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

[Bob Prudhomme]

John

Would you please tell us the names of the two shooting clubs you operate, and under what business name you operate as a Registered Firearms Dealer? Thanks in advance.

[Bob Prudhomme]

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.

Utter nonsense. I have tried this many times and, while it is possible to bend the edge of the cartridge mouth over, it is impossible to dent it in from the side, as the casing from the 6th floor was dented.

I suggest you make the most of your time here, as your type tends to get banned fairly quickly here.

[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]

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.

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".

[Bob Prudhomme]

"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."

I suggest you find yourself a better coach.

I hate to keep contradicting you but, 6.7 mm (.2637") is the GROOVE diameter of a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle, not the BORE diameter. The bore diameter of a 6.5mm M-S, plus a 6.5mm Carcano, plus any other 6.5mm rifle you care to discuss is, as any fool can figure out for himself, 6.5 mm or .256"!!!

The 6.5mm Carcano has a GROOVE diameter of 6.8 mm (.268"). Despite what you have tried to tell this forum, Italian Carcano ammo bullets measure .268". If it was acceptable to shoot .264" bullets from a Carcano, why did the Italians go to all the trouble of making the unique .268" bullet?

[John Lewis]

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.

Utter nonsense. I have tried this many times and, while it is possible to bend the edge of the cartridge mouth over, it is impossible to dent it in from the side, as the casing from the 6th floor was dented.

I suggest you make the most of your time here, as your type tends to get banned fairly quickly here.

Sorry but it is quite possible. I've seen it happen. If your argument is that it is impossible for a piece of thin brass which is hurtling through the air and rotating rapidly to be bent if it hits something hard then fair enough, that's your argument. People can make what they will of it and compare it to mine.

The other way in which damage like that could be sustained is via chambering it (the empty case) into a rifle. Brass is commonly damaged in similar ways if care is not taken. It tends to foul the locking lug recesses in the receiver.

JL.

[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]

[John Lewis]

Are we to assume that the CIP are disinfo agents too? If you go here you can see their specifications for the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher cartridge, specifications which tally exactly with what the poster I quoted said. Also, here is their set of allowable tolerances which allow for a maximum groove diameter of slightly over that!

Now why on earth would people who know an awful lot more about firearms than you or I give those figures if the result would be a chronically inaccurate rifle? Why would manufacturers from their relevant constituent states allow them to?

The bottom line on this is that a 6.5mm rifle which has a .268" groove diameter is absolutely not going to be chronically inaccurate due to that fact alone. The presence of a .268" groove diameter in the events at hand is most categorically not evidence proving that the rifle alleged to have ben used could not have made the shot. It most certainly could although that in no way proves that it did, only that it is not impossible.

JL.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Sorry, John, I didn't quite catch the names of the shooting clubs you operate, or the business name you operate under as a Registered Firearms Dealer. Could you repeat them for us?

[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."

I suggest you find yourself a better coach.

I hate to keep contradicting you but, 6.7 mm (.2637") is the GROOVE diameter of a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle, not the BORE diameter. The bore diameter of a 6.5mm M-S, plus a 6.5mm Carcano, plus any other 6.5mm rifle you care to discuss is, as any fool can figure out for himself, 6.5 mm or .256"!!!

The 6.5mm Carcano has a GROOVE diameter of 6.8 mm (.268"). Despite what you have tried to tell this forum, Italian Carcano ammo bullets measure .268". If it was acceptable to shoot .264" bullets from a Carcano, why did the Italians go to all the trouble of making the unique .268" bullet?

No, .2637" is not the groove diameter of a 6.5x54 MS rifle. Look at the CiP specs I posted on the previous pst - the minimum groove diameter is .2669". The CiP is about as good as it gets on this issue as their specs are law in CiP counties - you cannot proof a rifle if it is not conformant to CiP specs and if you cannot proof it then it cannot be legally sold. On that point - one of the posters on that thread has stated that his brand new barrel has a groove diameter of .268".

You still haven't addressed the issue of the markings on my rifle. It is marked 6.7, equating to .264", you state this as being groove diameter. I posted you a link to a picture of a 6.5x54 Mannlicher stamped 6.5. If you are correct, and that the stamp refers to groove diameter then how can that be as that would mean the rifle would have a .256" groove diameter which, as we both know, is not possible.

On the subject of Italian ammo - have you measured any yet, by the way? Military ammo is military ammo. It is often of very low quality depending on prevailing circumstances. One of the links I posted to was to a discussion where a chap had actually pulled the bullets and measured them. He got .266". Italian military ammo is probably mostly junk so variations in bullet diameter would be pretty much the norm - as in much military ammo. You seem to want us to believe that the Italians essentially made junk rifles and second-rate ammo (degrading primers, etc) yet that every single batch of the bullets they produced for it consisted entirely of bullets that measured precisely .268". Sorry but I don't buy it.

Have you put your mind to addressing any of the questions I asked of you a few posts back? Here's an easy one for you go here and order some Hornady Carcano bullets. Measure them and come back and tell us all what they measure. It won't be .268".

JL.

[John Lewis]

Sorry, John, I didn't quite catch the names of the shooting clubs you operate, or the business name you operate under as a Registered Firearms Dealer. Could you repeat them for us?

Now you are just being childish - you know perfectly well that I didn't give them.

JL.