Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Why they are known as “Jarheads”! Yes... let's examine what Brokedad *labels* as "fact"... >1. The Model 91/38 6.5mm Carcano which was recovered from the sixth floor >of the TSDB was bench-tested and found to be as accurate a weapon as the >US Military issue rifle, the M-14. Which, of course, means nothing. I have a dart set that I use to put tighter groups on target than the Carcano. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing. Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it? Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, what you are telling us is that your actual marksmanship in the USMC was so poor that in lieu of allowing you to fire a weapon, that they issued you darts, at which {according to you), you are an excellent shot with. The simple facts are that most of those “qualified” members of the USMC with whom I am familiar, have often made an even a better joke than your “dart game” comment. These persons, whom I know to have shooting abilities, frequently state that they would have been severely chastised in the USMC for having wasted ammunition at a target which ranged only between 62 yards to a maximum of 98 yards. For anything of less than a 100 yard range, they were expected to “Chunk Rocks” and thus conserve ammo for those longer range targets which posed some challenge to their shooting abilities. Now! You are telling me that in event that there were no rocks available, that you (& the others I would assume) were in fact expected to throw darts at such short range targets. Question!: Exactly what constituted a “basic load” of darts? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 Why they are known as “Jarheads”!Yes... let's examine what Brokedad *labels* as "fact"... >1. The Model 91/38 6.5mm Carcano which was recovered from the sixth floor >of the TSDB was bench-tested and found to be as accurate a weapon as the >US Military issue rifle, the M-14. Which, of course, means nothing. I have a dart set that I use to put tighter groups on target than the Carcano. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing. Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it? Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, what you are telling us is that your actual marksmanship in the USMC was so poor that in lieu of allowing you to fire a weapon, that they issued you darts, at which {according to you), you are an excellent shot with. The simple facts are that most of those “qualified” members of the USMC with whom I am familiar, have often made an even a better joke than your “dart game” comment. These persons, whom I know to have shooting abilities, frequently state that they would have been severely chastised in the USMC for having wasted ammunition at a target which ranged only between 62 yards to a maximum of 98 yards. For anything of less than a 100 yard range, they were expected to “Chunk Rocks” and thus conserve ammo for those longer range targets which posed some challenge to their shooting abilities. Now! You are telling me that in event that there were no rocks available, that you (& the others I would assume) were in fact expected to throw darts at such short range targets. Question!: Exactly what constituted a “basic load” of darts? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==================================================================== >2. The 6.5 mm ammunition which was fired was manufactured by a US firm, as >well as being manufactured to a US Miltary Ordnance Specification, which >meant that it was as accurate and/or as reliable as any ammunition >produced for US issue weapons. This is a silly argument. "manufactured by a US firm", therefore as good as any ammo made by US firms... The *truth*, of course, is that this ammo was already old, and as any shooter knows, ammo is not like a fine wine. It does *NOT* improve with age. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm Mr. EISENBERG - Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 with the type of ammunition you have been looking at to determine the muzzle velocity of that type of ammunition in this weapon? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two different lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003. Mr. FRAZIER - The first shot, Lot 6,000, the velocity was 2199.7 feet per second. Shot No. 2, Lot 6,000, velocity 2,180.3 feet per second. The third shot, velocity--same lot--velocity 2,178.9 feet per second. The third shot, velocity--and this is Lot No. 6,003--velocity was 2,184.8 feet per second. The fourth shot, Lot No. 6,003, was 2,137.6 feet per second. Fifth shot, Lot No. 6,000, 2,162.7 feet per second. The sixth shot, Lot 6,003, 2,134.8 feet per second. An average of all shots of 2,165 feet per second. Mr. EISENBERG - How would you characterize the differences between the muzzle velocities of the various rounds in terms of whether that difference was a large or small difference? Mr. FRAZIER - This is a difference well within the manufacturer's accepted standards of velocity variations. They permit in their standard ammunition manual, which is a guide to the entire industry in the United States, a 40-foot-per-second, plus or minus, variation shot to shot in the same ammunition. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets fired in the various tests made with this rifle? Mr. FRAZIER - Approximately 60 rounds. Mr. EISENBERG - And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you have any misfires? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you find the ammunition dependable? Mr. FRAZIER - Very dependable. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you think of any reason why someone might think this is an undependable type of ammunition? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; The Western Cartridge Co. has always manufactured, in my experience, very dependable ammunition. There is other ammunition on the market available for this particular rifle in this caliber, which in my opinion is undependable or would be a very poor quality of ammunition. It may have been a confusion* between that other ammunition of the same caliber and this Western ammunition. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Note: On the other hand, it may have been mere ignorance of the facts! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. EISENBERG - Is the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano with which we are dealing an accurate type of ammunition as opposed to other types of military ammunition--as compared, I should say, with other types of military ammunition? Mr. FRAZIER - I would say it is also accurate. As other types of ammunition the 6.5 millimeter cartridge or bullet is a very accurate bullet, and ammunition of this type as manufactured in the United States would give fairly reasonable accuracy. Other military cartridges may or may not give accurate results. But the cartridge inherently is an accurate cartridge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. EISENBERG. How long altogether have you spent in this area? Mr. SIMMONS. In the area of rifles? Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. SIMMONS. Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been continuously concerned with this since 1957. Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give a rough estimate of how many weapons you have evaluated as to accuracy? Mr. SIMMONS. No. We have been concerned with almost all of the weapons which the Army has tested, either in preliminary stages or as developmental weapons. Mr. EISENBERG. But your specialty is the evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since 1953 as to-- Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct. Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately how many bullets did you fire in the course of your tests? Mr. SIMMONS. We fired 47 bullets. Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires? Mr. SIMMONS. None. Mr. EISENBERG. You tested this with what type of ammunition, Mr. Simmons? Mr. SIMMONS. The ammunition was labeled Type Ball, and it was made by the Western Cartridge Co., Division of Olin Industries. Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a 6.5 mm.? Mr. SIMMONS. 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we also measured muzzle velocities for approximately 10 rounds of the ammunition. We gather from these measurements that the nominal velocity, the nominal muzzle velocity is of the order of 2,200 feet per second, and the velocity at about 200 feet from the muzzle is approximately 2,000 feet per second. And there is some variation in velocity from round to round as there is with all small-arms ammunition. But the variation is relatively small, and within the same order of magnitude as for conventional ammunition. Mr. EISENBERG. Did you test the bullets for yaw? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we measured yaw also, and all measurements of yaw were also small. We had no values in excess of 2 degrees, and many values were less than 1 degree in yaw, indicating that the round is quite stable. Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing. Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition. Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it? Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14. http://ejmas.com/kronos/NewHist1900-1939.htm. 1926: On the other hand, the shelf life for factory-loaded non-corrosively primed ammunition is measured in decades rather than years, and the chief cause of failure (at least in self-loading weapons) is bad magazines. 1929: The Canadian-born rifle designer John C. Garand begins work on a .276-caliber semiautomatic rifle. Rechambered to .30-06 caliber in 1932 as a budgetary move (the United States had vast stocks of .30-06 ammunition left over from World War I), Garand’s US Rifle M1 went into production in 1936, thereby becoming the world’s first standard-issue semiautomatic infantry rifle. http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/longtermammo.htm http://ezinearticles.com/?Proper-Ammo-Storage&id=471617 http://survival.com/IVB/index.php?showtopic=6773 The Good News: Ammunition made in WWII is routinely available, and most of it at least ignites just fine (more about this point later as well). This stuff generally wasn’t made as well as modern US-manufactured ammunition, and it’s still functioning sixty years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Akhtar Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is a 'jarhead'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is a 'jarhead'? ********************************************************************* "Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is a 'jarhead'?" Not a stupid question at all, Francesca. A "jarhead" is a slang term or nickname, mostly used by servicemen in the military, for a member of that branch of service known as, "the Marines." Ain't that right, Purv? Now, how they ended up getting that moniker hung on them is another story, maybe my friend, Purv might be able to elaborate on. Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 8, 2007 Author Share Posted October 8, 2007 Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is a 'jarhead'? ********************************************************************* "Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is a 'jarhead'?" Not a stupid question at all, Francesca. A "jarhead" is a slang term or nickname, mostly used by servicemen in the military, for a member of that branch of service known as, "the Marines." Ain't that right, Purv? Now, how they ended up getting that moniker hung on them is another story, maybe my friend, Purv might be able to elaborate on. Ter In USMC Boot Camp, the DI's (Drill Instructors) emphasize to the recruits to forget EVERYTHING that they ever knew or thought that they knew. Forget their mama, their papa, their girlfriend, and everything else. The USMC wants their heads EMPTY, and will therefore begin to fill the head with what the USMC deems that they need to know. ERGO: "Jarhead"! Empty the jar and we (the USMC) will fill it what what we/the USMC deems necessary and factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 9, 2007 Author Share Posted October 9, 2007 Why they are known as “Jarheads”!Yes... let's examine what Brokedad *labels* as "fact"... >1. The Model 91/38 6.5mm Carcano which was recovered from the sixth floor >of the TSDB was bench-tested and found to be as accurate a weapon as the >US Military issue rifle, the M-14. Which, of course, means nothing. I have a dart set that I use to put tighter groups on target than the Carcano. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing. Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it? Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, what you are telling us is that your actual marksmanship in the USMC was so poor that in lieu of allowing you to fire a weapon, that they issued you darts, at which {according to you), you are an excellent shot with. The simple facts are that most of those “qualified” members of the USMC with whom I am familiar, have often made an even a better joke than your “dart game” comment. These persons, whom I know to have shooting abilities, frequently state that they would have been severely chastised in the USMC for having wasted ammunition at a target which ranged only between 62 yards to a maximum of 98 yards. For anything of less than a 100 yard range, they were expected to “Chunk Rocks” and thus conserve ammo for those longer range targets which posed some challenge to their shooting abilities. Now! You are telling me that in event that there were no rocks available, that you (& the others I would assume) were in fact expected to throw darts at such short range targets. Question!: Exactly what constituted a “basic load” of darts? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==================================================================== >2. The 6.5 mm ammunition which was fired was manufactured by a US firm, as >well as being manufactured to a US Miltary Ordnance Specification, which >meant that it was as accurate and/or as reliable as any ammunition >produced for US issue weapons. This is a silly argument. "manufactured by a US firm", therefore as good as any ammo made by US firms... The *truth*, of course, is that this ammo was already old, and as any shooter knows, ammo is not like a fine wine. It does *NOT* improve with age. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm Mr. EISENBERG - Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 with the type of ammunition you have been looking at to determine the muzzle velocity of that type of ammunition in this weapon? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two different lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003. Mr. FRAZIER - The first shot, Lot 6,000, the velocity was 2199.7 feet per second. Shot No. 2, Lot 6,000, velocity 2,180.3 feet per second. The third shot, velocity--same lot--velocity 2,178.9 feet per second. The third shot, velocity--and this is Lot No. 6,003--velocity was 2,184.8 feet per second. The fourth shot, Lot No. 6,003, was 2,137.6 feet per second. Fifth shot, Lot No. 6,000, 2,162.7 feet per second. The sixth shot, Lot 6,003, 2,134.8 feet per second. An average of all shots of 2,165 feet per second. Mr. EISENBERG - How would you characterize the differences between the muzzle velocities of the various rounds in terms of whether that difference was a large or small difference? Mr. FRAZIER - This is a difference well within the manufacturer's accepted standards of velocity variations. They permit in their standard ammunition manual, which is a guide to the entire industry in the United States, a 40-foot-per-second, plus or minus, variation shot to shot in the same ammunition. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets fired in the various tests made with this rifle? Mr. FRAZIER - Approximately 60 rounds. Mr. EISENBERG - And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you have any misfires? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you find the ammunition dependable? Mr. FRAZIER - Very dependable. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you think of any reason why someone might think this is an undependable type of ammunition? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; The Western Cartridge Co. has always manufactured, in my experience, very dependable ammunition. There is other ammunition on the market available for this particular rifle in this caliber, which in my opinion is undependable or would be a very poor quality of ammunition. It may have been a confusion* between that other ammunition of the same caliber and this Western ammunition. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Note: On the other hand, it may have been mere ignorance of the facts! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. EISENBERG - Is the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano with which we are dealing an accurate type of ammunition as opposed to other types of military ammunition--as compared, I should say, with other types of military ammunition? Mr. FRAZIER - I would say it is also accurate. As other types of ammunition the 6.5 millimeter cartridge or bullet is a very accurate bullet, and ammunition of this type as manufactured in the United States would give fairly reasonable accuracy. Other military cartridges may or may not give accurate results. But the cartridge inherently is an accurate cartridge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. EISENBERG. How long altogether have you spent in this area? Mr. SIMMONS. In the area of rifles? Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. SIMMONS. Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been continuously concerned with this since 1957. Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give a rough estimate of how many weapons you have evaluated as to accuracy? Mr. SIMMONS. No. We have been concerned with almost all of the weapons which the Army has tested, either in preliminary stages or as developmental weapons. Mr. EISENBERG. But your specialty is the evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since 1953 as to-- Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct. Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately how many bullets did you fire in the course of your tests? Mr. SIMMONS. We fired 47 bullets. Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires? Mr. SIMMONS. None. Mr. EISENBERG. You tested this with what type of ammunition, Mr. Simmons? Mr. SIMMONS. The ammunition was labeled Type Ball, and it was made by the Western Cartridge Co., Division of Olin Industries. Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a 6.5 mm.? Mr. SIMMONS. 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we also measured muzzle velocities for approximately 10 rounds of the ammunition. We gather from these measurements that the nominal velocity, the nominal muzzle velocity is of the order of 2,200 feet per second, and the velocity at about 200 feet from the muzzle is approximately 2,000 feet per second. And there is some variation in velocity from round to round as there is with all small-arms ammunition. But the variation is relatively small, and within the same order of magnitude as for conventional ammunition. Mr. EISENBERG. Did you test the bullets for yaw? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we measured yaw also, and all measurements of yaw were also small. We had no values in excess of 2 degrees, and many values were less than 1 degree in yaw, indicating that the round is quite stable. Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing. Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition. Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it? Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14. http://ejmas.com/kronos/NewHist1900-1939.htm. 1926: On the other hand, the shelf life for factory-loaded non-corrosively primed ammunition is measured in decades rather than years, and the chief cause of failure (at least in self-loading weapons) is bad magazines. 1929: The Canadian-born rifle designer John C. Garand begins work on a .276-caliber semiautomatic rifle. Rechambered to .30-06 caliber in 1932 as a budgetary move (the United States had vast stocks of .30-06 ammunition left over from World War I), Garand’s US Rifle M1 went into production in 1936, thereby becoming the world’s first standard-issue semiautomatic infantry rifle. http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/longtermammo.htm http://ezinearticles.com/?Proper-Ammo-Storage&id=471617 http://survival.com/IVB/index.php?showtopic=6773 The Good News: Ammunition made in WWII is routinely available, and most of it at least ignites just fine (more about this point later as well). This stuff generally wasn’t made as well as modern US-manufactured ammunition, and it’s still functioning sixty years later. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another *EXCELLENT* example of near total ignorance in rifle lore. I defy Brokedad to *NAME* these "variety of techniques" that are applicable to slowfire, yet cannot be applied to rapidfire. He won't, of course, since he's not speaking on a topic that he's expert enough to converse with someone who *IS* knowledgeable. I *taught* rifle marksmanship, and I'll state with no hesitation that Brokedad is simply full of it. Anyone good enough to be a sniper has *EXCELLENT* rapidfire scores. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/sniper.html Even Hathcock was a competitive shooter and won a lot of matches setting a few records along the way. The fact that he was the only military sniper that did well at highpower competition is little known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now