt action slowed up the marksmen
so much that the target completed its run before they could get off their
third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its audience about these problems.
The following were ALL the results, including those 20 attempts that CBS
carefully selected to "count"...
From a statistical standpoint there is nothing wrong with this approach as
a subset of all attempts to fire this group of test rifles. The only
results that can serve as a comparison are the instances where the rifles
fired 3 shots in sequence as did the sniper in the 6th floor window. So
we have two basic subsets: a) 3 consecutive shots without jamming and b)
less than 3 consecutive shots without jamming. The first compares the
shooters and the second compares the rifles. Both were objectives of the
test.

CBS intentionally purchased a group of rifles off the shelf and used them
as is, with no improvements. The rifles were only cleaned and oiled. No
engineering took place. We don’t know what LHO did with his rifle, if
he had any improvements made by a gunsmith. We do know he worked the bolt
constantly while sitting on his couch, much to the chagrin of Marina who
made him go outside when he was in the mood to do that. There is a high
probability LHO knew about emery cloth and oil to smooth the bolt action.
This is common knowledge among hunters and target shooters. So it’s not
possible to compare all the test rifles exactly to the one owned by LHO.
Chances are his was in better condition having received more care and use.

2/3
claviger
2012-11-21 03:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Anthony,
(and you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown,
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)

5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target
completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed
target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.
The test rifles were cleaned and oiled, that's all. No engineering
took place on these rifles.
The same was not necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
We will never know the answer to that question. At such short range
LHO may have used open sights. The scope defect actually aided the
sniper.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one
has satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination).
Marina mentions two occaisions where LHO practiced with his rifle.
One was at a park and another time where LHO took his rifle on a bus
under his raincoat to a rifle range. A witness claims he saw LHO at a
rifle range and said he was a good shot.
In the end, one must also consider the difference between what is
theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms
"Of the thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6
seconds or less.  On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from
zero to three hits -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired.
Taking into account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the
average was 1.2 hits for every three shots fired."
The sniper in the 6th floor window only did slightly better than this
average. He made hits on 2 of 3 shots fired (33 percent vs 27
percent).
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was
never equaled?"
No, because his shooting feat was surpassed.
Well, let's hope that it never is.  But so as not to evade your point,
the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to
have used.
His rifle was probably in better condition than any of the test
rifles.
However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him.  CBS tried to be both the judge and
jury for the rest of the country.  Now that you have the information,
judge for yourself.
Thank you for playing “Let’s Prove A Negative!” No one knows what
they can or can’t do until they try. Some people have beginner’s luck
and others just have a better than average day. That’s part of the
normal average. Some people actually perform better under pressure and
some don’t. The first shot is always the most difficult.

LHO had the distinct advantage of knowing the feel of his bolt action
rifle. None of the other shooters enjoyed that significant advantage,
especially in a speed shooting situation. If you are trying to say all
this proves LHO didn’t have the talent to make these shots on a slow
moving target inside short range from an elevated position then whoever
did fire on the Limousine didn’t do much better than the average you
mention above.

It is amazing the CBS volunteers performed as well as they did with an
unfamiliar rifle, so this test was not an apples-to-apples comparison.
To have that kind of comparison each volunteer would take home his test
rifle for two weeks and go to a firing range to get the feel of that
particular rifle, then come back and participate in the CBS Test. That
didn’t happen.

Also, the CBS shooters were firing from a wooden tower that swayed in a
strong wind. This happened to Howard Donahue as he took his turn as rain
began falling. So the TSBD shooter had the advantage of a solid platform
unaffected by the wind briskly blowing through Dealey Plaza.

-roger-


3/3
Bill Clarke
2012-11-13 16:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.

Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-13 22:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does. Not if you want to claim that he was aiming
at the feet you might have a point.
Post by Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-14 15:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?

Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh. You do understand.

Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-14 21:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.

CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)

Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.

On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
rounds each six times. Here were the results:

1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.

Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).

Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.

Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.

Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
the best):

1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)

5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target

We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.

I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."

Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.

-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.

A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh. You do understand.
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-15 17:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.

What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.

Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh. You do understand.
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-16 04:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh. You do understand.
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-16 17:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.

Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh. You do understand.
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-16 23:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics and
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Post by Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh. You do understand.
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-17 03:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.

Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm

One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.

How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkfeM4v

As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244


It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.

Bill Clarke
mainframetech
2012-11-17 21:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did.  And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert.  Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh.  You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove.  I
didn't say that.  In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
What CBS did doesn't concern me.  I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns.  So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship.  Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all.  That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission.  It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968).  Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information.  I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies.  In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used.  (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained.  If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.  The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination).  In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63.  To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less.  On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired.  Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?"  Well, let's hope that it never is.  But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used.  However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him.  CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country.  Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip.  So will extraction.  Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh.  Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times.  And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
        He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
        The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed.  You don't either.
     But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot.  I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now.  You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height?  I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming.  Now do
you get it?  Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh.  Simple laws of physics.  You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory.  The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope.  Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh.  The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight?  I'll be waiting.
Bill Clarke
It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
had to be reconditioned just to fire it. The FBI testing was first and
should be addressed first. If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
other points.

Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly. The gun was in
no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
it's doubtful it was used on Walker either. Details if requested.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-18 14:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Bill Clarke
It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
had to be reconditioned just to fire it. The FBI testing was first and
should be addressed first. If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
other points.
Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly. The gun was in
no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
it's doubtful it was used on Walker either. Details if requested.
Chris
Not exactly what was said.
mainframetech
2012-11-19 04:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did.  And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert.  Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh.  You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove.  I
didn't say that.  In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
What CBS did doesn't concern me.  I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns.  So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship.  Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all.  That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission.  It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968).  Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information.  I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies.  In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used.  (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained.  If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.  The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination).  In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63.  To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less.  On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired.  Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?"  Well, let's hope that it never is.  But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used.  However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him.  CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country.  Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip.  So will extraction.  Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh.  Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times.  And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
         He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
         The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed.  You don't either.
      But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot.  I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now.  You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height?  I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming.  Now do
you get it?  Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh.  Simple laws of physics.  You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory.  The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope.  Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh.  The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight?  I'll be waiting.
Bill Clarke
   It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
had to be reconditioned just to fire it.  The FBI testing was first and
should be addressed first.  If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
other points.
   Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it.  From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly.  The gun was in
no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
it's doubtful it was used on Walker either.  Details if requested.
Chris
Not exactly what was said.
Oh my! You mean you won't accept just my word? OK. Here goes:

First the WC questioned Robert Frazier and here's what they got in
part:
"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively
smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually
say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we
first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair
condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and
corrosion."
Frazier goes on:
"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
shape?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel."

So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'. Lands and
grooves were worn. It's not in good shape so far. Frazier avoids
saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some. Now we
move on to Simmons testifying:

Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon?
Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."

Hmm. The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
JFK. Of course, there is the possibility that he used the iron sights
and then got out a screwdriver and put the scope back on and hid the
rifle. But I tend to think that wasn't the case in the midst of
shooting at the president, I don't think a shooter is going to put his
rifle back together before hiding it. We have to face it...the rifle
couldn't be aimed as per the FBI testers. But there's more from
Simmons:

"Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."

Oops! Simmons let's the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. More on
this later.
---
"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."

Oops again. Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
aiming diffficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
there will dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
smoothly. What condition was this thing in when the testers got it?
Let's see what else Simmons will inadvertently let out:
---
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."

Ut-oh! He let a big one out! The firing pin is in the bolt. If
they were afraid to work the bolt for fear of breaking the firing pin,
then what was it they saw? The only thing I can see is that the bolt
was corroded to the receiver and wouldn't work and they were afraid if
they tried it would break the firing pin inside. Either that or the
firing pin was rusted to the barrel. Either way, the rifle wasn't
safe or ready to fire, yet it had come to the testers first before
anyone else had a chance at it. Let's go on:

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different
as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage
operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
fire the weapon."

This rifle is turning out to be a dog! They each worked the bolt
for 2-3 minutes practicing. But they were afraid it would break the
firing pin, so it must have gone to the gunsmith first, as noted
above. The only way it could have been fired with no one worrying
about breaking the pin was if the gunsmith had gotten it and freed it
up...maybe with gun oil or with WD40 or something similar. Either
way, the testers each had 2-3 minutes to work the bolt, so that would
help to free it up after the gunsmith.

All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that frazier mentioned seems
to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
letting so many cats out of the bag. The rifle was not in firing
condition because they were afraid they would break the firing pin if
they tried to work the bolt. The gunsmith had to fix the scope so
they could aim it. The gunsmith had to do something to it so they
wouldn't be afraid to work the bolt, and after that they worked it 2-3
minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with it. Something that
Oswald never did as far as we know. His experience was with semi-
automatic rifles, not bolt action.

Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI tsters.
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-20 03:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Bill Clarke
It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
had to be reconditioned just to fire it. The FBI testing was first and
should be addressed first. If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
other points.
Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly. The gun was in
no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
it's doubtful it was used on Walker either. Details if requested.
Chris
Not exactly what was said.
First the WC questioned Robert Frazier and here's what they got in
"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively
smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually
say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we
first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair
condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and
corrosion."
Exactly what we'd expect for war surplus.
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
shape?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
What he didn't tell them is that he made a sulfur cast of the bore. But
of course we mere mortals are not allowed to examine it.
Post by mainframetech
Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel."
So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'. Lands and
grooves were worn. It's not in good shape so far. Frazier avoids
saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some. Now we
Yeah, it was actually used during WWII. Look at all the wear marks on
the stock.
Post by mainframetech
Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon?
Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."
Hmm. The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
Yes, the scope was unusable, damaged and defective. But we can't be sure
it was that way on 11/22/63 before the shooting. Some people claim it
was damaged when the shooter hid it between the boxes so it could have
been used during the shooting. I have speculated that it was damaged
when Oswald buried it after shooting at General Walker.
Post by mainframetech
JFK. Of course, there is the possibility that he used the iron sights
and then got out a screwdriver and put the scope back on and hid the
rifle. But I tend to think that wasn't the case in the midst of
What the Hell are you babbling about now? You know absolutely nothing
about rifles. There was no need to remove the scope to use the iron
sights. You can use the iron sights while the scope is still on the
rifle. It is high enough over the iron sights so that it does not interfere.
Post by mainframetech
shooting at the president, I don't think a shooter is going to put his
rifle back together before hiding it. We have to face it...the rifle
couldn't be aimed as per the FBI testers. But there's more from
Any rifle no matter how defective can be aimed. The question is how
ACCURATELY it can be aimed.
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
Oops! Simmons let's the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. More on
this later.
Semantics. He they had sent it out to a another place to be fixed that
person might well be a gunsmith. But if they fix it inhouse the
machinist does not have to be a gunsmith. Likewise Frazier had a lot of
experience but he was not a gunsmith by trade.
Post by mainframetech
---
"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
They couldn't even get accuracy with bench rests.
Post by mainframetech
Oops again. Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
aiming diffficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
there will dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
Tell that to the families of the soldiers who died in South Vietnam next
to their jammed rifles.
Post by mainframetech
smoothly. What condition was this thing in when the testers got it?
---
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
Ut-oh! He let a big one out! The firing pin is in the bolt. If
they were afraid to work the bolt for fear of breaking the firing pin,
then what was it they saw? The only thing I can see is that the bolt
Again, you know absolutely nothing about rifles. They were not afraid to
work the bolt. They did work the bolt often. What they were afraid to do
was pull the trigger because that MIGHT break the firing pin even on a
brand new rifle.
That's why the Italians made a dummy round with a wooden bullet just for
this purpose.
Post by mainframetech
was corroded to the receiver and wouldn't work and they were afraid if
they tried it would break the firing pin inside. Either that or the
You've never seen a rifle, have you?
Post by mainframetech
firing pin was rusted to the barrel. Either way, the rifle wasn't
"Rusted to the barrel"? What does that even mean? Do you have any
concept of what that would mean or do you just string words together
until you fill up a sentence? Just make sure you have a subject, verb
and predicate even if the words don't make any sense.
Post by mainframetech
safe or ready to fire, yet it had come to the testers first before
Lt, Carl Day had a chance at it. Can you imagine the howls if Day had
replaced a broken firing pin or repaired the damaged and defective
scope? Some people already complained about his disassembling the rifle
to dust for prints. Look up discussions about glass bedding. Imagine if
Day had rebedded the action and not told anyone.
Also consider that the stock now on the rifle was an old 1891 stock
which was recycled. Look carefully at the fresh cut marks around the
receiver.
Post by mainframetech
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different
as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage
operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
fire the weapon."
This rifle is turning out to be a dog! They each worked the bolt
The Italians knew that and were in the process of replacing it. The
Germans just gave up on their old Mausers and developed the assault rifle.
Post by mainframetech
for 2-3 minutes practicing. But they were afraid it would break the
firing pin, so it must have gone to the gunsmith first, as noted
above. The only way it could have been fired with no one worrying
No. Just working the bolt would not break the firing pin.
Post by mainframetech
about breaking the pin was if the gunsmith had gotten it and freed it
up...maybe with gun oil or with WD40 or something similar. Either
Freed it up?
Post by mainframetech
way, the testers each had 2-3 minutes to work the bolt, so that would
help to free it up after the gunsmith.
The the gunsmith fixed it then why would the shooters need 2-3 minutes
to work the bolt? They took the time to become familiar with how the
bold operates even if it was a brand new weapon. Each rifle has its own
quirks.
Post by mainframetech
All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that frazier mentioned seems
to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
letting so many cats out of the bag. The rifle was not in firing
condition because they were afraid they would break the firing pin if
they tried to work the bolt. The gunsmith had to fix the scope so
Not true.
Post by mainframetech
they could aim it. The gunsmith had to do something to it so they
Not true.
Post by mainframetech
wouldn't be afraid to work the bolt, and after that they worked it 2-3
minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with it. Something that
Not to free it up.
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never did as far as we know. His experience was with semi-
automatic rifles, not bolt action.
Marina says he worked the bolt all the time rather than fire live rounds.
Post by mainframetech
Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI tsters.
And yet it was fired and it didn't blow up.
Neither was it accurate.
mainframetech
2012-11-21 03:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did.  And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert.  Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh.  You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove.  I
didn't say that.  In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
What CBS did doesn't concern me.  I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns.  So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship.  Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all.  That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission.  It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968).  Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information.  I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies.  In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used.  (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained.  If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.  The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination).  In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63.  To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less.  On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired.  Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?"  Well, let's hope that it never is.  But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used.  However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him.  CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country.  Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip.  So will extraction.  Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh.  Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times.  And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
          He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
          The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed.  You don't either.
       But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot.  I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now.  You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height?  I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming.  Now do
you get it?  Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh.  Simple laws of physics.  You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory.  The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope.  Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh.  The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight?  I'll be waiting.
Bill Clarke
    It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
had to be reconditioned just to fire it.  The FBI testing was first and
should be addressed first.  If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
other points.
    Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it.  From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly.  The gun was in
no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
it's doubtful it was used on Walker either.  Details if requested.
Chris
Not exactly what was said.
   First the WC questioned Robert Frazier and here's what they got in
"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively
smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually
say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we
first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair
condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and
corrosion."
Exactly what we'd expect for war surplus.
Good, we agree.
Post by Anthony Marsh
"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
shape?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
What he didn't tell them is that he made a sulfur cast of the bore. But
of course we mere mortals are not allowed to examine it.
It probably didn't affect the ability of the rifle to be fired or
not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel."
   So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'.  Lands and
grooves were worn.  It's not in good shape so far.  Frazier avoids
saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some.  Now we
Yeah, it was actually used during WWII. Look at all the wear marks on
the stock.
Good, we agree.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon?
Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."
    Hmm.  The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
fix it by using shims.  (that comes later).  This says that the rifle
couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
Yes, the scope was unusable, damaged and defective. But we can't be sure
it was that way on 11/22/63 before the shooting. Some people claim it
was damaged when the shooter hid it between the boxes so it could have
been used during the shooting. I have speculated that it was damaged
when Oswald buried it after shooting at General Walker.
Yep, all speculation. We agree.
Post by Anthony Marsh
JFK.  Of course, there is the possibility that he used the iron sights
and then got out a screwdriver and put the scope back on and hid the
rifle.  But I tend to think that wasn't the case in the midst of
What the Hell are you babbling about now? You know absolutely nothing
about rifles. There was no need to remove the scope to use the iron
sights. You can use the iron sights while the scope is still on the
rifle. It is high enough over the iron sights so that it does not interfere.
Don't start being your usual self, old fella. Try to get along and
be civil. I owned a rifle with a scope and you could NOT use the iron
sights with the scope on. That may not be the case with the MC, and I
have no problem saying that I'm not familiar with the MC type of
weapon. I will look over whatever I can here and see if what you say
is possible. If it is possible, it introduces one more block to using
the rifle from the TSBD, since using iron sights would be a loss in
one's ability to shoot to the degree necessary to hit the skull rather
than center mass.

OK, I looked exhibit 139 over. When looked at from the side it
appears that the forward part of the scope is only a quarter inch
above the rear sight. Personally, I think that would really crowd a
shooter if trying to use the iron sights. Here's where I checked, see
what you think:
http://research.archives.gov/description/305134
Post by Anthony Marsh
shooting at the president, I don't think a shooter is going to put his
rifle back together before hiding it.  We have to face it...the rifle
couldn't be aimed as per the FBI testers.  But there's more from
Any rifle no matter how defective can be aimed. The question is how
ACCURATELY it can be aimed.
Good. We agree.
Post by Anthony Marsh
"Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
    Oops!  Simmons let's the cat out of the bag.  The rifle went to a
gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope.  He tried to change
it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late.  A gunsmith had a
hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments.  More on
this later.
Semantics. He they had sent it out to a another place to be fixed that
person might well be a gunsmith. But if they fix it inhouse the
machinist does not have to be a gunsmith. Likewise Frazier had a lot of
experience but he was not a gunsmith by trade.
It's nice to have your opinion, but of course, it carries no weight
here. The usual policy is to present some backup of some kind for
that type of statement. So the first word out of Simmons' mouth was
gunsmith, THEN he changed it to machinist. Why? If the fellow really
was a gunsmith, would that make a forensic examination invalid for him
to be messing with the rifle before the testrers had fired it and made
their appraisals?
Post by Anthony Marsh
---
"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
They couldn't even get accuracy with bench rests.
Good. We agree. The bolt was hard to manipulate. Now the only
things I can think of to cause that is something in the path of the
bolt in the receiver. Could be protective goop (cosmoline?), meaning
the gun hadn't been fired since it was packed and sold, or it might be
rust (corrosion) because no one had taken care of the rifle (Oswald
was known for always having a dirty rifle in service). Either way the
rifle wasn't able to do any 'fast' shooting, or decent aiming if they
tried to do that too. Frazier mentioned corrosion earlier. I believe
that was it and not any protective grease or some such holding up the
bolt. Now might be the time to have the speed of the 3 shots
discussion.
Post by Anthony Marsh
    Oops again.  Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
intended.  But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
work the bolt.  He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
aiming diffficult too.  Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
there will dead soldiers.  Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
Tell that to the families of the soldiers who died in South Vietnam next
to their jammed rifles.
The American rifles that were faulty because of changes in the
manufacture from the original specifications has no part in this. The
bolt on the MC was hard to work when they received it. There is much
less chance that the bolt and receiver were damaged while hiding the
rifle, as you might try to say with the scope which stuck up.
Post by Anthony Marsh
smoothly. What condition was this thing in when the testers got it?
---
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
   Ut-oh!  He let a big one out!  The firing pin is in the bolt.  If
they were afraid to work the bolt for fear of breaking the firing pin,
then what was it they saw?  The only thing I can see is that the bolt
Again, you know absolutely nothing about rifles. They were not afraid to
work the bolt. They did work the bolt often. What they were afraid to do
was pull the trigger because that MIGHT break the firing pin even on a
brand new rifle.
That's why the Italians made a dummy round with a wooden bullet just for
this purpose.
I apologize, you're right as far as it goes. I had a bolt action
rifle with scope myself in early years and firing it empty was never a
problem and I did it many times without loss. A mistake on my part to
make the assumption that it was OK for other rifles. All other rifles
I fired were with cartridges in them, except the M1, which we clicked
off many times without mishap. Try to get along a bit more. I'm not
some babe in the woods you can be nasty to with no response. This is
a moderated forum. Try and pretend that you're being watched...:)
Post by Anthony Marsh
was corroded to the receiver and wouldn't work and they were afraid if
they tried it would break the firing pin inside.  Either that or the
You've never seen a rifle, have you?
Oh, many times.
Post by Anthony Marsh
firing pin was rusted to the barrel.  Either way, the rifle wasn't
"Rusted to the barrel"? What does that even mean? Do you have any
concept of what that would mean or do you just string words together
until you fill up a sentence? Just make sure you have a subject, verb
and predicate even if the words don't make any sense.
Now, now. Be nice. I've apologized and explained, but you trying
to work it for all it's worth won't play with me. The bolt action
rifle I had had extractor clips that went right up to the barrel.
Think it over before you say something dumb.
Post by Anthony Marsh
safe or ready to fire, yet it had come to the testers first before
Lt, Carl Day had a chance at it. Can you imagine the howls if Day had
replaced a broken firing pin or repaired the damaged and defective
scope? Some people already complained about his disassembling the rifle
to dust for prints. Look up discussions about glass bedding. Imagine if
Day had rebedded the action and not told anyone.
Also consider that the stock now on the rifle was an old 1891 stock
which was recycled. Look carefully at the fresh cut marks around the
receiver.
No need. The main point is that the rifle wasn't ready to be used
for any serious shooting, especially presidents.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different
as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage
operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
fire the weapon."
    This rifle is turning out to be a dog!  They each worked the bolt
The Italians knew that and were in the process of replacing it. The
Germans just gave up on their old Mausers and developed the assault rifle.
No bearing on the rifle in question.
Post by Anthony Marsh
for 2-3 minutes practicing.  But they were afraid it would break the
firing pin, so it must have gone to the gunsmith first, as noted
above.  The only way it could have been fired with no one worrying
No. Just working the bolt would not break the firing pin.
OK. But the fact that they had to do that showed the condition it
was in when the testers received it (before Frazier). Just more
evidence that the bolt wouldn't work.
Post by Anthony Marsh
about breaking the pin was if the gunsmith had gotten it and freed it
up...maybe with gun oil or with WD40 or something similar.  Either
Freed it up?
Never mind. I've explained myself on that. Either way, the bolt
had to be freed up by working it, and at first it wouldn't work
properly of freely, messing up a shooter's aim, therefore taking more
time to shoot multiple shots in a short time. Obvoiously no one
tested or used the rifle before the FBI got it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
way, the testers each had 2-3 minutes to work the bolt, so that would
help to free it up after the gunsmith.
The the gunsmith fixed it then why would the shooters need 2-3 minutes
to work the bolt? They took the time to become familiar with how the
bold operates even if it was a brand new weapon. Each rifle has its own
quirks.
Yep. I agree that the gunsmith MAY NOT have used oil or similar.
The critique of Simmons' testimony by an independent gunsmith had a
lot to say about that. I wil give a link to his critique, but his
comments aren't sworn testimony, though he had a good reputation in
the field. Some here may have already read it:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson3.pdf

One of Ritchson's comments (without backup) was:
"(Incidentally, I have it on good authority that the “gunsmith” that
reworked the
weapon did much more than shim it. In fact, it was his son that told
me that,
when received by Edgewood, the rifle was in an unworkable condition
and too
dangerous to fire, and had to essentially be completely rebuilt from
action to
receiver.)"
Post by Anthony Marsh
    All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that frazier mentioned seems
to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
letting so many cats out of the bag.  The rifle was not in firing
condition because they were afraid they would break the firing pin if
they tried to work the bolt.  The gunsmith had to fix the scope so
Not true.
Agreed as far as the firing pin situation. But the scope couldn't
be used at first, and the bolt would mess up the aim if it were
worked.
Post by Anthony Marsh
they could aim it.  The gunsmith had to do something to it so they
Not true.
wouldn't be afraid to work the bolt, and after that they worked it 2-3
minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with it.  Something that
Not to free it up.
So your opinion is that they went ahead and tested with the rifle
with a bolt that was hard to work and ruined their aim when doing
rapid shooting? That all their practice did nothing to help 'free up'
the bolt'?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Oswald never did as far as we know.  His experience was with semi-
automatic rifles, not bolt action.
Marina says he worked the bolt all the time rather than fire live rounds.
Hmm. Odd. Oswald sits around working the bolt, which never gets
smooth, and he does that in place of shooting live rounds? Yep, odd.
And then when the rifle goes directly to the FBI, the testers find the
bolt is very hard to work. At least with her background, Marina would
never say anything the US government wouln't want her to say.
Post by Anthony Marsh
    Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI tsters.
And yet it was fired and it didn't blow up.
Neither was it accurate.
Good, we agree. The rifle wasn't accurate. Where we might not
agree was that the condition the rifle was in, and the fact that it
got better by the time Frazier got it back means it wasn't in any
condition to be fired when it was in the TSBD. And don't forget the
scope being misaligned, which we have NO evidence saying that it was
done after shooting at a president.

Oswald was probably not the shooter, but if he was, his service
record was less than exemplary when it came to caring for his weapon,
or shooting well. He was well known for having a dirty rifle and many
'Maggie's Drawers'(missing the whole target) among his buddies:
http://youtu.be/nS9Zi0B60lw

Chris
Bill Clarke
2012-11-18 15:09:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <a047a554-bc62-45d7-9475-***@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
Post by Bill Clarke
..
s...
ays...
says...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvemen=
t in the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient=
for the job.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? =A0It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot o=
ut of
Post by Anthony Marsh
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with O=
swald or not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. I=
t can
Post by Anthony Marsh
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. =A0Despite my relating personal experience and despit=
e the excellent
Post by Anthony Marsh
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the =
rifle jamming
Post by Anthony Marsh
you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mo=
uth
Post by Anthony Marsh
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed ab=
out
Post by Anthony Marsh
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. T=
heir
Post by Anthony Marsh
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. =A0And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up =
a reference.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference me=
ans.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms exper=
t. =A0Far
Post by Anthony Marsh
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. =A0You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. =
=A0I
didn't say that. =A0In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles=
.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
What CBS did doesn't concern me. =A0I know what I've seen many times=
.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload t=
oo
Post by Anthony Marsh
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. =A0So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. =A0Pay attention to the last reference, Mars=
h.
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.http://www.exteriorb=
allistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port=
.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_f=
ix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes th=
e
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3D3&f=3D121&t=3D507244
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and =
you
Post by Anthony Marsh
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Deni=
al?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =A0That=
is what we
Post by Anthony Marsh
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing t=
est,
Post by Anthony Marsh
although the relevant information has found its way into the discus=
sion in
Post by Anthony Marsh
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associat=
e
Post by Anthony Marsh
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw dat=
a to
Post by Anthony Marsh
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =A0It was discu=
ssed by
Post by Anthony Marsh
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967=
) and
Post by Anthony Marsh
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =A0Another poster has quot=
ed
Post by Anthony Marsh
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, whi=
ch
Post by Anthony Marsh
incorporated the same information. =A0I independently verified the =
accuracy
Post by Anthony Marsh
of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the r=
esults of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction betwee=
n the
Post by Anthony Marsh
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opport=
unity
Post by Anthony Marsh
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano=
rifle
Post by Anthony Marsh
that Oswald is alleged to have used. =A0(Of course, CBS was not per=
mitted to
Post by Anthony Marsh
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. =A0It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, a=
t the
Post by Anthony Marsh
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first =
tell you
Post by Anthony Marsh
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motori=
zed
Post by Anthony Marsh
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) =
to do
Post by Anthony Marsh
six trials. =A0Presuming that the assassination occured during the =
Zapruder
Post by Anthony Marsh
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI=
head
Post by Anthony Marsh
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same r=
elative
Post by Anthony Marsh
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =A0The slopoe of the track app=
roximated
Post by Anthony Marsh
the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target becau=
se they
Post by Anthony Marsh
figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of t=
hree
Post by Anthony Marsh
1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in =
blue.
Post by Anthony Marsh
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blu=
e
Post by Anthony Marsh
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots=
in
Post by Anthony Marsh
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifl=
e (live
Post by Anthony Marsh
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could=
find.
Post by Anthony Marsh
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the s=
ample
Post by Anthony Marsh
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: =A0First, the person who re=
corded
Post by Anthony Marsh
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests =
for CBS
Post by Anthony Marsh
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who beg=
an his
Post by Anthony Marsh
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Wa=
rren
Post by Anthony Marsh
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.=
=A0The
Post by Anthony Marsh
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's acc=
uracy
Post by Anthony Marsh
within the orange silhouette. =A0In May, however, Lister was conten=
t merely
Post by Anthony Marsh
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he=
did
Post by Anthony Marsh
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., sh=
oulder,
Post by Anthony Marsh
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtaine=
d. =A0If
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to se=
e.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Osw=
ald's
Post by Anthony Marsh
feat. =A0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they =
did back
Post by Anthony Marsh
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the =
moving
Post by Anthony Marsh
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS=
THEIR
Post by Anthony Marsh
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =A0What happened in the other 17 cas=
es?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bo=
lt
Post by Anthony Marsh
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its=
run
Post by Anthony Marsh
before they could get off their third shot. =A0Of course, CBS never=
told its
Post by Anthony Marsh
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" =
(and
Post by Anthony Marsh
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, perf=
ormed
Post by Anthony Marsh
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (bes=
t
Post by Anthony Marsh
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette borde=
r
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target compl=
etely)
Post by Anthony Marsh
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed tar=
get
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the r=
ifle
Post by Anthony Marsh
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =A0The same was=
not
Post by Anthony Marsh
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no =
one has
Post by Anthony Marsh
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). =A0In the end, one must also consider the differenc=
e between
Post by Anthony Marsh
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum cont=
rolled
Post by Anthony Marsh
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms =
of the
Post by Anthony Marsh
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =A0To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of =
the
Post by Anthony Marsh
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 se=
conds
Post by Anthony Marsh
or less. =A0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to t=
hree hits
Post by Anthony Marsh
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =A0Taking in=
to
Post by Anthony Marsh
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average wa=
s 1.2
Post by Anthony Marsh
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" =A0Well, let's hope that it never is. =A0But so as not to=
evade your
Post by Anthony Marsh
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- C=
arcano
Post by Anthony Marsh
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to=
have
Post by Anthony Marsh
used. =A0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he di=
d, you
Post by Anthony Marsh
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of th=
ese
Post by Anthony Marsh
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three afte=
r
Post by Anthony Marsh
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky =
day
Post by Anthony Marsh
without his rifle jamming on him. =A0CBS tried to be both the judge=
and jury
Post by Anthony Marsh
for the rest of the country. =A0Now that you have the information, =
judge for
Post by Anthony Marsh
yourself.
-roger-
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =A0So will extraction. =A0=
Again Marsh, you
Post by Anthony Marsh
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. =A0Right after you give me a credible reference that jamm=
ing is the
Post by Anthony Marsh
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't s=
how
Post by Anthony Marsh
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many time=
s. =A0And
Post by Anthony Marsh
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fi=
red. But
Post by Anthony Marsh
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary targe=
t.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and=
damaged.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK =
or after the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also =
claim and
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
elephant stepped on it.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perf=
ect aim at a
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 i=
nches about the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. =A0A=
nd again you
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4=
inched. =A0Now
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and meas=
ure up 4
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
inches. =A0The bullet still blows the top of your head off =
doesn't it?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstand=
ing target at
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet we=
nt up 4
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. =A0You don't either.
=A0 =A0 =A0But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the h=
ead.
Post by Anthony Marsh
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 i=
nches doesn't
Post by Anthony Marsh
necessary make a missed shot. =A0I've been trying to explain batt=
le zero to you
Post by Anthony Marsh
for years now. =A0You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? =A0I belie=
ve you but I've
Post by Anthony Marsh
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the h=
ead.
Post by Anthony Marsh
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aimin=
g. =A0Now do
Post by Anthony Marsh
you get it? =A0Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit =
the
Post by Anthony Marsh
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line o=
f
Post by Anthony Marsh
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. =A0Simple laws of physics. =A0You cannot=
adjust the
Post by Anthony Marsh
line of bore or the line of trajectory. =A0The only thing you can adju=
st is the
Post by Anthony Marsh
line of sight by adjusting the scope. =A0Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any wea=
pon.
Stick with this Marsh. =A0The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? =A0I'll be waiting.
Bill Clarke
It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
had to be reconditioned just to fire it. The FBI testing was first and
should be addressed first. If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
other points.
Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly. The gun was in
no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
it's doubtful it was used on Walker either. Details if requested.
Chris
Thanks for offering details.

1. The rifle wasn't "inoperable". Fifteen rounds were missing from the box of
ammo Oswald had, three were fired at JFK. It worked. Now it certainly wasn't a
jewel of a rifle but it worked. The AK 47 is a cheap made sloppy and ugly rifle
but it works. It works all over the world.

2. Note that Marsh and I both have told you one of the first things you learn
about a rifle is to not "snap it" or pull the trigger on an empty chamber. That
can break the firing pen on the finest rifle. Your firing pin argument is moot.
On the rare occasions Marsh and I agree you can take it to the bank.

3. Who said Oswald used the scope? I don't think he did but I don't know.
Neither do you or anyone else.


Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-17 23:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
I repeat, Jean doesn't know anything about firearms. If she'd like to
dispute that in court, fine with me.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
the troops were initially given jammed frequently.


The major problem of the M-16's jamming can be traced to an idea that
the then Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara and some of his top
Generals got; Since there were so much old ball power left from WW-1,
WW-2 and the Korean War, why not substitute the original powder used in
the 5.56mm round with this old ball power? That's what they did against
the advice of Mr. Eugene Stoner; the iventor of the weapon. This change
upped the cyclic-rate of fire from about 300 rounds per minute to well
over 1,000rpm! This much higher chamber pressure was the cause of much
higher cyclic-rate which in turn was the cause of many double-feeds;
no-feeds; failure to feed; failure to extract and worst, rim-sheers! The
ball powder also left considerable residue after firing which
contributed to clogging the weapon and especially choking off the thin
gas tube which directed cartridge gases to operate the weapon.

Making matters worse was the fact that it was deployed in the middle of
a war. Something that you don't do unless you absolutely have to.

Initially troops in Vietnam were told that the M-16 needed no cleaning
and those early production M-16s were issued to the troops in the field
without any sort of cleaning kit.

Still another problem was that when a jam occured in those early
weapons, because of the unique design features of the M-16 soldiers and
Marines could not clear the jammed round easily.

These problems were solved eventually by modifications to the weapon;
the introduction of cleaning kits and better instruction on the weapons
care and cleaning. A bolt-assist handle was introduced so that the bolt
to be fully closed when the weapon was dirty; The chamber was
chrom-plated to prevent failures to extract and rim-sheers; A heavier
barrel was incorporated to lessen overheating & warping. Today the
weapon can function in all climactic conditions with virtually no problems.

Read more: What was the M16's jamming problem all about? | Answerbag
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/14291#ixzz2CV8Kca28

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
I never used both. The Marine Corps only used M-14's when I served. The
Army used M-16's, and the jamming problems were legend, even then. It
was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them. From what I've discovered since I served, the M-14 was superior.
It was .30 caliber, not .22 like the M-16, so it had greater range and
stopping power. True, it didn't carry as many rounds as the AK and the
M-16, which had 30 round mags, but it carried 20, and they were hard
hitting. Hell, you only needed one round to do the job! And yes, the
M-14 was an M-1 descendant. It used a shorter round than the M-1 (the
.308 instead of the 30-06), but it was just as powerful, and the shorter
case meant lighter weight so a man could carry more ammo, always a plus
in combat! It also had a 20 round mag instead of the 8 rounds the M-1
carried. Like I said, the Corps wouldn't use M-16's when I served
because of the jamming problems. But eventually, Uncle Sam got the bugs
out, and the Marines changed over too. Trouble was, they still didn't
have the stopping power of a .30 caliber round, but the .22's were
lighter, so a man could carry more ammo, and the Corps figured that made
the .22's more of an asset than a liability, after the jamming problem
was overcome. I still have a civilian version (semi-auto) of the M-14,
not because I think it's superior to an M-16 (although in some ways,
like stopping power, it is) but because I was trained on that rifle. I'm
used to it, and I can hit anything I can see. The M-16 is totally
different. The civilian version, the AR-15, was uncomfortable to me. It
looked, and felt, like Flash Gordon's ray gun. I never could get used to
it. Can't teach an old devil dog new tricks, I guess.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/

November 2, 2009, 9:29 am
How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
By C.J. CHIVERS

First of two parts

Few issues are more personal to soldiers than the question of whether
they can trust their rifles. And few rifles in history have generated
more controversy over their reliability than the American M-16 assault
rifle and its carbine version, the M-4.

In recent weeks, a fresh round of complaints about weapon malfunctions
in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historian’s report that documented
small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has
rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available
for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal
for war?

Don’t expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers
at once – many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to
the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The
conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting
anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.

This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C.
Westmoreland’s request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary
American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been
checkered.

This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out.
Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the
weapon’s terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. What’s more, the jamming
was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as “failure to
extract,” which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the
chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.

The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the
muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other
words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified
at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of
1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing.
The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best
rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.

The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee
investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among
other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked
well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for
neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment – including the cleaning
rod essential for clearing jammed rifles.

A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the
incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too.
But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful
acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its
offspring, too.

To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and
Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
the worst battles are prone to fail.

Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality. Their
lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when
fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
wounds.

A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One
day I’ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality
would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet
composition.

The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator
core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers
complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel
through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say,
it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.

Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the
M855’s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and
energy transfer into a victim, too.

First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting
lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war.
Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are
likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.

If all of this seems complex, it’s only the background. Tomorrow we’ll
discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from
reliability tests, and share the Army’s position.

Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes,
how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What
rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?


© 2012 Nokia© 2012 Microsoft Corporation
Location: Kabul, Afghanistan
34.531551361084 ; 69.125350952148

The ANSF members also complained about other things, that cause
“resentment” of American forces. That included such things as the type
of weapons provided to them by the U.S. military, particularly the M-16
rifle, which the Afghan's think are defective because they jam so much.

“M-16’s were strongly disliked. Complaints were that the rifle jammed
constantly and are very unreliable" the report noted.

The Afghans resented that the U.S. supplied them with such unreliable rifle.

They want their AK-47’s back. Some ANSF members though the M-16 was
obsolete leftover from World War II”

Apparently some of the ANSF members felt the rifles given to them by the
U.S. military were also defective.

Interestingly the Huffington News did an article that mentioned some of
the same problem the ANSF are having with the M-16.

“Sgt. Said Aga recalled his M16 jamming in the middle of a fierce
firefight with the Taliban, and grimaced as his young charges aired
their gripes about the Vietnam-era firearm….A soldier named Abdul Karim
said he'd prefer a 30-year-old Russian-made Kalashnikov to an M16” (see
article: Afghanistan Army: Troops Complain Of Poor Equipment And
Disrespect
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/afghanistan-army-troops-disrespected-supplies-treatment_n_1531136.html
).

The New York Times also did an article about the problem prone M16
rifle. It noted their critics, saying the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited
for combat conditions Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
the worst battles are prone to fail.

Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality.

Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially
when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
wounds (see article: How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/ ).

The Russian military tested the American made M-16 and found it
unsuitable in many respects, not the least of which was reliability.

The M-16 the Russians tested jammed repeatedly and didn’t fire after
being submerged in water. It also didn’t hold up to simple abuse like
being dropped from 4-5 feet (see video:
).

Afghan soldiers confirm that in terms of reliability the AK-47 is far
superior to the M-16 any day because it doesn’t jam as much and required
less maintenance…

It represented one area where the Afghans felt they were slighted by the
U.S. military.
Post by Bill Clarke
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
Without a photo we can't be sure it is the same type of dent.
Post by Bill Clarke
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkfeM4v
Dented cases are not relevant to dented lips. Apple and oranges.
Post by Bill Clarke
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
Again where are the photos? Something is not a fact just because you say it.
Post by Bill Clarke
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Again you change the definitions after you have lost the argument. I did
not say line of bore.
The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
Post by Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-18 15:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
I repeat, Jean doesn't know anything about firearms. If she'd like to
dispute that in court, fine with me.
She produced a reference that proved you wrong as hell. Live with it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
to be very lacking.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
unhappy about that to this day.

Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
failure? I hope not.

Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them.
Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.

By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.

Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.

Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
tap..............

Go to end of message.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The major problem of the M-16's jamming can be traced to an idea that
the then Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara and some of his top
Generals got; Since there were so much old ball power left from WW-1,
WW-2 and the Korean War, why not substitute the original powder used in
the 5.56mm round with this old ball power? That's what they did against
the advice of Mr. Eugene Stoner; the iventor of the weapon. This change
upped the cyclic-rate of fire from about 300 rounds per minute to well
over 1,000rpm! This much higher chamber pressure was the cause of much
higher cyclic-rate which in turn was the cause of many double-feeds;
no-feeds; failure to feed; failure to extract and worst, rim-sheers! The
ball powder also left considerable residue after firing which
contributed to clogging the weapon and especially choking off the thin
gas tube which directed cartridge gases to operate the weapon.
Making matters worse was the fact that it was deployed in the middle of
a war. Something that you don't do unless you absolutely have to.
Initially troops in Vietnam were told that the M-16 needed no cleaning
and those early production M-16s were issued to the troops in the field
without any sort of cleaning kit.
Still another problem was that when a jam occured in those early
weapons, because of the unique design features of the M-16 soldiers and
Marines could not clear the jammed round easily.
These problems were solved eventually by modifications to the weapon;
the introduction of cleaning kits and better instruction on the weapons
care and cleaning. A bolt-assist handle was introduced so that the bolt
to be fully closed when the weapon was dirty; The chamber was
chrom-plated to prevent failures to extract and rim-sheers; A heavier
barrel was incorporated to lessen overheating & warping. Today the
weapon can function in all climactic conditions with virtually no problems.
Read more: What was the M16's jamming problem all about? | Answerbag
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/14291#ixzz2CV8Kca28
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
I never used both. The Marine Corps only used M-14's when I served. The
Army used M-16's, and the jamming problems were legend, even then. It
was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them. From what I've discovered since I served, the M-14 was superior.
It was .30 caliber, not .22 like the M-16, so it had greater range and
stopping power. True, it didn't carry as many rounds as the AK and the
M-16, which had 30 round mags, but it carried 20, and they were hard
hitting. Hell, you only needed one round to do the job! And yes, the
M-14 was an M-1 descendant. It used a shorter round than the M-1 (the
.308 instead of the 30-06), but it was just as powerful, and the shorter
case meant lighter weight so a man could carry more ammo, always a plus
in combat! It also had a 20 round mag instead of the 8 rounds the M-1
carried. Like I said, the Corps wouldn't use M-16's when I served
because of the jamming problems. But eventually, Uncle Sam got the bugs
out, and the Marines changed over too. Trouble was, they still didn't
have the stopping power of a .30 caliber round, but the .22's were
lighter, so a man could carry more ammo, and the Corps figured that made
the .22's more of an asset than a liability, after the jamming problem
was overcome. I still have a civilian version (semi-auto) of the M-14,
not because I think it's superior to an M-16 (although in some ways,
like stopping power, it is) but because I was trained on that rifle. I'm
used to it, and I can hit anything I can see. The M-16 is totally
different. The civilian version, the AR-15, was uncomfortable to me. It
looked, and felt, like Flash Gordon's ray gun. I never could get used to
it. Can't teach an old devil dog new tricks, I guess.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/
November 2, 2009, 9:29 am
How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
By C.J. CHIVERS
First of two parts
Few issues are more personal to soldiers than the question of whether
they can trust their rifles. And few rifles in history have generated
more controversy over their reliability than the American M-16 assault
rifle and its carbine version, the M-4.
In recent weeks, a fresh round of complaints about weapon malfunctions
in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historian’s report that documented
small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has
rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available
for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal
for war?
Don’t expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers
at once – many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to
the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The
conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting
anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.
This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C.
Westmoreland’s request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary
American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been
checkered.
This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out.
Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the
weapon’s terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. What’s more, the jamming
was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as “failure to
extract,” which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the
chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.
The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the
muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other
words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified
at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of
1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing.
The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best
rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.
The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee
investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among
other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked
well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for
neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment – including the cleaning
rod essential for clearing jammed rifles.
A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the
incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too.
But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful
acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its
offspring, too.
To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and
Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
the worst battles are prone to fail.
Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality. Their
lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when
fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
wounds.
A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One
day I’ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality
would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet
composition.
The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator
core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers
complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel
through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say,
it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the
M855’s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and
energy transfer into a victim, too.
First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting
lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war.
Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are
likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
If all of this seems complex, it’s only the background. Tomorrow we’ll
discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from
reliability tests, and share the Army’s position.
Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes,
how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What
rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?
© 2012 Nokia© 2012 Microsoft Corporation
Location: Kabul, Afghanistan
34.531551361084 ; 69.125350952148
The ANSF members also complained about other things, that cause
“resentment” of American forces. That included such things as the type
of weapons provided to them by the U.S. military, particularly the M-16
rifle, which the Afghan's think are defective because they jam so much.
“M-16’s were strongly disliked. Complaints were that the rifle jammed
constantly and are very unreliable" the report noted.
The Afghans resented that the U.S. supplied them with such unreliable rifle.
They want their AK-47’s back. Some ANSF members though the M-16 was
obsolete leftover from World War II”
Apparently some of the ANSF members felt the rifles given to them by the
U.S. military were also defective.
Interestingly the Huffington News did an article that mentioned some of
the same problem the ANSF are having with the M-16.
“Sgt. Said Aga recalled his M16 jamming in the middle of a fierce
firefight with the Taliban, and grimaced as his young charges aired
their gripes about the Vietnam-era firearm….A soldier named Abdul Karim
said he'd prefer a 30-year-old Russian-made Kalashnikov to an M16” (see
article: Afghanistan Army: Troops Complain Of Poor Equipment And
Disrespect
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/afghanistan-army-troops-disrespected-supplies-treatment_n_1531136.html
).
The New York Times also did an article about the problem prone M16
rifle. It noted their critics, saying the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited
for combat conditions Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
the worst battles are prone to fail.
Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality.
Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially
when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
wounds (see article: How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/ ).
The Russian military tested the American made M-16 and found it
unsuitable in many respects, not the least of which was reliability.
The M-16 the Russians tested jammed repeatedly and didn’t fire after
being submerged in water. It also didn’t hold up to simple abuse like
http://youtu.be/Jc8Jkqlzqf0 ).
Afghan soldiers confirm that in terms of reliability the AK-47 is far
superior to the M-16 any day because it doesn’t jam as much and required
less maintenance…
It represented one area where the Afghans felt they were slighted by the
U.S. military.
Post by Bill Clarke
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
Without a photo we can't be sure it is the same type of dent.
Post by Bill Clarke
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkfeM4v
Dented cases are not relevant to dented lips. Apple and oranges.
Post by Bill Clarke
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
Again where are the photos? Something is not a fact just because you say it.
Post by Bill Clarke
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Again you change the definitions after you have lost the argument. I did
not say line of bore.
I know what you said and I'm not the one losing the battle against the laws of
physics here Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
Well glory be. After decades of wandering in the wilderness you're on to
something. Yes, the line of sight is adjusted so that it goes below the line of
bore, intersecting the line of trajectory in two places. The bullet doesn't
rise, the line of sight goes under the bullet path.

Damn I'm proud of you Marsh. Now don't forget what you have said here.

Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-19 04:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
I repeat, Jean doesn't know anything about firearms. If she'd like to
dispute that in court, fine with me.
She produced a reference that proved you wrong as hell. Live with it.
No she didn't and no it doesn't.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
The case lip being dented is what causes the jam because the bolt is
stuck halfway open.
Post by Bill Clarke
case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
Because you cleared the jam without bothering to look to see that caused it.
Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
did.
Post by Bill Clarke
claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
to be very lacking.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
unhappy about that to this day.
Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
failure? I hope not.
Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them.
Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
You rarely needed accuracy out to 1000 yards deep in a jungle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
Post by Bill Clarke
Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
tap..............
Go to end of message.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The major problem of the M-16's jamming can be traced to an idea that
the then Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara and some of his top
Generals got; Since there were so much old ball power left from WW-1,
WW-2 and the Korean War, why not substitute the original powder used in
the 5.56mm round with this old ball power? That's what they did against
the advice of Mr. Eugene Stoner; the iventor of the weapon. This change
upped the cyclic-rate of fire from about 300 rounds per minute to well
over 1,000rpm! This much higher chamber pressure was the cause of much
higher cyclic-rate which in turn was the cause of many double-feeds;
no-feeds; failure to feed; failure to extract and worst, rim-sheers! The
ball powder also left considerable residue after firing which
contributed to clogging the weapon and especially choking off the thin
gas tube which directed cartridge gases to operate the weapon.
Making matters worse was the fact that it was deployed in the middle of
a war. Something that you don't do unless you absolutely have to.
Initially troops in Vietnam were told that the M-16 needed no cleaning
and those early production M-16s were issued to the troops in the field
without any sort of cleaning kit.
Still another problem was that when a jam occured in those early
weapons, because of the unique design features of the M-16 soldiers and
Marines could not clear the jammed round easily.
These problems were solved eventually by modifications to the weapon;
the introduction of cleaning kits and better instruction on the weapons
care and cleaning. A bolt-assist handle was introduced so that the bolt
to be fully closed when the weapon was dirty; The chamber was
chrom-plated to prevent failures to extract and rim-sheers; A heavier
barrel was incorporated to lessen overheating & warping. Today the
weapon can function in all climactic conditions with virtually no problems.
Read more: What was the M16's jamming problem all about? | Answerbag
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/14291#ixzz2CV8Kca28
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
I never used both. The Marine Corps only used M-14's when I served. The
Army used M-16's, and the jamming problems were legend, even then. It
was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them. From what I've discovered since I served, the M-14 was superior.
It was .30 caliber, not .22 like the M-16, so it had greater range and
stopping power. True, it didn't carry as many rounds as the AK and the
M-16, which had 30 round mags, but it carried 20, and they were hard
hitting. Hell, you only needed one round to do the job! And yes, the
M-14 was an M-1 descendant. It used a shorter round than the M-1 (the
.308 instead of the 30-06), but it was just as powerful, and the shorter
case meant lighter weight so a man could carry more ammo, always a plus
in combat! It also had a 20 round mag instead of the 8 rounds the M-1
carried. Like I said, the Corps wouldn't use M-16's when I served
because of the jamming problems. But eventually, Uncle Sam got the bugs
out, and the Marines changed over too. Trouble was, they still didn't
have the stopping power of a .30 caliber round, but the .22's were
lighter, so a man could carry more ammo, and the Corps figured that made
the .22's more of an asset than a liability, after the jamming problem
was overcome. I still have a civilian version (semi-auto) of the M-14,
not because I think it's superior to an M-16 (although in some ways,
like stopping power, it is) but because I was trained on that rifle. I'm
used to it, and I can hit anything I can see. The M-16 is totally
different. The civilian version, the AR-15, was uncomfortable to me. It
looked, and felt, like Flash Gordon's ray gun. I never could get used to
it. Can't teach an old devil dog new tricks, I guess.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/
November 2, 2009, 9:29 am
How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
By C.J. CHIVERS
First of two parts
Few issues are more personal to soldiers than the question of whether
they can trust their rifles. And few rifles in history have generated
more controversy over their reliability than the American M-16 assault
rifle and its carbine version, the M-4.
In recent weeks, a fresh round of complaints about weapon malfunctions
in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historian’s report that documented
small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has
rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available
for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal
for war?
Don’t expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers
at once – many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to
the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The
conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting
anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.
This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C.
Westmoreland’s request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary
American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been
checkered.
This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out.
Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the
weapon’s terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. What’s more, the jamming
was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as “failure to
extract,” which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the
chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.
The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the
muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other
words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified
at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of
1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing.
The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best
rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.
The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee
investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among
other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked
well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for
neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment – including the cleaning
rod essential for clearing jammed rifles.
A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the
incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too.
But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful
acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its
offspring, too.
To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and
Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
the worst battles are prone to fail.
Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality. Their
lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when
fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
wounds.
A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One
day I’ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality
would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet
composition.
The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator
core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers
complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel
through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say,
it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the
M855’s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and
energy transfer into a victim, too.
First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting
lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war.
Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are
likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
If all of this seems complex, it’s only the background. Tomorrow we’ll
discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from
reliability tests, and share the Army’s position.
Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes,
how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What
rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?
© 2012 Nokia© 2012 Microsoft Corporation
Location: Kabul, Afghanistan
34.531551361084 ; 69.125350952148
The ANSF members also complained about other things, that cause
“resentment” of American forces. That included such things as the type
of weapons provided to them by the U.S. military, particularly the M-16
rifle, which the Afghan's think are defective because they jam so much.
“M-16’s were strongly disliked. Complaints were that the rifle jammed
constantly and are very unreliable" the report noted.
The Afghans resented that the U.S. supplied them with such unreliable rifle.
They want their AK-47’s back. Some ANSF members though the M-16 was
obsolete leftover from World War II”
Apparently some of the ANSF members felt the rifles given to them by the
U.S. military were also defective.
Interestingly the Huffington News did an article that mentioned some of
the same problem the ANSF are having with the M-16.
“Sgt. Said Aga recalled his M16 jamming in the middle of a fierce
firefight with the Taliban, and grimaced as his young charges aired
their gripes about the Vietnam-era firearm….A soldier named Abdul Karim
said he'd prefer a 30-year-old Russian-made Kalashnikov to an M16” (see
article: Afghanistan Army: Troops Complain Of Poor Equipment And
Disrespect
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/afghanistan-army-troops-disrespected-supplies-treatment_n_1531136.html
).
The New York Times also did an article about the problem prone M16
rifle. It noted their critics, saying the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited
for combat conditions Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
the worst battles are prone to fail.
Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality.
Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially
when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
wounds (see article: How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/ ).
The Russian military tested the American made M-16 and found it
unsuitable in many respects, not the least of which was reliability.
The M-16 the Russians tested jammed repeatedly and didn’t fire after
being submerged in water. It also didn’t hold up to simple abuse like
http://youtu.be/Jc8Jkqlzqf0 ).
Afghan soldiers confirm that in terms of reliability the AK-47 is far
superior to the M-16 any day because it doesn’t jam as much and required
less maintenance…
It represented one area where the Afghans felt they were slighted by the
U.S. military.
Post by Bill Clarke
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
Without a photo we can't be sure it is the same type of dent.
Post by Bill Clarke
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkfeM4v
Dented cases are not relevant to dented lips. Apple and oranges.
Post by Bill Clarke
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
Again where are the photos? Something is not a fact just because you say it.
Post by Bill Clarke
It happens on automatics and
Post by Anthony Marsh
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Post by Bill Clarke
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
Post by Bill Clarke
The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Again you change the definitions after you have lost the argument. I did
not say line of bore.
I know what you said and I'm not the one losing the battle against the laws of
physics here Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
Well glory be. After decades of wandering in the wilderness you're on to
something. Yes, the line of sight is adjusted so that it goes below the line of
bore, intersecting the line of trajectory in two places. The bullet doesn't
rise, the line of sight goes under the bullet path.
Damn I'm proud of you Marsh. Now don't forget what you have said here.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-19 18:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
I repeat, Jean doesn't know anything about firearms. If she'd like to
dispute that in court, fine with me.
She produced a reference that proved you wrong as hell. Live with it.
No she didn't and no it doesn't.
She sure as hell did and it sure as hell proved you were wrong. You are wrong
when you say jamming is the only thing that causes a bent case lip. You are
wrong as hell. This is one of your "conclusions" that serves to matche your
theory that the rifle jammed on Oswald. You can't furnish one reference that
backs you up here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
The case lip being dented is what causes the jam because the bolt is
stuck halfway open.
Good god, you are getting worse all the time. The bent case lip doesn't cause
the jam, failure of extraction causes the jam. The jam causes the bent case
lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
Because you cleared the jam without bothering to look to see that caused it.
WRONG. I'm a rifleman, Marsh. If a rifle jams with me I'm damn sure going to
find out the problem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
WRONG AGAIN. When the damn case is stuck in the chamber caused by rim sheer it
is very obvious what caused the problem. I realize you consider the military
much below your intelligence level but a raw boot camp grad knows more about
rifles than you do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
did.
Another rash claim that you have no support for.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
to be very lacking.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
unhappy about that to this day.
Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
failure? I hope not.
Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them.
Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
You rarely needed accuracy out to 1000 yards deep in a jungle.
My point General. How about Iraq?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
Your reference did. You post it, it is your baby.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
tap..............
On dear, I was afraid of this. Marsh's M-16 has jammed and he doesn't know what
to do despite his alleged knowledge of rifles. I'm shocked.
a
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Go to end of message.
Much stuff snipped so Marsh might receive my salute for finally getting it
right.

Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Again you change the definitions after you have lost the argument. I did
not say line of bore.
I know what you said and I'm not the one losing the battle against the laws of
physics here Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
Well glory be. After decades of wandering in the wilderness you're on to
something. Yes, the line of sight is adjusted so that it goes below the line of
bore, intersecting the line of trajectory in two places. The bullet doesn't
rise, the line of sight goes under the bullet path.
Damn I'm proud of you Marsh. Now don't forget what you have said here.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-20 03:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
I repeat, Jean doesn't know anything about firearms. If she'd like to
dispute that in court, fine with me.
She produced a reference that proved you wrong as hell. Live with it.
No she didn't and no it doesn't.
She sure as hell did and it sure as hell proved you were wrong. You are wrong
when you say jamming is the only thing that causes a bent case lip. You are
Not exactly what I said. I said in this case that was the only possible
cause.
Post by Bill Clarke
wrong as hell. This is one of your "conclusions" that serves to matche your
theory that the rifle jammed on Oswald. You can't furnish one reference that
backs you up here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
The case lip being dented is what causes the jam because the bolt is
stuck halfway open.
Good god, you are getting worse all the time. The bent case lip doesn't cause
the jam, failure of extraction causes the jam. The jam causes the bent case
lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
Because you cleared the jam without bothering to look to see that caused it.
WRONG. I'm a rifleman, Marsh. If a rifle jams with me I'm damn sure going to
find out the problem.
Nope.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
WRONG AGAIN. When the damn case is stuck in the chamber caused by rim sheer it
is very obvious what caused the problem. I realize you consider the military
much below your intelligence level but a raw boot camp grad knows more about
rifles than you do.
In a firefight, no soldier is going to ask for a timeout so that he can
study his rifle.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
did.
Another rash claim that you have no support for.
We now have most of their files.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
to be very lacking.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
unhappy about that to this day.
Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
failure? I hope not.
Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them.
Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
You rarely needed accuracy out to 1000 yards deep in a jungle.
My point General. How about Iraq?
Not many jungles in Iraq. One sniper made a kill at a mile and a half in
Afghanistan, but it wasn't with an M-16. I don't know what the record for
an M-16 is, but probably not over 1,000 yards.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
Your reference did. You post it, it is your baby.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
tap..............
On dear, I was afraid of this. Marsh's M-16 has jammed and he doesn't know what
to do despite his alleged knowledge of rifles. I'm shocked.
a
My AR-7 jammed and I knew what to do.
You probably used a later issue M-16 which no longer had the jamming
problem.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Go to end of message.
Much stuff snipped so Marsh might receive my salute for finally getting it
right.
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Again you change the definitions after you have lost the argument. I did
not say line of bore.
I know what you said and I'm not the one losing the battle against the laws of
physics here Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
Well glory be. After decades of wandering in the wilderness you're on to
something. Yes, the line of sight is adjusted so that it goes below the line of
bore, intersecting the line of trajectory in two places. The bullet doesn't
rise, the line of sight goes under the bullet path.
Damn I'm proud of you Marsh. Now don't forget what you have said here.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-21 03:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
I repeat, Jean doesn't know anything about firearms. If she'd like to
dispute that in court, fine with me.
She produced a reference that proved you wrong as hell. Live with it.
No she didn't and no it doesn't.
She sure as hell did and it sure as hell proved you were wrong. You are wrong
when you say jamming is the only thing that causes a bent case lip. You are
Not exactly what I said. I said in this case that was the only possible
cause.
Here is exactly what you said. You will note the absence of "in this
case".

Marsh; "Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It
can only be caused by the rifle jamming."

So now you are admitting that "in other cases" a dented case lip can be
caused by things other than a jam. Well good for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
wrong as hell. This is one of your "conclusions" that serves to matche your
theory that the rifle jammed on Oswald. You can't furnish one reference that
backs you up here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
The case lip being dented is what causes the jam because the bolt is
stuck halfway open.
Good god, you are getting worse all the time. The bent case lip doesn't cause
the jam, failure of extraction causes the jam. The jam causes the bent case
lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
Because you cleared the jam without bothering to look to see that caused it.
WRONG. I'm a rifleman, Marsh. If a rifle jams with me I'm damn sure going to
find out the problem.
Nope.
Nope what? You don't have a clue.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
WRONG AGAIN. When the damn case is stuck in the chamber caused by rim sheer it
is very obvious what caused the problem. I realize you consider the military
much below your intelligence level but a raw boot camp grad knows more about
rifles than you do.
In a firefight, no soldier is going to ask for a timeout so that he can
study his rifle.
Good thinking Marsh about something you know nothing about.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
did.
Another rash claim that you have no support for.
We now have most of their files.
Yes we do. Some of them describe how the communist thought what a foolish
blunder it was to remove Diem. We know who did that don't we.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
to be very lacking.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
unhappy about that to this day.
Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
failure? I hope not.
Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them.
Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
You rarely needed accuracy out to 1000 yards deep in a jungle.
My point General. How about Iraq?
Not many jungles in Iraq. One sniper made a kill at a mile and a half in
Afghanistan, but it wasn't with an M-16. I don't know what the record for
an M-16 is, but probably not over 1,000 yards.
You're probably right. The max effective range of the M-16 was 400 meters
when I was in the Army. They have fine tuned the round and rifle since
then so this might have changed since then.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
Your reference did. You post it, it is your baby.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
tap..............
On dear, I was afraid of this. Marsh's M-16 has jammed and he doesn't know what
to do despite his alleged knowledge of rifles. I'm shocked.
a
My AR-7 jammed and I knew what to do.
So you are an expert on the rinky dink AR-7 but not the M-16. I
understand.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You probably used a later issue M-16 which no longer had the jamming
problem.
I have stated this on several occassions.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Go to end of message.
Much stuff snipped so Marsh might receive my salute for finally getting it
right.
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Again you change the definitions after you have lost the argument. I did
not say line of bore.
I know what you said and I'm not the one losing the battle against the laws of
physics here Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
Well glory be. After decades of wandering in the wilderness you're on to
something. Yes, the line of sight is adjusted so that it goes below the line of
bore, intersecting the line of trajectory in two places. The bullet doesn't
rise, the line of sight goes under the bullet path.
Damn I'm proud of you Marsh. Now don't forget what you have said here.
Bill Clarke
claviger
2012-11-18 15:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Bill,

I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-19 04:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Bill,
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
Would is not the correct word in English. The correct word is could.
Yes, the dent is caused during the ejection process. Not a normal
function. A malfunction typical of that rifle. The WC did not document
exactly how it reproduced the dent on their cartridge. It's hard to see
and film exactly what is happening in the chamber while reloading.
mainframetech
2012-11-19 04:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Bill,
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling?  If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
It won't matter if the MC rifle wasn't able to be used by anyone
because the scope was not aligned and if the thing was so rusted and
corroded that it wasn't safe to fire without going to a gunsmith to
fix the problems before testing by the FBI. See a later post on this
thread for the details and testimony.

Remember that Oswald's buddy Nelson Delgado had testified that
Odwasl was always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle and was a
'Maggie's Drawers' specialist.


Chris
Bill Clarke
2012-11-19 18:48:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <68b52985-611e-433a-b1d6-***@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Bill,
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? =A0If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
It won't matter if the MC rifle wasn't able to be used by anyone
because the scope was not aligned and if the thing was so rusted and
corroded that it wasn't safe to fire without going to a gunsmith to
fix the problems before testing by the FBI. See a later post on this
thread for the details and testimony.
Remember that Oswald's buddy Nelson Delgado had testified that
Odwasl was always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle and was a
'Maggie's Drawers' specialist.

Chris
You are way off base here. You are trying to make something from nothing. Pray
tell what the "gunsmith" did to make the rifle safer? And one more time, how do
you know that Oswald didn't use the open sights.

The woods are now full of deer hunters. You would find, from my experience,
many rifles scratched and beat up and with dirty and rusted barrels. It doesn't
mean they are unsafe, it simply means they haven't been taken care of.

Please get off the firing pin. You don't understand what you are talking about.

Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-19 23:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Bill,
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
It won't matter if the MC rifle wasn't able to be used by anyone
because the scope was not aligned and if the thing was so rusted and
corroded that it wasn't safe to fire without going to a gunsmith to
fix the problems before testing by the FBI. See a later post on this
thread for the details and testimony.
You are exaggerating totally. Do you even know what you think you mean
by "the scope was not aligned" or did you just make that up? The scope
could not be zeroed in by the FBI because it was damaged and defective.
We don't know exactly when that happened.
It was not SOOO rusted and corroded that it wasn't safe to fire.
Where is the testimony of this gunsmith who fixed the rifle? Can you
post it for us?
Post by mainframetech
Remember that Oswald's buddy Nelson Delgado had testified that
Odwasl was always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle and was a
'Maggie's Drawers' specialist.
http://youtu.be/nS9Zi0B60lw
Chris
Bill Clarke
2012-11-19 18:47:18 UTC
Permalink
In article <673947f3-4bdc-4e64-8353-***@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...
Post by claviger
Bill,
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
I made a quick run on the WCR and didn't find what they had to say about bent
case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.

In my experience the auto loaders are worse about this than the bolt rifles but
I've seen it occur in bolt rifles also. My Dad's automatic Remington .270 would
dent the lip of about one in 10 rounds. Why id didn't dent them all I don't
know but I was hand loading at the time and picked up all the used brass cases
to be reused so they were carefully inspected.

Marsh is simply wrong about a jam being the ONLY thing than can cause a dented
case lip. Dad's Remington never had a jam but produced dented case lips.

Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
2012-11-20 03:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Clarke
claviger says...
Post by claviger
Bill,
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
I made a quick run on the WCR and didn't find what they had to say about bent
case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.
Of course you couldn't find it. Because they hid it from the public.
That's why we want ALL the files released.
Post by Bill Clarke
In my experience the auto loaders are worse about this than the bolt rifles but
I've seen it occur in bolt rifles also. My Dad's automatic Remington .270 would
dent the lip of about one in 10 rounds. Why id didn't dent them all I don't
know but I was hand loading at the time and picked up all the used brass cases
to be reused so they were carefully inspected.
Marsh is simply wrong about a jam being the ONLY thing than can cause a dented
case lip. Dad's Remington never had a jam but produced dented case lips.
I did not generalize about ALL rifles. I was specific about Oswald's
rifle and my rifle was an example of how it can also happen in a
semi-automatic. Your dad was on Full Auto?
Todd Vaughan got a dented lip about every third shot with his Carcano.
Post by Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
2012-11-21 03:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
claviger says...
Post by claviger
Bill,
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
I made a quick run on the WCR and didn't find what they had to say about bent
case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.
Of course you couldn't find it. Because they hid it from the public.
That's why we want ALL the files released.
Post by Bill Clarke
In my experience the auto loaders are worse about this than the bolt rifles but
I've seen it occur in bolt rifles also. My Dad's automatic Remington .270 would
dent the lip of about one in 10 rounds. Why id didn't dent them all I don't
know but I was hand loading at the time and picked up all the used brass cases
to be reused so they were carefully inspected.
Marsh is simply wrong about a jam being the ONLY thing than can cause a dented
case lip. Dad's Remington never had a jam but produced dented case lips.
I did not generalize about ALL rifles.
You did not make this point. Now and only now have you started making this
point.

I was specific about Oswald's
Post by Anthony Marsh
rifle and my rifle was an example of how it can also happen in a
semi-automatic. Your dad was on Full Auto?
Todd Vaughan got a dented lip about every third shot with his Carcano.
Semi-automatic.

Bill Clarke
mainframetech
2012-11-17 20:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did.  And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert.  Far
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
What CBS did doesn't concern me.  I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
quickly.
So will other bolt guns.  So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics and
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all.  That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission.  It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968).  Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information.  I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies.  In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used.  (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained.  If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.  The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination).  In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63.  To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less.  On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired.  Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?"  Well, let's hope that it never is.  But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used.  However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him.  CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country.  Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip.  So will extraction.  Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
process on YouTube.
Okay Marsh.  Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
Post by Anthony Marsh
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times.  And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
        He missed a
Post by Anthony Marsh
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
elephant stepped on it.
        The
Post by Anthony Marsh
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed.  You don't either.
     But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot.  I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now.  You just don't get it.
Aiming at the head it does.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height?  I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming.  Now do
you get it?  Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit the
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
The bullet never rises Marsh.  Simple laws of physics.  You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory.  The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope.  Now think about it a bit.
I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.> Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head?  I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh.  You do understand.
Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass.  Run it yourself.  I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
Post by Bill Clarke
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
out for a better model.
Post by John Fiorentino
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.
Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
Post by John Fiorentino
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
material required in production.
None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
Weak Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Fiorentino
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
Post by John Fiorentino
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and getting the bolt to work more smoothly. Details if
requested.

Chris
Bill Clarke
2012-11-18 15:10:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <7017b13f-8635-45ce-a4b0-***@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
Post by Bill Clarke
.
...
ys...
says...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvemen=
t in the
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient=
for the job.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? =A0It damn sure worked.
The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot ou=
t of
Post by Anthony Marsh
three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with O=
swald or not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It=
can
Post by Anthony Marsh
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. =A0Despite my relating personal experience and despit=
e the excellent
Post by Anthony Marsh
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the =
rifle jamming
Post by Anthony Marsh
you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?
No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mou=
th
Post by Anthony Marsh
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed abo=
ut
Post by Anthony Marsh
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Th=
eir
Post by Anthony Marsh
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
Yes she did. =A0And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up =
a reference.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference mea=
ns.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert=
. =A0Far
Post by Anthony Marsh
from it.
Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
already admitted that.
What CBS did doesn't concern me. =A0I know what I've seen many times.
The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload to=
o
Post by Anthony Marsh
quickly.
So will other bolt guns. =A0So what?
So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics and
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and y=
ou
Post by Anthony Marsh
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denia=
l?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =A0That=
is what we
Post by Anthony Marsh
are talking about, Marsh.
We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing te=
st,
Post by Anthony Marsh
although the relevant information has found its way into the discuss=
ion in
Post by Anthony Marsh
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data=
to
Post by Anthony Marsh
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =A0It was discus=
sed by
Post by Anthony Marsh
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967)=
and
Post by Anthony Marsh
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =A0Another poster has quote=
d
Post by Anthony Marsh
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, whic=
h
Post by Anthony Marsh
incorporated the same information. =A0I independently verified the a=
ccuracy
Post by Anthony Marsh
of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the re=
sults of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between=
the
Post by Anthony Marsh
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportu=
nity
Post by Anthony Marsh
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano =
rifle
Post by Anthony Marsh
that Oswald is alleged to have used. =A0(Of course, CBS was not perm=
itted to
Post by Anthony Marsh
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. =A0It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at=
the
Post by Anthony Marsh
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first t=
ell you
Post by Anthony Marsh
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motoriz=
ed
Post by Anthony Marsh
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) t=
o do
Post by Anthony Marsh
six trials. =A0Presuming that the assassination occured during the Z=
apruder
Post by Anthony Marsh
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI =
head
Post by Anthony Marsh
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same re=
lative
Post by Anthony Marsh
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =A0The slopoe of the track appr=
oximated
Post by Anthony Marsh
the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target becaus=
e they
Post by Anthony Marsh
figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of th=
ree
Post by Anthony Marsh
1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in b=
lue.
Post by Anthony Marsh
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots =
in
Post by Anthony Marsh
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle=
(live
Post by Anthony Marsh
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could =
find.
Post by Anthony Marsh
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sa=
mple
Post by Anthony Marsh
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: =A0First, the person who rec=
orded
Post by Anthony Marsh
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests f=
or CBS
Post by Anthony Marsh
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who bega=
n his
Post by Anthony Marsh
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the War=
ren
Post by Anthony Marsh
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. =
=A0The
Post by Anthony Marsh
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accu=
racy
Post by Anthony Marsh
within the orange silhouette. =A0In May, however, Lister was content=
merely
Post by Anthony Marsh
with getting any hits anywhere within the oran