23-04-2014, 09:42 PM
I went out and got me a digital imaging software package that does measurements, to check my pixel counting math. Turns out the bullet is not exactly horizontal in the photo or even parallel to the measuring tape, and also at a different angle in each photo, so the software got more results more consistent with a single object. (Unfortunately, this software package didn't let me zoom in far enough for me to be completely confident that I started and stopped measuring on the correct pixel.) So, gifs 3317, 3318, 3319, and 3320 average out to the following dimensions:
(These measurements assume no foreshortening of either the bullet or the measuring tape)
Length 3.0 cm (1.18 inches)
Diameter 6.57 mm (.258 inches)
width (land) 1.44 mm (.045 inches)
width (groove) 3.31 mm (.122 inches) (only 2 measurements possible here)
angle (land) 5.8 degrees
From that we can say that the twist displayed on this object (as measured) is 1 / 8.37 inches. [Foreshortening possibility: If this was a 6.5 mm (.264) object, it would have a spin of 1 / 8.5 inches (close to correct), but in order to make this image the correct caliber it would have to be foreshortened from an original length of 30.6 mm (too long). If this was a .268 caliber object it would have a length of 31.1 mm (too long)]
If you have been following Bob's research, this means that this object is not quite wide enough to be either a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian slug (.268), or the 6.5 mm x 52 WCC ammo (.264) or the 6.5 x 52 M-S slug (.264). If fired from a regular MC 91/38 this object would have had lesser muzzle velocity (as the explosive gases escape around the outside), as well as lesser accuracy in that the bullet wouldn't have fit tightly in the rifling.
You can also see that the lands are too small to match Bob's specs for the M-C 91/38, and the grooves are a bit too big. Interestingly, the lands and grooves measurements don't add up to the "bullet's" apparent circumference. 6.57*3.14= 20.63. For an M-C 91/38 there's supposed to 4 equal sets of land/groove markings. (3.31+1.44)*4 = 19.00. As you can plainly see from the object (which might be a bullet) in those photos, the lands and grooves are markedly different, in both size and number, on different sides of the object. If this is a bullet, and not a piece of sculpture, it wasn't fired (once) from a single regular MC 91/38, but some custom-made barrel with a unique set of lands and grooves. (I also notice that none of the "test fired bullets" were preserved by the FBI as evidence for us to now compare with the photos in NARA.) Or its 2 different bullets fired from 2 different guns.
Of course, a custom-made (and unique) barrel makes it very easy for a "ballistics expert" to call it a "comparison match", but it also means that "C2776" wasn't any old mail order rifle. Either the "bullet" is a fake, or "Oswald's rifle" is a fake.
(These measurements assume no foreshortening of either the bullet or the measuring tape)
Length 3.0 cm (1.18 inches)
Diameter 6.57 mm (.258 inches)
width (land) 1.44 mm (.045 inches)
width (groove) 3.31 mm (.122 inches) (only 2 measurements possible here)
angle (land) 5.8 degrees
From that we can say that the twist displayed on this object (as measured) is 1 / 8.37 inches. [Foreshortening possibility: If this was a 6.5 mm (.264) object, it would have a spin of 1 / 8.5 inches (close to correct), but in order to make this image the correct caliber it would have to be foreshortened from an original length of 30.6 mm (too long). If this was a .268 caliber object it would have a length of 31.1 mm (too long)]
If you have been following Bob's research, this means that this object is not quite wide enough to be either a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian slug (.268), or the 6.5 mm x 52 WCC ammo (.264) or the 6.5 x 52 M-S slug (.264). If fired from a regular MC 91/38 this object would have had lesser muzzle velocity (as the explosive gases escape around the outside), as well as lesser accuracy in that the bullet wouldn't have fit tightly in the rifling.
You can also see that the lands are too small to match Bob's specs for the M-C 91/38, and the grooves are a bit too big. Interestingly, the lands and grooves measurements don't add up to the "bullet's" apparent circumference. 6.57*3.14= 20.63. For an M-C 91/38 there's supposed to 4 equal sets of land/groove markings. (3.31+1.44)*4 = 19.00. As you can plainly see from the object (which might be a bullet) in those photos, the lands and grooves are markedly different, in both size and number, on different sides of the object. If this is a bullet, and not a piece of sculpture, it wasn't fired (once) from a single regular MC 91/38, but some custom-made barrel with a unique set of lands and grooves. (I also notice that none of the "test fired bullets" were preserved by the FBI as evidence for us to now compare with the photos in NARA.) Or its 2 different bullets fired from 2 different guns.
Of course, a custom-made (and unique) barrel makes it very easy for a "ballistics expert" to call it a "comparison match", but it also means that "C2776" wasn't any old mail order rifle. Either the "bullet" is a fake, or "Oswald's rifle" is a fake.