FBI Evidence Proves Oswald's Ammunition was not Capable of Sufficient Accuracy to Kill JFK

[Bob Prudhomme]

Bob, John,

I am not at all gun knowledgeable and certainly not with regards to the MC and all the details that go with it. It is very difficult for me to summarize the argument that each of you is putting forth. I would appreciate it if you could at least summarize what is at stake here.

John, a question. You seem to be saying that the MC of 6th floor of the TSBD was used to shoot at JFK and that all three shots came from that gun?

Nope, not at all. What I am categorically not saying is that the shots (or any shots) came from that rifle.

The gist of the discussion is that Bob is saying that the shots categorically could not have come from that rifle due to the internal design of it's barrel and the size of the particular projectiles which were alleged to have travelled through it.

I am saying that he is wrong in that conclusion. Putting it simply, he asserts that the bullet (the projectile) is too small and would not be sufficiently stabilised by the barrel to fly in a straight line and would have deviated by a wide enough margin as it would be incapable of hitting JFK.

My point is that he is wrong. I know for an absolute fact that he is wrong because I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate. Moreover, this dimensional difference between bullet size and internal barrel size is actually the norm and is even legally mandated by the proof authorities (the people who test the safety of all news arms) in 14 countries of the World including most of Western Europe.

In short; Bob is saying that the alleged shots could not have come from the rifle alleged to have been used by LHO. I am saying that his reasoning which brought him to that conclusion is incorrect.

JL.

Bob, is John adequately summarizing your position?

Pretty much, yes. The Carcano rifle was designed with rifling grooves .268" in diameter, the Italian military bullets measured .268" in diameter (.2677" if anyone wants to quibble), and the Western Cartridge Co. bullets were .264" in diameter, the diameter of all other 6.5mm calibre rifle bullets.

Worn or poorly made Carcano barrels have been measured with groove diameters of up to .271".

While the rifling grooves will engage the narrower bullet, it will not fully occupy the grooves, preventing the bullet from travelling perfectly true through the barrel, and affecting accuracy.

[John Lewis]

I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate.

JL.

I am in no way a weapons expert, but I consider myself a critical thinker. Very similar, almost and essentially in no way make for a perfect comparison.

You are absolutely correct. However, it's the closest we can get at present as no one here seems to actually own an example of the rifle in question.

JL.

[Drew Phipps]

Re: my previous post about Walt Cakebread:

There may be more than one. Apparently there is some JFK researcher using that moniker now. The Walt Cakebread I speak of is the one mentioned here:

Jack White was the author that did an article about Cakebread's observations in 1995. Thse are his notes from a (COPA?) speech. (excerpted from http://www.baylor.edu/lib/poage/white/do...196920.pdf)

"Based on information furnished by California researcher Walt Cakebread I wrote an article for the July 1995 Fourth Decade on Walt's discovery that the government had photographed two different Mannlicher-Carcano bullets ... yet claimed that both photos depicted the same evidence. This c[size=12][size=12]laim is demonstrably false. Sombody went to a lot of trouble to create a near-duplicate of CE399 and substitute it as the official evidence. Except, there [size=12]is a very subtle difference in the two which nobody except Walt noticed.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[size=12][size=12][size=12]

[size=12]The original CE399 was fired from a rifle

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[size=12][size=12][size=12]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[size=12][size=12][size=12]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][size=12][size=12][size=12][size=12]having 6-lands-and-6-grooves. But the official CE399 now in evidence has only 4-lands-and-4-grooves. Why is that significant? Because the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in evidence, CE 139, has only 4 lands and grooves. It is impossible for it to fire a bullet with 6 lands and grooves!"[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[John Lewis]

Bob, John,

I am not at all gun knowledgeable and certainly not with regards to the MC and all the details that go with it. It is very difficult for me to summarize the argument that each of you is putting forth. I would appreciate it if you could at least summarize what is at stake here.

John, a question. You seem to be saying that the MC of 6th floor of the TSBD was used to shoot at JFK and that all three shots came from that gun?

Nope, not at all. What I am categorically not saying is that the shots (or any shots) came from that rifle.

The gist of the discussion is that Bob is saying that the shots categorically could not have come from that rifle due to the internal design of it's barrel and the size of the particular projectiles which were alleged to have travelled through it.

I am saying that he is wrong in that conclusion. Putting it simply, he asserts that the bullet (the projectile) is too small and would not be sufficiently stabilised by the barrel to fly in a straight line and would have deviated by a wide enough margin as it would be incapable of hitting JFK.

My point is that he is wrong. I know for an absolute fact that he is wrong because I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate. Moreover, this dimensional difference between bullet size and internal barrel size is actually the norm and is even legally mandated by the proof authorities (the people who test the safety of all news arms) in 14 countries of the World including most of Western Europe.

In short; Bob is saying that the alleged shots could not have come from the rifle alleged to have been used by LHO. I am saying that his reasoning which brought him to that conclusion is incorrect.

JL.

Bob, is John adequately summarizing your position?

Pretty much, yes. The Carcano rifle was designed with rifling grooves .268" in diameter, the Italian military bullets measured .268" in diameter (.2677" if anyone wants to quibble), and the Western Cartridge Co. bullets were .264" in diameter, the diameter of all other 6.5mm calibre rifle bullets.

Worn or poorly made Carcano barrels have been measured with groove diameters of up to .271".

While the rifling grooves will engage the narrower bullet, it will not fully occupy the grooves, preventing the bullet from travelling perfectly true through the barrel, and affecting accuracy.

And, the point which I have made consistently (without the need to call you a liar, a courtesy you did not afford me) is that any effect on accuracy will be small. In real terms in the context of the JFK discussion it will make no difference.

The standard, legally mandated minimum measurement for the groove diameter in a 6.5x54mm (a very closely related cartridge) barrel is, as near as makes no odds, .267" and they commonly have barrels larger than that. Those specifications also call for a bullet diameter of .264".

That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

[Michael Cross]

That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Did you read this?

Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warnin...tizan.html

"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.

[John Lewis]

That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Did you read this?

Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warnin...tizan.html

"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.

Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

[Bob Prudhomme]

That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Did you read this?

Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warnin...tizan.html

"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.

Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

And yet, Prvi Partizan bullets are recovered, after being fired from a Carcano rifle, that show nicely engraved rifling marks on the bullet. According to you, that is evidence the bullet was spun and the jacket not just "shaved off" (what a silly notion).

[John Lewis]

That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Did you read this?

Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warnin...tizan.html

"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.

Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

And yet, Prvi Partizan bullets are recovered, after being fired from a Carcano rifle, that show nicely engraved rifling marks on the bullet. According to you, that is evidence the bullet was spun and the jacket not just "shaved off" (what a silly notion).

What is your source for that information? The chap who wrote the article makes no mention of that.

Have you ordered any Hornady bullets yet so that you can measure them?

Have you accepted the fact, the legally mandated fact, that 6.5x54mm MS rifles do indeed have a groove diameter well in excess of .264"? You did, after call, call me a liar when I said (repeatedly) that my rifle had a .268" groove diameter.

JL.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Did you read this?



"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.

Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

And yet, Prvi Partizan bullets are recovered, after being fired from a Carcano rifle, that show nicely engraved rifling marks on the bullet. According to you, that is evidence the bullet was spun and the jacket not just "shaved off" (what a silly notion).

What is your source for that information? The chap who wrote the article makes no mention of that.

Have you ordered any Hornady bullets yet so that you can measure them?

Have you accepted the fact, the legally mandated fact, that 6.5x54mm MS rifles do indeed have a groove diameter well in excess of .264"? You did, after call, call me a liar when I said (repeatedly) that my rifle had a .268" groove diameter.

JL.

Walks like a troll, talks like a troll, must be a.........

This exchange is over. I do not wish to give disinformation a platform to work from.

[Michael Cross]

Walks like a troll, talks like a troll, must be a.........

This exchange is over. I do not wish to give disinformation a platform to work from.

Agreed. I'm out as well. When objective information is dismissed out of hand agendas are revealed.