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

[John Lewis]

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.

So that's your answer? You refuse to address any point I put to you, other than with some pitiable sarcasm and calling me a liar, and inventing some juvenile and barely rational retort about me being here to in some way attack you and spread 'disinformation'.

You speak of 'disinformation', by which I assume you mean that I'm here to undermine what you are saying by spreading lies? Well, have you bothered to have a look at your self and consider how you come over to anyone else reading this thread?

Consider this. I came here to post a simple critique and discuss some of the points you had made about a relatively obscure area of ballistics. To add to the mix my practical experience of having played around with firearms personally and professionally for thirty odd years, if you will. Almost every post you have made in response to mine has been, dismissive, sarcastic, down right offensive or a mixture of all of the above. I have even provided an independent, internationally legally binding set of specifications in response to your explicit allegations that I was lying which you still refuse to accept prove you wrong.

So, who has done you and whatever cause you seek to promote the most harm? Me and my alleged 'disinfo' or you and your utterly childish and petulant responses and seemingly tenuous grasp of reality? What do you think that any open minded, critically thinking person who had no pervious experience of the theory you are trying to advance would make of the exchange between the two of us? I think that many people would think that you were actually the one who was out to damage the cause, not me. Responses like yours harms everyone who shares your beliefs by association.

JL.

[Albert Doyle]

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.

Most of this is over my head, but this does appear to be a point of fact that is either true or not true.

[John Lewis]

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.

Most of this is over my head, but this does appear to be a point of fact that is either true or not true.

It is absolutely true. I have posted links to the relevant pages on the CiP website. The CiP is the international proof commission which lays down specifications for the proofing (safety pressure testing) of small arms and ammunition. It codifies chamber and barrel specifications for all commercially produced firearms which are offered for sale on the civilian market. It's specifications are binding by treaty on the Countries which are signatories to it. This means that it is a criminal offence to offer for sale any small arm which does not carry a proof mark approved by the CiP in any member Country. If the arm does not meet CiP specifications then it cannot bear a CiP approved proof mark and so cannot be legally offered for sale.

I stated that I have a 6.5x54mm rifle with a groove diameter measuring .268". Bob called me a lair as he says that all 6.5mm rifles have groove diameters of .264" (which is the basis for the theory he is proposing in this thread, without it it pretty much dies). I linked to the CiP specifications for the cartridge which call for a minimum groove diameter of .2669" and which allow for up to a .2681" diameter.

JL.

[Michael Cross]

Sorry, you can quote all of the WC trolls you like but, this matter is well established in the shooting world, and the only people quoting the figures you are quoting are referred to as "disinfo agents".

Your level of debate seems to be degenerating to the level of the school yard, Sir. Your stock answer to everything is simply to call your opponent a liar and being on some sort of mission to discredit you. You have personally called me a liar when you state that my rifle does not have a .268" groove diameter.

You accuse me quoting 'trolls'. I take it then that Hornady are trolls who are simply out to discredit you - after all, they quote their bullet as being .267", not .268". I've measured mine and they are actually .2665, or thereabouts.

Is the person who wrote the article for the Mannlicher collectors association publication a troll? He quotes a rifle as having been personally measured by him as having a .269" groove diameter.

As to your assertion that all this is '...well established in the shooting world...', please see here

"Alll I can say is that I must be very lucky as I have two 6.5mm Mannlichers a Mdl 1892 and a Model 1903 both of which have groove sizes of 0.268" (which appears the norm) but bore sizes of 0.256". Now I have shot the express sighted (No3 Vee) Mdl 1892 to 200 yards using some old Kynoch factory 160 Grn Loads to check the sight regulation and using handloads with a variety of bullet weights from the Speer 120 grain , Speer 140 grain and Hornady 160 Grn RN with no problems using Reloader 19.

The 1903 has a brand new Steyr made barrel and yes it's also 0.268" groove diameter. I made a brass plug guage the has 0.001" increaments from 0.255"-0.260" and both are guaged at 0.256" bores. This 1903 shows excellent promise with the 120 grain Speers."

I take it that we can assume that the chap in question is one of your 'disinfo agents"?

From the same thread:

[TABLE="class: tableborders"]
[TR]
[TD="class: darktable"][/TD]
[TD="class: subjecttable"][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"][TABLE="class: tablesurround"]
[TR]
[TD="class: navigation"] Edit[/TD]
[TD="class: navigation"] Reply[/TD]
[TD="class: navigation"] Quote[/TD]
[TD="class: navigation"] Quick Reply [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: lighttable"]To find out about the "problems" of the 6.5 Mannlicher, both 6.5x53R Mannlicher and the rimless 6.5x54 M-Sch, we have to go back to the early 1890s ballistic habits. At that time European cartridge designers still thought along the lines of black powder and lead bullets.As the early small bore bullets were rather thin-jacketed and -by today's standards- long and heavy for the caliber, and the early smokeless powders were fast burning, designers tended to use slightly undersize bullets and relied on the "slugging up" of the bullets on the sudden blow of pressure to fill the grooves. FI, this idea worked with the original 8x57 227gr .318" bullet to fill the .324" grooves, but not with lighter and stronger bullets. This lead to the confusion with .318" and .324" 8mm bullets.
The designer of the 6.5mm Mannlicher cartridges followed the same path of relying on "slugging up". On this forum you often read complains on the "outsize" groove diameter of Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5 mm barrels. If you take a look into the European CIP proof tables, you will find a minimum groove diameter of 6.78mm = surprise! .2669", the minimum bore diameter is 6.48mm = .255", so the minimum barrel diameters are both .03mm = .0012" wider than prescribed for the other 6.5mm cartridges like 6.5x55, 6.5x57, 6.5x68.
The maximum bullet diameter is the same for these "6.5mm" cartridges, 6.70mm = .264".
For the sake of "science" I have torn apart some original cartridges and miked the bullets:
Hornady 160gr round nose: .264"
1928 Portuguese military 158gr fmj/solid round nose: .263"
RWS, both pre- and post-WW2 make, 159gr TMR/round nose soft point: .261"!
RWS 159gr prewar H-jacketed boat-tail hollow-point .261" also.
Apparently most Mannlicher-Schoenauers did not shoot too bad with these "grossly undersized" bullets. So I dare to recommend for old M-Sch rifles:
do not try light bullets below 140gr
do not try hard bullets like Noslers or even homogenous bullets.
As M1903 Mannlicher-Schoenauer magazines, other than the post-war models, guide the cartridges at the base and at the bullet tip, feeding is most reliable with round noses seated to maximum cartridge length."





[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Just for sake of pure accuracy, you say you provided a link to the CIP and that is not what is contained in the above post, if that is what you refer to. You provided a link to a forum where someone discusses the CIP. Did I miss your link to the actual CIP data?

The CiP website isn't very intuitive.

http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/en/tdcc_public

[John Lewis]

Sorry, you can quote all of the WC trolls you like but, this matter is well established in the shooting world, and the only people quoting the figures you are quoting are referred to as "disinfo agents".

Your level of debate seems to be degenerating to the level of the school yard, Sir. Your stock answer to everything is simply to call your opponent a liar and being on some sort of mission to discredit you. You have personally called me a liar when you state that my rifle does not have a .268" groove diameter.

You accuse me quoting 'trolls'. I take it then that Hornady are trolls who are simply out to discredit you - after all, they quote their bullet as being .267", not .268". I've measured mine and they are actually .2665, or thereabouts.

Is the person who wrote the article for the Mannlicher collectors association publication a troll? He quotes a rifle as having been personally measured by him as having a .269" groove diameter.

As to your assertion that all this is '...well established in the shooting world...', please see here

"Alll I can say is that I must be very lucky as I have two 6.5mm Mannlichers a Mdl 1892 and a Model 1903 both of which have groove sizes of 0.268" (which appears the norm) but bore sizes of 0.256". Now I have shot the express sighted (No3 Vee) Mdl 1892 to 200 yards using some old Kynoch factory 160 Grn Loads to check the sight regulation and using handloads with a variety of bullet weights from the Speer 120 grain , Speer 140 grain and Hornady 160 Grn RN with no problems using Reloader 19.

The 1903 has a brand new Steyr made barrel and yes it's also 0.268" groove diameter. I made a brass plug guage the has 0.001" increaments from 0.255"-0.260" and both are guaged at 0.256" bores. This 1903 shows excellent promise with the 120 grain Speers."

I take it that we can assume that the chap in question is one of your 'disinfo agents"?

From the same thread:

[TABLE="class: tableborders"]
[TR]
[TD="class: darktable"][/TD]
[TD="class: subjecttable"][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"][TABLE="class: tablesurround"]
[TR]
[TD="class: navigation"] Edit[/TD]
[TD="class: navigation"] Reply[/TD]
[TD="class: navigation"] Quote[/TD]
[TD="class: navigation"] Quick Reply [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: lighttable"]To find out about the "problems" of the 6.5 Mannlicher, both 6.5x53R Mannlicher and the rimless 6.5x54 M-Sch, we have to go back to the early 1890s ballistic habits. At that time European cartridge designers still thought along the lines of black powder and lead bullets.As the early small bore bullets were rather thin-jacketed and -by today's standards- long and heavy for the caliber, and the early smokeless powders were fast burning, designers tended to use slightly undersize bullets and relied on the "slugging up" of the bullets on the sudden blow of pressure to fill the grooves. FI, this idea worked with the original 8x57 227gr .318" bullet to fill the .324" grooves, but not with lighter and stronger bullets. This lead to the confusion with .318" and .324" 8mm bullets.
The designer of the 6.5mm Mannlicher cartridges followed the same path of relying on "slugging up". On this forum you often read complains on the "outsize" groove diameter of Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5 mm barrels. If you take a look into the European CIP proof tables, you will find a minimum groove diameter of 6.78mm = surprise! .2669", the minimum bore diameter is 6.48mm = .255", so the minimum barrel diameters are both .03mm = .0012" wider than prescribed for the other 6.5mm cartridges like 6.5x55, 6.5x57, 6.5x68.
The maximum bullet diameter is the same for these "6.5mm" cartridges, 6.70mm = .264".
For the sake of "science" I have torn apart some original cartridges and miked the bullets:
Hornady 160gr round nose: .264"
1928 Portuguese military 158gr fmj/solid round nose: .263"
RWS, both pre- and post-WW2 make, 159gr TMR/round nose soft point: .261"!
RWS 159gr prewar H-jacketed boat-tail hollow-point .261" also.
Apparently most Mannlicher-Schoenauers did not shoot too bad with these "grossly undersized" bullets. So I dare to recommend for old M-Sch rifles:
do not try light bullets below 140gr
do not try hard bullets like Noslers or even homogenous bullets.
As M1903 Mannlicher-Schoenauer magazines, other than the post-war models, guide the cartridges at the base and at the bullet tip, feeding is most reliable with round noses seated to maximum cartridge length."




[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Just for sake of pure accuracy, you say you provided a link to the CIP and that is not what is contained in the above post, if that is what you refer to. You provided a link to a forum where someone discusses the CIP. Did I miss your link to the actual CIP data?

The CiP website isn't very intuitive.

http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/en/tdcc_public

The links are in post 107, under the words 'here'.

I agree, the CiP website is pretty rubbish.

JL.

[Michael Cross]

Thank you. That linked document from post 107 (now attached) is not specific to the MC rifle - correct?

And the other link you provided in post 106 is someone referencing the MC specs, but not a link to the CIP specs for the carcanno - correct?

Neophyte with weapons, digging for specificity and understanding.

[John Lewis]

Thank you. That linked document from post 107 (now attached) is not specific to the MC rifle - correct?

Correct.

The document refers to the 6.5x54mm cartridge. The reason is thus; Bob says that all 6.5mm rifles have groove diameters of .264" apart from the Carcano which is .268". I stated that I have a Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle with a groove diameter of .268" - which I have personally measured. He called me a liar - repeatedly..

I linked to the document to proove that my rifle does indeed have such a barrel. As you will see no 6.5x54mm rifle could possibly have a .264" groove diameter, as he continues to claim, as the minimum groove diameter mandated by the CiP is .2669"

And the other link you provided in post 106 is someone referencing the MC specs, but not a link to the CIP specs for the carcanno - correct?

Neophyte with weapons, digging for specificity and understanding.

No. The poster in that link is referring to Mannlicher models 1892 and 1903. These rifles chamber the 6.5x53Rmm round, and 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer round respectively.

The use of the initials MC are not correct. The Carcano rifle is not a Mannlicher product. The use of the word Mannlicher has been mistakenly applied since 1963.

JL.

Edit: the file you posted was just the tolerance sheet. The specification sheet is here - the groove dimension is denoted as the Z value under 'Barrel'

[Albert Doyle]

Why is the CIPs groove value "6.78" instead of .2678 ?

[John Lewis]

Why is the CIPs groove value "6.78" instead of .2678 ?

CiP uses millimeters. 6.78mm is .2669 inch.

That is the minimum allowed dimension. Hence, this rifle could never have a .264" groove diameter. Since the bullets used in this cartridge are .264" it totally destroys Bob's assertion that such bullets shot through a barrel with a .268" groove diameter will be chronically innaccurate and incapable of dong the job that they allegedly did in Dallas.

JL.

[Michael Cross]

Edit: the file you posted was just the tolerance sheet. The specification sheet is here - the groove dimension is denoted as the Z value under 'Barrel'

Thanks again, but again, that's not the spec sheet for the Carcano, so the conclusions you're drawing, if they come from the linked document, are baseless. And the file I previously posted was the one you linked in post 107.

*edit: typo.