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

[John Lewis]

Hello to all,

I found this site whilst searching for information on Italian Carcanorifles as I may have an opportunity to purchase one coming up.

To introduce my self and to provide some background on the things Iregistered here to post on; I am from the UK, early 40's I am aRegistered Firearms Dealer by trade and operate two shooting clubs. Ihave been involved with firearms and shooting in one form or anothersince I was about 10.

I have always had an interest in the Kennedy assassination and, for therecord, I do subscribe to the line of thinking that Oswald shot himfrom the window in question. I wasn't always of that inclination the theory outlined in the Mortal Error book was actually verygood from a firearms and ballistics standpoint.

So,with that out of the way, I have addressed some of the points belowwhich I think do not support the theory that Oswald's rifle was notaccurate enough to do what he accused of doing. As an aside; therifle on which I may have an opportunity to purchase is described asbeing very accurate by its owner and is actually his only remainingcentre-fire rifle which he has had for decades.

My comments below the original text (snipped for brevity).

-------------------------------------

Butenough of Italian ammunition. The real reputation for inaccuracyenjoyed by the Carcanos began after WWII when these rifles beganshowing up on the domestic market in North America. There are many6.5mm calibre rifles in the world and they all share one thing incommon; a bore diameter of 6.5 mm or about .256". The riflinggroove diameter of these rifles (also the bullet diameter) is alsoidentical in every single one of these rifles EXCEPT the 6.5mmCarcano. While the world standard diameter for 6.5 mm bullets is.264", the makers of the Carcano elected to cut deeper riflinggrooves in these barrels, and this rifle will only shoot accuratelywith a bullet that is .268" in diameter; the groove diameter ofa Carcano barrel.

The problem is well detailed in thisarticle:

http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-wa...-partizan.html

Asstrange as it may sound, until 2002, the only 6.5mm bulletsmanufactured to a diameter of .268" were those loaded intoItalian military cartridges pre-1945. In other words, for just over50 years, sporting ammunition was made for Carcano rifles but, EVERYSINGLE MANUFACTURER was loading bullets into these cartridges thatwere too small. Finally, in 2002, Hornady addressed this problem, andmade available to handloaders 6.5mm Carcano bullets that were theproper diameter of .268".

Tothose unfamiliar with ballistics, a difference in diameter of only.004" may seem insignificant, yet this is all that is needed toentirely throw off the accuracy of a Carcano rifle. Not only do therifling grooves have insufficient grip on the smaller bullet togyroscopically stabilize it in flight, there are now four gaps aroundthe bullet, each .002" deep, that allow the propellant gasesdriving the bullet down the barrel to escape past the bullet;diminishing velocity.

I cannot agree with this assessment. The difference between bullet diameter and groove diameter (in this particular case) is highly unlikely to cause significant inaccuracy.

The bore diameter is .256 and the bullet diameter is .264. A depth of .006" is ample for the bullet to engrave the rifling so that it is spun sufficiently to make it accurate. Also, the 160 grain round nose bullet in question has a very long bearing-surface (the part which engages the bore/rifling) meaning that any stresses imparted by the rifling are spread over an unusually large area. Therefore, a deep engraving of the bullet is not required for it to be rotated properly.

If you look at pictures of CE399 you will see strong rifling marks clearly visible on the jacket. CE399 was definitely spun at the same rate of twist as the rifling marks on it it simply could not have left the rifle looking any other way. Had it skipped over the rifling (which is the only way that it could not have been spun correctly) then it would not look like that.

Deep rifling is not needed to stabilse modern jacketed bullets. Modern firearms commonly use much shallower rifling than older ones like the Carcano and work quite well like that.

Any propellant gases lost via blow-by (gas escaping past the bullet) would be minimal indeed and would have very little measurable effect. In fact it may well be the case that there was none at all as the bullet would have likely swaged up to fill the rifling almost completely. It is not clear from looking at pictures of the rifling marks (as opposed to the land marks) CE399 whether that was indeed the case if anyone has any very good close-ups of it it would be most illuminating.

I own a Mannlicher-Schoanauer model 1903 carbine which uses an almost identical round. I have not slugged the barrel but it is factory marked as being 6.7mm which is a diameter of .2637". This is the bore diameter, not the grove diameter. As has been correctly pointed out, all current and past 6.5mm bullets, with the exception of the Carcano ones measure .264". Steyr, the maker of my rifle, knew this yet still produced rifles with a a bore diameter of only .003" smaller. I would guess that grove diameter of my rifle is at least .268. The author of the document linked to here has identified one rifle with a groove diameter of .269"! Remember, all the available ammo used .264" bullets.

To qualify all of that; yes, a bore which is larger than the bullet diameter, especially significantly so will have an effect on accuracy and can cause gas blow-by which also theoretically can have an effect. These are all very small matters though and the effect on shots taken at short range is insignificant. The problem of gas blow-by isn't really one of accuracy, it is one of barrel wear. Gas which is attempting to get through a very small gap as we are talking about here leads to localised very high pressures and temperatures which causes undue wear to the the bore.

On the matter of the Hornady .268" bullets. They are not .268". I have recently acquired a box and they come out at about .2665".

This, of course, leads us to the ammunition purportedly used by Oswald to kill JFK; namely, the 6.5x52 mm Carcano ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co. of East Alton, Illinois, USA. The FBI provided a lovely little cock and bull story about the WCC manufacturing 4 million rounds of this ammunition in 1954 for the USMC who, of course, had no weapons capable of shooting this ammunition. In cloak and dagger fashion right out of the Spy vs. Spy comics, the FBI hints that this ammunition was, in fact, made for the CIA and spirited away to arm anti-Communist factions in some remote Third World theatre. It is an amusing story, and almost believable, until one looks at this period in history and realizes there were no armed conflicts, at that period in time, where one or both of the factions had a preponderance of 6.5mm Carcano rifles.

I cannot comment on the history of the WCC ammo in question. However I do remember some years ago hearing (and I can't recall where I heard or possibly read this) that the ammo in question was actually assembled using bullets which had been pulled from surplus Italian ammo. This would seem to make sense as the Italian military ammo was, as you point out, of rather poor quality. Also, the WCC bullets do look a lot like pictures of ones I've seen pulled from Italian ammo.

At this point, it should be pointed out that the ammunition for the Greek infantry rifle, the 6.5x54 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer Greek, was about as close as you could get to a 6.5x52 mm Carcano cartridge. The main difference is the .264" diameter bullet loaded into the Mannlicher-Schoenauer cartridge and the .268" diameter bullet loaded into the Carcano cartridge.



6.5 x 54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer cartridge (.264" bullet diameter)



6.5 x 52 mm Carcano cartridge (.268" bullet diameter)

Interestingly, the rimless bases of the two cartridges and the angle of the shoulders are identical. The only differences are the overall length of the cartridges (54 mm vs. 52 mm) and the fact that the shoulder of the Carcano cartridge is 1 mm closer to the base than the MS shoulder is. For this reason, you CANNOT load a 6.5x54mm MS cartridge into a Carcano rifle, as the shoulder will bottom in the chamber just before the bolt is closed, but you CAN load a 6.5x52mm Carcano cartridge into a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle and close the bolt. The only thing stopping you from pulling the trigger is the knowledge that you have loaded a cartridge into your 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer that is loaded with a bullet that is .004" too big for the MS barrel, and if you pull the trigger, the rifle could blow up in your face.

I have to say that that is highly unlikely especially given that, as pointed out above, M/S rifles have large bores as well. Indeed given that the Carcano round is shorter and there is more free space in the chamber it is likely to produce a lower chamber pressure than the correct 6.5x54mm ammo.

[John Lewis]

As you know, FBI expert Frazier said the casing was dented when it struck the floor after ejection, and that the "ejection tests" they did (to prove that the spread of brass was not impossible) resulted in more than one shell being dented. My digital analysis software is on my computer at work so I'll get to it tomorrow.

Just another fairy tale from Mr. Frazier to add to his collection. I've dropped lots of empty casings on a wood floor and not one of them came out looking like CE 543.

It may have hit something else first. A dent like that on fired brass is not uncommon, especially on relatively think brass such as the type used on 6.5mm ammo.


JL.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I have been expecting an attack of this type and, as usual, the qualifications of the author are easily discredited.

To quote "John Lewis":

"I own a Mannlicher-Schoanauer model 1903 carbine which uses an almost identical round. I have not slugged the barrel but it is factory marked as being 6.7mm which is a diameter of .2637". This is the bore diameter, not the grove diameter. As has been correctly pointed out, all current and past 6.5mm bullets, with the exception of the Carcano ones measure .264". Steyr, the maker of my rifle, knew this yet still produced rifles with a a bore diameter of only .003" smaller. I would guess that grove diameter of my rifle is at least .268. The author of the document linked to here has identified one rifle with a groove diameter of .269"! Remember, all the available ammo used .264" bullets."

If one goes to this conversion table site http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm and converts 6.5 mm to inches, one will get a figure of .2559" or .256". This is the actual bore diameter of a Carcano, Mannlicher-Schoenauer and any other 6.5mm calibre rifle, not .2637" as Mr. Lewis tells us. The figure of .2637" or .264" is the GROOVE diameter of the average 6.5mm rifle, as well as the diameter of the bullet.

The question of whether or not the standard diameter bullet for most 6.5mm calibre rifles, which is .264" in diameter, has been decided long ago. ALL Italian cartridges for the 6.5mm Carcano rifle were loaded with a bullet that was .268" in diameter. There are literally dozens of pages written by persons far more qualified than Mr. Lewis explaining how shooting .264" diameter bullets from a Carcano rifle will produce inaccurate shots. This is thje reason why Hornady, in 2004, finally came out with a .268" diameter specifically for Carcano rifles.

The idea that the Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Carcano bullets were loaded with .268" bullets pulled from Italian cartridges is utter nonsense. One only need look at this photo of CE 399, a WCC bullet.



The WCC bullet above has a "cannelure" near the base of the bullet. While some of the Italian military bullets also had cannelures, they were nowhere near as wide or distinctive as the WCC bullet.

Lastly, this is my favorite from Mr. Lewis:

"[size=12]To qualify all of that; yes, a bore which is larger than the bullet diameter, especially significantly so will have an effect on accuracy and can cause gas blow-by which also theoretically can have an effect. These are all very small matters though and the effect on shots taken at short range is insignificant. The problem of gas blow-by isn't really one of accuracy, it is one of barrel wear. Gas which is attempting to get through a very small gap as we are talking about here leads to localised very high pressures and temperatures which causes undue wear to the the bore."

A bore that is larger than the bullet diameter??? The bullet diameter and the groove diameter are the same. Look at this diagram and someone please tell me just what the hell Mr. Lewis is going on about.



P.S. The Hornady bullets for the 6.5mm Carcano are, indeed, .268" in diameter. Do not believe Mr. Lewis. He is spreading disinformation.
[/SIZE]

[Bob Prudhomme]

As you know, FBI expert Frazier said the casing was dented when it struck the floor after ejection, and that the "ejection tests" they did (to prove that the spread of brass was not impossible) resulted in more than one shell being dented. My digital analysis software is on my computer at work so I'll get to it tomorrow.

Just another fairy tale from Mr. Frazier to add to his collection. I've dropped lots of empty casings on a wood floor and not one of them came out looking like CE 543.

It may have hit something else first. A dent like that on fired brass is not uncommon, especially on relatively think brass such as the type used on 6.5mm ammo.


JL.

Mr. McAdams...errr...Lewis

Please explain to all of us exactly how a cartridge case could be dented in this fashion, especially one as relatively "think" as the Carcano.

[Drew Phipps]

The bullet in the picture that Bob P. provided above ( "a" CE 399 from the 60's) cannot have been fired fom a mail order surplus MC 91/38. As we have discussed, the land/groove pattern displayed in that picture is incorrect for that type of rifle. This fact has been known since the 60's, as we have also discussed. Walt Cakebread, and Harold Weisberg (for starters) had established this in short order after the Warren Report was published.

The bullet now on display at NARA (as CE 399) is very likely a different bullet entirely. There are still anomalies with respect to its size and shape and markings.

Now, if "Oswald's gun" was some kludged-together "Frankenstien" gun with different surplus bits and pieces, and a very non-standard pattern of lands/grooves inside the barrell, then it is possible for that gun to have fired a bullet that looks like CE 399. But if that is true, it is unlikely that such a custom made work of art would be available for $12.95 in a mail order magazine. (BTW a custom made barrell with non-standard land/grooves would be very easy to positively match ballistically with a bullet fired from it, even if it did not possess the "class characteristics" common to that model of gun.)

Both of those 2 possibiities have important impacts on the assassination and the cover-up.

[John Lewis]

I have been expecting an attack of this type and, as usual, the qualifications of the author are easily discredited.

To quote "John Lewis":

"I own a Mannlicher-Schoanauer model 1903 carbine which uses an almost identical round. I have not slugged the barrel but it is factory marked as being 6.7mm which is a diameter of .2637". This is the bore diameter, not the grove diameter. As has been correctly pointed out, all current and past 6.5mm bullets, with the exception of the Carcano ones measure .264". Steyr, the maker of my rifle, knew this yet still produced rifles with a a bore diameter of only .003" smaller. I would guess that grove diameter of my rifle is at least .268. The author of the document linked to here has identified one rifle with a groove diameter of .269"! Remember, all the available ammo used .264" bullets."

If one goes to this conversion table site http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm and converts 6.5 mm to inches, one will get a figure of .2559" or .256". This is the actual bore diameter of a Carcano, Mannlicher-Schoenauer and any other 6.5mm calibre rifle, not .2637" as Mr. Lewis tells us. The figure of .2637" or .264" is the GROOVE diameter of the average 6.5mm rifle, as well as the diameter of the bullet.

The question of whether or not the standard diameter bullet for most 6.5mm calibre rifles, which is .264" in diameter, has been decided long ago. ALL Italian cartridges for the 6.5mm Carcano rifle were loaded with a bullet that was .268" in diameter. There are literally dozens of pages written by persons far more qualified than Mr. Lewis explaining how shooting .264" diameter bullets from a Carcano rifle will produce inaccurate shots. This is thje reason why Hornady, in 2004, finally came out with a .268" diameter specifically for Carcano rifles.

The idea that the Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Carcano bullets were loaded with .268" bullets pulled from Italian cartridges is utter nonsense. One only need look at this photo of CE 399, a WCC bullet.



The WCC bullet above has a "cannelure" near the base of the bullet. While some of the Italian military bullets also had cannelures, they were nowhere near as wide or distinctive as the WCC bullet.

Lastly, this is my favorite from Mr. Lewis:

"[size=12]To qualify all of that; yes, a bore which is larger than the bullet diameter, especially significantly so will have an effect on accuracy and can cause gas blow-by which also theoretically can have an effect. These are all very small matters though and the effect on shots taken at short range is insignificant. The problem of gas blow-by isn't really one of accuracy, it is one of barrel wear. Gas which is attempting to get through a very small gap as we are talking about here leads to localised very high pressures and temperatures which causes undue wear to the the bore."

A bore that is larger than the bullet diameter??? The bullet diameter and the groove diameter are the same. Look at this diagram and someone please tell me just what the hell Mr. Lewis is going on about.



P.S. The Hornady bullets for the 6.5mm Carcano are, indeed, .268" in diameter. Do not believe Mr. Lewis. He is spreading disinformation.
[/SIZE]

I have slugged the bore of my rifle and the groove diameter is .268", in fact it may actually be a touch larger. As stated in the link I posted - which was to an old issue of a Mannlicher collectors magazine - these rifles have been encountered with groove diameters of up to .269" and the larger sizes are quite usual. As we know, all 6.5mm bullets (bar the Italian military ones) are .264" diameter. Why then did Steyr-Mannlicher make rifles with such large groove diemeters if the result would be that they could not hit a target the width of the shoulders of a man at well under 100 yards.

My rifle is most certainly marked 6.7. Believe that or not if you so choose - I know it as a fact. Look here the first rifle (in 6.5x54) is marked 6.5. Your assertion that these marks relate to groove diameter cannot be correct because if so then this one must have a .256 groove diameter which simply cannot be true. It would have blown up during proof!

The assertion that all Italian 6.5 ammo was loaded with .268" bullets seems not to be true either. See post number 17 here. The chap says he has pulled original military surplus ammo and the bullets measured .266". Also, if you check post 7 on that thread you will see that it is by someone who actually owns some WCC ammo and has pulled one of the bullets. Guess what? They measure .266", not .264! This means that there are other 6.5mm bullets which aren't .264".

You are taking my comment about WCC ammo being loaded with pulled Italian bullets entirely out of context. I didn't state it as a fact. Look at the manner in which I wrote it; I was just putting it up for discussion as being something I had heard or read somewhere many years ago. I never said that it was true.

You are also incorrect about the Hornady bullets measuring .268". They don't and never did. Not even Hornady still call them .268" diameter any more. I have just re-measured the ones I have and they are .2665" as close as I can measure them. This is from an old type Hornady box rather than the new shiny one and the bullets are clearly not new and have been sitting on a shelf a while so it isn't the case that they have recently changed the dimensions.

Your last comment about my referencing bore/grove diameters is to miss the point somewhat. My use of the word 'bore' was nothing more than a touch of brain-fade on my part, it should have been 'groove' instead. Anyone reading the discussion in context can see that. The bottom line being that firing a .264" bullet through a barrel with a .268" groove diameter will not result in a catastrophic loss of accuracy as you are suggesting. It will be, and is, virtually insignificant. The bullet is engaged in the rifling and that is all that required. I know because I have done it and do it all the time. It is fairly easy to knock down man-sized targets at 250'ish yards from a standing position using the rifle's open sights. I was doing just that only a few months ago when I last shot the rifle.

I have to say that your response has somewhat stunned me. All I came here to do was discuss a particular firearms related subject which interested me and which I have a bit of knowledge about. The very first reply I got started out with accusations of me staging an 'attack' on you by simply daring to take issue with something that you had said. You then proceed to set up some straw-man argument when you attempted to undermine and 'discredit' my 'qualifications'. I haven't referred to any 'qualification' I may or may not hold. I'm not pretending to be anyone I'm not and, quite honestly, the whole discussion of how JFK actually met his end and by whom is fairly unimportant to me in the great scheme of things. I don't particularly care one way or another. It's an interesting topic of conversation and not a lot more. The part that interests me is the firearms side and not much else.

You state a lot of things as being fact here. So, to ask:

Have you personally measured the bullets from any WCC 6.5x52mm Carcano ammo?

Have you personally measured any Hornady 6.5mm Carcano bullets code number 2645? This is an easy one to do as any decent gun shop will be able to order them for you.

Have you personally measured the groove diameter of a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 1903 rifle by slugging the bore?

Have you personally tested the accuracy of an Italian 6.5x52mm Carcano rifle with either Italian service ammunition and reloads or modern ammo using .264" bullets?


JL.

[John Lewis]

As you know, FBI expert Frazier said the casing was dented when it struck the floor after ejection, and that the "ejection tests" they did (to prove that the spread of brass was not impossible) resulted in more than one shell being dented. My digital analysis software is on my computer at work so I'll get to it tomorrow.

Just another fairy tale from Mr. Frazier to add to his collection. I've dropped lots of empty casings on a wood floor and not one of them came out looking like CE 543.

It may have hit something else first. A dent like that on fired brass is not uncommon, especially on relatively think brass such as the type used on 6.5mm ammo.


JL.

Mr. McAdams...errr...Lewis

Please explain to all of us exactly how a cartridge case could be dented in this fashion, especially one as relatively "think" as the Carcano.

Pointing out typo's - very mature. You'll notice that I did you the courtesy of not pointing out yours.

Cartridge cases get dented like this all the time. I got the impression that you were a shooter? If you were then you wouldn't be questioning that fact. They get dented when the empty case gets flung from the rifle by the ejector. The extractor drags it from the chamber by gripping its rim near its base. The case is dragged over the ejector by the rearward travel of the bolt causing the case to pivot away from the rifle using the extractor as the pivot point. If the bolt is moved rapidly this can impart a substantial spin to the case - the part farthest from the pivot point moving the fastest. The part farthest from the pivot point is the mouth - which also happens to be a rather thin piece of brass. If that hits something it can get dented. It's as simple as that. Brass can even be dented like that by hitting the part of the rifle receiver on its way out.

This is all very commonly understood stuff to anyone who is reasonably well acquainted with firearms.

JL.

[John Lewis]

The bullet in the picture that Bob P. provided above ( "a" CE 399 from the 60's) cannot have been fired fom a mail order surplus MC 91/38. As we have discussed, the land/groove pattern displayed in that picture is incorrect for that type of rifle. This fact has been known since the 60's, as we have also discussed. Walt Cakebread, and Harold Weisberg (for starters) had established this in short order after the Warren Report was published.

Thanks for the input. Obviously I haven't yet seen any of the discussion relating to this. Are you able to summarise this or point to the relevant discussions so that I can have a read.

As noted before; hopefully I will have one soon so I can check it out for my self.

JL.

[Drew Phipps]

John:

Sorry, it's buried somewhere in one of the many threads on ballistics. The land/groove pattern is inconsistent with a standard 91/38 barrel (4 sets, at 1 twist in 8.5 inches (iirc)) and also with the cut down progressively rifled barrel (which, after cutting off the tightly wound riflings at the end, ended up with 4 sets at 1 twist in 13 inches (or something like that). The "improperly" rifled bullet was first noted by Walt Cakebread, a Navy guy, in the 1960s, but he didn't manage to interest an author in his observations until the 70's. The article that author published is in the Harold Weisberg Archives.

My own observations (with pixel counting) is that the bullet on display as CE 399 does not display the proper length / width(near the nose) ratio to be a real WCC MC 91/38 slug.

Sorry for the sketchy summary but I got to make dinner.

[John Lewis]

John:

Sorry, it's buried somewhere in one of the many threads on ballistics. The land/groove pattern is inconsistent with a standard 91/38 barrel (4 sets, at 1 twist in 8.5 inches (iirc)) and also with the cut down progressively rifled barrel (which, after cutting off the tightly wound riflings at the end, ended up with 4 sets at 1 twist in 13 inches (or something like that). The "improperly" rifled bullet was first noted by Walt Cakebread, a Navy guy, in the 1960s, but he didn't manage to interest an author in his observations until the 70's. The article that author published is in the Harold Weisberg Archives.

My own observations (with pixel counting) is that the bullet on display as CE 399 does not display the proper length / width(near the nose) ratio to be a real WCC MC 91/38 slug.

Sorry for the sketchy summary but I got to make dinner.

Many thanks. I'll search that out first chance I get.

It would seem that this stuff does come up for sale from time to time. Will have to put some on my shopping list!

JL.