The Most Important Error the FBI told the Warren Commission about the Rifle

[Bob Prudhomme]

I should point something out about the firing tests Mr. Frazier and his colleagues performed with C2766, as it is inevitable that someone will eventually point this out after carefully reading Frazier's testimony to the WC.

Frazier explains, in his testimony, that the real purpose of these tests was not so much accuracy as speed; the point was to fire three shots as quickly as possible at the targets.

There would seem to be some amount of room for error here that would account for the targets produced at 15 and 100 yards, and it would seem, at first glance, to render my research void, until we consider one very important thing.

Prior to the commencement of the shooting test, the shooter would already have the first cartridge chambered in the rifle, ready to shoot, and would have acquired his target in the scope; the same scenario as Oswald with the first cartridge chambered and him studying through the scope the point where JFK would emerge from behind the live oak in front of the TSBD. In other words, the most accurate shot, in the FBI's test and Oswald's scenario, would always be the first shot and, for an inexperienced shooter, the first shot would usually be on a much different part of the target than the next two hurried shots.

Testifying about the 15 yard test shots, Frazier tells the WC that the three shots in each test all landed very close together. They were, in his description, "in the area about the size of a dime" and "within an eighth of an inch of each other". This tells us two things. One, these men were very good shots; able to reproduce accuracy under the duress of rapid firing. Two, any error to be allowed for, due to variances from rapid firing, obviously does not exist; for the simple fact that the "relaxed" shot hit the target at almost exactly the same point as the two rapid fire shots.

[Bob Prudhomme]

So is it safe to conclude from all the above analysis and charts that there simply isn't any ballistic curve that fits with all the numbers Frazier used or received in his experiments?

( muzzle velocity 2165, 15 yards= 4 inches high, 25 yards=4.5 inches high, 100 yards= 4 inches high)


If that is true, which assumptions could be changed in order to get the curve that Frazier describes: i.e. muzzle velocity? We know that if the FBI was using WCC bullets (.264 caliber) they might not have had the specified muzzle velocity for the weapon. Also the gunpowder would have been 10-20 years old at that point... Since Frazier apparently used textbooks instead of real measurements to acquire some of his numbers (like caliber and land/groove measurements), isn't it possible that he just picked a muzzle velocity out of a book instead of testing it himself?

Yes, that is a safe conclusion to draw. There is no way to make the claimed test results, at 15 and 100 yards, work with a ballistics calculator. Mr. Frazier is being untruthful in some part of his testimony.

Unfortunately, Mr. Frazier is so far off, I don't believe anything can be changed to get the curve Frazier describes. On any rifle, to be impacting a target at 15 yards 2.5 - 4 inches high requires the barrel to be extremely elevated. In every case, the bullet will be a minimum of 20 inches high at 100 yards. For the more streamlined bullets with higher ballistic coefficients (less drag) it is likely they will be even higher.

Frazier testified to the WC that the FBI acquired WCC 6.5mm ammunition, tested it and found the average muzzle velocity to be 2165 fps. Most textbooks place the muzzle velocity of the M91/38, shooting Italian military ammunition, at 2200 fps.

[Drew Phipps]

They probably couldn't hit the far wall of the shooting range at 100 yards, so they shot two targets at 25 yards, ran the second one out to 100 yards, pointed the gun at it and said, "BANG! BANG! BANG!" That would explain the similar numbers AND also save the taxpayer money.

[Bob Prudhomme]

It certainly seems likely that Frazier did not test this rifle nearly as much as he claimed, and simply made an educated guess as to where the bullets would impact at various ranges.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I finally found a couple of close up photos of the front blade sight of a Carcano rifle.





It is still a bit difficult to see in these photos but, close inspection will reveal the lateral adjustment potential of the front blade.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Further research has shown that the Carcano, unlike many other military rifles, did not have available front sight blades in varying heights, to compensate for rifles no longer shooting at their original muzzle velocities.

Here is an additional photos of the Carcano front sight:




Below are shown replacement blades for a 6.5mm Swedish Mauser.

[Drew Phipps]

Frazier testified to the WC that the FBI acquired WCC 6.5mm ammunition, tested it and found the average muzzle velocity to be 2165 fps. Most textbooks place the muzzle velocity of the M91/38, shooting Italian military ammunition, at 2200 fps.

could that 35 fps difference be because the WCC bullet is undersized for the M91/38 barrel, or is that fps difference inconsistent with a bullet that doesnt entirely fill the barrel?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Frazier testified to the WC that the FBI acquired WCC 6.5mm ammunition, tested it and found the average muzzle velocity to be 2165 fps. Most textbooks place the muzzle velocity of the M91/38, shooting Italian military ammunition, at 2200 fps.

could that 35 fps difference be because the WCC bullet is undersized for the M91/38 barrel, or is that fps difference inconsistent with a bullet that doesnt entirely fill the barrel?

It could be, or it could be because the barrel is very worn from having so many bullets shot through it. It could also be because the ammunition was 20 years old.

Remember, we have only Frazier's word that the average tested muzzle velocity was 2165 fps.

[Drew Phipps]

So what we need is some college level math genuis who needs a PHD thesis and is willing to "reverse engineer" the ballistic calculator and graph us a set of data (spreadsheet) in five(?) dimensions including rifle zeroing range, bullet mass, diameter, drag, and muzzle velocity that would, if applied to a bullet, would duplicate the ballistic results of the FBI test. That would allow us to identify any commercially (or military) available bullets that could accomplish the ballistic feat Frazier documented, which would be proof positive of the kind of bullets used in the FBI''s test. Your work seems pretty conclusive that the FBI didn't use the ammo and gun that they claimed to. Alternately, there could be NO bullets that were available in the 60's, which would be proof positive that the FBI just made it all up from dreams and starlight.

Anyone know any math postgrads?

I KNOW that Harold Weisberg and his lawyer Lesar deposed Frazier a part of a FOIA-type lawsuit. I wish I could navigate Harolds collection on-line to find the deposition. You would guess that an adverse examination might reveal some or all of the flaws.

[Bob Prudhomme]

So what we need is some college level math genuis who needs a PHD thesis and is willing to "reverse engineer" the ballistic calculator and graph us a set of data (spreadsheet) in five(?) dimensions including rifle zeroing range, bullet mass, diameter, drag, and muzzle velocity that would, if applied to a bullet, would duplicate the ballistic results of the FBI test. That would allow us to identify any commercially (or military) available bullets that could accomplish the ballistic feat Frazier documented, which would be proof positive of the kind of bullets used in the FBI''s test. Your work seems pretty conclusive that the FBI didn't use the ammo and gun that they claimed to. Alternately, there could be NO bullets that were available in the 60's, which would be proof positive that the FBI just made it all up from dreams and starlight.

Anyone know any math postgrads?

I KNOW that Harold Weisberg and his lawyer Lesar deposed Frazier a part of a FOIA-type lawsuit. I wish I could navigate Harolds collection on-line to find the deposition. You would guess that an adverse examination might reveal some or all of the flaws.

That's the whole point of my work, Drew. The results Frazier claimed on the firing tests are impossible. There is NO rifle, not in this dimension anyways, capable of giving us those results.