Request for Help to ID Rifles

[Bob Prudhomme]

I have neglected completing this thread for some time now. It is a complex subject, and I must admit I have felt a bit frustrated over it.

So far, we have established that, prior to the introduction of the M38 short rifle in 1938, all Carcanos (long rifles and carbines) had a curious five flat facets on the upper side of the exterior barrel, at the point where the barrel joins the chamber.



When a long rifle's barrel was cut short, from 31 inches to 17 inches, in the manufacture of a carbine such as the M91/24 TS, the original stampings and serial number were left untouched. However, a "rework stamp" was struck on the upper side of the five faceted section to show this was no longer the original M91 long rifle. One such stamp can be seen on the barrel of an M91/24 below:



Inside the oval reads "Fare 27 Terni", which means this carbine conversion of a long rifle took place at the Terni factory in 1927. This is chronologically correct, as the M91/24 conversions all took place between 1924 and 1928. The disastrous results of cutting short the M91 long rifle barrels, with their progressive twist rifling, was seen in the abandonment of the M91/24 carbine program in 1928; replaced with the M91/28 carbine. With their lesson learned (for a while anyways) brand new barrels were made for the M91/28's.

As I stated earlier, 1938 came along and Italy was set to scrap the 6.5x52mm cartridge and replace it with a 7.35x51mm cartridge. The 7.35 short rifle was identical in every feature to the 6.5 except for the larger bore. The 7.35 cartridge was also identical to the 6.5 cartridge except for being 1 mm shorter in the case neck and being loaded with a larger diameter bullet.

No new barrels were manufactured for the 7.35mm short rifles. Every 7.35mm short rifle barrel was made by cutting a long rifle barrel from 31 inches to 21 inches and re-boring it from 6.5 mm to 7.35 mm and then re-rifling the "new" barrel with a 1:10 standard twist rifling.

It does not seem that the Italians followed their customary practice of putting a rework stamp on the five faceted base of the barrel, as seen on the reworked M91/24 TS carbine photo above. Rather, the 7.35mm M38 barrels now had only round metal where the five flat facets had been.



Note the "CAL 7.35" stamped on the rear sight.

As we know that ALL 7.35mm short rifles were made from cut down, re-bored 6.5mm M91 long rifles, the above photo is undeniable proof that these cut down long rifle barrels were placed in a lathe and the section with the five flat facets turned down; effectively removing them. This also effectively removed all original stampings and made this a brand new barrel which, in effect, it actually was. In the photo below, it is possible to see where the lathe operator did not quite remove all of the flat facets on this particular barrel. The points where the barrel begins to taper can plainly be seen.



It must be understood that the Italians were in no way attempting to deceive anyone with this practice. The 7.35mm's were all new rifles and it only seemed appropriate to install new rather than re-worked barrels in them. It is what happened after the 7.35mm program was abandoned in 1940, and the 6.5mm calibre cartridge brought back in the 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle, a carbon copy of the 7.35mm M38 short rifle in every feature except calibre, that I believe was the beginning of deception.


Italy abandoned the 7.35mm short rifle and the 7.35x51mm cartridge in the beginning of 1940. Coincidentally, Italy declared war on the Allies in June, 1940, after many months of blustering by Mussolini. While history cites a "lack of 7.35 ammunition" as the reason for returning to the 6.5mm cartridge, of which they had large stockpiles of 6.5mm ammo, it is not nearly as simple as it seems on the surface. The most complicated and time consuming part of making a rifle is the manufacture of the barrel. Not only this, it also requires a great deal of high grade steel, something Italy was not anywhere being a great manufacturer of and, with the coming declaration of war, was likely to be in shortage of. In the making of the 7.35mm rifle, the barrels were already manufactured and required only cutting and re-boring. On the other hand, no barrel for a 6.5mm Carcano had ever been manufactured, prior to 1940, that did not have progressive twist rifling. In other words, Italy entered into, on the eve of an inevitable war they knew they were not prepared for, the production of a new 6.5mm short rifle for which every single barrel had to be made from scratch. We are asked to believe this was simpler than manufacturing 7.35x51 mm ammo; likely the easiest thing to make when compared to the rifle.


While the intent was to make the 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle barrels with standard twist rifling, and it is true that many were made with standard twist rifling, there is evidence of 6.5mm short rifles that have progressive twist rifling. Certainly, all of the carbine versions of the M38 and M91/38 short rifles are listed as officially having progressive twist rifling (and I do not believe for a second it was a 17 inch condensed version of the M91 progressive twist rifling).

All Carcanos from 1938 on had round barrel bases instead of the earlier flat facets, including the infamous JFK assassination rifle C2766.



I should point out, in fairness, that a handful of carbines from the late 1930's (pre-1938) had the turned down barrel chamber seen above, yet no long rifle from the 1930's was made this way. The reason for this is simple. The making of M91/24 TS carbines in great numbers by cutting down M91 long rifles with progressive twist rifling was such a disaster, it led to the cessation of this practice in 1928. However, this practice was revived in a small way in the hard times of the 1930's, only by now, there would have been a real stigma attached to a carbine that was obviously a reworked long rifle. Better to remove all traces of the long rifle from the barrel. It wouldn't shoot any straighter, but that could always be blamed on the soldier.

So, along comes the program in 1940 to keep the short rifle but to now make it in 6.5mm calibre with standard twist rifling. As I said earlier, no 6.5mm Carcano barrel had ever been made that did not have progressive twist rifling, meaning all 6.5mm short rifles had to be made from scratch. The obvious thing to do would have been to continue making new barrels with the five flat facets on top but, what if Italy's planners had a strong hunch the war might not go well for Italy, and the time may come when their ability to acquire steel and make new 6.5mm short rifle barrels might be severely hampered? What if things got so bad that, in order to maintain a supply of new short rifles, it was necessary to revert to their tried and true practice of cutting long rifles from 31 inches to 21 inches, and there was concern the troops' morale would suffer if they knew they were being issued short rifles with the disastrous cut down long rifle barrels?


The obvious thing to do would be to make new barrels for the 6.5mm short rifles without the five flat facets but, rather, with the round outer chamber, as seen on C2766. That way, if things went well for Italy, they would have all new barrels and no one would ever suspect why they left out the flat facets. But, if things went badly, a shortcut could be taken by cutting down the 31 inch barrels and doctoring them to look like new 21 inch short rifle barrels. And, as the short rifle barrels were 4 inches longer than the 17 inch carbine barrels and would have gotten a little more of the tighter parts of the progressive twist rifling, they may not have been deadly accurate but, they would have been more accurate than the carbines.


Just how many 6.5mm short rifles would have been made this way is impossible to say without sulphur casting the barrel of every single M91/38 short rifle still in existence. The first one on my wish list for sulphur casting would be the one in the National Archives bearing serial no. C2766.

It has never come out just why the Italians only made the M91/38 short rifle for one year (1940) before scrapping it but it is possible the explanations above had something to do with it. Its replacement, brought out in 1941, should raise even more eyebrows. Italy had gone from scrapping the long rifle AND the 6.5 calibre in 1938, to keeping the short rifle but reverting back to the 6.5mm calibre in 1940, and in 1941 they even scrapped the short rifle and went back to a long rifle; namely, the all new 6.5mm M91/41 long rifle. They had come full circle in what was possibly one of the most bizarre weapons programs the world had ever seen.

What could possibly possess them to go back to a long rifle? I have a theory. Italy's planners knew they were making a poor weapon by cutting a progressive twist barrel from 31 inches to 21 inches. Not only that, each short rifle required that an all new wooden stock be made for it. Why not just re-issue the M91 long rifles they had in stock? If an M91 long rifle and an M91/41 long rifle are placed side by side, the only noticeable differences are the rear sights (the M91/41 has the smaller carbine rear sight) and the M91's 31 inch barrel, compared to the M91/41's 27 inch barrel. Internally, the M91/41 was to have been made with standard twist rifling, as opposed to the M91's progressive twist rifling.

Very few M91/41's actually made it into service, prior to Italy signing the armistice in 1943. Once again, it is anyone's guess how many of them were new rifles, and how many were cut down M91 long rifles. The loss of 4 inches of the tightest part of the progressive twist rifling might not have effected the accuracy of these rifles sufficiently to have been noticeable.

If it ever came out that Oswald's rifle, C2766, had progressive twist rifling, this and all the other deficiencies I have talked about would be more than enough to disqualify this rifle as being capable of performing the feats attributed to it on 22-11-63, regardless of who was pulling the trigger.