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

[Pat Speer]

I have nowhere near the shooting experience Robert has but I routinely shot both handgun and rifle 22's when I was growing up and I can't think of even a good shooter seriously thinking of making a lethal hit beyond about 50 yards and at 100 years, the distance of a football field, you best be practicing every day and be shooting at a deer or something larger. And at that range thinking a 22 would be lethal is ....strange. The CIA and other organizations did consider a 22 as a good assassination weapon but that was at extremely close range, with a stealthy shot holding the gun virtually at the back or side of the targets head. I'm also having trouble with the manual being cited that seems to imply 22 rounds have more carrying range than other handguns (which would usually think of as higher caliber).

The ballistics book I cited says the remaining velocity for .22 rifle cartridges at 100 yards is between 920 and 1040 fps. That is still faster than a .22 pistol bullet fired at point blank range, is it not?

(Perhaps we should recall hear that the bullet that killed Lincoln was about 50% larger than a .22 bullet, but traveling only 400 fps. Well, this means it delivered far less energy to the brain than a .22 bullet would at 100 yards. And it sure did the trick.)

Edited August 13, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

.22 short rifle cartridge, subsonic with a 29 grain bullet at 830 fps. Energy = 60 Joules

.22-250 cartridge, supersonic with a 40 grain bullet at 4224 fps. Energy = 2149 Joules

While both cartridges are loaded with a .22 calibre bullet, can anyone see a slight difference here? Despite the 22-250 bullet having almost 36 times more muzzle energy (hitting power) than the .22 short rifle bullet, the 22-250 is still only recommended for varmints and small game, and, occasionally, smaller species of deer such as our Sitka deer.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have nowhere near the shooting experience Robert has but I routinely shot both handgun and rifle 22's when I was growing up and I can't think of even a good shooter seriously thinking of making a lethal hit beyond about 50 yards and at 100 years, the distance of a football field, you best be practicing every day and be shooting at a deer or something larger. And at that range thinking a 22 would be lethal is ....strange. The CIA and other organizations did consider a 22 as a good assassination weapon but that was at extremely close range, with a stealthy shot holding the gun virtually at the back or side of the targets head. I'm also having trouble with the manual being cited that seems to imply 22 rounds have more carrying range than other handguns (which would usually think of as higher caliber).

The ballistics book I cited says the remaining velocity for .22 rifle cartridges at 100 yards is between 920 and 1040 fps. That is still faster than a .22 pistol bullet fired at point blank range, is it not?

(Perhaps we should recall hear that the bullet that killed Lincoln was about 50% larger than a .22 bullet, but traveling only 400 fps. Well, this means it delivered far less energy to the brain than a .22 bullet would at 100 yards. And it sure did the trick.)

One hundred yards? Are you seriously trying to tell this forum that someone was able to hit JFK from 100 yards with a .22 calibre rifle???????

P.S.

John Wilkes Booth was only two feet from Lincoln when he shot him.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Jon G. Tidd]

Although I'm skeptical of all the so-called medical evidence, I accept JFK was shot in the back because of his suit jacket and shirt.

I do not believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back unless such a shot was made to establish without doubt shooting came from behind. I consider that a non-negligible possibility.

I believe there was a careful plan to kill JFK and to create confusion as to his wounds, with the help of certain high-ranking military officers and other government officials.

I don't make much of the back wound. It cinches firing from behind but is otherwise insignificant, IMO; even a distraction.

Martin Schotz, M.D. (sp?) has the best take on the back wound, IMO. His take is consistent with the idea the wound was created merely to establish there was firing from behind.

[Ron Ecker]

Martin Schotz, M.D. (sp?) has the best take on the back wound, IMO. His take is consistent with the idea the wound was created merely to establish there was firing from behind.

I remember reading someone's speculation (don't know if it was Schotz or not) that is was not a bullet wound at all, but a hole made in the body to look like one. (They probably laughed about how the autopsists and ballistics experts would go nuts.)

[Robert Prudhomme]

Although I'm skeptical of all the so-called medical evidence, I accept JFK was shot in the back because of his suit jacket and shirt.

I do not believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back unless such a shot was made to establish without doubt shooting came from behind. I consider that a non-negligible possibility.

I believe there was a careful plan to kill JFK and to create confusion as to his wounds, with the help of certain high-ranking military officers and other government officials.

I don't make much of the back wound. It cinches firing from behind but is otherwise insignificant, IMO; even a distraction.

Martin Schotz, M.D. (sp?) has the best take on the back wound, IMO. His take is consistent with the idea the wound was created merely to establish there was firing from behind.

OTOH, Jon, if it can be proven that the so-called "short shot" was an impossibility, thus also making the "shallow" back wound impossible, the significance of the back wound then takes on a whole new dimension; for the simple fact that a FMJ travelling at normal rifle velocities (2000+ fps) should not have barely penetrated the skin of JFK's back. Under normal conditions, that FMJ bullet travelling at 2000+ fps (1363 mph) should have gone straight through JFK's chest and out the front.

Since it did not exit the front of his chest, we do indeed have a mystery on our hands. As I am a little old to believe in magic, I find it necessary to deduce what kind of bullet can enter the chest at 2000+ fps and not exit. While there are several types of bullets that MIGHT do this, there are only a couple that actually COULD do this; the mercury tipped bullet and the hollow point frangible bullet. I seriously doubt either would have been available to Oswald. If it were proven such bullets were used on the back shot AND the head shot, Oswald would be ruled out as a suspect. Well, at least as a lone suspect, anyways. I have never completely abandoned the possibility of Oswald having some minor role in the assassination.

P.S.

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. Would you care to see it?

Edited August 13, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

The biggest problem with the ballistic evidence in the JFK assassination is the failure of researchers to comprehend and understand it, and to be able to relate it to the medical evidence.

[Pat Speer]

I have nowhere near the shooting experience Robert has but I routinely shot both handgun and rifle 22's when I was growing up and I can't think of even a good shooter seriously thinking of making a lethal hit beyond about 50 yards and at 100 years, the distance of a football field, you best be practicing every day and be shooting at a deer or something larger. And at that range thinking a 22 would be lethal is ....strange. The CIA and other organizations did consider a 22 as a good assassination weapon but that was at extremely close range, with a stealthy shot holding the gun virtually at the back or side of the targets head. I'm also having trouble with the manual being cited that seems to imply 22 rounds have more carrying range than other handguns (which would usually think of as higher caliber).

The ballistics book I cited says the remaining velocity for .22 rifle cartridges at 100 yards is between 920 and 1040 fps. That is still faster than a .22 pistol bullet fired at point blank range, is it not?

(Perhaps we should recall hear that the bullet that killed Lincoln was about 50% larger than a .22 bullet, but traveling only 400 fps. Well, this means it delivered far less energy to the brain than a .22 bullet would at 100 yards. And it sure did the trick.)

One hundred yards? Are you seriously trying to tell this forum that someone was able to hit JFK from 100 yards with a .22 calibre rifle???????

P.S.

John Wilkes Booth was only two feet from Lincoln when he shot him.

You're mixing up the issues. My reference to the Lincoln assassination was to show that a subsonic .22 bullet at 100 yards would still have enough punch to kill someone. I wrote this to show that the CIA's manual on assassination was not out to lunch in saying subsonic .22 rounds could be effective out to 100 yards.

[Martin Hay]

I thought this video might be relevant to the discussion.

It shows .22 ammo penetrating 5 inches of meat wrapped in denim at 300 yards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAkOzr6cDx0

[Larry Hancock]

My only comment would be that is certainly a far cry from the sort of real world shooting - in terms of hitting a target at distance and getting a lethal impact - that I was describing in my comments. Those comments were in regard to a person carrying a standard 22 and attempting to shoot game which is on the move....no bipod fixed rifle mount, no opportunity to fire shots to sight in rifle at a set distance. That is what I was talking about in my personal experience post. I will leave any more technical response to Robert.

[Pat Speer]

There's also this chart which I found on gunsmoke.com. This demonstrates that a subsonic .22 LR bullet starts out below the line of sight and then briefly rises above the line of sight, whereby it passes back across the line of sight around 50 yards. In other words, it demonstrates that there is no bullet drop at 50 yards, and only 7 inches of drop at 100 yards.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Larry Hancock]

Pat, all your charts are lovely and I for one am not disputing them per se. However have you ever tried to hit a target say the size of a rabbit (comparable to a human head) at 50 or 100 yards with a 22 rifle ...with iron sights only....with a scope

firing multiple shots....with your target moving....shoulder held without having sighted in your weapon at that distance....how about the same free hand shooting a 22 pistol. I for one am going to need to hear an experienced shooter say they would bet on making a lethal assassination shot with a 22 pistol at 100 yards...I will do some asking though.

[Greg Burnham]

Pat,

I highly recommend that you go to a shooting range and consult with a professional on this issue. I suggest resisting the urge to tell him your inquiry is about the Kennedy case. Keep it generic so that you get unbiased answers. If it is an outdoor range with plenty of room, you may even be able to rent a .22 and ask the professional to attempt the shot--or, if you're comfortable with shooting, attempt to do it yourself. Unlike Dealey Plaza, more than likely you will be on a flat surface from shooter to target and the target will not be moving. So it will be easier--much easier. Yet, even then, I am certain you will find the level of difficulty exceeds what the "paper model" looks like.

As far as the mind-set of Kennedy's killers, we aren't dealing with people who settle for the mere possibility of success. We are talking about certainty. A professional's weapon of choice here would be critical. I believe that those on the "mechanic" level who actually executed this murder (pulled the triggers) knew how to get the job done and left nothing to chance in terms of the absolute certainty of its being successful. Would their first choice, assuming they had options, include a weapon that fired a .22 subsonic round? -- No! -- Not because a hit is impossible, but because a hit is much less likely than it would be with a superior weapon. The chart you referenced [above] is based on a 0 degree incline (or decline) from shooter to target. Those were not the conditions in Dealey Plaza. Precise calculations are required to insure a hit and those "equations" are dependent on which floor of which building the shooter was placed, as well as the precise location of the target on Elm St (which was on a decline) at the time of that shot, how fast the target is moving, the direction of travel relative to the shooter's position--including lateral motion--and, of course, the wind. These "factors" can dramatically impact the accuracy of a subsonic round by comparison to a high powered round in that a lot more can go wrong.

We can go round and round on this topic "in theory" but nothing will demonstrate it better than empirical data, at least some of which you can obtain for yourself.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Larry Hancock @ post #27:

Larry,

It appears to me that you believe the back wound was caused by what was intended a lethal shot to the head.

Whether you do or don't, I do not think this is a reasonable assumption.

The only wound pretty clearly identifiable as a wound of entry is the back wound. Although I'm prepared to give way as to whether it was a wound of entry or of exit. I don't trust the medical reports.

Let's assume for argument's sake that the back wound was caused by a shot from the rear. Not by a post-mortem punch to the back.

The head and throat damage are ambiguous as to precise cause. The back wound is not, given the assumptions I make.

The back wound, therefore, establishes at least one shot was fired from behind JFK.

That's critical to the Warren Commission and its defenders.

I believe the back shot was carefully planned for this purpose.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have nowhere near the shooting experience Robert has but I routinely shot both handgun and rifle 22's when I was growing up and I can't think of even a good shooter seriously thinking of making a lethal hit beyond about 50 yards and at 100 years, the distance of a football field, you best be practicing every day and be shooting at a deer or something larger. And at that range thinking a 22 would be lethal is ....strange. The CIA and other organizations did consider a 22 as a good assassination weapon but that was at extremely close range, with a stealthy shot holding the gun virtually at the back or side of the targets head. I'm also having trouble with the manual being cited that seems to imply 22 rounds have more carrying range than other handguns (which would usually think of as higher caliber).

The ballistics book I cited says the remaining velocity for .22 rifle cartridges at 100 yards is between 920 and 1040 fps. That is still faster than a .22 pistol bullet fired at point blank range, is it not?

(Perhaps we should recall hear that the bullet that killed Lincoln was about 50% larger than a .22 bullet, but traveling only 400 fps. Well, this means it delivered far less energy to the brain than a .22 bullet would at 100 yards. And it sure did the trick.)

One hundred yards? Are you seriously trying to tell this forum that someone was able to hit JFK from 100 yards with a .22 calibre rifle???????

P.S.

John Wilkes Booth was only two feet from Lincoln when he shot him.

You're mixing up the issues. My reference to the Lincoln assassination was to show that a subsonic .22 bullet at 100 yards would still have enough punch to kill someone. I wrote this to show that the CIA's manual on assassination was not out to lunch in saying subsonic .22 rounds could be effective out to 100 yards.

You're way out of your league here, Pat.

The only subsonic .22 cartridge available is the .22 short. These barely have enough hitting power to kill varmints at 25 yards. Your chances of killing something large at 100 yards with a .22 short are about 1:1,000,000.

Did you not see that even the 22-250, with a muzzle velocity of 4000+ fps, is not recommended for even deer hunting?

Even if you could kill someone at 100 yards with a .22 short at subsonic velocities (less than the speed of sound at roughly 1035 fps), the problem is still in getting the bullet to the target. It is the same reason I do not believe JFK was shot with a pistol; at these low velocities, these weapons are just not that accurate, despite what your "CIA manual" tells you.

Not only that, low velocity weapons are not flat shooting at 100 yards. While the 22-250, if sighted in at 100 yards, likely is only one inch high at 50 yards, the .22 short will be as much as 8 inches high at 50 yards if sighted in at 100 yards.

It is all about energy. As I pointed out earlier, your subsonic .22 short bullet has about 60 Joules of energy leaving the muzzle, while the 22-250 bullet has 2149 Joules of energy at the muzzle, yet both are .22 calibre bullets. See why no one (unless he is a frickin' idiot) goes deer hunting with a .22 short?