Jump to content
The Education Forum

Interesting Video Regarding Mannlicher Carcano Rifle Type


Recommended Posts

You don't have to watch the entire video as much of it is boring.

However, this older fellow who is describing and using the rifle seems not only a true expert on older rifles but an amazing crack shot as well!

He is easily hitting targets up to 50 or more yards away.

hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEZCNACELwBSFXyq4
 
Shooting and discussing the Carcano M38, set up exactly the way Lee Harvey Oswald's M38 with scope.
 
One target ( the farthest one away he shoots at) he calls the "Gong." 

When he hits this metal plate target you hear it's gong sound.

And he hits other targets all over his home made test range ( all closer than the gong ) one after another, rarely missing.

And every shot he takes he does so standing "straight up" with no bracing on a platform or stand!

To me it makes his accuracy even more impressive.

The only comments he makes about Oswald's guilt or innocence are that he thinks a shooter from the 6th floor window could have gotten 3 shots off in the 6 second time frame with this specific bolt action rifle.

He seems like a gun tech type of guy and goes on about the Carcano as simply a shooting weapon.

He does mention the gun's history and while not clearly saying the gun is a piece of crap he seems to imply it is only a decent gun at very close range and demonstrates this with his shooting of it.

The rifle he uses was purposely outfitted with the same make of scope as the rifle Oswald reportedly had.

Funny, he immediately tries to use this scope while lining up his first shots and gives up, saying either the scope he has is individually bad ( like looking through fog? ) or this type of scope is also just bad.

He takes two shots at this gong using the scope and completely misses it!

He then just gives up using the scope at all and instead lines up his shots strictly using the fixed guides. And using just those guides, he hits the gong and almost every other target as well.

Obviously this guy is a crack shot. Looks like he could hit a stationary squirrel in a tree at 40 to 50 yards!

A real life Sergeant York.

On that farthest away target however ( the Gong - which I am guessing is somewhere in the distance range or maybe even closer than the so-called third shot from the TXSCB to JFK limo) the shooter hits this but three important dynamics of the so-called Oswald third shot are not at play.

One, that "Gong" target the man is shooting at is much, much larger in total size than JFK's head.

Maybe 4 X or 5 X larger?

Second and thirdly, JFK's much smaller ( only six inches wide ) target head was moving in two and even three different directions when it was hit, not stationary like this man's gong.

JFK's upper body and head was slumping/moving to his left several inches ( maybe even a foot or two)  into Jackie's arms just before the final head shot.

Plus, the Presidential limo was moving as well, farther away and on a down hill slope so JFK's head target was moving in three directions as the shooter was lining up this head shot.

I wonder if this remarkable sharp shooting man in the video could so easily hit a target at the same distance of his Gong with the Carcano he was firing, if this target were 1/4th the Gong's size, moving sideways and to the left and also moving farther away and on a downward angle all at the same time he is lining up his shot?

And one can logically assume that whoever fired the Carcano rifle shot into JFK's smaller, moving sideways and farther away and downward head on 11,22,1963, would be under way more stress and urgency than this fellow in his super relaxed back yard shooting situation.

Place yourself in Oswald's alleged shooting situation on and at the sixth floor window.

Oswald knows this is very possibly a suicide mission.

He is shooting at the President of the United States!

He might be seconds away from being blown apart himself.

If his palms weren't at least a little sweaty and his heart racing he must have been Manchurian Candidate hypnotized.

He's shooting for just 6 seconds from an open window with the rifle barrel sticking out of the window and knows that of the hundreds of bystanders and security on the ground in front of him, at least a few could very easily ( probably ) be drawn by the shot sounds and see him in the window doing this.

Oswald misses his target completely with the first loud booming attention drawing shot. 

Under a small and closing time frame window this first shot miss just makes the next shot or two even more urgent and stressful.

He then hits JFK ( and Connally? ) but he still can't run and try to make a getaway as he has to be certain he surely "kills" his target.

With just one or two seconds left in his shooting time frame window he must take and make this final shot.

One that is tougher in accomplishing than the first two by far, not just because of increasing urgency and his own personal safety risk stress, but also the growing distancing and movement of Kennedy upper body away from him as he is literally lining up this third and most important head shot.

Yet, he not only hits this 265 feet away and moving 6 inch wide target but does so with an almost "bullseye" accuracy!

Question - how could JFK's shooter miss JFK's head with his second shot when JFK was much closer to him, and his upper body and head were much more stationary?

Since this Sergeant York backyard shooting exhibition of a similar Mannlicher Carcano does not include these other factual physical dynamics involved with the JFK shooting, it doesn't mean much imo.

And to think, this video shooter couldn't even use the same type scope supposedly used on Oswald's rifle because it was so poorly made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, I have always believed Oswald used the iron sights, that is, for the 2nd and 3rd shot.  I believe that he had every intention of using the scope, but when he missed so wildly with the 1st shot, he realized that he must use the sights on the rifle, if he has any kind of chance of scoring a hit with the Carcano!

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Terry Adams said:

In my opinion, I have always believed Oswald used the iron sights, that is, for the 2nd and 3rd shot.  I believe that he had every intention of using the scope, but when he missed so wildly with the 1st shot, he realized that he must use the sights on the rifle, if he has any kind of chance of scoring a hit with the Carcano!

Sounds reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One of this man's shots was directed at a paper target with a red circle about 4 inches wide.

He hit the middle of the bullseye!

Aha! But, this target was a mere ...10 feet away!

I wonder what the odds would be for this really good rifle shot man to get this same red target bullseye at 26X the distance? And a moving one at that?

Yes, JFK's head was the typical 6 inches wide...but that is only 1 and 1/2 X the width of the 10 foot away red circle paper 4 inch wide target. Barely any difference.

So many common sense physical measurement, target movement and time frame contradictions in the Oswald/6th floor/ accuracy scenario.

And, one cannot ignore the fact that Oswald missed a lighted and absolutely stationary General Walker at an even closer shooting distance than 265 feet, under the less stressful cover of evening darkness and with all the time in the world to line up his shot.

And yet he supposedly hits a bullseye on a 6 inch wide target, 265 feet away, and that is moving in 3 dynamic ways ( sideways, downward and farther away ) with a cheap crap rifle with a dysfunctional scope and under the most stressful life and death risk conditions one could imagine?

Oswald's 6 inch wide bullseye accuracy under those circumstances is almost unbelievable, as is his simple walking away from the TXSBD while it is crawling with dozens of adrenaline super charged police personnel as well as press and traumatized employees!

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Oliver Stone, the Italian people rank the Manlicher Carcono rifle as the #1 reason Italy lost WWII. Chances are this marksman did not have a bent barrel version either, unlike the weapon that is claimed be owned by LHO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

  I belong to a shooting club here and each month we have what we call a Mauser shoot. This is a 50 meter shoot using WW 2 iron sight rifles and a target with the 9 ring being about 4" in dia. .

I am in no way a sharp shooter but standing and shooting off hand using my M91/38 Carcano in 6.5 mm I was able to get a 186 out of a possible 200 point score. Some M38 were made in 7.35 mm but not many. The rest were fit with cut down M91 barrels which are 6.5 mm and have a twist gain rifling, while the rest were fit with a new 6.5 mm standard twist barrels and named M91/38. The cut down twist gain barrels have horrible accuracy while the new standard twist barrels are very accurate. If a 60+ year old amateur can shoot a 186 at 50 meter a sniper quality marksman at less than 100 yards with the same gun would have no problem hitting a 6" target. Moving away is the easiest kind of shot from an elevated position. I speak from 40 plus years of upland game, waterfowl and deer hunting experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bobbyjack, could the life and death risk and hurried shot stress factor effect your accuracy in anyway?

Plus add another 115 feet distance to your target location.

And your target was not moving, correct?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe:

This is a joke.

Its as bad as the WC, if not worse.

He is not elevated to 60 feet, and he is not firing at a moving target and not shooting rapid fire.  Therefore its a deceptive comparison since the underlying circumstances are all false. 

Here is the bottom line on this issue.  Craig Roberts wrote a book about this, called Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza.  

He interviewed Carlos Hathcock, who was running a SWAT team training school in Virginia at the time.  Hathcock was the greatest sniper of the Vietnam War.  He had something like 95 confirmed kills.  He was so good that Hanoi put a bounty on him, the highest bounty ever placed in the war on an enemy sniper.  For over 30 years he had the record for the longest kill shot.  He hit a guy from a mile and a half away.

Craig asked him:  Do you think Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did?  Hathcock replied with words to the effect:  Craig I can't tell you how many times I tried it. We set up the course just like the Warren Commission said it happened: distance, height, moving target, speed, shooting sequence.  I couldn't do it.

That is evidence you could submit in court. From the greatest sniper of his era.  Not this BS from some gun nut in the woods.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the other problem: in court, you could never prove Oswald had that rifle in his hands.

So therefore, this is disproved both ways, by commission and omission.

It simply did not happen. And personally, I am sick and tired of talking about something that never occurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...