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

[Bob Prudhomme]

If the measurement between scope centreline and barrel centreline was actually .61 inches, this could mean that Frazier actually told the truth about something.

If the separation was .61 inches (or .6) and the bullet was impacting 1 inch to the right of the point of aim at 15 yards, this would tell us the bullet path and line of sight were on diverging paths, going away from each other, and had become .4 inch further apart in 15 yards. Extrapolation to 100 yards is then simple.

0 yards = .6
15 yards = 1.0
30 yards = 1.0 + .4 = 1.4
45 yards = 1.4 + .4 = 1.8
60 yards = 1.8 + .4 = 2.2
75 yards = 2.2 + .4 = 2.6
90 yards = 2.6 + .4 = 3.0
105 yards = 3.0 + .4 = 3.4 inches to the right of the point of aim

Coincidentally, Frazier testifies the bullets were impacting 3-5 inches to the right of the point of aim at 100 yards.

If the distance between barrel and scope centrelines was 1 inch, and the bullets were impacting the 15 yard target 1 inch to the right of the point of aim, this would tell us the line of sight and bullet path were parallel lines, and the bullets should still be impacting 1 inch to the right of point of aim at 100 yards, or any longer range right out to infinity (minus wind drift, of course).

If, for the sake of argument, the barrel and scope centrelines were 1.5 inches apart, and the bullets were impacting 1 inch to the right of point of aim at 15 yards, the line of sight and bullet path would be converging lines, and would cross each other well before the 100 yard target.

0 yards = 1.5
15 yards = 1.5 - .5 = 1.0
30 yards = 1.0 - .5 = .5
45 yards = .5 - .5 = 0.0 (zeroed accurate point. also crossover point)
60 yards = 0.0 - .5 = -.5
75 yards = -.5 minus .5 = -1.0
90 yards = -1.0 minus .5 = -1.5
105 yards = -1.5 minus .5 = -2.0

This rifle would be shooting 2 inches to the left of point of aim at 105 yards. As the range grew, for every 45 yards this rifle would shoot another 2 inches to the left of point of aim. For example, at 195 yards, it would be impacting the target 6 inches to the left of point of aim.

[Drew Phipps]

Thanks, Drew. Is this taking into account the measurement I found for diameter of the ocular end of the scope of 1.062 inches?

No, in the top down photo in your post the ocular end of the scope is not entirely in the picture and so my pixel counting software doesn't help. I can make a good guess about where the scope ends but my software can't count beyond the limits of the picture. So I used the 18 mm measurement at the objective end as a yardstick.

I spent some time looking for another top-down view or even a full frontal, or full rear view, with the stock included so I could calculate the angle the scope was offset to the vertical, which would give us a second measurement. The rear view picture that you found appears to be out of focus at the ocular end (which to my mind means it's significantly closer to the lens than the rest of the gun), and also it doesn't show the bottom of the stock, so I couldn't get a good vertical baseline for the angle.

[Drew Phipps]

Despite Frazier's testimony, most of the shots averaged 4 inches to the right of the bullseye at 100 yards, except on one target where the gun was shooting an average of 2 inches to the right.

I realize that tiny differences on the shooter's end can make big differences at the target, and further that these were supposed to be "speed" tests with accuracy as a secondary factor, but don't these wildly disparate results for "right drift" when you scan across target sets mean something? At least doesn't it mean that Frazier is correcting his aim?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Bump

[Bob Prudhomme]

Despite Frazier's testimony, most of the shots averaged 4 inches to the right of the bullseye at 100 yards, except on one target where the gun was shooting an average of 2 inches to the right.

I realize that tiny differences on the shooter's end can make big differences at the target, and further that these were supposed to be "speed" tests with accuracy as a secondary factor, but don't these wildly disparate results for "right drift" when you scan across target sets mean something? At least doesn't it mean that Frazier is correcting his aim?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "correcting his aim". As all of the bullets seemed to impact the target about 4 inches to the right of the point of aim, I don't see how he could be correcting his aim. If he were, the shots should have been landing in the bullseyes of the targets.

[Drew Phipps]

If I recall correctly (and it's been a long while) what I meant was that it does not appear that the "average" inaccuracies observed in the targets at varying distances is consistent with a single rifle, and the ballistic effects, and sight/barrel effects, that you have been teaching us about here. The test results reported by the FBI don't match up, or even look remotely similar, to any of the ballistic curves that the ballistic calculator might produce for the weapon.

Are those inconsistencies the result of Frazier fudging the test to try to make the gun appear more accurate (i.e. a 4" high miss as opposed to a 36" high miss) at a longer distance, or are they evidence of multiple guns being used for the "test"?

(I might not accurately remember what I was trying to ask way back then.)

[Bob Prudhomme]

If I recall correctly (and it's been a long while) what I meant was that it does not appear that the "average" inaccuracies observed in the targets at varying distances is consistent with a single rifle, and the ballistic effects, and sight/barrel effects, that you have been teaching us about here. The test results reported by the FBI don't match up, or even look remotely similar, to any of the ballistic curves that the ballistic calculator might produce for the weapon.

Are those inconsistencies the result of Frazier fudging the test to try to make the gun appear more accurate (i.e. a 4" high miss as opposed to a 36" high miss) at a longer distance, or are they evidence of multiple guns being used for the "test"?

(I might not accurately remember what I was trying to ask way back then.)

That is an interesting question. I try to imagine what I would do if I was an FBI agent working under an insane control freak like Hoover, and my whole career depended on producing the kind of results Hoover was looking for, and I had to produce those results with a rifle shooting 32 inches high at 100 yards.

What bothers me the most is that Frazier would have at least a basic knowledge of rifle scopes, and the impossibilities I have pointed out between the results he obtained at 15 and 100 yards should not be a surprise to him at all. How, then, could he testify to the WC with a straight face? Wasn't he concerned that someone would read this material, and publicly make a mockery of his testimony?

But, of course, it has been 51 years, and considering I seem to be the first person to call these figures into question, and no one besides you, Drew, seems to be particularly impressed, I'd say he got away with it, wouldn't you?

[Drew Phipps]

You might suspect that the Commission members that knew firearms would have known about ballistic curves and sighting in a rifle. Wasn't Boggs a hunter?

[Bob Prudhomme]

You might suspect that the Commission members that knew firearms would have known about ballistic curves and sighting in a rifle. Wasn't Boggs a hunter?

Yes, he was. And I believe it was he or McCloy that asked the most questions about the rifle. There must have been an awful lot more respect for experts in those days.

[Bob Prudhomme]

This is rich. One of the cretins over at ROKC now claims I stole all of this material from an essay by Milicent Cranor at CTKA. As if....

"*******'s Frazier thread had me feeling a sense of deja vu. Bart's RFK post set the alarm off. 20 years ago Milicent Cranor wrote a short essay for Probe entitled "The FBI's Fib about the Mannlicher Carcano" which deals with the shennanigans surrounding the accuracy of the rifle. The essay can be found at the CTKA site. *******'s been cribbing."

If the author of this had a brain, he'd be dangerous.

I highly recommend everyone go read Ms. Cranor's essay. She is in a bit over her head, and can only constantly refer to what "experts" told her, and does not really understand what she is writing about.