The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5mm Carcano

[Larry Hancock]

Interesting point on the "dime" David, Ian Griggs tried reassembly on his Carcano in the fashion indicated by the WCR and discovered that while it could be done with a dime

that it certainly could not be done - especially in a hurry and under stress - without leaving scratch marks on the metal around the screw housing. And there are no such apparent

scratch marks on the weapon officially in evidence..

[Robert Prudhomme]

SA Robert Frazier of the FBI testified that the 4x18 scope on the 6th floor Carcano, made by Ordnance Optics, required several shots to be fired from the rifle to allow the crosshairs to "settle in", following any adjustments to the scope. The evidence he gave for this was that the shots seemed to climb and go to the right of the bullseye with each successive shot; giving him the results of the bullets hitting 2.5-5-inches high at 100 yards and landing in a "3 to 5-inch circle". While a "3 to 5-inch circle" is an odd way to describe a target, I believe he is telling us the shots were spread laterally over 5 inches.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I believe the scope that had to "settle in" after being adjusted is nonsense. I also believe the phenomenon Frazier saw of the bullets climbing and walking to the right on the target had nothing to do with the scope but, rather, was a defect in the rifle itself. I believe this because I had the exact same problem with a rifle myself, and no amount of scope adjustment would cure it. I first noticed it on my rifle when the first shot went high and to the right, and each successive shot went further astray.

A lot of folks don't realize it but a rifle barrel is a very flexible thing. It is possible, by applying force to one side of a rifle barrel, to make a rifle bullet land many inches away from the point of aim.

In a humid climate, such as the temperate rain forest I live in (or New Orleans, where LHO lived), rifles go through extremes of humidity. Imagine a rifle being packed on someone's shoulder in the winter rain on an all day hunt, and then being hung on the wall above a wood fed heater to dry. The stock, being made from wood, is in a constant process of absorbing water and then rapidly drying out. After several sessions of this, there is a good chance the wooden stock will warp.

Rifle barrels (most of them) are designed to "float" in the stock and the forestock should only make contact with the barrel where it is anchored at the breech. You should be able to take a dollar bill, wrap it around the barrel, and slide it between barrel and forestock most of the way to the breech. On my rifle, right at the end of the forestock, I found the wood up tight against the lower left part of the barrel, as seen from the breech. Even with a cold barrel, there was enough force to throw the bullet off, and as the barrel heated and expanded with each shot, causing the barrel to push harder against the forestock, the problem grew worse and the bullets landed further from the bullseye.

The solution, of course, was simple. I removed the stock and lightly sanded the parts that were pressing against the barrel, until I had re-established the necessary clearance. I then applied a couple of coats of wood sealer to prevent the stock from absorbing more moisture. It is not hard to see why stainless steel rifles with Kevlar stocks are so popular where I live.

There is a very good chance that the 6th floor Carcano had a warped stock causing it to shoot high and to the right, especially if there is any truth to the story of LHO burying the rifle in the ground, following the Walker shooting.

I'm willing to bet this problem was quietly corrected before the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory had their marksmen recreate the shooting attributed to LHO on 22/11/63.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Nothing annoys me more on this forum than someone making a grandiose statement about what someone in the JFK assassination did or did not do and then refusing to back it up with testimony or a statement.

Pat Speer, for the umpteenth time, would you show us, in SA Robert Frazier's WC testimony, where he testified that adjustments were made to the scope on Oswald's alleged rifle between the test shots fired at 15 yards and the test shots fired at 100 yards?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat Speer, where are you?

Edited January 16, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

*BUMP*

[Pat Speer]

Nothing annoys me more on this forum than someone making a grandiose statement about what someone in the JFK assassination did or did not do and then refusing to back it up with testimony or a statement.

Pat Speer, for the umpteenth time, would you show us, in SA Robert Frazier's WC testimony, where he testified that adjustments were made to the scope on Oswald's alleged rifle between the test shots fired at 15 yards and the test shots fired at 100 yards?

I already have.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sorry, I must be blind; I can't seem to find your answer, Pat.

Would you please tell me which post (the number, if you don't mind) on this thread contains the answer to my question? Just for you, I will repeat it.

Pat Speer, would you please show me and the members of this forum where FBI Special Agent Robert A. Frazier testified to the Warren Commission that he made adjustments to the scope on the 6.5mm Carcano, found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, between the test shots fired at 15 yards and the test shots fired at 100 yards?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat?

[Pat Speer]

Pat?

Geez, Robert, I've already posted it. It is right there in Frazier's testimony. It's also there in CE 2724. The first tests were conducted with the rifle as provided them by the DPD. The 100 yard tests were not performed until March, and only then at the WC's request. At that time, they tried to adjust the scope to make the rifle/scope combo fire as accurately as possible, but came to conclude that THAT rifle and that scope could not be made to fire accurately without the addition of shims. The Army, which tested the rifle just after, came to the same conclusion and added shims beneath the scope mount before conducting their tests.

Dr. Lattimer, as wacky as he was, was honest enough to admit he bought several M/C rifles, along with the scope found on the rifle, and that he, too, had to add shims to get them to fire accurately. Stephen Hunter, the author of a recent book, The Third Bullet, writes that he followed in Lattimer's footsteps, and bought an M/C rifle along with the scope, and found the same thing.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

No, you have NOT shown us where, in Robert Frazier's testimony, he testified there were adjustments made to the scope between the shots fired at 15 yards and the shots fired at 100 yards.

You KNOW that you got yourself in trouble by claiming such a thing was true when you most likely knew it wasn't.

I will continue to ask you to show us Frazier's testimony on this subject until you either admit you were wrong or boot me from this forum; which ever you think is expedient.

Once again, will you show the members of this forum where, in FBI SA Robert Frazier's WC testimony, he testified there were adjustments made to the scope on LHO's 6.5mm Carcano between the test shots fired at 15 yards and the test shots fired at 100 yards?

I am prepared to wait for your answer until Hell freezes over.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Bumped for Pat

[Robert Prudhomme]

Bump.

[Robert Prudhomme]

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t578p30-the-side-mounted-scope-on-the-65-carcano

Near the bottom of the third page of this thread, on the Reopen Kennedy Case Forum (link above), I have posted a series of posts dealing with the Western Cartridge Co. 6.5x52 mm Carcano ammo Oswald allegedly used to kill JFK, its origin and some very distinct oddities about the Magic Bullet, CE 399. I also explore the possibility of the ammo being loaded with incorrect bullets for the Carcano rifle, and how this evidence may be seen on CE 399.

I wanted to post this on this forum, as well, but, unfortunately, I am still unable to cut and paste photos or links to this forum, and it was necessary to post several photos to help explain the finer technological points of my arguments.

[Chris Newton]

Robert, Kudos on your treatise about the differences in the Carcano cartridges.

I have questions on a slightly different subject: if Oswald was using the iron sights and taking into consideration the downward travel of the Limo and gravity, wouldn't we need to believe Oswald's aim point was somewhere in space above Kennedy's head to actually hit him in the head? Has anyone ever tried to calculate how many stars would have to align to make that happen? ...because if you were actually looking down the sights and you weren't on the target, how would you track that target?

A conundrum wrapped in bullxxxx.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Chris

This is a real puzzle you have pointed out, and well worth looking at. As you know, the M91/38 iron sights were zeroed at the factory to be accurate at 200 metres (219 yards) on level ground. To aim at a target at 100 metres, he would either have to aim a few inches low, or, instead of placing the front sight blade square in the notch of the rear sight, he would have to lower the front of the barrel until the front sight disappeared from the notch. Hard to aim when you can't see the front sight, though. Of course, the last shot was at 88 yards (80 metres).

Then, with the downward trajectory from the 6th floor, the shot would end up hitting higher than the point of aim, requiring Oswald to aim a couple of inches low to compensate.

If Robert Frazier is to be believed (which I do not), it was not possible to adjust the scope to make the rifle not hit a few inches high and to the right at 100 yards. This problem seemed to also get worse with each successive shot. As I explained before, this was more likely from a warped forestock pressing on the barrel and making shots go high and to the right. With each shot, the barrel would heat and expand more, bending the barrel further and making the shots go even further to the right and higher. This would be difficult to compensate for but, once again, shooting low (and increasingly to the left) would seem to be the only remedy.

So far, we have Oswald aiming at the middle of JFK's back to score a head shot.

Next, we have JFK going away from Oswald, down a slope and a little to the right, as viewed by Oswald. Lead to the right and shoot a little high? I give up. This is one of those things I think could be worked out by trial and error live shooting, and by repairing the rifle first, which Frazier more than likely did.

While the debate goes on endlessly about whether Oswald practiced with a rifle or not, here is something else we should be thinking about. The geography of Dallas, Texas is relatively flat. Where did Oswald practice shooting downhill at moving targets?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme