Robert Prudhomme

And while we're at it, what is this "3-5" circle" that SA Frazier claims to have shot with Oswald's rifle at 100 yards, anyways? I've heard of people shooting 3" groups, and I've heard of people shooting 5" groups, and I've seen several methods of calculating those groupings, but I have never heard of anyone shooting a 3-5" group at 100 yards. Which was it, Mr. Frazier, 3" or 5"?

Robert,

FWIW (just guessing here), maybe it means the closest to dead center, i.e. the "best" shot, was 3 inches away from it, whereas the "worst" shot was 5 inches away from dead center. If so, then I suppose it could be said that all the shots were in a 2-inch wide ring (technically not a circle, but two circles sharing the same center) that started 3 inches from the center and extended out to 5 inches from the center.

--Tommy .

Mr. Graves

It is a bit hard to explain but, the grouping of bullets does not have anything to do with the distance on the target those bullets are away from the bullseye centre. A rifle's sights or scope can always be adjusted to bring the point of impact to the bullseye, but grouping is a different matter altogether. A group of shots can be as far from the bullseye on the target as you can get (even off the target onto the panel the target is pinned to) but, if they are all within a 1" circle, the rifle is accurate and the bullets are loaded with the correct type and weight of powder.

Here is a link to a page that will explain the grouping measurement process:

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=1375&magid=95

I thank you for your informative reply, Robert; much appreciated. Though it is perhaps slightly off-topic, as an individual who obviously possesses expertise in matters ballistic, what is your opinion of the 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company?

Gary Murr

Mr. Murr

Sorry for not responding to your question sooner. It is an excellent question, and I am glad someone has the insight to ask it. Though my knowledge of the 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges made by the Western Cartridge Company is limited, I will answer your question as best I can and share with you my theories on that ammunition.

I know of no way to make a Lone Nut froth at the mouth and blow smoke out his ears quicker than to question the Warren Commission's conclusions on the manufacture date of the 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges made by the Western Cartridge Company. Officially, four lots of one million rounds per lot were made in 1954 for the United States Marine Corps, although no branch of the American armed forces was equipped with a weapon capable of shooting this round. Of course, there is a lovely cloak and dagger story to go along with this, shrouded in mystery, telling us the CIA was the actual recipient of this ammunition, and it was spirited away to some civil war on the far side of the planet. As the story goes, it was never actually used in that conflict, and, miraculously, found its way back into the USA to be sold as surplus ammunition.

In Sylvia Meagher's 1967 book "Accessories After the Fact", is the following excerpt from a letter she received in response to her inquiries about the WCC 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition:

"On March 23, 1964, Mr. R.W. Botts, District Manager, Winchester-Western Division, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Braniff Building, advised [that] the Western Cartridge Company, a division of Olin Industries, East Alton, Illinois, manufactured a quantity of 6.5 M/M Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition for the Italian Government during World War II. At the end of the war the Italian Carcano rifle, and no telling how much of this type ammunition, was sold to United States gun brokers and dealers and subsequently was distributed by direct sales to wholesalers, retailers, and individual purchasers."

In Mark Lane's book "Rush to Judgement", another response from the same company to Lane associate Stewart Galanor regarding the manufacture of 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition by the WCC is quoted on page 411:

"Any previous production on this cartridge was made against government contracts which were completed in 1944."

Lone Nuts are quick to point out that "1944" in the letter to Mr. Galanor is a typo and should read "1954" but, in light of the "during World War Two" quoted in the letter to Ms. Meagher, this is, at best, a very weak argument.

Of course, the obvious question is why would the American government be manufacturing 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges for a country allied with Nazi Germany during WWII. The simple fact of the matter is, when the southern part of Italy capitulated to Allied forces in 1943, and Mussolini was removed from power, German forces were still occupying the majority of Italy and were seen by the Italians as an oppressive occupying force. The disbanded Italian military was very quick to join forces with Allied troops, either as partisans or under direct command of Allied commanders. Official estimates tell us that, at one point, Italian fighting men made up one eighth of Allied combat troops in Italy. Of course, the majority of them would still be carrying their 6.5 mm Carcano rifles, and keeping them supplied with 6.5 mm ammunition would have been a real logistical concern for Allied commanders.

Before we go further, it should be noted that I have been unable to uncover any evidence that the 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition made pre-1944 actually ever made it into the hands of Italian troops or even into the hands of the new Italian government. It may have been manufactured as an insurance policy against the possibility of the war in italy lasting into 1946 or beyond. If it never left the USA, could it have sat in storage until 1954 and become part of the lot of four million rounds "manufactured" for the CIA?

If the WCC 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition, packed twenty rounds to a carton, had ever been delivered to the Italians, it may have been one of the major logistical errors of WWII; ranking right up there with pitting Sherman tanks against German Panzer and Tiger tanks. Similar to the M1 Garand, the 6.5 mm Carcano does not have a true magazine. Rather, six rounds are pre-loaded, at the factory, into an "en bloc" charger clip that, when inserted into the magazine box, becomes an integral part of the Carcano loading mechanism. Without this clip, the 6.5 mm Carcano cannot even be operated as a single shot rifle, unless one is patient enough to insert each round fired into the slot in the front of the bolt, prior to camming that round into the chamber. After the last round is chambered, this clip falls out the bottom of the magazine box, and is left on the battlefield as refuse. The Italian 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition, made by SMI in Italy, came bagged in lots of eighteen rounds, loaded six to a clip in three clips. The WCC ammunition, made without these clips, would have required Italian troops to recycle used clips and, as they were designed for only one time use, it would not take long for them to be stressed to the point of being non-functional and a resulting shortage of clips would have ensued.

It is this kind of oversight by the Dept. of Defense that makes one wonder just how knowledgeable they were about the 6.5 mm Carcano, prior to ordering ammunition for it from the WCC. Outside of its en bloc charger clip, there is another unusual feature that makes the 6.5 mm Carcano a unique rifle. While all 6.5 mm calibre rifles share the same bore diameter (6.5 mm or .256"), the diameter of the bullet fired by these rifles is, of course, larger at .264". This corresponds to the groove (riflings) diameter of these rifles and, in the majority of 6.5mm/.256" calibre rifles, this diameter is .264". The only two exceptions to this are the 6.5x54 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer, firing a bullet .266" in diameter, and the 6.5x52 mm Carcano, firing a bullet .268" in diameter.

The 6.5 mm Carcano rifle will fire a cartridge loaded with a bullet .264" in diameter but the loss in accuracy is very noticeable. After the introduction of surplus 6.5 mm Carcano rifles onto the American market in the 1950's, this problem plagued the shooting public for decades, as makers of sporting ammunition consistently loaded cartridges with the popular .264" diameter bullet, not realizing the particular needs of the 6.5 mm Carcano rifle. It was not that many years ago that the Norma company solved this problem by being the first to load cartridges for the 6.5 mm Carcano with bullets .268" in diameter. Needless to say, much of the bad reputation the Carcano rifles received stemmed from ammunition loaded with the wrong bullets.

That being said, it is time to ask some serious questions about the 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition manufactured by the WCC. The debate over the manufacture date will likely rage on for another fifty years, and the matter is not aided by the fact that neither the WCC cartridges or the cartridge cartons they were packed in have a manufacture date on them. While most, if not all, military cartridges have a date or date code stamped on their bases, these cartridges bear only "WCC" and "6.5 mm".

If these cartridges were made prior to 1944, what diameter of bullet were they loaded with? The only place on the planet making 6.5 mm bullets that were .268" in diameter was Italy and, if the DoD was making cartridges for the Italians, this surely tells us there was a shortage of bullets in Italy at that time. In other words, the WCC would not have been able to have purchased .268" diameter bullets from Italy. Therefore, the WCC would have been required to do one of two things; design all new bullet moulds in .268" diameter to supply what amounted to a handful of cartridges to Italian partisans, or obtain a supply of the more common .264" diameter bullets and load the cartridges with these. There is a very good chance, considering the ammunition was supplied without clips, that the DoD and the WCC were completely unaware of the Carcano's special needs and merely assumed the .264" bullet was the correct bullet.

Even if they had been aware of the need for the .268" bullet, it must be remembered the USA was in the middle of a demanding war and was having more than enough problems supplying its own troops with ammunition. In the interests of economy, would anyone really have cared if the Italians ended up with cartridges loaded with slightly narrow bullets? As I said, the 6.5 mm Carcano will shoot a bullet .264" in diameter, albeit with a great loss in accuracy. However, a man presents a 2' x 5.5' target and, while it might not be possible to make head shots with a .264" bullet, a shot aimed at the mid-section is likely to hit a man somewhere on his body and take him out of the fight.

To fully understand what I am getting at here, look at the two photos below. The first is a WC evidence photo of CE 399, the infamous "Magic Bullet", and the second is a .268" bullet handloaded for an "M38" Carcano carbine. This is a slight error on "Dr. Bill's" part, as the M38 was the 7.35 mm calibre Carcano. He most definitely was using an M91/38 Carcano carbine and can be forgiven this minor transgression, as it is a common mistake.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/imagesCA2OK25Q_zps0d085ae9.jpg

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/6d26bdbf0c_md-1_zpsbda004de.jpeg

The rifling marks on the .268" "Cruise Missile" appear to be deeper than the rifling marks on CE 399 (made by the Western Cartridge Company).

Hello Robert:

I thank you for your response to my original question concerning 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company and please, my name is Gary - Mr. Murr was my father. I have read your posting over carefully, in particular the portions that pertain directly to my original question, and would like to make the following comments. Let me preface what I herein write by indicating to you that those who know me I believe would refer to me as anything but a LN. And while I am sure that many here on this forum have found what you have written to be of interest, nonetheless I feel there are a few points that must be clarified concerning this particular subject matter.

"Officially" there were six lots of this ammunition manufactured, not four, though the sum total of the "official" count is, as you have indicated, four million and all four million in turn comprise the four official lot numbers associated with this same ammunition. However, there is fragmentary documentation to indicate that more than four million rounds were actually produced by Western. What is true is that all of the official 6.5mm ammunition, as well as that unofficially produced and not "counted" was manufactured in 1954 and only in 1954. At least 2,000 rounds of this ammunition does bear a different headstamp than that normally associated with this ammunition, the familiar WCC 6.5mm, this 2,000 round lot actually having the headstamp WCC 54 on its base. There is likewise no documentation to support the contention that any of this ammunition was manufactured specifically by the Western Cartridge Company for the United States Marine Corps. This particular historical "fact" is actually the creation of the FBI, specifically SA Jay Cochran and is included in the somewhat infamous Conrad to Jevons memorandum constructed by Cochran under the date of December 2, 1963. In this same memorandum it is stated that the Springfield [Field] Office of the FBI had "obtained" from Western "copies of that Corporations records pertaining to the manufacture of this ammunition" but if this did happen just where this documentation went is unknown. What was purportedly identified as a "two-page copy" of these same complete records of manufacture on the part of Western of this ammunition, records in turn theoretically acquired by the Springfield Field Office of the FBI, does not represent in any way, shape or form the actual corporate record forms utilized in transactions by the Western Cartridge Company during the time frame in question. To their credit the FBI in the person of Jay Cochran did indicate that they were dealing in "speculation" when indicating that this order had been placed by the CIA with Western behind the cover of the USMC for purposes as yet to be determined but speculation is all that this was and is - to this very day. And in another burst of honesty the Bureau did further indicate that this ammunition could not be fired in any weapon utilized by the USMC, something that is undoubtedly true and as you rightly indicated in your post not only could it not be used in any weapon used by the Marines it could not be used or "fit" in any weapon utilized by any branch of the American military in the early years of the Cold War and indeed beyond.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, after extensive study of government contracts issued to Western during the time frame from 1939 to 1945, the Western Cartridge Company never manufactured 6.5mm ammunition of this specific variety at all let alone in any quantity for the Italian Government in 1944 or at any point in time prior to 1944. The Western Cartridge Company did manufacture a number of different types of small arms ammunition for "Allies" during World War II, including the Chinese, but there is nothing that I have discovered to substantiate the claim that they did so for the Italian Government. The 6.5mm ammunition in question was manufactured as a result of a "government contract" but this contract was between Western and the United States Army [DA] not the Italian Government. I do agree wholeheartedly with you when you indicate that it is time to ask some serious questions concerning this ammunition and its manufacture by the WCC, in particular why and for whom this ammunition was specifically manufactured. But I do disagree with the contention that debate will continue as to the date of manufacture of this same ammunition. The small white cartons in which this ammunition was packed, 20 rounds at a time, does contain the date of manufacture of these same cartons. And when one discovers that these same cartons were a one-time order from a small packaging concern in Missouri, the door swings even further open for more questions of concern.

In closing I found your posting informative and I hope members of this Forum appreciate the effort undertaken by you in not only supplying me with your answer, thought, and theories on this ammunition but in also taking the time to examine and explain the various nuances of 6.5mm ammunition, such as .264" vs .268" et al. for all Forum members.

Gary Murr

Hello Gary

Thank you for responding to my post. The age of the WCC ammunition is an issue that has so little evidence supporting either view, I sometimes simply throw my hands in the air at the prospect of attempting to unravel it. There are many holes in the trail the FBI has left for us, chief among them the so called "copies" of production records from the WCC pertaining to the production of 6.5 mm ammunition which never quite materialized.

However, you do bring up some interesting items that, if verified, would certainly sway my opinion towards the cartridges being manufactured in 1954. Unfortunately, this would mean Mark Lane (Steve Galanor) and Sylvia Meagher were either being untruthful or were relying on informants clearly not aware of the true facts.

I would be very interested in seeing a photo of one of the cartridges in the 2,000 cartridge lot bearing the base stamp "WCC 54". How very odd that the calibre was not included, as is often the norm for military ammo. Do you have a photo of one of these rarities, or a link to a site bearing a photo? Also, I would be very interested in seeing documentation from the company that made the cartons for the WCC 6.5 mm ammunition in 1954. Would it be possible for you to provide a photo of the date stamp on one of these cartons, as well?

It is also important to point out that, as the story goes, the WCC contract to make 6.5 mm ammunition was not with the Italian government (if one even existed in that period) but, rather, with the US Dept. of Defense. As I stated earlier, the ammunition may never have left North America, and might have been manufactured only as an insurance policy against a war in Italy that dragged on into 1946 or further. Even considering you are correct about the cartons being made in 1954, might the cartidges not have been re-packaged into newer cartons, possibly to help whatever clandestine organization (CIA) receiving these cartridges in 1954 to cover their tracks better? Their may very well have been references to the DoD on the original cartons that would have caused embarrassment to the American government, should they pop up on the wrong part of the planet.

But, all of this aside, the manufacture date of this ammunition, while intriguing, is still not the most important issue here. SA Frazier (weapons expert from the FBI) testified to the WC that he shot a 5" group at a target set at 100 yards, using Oswald's M91/38 loaded with 6.5 mm WCC ammunition. Unless SA Frazier was a terrible shot, something made those bullets go so badly astray. Whether it was a worn out or damaged rifle or there was something wrong with the 6.5 mm WCC ammunition, we don't know. And we may never know, but that won't stop us from trying.

Considering all of the other handicaps a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD would already be facing, adding in the fact that this M91/38 shot 5" groups at 100 yards tells me it was very unlikely Oswald shot JFK with this rifle.

And while we're at it, what is this "3-5" circle" that SA Frazier claims to have shot with Oswald's rifle at 100 yards, anyways? I've heard of people shooting 3" groups, and I've heard of people shooting 5" groups, and I've seen several methods of calculating those groupings, but I have never heard of anyone shooting a 3-5" group at 100 yards. Which was it, Mr. Frazier, 3" or 5"?

Figure 5: Bottom is the “multi shot” round showing the cuts made on the projectile to facilitate it coming apart

The one funny looking projectile (with cuts on the side of the projectile) turned out to be a “multi shot” round. According to the Carcano website, the projectile actually is hollow and contains lead shot and it is not uncommon to run across these in surplus ammo.

I'm a little busy right now but, I'll try to find the time to elaborate on the above photo tonight.

Mr. Purvis

I understand perfectly well the difference between a dispersion test done with a rifle in a fixed position on a bench and the ability of SA Frazier to shoot a rifle.

That is not what is at issue here.

What is at issue is Mr. Simmons claiming the 6.5 mm M91/38 Carcano found in the Sniper's Nest tested for roughly the same degree of dispersion as the 7.62 mm M-14; namely .29 mils.

However, the M-14, in the right hands, can shoot a 1" group at 100 yards, while SA Frazier was only able to shoot a 3-5" group at 100 yards with the Carcano.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, as Shakespeare would say.

Since you apparantly live in "never-never-land", a simple explanation may be in order.

1. A "mil-dispersion test" is fired with the weapon in an absolutely FIXED/vice position with the weapon sighted on the EXACT SAME location for each and every shot fired.

Thereafter, the amount of "dispersion" that is created by the weapon, can be physically measured.

2. The ability of an individual to fire a weapon at a target and thereafter observe the impact location of the bullet, and thereafter make any necessary adjustments to his "aiming point", merely demonstrates the accuracy with which an individual can fire an accurately firing weapon that has a proven low mil-dispersion ratio.

Please enlighten us more!

Tom Purvis

Mr. Purvis

The M91/38 found in the Sniper's Nest was tested for dispersion and found to have a dispersion of .29 mils. Mr. Simmons stated, in his testimony to the Warren Commission, this was comparable to the very accurate M-14, thereby inferring the M91/38 from the SN was an accurate rifle, as well, or, at least as accurate as the M-14.

However, SA Frazier, a firearms expert for the FBI (and, one would assume, a reasonable shot with a rifle) fired the same M91/38 at a 100 yard target, and only managed to shoot a 3-5" group.

Do you think SA Frazier would have shot a 3-5" group at 100 yards with an M-14, or do you think he would have shot a 1-1.5" group at 100 yards, as most marksman are capable of shooting with an M-14? Remember, the M-14 is still used today by snipers, at ranges far in excess of 100 yards.

Would an M-14 shooting a 5" group at 100 yards not be sent to the armourer's for repairs?

Thomas, Robert can we leave the IM chat out of what many feel is an important topic even if you don't.

Mr. Loughran

My apologies, I just felt we were all taking ourselves a bit too seriously here. I will refrain from further frivolous comments.

But...my mother IS a drill sargeant in the infantry!

Robert,

Ahhh, yes. Time for some more comic relief!

No wonder you're so well disciplined! I'm surprised she didn't drill into you the correct spelling for "sergeant," though. LOL

--Tommy

LOL I believe it is the American influence we Canadians suffer living in such close proximity to our American brethren. I actually had to look the word up and must have Googled an American site.

"You say po-ta-to....and I say po-tat-o........."

Good Lord, I just looked it up. It seems "sergeant" is the only correct way of spelling the word and I've been spelling it "sargeant" for years. How embarrassing!

But...my mother IS a drill sargeant in the infantry!

Robert,

Ahhh, yes. Time for some more comic relief!

No wonder you're so well disciplined! I'm surprised she didn't drill into you the correct spelling for "sergeant," though. LOL

--Tommy

LOL I believe it is the American influence we Canadians suffer living in such close proximity to our American brethren. I actually had to look the word up and must have Googled an American site.

"You say po-ta-to....and I say po-tat-o........."

Dear Martin,

Yes! Yes! Yes!

And, specifically, it would benefit us letting us know who can say, for example, "Your mother wears army boots!" but can't say, "In an infantry platoon!"

Sincerely,

--Tommy

But...my mother IS a drill sargeant in the infantry!

While I have no concerns about domestic spying as a chill on JFK research,

There are some things still happening that worry me:

Back in 2007, Obama said he would not want to run an administration that was “Bush-Cheney lite.” He doesn’t have to worry. With prisoners denied due process at Gitmo starving themselves, with the C.I.A. not always aware who it’s killing with drones, with an overzealous approach to leaks, and with the government’s secret domestic spy business swelling, there’s nothing lite about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-peeping-president-obama.html?hp

Mr. Carroll

Well said, sir. I believe the old adage goes, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Would you agree?

I am new to this forum and must say that I find the atmosphere here quite a welcome change from the previous forums I frequented. The words infighting and personal attacks barely describe the bloodbaths that went on there.

I sincerely believe that, in the realm of JFK research and debate, there are parties representing the interests of people who wish and need the masses to believe in the sanctity and faultlessness of the Warren Commission findings. While many see the JFK assassination as a fifty year old crime hardly relevant to modern issues, many others see the coverup of the assassination as the cornerstone supporting all the ensuing lies of the last fifty years. If we no longer believed the Warren Commission, would we then question the truth behind other issues, such as Iraq?

Mr. Simkin has provided for us the best forum on the Internet for the discussion of the JFK assassination. It is our privilege to be here, not our right, and our conduct here should reflect that. I am likely one of the worst offenders, as I often give in to the temptation to engage trolls over minor points. I would like to thank Mark Knight for pointing out to me the fruitlessness of one such engagement, and to ask him to not be afraid to point out again if he thinks I am going "too far".

One of the real enigmas of the JFK assassination is the origin of LHO's rifle.

The following diagrams were prepared by JFK researcher Jerry Organ. In them, Mr. Organ makes a point by point comparison of the rifle in the ad to pre- and post-1938 Carcano models. While many researchers believe the rifle in the ad to be a 6.5 Carcano M91/24 carbine, Mr. Organ clearly shows the M91/24 to be too short to be a match for the rifle in the ad and identifies the rifle in the ad as a model never produced in Italy; namely, a 6.5 mm Carcano "Suprema". As Mr. Organ explains, the Suprema was an M91 long rifle sold as surplus to the sporting market in North America. As the full length M91 was far too long and unwieldy to ever gain popularity as a sporting rifle, it was cut down to a more attractive length. As the M91's all had progressive twist rifling, this was a serious mistake, as the resulting lack of spin imparted to the bullet would grievously affect the accuracy of the rifle.

As I had previously restricted my study of the Carcano to the long and short rifles, and ignored the carbines to some extent, I was mistakenly under the belief that all Carcano carbines, except for the M91/28 carbine, were merely cut down versions of the M91 long rifle. I have since been corrected on this, and studying the rifles below reveals that only the M91/24 carbine has the same long rear sight as the M91 long rifle and is, correctly, the only carbine made by cutting short the 31" barrel of an M91 long rifle.

Note also in the diagram below that the M91/24 carbine bolt handle is turned down, likely done when converted from the M91 long rifle. Note that the rifle in the ad, the M91 and the Suprema (even though a turned down bolt is claimed in the ad) would all appear to have straight bolt handles while all the other carbines have turned down bolt handles.

However, while I mostly feel Mr. Organ to be correct on this matter, once again, as is so typical of evidence in this case, another oddity arises which cannot be ignored. If one looks closely at the Suprema below, it can be seen that the tip of the forestock has been professionally cut back and finished at an attractive angle, similar to any sporting rifle. The tip of the forestock on the rifle in the ad, on the other hand, looks nothing like this or the stock M91 forestock directly below it. There also appears to be some kind of lug (bayonet lug?) on the bottom of it, as well. Worse yet, if one places a straight edge on the barrel in the ad, the barrel appears to be bent downward, beginning at the "F" line in the diagram. Strangely enough, this "F" line also happens to line up with the tip of the muzzle of the M91/24 carbine further down.

Was the rifle in the ad actually an M91/24 carbine to begin with and, through an artist's modification, crudely touched up to look like a Carcano Suprema? It is an intriguing line of thought, though I doubt it was done as part of any coverup. More than likely, Kleins' sales department might have felt the M91/24 carbine looked too short and stubby in the ad to be attractive as a hunting rifle, and modified it to look like the longer Suprema.

Another view of the Kleins ad. Note, in this view, the cleaning rod protruding from the tip of the forestock. Was the cleaning rod cut short and modified, too? Curiouser and curiouser........

__ quote from Thomas Purvis __

"Mark;


This may get a little confusing, but!

Notice the number of Model 38 Short Rifle's (7.35mm caliber) which possess the "C" prefix to the serial number.

I have now confirmed that when the Short Rifle first went into production, which was in the 7.35mm caliber, that the rifle barrel was produced from pre-1938 long rifle barrels which were in stock.
These pre-1938 barrels were cut down in length and rechambered to fit the 7.35mm round.

This new revelation confirms several suspicions in regards to the Model 91/38 Short Rifle in the 6.5mm caliber.

"War rumor" has it that this weapon was preferred over the extremely long and bulky "Long Rifle", and that many of the 7.35mm Short Rifles became 6.5mm merely by higher echelon Armor's replacing the barrel with a Long Rifle barrell which had been cut down to the 91/38 length.

The Italian factories had long prior to this date ceased to produce the old "Progressive Gain" rifling, therefore cutting down a long rifle barrel and utilizing it on the Model 91/38 actually had little effect on overall accuracy.

So! Virtually any Long Rifle barrel which bore the serial number C2766, could be easily cut down to Short Rifle (Model 91/38) length and thereafter utilized to replace the barrel in ANY (7.35mm or 6.5mm) Short Rifle.
Thus creating a Model 91/38 Short Rifle with serial number C2766."

__ end quote __

Unfortunately, Mr. Purvis once again is re-writing history in his own fashion. All records show that in ALL production of the 6.5 mm M91 long rifle, right up until it was replaced by the 7.35 mm M38 short rifle in 1938, the M91 long rifle was manufactured with a 31" barrel with progressive twist rifling. There are NO M91 long rifles with standard twist rifling and NO M91 long rifles made after 1938.

Therefore, if an M91 31" barrel was cut back to 22" for the manufacture of a 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle, the tightest part of the riflings would be in the discarded piece of the barrel and the accuracy of the short rifle would be sacrificed.

However, one is left wondering if this is an admission on Mr. Purvis's part that many M91/38 short rifles possessed barrels that were cut down M91 long rifle barrels.

http://www.rkdn.org/u-r-next.asp

I thank you for your informative reply, Robert; much appreciated. Though it is perhaps slightly off-topic, as an individual who obviously possesses expertise in matters ballistic, what is your opinion of the 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company?

Gary Murr

Mr. Murr

Sorry for not responding to your question sooner. It is an excellent question, and I am glad someone has the insight to ask it. Though my knowledge of the 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges made by the Western Cartridge Company is limited, I will answer your question as best I can and share with you my theories on that ammunition.

I know of no way to make a Lone Nut froth at the mouth and blow smoke out his ears quicker than to question the Warren Commission's conclusions on the manufacture date of the 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges made by the Western Cartridge Company. Officially, four lots of one million rounds per lot were made in 1954 for the United States Marine Corps, although no branch of the American armed forces was equipped with a weapon capable of shooting this round. Of course, there is a lovely cloak and dagger story to go along with this, shrouded in mystery, telling us the CIA was the actual recipient of this ammunition, and it was spirited away to some civil war on the far side of the planet. As the story goes, it was never actually used in that conflict, and, miraculously, found its way back into the USA to be sold as surplus ammunition.

In Sylvia Meagher's 1967 book "Accessories After the Fact", is the following excerpt from a letter she received in response to her inquiries about the WCC 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition:

"On March 23, 1964, Mr. R.W. Botts, District Manager, Winchester-Western Division, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Braniff Building, advised [that] the Western Cartridge Company, a division of Olin Industries, East Alton, Illinois, manufactured a quantity of 6.5 M/M Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition for the Italian Government during World War II. At the end of the war the Italian Carcano rifle, and no telling how much of this type ammunition, was sold to United States gun brokers and dealers and subsequently was distributed by direct sales to wholesalers, retailers, and individual purchasers."

In Mark Lane's book "Rush to Judgement", another response from the same company to Lane associate Stewart Galanor regarding the manufacture of 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition by the WCC is quoted on page 411:

"Any previous production on this cartridge was made against government contracts which were completed in 1944."

Lone Nuts are quick to point out that "1944" in the letter to Mr. Galanor is a typo and should read "1954" but, in light of the "during World War Two" quoted in the letter to Ms. Meagher, this is, at best, a very weak argument.

Of course, the obvious question is why would the American government be manufacturing 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges for a country allied with Nazi Germany during WWII. The simple fact of the matter is, when the southern part of Italy capitulated to Allied forces in 1943, and Mussolini was removed from power, German forces were still occupying the majority of Italy and were seen by the Italians as an oppressive occupying force. The disbanded Italian military was very quick to join forces with Allied troops, either as partisans or under direct command of Allied commanders. Official estimates tell us that, at one point, Italian fighting men made up one eighth of Allied combat troops in Italy. Of course, the majority of them would still be carrying their 6.5 mm Carcano rifles, and keeping them supplied with 6.5 mm ammunition would have been a real logistical concern for Allied commanders.

Before we go further, it should be noted that I have been unable to uncover any evidence that the 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition made pre-1944 actually ever made it into the hands of Italian troops or even into the hands of the new Italian government. It may have been manufactured as an insurance policy against the possibility of the war in italy lasting into 1946 or beyond. If it never left the USA, could it have sat in storage until 1954 and become part of the lot of four million rounds "manufactured" for the CIA?

If the WCC 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition, packed twenty rounds to a carton, had ever been delivered to the Italians, it may have been one of the major logistical errors of WWII; ranking right up there with pitting Sherman tanks against German Panzer and Tiger tanks. Similar to the M1 Garand, the 6.5 mm Carcano does not have a true magazine. Rather, six rounds are pre-loaded, at the factory, into an "en bloc" charger clip that, when inserted into the magazine box, becomes an integral part of the Carcano loading mechanism. Without this clip, the 6.5 mm Carcano cannot even be operated as a single shot rifle, unless one is patient enough to insert each round fired into the slot in the front of the bolt, prior to camming that round into the chamber. After the last round is chambered, this clip falls out the bottom of the magazine box, and is left on the battlefield as refuse. The Italian 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition, made by SMI in Italy, came bagged in lots of eighteen rounds, loaded six to a clip in three clips. The WCC ammunition, made without these clips, would have required Italian troops to recycle used clips and, as they were designed for only one time use, it would not take long for them to be stressed to the point of being non-functional and a resulting shortage of clips would have ensued.

It is this kind of oversight by the Dept. of Defense that makes one wonder just how knowledgeable they were about the 6.5 mm Carcano, prior to ordering ammunition for it from the WCC. Outside of its en bloc charger clip, there is another unusual feature that makes the 6.5 mm Carcano a unique rifle. While all 6.5 mm calibre rifles share the same bore diameter (6.5 mm or .256"), the diameter of the bullet fired by these rifles is, of course, larger at .264". This corresponds to the groove (riflings) diameter of these rifles and, in the majority of 6.5mm/.256" calibre rifles, this diameter is .264". The only two exceptions to this are the 6.5x54 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer, firing a bullet .266" in diameter, and the 6.5x52 mm Carcano, firing a bullet .268" in diameter.

The 6.5 mm Carcano rifle will fire a cartridge loaded with a bullet .264" in diameter but the loss in accuracy is very noticeable. After the introduction of surplus 6.5 mm Carcano rifles onto the American market in the 1950's, this problem plagued the shooting public for decades, as makers of sporting ammunition consistently loaded cartridges with the popular .264" diameter bullet, not realizing the particular needs of the 6.5 mm Carcano rifle. It was not that many years ago that the Norma company solved this problem by being the first to load cartridges for the 6.5 mm Carcano with bullets .268" in diameter. Needless to say, much of the bad reputation the Carcano rifles received stemmed from ammunition loaded with the wrong bullets.

That being said, it is time to ask some serious questions about the 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition manufactured by the WCC. The debate over the manufacture date will likely rage on for another fifty years, and the matter is not aided by the fact that neither the WCC cartridges or the cartridge cartons they were packed in have a manufacture date on them. While most, if not all, military cartridges have a date or date code stamped on their bases, these cartridges bear only "WCC" and "6.5 mm".

If these cartridges were made prior to 1944, what diameter of bullet were they loaded with? The only place on the planet making 6.5 mm bullets that were .268" in diameter was Italy and, if the DoD was making cartridges for the Italians, this surely tells us there was a shortage of bullets in Italy at that time. In other words, the WCC would not have been able to have purchased .268" diameter bullets from Italy. Therefore, the WCC would have been required to do one of two things; design all new bullet moulds in .268" diameter to supply what amounted to a handful of cartridges to Italian partisans, or obtain a supply of the more common .264" diameter bullets and load the cartridges with these. There is a very good chance, considering the ammunition was supplied without clips, that the DoD and the WCC were completely unaware of the Carcano's special needs and merely assumed the .264" bullet was the correct bullet.

Even if they had been aware of the need for the .268" bullet, it must be remembered the USA was in the middle of a demanding war and was having more than enough problems supplying its own troops with ammunition. In the interests of economy, would anyone really have cared if the Italians ended up with cartridges loaded with slightly narrow bullets? As I said, the 6.5 mm Carcano will shoot a bullet .264" in diameter, albeit with a great loss in accuracy. However, a man presents a 2' x 5.5' target and, while it might not be possible to make head shots with a .264" bullet, a shot aimed at the mid-section is likely to hit a man somewhere on his body and take him out of the fight.

To fully understand what I am getting at here, look at the two photos below. The first is a WC evidence photo of CE 399, the infamous "Magic Bullet", and the second is a .268" bullet handloaded for an "M38" Carcano carbine. This is a slight error on "Dr. Bill's" part, as the M38 was the 7.35 mm calibre Carcano. He most definitely was using an M91/38 Carcano carbine and can be forgiven this minor transgression, as it is a common mistake.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/imagesCA2OK25Q_zps0d085ae9.jpg

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/6d26bdbf0c_md-1_zpsbda004de.jpeg

The rifling marks on the .268" "Cruise Missile" appear to be deeper than the rifling marks on CE 399 (made by the Western Cartridge Company).

Mr. Purvis

I understand perfectly well the difference between a dispersion test done with a rifle in a fixed position on a bench and the ability of SA Frazier to shoot a rifle.

That is not what is at issue here.

What is at issue is Mr. Simmons claiming the 6.5 mm M91/38 Carcano found in the Sniper's Nest tested for roughly the same degree of dispersion as the 7.62 mm M-14; namely .29 mils.

However, the M-14, in the right hands, can shoot a 1" group at 100 yards, while SA Frazier was only able to shoot a 3-5" group at 100 yards with the Carcano.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, as Shakespeare would say.

Robert, I think you're covering some ground that has already been covered before, and in possibly greater detail:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781

Mr. Knight

I see you have posted a link to a long-winded article by Thomas H. Purvis. Mr. Purvis is an interesting character. He seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist but, in all the vast voluminous articles I have read by him, I have never quite deciphered just where or what he believes the conspiracy to be. Perhaps, it is just a lack of comprehension skills on my part, although I do notice he manages to interject several times that the 6.5 mm Carcano M91/38 is an accurate rifle and that JFK was killed as a result of three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested.

Hello Robert:

I, for one, would be very interested in your revelations regarding Tom Purvis' misconceptions regarding "the Carcano" and I hope you will enlighten us further.

Gary Murr

quote from Thomas H. Purvis*

Posted 26 August 2005 - 12:01 AM

Mr. Simkin

I would say something witty about 1984 finally having arrived but, it somehow seems to have lost the humour value.

Robert, I think you're covering some ground that has already been covered before, and in possibly greater detail:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781

Mr. Knight

I see you have posted a link to a long-winded article by Thomas H. Purvis. Mr. Purvis is an interesting character. He seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist but, in all the vast voluminous articles I have read by him, I have never quite deciphered just where or what he believes the conspiracy to be. Perhaps, it is just a lack of comprehension skills on my part, although I do notice he manages to interject several times that the 6.5 mm Carcano M91/38 is an accurate rifle and that JFK was killed as a result of three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested.

I will be posting a thread in a day or two dealing strictly with the 6.5x52 mm Carcano cartridge itself, and how the cartridge may have made LHO's purported short rifle incapable of the fantastic shooting accredited to it on 22/11/63.

Mr. Hocking

Yes, it would be a great idea to do some serious examination and testing of C2766, plus the one unfired cartridge found in the chamber of C2766 on 22/11/63 (for reasons I will explain in another thread). The 6.5 mm M91/38, even with standard riflings, is the weak sister of the 7.35 mm M38, and cut off progressive twist rifling would have made it an even worse rifle. However, I do not think the authorities would allow us to examine C2766.

"From 6.5, bored out to 7.35, and then re-modified back to a 6.5? Yes, I would agree that would be rather odd."

I do not think most people appreciate just how odd this whole affair was. Prior to the M38 short rifle's introduction in 1938, there were no short rifles; only long rifles and carbines in 6.5 calibre. With the new 7.35 mm M38, they were finished with the 6.5 calibre and would drop it entirely once old stocks of 6.5 mm ammunition were used up, although there were huge inventories of 6.5 mm ammunition.

When the 7.35 mm rifle program was abandoned in 1940, the excuse given was they were unable to stockpile sufficient quantities of 7.35 mm ammunition. As any handloader will see immediately, this is highly suspect. As the 6.5 mm and the 7.35 mm share the same brass cartridge, what would be difficult in pulling the 6.5 mm bullet from a cartridge, resizing the cartridge neck in a die to 7.35 mm, and seating a bullet of 7.35 mm into the re-sized cartridge?

The alternative was to manufacture all new barrels for the 6.5 mm short rifle with standard twist riflings. As, in 1938, they had never intended to make the short rifle in 6.5 calibre, they would have had no 6.5 mm standard twist barrels to begin manufacturing 6.5 mm short rifles in 1940.

This is where I begin to smell something a bit fishy. New cartridges or re-sized cartridges are only about 100x easier to manufacture than new barrels. As stated, the two things they had, in great quantity, were worn out 6.5 mm M91 long rifles and 6.5x52 mm ammunition. I believe the rest is obvious.

For your last question, I can only repeat that there are no outward differences between the 6.5 mm M91/38 and the 7.35 mm M38. I believe the first communication they received from the Italian authorities identified C2766 as a 7.35 mm M38. Whether this was mere oversight on the part of Italian authorities, or C2766 was one of those unreported conversions from 7.35 mm to 6.5 mm and it was identified from its original serial number, is impossible to say. The WC investigators were not authorities on Italian milsurp weapons and were only repeating what they were told.

Thank you, sir.

Interesting information, Robert.

For comparison, below is an extract from the WC Report on the rifle found in the TSBD:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#description

Description of Rifle

The bolt-action, clip-fed rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, described more fully in appendix X, is inscribed with various markings, including "MADE ITALY," "CAL. 6.5," "1940" and the number C2766.126 (See Commission Exhibit Nos. 1303, 541(2) and 541 (3), pp. 82-83.) These markings have been explained as follows: "MADE ITALY" refers to its origin; "CAL. 6.5" refers to the rifle's caliber; "1940" refers to the year of manufacture; and the number C2766 is the serial number. This rifle is the only one of its type bearing that serial number.127 After review of standard reference works and the markings on the rifle, it was identified by the FBI as a 6.5-millimeter model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.128 Experts from the FBI made an independent determination of the caliber by inserting a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter cartridge into the weapon for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the weapon's barrel and measuring the cast with a micrometer.129 From outward appearance, the weapon would appear to be a 7.35-millimeter rifle, but its mechanism had been rebarreled with a 6.5-millimeter barrel.130 Constable Deputy Sheriff Weitzman, who only saw the rifle at a glance and did not handle it, thought the weapon looked like a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle.131 (See chapter V, p. 235.)

The rifle is 40.2 inches long and weighs 8 pounds.132 The minimum length broken down is 34.8 inches, the length of the wooden stock.133

---------------

The purple highlighted areas highlight a couple questions:

First, would the sulphur cast have revealed the barrel twist information?

I did not find any discussion of the barrel twist in the two sections that deal with the rifle.

And second, the report claims that a 7.35 mm rifle had been re-barreled with a 6.5 mm barrel. Does that make sense to you?

More in depth discussion of the rifle is found in Appendix 10, Link below.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#rifle

Mr. Hocking

Yes, the sulphur chamber cast would very likely have revealed whether the C2766 rifle was progressive twist or standard twist, as long as the person making the cast allowed the sulphur casting to go out an inch or two past the freebore into the riflings. I'm not sure if you are familiar with how chamber casting is done but I will explain it for the other readers.

Sulphur chamber casting is usually done to obtain a 3D model of the chamber of a rifle (where the loaded brass cartridge sits) and usually an inch or so of the breech end of the barrel. It can be done to identify an unknown rifle, such as in the JFK assassination, or to measure wear in the chamber and throat of the barrel. The barrel is first removed from the rifle, by unscrewing it, and clamped in a vise. The barrel interior and chamber are then lightly oiled and a paper towel plug inserted a couple of inches into the riflings from the chamber end. Molten sulphur is then gently poured into the chamber until it fills the cavity made by the plug. Once cooled, the sulphur plug may be gently tapped out of the chamber by means of a wooden dowel inserted from the muzzle of the barrel, and a perfect model of the interior of the chamber and barrel throat is thus obtained. As the cartridge for the 7.35 mm M38 short rifle and the cartridge for the 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle are identical, the investigators would have needed their cast to include a portion of the rifled barrel to determine the rifle's calibre, although the greater outer diameter of the 7.35's cartridge neck might have been helpful here.

I do not believe the investigators were particularly interested in whether or not C2766 had progressive twist rifling, or whether they were even aware that many Carcanos were made with this rifling. If one were simply checking out rifling, a simpler method would be to "slug" either end of the barrel. Slugging involves gently tapping in, with a brass or plastic drift and hammer, an unjacketed lead bullet slightly larger in diameter than the groove diameter of the barrel and, once inserted, removing it in the same manner as a sulphur cast. Comparing a slug from the muzzle to a slug from the throat would very quickly tell a person the type of rifling he had.

There is a great deal of confusion, often hotly debated, regarding the similarities and differences between the 7.35 mm M38 and the 6.5 mm M91/38. It must be remembered that, when the 7.35 mm M38 was introduced in 1938, it retained every single feature of the 6.5 mm M91 except for the barrel, sights and stock. The action, save for the turned down bolt, was essentially a 6.5 mm M91 action, and it is rumoured that the actions on a large number of 7.35 mm M38's were recycled actions from worn out M91's. It was their intention, and openly stated, to remove worn out 6.5 mm barrels from M91's, cut them short from 31" to 22", and re-bore them to 7.35 mm for installation into newly made 7.35 mm M38's. Along about 1940, this plan fell apart, ostensibly blamed on a lack of 7.35 mm ammunition, and a decision was made to keep the basic M38 short rifle design, but to manufacture the short rifle in 6.5 mm calibre; redesignating the short rifle as the M91/38. The M91/38 was only manufactured in 1940 and, in early 1941, it, too was scrapped and replaced with the new 6.5 mm M91/41 long rifle. Rather odd, wouldn't you say? That being said, NO records have ever been found of 7.35 mm M38's being re-barrelled with 6.5 mm barrels. The majority of the 7.35 mm M38's found their way into Finland where they were used in defense against Soviet armies.

This is not to say there were not some 7.35 mm M38's re-barrelled with 6.5 mm barrels; there just seems to be no record of it.There seems to be some amount of embarrassment on the part of the Italians about the war, and having to admit the entire 7.35 mm short rifle program had been abandoned, after only two years, due to a lack of 7.35 mm ammunition (or something else) may be more than they wished to do in 1963.

Outwardly, the only difference between the 7.35 mm M38 and the 6.5 mm M91/38 is the rear sight. The 7.35 mm M38 was fitted with a fixed, notched rear sight zeroed for 300 metres while the 6.5 mm M91/38 was fitted with the same rear sight, but zeroed for 200 metres. It seems the armourers were not as optimistic about the long range capabilities of the 6.5 mm as they were about those of the 7.35 mm. This is understandable, as the 7.35 mm bullet, though larger in diameter, was, at 130 grains, considerably lighter than the 6.5 mm at 162 grains. It achieved this reduction in weight from the aluminum tip concealed inside the pointed nose jacket of this bullet, intended to make the bullet topple on contact with a hard surface and cause great and grievous wounds. Also, the ballistic coefficients of the 7.35 mm, with its spire point, were much better than those of the roundnosed 6.5 mm, and it could be expected to perform better at greater ranges.

I wasn't sure if posting more instalments on this thread would be acceptable, so Part II of this is on another thread.

Okay, on with the 6.5 Carcano history.

We left off our history in 1938. The Italians had brought out an all new rifle with an all new cartridge. They were replacing their 6.5mm M91 long rifles with the 7.35mm M38 short rifle. This was a progressive move, as the short rifle was far easier to carry and manage than the long rifle and the new cartridge had ballistic properties giving it far more killing power than the 6.5mm cartridge. As we saw before, poor planning for war and resulting shortages of 7.35mm cartridges forced them to abandon the 7.35mm cartridge in 1940 and to fit their new short rifles with the old 6.5mm cartridge, re-designating the M38 as the M91/38. They had ample stores of 6.5mm cartridges although it was old ammunition by this time.

Now, here is something very interesting that happened in 1941. The 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle was only produced in 1940. Production records for all four Italian small arms factories show that no M91/38 short rifles were made after 1940, except for a handful made at the Turin factory in the early months of 1941. Coincidentally, Italy introduced a new long rifle in 1941, the M91/41, and this was the only rifle, aside from carbine versions of the M91/38, produced until the end of the war. The M91/41 was slightly shorter than the M91 long rifle with a 27" barrel as opposed to the M91's 31" barrel (the M91/38 short rifle had a 22" barrel).

This may all be a bit hard to follow but think of it this way: the new M38 short rifle in 7.35mm calibre was produced from 1938 to 1940. Production of the 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle (Oswald's alleged rifle) did not start until 1940, and ended at the end of 1940! What happened? Can anyone find another military rifle with such a short production history? What was so wrong with the 6.5mm M91/38 (the very rifle that Oswald supposedly assassinated JFK with) that it was replaced after only ONE YEAR of production???

I am going to try to answer these questions but I would like it understood that a lot of what I am going to say is assumption and, without access to vast stocks of M91/38 short rifles, impossible to prove. That being said, let us continue.

As I was able to show in my last post, the Italians seemed to have a knack for getting themselves into bad supply situations. It is interesting to see how they solved these problems. In WWI, they solved the M91 rifle shortage with a bizarre adaptation of obselete 10.35mm rifles to 6.5mm calibre. Carbines were made by simply cutting long rifles' barrels from 31" to 17" with complete disregard to what cutting off the tightest part of the progressive twist rifling would do to the carbines' accuracy. Even the all new 7.35mm M38 short rifle was to rely on hand-me-downs. Instead of making new 7.35mm barrels, the Italians planned to salvage worn out (make careful note of the words "worn out" for later reference) M91 long rifle barrels and cut them short to 22". This was not a bad plan as the shortened barrels would then be bored out to 7.35mm and re-rifled with a standard 1:10 twist, essentially making a new barrel.

As I have stated, lack of 7.35mm cartridges and a demanding war forced them to go back to the 6.5mm round for the short rifle. So, if the Italians had been unable to produce enough 7.35mm cartridges and were NEVER planning to make the short rifle in 6.5mm, where did they get all of the 6.5mm short rifle barrels to make the M91/38 in 1940?? I seriously doubt, with a barrel being far more complicated to make than a cartridge, that they were any better at stockpiling barrels than they were cartridges; especially a barrel they had never intended to make in the first place.

There was a readily available source of M91/38 short rifle barrels, though. These would have been the worn out M91 long rifle barrels they had planned to make short 7.35mm barrels from. It would have been a simple matter of cutting the barrels from 31" to 22". No re-rifling would have been done as the two rifles would be the same calibre and there would be nothing to work with. Once again, the progressive twist rifling (1:19 or one turn in 19" at the chamber and slowly tightening to 1:8 or one turn in 8" at the muzzle) of these M91 barrels would have lost the tightest part of rifling at the muzzle end and the short rifle's performance would have been severely compromised.

Italy was not alone in making compromises to their small arms production in WWII. Following the Battle of Dunkirk, where the majority of British weapons were abandoned on French shores during the subsequent evacuation of British troops, Britain faced a rather drastic shortage of their .303 Lee Enfield rifle, standard issue for the British Army. The Germans were knocking at the door and it was necessary to quickly produce vast quantities of rifles to fend off the imminent invasion. As stated, the barrel and its riflings are the most complex part of making a rifle and it was here the British made their compromises. A standard .303 Lee Enfield has five riflings in its barrel; left hand twist with a 1:10 pitch (one turn in ten inches). To speed up production, the five riflings were reduced to two. Accuracy suffered but it was felt that, as a man presented a 2' x 5.5' target, a bullet aimed at a man's stomach was likely to hit him somewhere on his body and, if not kill him outright, tie up many other men in retrieving the wonded soldier from the field and tending to his wounds. Lovely game, this war, eh?

I am by no means saying this would have been the case in 100% of M91/38 production. They may have begun the production of M91/38 short rifles with every intention of manufacturing new 6.5mm barrels. However, it must be remembered that this is a war Italy lost. Who can say what compromises they were forced to make in 1940? Try to imagine what it would have been like being the manager of a small arms factory in Italy in 1940 facing material shortages, machining equipment and associated parts shortages, unrealistic production demands from military procurement officers, aerial bombardment, loss of skilled workers from aerial bombardment, etc., etc., etc. It is not hard to understand the sloppy action and rough stock of the M91/38 when viewed in this context.

In my opinion, the final judgement on the M91/38 as a good or bad rifle lies with its one year production run and its replacement by the M91/41 in 1941. Who in their right mind would introduce an all new rifle (actually almost identical to the M91 long rifle) in the middle of a major war they just happen to be losing? The only reason I can see is that a large number (if not the majority) of M91/41 long rifles were cut down M91 long rifles and by cutting the M91 barrel to 27" (M91/41) instead of 22" (M91/38) they gained an extra 5" of progressive twist rifling. It is possible that, in this extra 5", the rifling tightened enough to give the 6.5mm bullet that much more spin that it would stabilise in flight and improve its performance. It is also possible that the M91/41 was never considered until their ability to make new 6.5mm short rifle barrels was eliminated and the resulting disaster in accuracy, from shortened M91 barrels, forced them to seek an alternative.

Records show that the M91/41 was to be manufactured with a 1:10 standard twist barrel. Once again, intentions and reality are seldom working together during a losing war and it is entirely possible many M91/41 long rifles were merely cut down versions of the M91 long rifles with progressive twist rifling.

As I stated earlier, these are only theories. The only way to prove them is to examine the barrels of great numbers of M91/38 and M91/41 rifles. The one I'd like to start with is Oswald's supposed rifle; a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 made sometime in 1940 at the Turin small arms factory.