Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

The FBI and WC tried to pretend the misaligned scope worked to Oswald's advanatage.

Thanks, that's a good one. I guess Oswald had a lot of practice in not aiming at what he was shooting at.

The HSCA"s experts, however, took a more honest look at the situation and said the scope was more hindrance than help.

Then why didn't Oswald just take the scope off the rifle? Since I've never taken one off, is it just too much work? We all know how lazy and no-good Oswald was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I never said anything about anyone placing their aiming point 23" above a target. The lead for the head shot was only about 6 inches. The scope was misaligned, and would lead anyone using it to fire high. The FBI and WC tried to pretend the misaligned scope worked to Oswald's advanatage. The HSCA"s experts, however, took a more honest look at the situation and said the scope was more hindrance than help.
Hey Pat,
I apologize. I guess I was confused by all the talk of how we had to "lob" the underpowered rounds in.
-Chris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

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

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

So, I've just explained, ballistically, why the best you could expect from a "short" shot is to have the bullet hit the back bumper of the limo (if it even got that close) and my post is basically ignored. Unless you want to call Pat Speer's mathematical "deduction" (what a laugh) that the scope was shooting 23 inches high and would have compensated for a short shot a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well since this thread is sort of all over the place, I'd like to offer Brian an option. That option being that the shooters would be using the best weapons to ensure a kill, but is an an ambush and the priority is to kill JFK. Its not even a classic covert operation since rather than going for deniablity, there is a corollary effort to point to Castro. With such an option there is no particular effort to be totally covert or to disguise multiple shots...the only criteria is to make the kill and then ex-filtrate. The only thing demanding the involvement of a Carcano in any way is to associate the attack with Lee Oswald. In this scenario its perfectly acceptable to leave evidence of multiple shooters and a conspiracy. And if you get the chance to tie in Oswald, great, if not, that's secondary. I know this is old stuff and I hesitate to toss it out once again but it seems to me that jumping through hoops to involve Carcano's as the required weapon for all shooters is an assumption, not necessarily a given.

That's certainly a plausible angle. I tend to doubt an "all out, no holds barred" scenario, though, but that's just my interpretation. I think the fact that the way the shots hit Kennedy allowed for a single assassin scenario (as much of a stretch the single-bullet theory was) suggests it was intentionally framed up that way. Of course one could argue that this was political jiu-jitsu after the fact to hide the truth, and assumes none of the evidence was tampered with.

My best guess is that one of the high level plotters had a somewhat more pragmatic, if no ulterior motive than just setting up the assassination as a Castro conspiracy, and just wanted Kennedy gone, knowing that the lone nut scenario would be safer. Same goes if Johnson was really at the top of the pyramid--he may have used the the prospect of a Cuban provocation as a motivating factor for the ground crew, knowing that he would stick with a lone assassin after he became president.

In this instance, I suspect there was a "hierarchy of shots" and was communicated as such through signal men--the most blatant shots would be spared unless absolutely necessary. Of course, if a shot was fired but missed and there actually was a bomb waiting for Kennedy under the underpass, it'd be a little hard to pretend there wasn't a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI and WC tried to pretend the misaligned scope worked to Oswald's advanatage.

Thanks, that's a good one. I guess Oswald had a lot of practice in not aiming at what he was shooting at.

The HSCA"s experts, however, took a more honest look at the situation and said the scope was more hindrance than help.

Then why didn't Oswald just take the scope off the rifle? Since I've never taken one off, is it just too much work? We all know how lazy and no-good Oswald was.

Three screws held the scope mount onto the rifle and these could be removed in a few seconds. The scope mounted on this rifle was a toy, designed to be mounted on a youth's pellet gun or .22 rifle, and practical at very close ranges only; due to its extremely limited field of view. Here is the Walmart equivalent:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Crosman-Target-Finder-4x15-Airgun-Scope/14234828?action=product_interest&action_type=title&item_id=14234828&placement_id=irs-106

If Oswald practiced as much as the WC apologists claim he did, he would quickly realize that his scope was misaligned PLUS it was totally inadequate at target acquisition. To those of you that do not hunt, "target acquisition" is a difficult thing to explain. All I can say is that trying to find and track a target through a scope with a tiny field of view is like trying to watch TV with everything but a 3 inch circle at the centre of the screen blacked out. I do not believe Oswald could have tracked JFK with this scope to make the first shot.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this instance, I suspect there was a "hierarchy of shots" and was communicated as such through signal men--the most blatant shots would be spared unless absolutely necessary. Of course, if a shot was fired but missed and there actually was a bomb waiting for Kennedy under the underpass, it'd be a little hard to pretend there wasn't a conspiracy.

From a purely tactical perspective, if you wanted to give sniper(s) the most time, you begin the engagement with other elements which draw the attention of the target(s). From a practical perspective, I don't think you have enough time to wait for visual "signals" - an audible signal - "after the first shot"? Maybe.

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many members besides myself have actually fired a Carcano?

This question is only for those who have: Would you place your eye anywhere near the end of a scope mounted on this "kicks like a shotgun" weapon? I have never held a Carcano that had a scope mounted on it. But, after firing it, I knew a scope would be useless--even dangerous--for the operator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIA Manual on Assassination, Robert, says that .22 caliber subsonic bullets fired from a rifle

with a sound suppressor are nearly undetectable and are accurate up to 100 yards. It follows then,

that should one of these bullets be undercharged, the person firing the weapon would insufficiently

lead the target, and the bullet would fall a bit short of its target. If a skilled shooter was

aiming at the head in such circumstance, his shot might very well hit his target on the back.

Pat, the above statement indicates that the undercharged bullet would fall short of its target - it

doesn't even imply how far short of its target - but you state that it "might well" hit his back. "Might

well" indicates that this impact point is more likely than if you had stated it was 'possible' that it

hit him in the back. Based upon the data you have presented, please explain why the back is a more

likely impact point than, for example: 10' short of the limo?

My claim is simply that Robert is incorrect in dismissing that a short shot could have struck Kennedy.

The title of this thread is "The "Shallow" Back Wound and the "Short" Shot". This is the shot Robert is referring

to, and the one which you claim is "incorrect." And, for the 3rd time, you have offered no evidence whatsoever

that a bullet aimed at the back of JFK's head could impact his back at a velocity slow enough to create a shallow

back wound due to an undercharged bullet. Use any shooter location and weapon you like, and present some

evidence, not guesswork.

Remember your premise as stated above is that an undercharged bullet caused the shallow back wound. Any

off-road excursions into sighted-in range, or misaligned scopes, etc. has nothing to do with your premise and

your claim that Robert's theory is incorrect.

I don't think we can prove it one way or the other, seeing as we're discussing theoretical bullets fired from theoretical rifles sighted in at theoretical distances from theoretical locations.

I didn't ask you to prove theoretical bullets, rifles, etc. because that is NOT the theory that you are stating is incorrect. You can certainly prove or disprove that a Carcano rifle fired from the alleged sniper's nest at the distance stated by the WC and aimed at JFK's head would impact his upper back due to an undercharged bullet. If you can't prove or disprove it theoretically, and you can't prove or disprove it using the data Robert is referring to, please explain how you can so confidently state that Robert is "incorrect"?

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many members besides myself have actually fired a Carcano?

This question is only for those who have: Would you place your eye anywhere near the end of a scope mounted on this "kicks like a shotgun" weapon? I have never held a Carcano that had a scope mounted on it. But, after firing it, I knew a scope would be useless--even dangerous--for the operator.

It would require a scope with a LONG eye relief....much LIKE the ones currently being sold for use on shotguns firing slugs.

I had one on a shotgun and quick target acquisition was NOT its strong point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

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

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

So, I've just explained, ballistically, why the best you could expect from a "short" shot is to have the bullet hit the back bumper of the limo (if it even got that close) and my post is basically ignored. Unless you want to call Pat Speer's mathematical "deduction" (what a laugh) that the scope was shooting 23 inches high and would have compensated for a short shot a response.

Not at all, Robert. I've been intrigued at the strange confluence that

1) gravity would tend to stabilize the velocity of a bullet fired around 300 fps as it made its way across the plaza. Apparently, it would arc the bullet towards the ground, but maintain or even slightly increase its velocity.

2) a short shot fired at the ground from above would have far less bullet drop than one fired from ground level. Taken with the previous observation, then, it seems probable (at least to me at this time) that any short shot fired in the plaza and still reaching Kennedy would have to have been fired from nearby and above, most probably the upper floors of the TSBD.

3) some outside reading shows that bullets "fall" around 300 fps, which is only slightly faster than the speed at which a bullet will be able to break the skin.

Well, these three factors lead me to suspect a short shot fired from above remains a viable explanation for Kennedy's back wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many members besides myself have actually fired a Carcano?

This question is only for those who have: Would you place your eye anywhere near the end of a scope mounted on this "kicks like a shotgun" weapon? I have never held a Carcano that had a scope mounted on it. But, after firing it, I knew a scope would be useless--even dangerous--for the operator.

I have never shot a Carcano. Most of the military surplus fad in Canada back in the day was focused on the .303 Lee Enfield, of which I have owned a couple.

I assume you are referring to the M91/38 (Oswald's alleged rifle) or one of the carbine models. Just at a glance, the combination of a full sized rifle cartridge and a 162 grain bullet with what appears to be a light rifle should equal a noisy weapon with a bit of a kick to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sniper didn't use the scope for the head shot, Robert. This was the fervent belief of the HSCA's ballistics experts, and I suspect they actually got this one right.

Pat, I hate to ask this type question, but it keeps coming up. Which sniper? Which shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI and WC tried to pretend the misaligned scope worked to Oswald's advanatage.

Thanks, that's a good one. I guess Oswald had a lot of practice in not aiming at what he was shooting at.

The HSCA"s experts, however, took a more honest look at the situation and said the scope was more hindrance than help.

Then why didn't Oswald just take the scope off the rifle? Since I've never taken one off, is it just too much work? We all know how lazy and no-good Oswald was.

Three screws held the scope mount onto the rifle and these could be removed in a few seconds. The scope mounted on this rifle was a toy, designed to be mounted on a youth's pellet gun or .22 rifle, and practical at very close ranges only; due to its extremely limited field of view. Here is the Walmart equivalent:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Crosman-Target-Finder-4x15-Airgun-Scope/14234828?action=product_interest&action_type=title&item_id=14234828&placement_id=irs-106

If Oswald practiced as much as the WC apologists claim he did, he would quickly realize that his scope was misaligned PLUS it was totally inadequate at target acquisition. To those of you that do not hunt, "target acquisition" is a difficult thing to explain. All I can say is that trying to find and track a target through a scope with a tiny field of view is like trying to watch TV with everything but a 3 inch circle at the centre of the screen blacked out. I do not believe Oswald could have tracked JFK with this scope to make the first shot.

So why and how did we get back to what LHO did that day? I'm going to stick with, if LHO was doing the shooting, he was doing it from the 2nd floor lunchroom in between sips on his Coke. And I'll even say that it doesn't really matter if there was a window in the lunchroom looking out onto Elm street.

When we get into all these 'hypothesis' why not at least go with one with some chance of reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

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

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

So, I've just explained, ballistically, why the best you could expect from a "short" shot is to have the bullet hit the back bumper of the limo (if it even got that close) and my post is basically ignored. Unless you want to call Pat Speer's mathematical "deduction" (what a laugh) that the scope was shooting 23 inches high and would have compensated for a short shot a response.

Not at all, Robert. I've been intrigued at the strange confluence that

1) gravity would tend to stabilize the velocity of a bullet fired around 300 fps as it made its way across the plaza. Apparently, it would arc the bullet towards the ground, but maintain or even slightly increase its velocity.

2) a short shot fired at the ground from above would have far less bullet drop than one fired from ground level. Taken with the previous observation, then, it seems probable (at least to me at this time) that any short shot fired in the plaza and still reaching Kennedy would have to have been fired from nearby and above, most probably the upper floors of the TSBD.

3) some outside reading shows that bullets "fall" around 300 fps, which is only slightly faster than the speed at which a bullet will be able to break the skin.

Well, these three factors lead me to suspect a short shot fired from above remains a viable explanation for Kennedy's back wound.

1) Not quite. Out of curiosity, I calculated for a 162 grain bullet, with a muzzle velocity of 300 fps, shot from a rifle sighted in at 500 yards, and then at 1000 yards. In both cases, the bullet was gaining velocity on the first half of its journey which was, of course, uphill. At 500 yards, the bullet was travelling at 306 fps at 250 yards, and, at 1000 yards, the bullet was travelling 310 fps at 500 yards. I cannot think of an explanation for this. I might e-mail the web site and see if they understand it.

2) Wrong again. A bullet fired from above is subject to the same forces of gravity as one shot on level ground, or uphill. While a bullet shot uphill OR downhill will go slightly high of the aimed target, it is by no means enough to offset an almost 49 inch drop of the bullet. Your theory might be true if the bullet was fired straight down but, the angle from the 6th floor was just over 20°.

3) There is no constant velocity for the rate at which things fall to earth, until the object reaches "terminal" velocity. The rate of fall, up to this limit, is an accelerating force; hence the rate of fall being expressed as 32 feet per second per second. Outside of that, you make a nonsensical statement. What does the rate of descent have to do with a bullet's ability to break skin?

You are mistaken about 300 fps being "only slightly faster than the speed at which a bullet will be able to break the skin" and, by stating this, show your complete and utter lack of knowledge of bullets, rifles and ballistics. Muzzle energy is the measurement of a bullet's hitting power, and is a calculation of bullet mass and velocity. Heavier bullets will have more energy than lighter bullets at the same velocity.

As I pointed out earlier, the 162 grain Carcano bullet, at 300 fps, had 45 Joules of energy at 50 yards. A 29 grain bullet of .22 calibre with a muzzle velocity of 830 fps had 60 Joules of energy at the muzzle; only slightly more than the 162 grain bullet at 300 fps.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An important point is that in the Marines, Oswald never trained with a Carcano and never trained with a scope.

In the military in the 1960s, only sniper rifles had scopes. The basic sniper weapon in Viet Nam was a super-duper M-14 equipped with a superb scope.

Oswald trained on an M-1 Garand. This was a magnificent semi-auto rifle that fired 30.06 rounds from an 8-shot "clip."

We know Oswald's scores with the M-1. Middling to barely qualifying. We don't know his scores with a Carcano, although we're led to believe that with a Carcano he aced another shooter's targets at a Dallas shooting range.

DVP has maintained here Oswald would have had easy shots at JFK from the sixth-floor window of the TSBD. I'd like nothing more than to agree with DVP and put this whole matter to rest. But the shots provably were not easy. One shot sailed way over the limo and wound up wounding James Tague. Another hit JFK in the back. Or so we're led to believe. Another blew out parts of JFK's brains and skull, we're told. Easy shots? I say lucky shots, giving deference to DVP.

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

×
×
  • Create New...