Rifle tests at former Carcano factory

[Thomas H. Purvis]

From patspeer.com, chapter 3, on the investigation performed by the Warren Commission

On 6-2-64 General Counsel Rankin writes a letter to Lt. Col. Allison G. Folsom, a Marine Corps officer in charge of personnel, requesting an appraisal of Oswald’s shooting ability, based upon Oswald’s test scores while in the Marines. On 6-8-64, he receives an unexpected response. Folsom writes “In view of the lapse of time since Mr. Oswald was separated from the Marine Corps, it would be impossible to ascertain precisely the number of hours in which he participated in weapons marksmanship practice or how many rounds of ammunition he fired.” He then gives a breakdown of the training received by Oswald and his subsequent tests scores. These show that Oswald was tested on the M-1 rifle on December 21, 1956 and received a score of 212, or sharpshooter ranking. This was the test discussed in Folsom’s 5-1-64 testimony. The record shows that Oswald was tested on the M-1 rifle a second time on May 6, 1959, however, and received a score of 191, only 1 point above the bottom of the Marksman ranking. These were the scores reported by the New York Times on 11-23-63. The big surprise for Rankin comes in Folsom’s summary. He tells Rankin “The Marine Corps considers that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot.” Folsom was thus telling Rankin that Oswald was a poor shot when he left the Marines and would have been an even worse shot after 4 years without practice.

The Tests That Should Have Been

After the letter from Folsom, Rankin should have had great doubt that Oswald was capable of hitting the shots described by the FBI. The FBI, after all, claimed Oswald fired three times at a moving target and created two hits and one near miss (the bullet striking Connally) in a time span of roughly 5.6 seconds. In an ideal world, this would have led Rankin to push for more rifle tests, with civilians firing rifles similar to Oswald’s at moving targets in a mock Dealey Plaza. If he had, his results would probably have been similar to the results obtained by CBS news in 1967. While the CBS shooters were all well-practiced rifleman, their over-all skill level was roughly that of Oswald, at his best. Of course, Oswald hadn’t been at his best since his first years in the Marines, a half a dozen years before the assassination. The CBS shooters were also given a few test shots. This would normally have worked to their advantage. But let the test results speak for themselves…

1. Col. Jim Crossman, ret. (expert rifleman). First attempt--3 near misses in 6.54 seconds. Best attempt (of 6) ---2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.20 seconds. 2 hits or more in 3 of 6 attempts. (6.34, 6.44, and 6.2 seconds)

2. Douglas Bazemore (ex-paratrooper). First attempt—unable to operate bolt effectively to fire the shots. Best attempt (of 4)—unable to operate stiff bolt action; gives up. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts.

3. John Bollendorf (ballistics technician). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.8 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1 of 4 attempts. (6.8 seconds)

4. John Concini (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—no record of where hits went.in 6.3 seconds. Best attempt (of 2)—1 hit and 2 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 2 attempts.

5. Howard Donahue (weapons engineer). First attempt—too fast with bolt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—3 hits in 5.2 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (5.2 seconds)

6. Somersett Fitchett (sportsman). First attempt—gun jammed at 3rd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 2 of 3 attempts. (5.9 and 5.5 seconds)

7. William Fitchett (sporting goods dealer). First attempt—3 borderline hits in 6.5 seconds. Best attempt (of 3)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1of 3 attempts. (6.5 seconds)

8. Ron George (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—gun jammed at 2nd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 4.9 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (4.9 seconds)

9. Charles Hamby (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—2 near misses and 1 complete miss in 6.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts.

10. Carl Holden (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed with first shot. Best attempt (of 3)—3 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts.

11. Sid Price (shooting range employee). First attempt—1 hit, 1 near miss, and 1 complete miss in 5.9 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts.

12. Al Sherman (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.0 seconds. Best attempt (of 5)—the same. 2 hits or more in 2 of 5 attempts. (5.0 and 6.0 seconds)

Of the 12 first attempts, only 1 shooter was able to make two hits in less than 5.6 seconds. Of the 43 total attempts, moreover, these well-seasoned shooters were able to replicate Oswald’s purported feat—2 hits in less than 5.6 seconds—just 4 times. If the Warren Commission had conducted similar tests, they would almost certainly have concluded that Oswald needed more than 5.6 seconds to fire the shots, and that either the first shot or last shot missed. But this was not to be.

Too bad that they did not allow the shooters approximtely 7.9 to 8.0 seconds (the true approximate firing time) in which the determine the difficulty rating of this feat.

Me thinks it would make a considerable difference in the facts and factual opinions of many.

Personally, I have always despised those "rigged" tests!

P.S. That the crosshair alignment of the scope was "misaligned" for a right-eye dominant shooter, does not mean that this was the case for a left-eye dominant shooter.

In fact! As "baby bear" reportedly stated: "this porridge is just right"

By now, I would have thought that some "shooter" would have so informed the general public.

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

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

It merely means that one does not understand the evidence.

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

[Pat Speer]

Charles D. et al

The rifle did contain a magazine in which there remained one unfired round. The person who placed this rifle in the sniper's lair, did not even begin his task with a fully loaded magazine. To any of you who have hunted a "dangerous or very important prey", has there ever been an ocassion in which you purposely entered the fray "without a fully loaded weapon?"

Whatever the reason for THIS weapon to have been found in the "snipers lair", this fact alone should indicate to experienced shooters, that it was not used by a seasoned hunter or shooter.....during the "most mportant hunt" in which they would ever participate !

Even if one were to completely disregard the Carcano factory testing....HOW could any rational person believe, without having a pre conceived mind "SET", that a person of even minimal intelligence would have chosen this rifle for ANY shooting purpose......much less the assassination of the most powerful man on earth? EXCEPT TO FINGER LHO !

Is this the type of "research" that some of you suppose will break this case? Is this worthy of even more "CONJECTURE?"

There is and has never been one scintilla of evidence, that places Oswald in the firing position at 12:30 CST.

I suppose that some of you are "EXPERTS".... in exercise of futiity.

You can not leave the 43 year old proven fantasies alone.....what is worse yet IMO...you are absolutely unwilling to address new theories.

I suppose that many have decided that if you cannot solve this with the old "evidence"....you are

adamantly opposed to any other solution.

What is the Name of this forum?

OF COURSE I am complaining !

Charles Black

Charlie, you have every right to be bored by ballistics and the minutiae of the case, but, whether you realize it or not, there is a an intellectual war going on. Bugliosi has laid claim to the evidence, and claims it is all on the LN side. He has the major media standing behind him. Historians are generally gutless, and will no doubt come to agree, UNLESS we can acquaint ourselves with the evidence and demonstrate that a significant number of Bugliosi's conclusions are incorrect. I think we can do that. I think we should do that. Oswald's ability to fire the shots is but one avenue that deserves a thorough discussion.

[Charles Black]

Hello Pat

I can concur with much of what you say. However, what is behind some of my diatribes is that we who "know" there was a conspiracy, are constantly allowing ourselves to be placed on the "defensive".

I well realize with both the govt. and the media, which both truly represent only the "wealth" of this country, going to great lengths to support the Bug's BS, that our 80% who are the conspiracy "knowers", are continuing to be "monied" into virtual obscurity.

I don't have an answer ! However we will not win a "defensive" battle, as our resources will eventually be overwhelmed......Time has always been "their" greatest ally. Unless something can be done offensively and positively that WILL produce action in the eyes of the general public, Bugliosi will have bought them even more time. Time and fading memories is what is overwhelming us.

Their arguments "cannot" be supported by even "common sense".....much less fact !

I feel that taking the offensive is much different than merely fighting off attacks. With no OFFENSE, the most that one can hope is for a stalemate...and that would only be temporary !

It will take leadership which, other than for Oliver Stone's initiative 15 years ago, I have seen absolutely none, other than Garrisons valiant attempt.

We are a large Army with no Generals. Armies cannot effectively operate by following democratic guidelines and having majority approval of all factors before action is taken. There has been nothing but talk backing our 4 to 1 majority in numbers.

"Talk Ain't Gonna Win It" !

But neither am I delivering anything other than "more words" !

Charles Black

[Charles Black]

sorry another double

Edited July 3, 2007 by Charles Black