Jump to content
The Education Forum

6.5x52 mm Carcano - Elephant Gun?


Recommended Posts

Anyone that bases his research on YouTube videos is a definite believer in junk science.

Poor bobby.

I exercise my second amendment rights to the fullest, and in addition one of my good friend, is ex special forces and is a world class armorer. We have spent quality time at the range shooting all manner of conventional and modified projectiles into ballistic gel and other ballistic backstops.

The YouTube videos are just a bonus and offer some nice visual proof to refute your nonsense.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your ex special forces "friend", if he exists at all outside of your imagination, should have the qualifications to tell you that a round nosed, full metal jacket bullet, ESPECIALLY a thick jacketed 6.5 mm Carcano bullet, would have been incapable of breaking up in the manner witnessed in z313 of the Zapruder film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it up.

Lamson is like a rabid pit bull. He simply comes hear to find another "victim" from time to time, without ever sharing anything of educational value himself. Everywhere else on the internet, that behavior fits the definition of a xxxxx.

Here, it's just Lamson.

You will NEVER make a point that Lamson considers valid. NEVER. NO expert you cite EVER has the level of experience of Lamson...nor the credentials. Or at least none I've seen him acknowledge.

Lamson claims to be neither a CT'er or an LN'er, yet he seldom attacks posts by LN'ers.

So you may as well give up on this thread, before Lamson's trolling activities stretch the page count to triple digits.

You've been warned. Don't say I didn't tell you what was ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it up.

Lamson is like a rabid pit bull. He simply comes hear to find another "victim" from time to time, without ever sharing anything of educational value himself. Everywhere else on the internet, that behavior fits the definition of a xxxxx.

Here, it's just Lamson.

You will NEVER make a point that Lamson considers valid. NEVER. NO expert you cite EVER has the level of experience of Lamson...nor the credentials. Or at least none I've seen him acknowledge.

Lamson claims to be neither a CT'er or an LN'er, yet he seldom attacks posts by LN'ers.

So you may as well give up on this thread, before Lamson's trolling activities stretch the page count to triple digits.

You've been warned. Don't say I didn't tell you what was ahead.

Mr. Knight

You are quite right in this matter. I had intended to end discussion with him early in this thread when he first began responding with inane remarks but, temptation reared its ugly head and I succumbed.

I actually have endured Mr. Lamson's tirades before, on the JFK Assassination Forum. He is not so noticeable there, as the forum is rife with characters almost identical in manner to him. Of course, all of them are "experts" as well, or have good "friends" who are experts.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ex special forces "friend", if he exists at all outside of your imagination, should have the qualifications to tell you that a round nosed, full metal jacket bullet, ESPECIALLY a thick jacketed 6.5 mm Carcano bullet, would have been incapable of breaking up in the manner witnessed in z313 of the Zapruder film.

Well look...everyone is a spook and they dont tell the truth to bobby is here now too.

Can't wait for you to start with the paid CIA stuff here too. Want my telephone number again so you can call me ate at night to find out if I'm real? Roflmao! What did it take you two weeks here? Sheesh.

But I must say you are getting really good at the backstroke, doing it again I see. Fmj? How about altered or damaged fmj bobby?

Oops......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it up.Lamson is like a rabid pit bull. He simply comes hear to find another "victim" from time to time, without ever sharing anything of educational value himself. Everywhere else on the internet, that behavior fits the definition of a xxxxx.Here, it's just Lamson.You will NEVER make a point that Lamson considers valid. NEVER. NO expert you cite EVER has the level of experience of Lamson...nor the credentials. Or at least none I've seen him acknowledge.Lamson claims to be neither a CT'er or an LN'er, yet he seldom attacks posts by LN'ers.So you may as well give up on this thread, before Lamson's trolling activities stretch the page count to triple digits.You've been warned. Don't say I didn't tell you what was ahead.

Oh come on Mark, how many LN's actually post here?

If you have missed the educational value of many of my posts, well that's really too bad. I've passed along many valuable photographic gems. But then again you gotta want to actually learn, and that goes against the grain here.

I'm not an expert Mark, I'm just a guy who earns his living with a camera and enjoys firearms. And quite frankly, at least where still photography is concerned, the JFK scene has darn few people with ANY credentials. This forum is no exception. And it shows with the silly photo claims. And surprise...made mostly by CT's. a target rich environment to be sure.

Anytime you want to get schooled.....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it up.

Lamson is like a rabid pit bull. He simply comes hear to find another "victim" from time to time, without ever sharing anything of educational value himself. Everywhere else on the internet, that behavior fits the definition of a xxxxx.

Here, it's just Lamson.

You will NEVER make a point that Lamson considers valid. NEVER. NO expert you cite EVER has the level of experience of Lamson...nor the credentials. Or at least none I've seen him acknowledge.

Lamson claims to be neither a CT'er or an LN'er, yet he seldom attacks posts by LN'ers.

So you may as well give up on this thread, before Lamson's trolling activities stretch the page count to triple digits.

You've been warned. Don't say I didn't tell you what was ahead.

Mr. Knight

The real question is, why are these antics tolerated on this site? Surely, there must be numerous infractions of the rules by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speer

With all due respect, my experience in hunting has shown me that both soft tipped and hollow point bullets will often make entry wounds no bigger than full metal jacket bullets, ie. no bigger than the actual diameter of the bullet. This is only altered if the bullet begins to tumble, for whatever reason, prior to hitting the target.

What makes it unlikely that Oswald would have altered the tip of the bullet that struck JFK's head is the fact that we know two of the four bullets allegedly in Oswald's possession that day, CE 399 and the unfired cartridge, were not altered. If going for a head shot on the first shot, wouldn't it make sense to alter ALL of the bullets? I believe this is a desperate attempt by a Lone Nut to distract us from the basic reality that a head shot from a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet could not have produced the explosive results seen in z313.

Let me see if I'm getting this right. You're saying that hunting ammunition does not deform upon impact with a skull? Because everything I've ever read on wound ballistics indicates that it's designed to deform upon impact.

P.S. Dr. Olivier told the Warren Commission the fatal bullet deformed and broke up upon impact. This is most interesting because the size of the entrance wound does not reflect the entrance of a deformed bullet. And no, I don't believe for a second what's been pushed elsewhere--that a bullet breaking up upon impact will enter the skull intact and break into pieces as it traverses the skull. This explanation not only fails to pass a simple smell test, but ignores the simple fact that the bullet breaks up BECAUSE it is deformed, and not the reverse. And that it would deform at the point of greatest resistance...UPON impact with the skull. And that a deformed bullet will not create an entrance hole smaller than the width of the bullet.

The slide below features a photograph of a human head struck on the back by hunting ammunition. The entrance wound of this hunting ammunition bears no resemblance to the supposed "cowlick" entry.

blasts2-full.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speer

With all due respect, my experience in hunting has shown me that both soft tipped and hollow point bullets will often make entry wounds no bigger than full metal jacket bullets, ie. no bigger than the actual diameter of the bullet. This is only altered if the bullet begins to tumble, for whatever reason, prior to hitting the target.

What makes it unlikely that Oswald would have altered the tip of the bullet that struck JFK's head is the fact that we know two of the four bullets allegedly in Oswald's possession that day, CE 399 and the unfired cartridge, were not altered. If going for a head shot on the first shot, wouldn't it make sense to alter ALL of the bullets? I believe this is a desperate attempt by a Lone Nut to distract us from the basic reality that a head shot from a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet could not have produced the explosive results seen in z313.

Let me see if I'm getting this right. You're saying that hunting ammunition does not deform upon impact with a skull? Because everything I've ever read on wound ballistics indicates that it's designed to deform upon impact.

P.S. Dr. Olivier told the Warren Commission the fatal bullet deformed and broke up upon impact. This is most interesting because the size of the entrance wound does not reflect the entrance of a deformed bullet. And no, I don't believe for a second what's been pushed elsewhere--that a bullet breaking up upon impact will enter the skull intact and break into pieces as it traverses the skull. This explanation not only fails to pass a simple smell test, but ignores the simple fact that the bullet breaks up BECAUSE it is deformed, and not the reverse. And that it would deform at the point of greatest resistance...UPON impact with the skull. And that a deformed bullet will not create an entrance hole smaller than the width of the bullet.

The slide below features a photograph of a human head struck on the back by hunting ammunition. The entrance wound of this hunting ammunition bears no resemblance to the supposed "cowlick" entry.

blasts2-full.jpg

Go out and actually SHOOT something......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speer

With all due respect, my experience in hunting has shown me that both soft tipped and hollow point bullets will often make entry wounds no bigger than full metal jacket bullets, ie. no bigger than the actual diameter of the bullet. This is only altered if the bullet begins to tumble, for whatever reason, prior to hitting the target.

What makes it unlikely that Oswald would have altered the tip of the bullet that struck JFK's head is the fact that we know two of the four bullets allegedly in Oswald's possession that day, CE 399 and the unfired cartridge, were not altered. If going for a head shot on the first shot, wouldn't it make sense to alter ALL of the bullets? I believe this is a desperate attempt by a Lone Nut to distract us from the basic reality that a head shot from a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet could not have produced the explosive results seen in z313.

Let me see if I'm getting this right. You're saying that hunting ammunition does not deform upon impact with a skull? Because everything I've ever read on wound ballistics indicates that it's designed to deform upon impact.

P.S. Dr. Olivier told the Warren Commission the fatal bullet deformed and broke up upon impact. This is most interesting because the size of the entrance wound does not reflect the entrance of a deformed bullet. And no, I don't believe for a second what's been pushed elsewhere--that a bullet breaking up upon impact will enter the skull intact and break into pieces as it traverses the skull. This explanation not only fails to pass a simple smell test, but ignores the simple fact that the bullet breaks up BECAUSE it is deformed, and not the reverse. And that it would deform at the point of greatest resistance...UPON impact with the skull. And that a deformed bullet will not create an entrance hole smaller than the width of the bullet.

The slide below features a photograph of a human head struck on the back by hunting ammunition. The entrance wound of this hunting ammunition bears no resemblance to the supposed "cowlick" entry.

blasts2-full.jpg

.

Mr. Speer

Of course, hunting ammunition will deform when it comes in contact with a skull bone. The question is, how much will it deform and how thick is the skull bone. Hunting ammunition (soft tipped bullets) are designed to give a certain amount of penetration before any real expansion begins to take place. Therefore, in a creature such as a deer or a man, with relatively thin skull material, the entrance wound will not appear to be much bigger than the bullet itself; while the exit wound will be far bigger. On the other hand, in a creature such as an elephant, with skull bone almost a foot thick at the brow ridge, we might see something totally different. Would the soft tipped bullet go partway through the thick bone and break up inside, leaving a small entrance wound on the surface of the elephant? Having never shot an elephant in the head before, I cannot say.

It must also be remembered there is a world of difference between copper jacketed* soft tipped ammunition and unjacketed lead ammunition. The horrendous autopsy photo beside the JFK back of head photo may very well have been an unjacketed hollow point bullet with a spire point. Not only would there be no jacket to contain the rapid expansion allowed by the hollow point, the spire point might cause the bullet to tumble on impact, further exaggerating the effect. It is unfortunate that, in the research community, certain people are so intent on "winning" that they will throw in red herrings such as this.

I experimented for a while years ago by handloading 110 grain copper jacketed hollow point hunting bullets into cartridges for a .308 hunting rifle I owned. The idea was to shoot the deer in the head (spoiling less meat) and have the bullets expand so rapidly in the deer's skull, death would be almost instantaneous. The plan worked beyond anything I had hoped for but, the results were so obscene, I eventully quit using them. In every case, though, the entrance wound was no bigger than the bullet itself, while the exit wounds were huge. And, contrary to popular belief, the exit wound from a hollow point bullet is not always on the opposite side of the head from the entrance wound. A shot in the side of a deer's head can blow the top of the skull off.

Dr. Olivier should have been tarred and feathered and hung for treason for what he told the Warren Commission. A 6.5 mm Carcano bullet could not have deformed and broken up on impact without leaving quite a mess at the entrance site, though the likelihood of it breaking up at all is minute. And, you are quite right in saying this bullet could not then enter the skull cavity and break up into pieces there.

It is important to understand what takes place when a bullet enters the skull. Years ago, when bulk oil was still shipped in five gallon steel cans, we would use these empty cans for target practice. A favorite trick was to fill one of these cans with water, put the cap back on it and not tell the guy shooting at it that it was filled with water. When hit with a soft tipped bullet, there would be a tiny hole where the bullet entered but the can would literally explode, often leaving a rupture the entire length of the can. Of course, it was hydraulic pressure created when the expanding bullet attempted to traverse the water in the can that took the can apart. If the lid was left off of the can, the can would not explode. Think of the skull of a living creature as that sealed can full of water. A soft tipped bullet will penetrate the relatively brittle bone with only a small degree of expansion. As it contacts the incompressible fluid and brain matter it meets resistance, further expanding the bullet and creating a pressure wave ahead of it. In comparison, the FMJ bullet will suffer very little expansion and create a smaller pressure wave, while the hollow point bullet will expand enormously inside the skull (likely breaking up) and create a much larger pressure wave than the soft tipped bullet.

So, you see, it is incorrect to say that the point of entry is where the greatest resistance is met. The greatest resistance is met INSIDE the skull when the expanding bullet tries to compress the incompressible liquid and brain matter. A bullet fired into an open tank of water is a clear demonstration of this.

It is this pressure wave that creates the enormous exit wounds. Like any pressure vessel, the skull will eventually rupture at its weakest point to relieve this pressure. However, and I can attest to this from personal experience, once there is a large exit wound in the skull, another bullet fired into that same skull will produce no explosive results at all, for the simple fact that the "pressure vessel" is now compromised and there is nothing to contain the pressure wave.

* (the jacketing material is not really copper but a type of brass known as "gilders metal")

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speer

After studying the photo of the back of the head purportedly struck with hunting ammunition, another possibility occurred to me that might account for the unusual amount of surface damage.

Did the source of this photo indicate at what range the bullet was fired? If the range was point blank, and it was a type of frangible or unjacketed bullet, we may be looking at damage partially inflicted by the muzzle blast of the firearm.

Whatever it is, I have never, in my hunting experience, seen anything like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that bases his research on YouTube videos is a definite believer in junk science.

Poor bobby.

I exercise my second amendment rights to the fullest, and in addition one of my good friend, is ex special forces and is a world class armorer. We have spent quality time at the range shooting all manner of conventional and modified projectiles into ballistic gel and other ballistic backstops.

The YouTube videos are just a bonus and offer some nice visual proof to refute your nonsense.

with so few lone nuts today and considering those left AND their ongoing credibility issues, its no wonder your flitting all over the place... wearing your lone nut rearend out, eh hon? lmao!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...