The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 mm Carcano

[Bob Prudhomme]

I would like to begin a discussion about the side mounted rifle scope on the rifle allegedly owned by Oswald. Was it a good scope? Was it difficult to track a moving target with this scope? Did its offset mounting make it difficult to use? Did its offset mounting make using the open sights a possibility?

Is a side mounted scope difficult to sight or "zero" in at a rifle range? Did Oswald's training in the USMC cover sighting in rifle scopes? Once sighted in, is a side mounted scope as accurate as a top mounted scope?

I am sure, once the discussion begins, we will have many other questions.

[Bob Prudhomme]

This thread was begun on another forum and I am transferring the posts to here.

ianlloyd wroteid its offset mounting make using the open sights a possibility?

Looking at the scope, it looks to be mounted quite high above the weapon, presumably in order to allow operation of the bolt but also to allow the shells to eject without hitting the scope? Does this provide sufficient space beneath the scope to have used the iron sights instead? I've only shot air guns as a kid and used scopes on those sometimes and recall finding it difficult to re-acquire a target (obviously just to look at it after firing to see if I'd hit it). I usually removed the scope as I found it easier with just the iron sights, even more so if tracking a target.

Hello Ian


You bring up a very good point about scopes designed for air guns and low velocity .22 calibre rifles.

The rifle scope mounted on LHO's alleged M91/38 6.5mm Carcano short rifle was an Ordnance Optics 4x18 scope. It was a very inexpensive scope made in Japan and was designed to be mounted on a .22 calibre rifle. Due to the low velocity of a .22 rifle, it is not a rifle typically used to make 100 metre shots, and target shooting at 25 metres is more in line with its capabilities.

To better understand this scope, it is necessary to define the numbers assigned to it, 4x18. The number 4 tells us that this scope will magnify the size of anything viewed through it four times. The number 18 defines what is known as the "objective lens diameter" and is the diameter of the forward end of the scope that allows light in. The larger the diameter, the more light is allowed to enter the scope and the better defined the target is to the viewer. As stated, this scope was 18 mm in diameter. Scopes designed to shoot 100+ metres usually start at around 32 mm and go as high as 50 mm.

A very important feature of a scope, and the cause of your problems in re-acquiring your target, is a thing known as "field of view". This is usually defined in hunting scopes as the width of the area visible through a scope at 100 metres. Quite simply, some "wide angle" scopes, such as the original Redfield Widefield scopes, made it much simpler to find what you were shooting at by giving you a wider view of where it was. I bought a wide angle Bushnell scope for a rifle years ago simply because I could not track a moving deer when viewing it in such a tiny field of view as was seen in the scope I replaced. Now, when you design a scope to shoot .22 calibre rifles at 25 metre targets, field of view no longer becomes a concern for the manufacturer. I remember shooting .22 rifles equipped with similar cheap scopes as a kid, and the field of view was ridiculously small, comparable to trying to find someone in a crowd by looking through a 1/2" tube.

For those who believed Oswald used the open sights on 22/11/63, here is a good question. If Oswald practiced shooting this rifle as much as some claim he did, he would have noticed the inadequacies of the scope re: field of view immediately. Wouldn't it be likely that he would have removed the scope prior to bringing the rifle to the TSBD, if he knew he was going to be using the open sights?

More to come......

[Bob Prudhomme]

To better understand the difficulties of sidemounting a scope on a rifle, there are a few more things about rifle scopes you should know. Look carefully at the following two diagrams:





These may look a bit complicated but are really quite simple. When a bullet leaves the muzzle of a rifle, the only force acting on it then is gravity, and it will begin falling to the earth. For this reason, to hit a target at 100 or 200 metres by aiming at it through a scope (or sights), it is necessary to raise the barrel up so the bullet will follow a parabolic curve to the target and impact the target on descent. The amount of elevation depends upon how "flat shooting" the rifle is. A rifle with a high muzzle velocity and a high ballistic coefficient will not require much elevation, while a low velocity round with a bullet possessing a low ballistic coefficient (the 6.5mm Carcano M91/38, for example) requires more elevation.

Quite often, on a hunting rifle, the line of sight will be adjusted until the rifle is able to hit bullseyes at 200 metres. This does not mean the hunter is specifically looking for game at 200 metres, although his rifle is sighted in for that distance. The purpose of this is that his rifle, at 100 metres, will only be shooting an inch or two high at the top of the parabola and this can be easily compensated for, much easier than trying to hit a target at 200 metres with a rifle sighted in for 100 metres. The results can be seen in this chart. Note how quickly the bullet begins to drop.


It is interesting to note, from the first two diagrams, that the bullet path will cross the line of sight just a few metres out from the muzzle, and again at the target. This actually means that a rifle sighted in to be accurate at 200 metres is also accurate at a few metres.

Now, while the trajectory of a rifle seriously affects hitting the height of a target at different ranges, and this was the inspiration for built in rangefinders on hunting scopes, the advantage of mounting a scope (or open sights) directly above the barrel of a rifle is that the left-to-right (windage) of line of sight to bullet impact relationship does not vary with range. In other words, if you aim at bullseyes at 50 metres, 100 metres, 200 metres and 300 metres, you will see a corresponding drop of the impact point of the bullets as you go further out but, unless you are shooting in a crosswind, there will be no variation to left or right on the target.

However, if you mount the scope on the side of the receiver, as on LHO's alleged rifle, you are no longer directly over the barrel. Even though it appears to be too small of a space to make much difference, the line of sight (from the scope) and the line of departure (bullet path) are now beginning from two different points, and the rifle can only be sighted in for windage to be accurate at one range and one range only; namely, the point at which these two lines converge. Any close shot made with this rifle will put the bullet to the right of the aimed at target, and any shot made past the convergent point will put the bullet to the left of the aimed at target.

Years ago, a friend of mine owned a Winchester Model 94 30-30 lever action rifle. It had open sights and was a great deer rifle in brushy ground. For some odd reason, my friend decided one day he just had to have a scope on this rifle, even though he was a deadly shot with open sights. As with the Carcano, it was necessary for the gunsmith to side mount the scope on the 30-30, not because of interference with the action but because this repeating rifle ejected cartridges straight up from the receiver, and they would hit the scope.

The gunsmith "boresighted" the scope after mounting it but, of course, it was still necessary to sight the rifle in at the range as boresighting only "gets you on the paper", as they say. It almost drove us insane trying to sight that rifle in so it would hit bullseyes at 100 metres. Every adjustment we made to elevation or windage seemed to throw us off somewhere else. It didn't help that the Model 94 is a very light rifle and likes to kick, and one is anticipating this with each shot.

During this exercise, I tried a couple of shots with the open sights, and found having the scope right in your face made this an extremely awkward and uncomfortable thing to do. As I said before, those who think the inadequacies of the scope would have prompted LHO to use the open sights during the assassination are as much as saying LHO never practiced at a range with this rifle. If he had, he would have removed the scope long before he brought the rifle to Dealey Plaza.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I believe I have well addressed most of the original questions I put forth relating to the side mounted scope on the 6.5mm Carcano, save for the question of whether or not Oswald would have received training in the USMC in rifles with scopes mounted on them.

In basic training, Oswald would have been issued a 30-06 calibre M1 Garand. This was an eight round, semi-automatic, "en bloc" clip fed rifle that was equipped with a type of iron sights known as a "peep sight". There is no evidence to show that Oswald, in basic training or later on, ever received any training in shooting and maintaining a scope mounted rifle.

It is interesting to note the similarities between the 6.5mm Carcano and the M1 Garand. Both used an "en bloc" charger clip, six round for the Carcano and eight round for the Garand. The Carcano clip fell out of the bottom of the magazine when the last round was chambered and the Garand clip was ejected out the top of the magazine when the last round was fired. Neither of these rifles could have a scope mounted directly over the receiver. The bolt of the Carcano would have struck a scope in this position, and the Garand ejected its empty cartridges upwards (like the Winchester Model 94 I spoke of). In some cases, scopes were side mounted on the Garands on the left side of the receiver, and, in others, scopes were mounted ahead of the chamber and directly above the barrel, to overcome the problems I spoke of in my last post. Suffice it to say that shooting with a scope mounted ahead of the chamber would be awkward, at the least.





Also, note the difference between these long range scopes and the pathetic .22 calibre scope mounted on Oswald's alleged rifle.

As the M1 Garand is a very accurate fast shooting weapon and its peep sight makes target re-acquisition very easy following a shot being fired, I have often thought to myself that the Lone Nut story would have been much more believable if the rifle found on the 6th floor had been a Garand. This was, after all, the rifle Oswald had trained with, and its semi-automatic action would have allowed more than three shots to be fired in the time allotted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5k8r2OrFEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF5CdczuMTA

[Bob Prudhomme]

Here is an interesting perspective of a 6.5 mm Carcano rifle (model unknown but the bolt and receiver is identical on all Carcanos) with a side mounted scope:



It is hard to tell if this is the same scope and scope mount as was used on the alleged assassination rifle.

Observe that the bolt handle, when ejecting an empty cartridge, must be rotated, by lifting the handle, until the base of the handle is standing vertically, before the bolt can be pulled back.

Doesn't appear to be a great deal of room between the scope and the bolt handle, does there? Can you see this as a fast operating rifle with this obvious handicap?

As I said, I do not know if this setup is an accurate replication of the real assassination rifle but, it does give one food for thought.



Correction: This rifle is either a 7.35x51mm M38 Carcano short rifle or a 6.5x52mm M91/38 short rifle (LHO's alleged rifle). The giveaway is the fixed rear sight with the "V" notch. These were the only two Carcanos that had fixed rear sights and not adjustable rear sights. The two short rifles are indistinguishable from outward appearances and, aside from calibre, differ only in that the M38 rear sight is set up to hit a target at 300 metres while the M91/38 is set up to be accurate at a more modest 200 metres.

Now, look again at this photo and try to imagine using the rear sight and fore sight with your forehead pressed against the telescopic sight.

[Bob Prudhomme]

From the Warren Commission testimony of FBI Special agent Robert Frazier:


"Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And I have the four targets we fired here.Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?Mr. FRAZIER - I fired them.Mr. EISENBERG - Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds. The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point. Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point. These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds. And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle.Mr. McCLOY - The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right.Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots."

For a firearms expert, Mr. Frazier has an odd way of describing things. For example, the shots were "gradually moving away from the point of impact." Unless there was some sort of magic at play here, I think I would have said they were moving away from the point of "aim", not impact.

Speaking of magic, I do not think I have ever heard of a rifle scope that required a few shots being fired to allow it to "stabilize" itself. This would be akin to changing the TV channels with a remote control and then having to bang on the side of the TV until the channel changer responded. What would happen if you hit the TV one too many times? Would it go past the desired channel? If what Frazier says is true (and I think it is nonsense), each time the rifle scope is jarred, it will take several shots to "re-stabilize" it. Once again, we have the FBI relying heavily upon the ignorance not only of the WC but also of the American public.

However, the tendency of successive shots to "walk away" from the point of aim is a common problem with rifles and it has absolutely nothing to do with the rifle scope. In fact, I experienced this myself, and the cure was quite simple.

As rifle stocks are made from wood, they are prone to absorbing moisture. If you live in a humid climate, such as the temperate rainforest I live in or the city of New Orleans, where LHO resided, this wood can be exposed to tremendous extremes of moisture. In my case, I would go from long hunts on foot in the rain to a nice warm house heated with firewood. I would wipe my rifle down, clean it and then hang it on the wall next to a wood fired heater.

Suffice it to say, it only took a few cycles of this wet/dry before the wooden forestock of my rifle warped on me. It first became apparent when I could not hit what I was shooting at. I took the rifle to the range and found, at 100 metres, it was hitting, on the first shot, slightly high and to the right of the bullseye. Each successive shot hit higher and more to the right, until I was easily six inches from the bullseye.

The barrrels of most rifles "float" in their forestock, meaning that they are attached to the stock only at the chamber. This can be demonstrated by wrapping a piece of paper half round the barrel and sliding it between the barrel and the forestock. There should be no contact and the paper should pass easily between barrel and forestock. If it does not, you have a problem that needs to be corrected.

In the case of this rifle, I found, at the front end of the forestock, the forestock had warped and was pressing tightly against the lower left side of the barrel. Believe it or not, this small amount of pressure was enough to slightly bend the barrel upwards and to the right, making progressive shots hit higher and further to the right of the bullseye. When I fired the first shot, the barrel heated up, expanding the metal, and the increased pressure caused the barrel to bend more. Each successive shot would bend the barrel even more as the temperature of the barrel increased.

The solution, of course, was simple. I removed the stock and sanded that part of the forestock that was contacting the barrel until I had re-established the necessary clearance, applied sealant to prevent it absorbing more moisture and re-assembled the rifle.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Stan Dane wrote:

"So what Mr. Frazier (no relation to Buell Wesley I presume) is saying is thateven after several professional attempts to sight it inthis rifle was crappy, unless it's OK for shots to not land "in the same place." Yet that loser Oswald brought his rifle to work in the rain on Nov 22, in pieces, assembled the mofacky without detection, and just so happened achieved rifle alignment Nirvana enabling him to hit his targets with once-in-a-lifetime deadly accuracy. Yeah."

Stan

Did you see the problems Frazier reported just in making adjustments to the scope? A tweak on the elevation knob, and it throws the windage off, and a tweak on the windage knob, and it throws the elevation off. If this sounds familiar, there is a reason. Go back a few posts and read about the identical problems a friend and I had while attempting to sight in the side mounted scope on his Winchester Model 94 lever action 30-30.

Unlike Frazier, we did not come up with some cock and bull story about the "unstabilized spring mounting in the crosshair ring". (reminds me of a logging mechanic describing an ailment in a large machine "The bull gear jumped the heifer shaft again" LOL)This is simply the nature of a side mounted scope, and it is also the reason you see people willing to, on the M1 Garand, endure the inadequacies of a scope mounted ahead of the breech, as opposed to dealing with a side mounted scope.

If SA Frazier, a firearms expert, had such difficulties in making this scope work, how did Oswald, with NO training in scopes at all, make this scope work?

It should be noted that Frazier admits freely that the mounting of this scope on this rifle has been done incorrectly and that there is not enough adjustment available in the scope's windage and elevation knobs to bring the scope and rifle "on target". This was a mistake on the part of the gunsmith who mounted the scope onto the rifle, and shims were required to adjust the alignment of the scope and the barrel. This is very common in scope mounting, and gunsmiths keep a goodly selection of shims on hand for just this purpose. This is also why a gunsmith will "boresight" a rifle once the scope is mounted; just to insure he has aligned the scope and barrel to the point the customer can zero in the rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF07A7HaR38

http://www.barska.com/blog/how-to-use-a-...by-barska/

[Bob Prudhomme]

From Wikipedia:


"FBI tests[edit]
The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:
1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[SUP][61][/SUP] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2½ inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[SUP][62][/SUP] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2½ to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no lead correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),[SUP][63][/SUP] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."

I find much of Frazier's testimony about ballistics, rifles and bullets almost childishly easy to refute. The above excerpt from his testimony is a classic example of this, and while the omissions by the LN contributor to this Wikipedia article do a fairly good job of covering up Frazier's mistakes (or outright lies) it is still possible to get to the truth.

The first problem with Frazier's testimony is his claim that the bullets landed on the target, at 100 yards, "within a three to five inch circle". I'm not quite sure what Frazier means by this, as a circle 3"x5" would be called an oval in most classrooms I ever attended. In target shooting, the normal way of scoring a group of bullets is to determine what size of circle it takes to contain ALL of the bullet holes in the group. In this case, that would be called a 5" group; not nearly as accurate sounding as a 3"x5" group.

One distinct possibility for the type of grouping described by Frazier is something I discussed in the last post on the previous page. While the shots at 100 yards all landed 2 1/2"-5" high, they seem to be spread laterally in a 5" wide range. Is this further evidence of the shots "walking away" to the right on the target with each progressive shot, due to a warped wooden forestock pressing against the forward end of the barrel? I should point out that an improperly cleaned, unoiled and stored weapon exposed to this much moisture, likely in the humid climate of New Orleans, will often have other problems beside a warped stock. The firing pin on this rifle was reported as being rusty, and there was some concern it would break during test firing. It was also reported that it took a good deal of working the bolt back and forth to take the stiffness out of the action of this rifle. I'm willing to bet a fair amount of penetrating oil and gun oil was applied as well, though, of course, Frazier neglects to mention this.

If I had a rifle that shot 5" groups at 100 yards I would call it anything but accurate, and I would take it to a gunsmith to see what was wrong with it. Bench rest shooting with factory ammunition in a well maintained rifle should be able to produce groups of 1" diameter at 100 yards with no difficulty.

Next, we have the real gem of Frazier's collection of stories. Let's examine closely what he tells us.

His first group of shots is at 15 yards (14 m.). These shots all land about 2.5" high and about an inch to the right. It is interesting that Frazier chose to shoot at 15 yards. If we look at this diagram again:



We can see that the line of sight from the scope and the trajectory of the bullet cross each other at a distance, usually, of 10-15 yards from the muzzle of the rifle. This means that this rifle, sighted in to be accurate and hit a bullseye at, say, 100 yards, will also be accurate at 15 yards and, if hitting bullseyes at 100 yards, will hit bullseyes at 15 yards. However, Frazier reports the rifle was hitting 2.5" high of the bullseye at 15 yards.

Frazier then tells us that, at 100 yards, the bullets landed 2.5"-5" high. If we assume the first shot landed 2.5" high and the ensuing shots were "climbing", due to the previously discussed warped stock, it is possible that Frazier was telling us this rifle was shooting 2.5" high at 100 yards.

Now, this is going to get complicated, and it would be wise to look closely at this diagram again:



As you can see, there are three basic terms:
Line of Sight - what the shooter sees looking through the scope at the target.
Line of Departure - the straight path a bullet would take if unaffected by gravity.
Trajectory of Bullet - the parabolic curved path the bullet actually takes as gravity pulls it down to the earth.

As the line of sight and trajectory of bullet cross at 15 yards, the impact point at 15 yards can be brought to the bullseye by adjusting the line of sight from the scope downward by 2.5".

Therefore, if the line of sight is 2.5" high at 15 yards (540 inches) we can, using algebra, determine what the line of sight is at 100 yards (3600 inches).

2.5 is to 540 what "x" is to 3600 or 3600 x 2.5 over 540 = 16.67.

I'm not sure if all of you can appreciate the immensity of what I have just shown you but, suffice it to say that Frazier has told the WC a most outrageous lie by saying the rifle, aimed at a bullseye at 100 yards, placed bullets on the target 2.5-5" high when the line of sight was set up to see 16.67" inches high at 100 yards! Granted, there is such a thing as bullet drop but, it must be remembered that the mid-range trajectory (50 yards) of a 6.5mm Carcano sighted in at 100 yards is only a bit over 2" higher than the line of sight. And, with this rifle elevated this high, it is anyone's guess where the rifle would hit a bullseye but I would hazard a guess at 300-400 yards. This means, of course, that, at 100 yards, the bullet would be on the rising curve of the parabola and would be 16.67" high, not 2.5-5" high.

In as simple terms as I can describe it, when Frazier was looking through the scope at the bullseye on a 100 yard target, the scope elevation was adjusted to cause his bullets to hit 16.67" inches higher than the bullseye at 100 yards. This rifle did not even come close to hitting JFK.

[Tom Bowden]

I have a carcano with the identical scope as described in the above text. I can offer the following comments from experience.
1. The four power scope is extremely difficult to track a moving object. Field of vision is very limited and locating a lost target is difficult.
I understand the Carcano as a snipers rifle used an eight power scope during WWII.
2. You can use the iron sights with the scope mounted and you do not lose vision when you reload. I e. the bolt does not obscure the target.
3. I have placed three shots within a 3" circle consistently at 100 yards.
4. In looking at the parabolic calculation, remember the shots were elevation down and should be considered.
5. Adjusting the scope is difficult without a stand to hold position on the rifle.
If I had been in Dealey that day with that gun, I would have used the iron sights and totally ignored the scope. If on the other hand I was shooting at General Walker through a window, I might use the scope.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Hi Tom

Could you explain what exactly you are saying in #4?

"4. In looking at the parabolic calculation, remember the shots were elevation down and should be considered."

I agree the iron sights could have been used with the side mounted scope in place although, in my experience with doing this, it is an extremely awkward and uncomfortable practice; not something I would be trying with rapid fire shooting at moving targets.

If Oswald practiced as much as WC supporters claim he did, he would quickly have become aware, as you did, of the gross inadequacies of this toy rifle scope. Do you not think he would have simply removed the scope before taking the rifle to the TSBD, in order to make using the iron sights easier? Would you have considered this option? Removing the scope would have been as easy as re-assembling a Carcano short rifle with a dime.

P.S. You may not lose sight of your target while extracting a casing and re-chambering the next round but, you certainly cannot see your rear or front sight with the bolt handle in the vertical position.