Robert Prudhomme

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

Brian,

I would be guilty of committing the fallacy, Appeal to Authority, if I was arguing that: "The claim made by Person A is true because Person A is an authority (expert, famous, etc.) on the subject." That is not my argument. An argument stands or falls based on its own merits. However, it is not fallacious to suggest that, "All other things being equal, the arguments advanced by Person A carry more weight than the arguments advanced by Person B due to the greater level of expertise, experience and training possessed by Person A." That does not mean that Person A is infallible or necessarily correct. It means, assuming the arguments advanced by both men are equally logical, Person A's conclusion is more likely to be valid. So I do not dismiss Pat's claim because he has no experience. I dismiss it because my first hand experience contradicts his claim.

"Covert assassination tactics" is not the crux of what I was talking about. And, as you already should know, I do not think that any number of hours spent shooting a firearm qualifies the shooter as an "expert in assassination tactics," covert or otherwise. However, having worked on Diplomatic Protection Details, as a function of my former career, I might know just a little something about that subject.

But, as I said, that is not the point. We are talking about "scenario-specific" weapons of choice as well as the ammunition to which they are associated. When I say "scenario-specific," I am not referring to the "nature" of the act, such as, murder vs target practice. I am talking about actual physical characteristics: sniper position (distance and elevation) relative to target, velocity of target (speed and direction), physical characteristics of the designated kill zone, weather conditions, concealment, et cetera. The scenario-specifics of "the event in Dealey Plaza" dictate the acceptable "weapons of choice" and ammunition insomuch as they ruled out employing certain "inferior to the task" weapons in favor of employing those more likely to succeed.

There are "more than a few" members of this forum who have BOTH "been there and READ that" and "been there and DONE that" -- including me. I am, of course, referring to those members who have firearms training in both the classroom, as well as, practical experience on the range or in the field.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that knowledge acquired from experience alone is preferable to knowledge acquired from BOTH experience and education. Certainly you must agree that knowledge acquired from BOTH education AND experience is preferable to knowledge acquired only from education or only from experience?

In my opinion, Pat would be better equipped to address this specific issue (regarding the practicality of utilizing .22 subsonic ammo for the purpose suggested) after his having acquired more "practical" information.

To be clear: My objection to Pat's approach is his making rather definitive statements about a subject with which he has no practical experience. He need not accumulate years of experience to be better informed, but enough to test his hypothesis on "paper targets" instead of just on paper. A few hours (max) at a gun range with a qualified professional would give him a lot more data. Perhaps his mind would not be changed, but it would at least be better informed.

My apologies to Bob if I have wandered too far off topic.

No problem. I can barely remember what the original topic actually was.

I specifically used the term “covert assassination tactics,” because that’s really the crux of what we’re talking about. It was—most of us would agree at least—a covert assassination. Therefore, it’s not merely an argument about bullets or weapons, because the whole reason we’re debating the use of a silenced .22 in the first place is because there was a clandestine necessity. Now, if you wanted to kill JFK most efficiently, why not use the most powerful weapon possible? Why not just machine gun him down? Of course a .22 is an inferior weapon (so is a Mannlicher Carcano), but that’s the whole point— it’s a trade-off for surreptitious means.

Your argument was very much an argument for deferring to expertise and authority. I don’t think anyone on this forum is a ballistics expert. I also highly doubt that many here have both "been there and read that" and "been there and done that", as you suggest. But your willingness to defer to researchers with gun experience over the actual literature on the subject is very questionable, IMO.

Hi Brian

Please explain to me why you believe a "Mannlicher Carcano" (the proper name is simply Carcano) would be an inferior weapon.

No, Pat, the question is, why did Jerrol Custer tell the ARRB that the chest organs were removed prior to him taking x-rays of the chest?

I understood your point and basically agree. The only point I was making, and you recognized it, is that gaining expertise in a subject is not limited to actually having learned an ability to do something, such as playing a sax. Maybe a good example would be, there are plenty of 'experts' on space travel, most have not actually been in space. That is a knowledge that can be learn by education whereas playing a musical instrument is mostly all practice and talent. And as I said, if we have to have experienced it, few of us could discuss the assassination.

Your analogy is greatly lacking. That a NASA Flight Director can direct an astronaut as to the correct course of action from the ground without himself ever having been an astronaut is an ability for which he has been highly trained and he has become an expert in that field. However, that does not mean that the Flight Director should argue with actual crew members who have the experience to know the difference between that which is "real world practical" versus that which is merely possible in theory.

Pat Speer is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, an "expert" on firearms or ballistics.

You also said: "That is a knowledge that can be learn[ed] by education whereas playing a musical instrument is mostly all practice and talent."

Becoming a competent sniper is a combination of both with more emphasis on actual experience than on intellectual knowledge. However, if given the choice between employing the services of a "book learned only" sniper with no practical experience with a gun versus employing the services of a "hands-on weapon" sniper with tons of practical experience firing guns, but no "book knowledge" -- I would choose the latter without even thinking about it twice. Just like the saxophone, it's mostly talent and practice.

As to your last point, I do not think it would be wise for any of us to argue (debate) with a professional assassin. Not because he or she may murder us for disagreeing (after all, they are assassins), but because they know what they are talking about from actual hands-on experience. But we don't have actual professional assassins participating on the forum (to my knowledge). So too, I think it less than prudent for Pat to debate with actual firearms experts that do participate on this forum as he is speaking from a position of ignorance to those in a position of knowledge.

Don't interpret this to mean that I think Pat should do more relevant homework...unless, of course, he cares about his credibility.

Or. to paraphrase, "Aint nothin' like bein' there!"

What Mr. Tidd is relating to are the immutable laws of physics, and the fact that the acceleration of gravity is 32 feet per second, per second.

Of course, you have to understand, he never studied Law.

Thanks for posting that, Tom.

Arlen Specter must have been very persuasive in his dealings with witnesses. Either that, or Dr. Jenkins was taken aside, prior to giving testimony, and "persuaded" to understand that his professional diagnosis of JFK was mistaken.

The complete irony here is that Dr. Jenkins does not refer to the possibility of a pneumothorax, he refers to it as "his pneumothorax". Specter has managed to convince Jenkins the bullet did not enter the lung, but Jenkins is in no way giving up his diagnosis of a pneumothorax.

Jenkins and the other doctors must have been very confused as to how a bullet that barely pierced the skin of JFK's back could have caused a pneumothorax in JFK's right lung. Even after the entrance wound was moved up to the level of C7/T1 and the bullet picked up enough speed to make it through JFK's neck, and through Connally, he must have wondered how a bullet that never struck any bone in JFK could have induced a pneumothorax in his right lung.

Thanks, Mark. When you add to this Jerrol Custer's testimony to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs were removed prior to him taking chest x-rays of JFK's chest (what would be the point after the lungs were removed?) the only conclusion I can draw is that the right lung was badly damaged, the back wound was anything but shallow and we most definitely have been fed a great whopper (in a series of whoppers) about the back wound.

bump

If you read this entire thread, Kenneth, as I suggested, you will see that .22 calibre rifles were never mentioned until Pat Speer deliberately set out to derail this thread, as is his agenda on this forum.

If you would like to discuss .22 rifles, why don't you and Pat go start another thread.

Kenneth

Do you actually read any of these threads before you make a comment?

Although I'm skeptical of all the so-called medical evidence, I accept JFK was shot in the back because of his suit jacket and shirt.

I do not believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back unless such a shot was made to establish without doubt shooting came from behind. I consider that a non-negligible possibility.

I believe there was a careful plan to kill JFK and to create confusion as to his wounds, with the help of certain high-ranking military officers and other government officials.

I don't make much of the back wound. It cinches firing from behind but is otherwise insignificant, IMO; even a distraction.

Martin Schotz, M.D. (sp?) has the best take on the back wound, IMO. His take is consistent with the idea the wound was created merely to establish there was firing from behind.

OTOH, Jon, if it can be proven that the so-called "short shot" was an impossibility, thus also making the "shallow" back wound impossible, the significance of the back wound then takes on a whole new dimension; for the simple fact that a FMJ travelling at normal rifle velocities (2000+ fps) should not have barely penetrated the skin of JFK's back. Under normal conditions, that FMJ bullet travelling at 2000+ fps (1363 mph) should have gone straight through JFK's chest and out the front.

Since it did not exit the front of his chest, we do indeed have a mystery on our hands. As I am a little old to believe in magic, I find it necessary to deduce what kind of bullet can enter the chest at 2000+ fps and not exit. While there are several types of bullets that MIGHT do this, there are only a couple that actually COULD do this; the mercury tipped bullet and the hollow point frangible bullet. I seriously doubt either would have been available to Oswald. If it were proven such bullets were used on the back shot AND the head shot, Oswald would be ruled out as a suspect. Well, at least as a lone suspect, anyways. I have never completely abandoned the possibility of Oswald having some minor role in the assassination.

P.S.

There is a great deal of evidence of frangible bullets being used in the assassination, as well as JFK having a serious injury to the top of his right lung. Would you care to see it?

If,,if,,,,if...... Lot of if's there. OTOH, Jon, if it can be proven that the so-called "short shot" was an impossibility, thus also making the "shallow" back wound impossible, Robert, would it matter if the shot can be proven to be 'impossible' but it happened anyhow? It certainly is possible that there was a shallow back wound so even though it might have been 'impossible' it still seems to have happened. If it did, then the 'semantics' of proving it couldn't have happened is a little useless.

Kenneth

What evidence is there that the shallow back wound actually was a reality? What makes you certain that "it still seems to have happened"?

I'm all ears.

I cannot believe how Pat Speer, as usual, has managed to direct discussion completely away from the actual topic of the thread. Do none of you see a pattern here, and think it remotely possible this man is doing this on purpose?

I don't give a rat's back end about a @#$%^&* .22 calibre rifle, simply because I don't think anyone in his right mind would try to assassinate the President at any kind of range with such an underpowered cartridge.

Now, that being said, the topic is the impossibly shallow back wound, and the equally impossible "short shot" that supposedly caused it.

The .22 round--assuming we're talking about .22 rimfire and not .22 Hornet or another such bottlenecked cartridges--would, IMHO, be highly susceptible to wind drift at much over 50 yards...based upon personal experience. Trying to attain repeatable accuracy with a subsonic .22 at distances over 50 yards is akin to buying a lottery ticket: somebody might eventually have a winner, but MOST WILL NOT.

I'm a little surprised at all the discussion about the accuracy/inaccuracy of a 22 rifle. Why is there a discussion? The facts are known. I'm not going to quote any because it's been very documented by very many people. But, it IS possible to repeatedly hit a target with a 22 at 50 yards. Anyone that does not think so has not fired one very much.

BUT...... what difference does it make? If someone fires a 22 at a person in an automobile and hits that person, then it's kinda useless to talk about whether a 22 is accurate or not, isn't it? It might have changed the odds of hitting the person, but obviously not enough that it couldn't be done.

But then, no bullet was recovered from JFK back so we don't know if it was a 22 or a 50 cal. so from that context, why not talk about the accuracy of a 50 cal?

Not only is a .22 nowhere near as accurate as a high powered rifle, the point I was trying to make about shooting something at 50 yards with a .22 is whether or not it is going to fall down dead or go scampering off into the woods with a .22 slug lodged in his body somewhere.

Walks like an LN, talks like an LN.........

From Pat Speer

"As far as your next line, you're joking, right? No one has ever said or even suggested that a slienced assassination rifle is an ideal weapon for a common soldier. It is a special weapon made for special jobs, for use by only the most skilled marksman. We have no idea how well they performed in the field, by the way, because that kind of info is classified. Still."

You are purposely confusing two issues here in an attempt to confuse people.

My question had nothing to do with soldiers carrying silenced assassination weapons. I was attempting to point out the complete inadequacy of a .22 round for 1) accuracy at any range beyond 25 yards and the .22's complete lack of stopping power when it comes to shooting deer or people.

This is why soldiers carry weapons such as the M-16, which fires a 5.56mm cartridge, instead of a .22 rifle.

5.56mm cartridge for M-16 (.22 calibre)

Left to right: .22 Short Hollow Point, .22 Long Rifle, .22 Magnum Hollow Point, .22 Hornet

After following this thread quite a ways, I'd really like to hear both Pat and Robert's thoughts on some basic questions:

1. Was there a shallow, non penetrating wound in the back or not?

2. What is the most probable reason for such a wound if it existed?

3. Why would someone use a weapon and ammo not corresponding to Oswald's if Oswald was to be set up as a lone nut patsy?

-- thanks in advance, Larry

Thank you, Larry. You can always be counted on to ask carefully considered questions that go right to the heart of the matter.

1. No, I don't believe there was a shallow non-penetrating wound in JFK's back. If you re-read my account a few posts back about my experience with the .303 Enfield with the worn barrel, you will see what happens when one aims a rifle sighted in for a specific distance (in my case 100 yards) and the bullet does not leave the barrel with a velocity equal to what is normally expected for that rifle and cartridge. The bullet just doesn't fall slightly short of its target, it falls WAY short of its target. Yet, once the sights were adjusted for the lower velocity, this .303 still had plenty of hitting power at 100 yards to bring down a deer, in contrast to the "short" shot that supposedly only penerated JFK's back an inch.

My argument, then, is that, if the shooter did indeed get a "bad" round that reduced the velocity of the bullet to the point it could barely penetrate flesh, it would have dropped so severely that, instead of missing JFK by just a few inches, it would have impacted the back end of the limo, if it managed to hit the limo at all. And, the shooter would not have expected this. Nor would he be able to understand what had happened to this shot, and simply have corrected his aim by shooting higher. As I said about shooting the .303 at the range, I needed a small spotting scope just to see whether or not I had hit the target. How would a shooter know he had hit JFK in the back instead of the head?

2. My answer to Question 1 negates this question.

3. A very good question. There is always the argument that it was intended to be seen as a conspiracy, in order to justify invading Cuba, but as time goes by I am less and less convinced of this.

The frangible bullets I spoke of could be made to match the full metal jacket bullets for a 6.5mm Carcano, and any pieces of bullet jacket or bullet lead found in the limo or the victims could be attributed to one of these bullets. While the M91/38 short rifle (C2766) would not be my first choice for this job, the 6.5 Carcano M91/41 long rifle (pictured below) was a supremely accurate rifle and fired the same ammunition as C2766.

The rifle seen above, with the double set triggers, was built for military target shooting, and was used by Italian shooting teams in national and international competitions right up into the 1960's.

The M91/38 and the M91/41 share one very important feature. Of all the models of Carcanos, they are the only two that have standard rifling grooves cut to a ratio of 1:8.47. This means that if an investigator were to find part of a bullet jacket and he was able to determine the rate of twist of the rifling impressions left on the bullet jacket, he would have no way of knowing if the bullet had been fired from an M91/38 or an M91/41 without performing further forensic analysis. Considering the style of evidence gathering the FBI was known for, it would be very easy for them to attribute all bullet evidence to Oswald's rifle, just as they already have done.

Just because some horse's patoot in the OSS office thought .22 rifles were effective at killing people at 100 yards, does not make it true.

Wouldn't it be much simpler for soldiers going into combat to use .22 rifles? Just think, each soldier could carry a couple of thousand rounds on his person.

P.S.

That rifle shoots .22 Long Rifle ammo, not .22 subsonic or .22 Short.

Holy smokes, Bob. Focus. I've said from the beginning that the CIA assassination manual suggested the use of long rifle ammunition, hand-loaded to be subsonic.

As far as your next line, you're joking, right? No one has ever said or even suggested that a slienced assassination rifle is an ideal weapon for a common soldier. It is a special weapon made for special jobs, for use by only the most skilled marksman. We have no idea how well they performed in the field, by the way, because that kind of info is classified. Still.

I kind of stumbled into this whole area, by the way, by accident. I was reading Mortal Error, when I noticed that within its pictures was an exhibits list handed out by the HSCA. Well, among this exhibits list was a gelatin block showing the trajectory of an M-16 bullet (essentially a souped-up .22) fired at 800 fps, the approximate velocity of a subsonic bullet upon striking Kennedy. Now, this set off alarm bells. Why was Sturdivan talking about a subsonic M-16 round? I then realized that the caption to this exhibit in Sturdivan's published testimony said this was a bullet fired at 800 mps, not fps, and that Sturdivan's testimony reflected that, yessirree, the bullet was fired at 800 mps. Well, that solves it, right? Only not so fast. I compared this gelatin block to other M-16 gelatin blocks and realized that it was in fact the block of a bullet fired at 800 fps, as shown on the original exhibits list. I then contacted Sturdivan, and he told me that I was right and that it was in fact the gelatin block for a subsonic round, quite possibly around 800 fps. I then asked him who would change his testimony and the title of his exhibit, and he said it would have to have been I. Charles Matthews, an assistant counsel to Blakey.

A few years later, however, I realized that I'd ignored the possibility Sturdivan had mis-stated the velocity as mps in his actual testimony, and that someone had changed the name of the exhibit to match his testimony, and ignored the original exhibits list and the script which they all were supposed to follow. And so I gave in and purchased a tape of Sturdivan's testimony, and found that he did briefly state that the gelatin block reflected an M-16 round traveling at 800 mps, but that he then corrected himself and said it reflected the velocity 800 meters downrange. Well, this was strange, first, because his correction never made it to the published transcript, and second, because he described the bullet in terms of how far it was downrange, and not how fast it was traveling. By then, I'd read dozens of articles by Sturdivan and others in which bullet velocity was discussed, and no one discussed the velocity of a bullet in such terms. I then wrote Sturdivan and asked him if he remembered using those terms, and if he'd been asked to use those terms to disguise that his exhibit reflected an M-16 bullet fired at a subsonic velocity, and/or to conceal that the wound ballistics experts hired by the WC and HSCA had conducted tests regarding the lethality of subsonic ammunition. I got no response, that I recall, but I came away with the ongoing suspicion tests were performed to see if JFK's and Connally's non-lethal wounds could have been caused by subsonic ammunition, and that this all got covered up when the answer came up "Yep."

This might all be true but, I still consider using a subsonic .22 comparable to bringing a pen knife to a gun fight.

It is interesting to note that, at about 4:22 of this interview, Dr. Jenkins describes the insertion of a chest drainage tube into JFK's left chest. The reason he gives for this is, according to Dr. Jenkins, the fact that one doctor had listened to that side of the chest, while Dr. Jenkins was performing artificial respiration with a bag valve mask, and had heard no breath sounds.

As this oration by Dr. Jenkins is obviously many years after the assassination, he can be forgiven a certain degree of confusion but, the fact remains that in his medical report (Appendix VIII of the WCR) Dr. Jenkins clearly states the chest tube was inserted in the RIGHT chest.

"Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation."

Note also he states there was "obvious chest damage".

From the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

"About this time Drs. Kemp Clark and Paul Peters came in, and Dr. Peters because of the appearance of the right chest, the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax, put in a closed chest drainage chest tube. Because I felt no peripheral pulse and was not aware of any pulse, I reported this to Dr. Clark and he started closed chest cardiac massage."

A pneumothorax is usually an indication of serious damage to a lung, and results in the collapse of that lung. This is why the doctors were unable to hear breath sounds, and elected to insert a drainage tube in the right chest.

While it is likely that JFK was also suffering a haemothorax of the right lung (accumulation of blood and fluid), the most serious condition of the lungs was the pneumothorax. As JFK was lying on his back, the back entrance wound, unknown to the Parkland doctors, was likely sealed by the back being in contact with the table. As the lung was compromised (ruptured) each breath, assisted or otherwise, would be pulled through the rupture in the lung, and the lung would not inflate. Instead, the air would pass into the pleural cavity between the lung and the chest wall and be trapped there, as the lung would flatten out on expiration and not allow the air to be expelled. With each breath, the amount of air in this cavity, with the back wound sealed off, would increase, until the pressure began exerting itself on the heart, major blood vessels and the left lung.

This condition is known as a "tension" pneumothorax and, unless the pressure in the pleural cavity is relieved with a chest tube, this condition is invariably fatal as the function of the other organs of the chest is so badly impaired. The chest tube is connected to a water seal chamber that prevents air returning through the tube to the pleural cavity during inspiration. In the field, first responders use the Asherman Chest Seal to seal off punctures of the chest. It seals off the wound, preventing air from entering the pleural cavity during inspiration (open pneumothorax) but has a one way valve that allows any pressure built up in the pleural cavity (tension pneumothorax) to escape.

Another classic sign of a tension pneumothorax is deviation of the trachea (windpipe) away from the affected lung. Several doctors noted this on JFK when he arrived at Trauma Room One, and I believe this to be one of the "obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax" Dr. Jenkins was referring to.

Of course, everyone realizes that the type of damage to the right lung indicated here was contrary to the findings at the autopsy.

I wish I could take all of the members on this forum to a range, and then go on a deer hunting trip together, using the different weapons we have discussed. It is so much easier to let people try things for themselves than it is to explain it to them.

Once again, it's apples to oranges. Of course, a 30-06 is superior at killing deer, and people. So is a tank. We're talking about an assassination weapon here, fired at close range, where the shooter intends to get away. In such case, the relative SILENCE of the weapon is imperative. The OSS/CIA recommended one use a .22 caliber rifle with a silencer, firing a subsonic round. They even had some of these specially made. Here's one right here, in an image taken from OSS Special Weapons and Equipment. Note that the caption to this book says it's effective out to 100 yards, which supports the identical claim made in the yet-to-be released CIA Manual on Asssassination.

Pat, I agree. I think it's more than likely that if a silencer was utilized it was done so to allow a sniper closer to the target to get away. I even suggested a long time ago that a OSS weapon that was confirmed to be "in inventory" and tested in combat had been used - a Delisle Carbine. I based that speculation on some witnesses' strange descriptions of possible weapons seen in the plaza and the weapon's operational characteristics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine

The problem with the weapon you cite above is it's length - at 44" long you probably want to be 100 yards out.

The DeLisle carbine had a short barrel and fired a .45 calibre ACP pistol round, and was said to be effective out to 200 yards. Once again, the large .45 cal. bullet gives you more hitting power, but we are expected people are going to make 100-200 yard shots with pistol ammunition.

Just because some horse's patoot in the OSS office thought .22 rifles were effective at killing people at 100 yards, does not make it true.

Wouldn't it be much simpler for soldiers going into combat to use .22 rifles? Just think, each soldier could carry a couple of thousand rounds on his person.

P.S.

That rifle shoots .22 Long Rifle ammo, not .22 subsonic or .22 Short.

Pat

You are embarrassing yourself. Please stop.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

"The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused
by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments
completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I
left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]
Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that
would almost completely fragmentize (sic)."

Now, did they start looking for a bullet that would fragmentize completely only because they could not find a bullet in the back wound, or did they look for a disintegrating bullet because they found particles of metal in the top of the right lung?

Think of it, why would they even think of discussing such a completely broken up bullet, unless they had evidence to support its existence?

Kind of putting the cart before the horse, n'est-ce pas?

P.S.

"Fragmentize" is not synonymous with "disappear". The particles of metal would still be there somewhere, just like the hundreds of dust like particles seen in the x-rays of JFK's skull.

As I stated earlier, the most likely candidate for this would be a hollow point frangible bullet; made from compressed or glued metal powder and designed to disintegrate back to powder when travelling through soft, semi-liquid tissue (ie. lung, brain or other organs). The same bullet(s) were likely used for the head shot. It is interesting to note that the fellow who discovered the Harper fragment described, in an interview, how he observed the inside of the Harper fragment to be covered in a metal "powder". In all my experience hunting, I have never seen a bullet, even a hollow point, turn to powder. Lead is malleable, not brittle.

Thanks for that Bob, I went back and read you're earlier post. Is a load like the one you're suggesting something that was an option back in 1963? Also one of my concerns is, from a snipers perspective, if I was using something really exotic on a target that I thought might get a ton of scrutiny, might that be a security issue (for the nature of the action and the sniper)?

Frangible bullets, at least the lethal design, were not available on the commercial market in 1963, although designers had been working on a lethal frangible bullet in those days.

Non-lethal frangible range bullets, intended for 300 metre indoor ranges, had been available since the early 1930's. In fact, the 6.5mm Carcano M37 bullet was designed specifically for indoor shooting. It had an unusual two piece bullet jacket with a small amount of sand in the base, powdered lead ahead of that and a small lead or "maillechort" pellet in the nose. As the weight of this bullet was less than that of the standard 162 grain FMJ bullet, the amount of gunpowder was also reduced, until the bullet velocity matched that of a regular bullet.

These bullets were designed to disintegrate to bits of copper jacket and a cloud of sand and lead powder, should the bullet strike a hard metal, stone or concrete surface, although I have never been able to find out what became of the small pellet in the nose. Perhaps one of these pellets made a small wound through the wrist of a certain Texas governor?

As there were no ricochets (none that we know of) this was considered a safe bullet, and the backdrops to the targets in Italian indoor ranges were simple concrete.

A modern lethal frangible bullet is constructed in a similar fashion, with the lead or other metal powder being compressed, glued or "sintered" together inside the copper jacket. There is one major difference, though. The lethal version also has a hollow point nose that, at high velocity in a wound, allows liquid matter to fill this cavity and exert enormous hydraulic pressure on the compressed core. This has the effect of causing the frangible bullet to completely disintegrate to powder and pieces of copper jacket 2-3 inches into a wound, stopping the bullet in its tracks in the wound and wreaking utter havoc to surrounding tissue; far more than is capable with a soft point or hollow point bullet.

If a small hollow point were drilled into the pellet in the nose of the M37 frangible bullet, I believe it would behave similarly in a wound.

P.S.

The leftovers from a frangible Carcano bullet would not appear much different from a Carcano FMJ bullet that had broken up, outside of the hundreds of dust like particles seen in JFK's skull x-ray.