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

[John Lewis]

I don't think Oswald shot any bullets that day. However can it be safely said that the C2766 carbine allegedly used by Oswald that day had a .268 groove diameter? And that the Western Cartridge ammunition alleged to have been used that day was definitely .264? If so then we would safely be within the inaccuracy claims by Mr Emary despite any discrepancies over which Mannlichers had a .268 groove diameter and which ones didn't.

Albert

The best confirmation we have of the Western Cartridge Company bullets being .264" in diameter (or less) comes from the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's firearms expert, SA Robert A. Frazier.

Here is an excerpt from post #5 of this thread, by me:



"And now the best part, SA Robert Frazier testifying to the WC:

"Mr. EISENBERG - Yes; for the record, these cartridges were found on the sixth. floor of the School Book Depository Building. They were found near the south east corner window--that is, the easternmost window on the southern face of the sixth floor of that building.
Mr. Frazier, are these cartridge cases which have just been admitted into evidence the same type of cartridge-- from the same type of cartridge as you just examined, Commission Exhibit No. 141?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG - That is, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You gave the weight of the bullet which is found in this type of cartridge. Could you give us a description of the contour of the bullet, and its length?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length--possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters The diameter is .267 inches, and a length of 1.185, or approximately 1.2 inches.

Okay, now, Frazier, the great firearms expert, measured CE 399 and found it to be 6.65 mm in diameter or, as he testifies, ".267 inches". The actual diameter of a real Carcano bullet is .2677" and is normally rounded off to .268".

But, that is not the problem here. The problem here is that while Frazier may have measured the bullet and found it to be 6.65 mm, 6.65 mm does not equal .267". If you go to this handy dandy conversion site http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm and use their calculator, you will see that 6.65 mm equals .2618", not .267". In other words, not only did Frazier like to stretch the truth, he was a bit on the lazy side as well. He measured the bullet diameter in millimetres but never did the conversion to inches. He likely read the measurement of .267" in a text and assumed 6.65 mm would equal .267".

However, as there is no bullet on the planet that measures 6.65 mm in diameter, I compared the diameter of CE 399 in the photo to the Metric scale above it and found the diameter closer to 6.7 mm. Now, if we process that, we find that 6.7 mm = .263779" or *SURPRISE!!!* .264", the standard diameter of every 6.5mm bullet in the world except the Carcano, and exactly the bullet I suspected was loaded into the WCC ammunition."


Don't you just love it, Albert?

All of these measurements are extrapolated from a single, fired projectile. Do you know how difficult it is to arrive at the precise diameter of a projectile that has been bent out of shape after (allegedly) having passed through two people, several layers of clothes and whatever else?

This is not proof of the diameter of an unfired bullet from a WCC 6.5x52mm cartidge. To date the only evidence of that is from a link that I posted from a chap who actually owns some. He says that the bullets measure .266", not .264". is he a 'disinfo' agent Bob?

JL

...you know damn well Frazier measured the unfired cartridge's bullet, PLUS the FBI purchased WCC 6.5 Carcano ammo. What kind of idiot, besides you, would measure a fired bullet?

The extract you quote starts off as being rather ambiguous as it seems as Frazer was asked specifically about cartridge cases, not loaded ammo. You also ask who would measure a fired bullet - CE399 i a fired bullet.

Frazer states that he measured the bullets in WCC ammo as being .267". He then quotes this as bieng equivalent to 6.65mm which is clearly not correct.

So, we have an American, in America in the early 1960's measuing a bullet and coming up with the previously mentioned results. Now, taking those facts into account what is the most reasonable explanation for the error? There can only be two. Either Frazer measured in inches and incorrectly converted to millimetres or he measured in millimetres and incorrctly to inches. Given that .267" is pretty damn close to the correct diameter for the Carcano bullet and there is absolutely no way he could ever have measured 6.65mm then the former explanation seems the most likely to anyone making a rational analysis of the facts we have.

So, we have Frazer who says that the WCC ammo has .267" bullets. We have had a link to another site where someone who says he has personally measured them at .266". Do you have any evidence from any person anywhere in the world who has conclusively measutred these bullets as being .264" in diameter?


JL.

[John Lewis]

I think Mr Emary should be consulted. Is there any way to contact him and ask him where he got his .264 measure?


How can a .264 bullet be shot through a lands of .256? Does the pressure force the excess into the grooves therefore assuring good grip for the rifling spin?


Mr Lewis, we have Frazier's measurement showing .264 when the conversion is correctly done. Frazier measured an unfired bullet. I would also suggest Mr Emary was a fairly reasonably credible source and would not risk such a claim if it were that easily disproven.


.

That is precisely what happens.

As I have ppointed out on several occasions, and Bob has called me a liar in respect of, my 6.5mm rifle has a .268" groove diameter and it shoots .264" bullets just fine.

If more evidence is needed; this is a link to a page on the Norma ammunition website - Norma is one of the most respected ammunition makers in the World. It is a page of reloading data for the 6.5 Carcano round using a plethora of Norma 6.5mm bullets. As Bob correctly polints out they are all .264" diameter because they are for use in all 6.5mm rifles. They also make loaded ammo which uses one of the bullets on that list - gues what? It's .264" diameter.

To reiterate - yet again - a .268" barrel is not automatic 'proof' that a .264" bullet cannot accurately be shot through it. In fact, to the extent that Bob claims that it will be inaccurate, it is not even a likely outcome.

JL.

[Bob Prudhomme]

As a comparison, here are the specs for an American rifle known as the .308; derived from the NATO cartridge designated as 7.62x51mm. The number .308 is misleading, as this is actually the bullet and groove diameter of this rifle. In reality, its calibre is .300, the same as the 30-06 Springfield. This means, of course, that the rifling grooves are each .004" deep.


.308 Winchester maximum C.I.P. cartridge dimensions. All dimensions in millimeters (mm) and inches.
Americans would define the shoulder angle at alpha/2 = 20 degrees. The common rifling twist rate for this cartridge is 305 mm (1 in 12 in), 4 grooves, Ø lands = 7.62 mm, Ø grooves = 7.82 mm, land width = 4.47 mm and the primer type is large rifle.[SUP][8]



Notice the groove diameter given as 7.82 mm, which converts to .3079" (.308"). This is because its NATO designation as 7.62 mm measures the diameter across the tops of the lands, or the calibre, while Winchester chose to use a designation measuring the diameter across the bottoms of the grooves. If we convert 7.62 mm to inches we get, of course, .300" or .30 calibre.[/SUP]

[Bob Prudhomme]

Here is a .268" bullet that has been fired through a Carcano M91/38:




Dr. Bill refers to it as an M38, but this is a misnomer, as the M38 was 7.35mm calibre.

Here is CE 399:




Which bullet do you think has deeper grooves in it, the .268" bullet at top or the .264" bullet at the bottom?

[Albert Doyle]

I'd be interested in Mr Lewis's response to the likelihood that the .264 measurements and their sources were reasonably legitimate.

[Bob Prudhomme]

In all fairness, I should point out something about these two photos, before anyone makes any conclusions about these two bullets. The rifling marks left on the Dr. Bill bullet are obviously nowhere near as tight as those left on CE 399.

There is a story that Dr. Bill posted on a gun forum that went along with this photo. He was attempting to capture a bullet intact in a piece of plastic pipe filled with bird seed, and purposely reduced the gunpowder charge so that the bullet would just make it out the end of the barrel. However, as he related, he reduced the charge too much, and the bullet stopped partway down the barrel, not far from the breech. He actually had to tap the bullet back to the breech with a hammer and a 1/4" steel rod.

Dr. Bill states in the photo that this was an M38 carbine. In order to be an M38, it would have to be a 7.35mm calibre rifle. Dr. Bill actually owns an M91/38, and I thought he was also mistaken about it being a carbine, until I examined the photo more closely. While the M91/38 short rifle was made with standard twist rifling grooves, the M91/38 carbines made during WWII were still being made with progressive twist rifling. What we are seeing is a bullet that was halted in the early part of the progressive twist rifling. If it had exited the muzzle of this rifle, its rifling grooves would have been very close to those on CE 399.

This also answers a question many people have had about progressive twist rifling, that question being how do the rifling marks left on the bullet change as the bullet travels down the barrel and the riflings get progressively tighter? The obvious answer is that the copper alloy jacket is malleable enough to constantly reform as the angles of the riflings change. There have been reports, though, of handloaders using bullets with possibly too hard of jackets and the jacket material getting "torn up" by the progressive twist rifling.

However, should it ever come out that Dr. Bill really does own an M91/38 short rifle, and not an M91/38 carbine, this photo would be ample proof that, contrary to what is claimed, many M91/38 short rifles were not made with new barrels but, rather, were made with the cut short barrels of M91 long rifles which, of course, were made with progressive twist rifling.

[Albert Doyle]

I think Mr Emary should be consulted. Is there any way to contact him and ask him where he got his .264 measure?


How can a .264 bullet be shot through a lands of .256? Does the pressure force the excess into the grooves therefore assuring good grip for the rifling spin?


Mr Lewis, we have Frazier's measurement showing .264 when the conversion is correctly done. Frazier measured an unfired bullet. I would also suggest Mr Emary was a fairly reasonably credible source and would not risk such a claim if it were that easily disproven.

Any chance the mods would let Mr Lewis answer this?

[Bob Prudhomme]

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Rec...1/141c.pdf

[Martin White]

Vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods William Walden testified to the Warren Commission that he couldn't exactly say when the infamous money order for the alleged murder weapon from "Hidell" was deposited, which is hardly surprising since the money order placed in evidence (after magically appearing from a guy, I think, in Alexandria, VA) gives no hint that it was EVER deposited.

Apologies if this is a newbie question, but what are the initialed marks, all dated after the assassination? Are they to record the chain of possession? If so, it seems "interesting" that they did this for the money order allegedly used to purchase the rifle, but made a mess of doing it on the bullets! (CE399 and the Tippitt casings)

[Drew Phipps]

It's not a newbie question, it's a lawyer question...

The initials are the identifying marks used by police officers to a) prove that whatever they are holding in court is the same thing as what they found at the scene, and b) to establish the "chain of custody" if more than one person has handled the item between scene and courtroom.

It is a prerequisite for the admission into courtroom evidence (i.e. so that a judge or jury may consider it) of material items used to prove, well, anything. Yes, it is suspicious that many of the items which are cited in support of the lone nut theory have no chain of custody, (or such mangled ones) that it is highly unlikely that much of it would have seen the inside of a courtroom. Especially in 1963-1964, when the chain of custody standards were more strict than they are today.

How fortuitous that there wasn't a trial.