PDA

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



Bob Prudhomme
03-27-2014, 05:57 PM
As all of you may or may not know, the 6.5x52mm Carcano rifles (one version of these was reputedly used by Oswald to kill JFK) have a reputation for being inaccurate rifles. This is not a particularly fair judgement, as some models of Carcanos (the long rifles especially) are very accurate rifles, IF loaded with the correct ammunition.

While the Italians did embark on some rather silly programs in their efforts to economize the manufacture of 6.5mm Carcano carbines and short rifles, and while many of these programs ended in the production of disastrous rifles, the bulk of the blame for inaccuracy lies in the ammunition. Surprisingly, most of the ammunition problems were not with Italian military ammunition, and a good deal of these problems did not become apparent until long after World War Two.

However, we should begin with the Italian 6.5mm ammunition that was issued to troops in WWII, as it had its own unique problems.

By the time Italy entered WWII in June, 1940, the bulk of its 6.5x52mm rifle ammunition, manufactured for WWI and Italy's African campaigns in the 1920's, was twenty year old ammunition. While most good American made ammo will still be serviceable after twenty years, there was something unique to these cartridges that made very unreliable. The primers in these cartridges (the small round device at the bottom of the cartridge that is struck by the firing pin and ignites the gunpowder) were charged with a compound that proved to be very corrosive. Misfires (cartridge does not fire) and hangfires (cartridge fires several seconds or many seconds after the trigger is pulled) are consistently reported over the decades by gun enthusiasts attempting to fire military surplus Italian cartridges in their Carcanos, to the point that gun experts have routinely warned against shooting this ammunition. Needless to say, improper ignition of a cartridge's gunpowder load will seriously effect the accuracy of a bullet fired from that cartridge.

In a worst case scenario, the Carcano firing pin will rupture the corroded primer and allow burning gases from the gunpowder to escape the base of the cartridge. This has led to myths of American GI's in post war Italy firing Carcanos and, from a ruptured primer, having the Carcano rifle bolt driven through their skull. The starters of this myth are not only unfamiliar with the Carcano's Mauser bolt and its two forward locking lugs, they also must be unaware that bolt action rifles are equipped with gas port vents on the sides of the chamber that will vent high pressure gases in the event of a primer or case rupture.

More interesting about Italian milsurp ammo is that researchers have removed the bullets from these cartridges and discovered, in a box of 18 cartridges, vast differences in the amount of gunpowder loaded into each cartridge; indicating that quality control was seriously lacking in Italian munitions factories. One can only imagine how frustrating it was for Italian troops attempting to home in on the range of a target, only to have successive bullets leaving their rifles at different muzzle velocities.

But enough of Italian ammunition. The real reputation for inaccuracy enjoyed by the Carcanos began after WWII when these rifles began showing up on the domestic market in North America. There are many 6.5mm calibre rifles in the world and they all share one thing in common; a bore diameter of 6.5 mm or about .256". The rifling groove diameter of these rifles (also the bullet diameter) is also identical in every single one of these rifles EXCEPT the 6.5mm Carcano. While the world standard diameter for 6.5 mm bullets is .264", the makers of the Carcano elected to cut deeper rifling grooves in these barrels, and this rifle will only shoot accurately with a bullet that is .268" in diameter; the groove diameter of a Carcano barrel.

The problem is well detailed in this article:

http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warning-65-prvi-partizan.html

As strange as it may sound, until 2002, the only 6.5mm bullets manufactured to a diameter of .268" were those loaded into Italian military cartridges pre-1945. In other words, for just over 50 years, sporting ammunition was made for Carcano rifles but, EVERY SINGLE MANUFACTURER was loading bullets into these cartridges that were too small. Finally, in 2002, Hornady addressed this problem, and made available to handloaders 6.5mm Carcano bullets that were the proper diameter of .268".

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

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.

In an effort to quiet people such as myself, and to spread confusion amongst conspiracy theorists, Cointelpro agents have attempted a compromise, and let it be known, through various channels, that the WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo MAY have been manufactured in 1949, but no earlier. The recipients this time were named as Loyalist (read anti-Communist) factions in the Greek Civil War. This is getting much closer to the truth but, it is still an outrageous lie, as the Greek Civil War was winding down by 1948 and ended in 1949; a little late to be supplying ammunition. Often the Greek Civil War is cited as taking place between 1946 and 1949, yet, to anyone who has studied History, this too is misleading. Although the Greek Civil War really got into full swing after the end of WWII (once those pesky Krauts were out of the way in December 1944), it was British forces siding with the Loyalist Greek forces and issuing a disarmament ultimatum to Greek partisans post-WWII that excluded right wing forces that finally set things in motion.

The Civil War actually started in 1942 with the German/Italian occupation of Greece, and the Greek government in exile. The occupation acted as a catalyst to Communist forces in Greece, as it did in many occupied nations, and while the various partisan factions all had the ultimate objective of expelling the occupying German/Italian forces, there were no illusions in the minds of any of these groups, and it was understood that the expulsion of the occupiers would leave a power vacuum that could only be filled by one group. The British and Americans were also aware of this, and were careful to assure that pro-government partisans received a higher level of aid than the Communists.

With the signing of an armistice on Sept. 8, 1943, Italy was officially out of the War; much to the disgust and dismay of their fellow occupiers in Greece, the Germans. As the Italians never really had their heart in the War, and now saw the Germans in Italy as nothing more than occupiers in their own country, the German commanders were painfully aware of the predicament they could place themselves in by allowing several thousand Italian troops to return home from Greece, still armed with their 6.5mm Carcano rifles. Each repatriated Italian soldier had the potential of becoming a Nazi killing partisan once he got back to Italy, and it was decided that all Italian troops would be disarmed, by force if necessary, before they returned to Italy.

Great caches of 6.5mm Carcano rifles went into storage in Greece and, when Germany retreated in December, 1944, it was first come first serve and the rifles were quickly divided amongst the opposing partisans.

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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/6%2C5x54_Mannlicher_Sch%C3%B6nauer.jpg/300px-6%2C5x54_Mannlicher_Sch%C3%B6nauer.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6,5x54_Mannlicher_Sch%C3%B6nauer.jpg)

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Ce141.jpg/300px-Ce141.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ce141.jpg)

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.

Can anyone see where I am going with this, and how it relates to the assassination of JFK? No? Well, be patient, I've almost gotten to the good part.

As I said, the British and Americans were no dummies, and they could readily see the power vacuum evolving in Greece and several other Balkan states. They also had, following the Italian Armistice in 1943, many thousands of ex-Italian troops, still carrying their Carcanos, taking up the struggle against the Nazis in Italy. These were uncertain times and, while the Nazis were forced out of southern Europe mostly in 1944, the rugged Italian terrain and the tenacity of the German troops led many to believe the war in Italy could last well into 1946 0r 1947.

This led to a logistics problem for the Americans, who wished to supply Italian and Greek partisans with ammunition as economically as possible. To further complicate matters, Greek armourers took many of the captured 6.5mm Carcanos and converted them to 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauers. This was a simple matter of machining the inner shoulder of the barrel's chamber 1 mm further into the chamber, allowing the 6.5mm MS cartridge to seat and the bolt to close. As stated before, a great deal of accuracy would be lost by now shooting a MS bullet .264" in diameter through a barrel designed for a bullet .268" in diameter but, if a partisan aimed for an opponent's stomach, he still stood a good chance of hitting him somewhere.

So let's see what we have. We have the Greek 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle which will shoot a Carcano cartridge IF that cartridge is loaded with a bullet .264" in diameter, we have the converted 6.5 MS rifles that will shoot a Carcano cartridge (the Carcano brass will stretch to take up the 1 mm slack) loaded with either a .264" or .268" bullet, and we have stock 6.5mm Carcano rifles in Greece and Italy that will also shoot a 6.5mm Carcano cartridge loaded with either a .264" or .268" bullet. Can the Americans make one cartridge that would supply everyone? Yes.

As it was almost certain there would be a civil war in Greece, the 6.5mm MS rifles took precedence. This is why the American Defense Dept., prior to 1944, contracted the WCC to manufacture 4 million rounds of 6.5x52mm Carcano cartridges and had these cartridges loaded with bullets that were .264" in diameter.

I will stop here for now, and finish up tonight with the last installment of this tale.

COMING UP: HOW THE FBI SPILLED THE BEANS

Mitchell Severson
03-28-2014, 10:05 AM
These are great posts, Robert. I assume you're getting to this, but I wonder if you could give a guess as to the loss of accuracy of a MC shooting these narrower WCC bullets at the presumed range of the Kennedy Assassination. Assuming the MC in question were in perfect working order - which I recall you doubt as well. Just to give us an idea of the effect of this less than ideal ammunition.

Marc Ellis
03-28-2014, 12:26 PM
These are great posts, Robert. I assume you're getting to this, but I wonder if you could give a guess as to the loss of accuracy of a MC shooting these narrower WCC bullets at the presumed range of the Kennedy Assassination. Assuming the MC in question were in perfect working order - which I recall you doubt as well. Just to give us an idea of the effect of this less than ideal ammunition.

Yeah, really great threads. Important too, if his thesis is correct - definitive.

Bob Prudhomme
03-28-2014, 01:58 PM
The loss of accuracy seems to vary quite widely among and within the different models of Carcanos, as reported by many different rifle owners. In the link I posted to,

http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warning-65-prvi-partizan.html

the author reports some extremely wild shots from shooting .2635" diameter bullets from his Carcano short rifle, and a grouping of several feet at a 50 yard target. His situation may have been complicated by the fact the Prvi Partizan 6.5mm Carcano cartridges he was shooting were loaded with a 139 grain semi-pointed bullet instead of the 162 grain round nosed bullet originally loaded for this rifle. This may have increased the freebore at the throat of the rifle barrel and given each bullet a poor beginning at the entrance to the barrel.

Most results are not nearly as dramatic as the results in this article. Often, it is reported that, at a 100 yard target, shooting undersized bullets will result in a grouping of up to a 10 inch circle, and shooting the proper .268" bullets will allow the same rifle to shoot a 1.5" grouping at 100 yards.

As the author states he is shooting a Carcano short rifle, and has, with the Prvi Partizan .2635" ammunition, witnessed full keyholing of a bullet at a target only 7 yards from him, it has just dawned on me there me be something else going on here. "Keyholing" is when a bullet loses stability, usually from a lack of spin, and begins to tumble through the air. If it hits the target side on, as it tumbles, it will leave an oblong "keyhole" hole in the paper target. This is, as I said, an extreme result, and it may indicate he was actually shooting one of the carbines made by cutting down the barrel of a long rifle. These were the most inaccurate Carcanos, as the long rifle "progressive twist" rifling was destroyed in this process, and these carbines were never considered accurate, even with the correct ammunition. Then again, it is believed that a good number of the 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifles were made by the same process.

Another possibility, and one not unheard of, is that the author is in possession of a 7.35mm Carcano short rifle (M38), and not a 6.5mm Carcano short rifle (M91/38), and is totally unaware of the mistake he has made. These two short rifles are virtually indistinguishable. While he tells us the benefits of shooting the properly sized Hornady .268" bullets in a 6.5mm Carcano, he never actually tells us what his results are of shooting these bullets. As the 7.35mm cartridges and the 6.5mm cartridges are identical (except for different calibre bullets) the 6.5mm cartridge would easily be loaded and fired in a 7.35mm rifle. A difference of .85 mm in bullet diameter would produce very dramatic results. I am just happy the author did not try to shoot a 7.35mm cartridge in a 6.5mm rifle, as he may not have survived the experience.

Bob Prudhomme
03-29-2014, 01:49 AM
Before we start, I have a small confession to make. I have spent the last couple of years attempting to determine if the bullets loaded into the 6.5mm cartridges manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company, three of which were allegedly fired at JFK, were loaded with bullets that were .264" or .268" in diameter. I have attempted to purchase these cartridges but, as only 4 million were made roughly 70 years ago, the majority of them have either been fired or gone into the hands of JFK collectors. Besides that, with Canada's strict gun laws, importing ammunition is a difficult, if not impossible task.

What I was too dumb to see was that the answer was right in front of me all along and had been there since the FBI's firearms expert, SA Robert Frazier, testified to the Warren Commission in 1964. Frazier was even so good as to supply us with a photo of the Magic Bullet, CE 399, with a Metric scale in the photo in millimetres and centimetres that allows us to measure CE 399 for ourselves; just in case we wish to verify Frazier's measurements.

BTW, I should give credit here to David Josephs for posting the photo of CE 399 with the Metric scale, plus Frazier's testimony, on another thread. God only knows how much longer I would have continued looking at the obvious and completely missing it.

As I have stated before, Frazier was one of the biggest BS'ers to appear before the WC, and I take great delight in exposing his nonsense. Look closely at the photo of CE 399 below:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5764&d=1394312818 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5764&d=1394312818)

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 (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1p459f281.jpg)?
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.

And there you have it, folks, right from the horse's mouth. No theory, no conjecture, no wild imagination. Instead, we not only have the WC testimony of an FBI firearms expert that CE 399 was only .264" (or less) in diameter, we have the picture to prove it, PLUS a Metric scale in that photo to confirm Frazier's testimony. One of the WC commissioners, McCloy, later questioned Frazier about whether he was sure he came up with a measurement of 6.65 mm, and Frazier was quite adamant this was the figure. The photo, of course, confirms it. McCloy must have been intelligent enough to do the conversion from Metric to inches, and spotted Frazier's error. It is strange he never mentioned anything.

The search is over. The 6.5mm Carcano cartridges found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and made by the WCC were loaded with bullets that were too small in diameter for the rifle they were being fired from. Considering all of the other deficiencies I have pointed out, there is simply no way Oswald or the Carcano found on the 6th floor were part of the assassination of JFK.

Mitchell Severson
03-29-2014, 11:13 AM
So you have an impaired rifle shooting the wrong bullets at the President? Why would a conspirator do such a seemingly stupid thing? Is the idea that only an incompetent loner would use that rifle? Wouldn't it have been a bit smarter to convince the patsy to buy the cheapest competent rifle then use multiples of that exact model and ammunition for the shooting?

I've had this feeling for a while (since reading Hancock's great "Someone Would Have Talked") that the other participants in Dealey Plaza may not have cared so much if they left evidence a conspiracy had been perpetrated. So these hypotheticals about what move they should have made to perfectly set-up a patsy to look like an a lone assassin are probably of little value.

Bob Prudhomme
03-29-2014, 01:29 PM
So you have an impaired rifle shooting the wrong bullets at the President? Why would a conspirator do such a seemingly stupid thing? Is the idea that only an incompetent loner would use that rifle? Wouldn't it have been a bit smarter to convince the patsy to buy the cheapest competent rifle then use multiples of that exact model and ammunition for the shooting?

I've had this feeling for a while (since reading Hancock's great "Someone Would Have Talked") that the other participants in Dealey Plaza may not have cared so much if they left evidence a conspiracy had been perpetrated. So these hypotheticals about what move they should have made to perfectly set-up a patsy to look like an a lone assassin are probably of little value.

Excellent questions, and ones that I have spent many a night lying awake pondering. You may be correct in thinking the original plan was to have the conspiracy discovered, blame it on the Russians and Cubans, and WWIII here we come.

OTOH, if the Internet had never developed to its present state, would I have been able to gather so much information on this rifle and then share it with you and so many other people? I think not. And, regardless of what evidence I present, JFK is still dead, the conspirators still got away with murder and treason, and no new investigation is forthcoming.

I often look at the full page Klein's ad LHO supposedly ordered his $12.98 Carcano from ($19.95 with scope) and see a lovely .303 Enfield sporter for $19.88 (great rifle, owned one myself), a Model 1917 (P17) 30-06 for $29.88, a US Springfield M1903 30-06 for $36.38 and an M1 Garand 30-06 for $89.95 and I wonder, was the Carcano chosen simply because it had a scope and was the most affordable, to the cash strapped LHO, at $19.95? Was it merely fluke that the conspirators bought a rifle with such a complex and bizarre history and such a host of deficiencies?

Mitchell Severson
03-29-2014, 07:44 PM
That's a darn good point that this information would have been a hell of a lot harder to acquire in '63, and who really thinks the DPD would have raised a fuss about the quality of rifle the "Communist" used? Had LHO been immediately murdered, all the evidence the public would have seen and contemplated were the parade of damning images and interviews.

Albert Doyle
03-29-2014, 08:41 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you because CE 2766 was probably used as a diversion or bullet evidence gun, however wasn't the magic bullet slightly deformed causing its width to vary? I would think a caliper measurement would be the best way to discover what you are looking for. I'm not sure looking at a photo would be good for .004

Bob Prudhomme
03-29-2014, 08:57 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you because CE 2766 was probably used as a diversion or bullet evidence gun, however wasn't the magic bullet slightly deformed causing its width to vary? I would think a caliper measurement would be the best way to discover what you are looking for. I'm not sure looking at a photo would be good for .004

The base of CE 399 was slightly flattened, although the forward section was pristine. I am sure SA Robert Frazier took this into account when he measured CE 399's diameter, prior to testifying before the Warren Commission. I also believe he would have used a Vernier caliper to measure CE 399's diameter, in order to arrive at a measurement as fine as 6.65 mm.

This is the point of my entire post; we don't have to rely solely on comparing the diameter of CE 399 in the photo to the Metric scale above it. We are merely confirming the measuring done by Frazier. It is no coincidence that his measurement and a measurement derived from the photo should both be 6.65-6.7 mm.

Albert Doyle
03-29-2014, 11:50 PM
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.




Bob, I'm not trying to be annoying but how does 6.7mm = 6.5mm? Are you saying the wider Schoenauer bullet was loosely labeled 6.5?


Edit: Nevermind. I went back and read the fine difference between the 264 and 268 bullet.



.

Lauren Johnson
03-30-2014, 12:25 AM
Bob, this is off-topic. Apologies. Maybe another thread.

How does the initial discovery of a Mauser play into this if at all?

Bob Prudhomme
03-30-2014, 12:28 AM
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.




Bob, I'm not trying to be annoying but how does 6.7mm = 6.5mm? Are you saying the wider Shoenauer bullet was loosely labeled 6.5?


Edit: Nevermind. I went back and read the fine difference between the 264 and 268 bullet.

Don't feel bad, Albert. I read articles on the Internet all the time written by gun "experts" who describe the "bore diameter" of a Carcano rifle as being .268" (6.8 mm), when, in reality, the bore diameter of a Carcano is .256" (6.5 mm). It's amazing how many people like to throw the terms "bore diameter" and "groove diameter" around, and not have a clue what the difference is between the two.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-2R8UulCPRulDgia6OjAE4lXT8SY7B16XwCOWE9irxpd-x2FU

Lauren Johnson
03-30-2014, 12:56 AM
Bob, this is off-topic. Apologies. Maybe another thread.

How does the initial discovery of a Mauser play into this if at all?

I guess to answer my own question: Nothing. The Mauser disappeared.

Bob Prudhomme
03-30-2014, 12:57 AM
Bob, this is off-topic. Apologies. Maybe another thread.

How does the initial discovery of a Mauser play into this if at all?

Hi Lauren

I'm still on the fence about whether or not the rifle originally discovered was, in reality, a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser carbine, and I have a very good reason for being undecided. Look at the two photos below:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8IwA_mrrJX0aGPNtBVz7Oj8INVMBSB uqcMiPiTQMjD5XUHiLc


6.5x52 mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle (model of rifle found on 6th floor of TSBD)

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3I2910JH4Fu2cEnYLmHvmeFMsK0eM_ x4ca9WdAwIA3obVRGPdXQ

7.65x53 mm Argentine Mauser carbine

As you can see, the two rifles bear a strong resemblance to each other, mostly because of the protruding magazines and the side mounted sling attachments. I would have remembered the Argentine Mauser's unusually large front sight guard myself with the wooden forestock going all the way to this sight but, I am a stickler for details. As the 7.65 Argentiner Mauser was also commonly found in military surplus stores, it may be that Seymour Weitzman had seen several of these Mausers while working in a sporting goods store, and honestly believed that is what this rifle was.

OTOH, the rifle on the 6th floor may very well have been a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser carbine. As I said, the jury is still out on this one.

Bob Prudhomme
03-31-2014, 01:08 AM
Albert

It just occurred to me that Frazier, in his WC testimony, never actually said he measured the diameter of CE 399 and that, with the unfired cartridge found in the Carcano, he would not have had to measure the diameter of CE 399, with its slightly flattened base. The unfired cartridge would have a bullet in pristine condition, and it is more than likely this is where he obtained the diameter of 6.65 mm from.

Albert Doyle
03-31-2014, 03:44 AM
I knew there was something wrong there because the flattening was enough to seriously throw it off when you get down to small measurements.


So the Italians made .268 width bullets for the Carcano? The Schoenauer bullet was slightly narrower at .264



Eisenberg and Frazier indicate they examined CE 141:



https://www.google.com/search?q=CE+141&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9uU4U7fOBOnhsASH4YGoAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw&biw=1253&bih=658#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=mpicrc0b2kUQaM%253A%3B4aCq2obs2OIUdM%3Bhttps %253A%252F%252Fwww.maryferrell.org%252Fwiki%252Fim ages%252F4%252F4d%252FPhoto_naraevid_CE141-1.jpg%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.maryferrell.org%25 2Fwiki%252Findex.php%252FPhotos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Cartridges%3B600%3B478

Bob Prudhomme
03-31-2014, 04:06 AM
I knew there was something wrong there because the flattening was enough to seriously throw it off when you get down to small measurements.


So the Italians made .268 width bullets for the Carcano? The Schoenauer bullet was slightly narrower at .264



Eisenberg and Frazier indicate they examined CE 141:



https://www.google.com/search?q=CE+141&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9uU4U7fOBOnhsASH4YGoAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw&biw=1253&bih=658#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=mpicrc0b2kUQaM%253A%3B4aCq2obs2OIUdM%3Bhttps %253A%252F%252Fwww.maryferrell.org%252Fwiki%252Fim ages%252F4%252F4d%252FPhoto_naraevid_CE141-1.jpg%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.maryferrell.org%25 2Fwiki%252Findex.php%252FPhotos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Cartridges%3B600%3B478

Yes, it would be more prudent for Frazier to have measured CE 141, although it was only the rear section of CE 399 that was flattened. The forward section of CE 399 was still in its original shape.

Albert Doyle
03-31-2014, 04:16 AM
Maybe Frazier got his information from a weapons source known to FBI?

Bob Prudhomme
03-31-2014, 06:16 AM
Wherever he got it from, he screwed up majorly. I searched high and low and the only 6.65 mm diameter bullet ever made was for an experimental Swiss rifle being designed for NATO.

Frazier made many other serious mistakes (accidental or deliberate, not sure which) in his testimony to the WC. In fact, it is hard to recall anything he actually managed to get right.

Here is one of my favourites from Frazier's WC testimony. As far as I know, I am the only person to have ever clued into this one, and I've been unable to generate any interest in it. In this excerpt, Frazier is discussing the mangled bullet recovered from the home of General Walker, how Frazier was able to measure that bullet, mathematically determine the bullet's diameter as .267" and establish from this that the bullet had to be a Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

"Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.
The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.
The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch."

So, remember the diagram I showed you of the barrel interior, showing the "lands and grooves" of the barrel's riflings? Frazier took the bullet and found part of the circumference of the base to be intact. On this section, he was able to measure the width of one land impression and found it to be .070" (1.778 mm) wide. He was also able to measure the width of one groove impression, and found it to be .130" (3.302 mm). As there were four land impressions and four groove impressions, establishing the circumference was as simple as:

4 x .070 + 4 x .130 = .800" as the circumference of the bullet

As you know, diameter equals circumference divided by pi (3.1416)

This is what Frazier did and, being the genius he was, arrived at a diameter again of .267". What a hero!

However, if we do the math ourselves, we come up with a different number.

.800 divided by 3.1416 = .2546473 or .255" NOT .267"

What a coincidence! This is almost precisely the bore diameter of a 6.5mm Carcano rifle. Now, was Frazier a seriously confused individual? Was he deliberately lying to the WC? Was he just too lazy to measure the lands and grooves, and instead, reverse engineered the number, mistakenly starting with the bore diameter (.256") instead of the bullet diameter (.2677")?

Or was there something else going on here?

Here is another excerpt from Frazier's WC testimony, in which he makes another error he was never called on:

"Mr. EISENBERG - Well, no; not at this time.
Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm."

Mr. Frazier is conveying a very popular misconception, one that is totally wrong yet very widespread in the shooting world. How this guy ever got to be a firearms "expert" is beyond me, although I must admit there was a time I also believed this statement to be true.

It is very confusing to look at the numerical designation of rifles, as they can be quite misleading. For example, you wouldn't think that a rifle named the .250 Savage and one named the .257 Roberts would both shoot the same diameter of bullet, would you?

Here is the explanation. The .25 calibre rifles all have a calibre (bore diameter) of .250", unlike the 6.5mm rifles, which have a bore diameter of .256". The groove diameter (also bullet diameter) of a .25 calibre rifle is .257" (sound familiar?) while the groove and bullet diameter of a Carcano rifle is .2677". Quite a difference, Mr. Frazier, and no, the 6.5mm rifles are NOT the equivalent of the .25 calibre rifles.

That being said, was the bullet Frazier measured, from the Walker residence, fired from a .25 calibre rifle, and not a 6.5mm Carcano? It would certainly match the measurements in his testimony.

Albert Doyle
03-31-2014, 02:44 PM
DiEugenio says the bullet in evidence is not the same one that Walker originally saw at the scene.

Bob Prudhomme
03-31-2014, 02:59 PM
DiEugenio says the bullet in evidence is not the same one that Walker originally saw at the scene.

General Walker made the exact same claim, often vehemently. No one listened to him, either.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" -- Sir Walter Scott --

LR Trotter
03-31-2014, 08:16 PM
DiEugenio says the bullet in evidence is not the same one that Walker originally saw at the scene.

General Walker made the exact same claim, often vehemently. No one listened to him, either.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" -- Sir Walter Scott --


Speaking of General Walker, I wonder, as I wander, if there is any current information regarding Marina Oswald Porter's thoughts about who did or did not do the shooting?
::idea::

Dawn Meredith
03-31-2014, 10:04 PM
Bob, this is off-topic. Apologies. Maybe another thread.

How does the initial discovery of a Mauser play into this if at all?

I guess to answer my own question: Nothing. The Mauser disappeared.
If I recall- from the way back machine in my mind- I believe that Dep Sheriff Roger Craig was one of the cops who id'd the Mauser. I just know it was at least two cops so there WAS a Mauser. And of course it disappeared as it did not fit with the plan.
Dawn

Albert Doyle
03-31-2014, 11:28 PM
Craig said he held the rifle inches from his face and clearly saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel.

Bob Prudhomme
04-01-2014, 03:11 AM
Craig said he held the rifle inches from his face and clearly saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel.

Unfortunately, if it was indeed a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser carbine, any physical evidence related to it has long been disappeared.

Did Roger Craig or anyone else ever say the Mauser was a carbine or long rifle? I've always assumed it was a carbine, as this would bear the closest resemblance to the M91/38, but the 7.65 was made in a long rifle, as well.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRV8jpzNIP3_CdTDcw8YNcBJBSAW_2Hk x65CFvOKrf5pv-51afi

Like most of the ultra-long barreled infantry weapons of that age, the 7.65 was known to be quite an accurate weapon.

It still strikes me as odd that the conspirators would allow a 7.65 Mauser to be found, when the intended patsy weapon was to be the Carcano.

Mitchell Severson
04-02-2014, 08:53 AM
Wouldn't you think that these more available WCC bullets also reduced the accuracy of the shots fired by the riflemen attempting to duplicate "Oswald's" feat? I guess that would make them feel a bit better for their misses, but doesn't do any favors for the Warren Commission. One of the things that made me doubtful of the official story and led to my own study was the accuracy of the two back shots - one looks dead center on the head and the other is an inch or two of JFK's center line. Now we are supposed to believe that was done with half-assed bullets, shot at a slowly moving man, sitting in a car moving at varying speed. (And, technically, by a guy who was, at least, not likely in position).

The reason I find Robert's information-heavy posts about the rifle and bullets so relevant is that the LN community seems to think that as long as they can stretch out the shooting window they have answered the ciritics only relevant argument against the feasibility of the LN scenario. These posts are ammunition against that mistaken belief.

Bob Prudhomme
04-02-2014, 05:42 PM
Wouldn't you think that these more available WCC bullets also reduced the accuracy of the shots fired by the riflemen attempting to duplicate "Oswald's" feat? I guess that would make them feel a bit better for their misses, but doesn't do any favors for the Warren Commission. One of the things that made me doubtful of the official story and led to my own study was the accuracy of the two back shots - one looks dead center on the head and the other is an inch or two of JFK's center line. Now we are supposed to believe that was done with half-assed bullets, shot at a slowly moving man, sitting in a car moving at varying speed. (And, technically, by a guy who was at least not likely in position).

The reason I find Robert's information-heavy posts about the rifle and bullets so relevant is that the LN community seems to think that as long as they can stretch out the shooting window they have answered the ciritics only relevant argument against the feasibility of the LN scenario. These posts are ammunition against that mistaken belief.

One thing we have to understand about television, where the results of the riflemen attempting to duplicate Oswald's shooting feat are displayed, is that we are only allowed to view the end product, and not what goes into making that product. We only see the magician's tricks, and are never shown him setting them up.

If I am indeed correct that the bullets loaded into the WCC 6.5mm cartridges were .264" in diameter, this would mean that, for over a century, the only bullets ever manufactured for a 6.5mm rifle that were .268" in diameter were those millions of cartridges made for the Italian military. The last Italian 6.5mm military ammo was made before 1945. The availability of .268" diameter bullets only changed in 2002, when Hornady realized the problems Carcano owners were having when they reloaded cartridges with .264" bullets (only thing available) and they brought out a bullet .268" in diameter.

There are still thousands of Italian military surplus 6.5mm cartridges on the market, all loaded with .268" bullets, despite the fact much of it is not safe to shoot. While many of those bullets are jacketed with a cupro-nickel compound that gives it a silvery appearance (remember the "steel jacketed" bullet found at the Walker residence?) there is a great deal of Italian milsurp ammo jacketed in gilder's metal. This is a brass compound, same as the WCC jacketing material, and is often mistakenly referred to as "copper" jacketed.

So, if I wanted to duplicate Oswald's feat with WCC 6.5mm ammo, would I use the cartridges right out of the box? Of course not. I might not be able to hit the target.

What I would do, and this is well within the capability of any handloading enthusiast using only hobby handloading tools, is pull the bullets from the WCC 6.5mm cartridges (or just shoot the cartridges in a rifle). Once the cartridge was empty, I would re-size the brass cartridge in a re-sizing die and press out the spent primer and install a new one, being careful to apply a little bit of red lacquer to seal the primer and make it look like the original. Then, using a digital scale, I would precisely weigh and match the fresh gunpowder charge for each cartridge, ten times more accurate than the way gunpowder is measured for mass produced "factory" cartridges. And, finally, for the coup de grace, I would extract "copper" jacketed 6.5mm bullets from Italian milsurp ammo, .268" in diameter, and seat these bullets into the WCC cartridges. Voila! You now have a cartridge that looks identical to a WCC 6.5mm cartridge, but will be far more accurate when shot from the same rifle. Even the expert riflemen doing your shooting in the tests could be fooled, if the cartridges were made carefully enough.

However, it must be remembered that the WCC 6.5mm ammo was made either in 1954, 1949 or in the early 1940's, depending on which particular story you subscribe to. Either way, any shooting tests done in the last twenty years would be done with minimum 50+ year old ammo. The expert riflemen, and anyone else with firearms knowledge, would know this, and should be highly suspect of the ability of ammo this old to be accurate.

Don Jeffries
04-03-2014, 08:43 PM
As Mark Lane noted in his Warren Commission testimony, "Made Italy 6.5 cal" is clearly legible on the Mannlicher Carcano. It is impossible to accept that, not even including Roger Craig, both officers who found the weapon-Boone and Weitzman-made an identical mistake like this.

Bob, a belated thanks for a great thread. As noted by yourself and others in the past, the drama on forums always attracts more attention than evidence.

Bob Prudhomme
04-04-2014, 04:10 AM
As Mark Lane noted in his Warren Commission testimony, "Made Italy 6.5 cal" is clearly legible on the Mannlicher Carcano. It is impossible to accept that, not even including Roger Craig, both officers who found the weapon-Boone and Weitzman-made an identical mistake like this.

Bob, a belated thanks for a great thread. As noted by yourself and others in the past, the drama on forums always attracts more attention than evidence.

You're quite correct about the "MADE ITALY" and "6.5 CAL" being quite clearly marked in white on the base of the barrel of C2766. And I, too, have trouble seeing how it could be missed. The first thing most gun types I know would do with a strange rifle is look for markings on the barrel or the side of the receiver to see what make, model and calibre it was. Sometimes, I don't know just what to think about the whole Mauser/Carcano issue.

Thanks for the compliment.

Anthony DeFiore
04-04-2014, 05:19 PM
I just recently purchased an "Oswald" rifle and ammo. Trying to get to the range to se how it works. I'll let you know.

Bob Prudhomme
04-04-2014, 05:25 PM
I just recently purchased an "Oswald" rifle and ammo. Trying to get to the range to se how it works. I'll let you know.

Excellent! Is it an M91/38? What are you shooting for ammunition?

Dawn Meredith
04-04-2014, 09:54 PM
I just recently purchased an "Oswald" rifle and ammo. Trying to get to the range to se how it works. I'll let you know.
My husband years ago suggested buying one also. To which I said "why?".

Bob Prudhomme
04-04-2014, 09:57 PM
[QUOTE=Anthony DeFiore;85437]I just recently purchased an "Oswald" rifle and ammo. Trying to get to the range to se how it works. I'll let you know.[/QU
My husband years ago suggested buying one also. To which I said "why?".

LOL Then we could sing "....Dawnie's got a gun....." :)

Bob Prudhomme
04-04-2014, 10:01 PM
deleted

Jim Hargrove
04-04-2014, 10:52 PM
Thanks to Bob Prudhomme for these elegantly researched and presented posts!

Not only is so much about the alleged murder weapon suspect, the so-called evidence tying the Carcano to "Oswad/Hidell" is perhaps even more difficult to accept.

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.

5851
Other than the stamp from Klein's to deposit the money order to the First National Bank of Chicago, there is not a single other stamp from any financial institution or postal authority showing it was actually processed. Compare that to any other financial instrument from that era or now and see how many stamps are affixed to it.

Leaving no stone untouched, however, the Warren Commission managed to find out precisely when Klein's did deposit the money order with the following exhibit.

5853

The exhibit is supposed to indicate that Klein's deposited the suspect money order on February 15, 1963, nearly a month BEFORE the Post Office issued it, and for a different amount to boot!

If there is a lesson to all this, it is surely that the conspirators, the FBI and the Warren Commission were all perfectly satisfied inventing whole fantasy worlds constructed of really very shoddy evidence, secure that few people had the ability to see through the charade. Times have changed.

Thanks again to Bob.

Dawn Meredith
04-05-2014, 01:19 PM
Thanks to Bob Prudhomme for these elegantly researched and presented posts!

Not only is so much about the alleged murder weapon suspect, the so-called evidence tying the Carcano to "Oswad/Hidell" is perhaps even more difficult to accept.

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.

5851
Other than the stamp from Klein's to deposit the money order to the First National Bank of Chicago, there is not a single other stamp from any financial institution or postal authority showing it was actually processed. Compare that to any other financial instrument from that era or now and see how many stamps are affixed to it.

Leaving no stone untouched, however, the Warren Commission managed to find out precisely when Klein's did deposit the money order with the following exhibit.

5853

The exhibit is supposed to indicate that Klein's deposited the suspect money order on February 15, 1963, nearly a month BEFORE the Post Office issued it, and for a different amount to boot!

If there is a lesson to all this, it is surely that the conspirators, the FBI and the Warren Commission were all perfectly satisfied inventing whole fantasy worlds constructed of really very shoddy evidence, secure that few people had the ability to see through the charade. Times have changed.

Thanks again to Bob.

So much of the "evidence" against Harvey is like this. On purpose? I think so. He had to die as any decent criminal defense attorney would have obtained an acquittal .
With that said I want to welcome Austin Defense attorney and old friend Drew Phipps to DPF.
What a nice surprise to see his PM's.
Dawn

Bob Prudhomme
04-05-2014, 03:03 PM
Thanks to Bob Prudhomme for these elegantly researched and presented posts!

Not only is so much about the alleged murder weapon suspect, the so-called evidence tying the Carcano to "Oswad/Hidell" is perhaps even more difficult to accept.

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.

5851
Other than the stamp from Klein's to deposit the money order to the First National Bank of Chicago, there is not a single other stamp from any financial institution or postal authority showing it was actually processed. Compare that to any other financial instrument from that era or now and see how many stamps are affixed to it.

Leaving no stone untouched, however, the Warren Commission managed to find out precisely when Klein's did deposit the money order with the following exhibit.

5853

The exhibit is supposed to indicate that Klein's deposited the suspect money order on February 15, 1963, nearly a month BEFORE the Post Office issued it, and for a different amount to boot!

If there is a lesson to all this, it is surely that the conspirators, the FBI and the Warren Commission were all perfectly satisfied inventing whole fantasy worlds constructed of really very shoddy evidence, secure that few people had the ability to see through the charade. Times have changed.

Thanks again to Bob.

So much of the "evidence" against Harvey is like this. On purpose? I think so. He had to die as any decent criminal defense attorney would have obtained an acquittal .
With that said I want to welcome Austin Defense attorney and old friend Drew Phipps to DPF.
What a nice surprise to see his PM's.
Dawn

Yes, welcome to Drew Phipps. I have never met Mr. Phipps but we have been exchanging PM's over the last week regarding CE 399. He has a great interest in this topic and seems to possess a keen analytical mind.

I believe he will be a great addition to the forum.

Bob Prudhomme
04-18-2014, 12:53 AM
bump

Drew Phipps
04-18-2014, 01:19 AM
If there is a lesson to all this, it is surely that the conspirators, the FBI and the Warren Commission were all perfectly satisfied inventing whole fantasy worlds constructed of really very shoddy evidence, secure that few people had the ability to see through the charade. Times have changed.

Thanks again to Bob.

Thank you all for the nice compliments.

In my work, it is easy to see the government "construct" a case; Oz-like, you are supposed to be impressed by the thunder and smoke - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. An analogous situation happened to the Warren Commission, they were handed a crappy set of cards and told what to make of it. The Warren Commission was playing catch up right from the starting gate. Projecting confidence isn't fraud, or is it?

Since the WC evidence is such a house of cards, I doubt that the "pre-assassination conspiracy" cared much about the difficult work they left for the consequent "post-assassination conspiracy," so long as the mission is accomplished, the shooters get away, and so long as there WAS a convenient patsy. Local law enforcement would see to the rest. Which indicates a disturbing lack of concern on the part of the plotters, and thereby should help us, now, identify some of the participants.

Jim Hargrove
04-18-2014, 02:40 AM
Thank you all for the nice compliments.

In my work, it is easy to see the government "construct" a case; Oz-like, you are supposed to be impressed by the thunder and smoke - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. An analogous situation happened to the Warren Commission, they were handed a crappy set of cards and told what to make of it. The Warren Commission was playing catch up right from the starting gate. Projecting confidence isn't fraud, or is it?

Since the WC evidence is such a house of cards, I doubt that the "pre-assassination conspiracy" cared much about the difficult work they left for the consequent "post-assassination conspiracy," so long as the mission is accomplished, the shooters get away, and so long as there WAS a convenient patsy. Local law enforcement would see to the rest. Which indicates a disturbing lack of concern on the part of the plotters, and thereby should help us, now, identify some of the participants.

Welcome aboard, Mr. Phipps!

Since so much of the evidence appears to be invented from whole cloth, is it naive of me to wonder why so much of it is so bad? Why couldn't simple false details be written down, distributed in disappearing ink, and followed in J Edgar's basement crime lab or wherever all the bs was invented so that better evidence could be presented to us rubes? Was this some sort of Sicilian message?

He who dares seek peace had better run?

Jim

LR Trotter
04-18-2014, 03:16 AM
Thank you all for the nice compliments.

In my work, it is easy to see the government "construct" a case; Oz-like, you are supposed to be impressed by the thunder and smoke - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. An analogous situation happened to the Warren Commission, they were handed a crappy set of cards and told what to make of it. The Warren Commission was playing catch up right from the starting gate. Projecting confidence isn't fraud, or is it?

Since the WC evidence is such a house of cards, I doubt that the "pre-assassination conspiracy" cared much about the difficult work they left for the consequent "post-assassination conspiracy," so long as the mission is accomplished, the shooters get away, and so long as there WAS a convenient patsy. Local law enforcement would see to the rest. Which indicates a disturbing lack of concern on the part of the plotters, and thereby should help us, now, identify some of the participants.

Welcome aboard, Mr. Phipps!

Since so much of the evidence appears to be invented from whole cloth, is it naive of me to wonder why so much of it is so bad? Why couldn't simple false details be written down, distributed in disappearing ink, and followed in J Edgar's basement crime lab or wherever all the bs was invented so that better evidence could be presented to us rubes? Was this some sort of Sicilian message?

He who dares seek peace had better run?

Jim

Jim, the ability for you to have this conversation and immediately examine the subject during a conversation with Mr Phipps, is miles and miles ahead of any thinking being done in the early 1960s. I believe you are in or near Canada, and Mr Phipps is in or near Austin, if I am correct. I don't know the age of you gentlemen, but I remember a lot of the 1950s, and a lot more of the 1960s, so I can tell you, the thought process of half of a century ago could not comprehend anything like this, and also didn't consider that so much energy would still be going on at this time. How likely would it be for you to know each other without the internet? The speed of electricity is just not something that was of concern back then as it relates to today. I just believe that has a lot to do with how sloppy things appear now, that were not so bad some time ago.
::fortuneteller::

LR Trotter
04-18-2014, 03:30 AM
Bleep!::face.palm::

Drew Phipps
04-18-2014, 12:17 PM
I am 53. One of my first childhood memories is watching my mother cry at the TV set, and if my memory at age 2.5 can be trusted, it was JFK's funeral. Although our technology has evolved by leaps and bounds, our criminal justice system would be instantly recognizable to any Founding Father. The Warren Commission's whitewash (to borrow a phrase from Harold Weisberg) of the case was convincing enough scientifically that most ordinary people bought it at the time. Probably most people wanted to believe it. But, as you know, there were critics of the WC from the beginning, Harold Weisberg among them.

Why wasn't a better cover up done? I don't think the reason has solely to do with technology. I am of the opinion that if the "plotters" and the "plodders" were the same group of folks, they would have had a more convincing cover story.

Jim Hargrove
04-18-2014, 05:13 PM
Why wasn't a better cover up done? I don't think the reason has solely to do with technology. I am of the opinion that if the "plotters" and the "plodders" were the same group of folks, they would have had a more convincing cover story.

That's funny!

The plotters made a few mistakes too. The HSCA had to grant immunity to Castro's personal friend and gun supplier Robert McKeown before he would testify, but then he swore that a "Lee Oswald" visited him in '63 and tried to buy some rifles, eventually offering an absurdly high price when McKeown began to smell a rat. Had "Oswald" succeeded in the buy. is there much doubt that the weapon from Castro's good buddy and personal gunrunner would have replaced the trouble-plagued Carcano? That would have made the Castro-did-it plot even harder for Johnson to quash.

Bob Prudhomme
04-18-2014, 05:40 PM
Although I have nothing in the way of proof to back up my beliefs, I tend to think the people that brought us the assassination would have been very pleased if other conspirators beside LHO had turned up and they all could have been tied in to Cuba and Russia.

The reason the coverup looks so "thrown together" is that it may very well be just that; a last minute scramble to implicate a lone assassin and avoid a nuclear exchange with the USSR. LBJ and the WC, should the truth ever come out, may go down in History one day as patriotic heroes that saved the lives of 120 million Americans.

Jim Hargrove
04-18-2014, 06:20 PM
Although I have nothing in the way of proof to back up my beliefs, I tend to think the people that brought us the assassination would have been very pleased if other conspirators beside LHO had turned up and they all could have been tied in to Cuba and Russia.

The reason the coverup looks so "thrown together" is that it may very well be just that; a last minute scramble to implicate a lone assassin and avoid a nuclear exchange with the USSR. LBJ and the WC, should the truth ever come out, may go down in History one day as patriotic heroes that saved the lives of 120 million Americans.

You may be forgetting some basics here. There was a very obvious effort to set up Oswald for the hit during the six or eight weeks prior to the assassination, probably starting with Harvey Oswald's memorable performance at the Fair Play for Cuba charade in NOLA. But there was also the attempt by "Oswald" to buy rifles from Castro's friend and gunrunner, Robert McKeown, and then the string of set-ups in and around Dallas, probably by Lee Oswald, including,

LEE Oswald's numerous visits to the Sports Dome Rifle Range, often making a scene, often stating his name, at least once getting his scope sighted.

LEE Oswald's visit to Morgan's Gun Shop and Dial Ryder's to buy ammo and get his scope mounted (supposedly already mounted on the Klein's rifle).

LEE Oswald's visit to the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership to test drive a car, where he announced he would soon be coming into money (American-born Lee Oswald had a Texas driver's license, Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald didn't).

Job applications at the high-rise Statler Hilton Hotel and, later, the Southland Building, where he asks if there is a good view of downtown Dallas from the roof.

If memory serves, at a number of these occasions he announces that he hates President Kennedy.

There was a Hollywood movie starring Burt Lancaster about this very set-up called Executive Action.

Drew Phipps
04-18-2014, 06:58 PM
The "plotters" may be trying to set up LHO in advance, believing that his defection, marriage and FPCC activity in New Orleans would be sufficient to inspire a Commie plot. Indeed, DA Henry Wade indicted LHO with murder "in the course of a Communist conspiracy." (not a separate offense from murder, even in Texas) Whereas the "plodders" - the WC, with their marching orders from LBJ and Hoover, are apparently doing everything they can to avoid a war. Which kinda sorta implies that there are 2 separate orchestras playing different sheet music.

Dawn Meredith
04-18-2014, 07:19 PM
The "plotters" may be trying to set up LHO in advance, believing that his defection, marriage and FPCC activity in New Orleans would be sufficient to inspire a Commie plot. Indeed, DA Henry Wade indicted LHO with murder "in the course of a Communist conspiracy." (not a separate offense from murder, even in Texas) Whereas the "plodders" - the WC, with their marching orders from LBJ and Hoover, are apparently doing everything they can to avoid a war. Which kinda sorta implies that there are 2 separate orchestras playing different sheet music.

Drew I have never heard that LHO was actually indicted.
Do you mean "indicted" as in "accused", as there was no time to convene a Grand Jury.

Dawn

Jim Hargrove
04-18-2014, 07:54 PM
The "plotters" may be trying to set up LHO in advance, believing that his defection, marriage and FPCC activity in New Orleans would be sufficient to inspire a Commie plot. Indeed, DA Henry Wade indicted LHO with murder "in the course of a Communist conspiracy." (not a separate offense from murder, even in Texas) Whereas the "plodders" - the WC, with their marching orders from LBJ and Hoover, are apparently doing everything they can to avoid a war. Which kinda sorta implies that there are 2 separate orchestras playing different sheet music.

That sounds exactly right, but the "plodders" task was made more difficult because of the three-fold cover-up that was required.



Explaining that Ozzie was a Lone Nut,
Tidying up an extremely messy biography of said Lone Nut, and
Explaining that the Lone Nut had no USG ties, especially to the CIA or the FBI.


To me, at least, it speaks volumes that before Oswald was even charged Hoover was concentrating on Oswald's teen-aged employment in New Orleans and his elementary and junior high school records in NYC, New Orleans, and Ft. Worth. Wouldn't most people say those are pretty strange priorities? How 'bout looking for co-conspirators first and looking for elementary school records later?

LR Trotter
04-18-2014, 08:33 PM
I am 53. One of my first childhood memories is watching my mother cry at the TV set, and if my memory at age 2.5 can be trusted, it was JFK's funeral. Although our technology has evolved by leaps and bounds, our criminal justice system would be instantly recognizable to any Founding Father. The Warren Commission's whitewash (to borrow a phrase from Harold Weisberg) of the case was convincing enough scientifically that most ordinary people bought it at the time. Probably most people wanted to believe it. But, as you know, there were critics of the WC from the beginning, Harold Weisberg among them.

Why wasn't a better cover up done? I don't think the reason has solely to do with technology. I am of the opinion that if the "plotters" and the "plodders" were the same group of folks, they would have had a more convincing cover story.

I am not saying there were no WC conclusion doubters, and certainly after June '68, I had strong doubts about another lone gunman who happened to be at the right place at the right time. But, when considering the ability to share information so quickly from various places around the world,::computerpunch:: I have to believe that ramification was not a major concern in '63. I have no idea what those "Founding Fathers" would think of the current criminal justice industry. As for "plotters" and "plodders", that could very well be the case. JMO.

Drew Phipps
04-18-2014, 09:51 PM
Drew I have never heard that LHO was actually indicted.
Do you mean "indicted" as in "accused", as there was no time to convene a Grand Jury.

Dawn

sorry, you are correct, I should have said formally charged and arraigned. There was a formal complaint filed by one of the Assistant DA's, forget which one.

Drew Phipps
04-18-2014, 09:54 PM
To me, at least, it speaks volumes that before Oswald was even charged Hoover was concentrating on Oswald's teen-aged employment in New Orleans and his elementary and junior high school records in NYC, New Orleans, and Ft. Worth. Wouldn't most people say those are pretty strange priorities? How 'bout looking for co-conspirators first and looking for elementary school records later?

Not sure on the timing of that, but it is certainly telegraphing those punches.

Bob Prudhomme
04-18-2014, 10:41 PM
Not quite sure how we would do it but, it would be interesting to see if there were any other young men in Dallas, in the months leading up to the assassination, who were doing "unusual" things similar to what LHO was doing.

Jim Hargrove
04-19-2014, 12:12 PM
To me, at least, it speaks volumes that before Oswald was even charged Hoover was concentrating on Oswald's teen-aged employment in New Orleans and his elementary and junior high school records in NYC, New Orleans, and Ft. Worth. Wouldn't most people say those are pretty strange priorities? How 'bout looking for co-conspirators first and looking for elementary school records later?

Not sure on the timing of that, but it is certainly telegraphing those punches.

It certainly strains credulity, but it doesn't seem like much of an exaggeration to me. Will Fritz signed the formal complaint against Oswald for murdering JFK a little before midnight on the 22nd. By 8 am the next morning, Frank Kudlaty, assistant principal at Stripling Jr. High in Ft. Worth, was called by his principal and told to meet FBI agents at the empty school right away, indicating FBI personnel (Hoover?) must have been looking into Oswald's school records even earlier. The Stripling records vanished, leaving only Robert Oswald's testimony in the WC record that his brother ever attended that school. Kudlaty's three-part interview with John Armstrong is here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCz5_bd3R6g

All four owners of Pfisterer Dental Lab in New Orleans were interviewed separately by FBI agents on November 23. Pfisterers is one of the earliest employers of Lee Harvey Oswald, part of the employment history that the Social Security Administration refused to confirm to the HSCA, offering instead "three pages from the Warren Commission report." Whether you buy into John Armstrong's analysis of two Oswald's from the mid-1950s onward, the evidence seems to suggest that there was something being covered up about Oswald's youth, and FBI agents were deep into this stuff before the ink was dry on Fritz's complaint.

Jim

Drew Phipps
04-19-2014, 11:53 PM
Hoover got personally involved with the Oswald file shortly after his defection to USSR, when it was alleged that someone pretending to be him tried to arrange for auto loans or something similar. The FBI determined that Oswald's official birth certificate was missing from the parish of his birth. (was this the first ever FBI identity theft case?) In addition to the normal "defector" file, they did have an active case agents assigned to him at all times in 1963, so some of the background information might have already been gathered prior to the assassination. I've no doubt that they were burning the midnight oil (and possibly other more relevant things) right after his name was announced. There is no question that the FBI knew a lot more about him than they pretended to know.

Jim Hargrove
04-20-2014, 04:52 AM
From Harvey and Lee, pp 16-17:

Lee Harvey Oswald

Two months after the death of his father Lee Harvey Oswald was born, on October 18,
1939. He was delivered by Dr. Bruno F. Mancuso at the Old French Hospital
in New Orleans. A birth notice was listed in the "Records of the Day" section in the
Times-Picayune on October 26, 1939.


NOTE: The short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" told the Warren Commission,

"His father's name was Robert Edward Lee, he was named after General Lee. The

family's name is Harvey-his grandmother's name was Harvey. And so he was named Lee

Harvey Oswald."22

The Recorder of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in New Orleans Parish recorded
Oswald's birth in Book 207, Folio 1321. The record on file is a "Declaration of Birth"
for Lee Harvey Oswald, was witnessed by Harvey F. Oswald, and dated October 25,
1939. This declaration is NOT a birth certificate. A "Declaration of Birth" is a document
that was used when births occurred outside of a hospital and without an attending physician,
such as births that occurred on a rural farm. A "Certificate of Birth" was routinely
issued for children born in hospitals or delivered at a private home by a physician,
especially in a large city such as New Orleans. A "Certificate of Birth" should have been
issued by either the Old French Hospital or Dr. Bruno F. Mancuso within a day of
Oswald's birth. A birth certificate for Lee Harvey Oswald has never been made public.


NOTE: After the assassination Dallas Police detectives found a document that has been

incorrectly identified as Oswald's birth certificate. This document is listed as item #448

in Warren Commission Exhibit 2003 and identified as "Birth Certificate #17034." This

document is NOT a birth certificate nor is it the "Declaration of Birth" mentioned above.

Item #448 is merely an acknowledgment by the New Orleans Parish Office of Records of

Births, Marriages and Deaths that Oswald's birth was recorded in Book 207, Folio

1321. Upon payment of a small fee, anyone can obtain such a certificate.




5911

The original "Declaration of Birth" has never been found, nor was a copy published in

the Warren Volumes. The FBI obtained a copy of this document from an unknown source,

which was released by the FBI along with thousands of other JFK related documents in

1978.

A FINAL NOTE ON OSWALD'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Following the assassination of President

Kennedy, former Army Intelligence officer Colonel Phillip James Corso was
asked by Senator Richard Russell (a member of the Warren Commission) to

conduct a discreet inquiry into the assassination. Within a short time Corso reported back

to Senator Russell that there were two birth certificates in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald

and they had been used by two different people. Corso cited his sources as Francis Knight,

head of the US Passport Office in Washington, DC, and William 0. Sullivan, head of

the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division.


Shortly after the birth of Lee Harvey Oswald the tall, nice-looking Marguerite
Oswald saw her friend, Myrtle Evans, on the corner of Canal and St. Charles. The two
women chatted for a few minutes and Marguerite told Myrtle that she had just taken
Lee to the doctor.

Drew Phipps
04-20-2014, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE=Jim Hargrove;86228]

NOTE: The short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" told the Warren Commission,

"His father's name was Robert Edward Lee, he was named after General Lee. The

family's name is Harvey-his grandmother's name was Harvey. And so he was named Lee

Harvey Oswald."


[QUOTE]

If I recall correctly Marguerite also claimed that Lee told her that he took his "birth certificate" with him when he went to Russia.

Dawn Meredith
04-20-2014, 01:05 PM
To me, at least, it speaks volumes that before Oswald was even charged Hoover was concentrating on Oswald's teen-aged employment in New Orleans and his elementary and junior high school records in NYC, New Orleans, and Ft. Worth. Wouldn't most people say those are pretty strange priorities? How 'bout looking for co-conspirators first and looking for elementary school records later?

Not sure on the timing of that, but it is certainly telegraphing those punches.

I did not know about those things in particular but the fact that they "know" so much about this man so quickly and knew it was he alone was the reason I knew day one he was a patsy. Just does not happen that way in real life. Investigations take time. Drew I was 14. If you had been older I suspect that you would have figured it out at the get go too.
Dawn

LR Trotter
04-20-2014, 09:08 PM
To me, at least, it speaks volumes that before Oswald was even charged Hoover was concentrating on Oswald's teen-aged employment in New Orleans and his elementary and junior high school records in NYC, New Orleans, and Ft. Worth. Wouldn't most people say those are pretty strange priorities? How 'bout looking for co-conspirators first and looking for elementary school records later?

Not sure on the timing of that, but it is certainly telegraphing those punches.

I did not know about those things in particular but the fact that they "know" so much about this man so quickly and knew it was he alone was the reason I knew day one he was a patsy. Just does not happen that way in real life. Investigations take time. Drew I was 14. If you had been older I suspect that you would have figured it out at the get go too.
Dawn

I was in HS, just shy of age 17 when JFK was murdered. I do think I felt it was all surreal, with something dark and deep going on, and the suspect being murdered while in police custody only solidified that feeling. But, when the Warren Commission was announced, I then began my wait for the report that would bring out the "true facts" of the assassination weekend about those two murders and the wounding of JBC. And then the report came out, basically repeating what had been established on that assassination weeked. That is how I remember November '63 through September '64 regarding the murder of JFK.

::thumbsdown::

Jim Hargrove
04-21-2014, 03:11 AM
I was in HS, just shy of age 17 when JFK was murdered. I do think I felt it was all surreal, with something dark and deep going on, and the suspect being murdered while in police custody only solidified that feeling.

I was just a year younger, but I remember my mother saying something like, "As soon as Oswald was killed, we all knew it was some kind of conspiracy."

Does anyone recall ever hearing of a survey in which a majority of Americans indicated they believed the Warren Commission's conclusions? I can't think of one.

Marc Ellis
04-22-2014, 02:01 PM
Although I have nothing in the way of proof to back up my beliefs, I tend to think the people that brought us the assassination would have been very pleased if other conspirators beside LHO had turned up and they all could have been tied in to Cuba and Russia.

The reason the coverup looks so "thrown together" is that it may very well be just that; a last minute scramble to implicate a lone assassin and avoid a nuclear exchange with the USSR. LBJ and the WC, should the truth ever come out, may go down in History one day as patriotic heroes that saved the lives of 120 million Americans.

Yeah. There was no shortage of anti-Castro Cubans they could have turned up. But that wasn't the sort of Cuban they wanted.

BTW Robert, I'm just a student and reader - not a researcher. But I think your ballistics information are the most important and original research I've read this year. I wish more ballistics experts would get involved with it.

Bob Prudhomme
04-22-2014, 05:00 PM
Although I have nothing in the way of proof to back up my beliefs, I tend to think the people that brought us the assassination would have been very pleased if other conspirators beside LHO had turned up and they all could have been tied in to Cuba and Russia.

The reason the coverup looks so "thrown together" is that it may very well be just that; a last minute scramble to implicate a lone assassin and avoid a nuclear exchange with the USSR. LBJ and the WC, should the truth ever come out, may go down in History one day as patriotic heroes that saved the lives of 120 million Americans.

Yeah. There was no shortage of anti-Castro Cubans they could have turned up. But that wasn't the sort of Cuban they wanted.

BTW Robert, I'm just a student and reader - not a researcher. But I think your ballistics information are the most important and original research I've read this year. I wish more ballistics experts would get involved with it.

Thank you for those encouraging words, Marc. I wish more people would get involved in the ballistics discussion, too. As far as I know, some of the discrepancies I have pointed out in Robert Frazier's testimony have never been addressed in 50 years. However, a thread about Oswald's tonsils or how tall Marguerite Oswald was will generate pages of discussion.

Drew Phipps
04-22-2014, 07:10 PM
Bob: Do you know if the cartridges produced either in 1944 or 1954 by the WCC were made exactly to the specs of the original Italian MC ammo?

Bob Prudhomme
04-22-2014, 09:49 PM
Bob: Do you know if the cartridges produced either in 1944 or 1954 by the WCC were made exactly to the specs of the original Italian MC ammo?

No, I don't believe they were. There are foreign rifle enthusiasts who have measured the bullet diameters of this WCC ammo with micrometers and found the bullets to be .264" in diameter.

According to some sources, the manufacture of this ammunition, by the Western Cartridge Company, began well before 1944. If you re-read the first post in this thread, you will see that it was not intended solely to arm Italian partisans. The eventuality of the Greek Civil War was seen by many analysts in the early 1940's while Greece was under occupation by the Germans and Italians. As the groove diameter of a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer Greek rifle is only .264", as opposed to the .268" groove diameter of a Carcano, loading the WCC cartridges with bullets .264" in diameter allowed these cartridges to be used in both the 6.5mm Carcano and the 6.5mm M-S; albeit not nearly as accurately in the Carcani. Greece inherited many 6.5mm Carcano rifles after the Germans departed, as the Germans disarmed the departing Italian troops following the signing of the Italian Armistice in late 1943. The Germans greatly feared these rifles being turned against them by partisans in Italy if the Italian troops were allowed to keep them, which is exactly what happened.

The distance from the base of a Carcano cartridge to the shoulder is 1 mm less than the same distance on a 6.5mm M-S cartridge. This means that a 6.5mm cartridge, as long as it is loaded with a .264" diameter bullet, can be chambered and fired from a 6.5mm M-S rifle. The brass casing is quite malleable and will "grow" under the pressure of expanding gases to match the shape of the M-S chamber.

Whether supplying Italian partisans in Italy or anti-Communist factions in the Greek Civil War, the WCC cartridges loaded with .264" diameter bullets were capable of meeting the demand.

Marc Ellis
04-23-2014, 12:01 AM
Although I have nothing in the way of proof to back up my beliefs, I tend to think the people that brought us the assassination would have been very pleased if other conspirators beside LHO had turned up and they all could have been tied in to Cuba and Russia.

The reason the coverup looks so "thrown together" is that it may very well be just that; a last minute scramble to implicate a lone assassin and avoid a nuclear exchange with the USSR. LBJ and the WC, should the truth ever come out, may go down in History one day as patriotic heroes that saved the lives of 120 million Americans.

Yeah. There was no shortage of anti-Castro Cubans they could have turned up. But that wasn't the sort of Cuban they wanted.

BTW Robert, I'm just a student and reader - not a researcher. But I think your ballistics information are the most important and original research I've read this year. I wish more ballistics experts would get involved with it.

Thank you for those encouraging words, Marc. I wish more people would get involved in the ballistics discussion, too. As far as I know, some of the discrepancies I have pointed out in Robert Frazier's testimony have never been addressed in 50 years. However, a thread about Oswald's tonsils or how tall Marguerite Oswald was will generate pages of discussion.

FWIW, as I see it, you're using the state's evidence to disprove the state's case. It's easy enough for me to understand. The FBI made a simple math error. The official description of the ammo is larger than it actually was. The rifle allegedly used to kill JFK could be fired using that smaller ammo, but the accuracy would compromised and there would be no way to compensate for it.

Do I have that right?

Your work might have the potential to once and for all, eliminate the M/C as the weapon used to kill JFK. The conclusions need to be tested, verified. But what you're doing seems like important research to me.

Drew Phipps
04-23-2014, 12:50 AM
I got the bullet caliber and land/groove business down pat, I think. I'm talking about the shell casing that is discarded after the bullet is shot. (for this discussion, CE 543, CE 544, and CE 545 iirc) Are those WCC casings the same specs as the Italian military specs for the spent part of the cartridge? I'm sure they have to be close, but are they exactly the same?

Bob Prudhomme
04-23-2014, 01:58 AM
I got the bullet caliber and land/groove business down pat, I think. I'm talking about the shell casing that is discarded after the bullet is shot. (for this discussion, CE 543, CE 544, and CE 545 iirc) Are those WCC casings the same specs as the Italian military specs for the spent part of the cartridge? I'm sure they have to be close, but are they exactly the same?

Without having a WCC 6.5mm cartridge in my hands to measure with a micrometer, it is difficult to say. As there was only one batch made over 60 years ago, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get hold of one of these cartridges, especially for someone such as myself living in northern Canada. Our ammunition import laws are a bit sticky.

Anyways, I can provide you with the specs in this diagram for 6.5x52mm casings.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxeJSB2yK0hKfauYs1GUdJBYQ-uuZ8vkYOYLcaYD7RPc0va5E1_Q
http://www.loaddata.com/images/database/6.5x52_Carcano.gif (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=OniRRZowlPuk9M&tbnid=b-LhA-ipz9KomM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loaddata.com%2Fmembers%2Fsear ch_detail.cfm%3FMetallicID%3D780&ei=bxZXU47nG8LuyAHdoIH4Aw&bvm=bv.65177938,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFS0-tYgio5MbX7-_t-5SY0PHY2OA&ust=1398302406776987)

One difference I am positive would exist is the Italian casings would be made for Berdan primers, as is typical with European cartridges, while the WCC would be made for the Boxer primer, as is typical with North American cartridges.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKLbzm3dqemeoayoR9mUwfsVUOnfZw9-817XmSSt_9bukvy5dc


Another possible difference is that the Italian SMI casings had a shoulder inside the cartridge neck that the base of the bullet butted up against. This shoulder prevented the bullet from accidentally being pushed further into the casing. This is an unusual feature I have never seen on North American ammunition. In our countries, the crimping of the casing neck at the cannelure is meant to prevent this, and I doubt if the WCC casings would have had a shoulder inside the neck.

As you live in Texas, you may have a much easier time locating WCC 6.5mm ammo than I would.

Interestingly, if the empty casings (CE 543, 544 and 545) were not the same specs as the Italian ammo when they were chambered into a Carcano rifle, they would be the same specs after the cartridge was fired; except for possibly the rim of the casing base. As brass is malleable, irregular sized casings get "fire formed" to the shape of the rifle's chamber, due to the pressure of the gases inside the casing. This is what I meant by shooting a 6.5x52mm Carcano cartridge (loaded with a .264" bullet, of course) in a 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle. The Carcano brass casing "grows" by 1 mm until the Carcano shoulder contacts the M-S chamber shoulder and the casing fills the chamber of the M-S rifle and becomes, essentially, a M-S casing. If these three casings had been fired in a 6.5mm MS, it would be easy to tell, simply by measuring the distance on them from the base to the shoulder.

This phenomenon is utilized by handloaders in a process called "neck sizing". Normally, most handloaders will re-size the entire spent brass casing to bring it back to original specs, prior to reloading it with fresh powder and a new bullet. However, there is a school of thought that believes once a cartridge is fired in a particular bolt action rifle, that casing is now perfectly matched to that rifle's chamber. These devotees re-size only the neck of the cartridge, to allow it to hold a new bullet, and leave the rest of the casing untouched. These cartridges, of course, are slightly more difficult to chamber than fully re-sized cartridges. The jury is still out on whether or not neck sizing promotes greater accuracy than full length re-sizing.

Of course, in either type of re-sizing, it is necessary to check the length of the casing against the specs for that casing, as a casing will grow in length each time it is fired. A special tool called a case trimmer takes care of this.

Drew Phipps
04-29-2014, 12:48 AM
Bob: When you say measure the "shoulder length" of the cartridge, do you measure it to the wide part of the shoulder (1.62'') or to the neck end (1.77") ?

And no, this is not an attempt to start an argument about the location of one of Kennedy's wounds.

Bob Prudhomme
04-29-2014, 06:14 AM
In this case, and in most cases, we would be measuring from the base of the casing to the widest part of the shoulder; just before it begins to taper. As this distance is 1 mm longer on the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer casing than it is on the 6.5x52 Carcano casing, a 6.5mm M-S cartridge cannot be chambered into a 6.5mm Carcano rifle and the bolt closed behind it; at least not without a fight, and a big one at that.

No argument here about the wound location, I KNOW it was in the shoulder. :)

Edit: I can see how this could be confusing for many. As the 6.5mm Carcano casing and the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer casing both have shoulders with almost identical angles, the narrow part of the shoulder on the M-S casing would also be 1 mm further from the base of the casing than the narrow part of the shoulder on the Carcano casing.

Drew Phipps
04-29-2014, 10:11 PM
So, I measured the photos of the casings from NARA CE 543, CE 544, and CE 545 with my digital analysis software. All of the diameters of all the casings appear to match the specs within the error factor introduced by pixelation. The length from base to shoulder are as follows:



CE 545 41.66 mm (1.64 in.)
CE 544 41.66 mm (1.64 in.)
CE 543 45.72 mm ? (1.8 in.)? (I'm going to recheck this measurement. Ignore for now.)

I see the spec length is 41.20 mm (1.62 in.) Is the observed expansion here of the fired bullets CE 545 and CE 544 consistent, or inconsistent, with being fired from a M-C 91/38?

Bob Prudhomme
04-29-2014, 10:54 PM
So, I measured the photos of the casings from NARA CE 543, CE 544, and CE 545 with my digital analysis software. All of the diameters of all the casings appear to match the specs within the error factor introduced by pixelation. The length from base to shoulder are as follows:



CE 545 41.66 mm (1.64 in.)
CE 544 41.66 mm (1.64 in.)
CE 543 45.72 mm ? (1.8 in.)? (I'm going to recheck this measurement. Ignore for now.)

I see the spec length is 41.20 mm (1.62 in.) Is the observed expansion here of the fired bullets CE 545 and CE 544 consistent, or inconsistent, with being fired from a M-C 91/38?

That would appear to be correct. This was military ammunition being fired in a military rifle, after all, and expansion in length by less than half a millimeter is to be expected.

Military rifles are designed to be used in less than ideal conditions and, should a bit of dirt or sand find its way into the cartridge chamber, a soldier must still be able to chamber a cartridge and close the bolt. Easing up on the tolerances in the chamber, by allowing for more headspace, provides these tolerances but, in some cases, will sacrifice accuracy in order to do so. If you ever purchase a military bolt action rifle, a gunsmith can check the headspace and bring it into the tolerances for that particular cartridge.

Too much headspace can have detrimental effects on a casing. As the casing "grows" in length during firing, it may stretch so much as to weaken the casing walls; causing the casing to rupture or even separate.

Of course, this doesn't really tell us all that much. If I was going to plant a 6.5mm M91/38 Carcano, I would also plant empty casings that had been fired in that rifle.

P.S. Interesting to see what the revised measurement for CE 543 turns out to be. I'm still baffled as to how it received the dent on the casing neck.

Drew Phipps
04-30-2014, 01:19 AM
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.

Bob Prudhomme
04-30-2014, 01:21 AM
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.

Drew Phipps
04-30-2014, 07:39 PM
Realized that I wrote down the wrong figure in the wrong column, so the length of the dented cartridge (CE 543) from base to shoulder is also 1.64". My bad.


So we have three "authentic" either Italian-made or WCC-made casings, (which have all been chambered more than once) for the M-C 91/38 present in the "sniper's nest." Strange then that the bullets recovered then don't appear to match the spent casings, and instead appear to be some sort of .25 cal bullet.

Bob Prudhomme
04-30-2014, 09:41 PM
Realized that I wrote down the wrong figure in the wrong column, so the length of the dented cartridge (CE 543) from base to shoulder is also 1.64". My bad.


So we have three "authentic" either Italian-made or WCC-made casings, (which have all been chambered more than once) for the M-C 91/38 present in the "sniper's nest." Strange then that the bullets recovered then don't appear to match the spent casings, and instead appear to be some sort of .25 cal bullet.

What I find odd is where Frazier came up with the diameter measurement of 6.65 mm for CE 399, which matches neither a .25 calibre bullet nor any 6.5 mm calibre rifle, nor any bullet on the planet outside of one experimental Swiss bullet developed for a NATO bid known as the 6.45x48mm XPL Swiss. It was not developed until 1979, though, and never went beyond the prototype stage.

As I said earlier, Frazier testified to the WC that he measured the diameter of the bullet in the unfired WCC cartridge found in the rifle from the 6th floor and determined the diameter to be 6.65 mm. In the same breath, he told the WC that this equated to a bullet .267" in diameter and that this was the correct diameter for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet. The real diameter is closer to .268" at .2677". A bullet 6.65 mm in diameter actually equates to an English measurement of .2618", much too small to be any other 6.5mm bullet (.264") and much too big to be a .25 calibre bullet at .257".

The most probable thing, to me at least, is that Frazier made an error in measuring the bullet in the unspent WCC cartridge by .5 mm, and the bullet was, in reality, 6.7 mm in diameter. This equates to .26378" or .264", the standard bullet diameter for every 6.5mm rifle except the 6.5mm Carcano, which, as we know, requires a bullet .268" in diameter to be accurate.

Marc Ellis
05-02-2014, 02:45 PM
FWIW Robert, I mentioned your work and linked this thread at Jefferson Morley's JFKFacts.org. The thread there is about important NEW evidence in the JFK assassination. Of course this isn't exactly 'new' evidence. But it seems your new work on this old evidence has the potential to be very important. It could possibly exclude the M/C as the murder weapon - using the FBI's own evidence and calculations.

Bob Prudhomme
05-02-2014, 05:10 PM
FWIW Robert, I mentioned your work and linked this thread at Jefferson Morley's JFKFacts.org. The thread there is about important NEW evidence in the JFK assassination. Of course this isn't exactly 'new' evidence. But it seems your new work on this old evidence has the potential to be very important. It could possibly exclude the M/C as the murder weapon - using the FBI's own evidence and calculations.

Thank you Marc. I have tended to shy away from this site, as it allows the presence of John McAdams, and several other disinfo agents. Life is too short to be spent debating those who are well paid not to see your point of view. However, I am grateful to you for linking to this thread, as I believe the open minded will recognize the truth when they see it, and spreading the word is the only weapon we have.

Marc Ellis
05-02-2014, 09:12 PM
FWIW Robert, I mentioned your work and linked this thread at Jefferson Morley's JFKFacts.org. The thread there is about important NEW evidence in the JFK assassination. Of course this isn't exactly 'new' evidence. But it seems your new work on this old evidence has the potential to be very important. It could possibly exclude the M/C as the murder weapon - using the FBI's own evidence and calculations.

Thank you Marc. I have tended to shy away from this site, as it allows the presence of John McAdams, and several other disinfo agents. Life is too short to be spent debating those who are well paid not to see your point of view. However, I am grateful to you for linking to this thread, as I believe the open minded will recognize the truth when they see it, and spreading the word is the only weapon we have.

It's hard to over-state the importance of - as Drew Phipps said - of ruling out the possibility that CE399 was fired from the MC. Few if any of us think CE399 struck JFK anyway. But to come at it from a different angle and to rule out the MC rifle as being able to fire that round with any accuracy - could be historic.

There is work to be done of course - someone - probably in the US - needs to get a hold of some of those rare rounds and test the effect on accuracy under controlled conditions. I don't know much about ballistics and I know nothing about rifling patterns. But even I can see the potential here.

Drew Phipps
05-02-2014, 10:33 PM
The problem with arguing about the "acccuracy" of the weapon is that even if it is the worst gun in the world and Oswald a terrible shot, it still doesn't rule him out as the Lone Gunman. He could have been shooting at trees (first shot may have come z160 while the trees obscured view) or birds in the sky, or aiming at Mary Moorman, or nothing in particular, and still killed JFK. What rules him out as a Lone Gunman is proving that the bullet (whole or bits) weren't fired from "his" rifle at all.

Ballistically, CE 399 is either the wrong size or the wrong shape (depending upon which photo you care to examine), and the rifling marks are demonstrably wrong for any bullet fired from the M-C 91/38. This means, at best, that the FBI botched the forensics (and then covered it up), and at worst fabricated CE 399 (and then committed perjury). The only way for that gun to have shot those bullets is if the gun is a wholly unique (probably custom-made) firearm with non-standard barrel size and riflings, and that has been machined and stamped to look like a mail order mil-surplus M-C 91/38. And then, improperly fitted with a crappy scope.

Drew Phipps
05-04-2014, 05:18 AM
Is the ammo for the M-C carbine the same caliber as the ammo for the short rifle? I ask because half of the rifling marks on the magic bullet appear to have a spin more consistent with the carbine. There is also some very good research indicating that the gun "Hidell" ordered from Kleins', and wa subsequently delivered, was a "39 inch M-C carbine", not a "41 inch M-C short rifle".

Bob Prudhomme
05-04-2014, 06:19 AM
Is the ammo for the M-C carbine the same caliber as the ammo for the short rifle? I ask because half of the rifling marks on the magic bullet appear to have a spin more consistent with the carbine. There is also some very good research indicating that the gun "Hidell" ordered from Kleins', and wa subsequently delivered, was a "39 inch M-C carbine", not a "41 inch M-C short rifle".

Yes, every Carcano, be it a long rifle, short rifle or carbine, used the same 6.5x52mm cartridge. Even the 7.35mm rifles used this cartridge; the only difference being the neck of the casing opened up to accept the wider bullet.

Mitchell Severson
06-04-2014, 07:49 AM
Bob, have you thought of publishing your work on the limitations of the WCC ammunition? I know Morley and Bradford at 'JFKFacts" are always looking for new ideas/research. This certainly qualifies. You'd have to get under their very small word limit, but I think that very different group of readers would benefit. I imagine he gets decent traffic as well.

Jim DiEugenio
06-04-2014, 04:02 PM
I invited Bob to submit an article on this subject for CTKA.

We do not have a word limit.

Have not checked my in box there lately so I do not know if he replied.

Bob Prudhomme
06-04-2014, 04:36 PM
Hello Jim

I received your e-mail from the CTKA. Stupid me, I saw the name JIM D at the bottom and did not make the connection that it was you. LOL. I've been looking at putting all the materiel about the WCC ammunition together in one essay but, as you said, an essay is a bit more involved than just posting on a forum, and I've felt a little intimidated by the whole matter. I almost wish I could employ the services of a very well organized editor to simply gather everything up and coalesce it into one coherent argument.

Jim DiEugenio
06-05-2014, 03:50 AM
Well, Seamus Coogan's first essay on Hankey was 54 pages long.

I got it down to 35 very readable pages.

It took me four nights and about three hours per.

SO I hope I don't have to do that with you.

That was his first essay though. He is much better now.

Magda Hassan
06-05-2014, 06:00 AM
I invited Bob to submit an article on this subject for CTKA.

We do not have a word limit.



Excellent!

Drew Phipps
06-08-2014, 06:07 PM
Bob:

Would you apply your firearms expertise to the Army ballistics tests run on CE 139? It sure looks to my layman's eye that the results the army shooters got were noticeably different from the FBI results.

WC testifying expert: Ronald Simmons
WC exhibits: 582, 583, 584

6057
6058

Bob Prudhomme
06-08-2014, 08:44 PM
Hi Drew

It's hard to really discern much just from looking at the three targets. Were they aiming at the heart or the head? How many shots with scope and open sights were fired? From what I can see, it looks like only one open sight shot actually hit the target. Was there much text to help explain this?

The one I find most intriguing is the layout of Elm St., and the fact that one of the targets was shot at 270 feet, or 90 yards, and another target was shot at 264 feet, or 88 yards; a mere 2 yard (6 feet) difference. It would be very interesting to know why these two distances were chosen.

If the limo was travelling at 10-12 mph, as we are told, it would cover, in the space of a second, 14.6-17.6 feet. As it requires a minimum of 2 seconds to reload and fire a rifle, there should be at least 30 feet between the impact of two shots unless, of course, the limo had stopped or come to a near stop.

This is rather fascinating, as there are eyewitness accounts (Moorman, Altgens) of the fatal head shot taking place further down Elm St. than the location depicted in Zapruder film frame z313.

And while it is also believed that the Polaroid taken by Mary Ann Moorman was also at the exact moment of z313, this may also not be true. Watch this recent interview with Ms. Moorman, paying particular interest to what she has to say beginning about 1:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNF-sPW8YI

Drew Phipps
06-09-2014, 01:09 AM
The WC testimony of Mr. Simmons is very interesting. He recounts the difficulty of working the bolt of c2766 (which could be compensated for with dry runs), as well as talking about an unusually quick trigger action (which generally could not). Depending on which of the many Oswalds you follow, he either got plenty of practice at the range, or almost none.

His Army shooters managed the feat in less time than Oswald but with less accuracy, and they were NRA "masters." One guy, some sort of gun prodigy, managed three shots in less than 5 seconds. Simmons's results are tallied in fractions of a degree, which then moved out to the appropriate yardage, showed accuracy figures better than the FBI; but it looks to me that the shots did NOT consistently go "high and to the right." Compounding the strangeness, he did not ask his shooters to fire at any particular part of the silhouette target.

I've only done a preliminary scan of his testimony and will work on it a bit more. The good news is that we have pictures (CE 582, 583, 584) of the actual silhouette targets used from the view of the shooter (and the plywood upon which the targets were mounted), unlike the previous FBI tests where the exhibits are not pictures of the silhouette targets Frazier claimed he used (instead appear to be hand drawn).

I will review your link as well.

John Lewis
09-04-2014, 04:09 PM
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 (http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warning-65-prvi-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 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http://www.mannlicher.org/portals/140/tmc_96_rough_p3.pdf&ei=dosIVPXIFsHC7AbiyIH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGkaI3Y4H2F5Ldr2WaFtvtyNt3dMg&bvm=bv.74649129,d.ZWU) 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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/6%2C5x54_Mannlicher_Schönauer.jpg/300px-6%2C5x54_Mannlicher_Schönauer.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6,5x54_Mannlicher_Schönauer.jpg)

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Ce141.jpg/300px-Ce141.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ce141.jpg)

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
09-04-2014, 05:04 PM
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
09-04-2014, 05:04 PM
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 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http://www.mannlicher.org/portals/140/tmc_96_rough_p3.pdf&ei=dosIVPXIFsHC7AbiyIH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGkaI3Y4H2F5Ldr2WaFtvtyNt3dMg&bvm=bv.74649129,d.ZWU) 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.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF7esSwqLkEsK1U2gEpLRof02D52b2S jSYkR2j9x2E2u59sOJR

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:

"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.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGY513Bkjn2W2Z6XO2o8eGecmfOtl8b _w-RbmzrK01EFeTzMBhbu-idFw (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAQQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthemysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspo t.com%2F2013%2F06%2F65x52-mm-carcano-elephant-gun-by-robert.html&ei=-ZsIVP39LYSejAKWsYGwDA&bvm=bv.74649129,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNFs-HirVmM3e0-By74MCR-2vS3iFQ&ust=1409936761795590)

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

Bob Prudhomme
09-04-2014, 05:35 PM
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
09-04-2014, 08:34 PM
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
09-09-2014, 11:00 PM
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 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http://www.mannlicher.org/portals/140/tmc_96_rough_p3.pdf&ei=dosIVPXIFsHC7AbiyIH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGkaI3Y4H2F5Ldr2WaFtvtyNt3dMg&bvm=bv.74649129,d.ZWU) 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.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF7esSwqLkEsK1U2gEpLRof02D52b2S jSYkR2j9x2E2u59sOJR

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:

"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.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGY513Bkjn2W2Z6XO2o8eGecmfOtl8b _w-RbmzrK01EFeTzMBhbu-idFw (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAQQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthemysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspo t.com%2F2013%2F06%2F65x52-mm-carcano-elephant-gun-by-robert.html&ei=-ZsIVP39LYSejAKWsYGwDA&bvm=bv.74649129,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNFs-HirVmM3e0-By74MCR-2vS3iFQ&ust=1409936761795590)

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


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 (http://mannlicherschoenauer.com/used_guns.htm) 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 (http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?318364-6-5x52-Carcano-Western-Cartridge-Bullet-Diameter-Weight-Style-etc). 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. (http://www.hornady.com/store/6.5mm-Carcano-.267-160-gr-RN/) 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
09-09-2014, 11:10 PM
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
09-09-2014, 11:13 PM
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
09-09-2014, 11:43 PM
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
09-09-2014, 11:57 PM
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.

Bob Prudhomme
09-10-2014, 12:43 AM
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
09-10-2014, 12:47 AM
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
09-10-2014, 12:49 AM
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 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http://www.mannlicher.org/portals/140/tmc_96_rough_p3.pdf&ei=dosIVPXIFsHC7AbiyIH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGkaI3Y4H2F5Ldr2WaFtvtyNt3dMg&bvm=bv.74649129,d.ZWU) 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.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF7esSwqLkEsK1U2gEpLRof02D52b2S jSYkR2j9x2E2u59sOJR

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:

"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.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGY513Bkjn2W2Z6XO2o8eGecmfOtl8b _w-RbmzrK01EFeTzMBhbu-idFw (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAQQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthemysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspo t.com%2F2013%2F06%2F65x52-mm-carcano-elephant-gun-by-robert.html&ei=-ZsIVP39LYSejAKWsYGwDA&bvm=bv.74649129,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNFs-HirVmM3e0-By74MCR-2vS3iFQ&ust=1409936761795590)

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


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 (http://mannlicherschoenauer.com/used_guns.htm) 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 (http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?318364-6-5x52-Carcano-Western-Cartridge-Bullet-Diameter-Weight-Style-etc). 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. (http://www.hornady.com/store/6.5mm-Carcano-.267-160-gr-RN/) 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
09-10-2014, 01:12 AM
"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 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http://www.mannlicher.org/portals/140/tmc_96_rough_p3.pdf&ei=dosIVPXIFsHC7AbiyIH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGkaI3Y4H2F5Ldr2WaFtvtyNt3dMg&bvm=bv.74649129,d.ZWU) 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
09-10-2014, 03:24 PM
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
09-10-2014, 03:50 PM
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 (http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=mannlicher&Number=169260&Searchpage=1&Main=152549&Words=+RigbyUser&topic=&Search=true)
"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:










http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/edit.gif Edit

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/reply.gif Reply

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/quote.gif Quote

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/reply.gif Quick Reply (http://javascript<strong></strong>:quickReply(16))









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."

John Lewis
09-10-2014, 04:02 PM
Are we to assume that the CIP are disinfo agents too? If you go here (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page22.pdf) you can see their specifications for the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher cartridge, specifications which tally exactly with what the poster I quoted said. Also, here (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/annexe/annexeiii-en-cr1.pdf) 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
09-10-2014, 04:13 PM
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
09-10-2014, 04:21 PM
"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 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http://www.mannlicher.org/portals/140/tmc_96_rough_p3.pdf&ei=dosIVPXIFsHC7AbiyIH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGkaI3Y4H2F5Ldr2WaFtvtyNt3dMg&bvm=bv.74649129,d.ZWU) 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 (http://www.midwayusa.com/product/974954/hornady-bullets-65mm-carcano-268-diameter-160-grain-round-nose-box-of-100) 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
09-10-2014, 04:29 PM
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.

Bob Prudhomme
09-10-2014, 04:41 PM
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.

Perhaps you could give them to us then? I may wish to go shooting next time I go to the UK. Or purchase a firearm from you.

Lauren Johnson
09-10-2014, 04:45 PM
Bob, John,

I am not at all gun knowledgeable and certainly not with regards to the MC and all the details that go with it. It is very difficult for me to summarize the argument that each of you is putting forth. I would appreciate it if you could at least summarize what is at stake here.

John, a question. You seem to be saying that the MC of 6th floor of the TSBD was used to shoot at JFK and that all three shots came from that gun?

John Lewis
09-10-2014, 04:46 PM
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.

Perhaps you could give them to us then? I may wish to go shooting next time I go to the UK. Or purchase a firearm from you.

I could but I'm not going to for reasons which I'm sure are pretty obvious to anyone reading this. Of course, you'll protest that the reasons aren't obvious to you so I'll waste several paragraphs worth of time telling you which will just make the thread look untidy.

JL.

Bob Prudhomme
09-10-2014, 04:59 PM
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.

Perhaps you could give them to us then? I may wish to go shooting next time I go to the UK. Or purchase a firearm from you.

I could but I'm not going to for reasons which I'm sure are pretty obvious to anyone reading this. Of course, you'll protest that the reasons aren't obvious to you so I'll waste several paragraphs worth of time telling you which will just make the thread look untidy.

JL.

You sound very experienced at this game, John. Did you really come to this forum just to get advice on a rifle you'd like to purchase?

John Lewis
09-10-2014, 05:04 PM
Bob, John,

I am not at all gun knowledgeable and certainly not with regards to the MC and all the details that go with it. It is very difficult for me to summarize the argument that each of you is putting forth. I would appreciate it if you could at least summarize what is at stake here.

John, a question. You seem to be saying that the MC of 6th floor of the TSBD was used to shoot at JFK and that all three shots came from that gun?


Nope, not at all. What I am categorically not saying is that the shots (or any shots) came from that rifle.

The gist of the discussion is that Bob is saying that the shots categorically could not have come from that rifle due to the internal design of it's barrel and the size of the particular projectiles which were alleged to have travelled through it.

I am saying that he is wrong in that conclusion. Putting it simply, he asserts that the bullet (the projectile) is too small and would not be sufficiently stabilised by the barrel to fly in a straight line and would have deviated by a wide enough margin as it would be incapable of hitting JFK.

My point is that he is wrong. I know for an absolute fact that he is wrong because I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate. Moreover, this dimensional difference between bullet size and internal barrel size is actually the norm and is even legally mandated by the proof authorities (the people who test the safety of all new arms) in 14 countries of the World including most of Western Europe.

In short; Bob is saying that the alleged shots could not have come from the rifle alleged to have been used by LHO. I am saying that his reasoning which brought him to that conclusion is incorrect.

JL.

Lauren Johnson
09-10-2014, 05:08 PM
Bob, John,

I am not at all gun knowledgeable and certainly not with regards to the MC and all the details that go with it. It is very difficult for me to summarize the argument that each of you is putting forth. I would appreciate it if you could at least summarize what is at stake here.

John, a question. You seem to be saying that the MC of 6th floor of the TSBD was used to shoot at JFK and that all three shots came from that gun?


Nope, not at all. What I am categorically not saying is that the shots (or any shots) came from that rifle.

The gist of the discussion is that Bob is saying that the shots categorically could not have come from that rifle due to the internal design of it's barrel and the size of the particular projectiles which were alleged to have travelled through it.

I am saying that he is wrong in that conclusion. Putting it simply, he asserts that the bullet (the projectile) is too small and would not be sufficiently stabilised by the barrel to fly in a straight line and would have deviated by a wide enough margin as it would be incapable of hitting JFK.

My point is that he is wrong. I know for an absolute fact that he is wrong because I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate. Moreover, this dimensional difference between bullet size and internal barrel size is actually the norm and is even legally mandated by the proof authorities (the people who test the safety of all news arms) in 14 countries of the World including most of Western Europe.

In short; Bob is saying that the alleged shots could not have come from the rifle alleged to have been used by LHO. I am saying that his reasoning which brought him to that conclusion is incorrect.

JL.

Bob, is John adequately summarizing your position?

John Lewis
09-10-2014, 05:09 PM
Now you are just being childish - you know perfectly well that I didn't give them.

JL.

Perhaps you could give them to us then? I may wish to go shooting next time I go to the UK. Or purchase a firearm from you.

I could but I'm not going to for reasons which I'm sure are pretty obvious to anyone reading this. Of course, you'll protest that the reasons aren't obvious to you so I'll waste several paragraphs worth of time telling you which will just make the thread look untidy.

JL.

You sound very experienced at this game, John. Did you really come to this forum just to get advice on a rifle you'd like to purchase?

No, and at no point did I say that I did. I said I found it whilst looking for information on the rifle.

What 'game' are you referring to? This is simply a discussion about firearms and ballistics, as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't aware we were playing a game.

JL.

Drew Phipps
09-10-2014, 05:44 PM
There is also this (which I've said earlier in this thread IIRC): It doesn't matter if the rifle/ammunition is "accurate enough to do the job" if in fact the rifle/ammo combination DID do the job. Oswald (or whoever) could have been aiming at Jackie, or LBJ, or Zapruder, or anything else, and still managed to shoot JFK. Let's work on eliminating the MC 91/38 with WCC ammo as the assassination weapon, as opposed to reducing the chance that a serious assassin would choose that combination.

Michael Cross
09-10-2014, 06:21 PM
I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate.

JL.

I am in no way a weapons expert, but I consider myself a critical thinker. Very similar, almost and essentially in no way make for a perfect comparison.

Michael Cross
09-10-2014, 06:28 PM
Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warning-65-prvi-partizan.html

Bob Prudhomme
09-10-2014, 07:00 PM
Bob, John,

I am not at all gun knowledgeable and certainly not with regards to the MC and all the details that go with it. It is very difficult for me to summarize the argument that each of you is putting forth. I would appreciate it if you could at least summarize what is at stake here.

John, a question. You seem to be saying that the MC of 6th floor of the TSBD was used to shoot at JFK and that all three shots came from that gun?


Nope, not at all. What I am categorically not saying is that the shots (or any shots) came from that rifle.

The gist of the discussion is that Bob is saying that the shots categorically could not have come from that rifle due to the internal design of it's barrel and the size of the particular projectiles which were alleged to have travelled through it.

I am saying that he is wrong in that conclusion. Putting it simply, he asserts that the bullet (the projectile) is too small and would not be sufficiently stabilised by the barrel to fly in a straight line and would have deviated by a wide enough margin as it would be incapable of hitting JFK.

My point is that he is wrong. I know for an absolute fact that he is wrong because I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate. Moreover, this dimensional difference between bullet size and internal barrel size is actually the norm and is even legally mandated by the proof authorities (the people who test the safety of all news arms) in 14 countries of the World including most of Western Europe.

In short; Bob is saying that the alleged shots could not have come from the rifle alleged to have been used by LHO. I am saying that his reasoning which brought him to that conclusion is incorrect.

JL.

Bob, is John adequately summarizing your position?

Pretty much, yes. The Carcano rifle was designed with rifling grooves .268" in diameter, the Italian military bullets measured .268" in diameter (.2677" if anyone wants to quibble), and the Western Cartridge Co. bullets were .264" in diameter, the diameter of all other 6.5mm calibre rifle bullets.

Worn or poorly made Carcano barrels have been measured with groove diameters of up to .271".

While the rifling grooves will engage the narrower bullet, it will not fully occupy the grooves, preventing the bullet from travelling perfectly true through the barrel, and affecting accuracy.

John Lewis
09-10-2014, 09:08 PM
I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate.

JL.

I am in no way a weapons expert, but I consider myself a critical thinker. Very similar, almost and essentially in no way make for a perfect comparison.

You are absolutely correct. However, it's the closest we can get at present as no one here seems to actually own an example of the rifle in question.

JL.

Drew Phipps
09-10-2014, 09:20 PM
Re: my previous post about Walt Cakebread:

There may be more than one. Apparently there is some JFK researcher using that moniker now. The Walt Cakebread I speak of is the one mentioned here:

Jack White was the author that did an article about Cakebread's observations in 1995. Thse are his notes from a (COPA?) speech. (excerpted from http://www.baylor.edu/lib/poage/white/doc.php/196920.pdf)

"Based on information furnished by California researcher Walt Cakebread I wrote an article for the July 1995 Fourth Decade on Walt's discovery that the government had photographed two different Mannlicher-Carcano bullets ... yet claimed that both photos depicted the same evidence. This claim is demonstrably false. Sombody went to a lot of trouble to create a near-duplicate of CE399 and substitute it as the official evidence. Except, there is a very subtle difference in the two which nobody except Walt noticed.


The original CE399 was fired from a rifle




having 6-lands-and-6-grooves. But the official CE399 now in evidence has only 4-lands-and-4-grooves. Why is that significant? Because the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in evidence, CE 139, has only 4 lands and grooves. It is impossible for it to fire a bullet with 6 lands and grooves!"

John Lewis
09-10-2014, 09:25 PM
Bob, John,

I am not at all gun knowledgeable and certainly not with regards to the MC and all the details that go with it. It is very difficult for me to summarize the argument that each of you is putting forth. I would appreciate it if you could at least summarize what is at stake here.

John, a question. You seem to be saying that the MC of 6th floor of the TSBD was used to shoot at JFK and that all three shots came from that gun?


Nope, not at all. What I am categorically not saying is that the shots (or any shots) came from that rifle.

The gist of the discussion is that Bob is saying that the shots categorically could not have come from that rifle due to the internal design of it's barrel and the size of the particular projectiles which were alleged to have travelled through it.

I am saying that he is wrong in that conclusion. Putting it simply, he asserts that the bullet (the projectile) is too small and would not be sufficiently stabilised by the barrel to fly in a straight line and would have deviated by a wide enough margin as it would be incapable of hitting JFK.

My point is that he is wrong. I know for an absolute fact that he is wrong because I have a rifle which fires a very similar cartridge with an almost identically dimensioned barrel and an essentially identical bullet to the one which Oswald is alleged to have fired yet it is perfectly accurate. Moreover, this dimensional difference between bullet size and internal barrel size is actually the norm and is even legally mandated by the proof authorities (the people who test the safety of all news arms) in 14 countries of the World including most of Western Europe.

In short; Bob is saying that the alleged shots could not have come from the rifle alleged to have been used by LHO. I am saying that his reasoning which brought him to that conclusion is incorrect.

JL.

Bob, is John adequately summarizing your position?

Pretty much, yes. The Carcano rifle was designed with rifling grooves .268" in diameter, the Italian military bullets measured .268" in diameter (.2677" if anyone wants to quibble), and the Western Cartridge Co. bullets were .264" in diameter, the diameter of all other 6.5mm calibre rifle bullets.

Worn or poorly made Carcano barrels have been measured with groove diameters of up to .271".

While the rifling grooves will engage the narrower bullet, it will not fully occupy the grooves, preventing the bullet from travelling perfectly true through the barrel, and affecting accuracy.

And, the point which I have made consistently (without the need to call you a liar, a courtesy you did not afford me) is that any effect on accuracy will be small. In real terms in the context of the JFK discussion it will make no difference.

The standard, legally mandated minimum measurement for the groove diameter in a 6.5x54mm (a very closely related cartridge) barrel is, as near as makes no odds, .267" and they commonly have barrels larger than that. Those specifications also call for a bullet diameter of .264".

That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Michael Cross
09-10-2014, 09:55 PM
That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Did you read this?


Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warning-65-prvi-partizan.html

"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.

John Lewis
09-10-2014, 10:47 PM
That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Did you read this?


Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warning-65-prvi-partizan.html

"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.



Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

Bob Prudhomme
09-11-2014, 02:52 AM
That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Did you read this?


Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warning-65-prvi-partizan.html

"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.



Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

And yet, Prvi Partizan bullets are recovered, after being fired from a Carcano rifle, that show nicely engraved rifling marks on the bullet. According to you, that is evidence the bullet was spun and the jacket not just "shaved off" (what a silly notion).

John Lewis
09-11-2014, 03:21 PM
That alone proves that the combination of a .264" bullet fired though a barrel with a .268" groove diameter is not automatically grossly and chronically innaccurate. There is nothing about the Carcano barrel which would change that.

JL.

Did you read this?


Apparently related and current article:
http://kegisland.com/carcano-ammo-warning-65-prvi-partizan.html

"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.



Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

And yet, Prvi Partizan bullets are recovered, after being fired from a Carcano rifle, that show nicely engraved rifling marks on the bullet. According to you, that is evidence the bullet was spun and the jacket not just "shaved off" (what a silly notion).

What is your source for that information? The chap who wrote the article makes no mention of that.

Have you ordered any Hornady bullets yet so that you can measure them?

Have you accepted the fact, the legally mandated fact, that 6.5x54mm MS rifles do indeed have a groove diameter well in excess of .264"? You did, after call, call me a liar when I said (repeatedly) that my rifle had a .268" groove diameter.

JL.

Bob Prudhomme
09-11-2014, 04:15 PM
Did you read this?



"I wondered why my 6.5 Carcano short rifle was sending bullets all over an area approximately several feet in diameter at 50 yards, so I checked the bullet diameter.

The Prvi Partizan - manufactured 139 grain FMJ 6.5 Carcano ammo on hand measured a .2635 inch diameter. 6.5 Carcano bullets should be .268 inch in diameter. A second box on hand measured the same bullet diameter. "

*edit: To be clear that website seems to be confirming Bob's point and countering yours John. Most importantly he's using a 6.5 Carcano.



Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

And yet, Prvi Partizan bullets are recovered, after being fired from a Carcano rifle, that show nicely engraved rifling marks on the bullet. According to you, that is evidence the bullet was spun and the jacket not just "shaved off" (what a silly notion).

What is your source for that information? The chap who wrote the article makes no mention of that.

Have you ordered any Hornady bullets yet so that you can measure them?

Have you accepted the fact, the legally mandated fact, that 6.5x54mm MS rifles do indeed have a groove diameter well in excess of .264"? You did, after call, call me a liar when I said (repeatedly) that my rifle had a .268" groove diameter.

JL.

Walks like a troll, talks like a troll, must be a.........

This exchange is over. I do not wish to give disinformation a platform to work from.

Michael Cross
09-11-2014, 04:42 PM
Walks like a troll, talks like a troll, must be a.........

This exchange is over. I do not wish to give disinformation a platform to work from.

Agreed. I'm out as well. When objective information is dismissed out of hand agendas are revealed.

John Lewis
09-11-2014, 04:47 PM
Yes, it was mentioned further up the thread before I got involved.

This is not 'proof' that the particular rifle is behaving like it is purely due to the size of the bullet. The bullet design used by PPU is very different to the one used in Italian service ammo and it is a different weight. The bearing surface of their 139grn bullet is much shorter than that of the 160grn bullet which was alleged to have been fired from Oswalds rifle. The 6.5x52 (Carcano round) and 6.5x54 (Mannlicher-Schoenauer round) rounds use a very long, blunt nosed bullet, a type which PPU do not make. They simply use the same bullet they put in their 6.5x55 Swedish ammo as it's what they have on hand.

The Carcano rifle utilises a very fast rifling twist, as does the 6.5x54 M/S round, which is needed to stabilise the very long 160grn bullets. PPU 139grn ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2,500fps, that is at least 300fps faster than the ammo it was intended for with it's heavier bullet. The PPU bullet has a much smaller bearing surface (the bit which engages the rifling) so has a much greater chance of not engaging it at all. In addition, that bullet is small even by modern standards.

What I think is happening is probably this; the bullet has further to travel before it hits the rifling because it is shorter and its bearing surface is significantly further away from the throat. By the time it comes into contact with the rifling it is already traveling at a significant velocity because of its further travel. Because of its velocity, the fact that it is small even by modern standards (.2635") and that it has a small bearing surface it cannot grip the rifling and the rifling simply shaves off jacket material rather than allowing the jacket to be engraved. This means that the bullet is not being spun and so cannot be accurate.

I would put fair money on that particular bullet being perfectly accurate in that rifle if it were loaded into ammo with a lower muzzle velocity. That way it is exposed to far less stress when it engages the rifling and would have a much better chance of engraving it properly.

It would be interesting to see whther their load using a heavier bullet of 156grn, which I'm sure will be the same diameter, is accurate in this chaps rifle.

JL.

And yet, Prvi Partizan bullets are recovered, after being fired from a Carcano rifle, that show nicely engraved rifling marks on the bullet. According to you, that is evidence the bullet was spun and the jacket not just "shaved off" (what a silly notion).

What is your source for that information? The chap who wrote the article makes no mention of that.

Have you ordered any Hornady bullets yet so that you can measure them?

Have you accepted the fact, the legally mandated fact, that 6.5x54mm MS rifles do indeed have a groove diameter well in excess of .264"? You did, after call, call me a liar when I said (repeatedly) that my rifle had a .268" groove diameter.

JL.

Walks like a troll, talks like a troll, must be a.........

This exchange is over. I do not wish to give disinformation a platform to work from.

So that's your answer? You refuse to address any point I put to you, other than with some pitiable sarcasm and calling me a liar, and inventing some juvenile and barely rational retort about me being here to in some way attack you and spread 'disinformation'.

You speak of 'disinformation', by which I assume you mean that I'm here to undermine what you are saying by spreading lies? Well, have you bothered to have a look at your self and consider how you come over to anyone else reading this thread?

Consider this. I came here to post a simple critique and discuss some of the points you had made about a relatively obscure area of ballistics. To add to the mix my practical experience of having played around with firearms personally and professionally for thirty odd years, if you will. Almost every post you have made in response to mine has been, dismissive, sarcastic, down right offensive or a mixture of all of the above. I have even provided an independent, internationally legally binding set of specifications in response to your explicit allegations that I was lying which you still refuse to accept prove you wrong.

So, who has done you and whatever cause you seek to promote the most harm? Me and my alleged 'disinfo' or you and your utterly childish and petulant responses and seemingly tenuous grasp of reality? What do you think that any open minded, critically thinking person who had no pervious experience of the theory you are trying to advance would make of the exchange between the two of us? I think that many people would think that you were actually the one who was out to damage the cause, not me. Responses like yours harms everyone who shares your beliefs by association.

JL.

Albert Doyle
09-11-2014, 05:01 PM
Have you accepted the fact, the legally mandated fact, that 6.5x54mm MS rifles do indeed have a groove diameter well in excess of .264"? You did, after call, call me a liar when I said (repeatedly) that my rifle had a .268" groove diameter.

JL.



Most of this is over my head, but this does appear to be a point of fact that is either true or not true.

John Lewis
09-11-2014, 05:17 PM
Have you accepted the fact, the legally mandated fact, that 6.5x54mm MS rifles do indeed have a groove diameter well in excess of .264"? You did, after call, call me a liar when I said (repeatedly) that my rifle had a .268" groove diameter.

JL.



Most of this is over my head, but this does appear to be a point of fact that is either true or not true.

It is absolutely true. I have posted links to the relevant pages on the CiP website. The CiP is the international proof commission which lays down specifications for the proofing (safety pressure testing) of small arms and ammunition. It codifies chamber and barrel specifications for all commercially produced firearms which are offered for sale on the civilian market. It's specifications are binding by treaty on the Countries which are signatories to it. This means that it is a criminal offence to offer for sale any small arm which does not carry a proof mark approved by the CiP in any member Country. If the arm does not meet CiP specifications then it cannot bear a CiP approved proof mark and so cannot be legally offered for sale.

I stated that I have a 6.5x54mm rifle with a groove diameter measuring .268". Bob called me a lair as he says that all 6.5mm rifles have groove diameters of .264" (which is the basis for the theory he is proposing in this thread, without it it pretty much dies). I linked to the CiP specifications for the cartridge which call for a minimum groove diameter of .2669" and which allow for up to a .2681" diameter.

JL.

Michael Cross
09-11-2014, 06:51 PM
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 (http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=mannlicher&Number=169260&Searchpage=1&Main=152549&Words=+RigbyUser&topic=&Search=true)
"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:








http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/edit.gif Edit
http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/reply.gif Reply
http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/quote.gif Quote
http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/reply.gif Quick Reply (http://javascript<strong></strong>:quickReply(16))








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."










Just for sake of pure accuracy, you say you provided a link to the CIP and that is not what is contained in the above post, if that is what you refer to. You provided a link to a forum where someone discusses the CIP. Did I miss your link to the actual CIP data?

The CiP website isn't very intuitive.

http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/en/tdcc_public

John Lewis
09-11-2014, 09:20 PM
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 (http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=mannlicher&Number=169260&Searchpage=1&Main=152549&Words=+RigbyUser&topic=&Search=true)
"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:








http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/edit.gif Edit
http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/reply.gif Reply
http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/quote.gif Quote
http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/reply.gif Quick Reply (http://javascript<strong></strong>:quickReply(16))








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."









Just for sake of pure accuracy, you say you provided a link to the CIP and that is not what is contained in the above post, if that is what you refer to. You provided a link to a forum where someone discusses the CIP. Did I miss your link to the actual CIP data?

The CiP website isn't very intuitive.

http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/en/tdcc_public

The links are in post 107, under the words 'here'.

I agree, the CiP website is pretty rubbish.

JL.

Michael Cross
09-11-2014, 09:59 PM
Thank you. That linked document from post 107 (now attached) is not specific to the MC rifle - correct?

And the other link you provided in post 106 is someone referencing the MC specs, but not a link to the CIP specs for the carcanno - correct?

Neophyte with weapons, digging for specificity and understanding.

John Lewis
09-11-2014, 10:34 PM
Thank you. That linked document from post 107 (now attached) is not specific to the MC rifle - correct?



Correct.

The document refers to the 6.5x54mm cartridge. The reason is thus; Bob says that all 6.5mm rifles have groove diameters of .264" apart from the Carcano which is .268". I stated that I have a Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle with a groove diameter of .268" - which I have personally measured. He called me a liar - repeatedly..

I linked to the document to proove that my rifle does indeed have such a barrel. As you will see no 6.5x54mm rifle could possibly have a .264" groove diameter, as he continues to claim, as the minimum groove diameter mandated by the CiP is .2669"




And the other link you provided in post 106 is someone referencing the MC specs, but not a link to the CIP specs for the carcanno - correct?

Neophyte with weapons, digging for specificity and understanding.

No. The poster in that link is referring to Mannlicher models 1892 and 1903. These rifles chamber the 6.5x53Rmm round, and 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer round respectively.

The use of the initials MC are not correct. The Carcano rifle is not a Mannlicher product. The use of the word Mannlicher has been mistakenly applied since 1963.

JL.

Edit: the file you posted was just the tolerance sheet. The specification sheet is here (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page22.pdf) - the groove dimension is denoted as the Z value under 'Barrel'

Albert Doyle
09-11-2014, 11:20 PM
Why is the CIPs groove value "6.78" instead of .2678 ?

John Lewis
09-11-2014, 11:36 PM
Why is the CIPs groove value "6.78" instead of .2678 ?

CiP uses millimeters. 6.78mm is .2669 inch.

That is the minimum allowed dimension. Hence, this rifle could never have a .264" groove diameter. Since the bullets used in this cartridge are .264" it totally destroys Bob's assertion that such bullets shot through a barrel with a .268" groove diameter will be chronically innaccurate and incapable of dong the job that they allegedly did in Dallas.

JL.

Michael Cross
09-12-2014, 02:59 PM
Edit: the file you posted was just the tolerance sheet. The specification sheet is here (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page22.pdf) - the groove dimension is denoted as the Z value under 'Barrel'

Thanks again, but again, that's not the spec sheet for the Carcano, so the conclusions you're drawing, if they come from the linked document, are baseless. And the file I previously posted was the one you linked in post 107.

*edit: typo.

John Lewis
09-12-2014, 09:28 PM
Edit: the file you posted was just the tolerance sheet. The specification sheet is here (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page22.pdf) - the groove dimension is denoted as the Z value under 'Barrel'

Thanks again, but again, that's not the spec sheet for the Carcano, so the conclusions you're drawing, if they come from the linked document, are baseless. And the file I previously posted was the one you linked in post 107.

*edit: typo.

Correct, that isn't the spec sheet for the cartridge which the Carcano fires. You are, however, missing the point and have lost track of why this spec sheet was linked to.

Bob said that any 6.5mm rifle with a .268" groove diameter was incapable of being accurate with a .264" bullet.

I said that I had such a rifle, in 6.5x54, and that such dimensions (bore and bullet) were correct for it. Bob called me a liar.

The CiP documents proove that a .264" bullet fired through a .268" barrel are the norn. If they are the norm it means they are acceptable from an accuracy perspective.

If the CiP say that a .264" bullet can be fired through a .268" barrel then Bob 's whole thesis collapses.

JL.

Michael Cross
09-12-2014, 09:52 PM
Edit: the file you posted was just the tolerance sheet. The specification sheet is here (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page22.pdf) - the groove dimension is denoted as the Z value under 'Barrel'

Thanks again, but again, that's not the spec sheet for the Carcano, so the conclusions you're drawing, if they come from the linked document, are baseless. And the file I previously posted was the one you linked in post 107.

*edit: typo.

Correct, that isn't the spec sheet for the cartridge which the Carcano fires. You are, however, missing the point and have lost track of why this spec sheet was linked to.

Bob said that any 6.5mm rifle with a .268" groove diameter was incapable of being accurate with a .264" bullet.

I said that I had such a rifle, in 6.5x54, and that such dimensions (bore and bullet) were correct for it. Bob called me a liar.

The CiP documents proove that a .264" bullet fired through a .268" barrel are the norn. If they are the norm it means they are acceptable from an accuracy perspective.

If the CiP say that a .264" bullet can be fired through a .268" barrel then Bob 's whole thesis collapses.

JL.


I have to agree with Bob that you are purposely providing disinformation. Bob has clearly been working to provide information about the Carcano that is in evidence as the Oswald rifle - not ANY 6.5 rifle as you say. The entire point of his research is to determine if the rifle in evidence and the ammunition it is supposed to have fired on 11/22/63 could have done what the combination is said to have done. (correct me if I'm wrong BOB)

As previously stated:

You DO NOT have a Carcano. Your comparison to your rifle therefore is not exact and has no value in this debate.

The CiP documents you provide, again, are not what you initially purported them to be and do NOT provide specs for a Carcano barrel. You have yet to provide anything supporting your thesis about the barrel other than a link to an unknown poster on a forum talking about the Carcano. Many people on the internet put forward many inaccurate theories and opinions.

Without real evidence specific to the weapon in question your rebuttal is smoke and mirrors.

John Lewis
09-12-2014, 10:24 PM
Edit: the file you posted was just the tolerance sheet. The specification sheet is here (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page22.pdf) - the groove dimension is denoted as the Z value under 'Barrel'

Thanks again, but again, that's not the spec sheet for the Carcano, so the conclusions you're drawing, if they come from the linked document, are baseless. And the file I previously posted was the one you linked in post 107.

*edit: typo.

Correct, that isn't the spec sheet for the cartridge which the Carcano fires. You are, however, missing the point and have lost track of why this spec sheet was linked to.

Bob said that any 6.5mm rifle with a .268" groove diameter was incapable of being accurate with a .264" bullet.

I said that I had such a rifle, in 6.5x54, and that such dimensions (bore and bullet) were correct for it. Bob called me a liar.

The CiP documents proove that a .264" bullet fired through a .268" barrel are the norn. If they are the norm it means they are acceptable from an accuracy perspective.

If the CiP say that a .264" bullet can be fired through a .268" barrel then Bob 's whole thesis collapses.

JL.


I have to agree with Bob that you are purposely providing disinformation. Bob has clearly been working to provide information about the Carcano that is in evidence as the Oswald rifle - not ANY 6.5 rifle as you say. The entire point of his research is to determine if the rifle in evidence and the ammunition it is supposed to have fired on 11/22/63 could have done what the combination is said to have done. (correct me if I'm wrong BOB)

As previously stated:

You DO NOT have a Carcano. Your comparison to your rifle therefore is not exact and has no value in this debate.

The CiP documents you provide, again, are not what you initially purported them to be and do NOT provide specs for a Carcano barrel. You have yet to provide anything supporting your thesis about the barrel other than a link to an unknown poster on a forum talking about the Carcano. Many people on the internet put forward many inaccurate theories and opinions.

Without real evidence specific to the weapon in question your rebuttal is smoke and mirrors.

Firstly, I would pont out that bob DOES NOT have a Carcano either: and I would guess that he has no 6.5mm rifle at all and so is speaking from a position of total ignorance. At least of greater ignorance than me as I have a rifle which fires a virtually identical round.

Please do not call me a liar as Bob has done many times in saying that the documents are not what I have claimed them to be. I have ALWAYS said that they relate to the 6.5x54 chambering in response to his rubbish that all 6.5mm rifles have .264" barrels.

Please read again the salient points.

Bob says that all - all, not some - 6.5mm rifles (apart from the Carcano) have a .264" groove diameter and that a 6.5mm rifle with a .268" groove diameter firing a .264" bullet could not achieve the feat that Oswalds rifle did.

Please read through this thread and ask your-self in the light of what I have posted; is Bob correct in what he says: namely that the Carcano rifle alleged to have been used by Oswald could not possibly have done what was claimed of it?

He has provided no evidence of that at all. Indeed, I have said that I have a rifle with a legally mandated barrel of well over .264" which shoots .264" bullet just fine, thanks.

On this 'disinformation' thing. Are you seriously pursuing this? The CiP mandates a groove diameter of well over .264" - that is hardly 'disinfo', it is legally mandated fact. Are you suggesting that the CiP are some sort of international 'Disinfo' organisation? Are you also agreeing with Bob that Hornady are also 'disinfo' agents?

Do you also live in a cave and wear a tin-foil hat, per-chance?

JL.

Albert Doyle
09-13-2014, 04:23 AM
I believe the CIP information does show that the MS rifle possesses a groove diameter with a mandated minimum of .2669 - Mr Lewis says that can stretch even further and closer to .268

If this information is accurate it would disprove the claim that the Carcano was the only rifle with a .268 groove diameter.


Michael, I'm not sure if you're following the arguments.

Bob Prudhomme
09-13-2014, 05:13 AM
I believe the CIP information does show that the MS rifle possesses a groove diameter with a mandated minimum of .2669 - Mr Lewis says that can stretch even further and closer to .268

If this information is accurate it would disprove the claim that the Carcano was the only rifle with a .268 groove diameter.


Michael, I'm not sure if you're following the arguments.

Albert

Read the thread "Carcano Rifles". You will have a much better understanding of what is going on. The article I quoted is written by Dave Emary, who is the Chief Ballistic Scientist at Hornady Mfg. As the article reveals, Mr. Emary feels strongly that the accuracy of the Carcano rifles suffered shooting bullets that were .264" in diameter, such as those made by the Western Cartridge Company, and the situation was not rectified until Hornady began making .268" diameter bullets (.2675", to be precise) in 2002.

I know that everyone on these forums continually demands that our sources be qualified or certified or licenced. If the chief ballistic scientist of a major ammunition manufacturing company does not qualify in your eyes, I don't know what else I can do.

Albert Doyle
09-13-2014, 02:16 PM
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.

Bob Prudhomme
09-13-2014, 02:50 PM
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.

If C2766 had a groove diameter larger than .268", it could only be for one or more of the following reasons:
1. The barrel was worn from excessive use.
2. The barrel was corroded or rusted from improper storage in a damp environment.
3. The barrel was mis-manufactured.

A groove diameter greater than .268" in a Carcano rifle would only make the problem worse.

The Western Cartridge Co. bullets have been measured by reliable (non-disinfo agent) sources and found to be .264" in diameter.

Albert Doyle
09-14-2014, 01:39 PM
Mr Lewis?

Bob Prudhomme
09-14-2014, 07:23 PM
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 (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1p459f281.jpg)?
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 (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?

Albert Doyle
09-14-2014, 07:46 PM
A good lesson in not trusting evidence from experts. Maybe Frazier took a caliper reading from a slightly warped side of the imperfect magic bullet. There's no excuse for the math error though.

All you would really need to know is that the available Western Cartridge ammunition was .264 standard.

Was the .2677 diameter Carcano bullet the same width as the Carcano lands?

Bob Prudhomme
09-14-2014, 09:17 PM
A good lesson in not trusting evidence from experts. Maybe Frazier took a caliper reading from a slightly warped side of the imperfect magic bullet. There's no excuse for the math error though.

All you would really need to know is that the available Western Cartridge ammunition was .264 standard.

Was the .2677 diameter Carcano bullet the same width as the Carcano lands?

I think we went over this before. Frazier spoke about the Magic Bullet, CE 399, being slightly flattened on the base and, for this reason, he also measured the unfired bullet in the cartridge found in the chamber of C2766 on the 6th floor. Of course, after the FBI purchased their own WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo, they could measure all the bullets they wanted to. I don't believe it was a math error. I believe Frazier measured the diameter of the bullet at 6.65 mm and, instead of converting to inches, simply looked up the diameter in inches in a textbook.

If the WCC bullets really did measure 6.65 mm, then they would have been ridiculously inaccurate in a Carcano rifle, as 6.65 mm = .2618" or .262".

As Dave Emary said in the article, the twenty Carcano rifles he measured were all between .268" and .269" across the grooves. The measurement across the lands in a Carcano is .256", as it is in all 6.5mm calibre rifles.

John Lewis
09-14-2014, 10:55 PM
I believe the CIP information does show that the MS rifle possesses a groove diameter with a mandated minimum of .2669 - Mr Lewis says that can stretch even further and closer to .268

If this information is accurate it would disprove the claim that the Carcano was the only rifle with a .268 groove diameter.


Michael, I'm not sure if you're following the arguments.

Albert

Read the thread "Carcano Rifles". You will have a much better understanding of what is going on. The article I quoted is written by Dave Emary, who is the Chief Ballistic Scientist at Hornady Mfg. As the article reveals, Mr. Emary feels strongly that the accuracy of the Carcano rifles suffered shooting bullets that were .264" in diameter, such as those made by the Western Cartridge Company, and the situation was not rectified until Hornady began making .268" diameter bullets (.2675", to be precise) in 2002.

I know that everyone on these forums continually demands that our sources be qualified or certified or licenced. If the chief ballistic scientist of a major ammunition manufacturing company does not qualify in your eyes, I don't know what else I can do.

Hornady; the company to whom you referred only a few posts previously to as being 'disinfo' agents are now your preferred ballistic experts.

I would also raise a not insignifiant point; that being, do you actually have evidence that the WCC ammo used a .264" bullet? I'm not aware that you have produced any evidence to that effect. You do not own any of this ammunition so are not qualified to comment. In fact, the ONLY reference to it that I can recall on this thread is a link to an ammunition collectors discussion board where a chap who has actually measured some says that they have a .266" bullet.

JL.

John Lewis
09-14-2014, 11:14 PM
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.

If C2766 had a groove diameter larger than .268", it could only be for one or more of the following reasons:
1. The barrel was worn from excessive use.
2. The barrel was corroded or rusted from improper storage in a damp environment.
3. The barrel was mis-manufactured.

A groove diameter greater than .268" in a Carcano rifle would only make the problem worse.

The Western Cartridge Co. bullets have been measured by reliable (non-disinfo agent) sources and found to be .264" in diameter.

None of 1 to 3 above is particularly controversial, none of that can be said to be particularly relevant. Evn if an originally and properly manufactured Carcano barrel had been grossly corroded it would still not be 'proof' that a bullet fired from it would have been so innaccurtate at to have been incapable of hitting JFK. It is not a great feat of engineerng to get a bullet to spin and even a very corroded or worn barrel can do it.

We still have to remember that Bob quite clearly called me a liar because I said that my rifle had a .268" groove diemeter and that a .268" groove diameter cannot stabilise a .264" bullet. This is bollocks, quite franky, as my rifle (along with every oyher M/S rifle) does it perfectly adequately.

As this has been stated by Bob, but not proofed; could Bob please provide evidence as to whom the persons are who have measured the bullets in WCC ammo as being .264"?

JL

John Lewis
09-14-2014, 11:32 PM
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 (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1p459f281.jpg)?
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 (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

John Lewis
09-14-2014, 11:45 PM
A good lesson in not trusting evidence from experts. Maybe Frazier took a caliper reading from a slightly warped side of the imperfect magic bullet. There's no excuse for the math error though.

All you would really need to know is that the available Western Cartridge ammunition was .264 standard.

Was the .2677 diameter Carcano bullet the same width as the Carcano lands?

I think we went over this before. Frazier spoke about the Magic Bullet, CE 399, being slightly flattened on the base and, for this reason, he also measured the unfired bullet in the cartridge found in the chamber of C2766 on the 6th floor. Of course, after the FBI purchased their own WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo, they could measure all the bullets they wanted to. I don't believe it was a math error. I believe Frazier measured the diameter of the bullet at 6.65 mm and, instead of converting to inches, simply looked up the diameter in inches in a textbook.

If the WCC bullets really did measure 6.65 mm, then they would have been ridiculously inaccurate in a Carcano rifle, as 6.65 mm = .2618" or .262".

As Dave Emary said in the article, the twenty Carcano rifles he measured were all between .268" and .269" across the grooves. The measurement across the lands in a Carcano is .256", as it is in all 6.5mm calibre rifles.

And yet the Carcano bullet produced by Hornady (a company whom you have previously dismissed as 'disinfo' agents) is actually marketed as .267" (as previously linked to a few posts back) and is, despite your wailings, even smaller in reality.

I find it somewhat strange that you seem to be Hornady's foremost advocate when they publish what seems to be what you seem to want to promote but not the other way around. You claim to be be an arch 'disinfo' enemy yet seem quite happy to believe any marketing puffery that a bullet company decides to put out as long as it meets with what you want to promote. Don't you think that it's pretty obvious that Hornady would employ their 'scientist' to say that their new bullet was the greatest thing since sliced bread? Do you honestly belive that there are huge numbers of people who havn't been able to hit a barn door with their Carcano rifles whilst standing on the lock because all the bullets they could get were .004" too small and so had to wait for 60 years plus for Hornady to rectify the situation?? If so then you are seriously deluded, mate.

To ask again; can you provide your source as to whom has actually measured an unfired bullet from a WCC 6.5x52 cartridge and whom can confirm that it does indeed measure .264"? To date we have only the link I gave and that chap says that they measure .266".

You also say that a .262" bullet fired through a barrel with a .256" bore diameter and with a .268" bore would be 'ridiculously inaccurate'. What is your evidence for that? Have you personally tried it?

By the way; didn't you say that you were 'out' of this discussion?


JL.

Bob Prudhomme
09-15-2014, 12:43 AM
Somebody boot this troll. Please.

Bob Prudhomme
09-15-2014, 12:54 AM
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:


Please try not to swear old boy, it really makes you come over as quite the fool.
"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 (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1p459f281.jpg)?
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 (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?

John Lewis
09-15-2014, 09:08 AM
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 (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1p459f281.jpg)?
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 (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 first part of that extract appears to be talking about cartridge CASES, not unfired ammo. They specifically use that word.

Also, when he does talk about speciic measurements he uses the measurement of .267". It isn't specifcally clear whether he meaasured in millimeters and converted to inches or measured in inches and converted to millimeters. Now,he being American, I'd say it was far more likely that the latter is actually the case. As you say, no 6.5mm bullet measure 6.65mm so that is clearly wrong. He couldn't have measured 6.65mm so I'd say that it is just his mistaken conversion from .267".

If you think that you can accurately measure a squished, fired bullet to the nearest thoasandth of an inch by comparing it against a ruler in the picture then you are in a complete fantasy mate.

You still cannot avoid that fact that it is not a certainty (nor even particularly likely, in my opinion) that a rifle with a .268 groove diameter firing a .264 bullet will be so inaccurate as to not be able to hit someone only a few yards away. You also still haven't acknowledged that you were compley wrong in saying that my MS rifle had a groove of .264 and called me a liar when I said otherwise. Your entire line of debate here is to simply abuse anyone who dares to disagree with you.

JL.

Albert Doyle
09-15-2014, 06:57 PM
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.


.

Bob Prudhomme
09-15-2014, 11:02 PM
Quote:

"Don't you think that it's pretty obvious that Hornady would employ their 'scientist' to say that their new bullet was the greatest thing since sliced bread?"

Hornady, right along with all of their competitors, sold bullets for the 6.5mm Carcano that were .264" in diameter for decades. The introduction of a .268" bullet for the Carcano stood a very good chance of making this very obvious; hardly what one would call good advertising. As the market for 6.5mm Carcano cartridges is obviously quite limited, and cornering such a market would hardly make Hornady a profit, if it made a profit at all, wouldn't they have been better off just keeping their mouths shut, and continuing to make .264" bullets for the Carcano?

And, should the idea catch on, what is to stop their competitors from making .268" bullets for the Carcano, and taking back the "massive" 6.5mm Carcano market?

John Lewis
09-16-2014, 08:43 PM
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 (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1p459f281.jpg)?
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 (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
09-16-2014, 09:08 PM
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 (http://www.norma.cc/us/Ammunition-Academy/Loading-Data/65-Carcano/) - 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
09-16-2014, 09:40 PM
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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Cartridge_308.PNG/400px-Cartridge_308.PNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartridge_308.PNG)
.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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion_cap) is large rifle.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester#cite_note-Reloading_Guide_Number_Four_1996-8)



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.

Bob Prudhomme
09-16-2014, 10:03 PM
Here is a .268" bullet that has been fired through a Carcano M91/38:


http://www.mynetimages.com/6d26bdbf0c.jpg

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

Here is CE 399:

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/84/Photo_naraevid_CE399-4.jpg


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

Albert Doyle
09-19-2014, 04:14 PM
I'd be interested in Mr Lewis's response to the likelihood that the .264 measurements and their sources were reasonably legitimate.

Bob Prudhomme
09-19-2014, 05:16 PM
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
09-22-2014, 10:14 PM
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
09-28-2014, 07:38 PM
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20141/141c.pdf

Martin White
10-14-2014, 09:45 AM
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.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5851&stc=1



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
10-14-2014, 01:36 PM
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.

Jim Hargrove
10-16-2014, 11:24 AM
For a brief explanation of how the "evidence" for this rifle purchase was forged by the FBI, see:



http://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html

and, for a longer study, see:



http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html