The Misunderstood 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano Part II

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Murr??

[Gary Murr]

On 6/14/2013 at 10:17 AM, Robert Prudhomme said:

Mr. Murr??

Hello Robert:

My, my, we are an impatient lot, aren't we. Unfortunately I am still gainfully employed and thus and in particular at this time of the year I must of necessity budget my time accordingly. When this is coupled with trying to complete simultaneously four different manuscripts one is left with little time for debate. Nonetheless, and realizing fully that it was I who started this portion of your thread, I will answer herein one of the two issues I raised in my initial response to you; the other will be forthcoming over the next day or two as I ready a release memo on a forthcoming major work.

Understandably if one is to manufacture a quantity of small arms ammunition for use in a weapon or weapons it would make sense to ensure that this ammunition in turn is "serviceable," quaint terminology applied to 6.5mm WCC by the Chief of Ordnance, Materials Division [ORDTS] of the U. S. Army on February 16, 1954. To that end, and before the manufacture of some 4,000,000 million rounds of this same 6.5mm WCC ammunition was undertaken, a "Pilot Lot A" of some 2000 rounds bearing ammunition "Lot 6000" was manufactured by the WCC of East Alton, Illinois, on January 14, 1954. Approximately one month later, on the aforementioned February 16, 1954, 50 rounds of this Pilot Lot A 6.5mm WCC ammunition were subjected to two test procedures at the St. Louis Ordnance District plant of the Western Cartridge Company. Forty [40] rounds were subjected to velocity and pressure testing at 76 feet; a further ten [10] rounds were given an accuracy test at 600 yards. I possess copies of all of these test results and others that this Pilot Lot A of this ammunition were subject to some three days later at a different facility, in this instance the Development and Proof Services Division of the Small Arms and Aircraft Weapons Branch at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. I am hopefully attaching two images from the velocity and pressure testing of February 16, 1954; the upper portion of page one of the results as well as an enlargement of the upper right corner of this same document.

If I have done this correctly you will note a number of things of interest and importance. Among the data entered on this form is that this same 6.5mm WCC ammunition has been loaded with Western Ball Powder # 48516 and this charge weighs 44.4 grs. The case holding the charge and the bullet is constructed of "brass", the "Amm. Lot" number is 6000, the caliber is 6.5mm, the bullet weight is 1.61 grs., the M'F'R' - manufacturer - is W.C.C. and this ammunition bears "Headstamp WCC 54." As I said, I hope I have been able to upload these images and you find them of interest. This is merely the tip of the iceberg as far as the history of this ammunition is concerned. I have to admit that as I have studied and accumulated research materials on this subject matter over the past seven years I continue to be intrigued by the uniqueness of the entire project. However, if all goes well there is much, much more to reveal in the near future.

As far as clarification/expansion on the issue of the small white cardboard containers manufactured to hold precisely 20 rounds of this ammunition at a time, I again will revisit this for you shortly. For now suffice to reveal that the manufacture of these containers began late in 1953 and was completed in 1954. I have acquired several boxes of all four lots of this ammunition over the years and can tell you this much. All of the boxes bearing lot numbers 6000 and 6001 that I have were manufactured in 1953, though I know to a certainty that the boxes were not "loaded" until 1954; and all of the boxes I have bearing lot numbers 6002 and 6003 were manufactured by this same concern in 1954.

Gary Murr

Edited February 6 by Gary Murr

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Gary

Very interesting document you have there. How did you come by it, if you don't mind my asking?

As you say, this is only the tip of the iceberg, as far as evidence goes. I would very much like to see what else you have.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Thought I'd best bump this. We are still waiting and hoping that Mr. Murr will share some more evidence on the 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges made by the Western Cartridge Company.

[Larry Hancock]

Robert, just to add a dose of reality and myself being in touch with Gary on occasion - when he has time - as he mentioned he is tied up with both his day job and getting

his extensive (thousands of pages) body of work on this and other subjects published. Don't be surprised if he does not respond to you quickly here. For those

of us who know Gary and his obsessive (in a good way) attention to detail, he is not someone who bounces on and off the forums. What he plans to share

this fall is something he has been working on for decades - and resisting all those of us who pestered him to come talk at the forums or otherwise share

bits and pieces of his work in the interim.

As he has said, he plans to share it all upon publication and having seen a bit of it myself, in areas I am familiar with, I can only say that once he does it

will be at an overwhealming level of detail.

-- Larry

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Robert, I think you're covering some ground that has already been covered before, and in possibly greater detail:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781

Mr. Knight

I see you have posted a link to a long-winded article by Thomas H. Purvis. Mr. Purvis is an interesting character. He seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist but, in all the vast voluminous articles I have read by him, I have never quite deciphered just where or what he believes the conspiracy to be. Perhaps, it is just a lack of comprehension skills on my part, although I do notice he manages to interject several times that the 6.5 mm Carcano M91/38 is an accurate rifle and that JFK was killed as a result of three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested.

I am going to try to answer these questions but I would like it understood that a lot of what I am going to say is assumption and, without access to vast stocks of M91/38 short rifles, impossible to prove. That being said, let us continue.

======================

If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested.

=====================

In 1941, the Italian government produced the Model 91/41 "Long" rifle. In which, by the way, the progressive gain twist of the rifling was deleted.

Therefore, there would be absolutely no trouble in taking one of these rifle barrels and cutting it down in order to produce a Model 91/38 (6.5mm) Short rifle.

In addition, virtually any of the old Long Rifles that were produced in the 6.5mm could have, and were undoubtedly converted to the newer 7.35mm versions of the weapons.

Just in event our new Expert is unaware, when one takes any rifle barrel that is in 6.5mm calliber and thereafter bores the weapon to a 7.35mm caliber, they have effectively removed ALL indications of any rifle markings and now in fact have a "smooth bore" weapon.

Thereafter, with the correct and proper machining equipment, new rifleing marks can be milled into the weapon.

This is the case for many of the 7.35mm versions of this Model 38, which were later changeg/adapted to fit the German cartridge.

Several of these weapons have been found to exist with what appears to be a "German Re-Work" stamp, which would indicate that the change in the rifle bore and chamber was in fact done by a German armament firm.

So! Were I to find one of these weapons, and known absolultely nothing regarding the Carcano and it's multitudes of modifications, then I would most probably assume that I was in possession of a "GERMAN MAUSER".

P.S.

A "Mil-dispersion test" merely demonstrates the ability of a weapon to fire a consistently accurate pattern.

An NRA "Master", who has a quality scope as well as "match" ammo, that is climatelly controlled in it's temperature, most certainlly should outshoot (for accuracy) any factory test which utilizes "run-of-the-mill" ammo.

Surely, as a proclaimed "shooter" you are familiar with Match Ammo????????

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Purvis

Just in case our old Expert is unaware, the 6.5 mm M91 long rifle was produced in the millions, all of them with progressive twist rifling. The bulk of the manufacturing of the M91 was done prior to 1918.

On the other hand, total production of the 7.35 mm M38 short rifle, PLUS the carbine versions of the M38, totalled 260,000, with the M38 short rifle production being only about 100,000 of those rifles.

The progressive twist rifling was abandoned with the introduction of the 7.35 mm M38 short rifle, which was made with a 1:10 standard twist. Supposedly, when the 7.35 mm M38 was abandoned in 1940 and replaced with the 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle, it was intended that the M91/38 would continue with the standard twist, although there is no evidence of any change from the 1:10 rate of twist.

The 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle was only made in the year 1940, with a handful being made at Terni in the early months of 1941. The M91/38 short rifle was REPLACED by the M91/41 long rifle in 1941.

It is, therefore, utter nonsense to say that barrels could be salvaged from M91/41 long rifles to make cut down barrels for the M91/38 short rifle, as production of the M91/38 short rifle had ceased BEFORE production of the M91/41 long rifle had begun. Even if production of the two rifles had been at the same time, there would have been no stocks of M91/41 barrels to cut down as they would all be going into production of new M91/41's. And what fool would make a new long rifle barrel just so he could cut it down to make a short rifle barrel? Wouldn't it be simpler just to make a new short rifle barrel?

An undeniable fact is that the 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle was produced in the space of one year in numbers approaching the one million mark. While the 7.35 mm M38 short rifle barrels were made from worn out, recycled, bored out 6.5 mm M91 long rifles, thus eliminating the 6.5 mm progressive twist rifling and re-rifling with standard twist rifling, there could have been no re-boring of the cut down 6.5 mm M91 long rifle barrels to make 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle barrels for the simple fact the two rifles were the same calibre.

The question remains, where did they find close to a million barrels in 1940 to make 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifles with standard twist rifling?

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

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."

Edited June 18, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme