CE 399

[Jack White]

A new member of another JFK forum claiming expertise in ballistics

posted a long message there explaining ballistics. I thought my

replies to him might be of interest to researchers here.

Jack

[Jack White]

I attached two images. Why was one deleted?

Tomorrow I will resend the other one, showing the

bullet comparisons.

It is too late tonight to go to my other computer

(not in this location, but in my office).

Jack

[Jack White]

I attached two images. Why was one deleted?

Tomorrow I will resend the other one, showing the

bullet comparisons.

It is too late tonight to go to my other computer

(not in this location, but in my office).

Jack

There was only one on the post.

Kathy

In the past I (and others) have posted two images on the same message.

I went to my office computer so that I could post BOTH IMAGES to the

same message, and did so in the usual manner. Only one image appeared.

Is it no longer possible to post more than one image? Did I do it wrong?

I will repost it tomorrow.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

This is very interesting, Jack. I look forward to your next posts.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

An "old" member of this forum who claims to know something about ballistics, long ago informed you that the supposed additional "grooves" to which you and other refer, and to which you keep attempting to pass off as additional rifling markings:

Are in fact nothing more than narrow elongated scratch marks on the bullet which are created as a result of a rifle barrel that is either highly corroded or contaminated.

These narrow scratches are caused by contamination which is down within the "groove" of the rifle barrel.

"Note: The Land/Lands/Landings of the rifle barrel represent that portion of the barrel which actually cut the "grooves" into the bullet.

When contamination/corrosion gets down within the actual groove of the rifle barrel, as the bullet passes over this contamination, it creates scratch marks into the bullet which exactly parallel those marks cut into the bullet by the lands, as the rotational cutting of the lands and grooves within the barrel are in fact parallel.

Corrosion marks, unlike actual rifling (marks created by the lands) will always begin somewhat farther back on the bullet than the actual and true rifling marks.

If the corrosion/contamination within the rifle barrel is sufficient, then this corrosion may create scratch marks along that entire length of the bullet from where the mark begins, to the tail of the bullet.

And, just as CE399 exhibits, such corrosion/contamination markings will usually appear on only one-quarter to one-half of the bullet.

(CE399 DOES NOT show similiar markings on it's opposite side).

This is due to the fact that the contamination/corrosion is known to settle down (fall/shake/etc:) into either the bottom one or two grooves of the rifle, based on what position the rifle is actually stored/laid down.

And, in all actuality, the corrosion/contamination grooves are a further indication that CE399 was in fact the first shot fired, as the first shot always "swabs" the rifle barrel quite clean of such residue/corrosion/contamination, and it is usually blown out the rifle barrel with the escaping gasses of the fired bullet.

Thus, second shots fired immediately thereafter, seldom have such tell-tale indications on them.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/index.html

Tom

P.S. In the event that anyone attempts to "sell" you the bottom mounted sling swivel in the backyard photo's also, then just yell and I will dig out and again present the photo's which demonstrate that this is merely the sling swivel having been taken off and turned around onto the rifle.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Comparison of CE399 with WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet which was fired through an identical Model 91/38 Carcano "Short Rifle".

"A" & "A1"----represent that point on the nose of the bullet where the bullet first makes contact with the Lands of the rifle barrel, and when fired, these lands begin the cutting of "grooves" into the bullet outer shell (copper jacket)

The bottom bullet was fired through a relatively clean rifle barrel. Nevertheless, the barrel still had sufficient residue from previous shots tht it created a small corrosion/contamination scratch mark at approximate mid-point down the bullet length.

"B1".

This type corrosion marking is primarily caused as a result of residue "buildup" within the rifle barrel, which as the bullet progresses forward, ultimately accumulates until such point there is sufficient corrosion/contamination that it begins, at some point along the bullet length, to creat the scratch.

As opposed to the CE399 corrosion/contamination scratches ("B"), which indicate that this corrosion was already accumulated as well as solidified at some point along the barrel length.

Additionally, there is only ONE known 6-groove/6.5mm rifle that is known to have been made. That being the 6.5mm Jap rifle.

And, for a variety of reasons, it is quite simple to visually distinguish the 6.5mm/6-groove "Jap" bullet from the 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

Not to mention how easy it is to distingusih the WCC 6.5mm Carcano rifle bullet (as are both bullets pictured) from other similar, yet foreign made bullets.

Lastly, due to the diameter of the 6.5mm/6-groove/Jap bullet being virtualy the exact same as the 6.5mm Carcano, in order to have SIX full grooves and landings, these rifle markings are considerably more narrow that that which is demonstrated on the CE399 (as well as comparision bullet) photo.

[Jack White]

Here is the graphic which failed to post originally.

Judge for yourself whether the same bullet is depicted.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

Great clarification, Tom! Thanks. You've educated us all, I think (and hope).

[Jack White]

I reposted the second 399 image nearly seven hours ago.

It is still being held up by moderators. If they ever post it,

judge for yourself if the photos are of the same bullet. Let

us know what you think.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack,

We'll consider this a bump--I was passing out candy,and forgot I was logged in......

Kathy

Thanks, Kathy...now why has a simple image been held up for eleven and a half hours?

That does not speak well for the "moderation" system...holding up significant research

for no reasonable reason. Spooky.

Jack

[Jack White]

Well, the image was finally released by the moderators within the last 45 minutes.

Jack

[Mike Williams]

Jack,

We'll consider this a bump--I was passing out candy,and forgot I was logged in......

Kathy

Thanks, Kathy...now why has a simple image been held up for eleven and a half hours?

That does not speak well for the "moderation" system...holding up significant research

for no reasonable reason. Spooky.

Jack

Jack,

The case is 40 years old....I hardly think a few hours will cause distraction in revelations. I would think this wouldn't and shouldn't be held against a moderator, as I am sure they have lives beyond the forum, and besides it is not their fault that they have some who need to be moderated. Perhaps one should consider being placed on moderation as the reason their posts are delayed, and refrain from lending blame to the moderators themselves.

Mr. Purvis,

That is about as good a post on contamination as I have seen. Nicely done. As I told Mr. White in another forum, this is something I am currently working on, and to avoid disinformation, have reserved comment until I am convinced of the conclusion. I tend to take professional opinion, and position under advisement in my conclusions, but ultimately it is my own conviction of fact that has to be settled. I will post no wine before its time. I do look forward to excellent exchanges with you Mr. Purvis, as I can see our interests are aligned.

Kathy,

Um.....why didn't I get any candy?

Semper Fi,

Mike

P.S. Mr. Purvis, I have read the post in regard to Jarheads...........you better have been smiling my friend! LOL!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Jack,

We'll consider this a bump--I was passing out candy,and forgot I was logged in......

Kathy

Thanks, Kathy...now why has a simple image been held up for eleven and a half hours?

That does not speak well for the "moderation" system...holding up significant research

for no reasonable reason. Spooky.

Jack

Jack,

The case is 40 years old....I hardly think a few hours will cause distraction in revelations. I would think this wouldn't and shouldn't be held against a moderator, as I am sure they have lives beyond the forum, and besides it is not their fault that they have some who need to be moderated. Perhaps one should consider being placed on moderation as the reason their posts are delayed, and refrain from lending blame to the moderators themselves.

Mr. Purvis,

That is about as good a post on contamination as I have seen. Nicely done. As I told Mr. White in another forum, this is something I am currently working on, and to avoid disinformation, have reserved comment until I am convinced of the conclusion. I tend to take professional opinion, and position under advisement in my conclusions, but ultimately it is my own conviction of fact that has to be settled. I will post no wine before its time. I do look forward to excellent exchanges with you Mr. Purvis, as I can see our interests are aligned.

Kathy,

Um.....why didn't I get any candy?

Semper Fi,

Mike

P.S. Mr. Purvis, I have read the post in regard to Jarheads...........you better have been smiling my friend! LOL!

There are "jarheads" and then there are "jarheads".

And as one who has instructed "Force Recon" personnel, most of us know the difference.

As to the mythological "six-groove" bullet!

This is not the first time that it has been brought out here!

And, as with the works which I have done, which have been reviewed by a member of the AFTE (Association of Firearms & Toolmark Examiners), I have recommended that Jack take his theories to the Firearms and Toolmark Examiner personnel and see exactl how much support that they can give him on it.

Not unlike all major cities, Dallas, TX has such a person (possibly more than one), and they are the persons who hold the education; training; and experience; to either verify or negate such speculation.

Although (to the pleasure of many), I have no intentions of posting here that much longer, in event that you stay around you will find that the term "Educational Forum" is a complete misnomer.

Tom

P.S. In event that Jack attempts to sell you the bottom mount sling swivel story let me know and I will again break out the rifle photo's which demonstrate that this is merely the sling swivel mounted onto the right-hand (bolt action) side of the rifle.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Before this creature resurrects itself again also:

The "mythological" bottom mount sling swivel, as seen in the backyard photo's of LHO holding the model 91/38 Carcano rifle, is nothing more than:

1. Take the sling swivel band off from the rifle. (removed over the muzzle end)

2. Turn the sling swivel band around and re-install it onto the rifle.

3. This places the sling "keeper" onto the right hand side of the weapon.

4. Slide the sling keeper to the completely down position within the eyelet through which it is installed into the bolt which holds the sling swivel band onto the rifle.

5. "roll" the weapon slightly forward (out of the position in which the sight is perfectly vertical), as is seen in the LHO backyard photo.

6. Photograph the weapon and one will find that the sling keeper, from a distance and in a poor quality photo, would appear to be attached to the bottom of the weapon.