The "Shallow" Back Wound and the "Short" Shot

[Ollie Curme]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this hypothesis on this post, but one explanation for the back wound would be a subsonic MC round fired in a sabot shell from the roof of the Dallas County Records building (discussed in previous postings on this forum). The purpose of the shot would be to place a bullet which could be matched to the alleged Oswald MC into JFK's body. The high angle reported by the autopsy could correspond to a bullet fired from that height. The nice thing about this hypothesis is that it could actually explain the origin of CE 399 as a bullet which fell out of JKF's body. The problems with this hypothesis are that without the benefit of rifling, the bullet would likely tumble, which wouldn't square with the round hole in the clothes and back, and at 300 fps, it would be hard to hit a moving target; at 800 fps, less hard.

[Tom Neal]

...the bullet was gaining velocity on the first half of its journey which was, of course, uphill.

Robert,

Question: What force was causing the bullet to gain velocity while traveling "uphill"?

Tom

Edited August 19, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

...the bullet was gaining velocity on the first half of its journey which was, of course, uphill.

Robert,

Question: What force was causing the bullet to gain velocity while traveling "uphill"?

Tom

I have no idea, Tom. In fact, I have never seen this on a ballistics calculator before, and I wonder if it is not an error in their computer. The laws of inertia state that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, but it doesn't say anything about gaining velocity; at least, not in this universe, anyways.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this hypothesis on this post, but one explanation for the back wound would be a subsonic MC round fired in a sabot shell from the roof of the Dallas County Records building (discussed in previous postings on this forum). The purpose of the shot would be to place a bullet which could be matched to the alleged Oswald MC into JFK's body. The high angle reported by the autopsy could correspond to a bullet fired from that height. The nice thing about this hypothesis is that it could actually explain the origin of CE 399 as a bullet which fell out of JKF's body. The problems with this hypothesis are that without the benefit of rifling, the bullet would likely tumble, which wouldn't square with the round hole in the clothes and back, and at 300 fps, it would be hard to hit a moving target; at 800 fps, less hard.

What cartridge would you recommend to fire the saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet, Ollie?

P.S.

If the sabot was fired from a rifled barrel, it would be spinning rapidly as it left the barrel. This means the bullet held in the sabot would also be spinning as it shed the sabot just shortly out from the barrel.

Not quite sure what you mean by the reference to 300 fps and 800 fps.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

...the bullet was gaining velocity on the first half of its journey which was, of course, uphill.

Robert,

Question: What force was causing the bullet to gain velocity while traveling "uphill"?

Tom

I have no idea, Tom. In fact, I have never seen this on a ballistics calculator before, and I wonder if it is not an error in their computer. The laws of inertia state that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, but it doesn't say anything about gaining velocity; at least, not in this universe, anyways.

I agree. It must be an error in the calculator. Velocity should be decreasing. Air resistance will reduce the bullet's velocity uphill or downhill, and an upward traveling bullet will have its vertical velocity component reduced by gravity.

[Tom Neal]

There is a great deal of evidence of frangible bullets being used in the assassination, as well as JFK having a serious injury to the top of his right lung.

Robert,

I don't believe it's possible with normal ammunition to aim at JFK's head and

due to "under-charged" ammo hit his upper back at a velocity that would only create

a "shallow wound". An under-charged shot that would impact only 10" or so lower than the

target would still produce a non-shallow wound, and an undercharged shot that would

arrive at a slow velocity would impact much lower than the 10" required. In other words,

either condition could be satisfied separately, but not BOTH at the same time. The available

charts don't reproduce all the conditions precisely, but are close enough to convince

me that the shallow back wound can NOT be explained by an inadvertently under-charged shot.

Considering all types of frangible bullets, would soft tissue fragment the bullet

to the degree necessary to prevent the bullet from exiting the body? Or would that

require contact with a bone, such as a rib or vertabra?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

Edited August 19, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

There is a great deal of evidence of frangible bullets being used in the assassination, as well as JFK having a serious injury to the top of his right lung.

Robert,

I don't believe it's possible with normal ammunition to aim at JFK's head and

due to "under-charged" ammo hit his upper back at a velocity that would only create

a "shallow wound". An under-charged shot that would impact only 10" or so lower than the

target would still produce a non-shallow wound, and an undercharged shot that would

arrive at a slow velocity would impact much lower than the 10" required. In other words,

either condition could be satisfied separately, but not BOTH at the same time. The available

charts don't reproduce all the conditions precisely, but are close enough to convince

me that the shallow back wound can be explained by an under-charged shot.

Considering all types of frangible bullets, would soft tissue fragment the bullet

to the degree necessary to prevent the bullet from exiting the body? Or would that

require contact with a bone, such as a rib or vertabra?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

FINALLY, someone asks a REALLY intelligent question! God bless you, Tom.

A frangible bullet performs in almost exactly the same fashion as a hollow point bullet (lethal frangible bullets actually are a type of hollow point bullet) and do not need to contact bone to make them open up. In fact, both types of bullet perform better if they contact only flesh and organs.

A hollow point bullet is made of lead, and has a small deep opening in the nose of the bullet.

A hollow point frangible bullet is made from a powdered metal (not always lead) that has been compressed, glued or sintered together and encased in a copper alloy jacket.

In both bullets, there is an opening in the nose. When these bullets travel through semi-liquid matter (ie. brain, lungs, other organs) the hollow cavity in the nose fills with this semi-liquid matter, and the velocity of the bullet exerts a tremendous hydraulic pressure inside the nose of the bullet that exerts this force on the rest of the bullet.

In the standard hollow point, the nose of the bullet opens up from this force and looks something like this, if it does not break up entirely into fragments.

OTOH, the hydraulic pressure in the nose of the frangible bullet exerts enough force to disintegrate the compressed metal powder core back into a 4 inch cloud of metal powder, disintegrating it totally. Upon disintegration into powder, the bullet comes to an abrupt halt and transfers ALL of the energy of the bullet to surrounding tissue. The result is devastating and totally lethal.

P.S.

I should point out that standard hollow point rifle bullets also lose a tremendous amount of velocity as they open up and, quite often, they will not exit a wound, either.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this hypothesis on this post, but one explanation for the back wound would be a subsonic MC round fired in a sabot shell from the roof of the Dallas County Records building (discussed in previous postings on this forum). The purpose of the shot would be to place a bullet which could be matched to the alleged Oswald MC into JFK's body. The high angle reported by the autopsy could correspond to a bullet fired from that height. The nice thing about this hypothesis is that it could actually explain the origin of CE 399 as a bullet which fell out of JKF's body. The problems with this hypothesis are that without the benefit of rifling, the bullet would likely tumble, which wouldn't square with the round hole in the clothes and back, and at 300 fps, it would be hard to hit a moving target; at 800 fps, less hard.

...the bullet was gaining velocity on the first half of its journey which was, of course, uphill.

Robert,

Question: What force was causing the bullet to gain velocity while traveling "uphill"?

Tom

I have no idea, Tom. In fact, I have never seen this on a ballistics calculator before, and I wonder if it is not an error in their computer. The laws of inertia state that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, but it doesn't say anything about gaining velocity; at least, not in this universe, anyways.

From what I read, the velocity of a bullet is greatest when it leaves the barrel and falls off from that point til it stops.

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this hypothesis on this post, but one explanation for the back wound would be a subsonic MC round fired in a sabot shell from the roof of the Dallas County Records building (discussed in previous postings on this forum). The purpose of the shot would be to place a bullet which could be matched to the alleged Oswald MC into JFK's body. The high angle reported by the autopsy could correspond to a bullet fired from that height. The nice thing about this hypothesis is that it could actually explain the origin of CE 399 as a bullet which fell out of JKF's body. The problems with this hypothesis are that without the benefit of rifling, the bullet would likely tumble, which wouldn't square with the round hole in the clothes and back, and at 300 fps, it would be hard to hit a moving target; at 800 fps, less hard.

What cartridge would you recommend to fire the saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet, Ollie?

P.S.

If the sabot was fired from a rifled barrel, it would be spinning rapidly as it left the barrel. This means the bullet held in the sabot would also be spinning as it shed the sabot just shortly out from the barrel.

Not quite sure what you mean by the reference to 300 fps and 800 fps.

There is a great deal of evidence of frangible bullets being used in the assassination, as well as JFK having a serious injury to the top of his right lung.

Robert,

I don't believe it's possible with normal ammunition to aim at JFK's head and

due to "under-charged" ammo hit his upper back at a velocity that would only create

a "shallow wound". An under-charged shot that would impact only 10" or so lower than the

target would still produce a non-shallow wound, and an undercharged shot that would

arrive at a slow velocity would impact much lower than the 10" required. In other words,

either condition could be satisfied separately, but not BOTH at the same time. The available

charts don't reproduce all the conditions precisely, but are close enough to convince

me that the shallow back wound can be explained by an under-charged shot.

Considering all types of frangible bullets, would soft tissue fragment the bullet

to the degree necessary to prevent the bullet from exiting the body? Or would that

require contact with a bone, such as a rib or vertabra?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

FINALLY, someone asks a REALLY intelligent question! God bless you, Tom.

A frangible bullet performs in almost exactly the same fashion as a hollow point bullet (lethal frangible bullets actually are a type of hollow point bullet) and do not need to contact bone to make them open up. In fact, both types of bullet perform better if they contact only flesh and organs.

A hollow point bullet is made of lead, and has a small deep opening in the nose of the bullet.

A hollow point frangible bullet is made from a powdered metal (not always lead) that has been compressed, glued or sintered together and encased in a copper alloy jacket.

In both bullets, there is an opening in the nose. When these bullets travel through semi-liquid matter (ie. brain, lungs, other organs) the hollow cavity in the nose fills with this semi-liquid matter, and the velocity of the bullet exerts a tremendous hydraulic pressure inside the nose of the bullet that exerts this force on the rest of the bullet.

In the standard hollow point, the nose of the bullet opens up from this force and looks something like this, if it does not break up entirely into fragments.

OTOH, the hydraulic pressure in the nose of the frangible bullet exerts enough force to disintegrate the compressed metal powder core back into a 4 inch cloud of metal powder, disintegrating it totally. Upon disintegration into powder, the bullet comes to an abrupt halt and transfers ALL of the energy of the bullet to surrounding tissue. The result is devastating and totally lethal.

P.S.

I should point out that standard hollow point rifle bullets also lose a tremendous amount of velocity as they open up and, quite often, they will not exit a wound, either.

But they will also show up on an xray.

[Tom Neal]

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

Robert,

Using the above link I entered the info you provided, and produced identical results

using the default "Muzzle Elevation" of 0 degrees. With the gun sighted in at 100

yards the tabulated data shows that at 100 yards the target has been hit with 0 error,

as it should if the sights have been placed precisely on the target.

The definition of "Muzzle Elevation" provided in the "Inputs:" section is "Horizontal

Inclination of gun in degrees". If the actual inclination of the gun was 0 degrees, there

would be no compensation for bullet drop and the shot would fall considerably short of

the target. So this cannot be the correct definition.

It appears that the calculator is computing whatever actual gun elevation above horizontal

is required to hit the target using the other entered parameters and calling that number

0 degrees Muzzle Elevation. So a "Muzzle Elevation" of 3 degrees in this calculator would

be relative to the angle with the sights on the target, rather than the actual elevation

above the horizontal.

I have never used a calculator to determine this type of data before, so I certainly could

be missing something relevant here.

What I'd like to do is calculate the gun elevation angle that would impact the target at

say 100 yards using a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps and the rest of the Carcano 91/38 data

that you provided. Then, maintain the same gun elevation (the shooter would be aiming at

the target expecting a fully charged shot) but reduce the velocity incrementally until the

error is -10.5".

JFK was 6' 1/2" tall as am I. The distance from the vertical center of my head to a point

5 3/4" below the top of my shirt collar is exactly 10.5".

IF I can figure out how to do the above with this ballistic calculator, I believe it will

produce an impact velocity far in excess of what would be required to create a "shallow

back wound" and disprove the theory that a "short shot" produced the "shallow back wound."

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

Robert,

Using the above link I entered the info you provided, and produced identical results

using the default "Muzzle Elevation" of 0 degrees. With the gun sighted in at 100

yards the tabulated data shows that at 100 yards the target has been hit with 0 error,

as it should if the sights have been placed precisely on the target.

The definition of "Muzzle Elevation" provided in the "Inputs:" section is "Horizontal

Inclination of gun in degrees". If the actual inclination of the gun was 0 degrees, there

would be no compensation for bullet drop and the shot would fall considerably short of

the target. So this cannot be the correct definition.

It appears that the calculator is computing whatever actual gun elevation above horizontal

is required to hit the target using the other entered parameters and calling that number

0 degrees Muzzle Elevation. So a "Muzzle Elevation" of 3 degrees in this calculator would

be relative to the angle with the sights on the target, rather than the actual elevation

above the horizontal.

I have never used a calculator to determine this type of data before, so I certainly could

be missing something relevant here.

What I'd like to do is calculate the gun elevation angle that would impact the target at

say 100 yards using a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps and the rest of the Carcano 91/38 data

that you provided. Then, maintain the same gun elevation (the shooter would be aiming at

the target expecting a fully charged shot) but reduce the velocity incrementally until the

error is -10.5".

JFK was 6' 1/2" tall as am I. The distance from the vertical center of my head to a point

5 3/4" below the top of my shirt collar is exactly 10.5".

IF I can figure out how to do the above with this ballistic calculator, I believe it will

produce an impact velocity far in excess of what would be required to create a "shallow

back wound" and disprove the theory that a "short shot" produced the "shallow back wound."

Tom

I believe I have already done this, Tom, if you go back a few posts. I calculated for the 162 grain bullet travelling at 2200 fps and for a rifle sighted in at 100 yards.

The calculator showed this bullet to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. As the same bullet, fired from a rifle held level, at 300 fps has a bullet drop of 48.99 inches, it was a simple matter of subtracting .77 from 48.99 to find out what the bullet drop would be from a rifle sighted in at 100 yards for 2200 fps ammo that was loaded with a defective bullet that only travelled at 300 fps.

To find out what velocity is required to have the bullet drop an amount that would equal the distance from the centre of JFK's head (aim point) to the point of impact (5 3/4" below the collar) or, as you calculated, 10.5 inches, I would keep upping the velocity factor in the calculator until the bullet drop (minus .77 inch) equalled 10.5 inches.

[Robert Prudhomme]

At 640 fps (436 mph), our 162 grain bullet has a drop (according to the calculator), from a rifle fired from a level position, of 11.22 inches. Considering again that, at 2200 fps, this bullet is .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards, we can subtract .77 from 11.22, giving us a drop of 10.45 inches or the distance from the centre of JFK's head to the entrance wound on his back.

Looking again at the calculator, we see this bullet, slowed down to 630 fps at 50 yards, still possesses 143 ft/lbf or 194.5 Joules of energy.This is comparable to a .22 long rifle bullet weighing 38 grains with a muzzle velocity of 1260 fps and possessing 182 Joules of energy.

This bullet is going to do quite a bit more than just break the surface.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

But they will also show up on an xray.

Yes they will, Kenneth, and so will the cloud of metal powder from the frangible bullet. Think about the "hundreds of dust like metal particles" seen in the x-rays of JFK's skull. As lead is malleable, and not brittle, a solid lead bullet (even a hollow point) is not going to turn to dust in a head wound.

The "hundreds of dust like particles" is the signature of a frangible bullet.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ollie Curme]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this hypothesis on this post, but one explanation for the back wound would be a subsonic MC round fired in a sabot shell from the roof of the Dallas County Records building (discussed in previous postings on this forum). The purpose of the shot would be to place a bullet which could be matched to the alleged Oswald MC into JFK's body. The high angle reported by the autopsy could correspond to a bullet fired from that height. The nice thing about this hypothesis is that it could actually explain the origin of CE 399 as a bullet which fell out of JKF's body. The problems with this hypothesis are that without the benefit of rifling, the bullet would likely tumble, which wouldn't square with the round hole in the clothes and back, and at 300 fps, it would be hard to hit a moving target; at 800 fps, less hard.

What cartridge would you recommend to fire the saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet, Ollie?

P.S.

If the sabot was fired from a rifled barrel, it would be spinning rapidly as it left the barrel. This means the bullet held in the sabot would also be spinning as it shed the sabot just shortly out from the barrel.

Not quite sure what you mean by the reference to 300 fps and 800 fps.

The sabot cartridge that was allegedly found on the roof of the Dallas County Records building was a 30.06, which normally carries a bullet of 7.8mm diameter. If it held a MC 6.5 bullet, which has a diameter of 6.8 mm, it wouldn't engage the rifling on the 30.06, and would preserve the previous rifling marks from the MC.. A subsonic round is traveling at less than 1125 fps; 300-800 fps is a range at which the round would be significantly underpowered. One would have to do tests to determine penetrating ability of the MC bullet at various speeds. In terms of aiming, if the plan was to place a MC bullet into JFK's body to implicate the patsy, one would hand load the cartridge and do testing beforehand to adjust the sights given the range, and elevation drop.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ollie

Look at these photos. Do you see a problem here?

Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Carcano cartridge

.30-06 cartridge on left