Robert Prudhomme

What was the elevation of the window sill of the 6th floor window above the pavement of Elm St.?

Hi Chris

That doesn't sound very high for the top of the President's head but, looking again at photos of the limo, it definitely was a bit of a low rider; much closer to the ground than a 1955 Cadillac limo.

Did you already tell us how much they had to adjust the location of the JFK back shot on the stand in for JFK, as he was riding in the much higher Cadillac limo?

Hi Malcolm

If we think about this a little, we should be able to solve this problem with mathematics. We know the head shot at z313 was at a range of 88 yards. All we need to know is either the precise altitude from street level to the sill of the 6th floor window or the distance from the SE corner of the TSBD to the limo position at z313. With either measurement, we can use either B² = C² - A² or A² = C² - B² to give us all the dimensions of a right angle triangle, although it must also be taken into consideration that Elm St descends to the Triple Underpass on a 3% slope.

Anyways, once we have this drawn out, we simply need to know what elevation JFK's head was at in the z313 position (as you say, he was leaned over) and the elevation of the highest point of the follow up car and its occupants (not forgetting it was slightly uphill on a 3% slope). After that, it should be a simple exercise in intervisibility.

We should also determine the lateral angle from the centre line of the limo to the SE corner of the TSBD, and use this to determine just what part of the follow up car would have been in line with the SE corner and JFK.

Where is Chris when you need him?

Hi Chris

In regards to the difference in rifle measurements, the long rifles had longer butts on their stocks than did the carbines and short rifles.

I was looking at the trajectory diagram you posted that Eisenberg drew and something occurred to me. As the follow up car sat much higher off the ground than did the Lincoln limo, and as the SS agents were standing on the sides of this car, and as the follow up car was almost on top of the limo, how clear of a shot would LHO have had from the 6th floor SE window? Is this why a follow up car was not included in the reenactments?

Hi Chris

Funny how Chuck Hawks always includes a plug for the Kennedy Carcano in his articles and tells us how it was more than capable of doing the job.

As Tom pointed out, a Vernier caliper (or dial caliper for those of us who have trouble reading a Vernier caliper LOL) is just as accurate as a micrometer, and can be used to make inside or outside measurements, although a 6.5mm barrel is likely about the smallest measurement one could make internally.

As there are only so many calibres in the world, it is simpler to measure the outside of the cast and match that number up to known bullet diameters. For instance, if Frazier measured the outside of the cast, made from a Carcano barrel with a groove diameter of .268", and the cast shrunk by .003", he would come up with a number of .265". He would then be slightly confused, if he did not know about the shrinkage, as this would not agree with any text he was consulting. However, as most 6.5mm calibre rifles have a groove diameter of only .264", and the Western Cartridge Co. bullets he purchased also had a bullet diameter of only .264", I'm sure it did not take him long to come to the conclusion the texts were mistaken.

Hi Ian

1. I became curious about this too, so I checked into it. The general consensus seems to be the cast will shrink by .002-.003", which could be a significant amount. It is said that adding powdered graphite to the molten sulphur will stop it from shrinking as it cools.

2. The change in the rate of twist is very gradual, and I doubt you would really notice much of a change in a one inch section of barrel.

3. Yes, it is a poor photo of CE 540. I'm hoping someone has a better photo or can enhance that one.

4. That's right, the outermost diameter of the cast would be the groove diameter of the rifle.

Hi Ian

Very good questions. I have only ever seen sulphur casts made from the chamber end of a barrel, and cannot understand why Frazier would make a sulphur cast from the muzzle end, as the dimensions of the chamber (and thus the cartridge) are very useful in establishing the make of a rifle. Just knowing the rifle is a 6.5mm calibre is not always enough, as there are several European rifles with this calibre. If you watched the Youtube video I posted, you'll see the gunsmith had no trouble removing his cast, with the small amount of riflings on it, and it did not seem to break any part of the brittle sulphur. I think this is accomplished by the sulphur shrinking a tiny bit, allowing the cast to turn in the riflings as it was pushed out. The same problem would be encountered in progressive twist rifling as in standard twist rifling, although it might be simpler to remove from the progressive twist barrel, as the rate of twist would be nowhere near as tight.

I am unable to cut & paste on this site again but, Frazier's sulphur cast can be seen at the Mary Ferrel website. It is listed in evidence as CE 540. It is not a very good photo and it is hard to see the riflings very well on it. If you can find a way to enhance the photo, we are looking for a rate of twist of 1:8.47 to establish C2766 as an M91/38 with standard twist rifling. If the rate of twist is closer to 1:12, this could mean the barrel of C2766 is a cut down M91 long rifle barrel with progressive twist rifling.

The land impressions on the cast would be too small too get a micrometer into. They would have miked the inside of the barrel to measure the lands.

LOL Mark. There you go, the typical North American rifle designations that confuse everyone, including our experts at the FBI. It's confusing, for the novice, to understand that the .250 Savage and the .257 Roberts both shoot a bullet .257" in diameter. Same goes for the 30-06 and the .308 Winchester, both shooting a .30 calibre bullet that is .308" in diameter.

Hi Jon

A rifle is usually cleaned before a sulphur cast is made, as one of the reasons for making a sulphur cast, beside determining calibre and model, is to determine the condition of the throat and the lands and grooves, and removing any build up will give you a clearer picture.

A sulphur cast is easy to make, and is most often made of the chamber end of the barrel. The bolt is removed, the barrel cleaned and a light coat of oil is applied to the inside of the barrel with a patch. The oil facilitates easy removal of the sulphur cast once it cools. The rifle is then clamped in a vertical position with the muzzle down. A plug, made from another patch or even a wad of paper towel, is pushed down the barrel, from the chamber end, to a point about an inch past where the riflings begin. Sulphur is gently melted in a small pot with a spout and, when liquefied, gently poured into the chamber until it has filled up to where the face of the bolt would be when closed.

Once the cast has cooled and solidified, it is possible, often, to push it out of the chamber by inserting a long wooden dowel from the muzzle end. At most, a couple of taps on the dowel from a mallet should be enough to dislodge it. Once removed, you will have a perfect 3-D model of your rifle's chamber and the first inch or so of the barrel.

Now, it is perfectly possible the barrel of C2766 was corroded, but this does not mean that it had to be rusty, as well. I have seen very clean rifle barrels showing the evidence of severe corrosion.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8jE2o7ePbo

Hi Ian

Suffice it to say the person who supplied the material for this part of the WCR was not well acquainted with the designations for rifles.

First, the FBI's Robert Frazier tells us, erroneously, that the 6.5mm Carcano is the equivalent of North American .25 calibre rifles. Wrong. The .25 calibre rifles have a calibre diameter of .250" and a bullet and groove diameter of .257". The 6.5mm Carcano has a calibre diameter of .256" and a bullet and groove diameter of .268". See where they messed up?

Next, it says "A 6.5mm calbre weapon corresponds to an American .257 calibre weapon. WRONG! What is this "American .257 calibre weapon" they speak of? The 6.5mm (.257") calibre bullet was never popular in North America, as it was in Europe, and I believe, in those days, only the .264 Winchester Magnum and the 6.5 Remington Magnum fired a bullet of this calibre. Both of these rifles were considered failures and did not generate a great deal of sales. I believe the author is referring to .25 calibre rifles, and once again, we are shown the ignorance of the FBI's "experts".

I have seen evidence of the sulphur cast made by Frazier, and it appears to have been made from the muzzle end of the rifle, as no indication of the chamber can be seen. While this is not unheard of, most casts are made from the chamber end of the barrel, as the dimensions of the cartridge help a lot in identifying a rifle. I have never seen anything stating the measured dimensions of the cast, though this material may exist somewhere.

C2766 is a very strange Carcano, as it may be the only Carcano made between 1922 and 1943 that does not have the Fascist Date, in Roman numerals, next to the "1940" manufacturing date. The Fascist date commemorates Mussolini's March on Rome in October of 1922, and the fascist date was measured in years from this date. For example, if C2766 was made in 1940, but prior to October, 1940, there should be a "XVIII" (18) next to the 1940, signifying it was made 18 years after the March on Rome. However, if it was made in 1940, but AFTER October, 1940, there should be a "XIX" (19) beside the 1940, signifying it was made 19 years after the March on Rome. A rifle made in 1941 would have 1941 stamped on it, plus, again, the XIX, until October of 1941, when an XX (20) would be stamped on it. How did the FBI miss the Fascist Date?

Jon and Mark

Both of your answers are very good, and I can see both as being valid reasons for selecting the Carcano M91/38. Something else to consider is just how sporty it looked with its offset scope. Remember, many armies were still using, or had just retired, long and cumbersome bolt action rifles, and a short rifle might have looked quite modern in 1963.

I also don't believe the plotters, in 1963, could ever have envisioned the Internet, and just how organized and connected those of us who reject the WCR could possibly be in 2015. What we have done with our shared research and analysis ranks right up there with DNA analysis allowing wrongfully convicted persons the chance to appeal their convictions.

I believe the plotters relied on the American public to be uninformed about rifles and scopes. This seems to have worked quite well for the last half century or so.

The 6.5x52mm Model 91 Carcano long rifle was, as the model indicates, introduced in 1891. It was during a transition period in Europe that saw European armies abandoning the idea of a large calibre, low velocity black powder rifle in favor of a small calibre, high velocity rifle using smokeless powder. Many ideas were copied from rifle to rifle, such as the Mannlicher "en bloc" clip used in the Carcano and the Mauser type bolt that utilized two locking lugs. Suffice it to say that, with all of the sharing (and stealing) of ideas, the rifles that entered the First World War were all pretty much equal in design, and it would be difficult to claim that one was more accurate than the other.

The 6.5mm Carcano M91 long rifle design did incorporate two features that were not seen in very many other rifles, if at all, and the jury is still out on whether these features made the M91 more or less accurate than other rifles.

The first is the rifling grooves in the barrel. While maintaining the same 6.5 mm (.256") calibre (bore) as other 6.5mm rifles, the Carcano designers elected to make their rifling grooves deeper. This required a unique, wider bullet for the Carcano that measured .268" in diameter, as opposed to the standard bullet for other 6.5mm rifles that measured .264" in diameter.

The deeper rifling grooves may have been the reason for the second unique design feature of the Carcano. Instead of the rifling grooves in the barrel being made at a standard rate of twist (ie. 1:8 or 1:9), as almost all rifles worldwide are made, the Carcano riflings were made with what is known as "progressive" or "gain" twist. The riflings began, at the breech (chamber) at a gentle rate of twist of 1:22.79 (one complete turn in every 22.79 inches of barrel length) and got progressively tighter towards the muzzle, ending with a rate of twist of 1:7.939. It was believed, and very well may be true, that this type of rifling enhanced accuracy and reduced barrel wear by giving the bullet a chance to build up its spin slowly and gently. Unfortunately, it was also complex and expensive to machine, compared to standard riflings, and led to critical supply shortages of Carcano rifles in WWI.

Now, as the M91 barrel was almost 31 inches long, which aided in muzzle velocity and accuracy, it soon became apparent that not all soldiers needed such a long rifle for bayonet charges, and that some troops would be far better off with a much shorter carbine version of the M91, such as cavalry, mounted infantry, artillery, scouts and support troops. Fighting against the Austrians in steep mountainous country in WWI also proved the disadvantages of an extremely long rifle.

In 1893, the first carbine was introduced, the M91 Cavalry carbine or Moschetto Modello 91 da Cavalleria. While many of these were manufactured as new rifles, a practice began in the 1890's of simply cutting the 31 inch barrel of a long rifle down to the 17 inch carbine length. The next carbine was the Model 1891 T.S. (Truppe Speciali or Special Troops), begun in 1898. These were all manufactured as new rifles, evidenced by their stocks. Many of the cavalry carbine stocks were plainly cut off long rifle stocks.

These two carbines were the standard through WWI, and nothing much changed until 1924, with the introduction of the Model 91/24 carbine. This one model of carbine alone likely did far more to tarnish the reputation of Carcano rifles in general than any other factor. The 1920's were not the best of economic times for Italy and Italian arms makers, ever seeking corners to cut, expanded on the bad idea started with the Cavalry carbine.

From 1924 to 1929, approximately 260,000 M1891 long rifles with worn out barrels were converted into T.S. pattern carbines. As with the conversions in the 1890's, long rifle barrels were cut from 31 inches to 17 inches and the muzzles re-crowned. If this were done to rifles with standard riflings, performance, muzzle velocity and accuracy may have suffered somewhat but, in a rifle with progressive twist rifling, this practice was an absolute disaster. Believe it or not, this was seen as a move to modernize the Italian army, by converting from the long cumbersome and heavy long rifle to the much handier and more compact carbine.

As I stated earlier, the riflings in a M91 long rifle begin, at the breech, at a gentle rate of twist of 1:22.79 (one complete turn in 22.79 inches of barrel length), and progressively get tighter until the rate of twist, at the muzzle, is 1:7.939. In other words, the designers of the Carcano bullet believed a final rate of twist of at least 1:8 was needed to impart enough spin to the bullet in order to maintain gyroscopic stability on its way to the target. By removing 14 inches of the tightest riflings from a 31 inch barrel, the bullets simply were not spinning fast enough. My calculations, depending on a uniform progression in rifling toward the muzzle, show that, by their removal of 45% of the M91 barrel, the maximum rate of twist left at the "new" muzzle would be 1:14; and this is being quite generous. This rate of spin is totally inadequate for stabilizing the heavy (for its calibre) 162 grain Carcano bullet. Suffice it to say, the M91/24 carbine couldn't hit a barn from the inside.

Speaking of bullets, Italian military issue rifle cartridges for the Carcanos had some serious problems, too, and their contribution to the reputation for inaccuracy is next.

The term "Humanitarian Rifle" was actually begun by Italian troops and the inspiration for this name had nothing to do with accuracy. It actually had more to do with the development of jacketed bullets in the 19th Century.

Jacketed bullets were introduced in the late 19th Century as rifles evolved from large bore, low velocity weapons into small bore, high velocity weapons. As the bores got smaller, and velocities higher, unjacketed lead bullets were found to quickly foul the riflings of the smaller bored barrels, and the copper alloy jackets prevented this. However, as the jackets were full metal jackets, it was quickly discovered that a jacketed bullet went straight through a person without inflicting a lot of damage, as opposed to the earlier large-bore unjacketed chunks of lead bullets that deformed and splattered easily in a wound and did LOTS of damage. The reason for these bullets being full metal jacketed seems to have been the lack of technology for bonding bullet to jacket and, in the case of partly jacketed bullets, bullet and jacket often became separated inside a rifle barrel, leaving the jacket inside of the barrel.

This problem was made even worse by the long narrow design of the 6.5mm Carcano bullet, making it into a "flying drill". Ideally, a bullet should tumble in a wound, making a big mess, but the Carcano FMJ bullet greatly resisted this. Short bullets destabilize and tumble in wounds MUCH better. Hence, the "Humanitarian Rifle" name.

To show just how great this problem was, and how they attempted to increase the stopping power of their bullets, the British Indian army, in sheer desperation, developed and issued the "dum dum" bullet. This was the .303 British Mk. III cartridge and was essentially the original round nosed bullet with the nose of the jacket removed, exposing the lead core. This was actually the first soft tipped bullet. Later developments in the Mk. IV and Mk. V were actually the same bullet but with a hollow point made into the bullet. As all of these designs were expanding bullets, they had far greater stopping power against native tribesmen than did the full metal jacket bullets.



These bullets were SO effective, and made such nasty wounds, they were outlawed at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference as being inhumane. The British were in a dilemma; they wanted to adhere to the rules but they also wanted a bullet that didn't require shooting an enemy four or five times with to knock him down.

The design they came up with and stayed with, through two world wars, is the MK. VII spitzer seen above. The first thing they changed was the round nose bullet; replacing it with a spitzer point. The reason for this is that, while the round nose tends to punch its way through bone and such, the spitzer point, when it hits bone, tends to get deflected easier. This makes the bullet begin tumbling in a wound and tearing up great amounts of tissue. This effect is enhanced in the Mk. VII bullet by making the forward section of the core from aluminum and the rear section from lead, as seen in the diagram above. As the mass of the bullet was disproportionate from nose to base, when the bullet struck bone the heavier base would try to pass the lighter nose and the bullet would tumble.

The long round nosed Carcano 6.5mm bullet was the exact opposite of the Mk. VII, and that is why the Carcano never seemed to kill anyone. When, in 1938, the Carcano was reborn in the 7.35x51mm short rifle, a serious attempt was made to imitate the .303 Mk. VII bullet, as we all know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The 7.35mm bullet had a spitzer point, like the MK. VII, and had the same aluminum nose/lead base core as the Mk. VII. Unfortunately for the Italians, production of the 7.35mm Carcanos ended in 1939, and the non-lethal 6.5mm cartridge was brought back.

This is only one reason why the Carcanos received a bad reputation. I will explain a few more in the next post.

This question was asked of me on another forum, and the answer I gave to it ended up being quite lengthy.

"The reputation of the Carcanos as an inaccurate weapon goes back some time. Weren't they known as the 'Humanitarian Rifle' since they had hardly actually ended up killing many in any wars? Is this just some slur against the Italians as a military force in much the same way the Italians car makers get slagged off for their supposed dodgy electrical systems and vehicle reliability compared to the German car makers? Or is it based on objective evidence? Are all rifles much the same or are there distinct variations from brand to brand or even model to model?"

Mine too, Mark. There are a few other things in the C2766/ WCC ammo scenario that might seriously affect the accuracy. Put together with the scope and a few other things, I think Oswald would have been lucky to hit Texas with that rifle, and Frazier's test firing "results" only confirm my suspicions.

Here are the other two images:

Looking at the top photo, there is something shown here that has always bewildered informed researchers that have studied C2766.

Plainly visible is "42-XX". This, and the accompanying "V" notched rear sight, tell us this was a carbine, made some time in 1942. However, the "XX" tells us even more about the manufacture date. The "XX" is what is known as the fascist date, and is measured from Mussolini's March on Rome on October 22, 1922. As 1942 was twenty years after this date, the Roman numeral XX is added to the date. But, if the rifle had been made between October 23 and December 31 of 1924, we would see the Roman numeral XXI beside the 42.

Every Carcano seems to follow this rule, except for C2766. While there are few photos showing this side of C2766, the ones that are available do not seem to show the date.

Two questions come to my mind. Was C2766 made after Oct. 22, 1940? Why was the M91/38 discontinued after only one year of production in which, coincidentally, Italy's access to imported steel was severely curtailed by most of their merchant fleet being impounded in foreign ports, following their declaration of war on the Allies in June, 1940?

One more image:

Above is an M38 Carcano made after Oct. 22, 1939, as indicated by the XVIII following the 1939. Also note the poor workmanship in turning down the five flat facets. If you look closely, you can just see the point of one of the facets. The lathe work is also crudely done, and looks like it was done with a coarse file.

Found it.

Interesting thought, regarding the M91/38 being made from a cut down M91 long rifle barrel with progressive twist rifling. I don't know whether or not you have read the thread I posted concerning the history of the short rifle so I will give you a brief synopsis.

The M38 short rifle made its debut in 1938. The 6.5x52mm cartridge, used exclusively in the Carcano since its introduction in 1891, was to be scrapped forever and to be replaced with the 7.35x51mm cartridge. Everything about the 6.5mm rifle (bolt, receiver, magazine, etc.) stayed the same in the new rifle, including the cartridge. Only the neck of the cartridge was expanded to accept the larger diameter bullet.

A radical idea was introduced into the 7.35mm bullet. First, the bullet was pointed instead of round nosed, inducing the bullet to tumble upon hitting bone and cause greater damage. Second, inside the jacket, the front third of the bullet was made of aluminum, instead of lead, while the rear two-thirds of the bullet was made from lead. This imbalance in mass between front and back end of this bullet further enhanced the tumbling effect, and made these bullets even more deadly. To understand where they got the idea for this bullet, Google the .303 British Mk. VII cartridge.

The thing that must be understood is that it was possible to effect all of these bullet changes to the 6.5x52mm cartridge, and be just as successful. There was no ballistic reason to go to a larger diameter bullet.

The reason it was decided to go to the 7.35mm calibre is that the Italians planned to cut the 31 inch barrels of worn out M91 long rifles down to 21 inches and recycle them as new M38 short rifle barrels. Each cut down barrel would be bored out to a new bore diameter of 7.35 mm, and this would effectively remove all traces of the 6.5mm rifling grooves. It was actually a very sound idea and, considering Italy's limited steel resources, freed up a lot of steel that could go into other weapons.

Below are two photos of 6.5mm Carcanos made prior to 1938.

As you will notice, there are five flat facets machined onto the base of the barrel, just behind the rear sight.

Below is a photo of a 7.35mm Carcano short rifle. The "SA" stamped onto the barrel designates this rifle as one of almost the entire production of 7.35mm Carcano short rifles sold to Finland, once production of the 7.35mm M38 was completely abandoned in 1939:

Notice the flat facets are absent and the chamber is now round in shape, and somewhat smaller than the pre-1938 chambers. Here are another three photos, one of them quite famous:

*I have exceeded the limit for images per post, and the other two images can be seen in the next post.

As it is an established fact that ALL 7.35mm barrels were cut down 31 inch M91 barrels, the only possibility that exists is that the barrels were put in a lathe and the flat facets machined down, leaving only a round chamber and effectively removing all stampings that would ID this barrel as an M91 barrel.

As they were, in effect, making an entirely new barrel and rifle, and not a re-work, they had every right to begin afresh with the stampings. However, the new round shape of the chamber, which was retained even after the 7.35mm was discarded and the 6.5mm was brought back, opened up other possibilities.

Before going further, it should be pointed out that the 7.35x51mm M38 short rifle was the first Carcano to have standard twist rifling, with a rate of twist of 1:9.45. This standard twist rifling was kept when the M38 was discontinued in 1939, and the M91/38 introduced in 1940. The M91/38 had a standard twist with a rate of twist of 1:8.47.

When the 7.35mm M38 short rifle was discarded in 1939 and the 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle was introduced in 1940, it must be understood that it was no longer possible to recycle 31 inch M91 long rifle barrels (progressive twist) in their manufacture, as the M91/38 had standard twist rifling, and attempting to re-machine standard twist rifling over top of the M91 progressive twist rifling was impossible. The M91/38 short rifle was also the first 6.5mm Carcano to have standard twist rifling, as well as the first 6.5mm Carcano to have a fixed, non-adjustable rear sight. This, plus other cost cutting features seen in the short rifles, clearly indicates Italy went into WW II without a lot of extra money to throw around, and were willing to cut corners wherever possible.

It must also be understood that, as the M91/38 short rifle was an all new design they had NEVER planned to manufacture following the introduction of the 7.35mm short rifle in 1938, Italy began the manufacture of M91/38's in 1940 with NO 6.5mm short rifle barrels stockpiled, and they also declared war on the Allies in 1940. This declaration of war led to the immediate impounding of a good portion of Italy's merchant fleet in harbours around the world. As Italy's steel production was only a fraction of other European nations, a good part of their steel industry was dependent on imports.

Where did they get enough steel to make all of the new 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle barrels from, and still manage to supply steel to the remainder of their war effort? While many M91/38's were made with standard twist rifling, there are enough out there with progressive twist rifling to indicate that, some time in 1940, the supply of steel for short rifle barrels dried up, and the old practice of cutting down M91 long rifle barrels was revived; much to the detriment of short rifle accuracy. This could also explain why the M91/38 short rifle was abandoned at the end of 1940, and replaced with the all "new" M91/41 long rifle. The M91/38 is quite unique amongst infantry rifles of the 20th Century, in that its entire production history lasted just over one year.

As can be seen in the photo of C2766, the chamber of this famous M91/38 has also been machined smooth and round. The only way to tell if this rifle has standard twist rifling or cut down progressive twist rifling is to do a sulphur cast of the inside of the barrel at the muzzle or the chamber.

Think they would lend us C2766 for the weekend?

The late Tom Purvis also mentioned that that there was a "short rifle" with conventional rifling in the barrel, and a "shortened rifle" sold in America, which had its barrel sawed off...and which had usually begin life as a long rifle with progressive twist rifling. The "shortened rifles" were inaccurate due to losing the most important part of their rifling.

So has anyone ever actually examined the rifling of the barrel of C2766 to see whether it's a "short rifle" or a "shortened rifle"? Could you do this with a borescope ?

Yes, you could, Mark. In fact, a quick look down the barrel would show anyone with good eyesight what they were dealing with.

According to WCR evidence, SA Frazier of the FBI made a thing called a "sulphur cast" of the interior of C2766's barrel. Whether anyone has ever been allowed to see this up close, and whether this is another piece of "evidence" from the FBI, I am unsure.

The "shortened rifle" you speak of is actually the M91/24 carbine, whose production began in 1924 and ended in 1928. Many thousands of these carbines were made and issued to frontline troops in an effort to modernize the Italian army, by moving away from the long cumbersome M91 long rifles to a much shorter and handier carbine. This one particular model of carbine alone likely contributed to most of the reputation Carcanos had for inaccuracy.

To understand why the M91/24 carbine was such a disaster in the accuracy department, it is necessary to understand the rifle this carbine was made from. All M91/24 carbines were made by cutting short the worn out barrels of M91 long rifles. Contrary to popular belief, the Carcano M91 long rifle, with its almost 31 inch long barrel, was a very accurate rifle. However, its barrel had a very unique feature, almost unheard of on other rifles. Most other rifles have what is called "standard twist" riflings cut into the interior of their barrels. For instance, if a sporting rifle has a 1:7 standard twist, this means the riflings start out, at the breech, with a twist that will make one complete turn in 7 inches, and will continue at this rate of twist out to the muzzle. The M91, and many other Carcanos, have something called "progressive" or "gain" twist. The M91 riflings begin, at the breech, at a very slow rate of 1:22.79, and gradually get tighter, until, at the muzzle the riflings are at a rate of twist of 1:7.94. A rate of twist of 1:8 is about the minimum you need to stabilize the 162 grain Carcano bullet, as this is rather heavy for this calibre.

The Italians, in what many consider one of the stupider cost cutting measures ever employed, took these lovely M91 Carcanos with their 31 inch barrels and cut 14 inches off the muzzle end of each barrel, making a carbine with a 17 inch long barrel. If the tightening of the riflings was uniformly progressive, and they began at 1:22.79 and eventually tightened to 1:7.94, halfway down the barrel, at 15.5 inches, the rate of twist would be 1:15.37. As only 45% of the barrel was removed, let's be generous and say the final rate of twist for the M91/24 was 1:14. This rate of twist would be totally inadequate for stabilizing a 162 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2000 fps and, needless to say, the M91/24 could not hit the water from a boat.

The "shortened rifle" Tom Purvis spoke of may also have been a sporterized Carcano M91 long rifle, sold to the European and American public, called a Suprema. When sold to the American public as surplus, the M91 long rifles were not very popular as they were too long and did not look "sporty" enough. Once again, barrels were cut short with no consideration for the progressive rifling, and Carcano rifles spent a few more decades earning a bad reputation. The most famous of these Supremas appears in the Klein's ad LHO allegedly responded to, and is often confused with an M91/24 carbine.

This was not the only time the Italians embarked on a cost cutting campaign in rifle production, and there is one incident directly related to the short rifles, of which group C2766 belongs to. If I can find the post I made about this, on another forum, I will re-post it here for you.

You are correct, Robert. It doesn't say wooden shims. I don't know where I got that from. These shims appear to be brass.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139085

LOL You had me going for a while there, Pat. The hardest part for me to grasp was what kind of saw could cut a .015" thick shim from a piece of wood.

No one is saying an M91 Carcano was found in the TSBD. What I am saying is, after the rifle was identified as a Carcano, a hurried search was likely made for info on Carcano rifles. As the M91 long rifle was the main infantry weapon, and more of them were made than any other model of Carcano, the specs for it were what they probably found first.

This source should be seen as suspect, not only because they were way off with the muzzle velocity of an M91, but because they stated, as you pointed out, the calibre as being between .270" and .280", much larger than the Carcano calibre of .256".

I hate to say it but, the coincidence of the M91 Carcano and the Japanese Type "I" rifles both having identical barrel and overall lengths has started everyone on a wild goose chase that I do not believe will lead anywhere. Remember, the rifle was also identified early on as a Lee Enfield .303.

Did everyone miss that I pointed out that the M91 Carcano and the Japanese Type "I" have identical barrel and overall length measurements?

Ian

These specifications are readily available on any Carcano web site.

C2766 was an M91/38 Carcano short rifle. We were comparing the Japanese Type "I" rifle to an M91 Carcano long rifle.

Robert,

The point I was making was the same point that Chris was probably making:

Robert,

http://www6.zippysha...GmnxT/file.html

I tend to pay closer attention to the information, anytime specific physical features are mentioned by the authorities.

chris

i.e. the overall length of the weapon stated by Graves is nowhere near the length of C2766 and Graves seems to give a very specific figure, not just an estimate or guess or approximation. Where did Graves get such an accurate figure from? Did he pluck it out of thin air? Guess?...

Ian

If you stop to think about it, Graves was not likely actually involved in the direct handling of C2766. However, as Carcano rifles were very common in surplus stores in 1963, someone probably measured (mistakenly) a long rifle for him and gave the specs to Graves. If he heard the power of the scope as 4x and that its origin was Japanese, through the grapevine, he would sound like even more of an authority.

Or, he or a fellow detective simply went to the Dallas Library and looked up the specs for the wrong model in a textbook.

He is nowhere close on his muzzle velocity of 2500-2800 fps, though. The long rifle has a muzzle velocity of 2400 fps, shooting Italian ammunition.

When big events occur, everyone wants to be "in the know" and have all of the information.

Pat

Did it specifically say "wooden" shims? Considering that wood expands and contracts with varying humidity in the air, wood would be the last thing I would make a shim for a scope mount from. Most shims are made from brass, and shimstock can be purchased in varying thicknesses, such as the .015" and .020" shims mentioned in Eisenberg's memo.

Looking at the scope mount on C2766, I have a bit of trouble with the observations made, supposedly, by the BRL gunsmith.

The first observation, that a .020" shim was added to the scope mount and "placed as to point the scope leftward with respect to the gun" does not make any sense. The scope would have already been looking too far to the left. That would be why the shots were landing so far to the right. The proper thing to do would be to shim the scope so as to make the scope look more to the right, and to attempt to bring the line of sight and the bullet path on converging courses, somewhere down range. As the saying goes, "you adjust the scope to follow the point of impact, not the point of impact to follow the scope".

The second observation is that two shims, each .015" thick (I am assuming this) were added in order to elevate the front end of the scope, in relation to the barrel. I can understand the desire to do so, considering that Frazier, if he was being honest, reported this rifle to be shooting a few inches high of the point of aim at 15 yards. This, of course, would have made the rifle shoot high, at 100 yards, by about 22-32 inches.

What I do not understand is HOW the scope mount on C2766 could have been shimmed to elevate the front (or the back) end of the scope. You see, the two mounting holes for the scope mount are drilled horizontally into the side of the receiver on C2766, and while a shim may move the mount horizontally, the only way to elevate either end of the mount is to drill new holes. The holes that attach the scope to the mount, by means of the scope rings visible in photos of C2766, are also drilled horizontally, and any shim added here would, once again, alter the mount horizontally, but not vertically.

For these reasons, I find it hard to believe the source of the info in Eisenberg's memo was, in fact, a BRL gunsmith. This would also explain the ridiculous observation "The gunsmith observed that the scope as we received it was installed as if for a left-handed man." The reason the scope was mounted on the left side was because there was nowhere else to mount it, as the six round clip had to be fed from the top of the Carcano AND the bolt handle stood vertically during opening of the bolt, and would have hit a scope mounted in the normal fashion. Even an apprentice gunsmith would have seen this the second he opened the bolt.

I have been around sporting rifles for many years, and have never heard any experts refer to a side mounted scope as being mounted for a left handed (or right handed) shooter. However, I have heard side mounted scopes referred to as a pain in the rear end, as they are a devil to sight in.

P.S.

Not sure you picked up on it or not but, what I am trying to say is I believe the amateurish of the statements in the memo is far below the calibre of a gunsmith employed by the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory, and, for this reason, the contents of the memo did not originate with a gunsmith of this calibre.

Ian

These specifications are readily available on any Carcano web site.

C2766 was an M91/38 Carcano short rifle. We were comparing the Japanese Type "I" rifle to an M91 Carcano long rifle.