The Handgun, part I

[Gil Jesus]

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ce-143-revolver.gif

 

By Gil Jesus ( 2022 )
Part I: The order blank

On an unknown date, Seaport Traders received an order blank, taken from an unknown magazine, from an "A.J. Hidell" for a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver with a 2" barrel.
Some folks have suggested that "Hidell" ordered a .38 Special for $ 39.95 but received a ".38 St. W" for $ 29.95.
The order blank does not show that, however.

 

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WH_Vol17_678-ce-790.jpg

The order blank was filled out to reflect an order for one ".38 St.W. 2" Bbl." for 29.95.

I believe that the "St.W" is a printing typo. Apparently, the printer got a handwritten list of weapons for the order blank and saw "S+W" and thought it meant "StW" and made an error when he cast the type.
That's just my opinion based on my Jr. High School experience in print shop. It's an easy mistake to make.

Because of this typo, you would have thought that the FBI could have tracked down what publication it had come from.

They didn't.

Another point about this order blank is that the requirement for a C.O.D. ( cash on delivery ) order is a deposit of 1/2 the price of the item. ( underlined in red, above )

Ten dollars is not 1/2 of thirty.

The order blank also informs the purchaser that the "express charges" are "collect" ( yellow underline above ), meaning that any shipping charges would have had to have been paid by the purchaser at the time of delivery.

That's in addition to the $ 19.95 balance on the weapon and the C.O.D. charges.

In other words, the balance owed on the item and the C.O.D. charges would be collected by REA and paid to Seaport Traders and the shipping charges would be paid to REA Express when the package was picked up.

Another thing I find strange about this order blank is that it contains two different Commission Exhibit numbers, CE 790 ( above ) and CE 135 ( below ).
 

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

This is the first time I have run across this in my research and it still has me puzzled why they would need two different exhibit numbers for the same exhibit.

And after examining them closely side by side, I can report with confidence that they ARE the same exhibit. The only difference is that CE 135 is on a light background and CE 790 is on a dark background.

Coming in part II: The Commission's "expert"
 

[Pete Mellor]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

In other words, the balance owed on the item and the C.O.D. charges would be collected by REA and paid to Seaport Traders and the shipping charges would be paid to REA Express when the package was picked up.

Gil, can you clarify.  I'm sure I have read in the distant past that U.S. Post Offices in '63 would not accept C.O.D. items to a persons post box.  True or false?

[Richard Price]

Pete, I can't speak to 1960's C.O.D. handling directly.  I do know that some things changed when the Post Office Department was changed over to USPS, but I am pretty sure handling of C.O.D. packages was not substantially changed.  The package was handled as what was known as "accountable" mail.  The sender paid a fee on top of postage so the post office would collect the money and send it back when the package was delivered.  It had a number assigned and as it flowed from sender to receiver it was tracked on a paper record.  When it arrived at the delivery post office, it would have been recorded and a notice placed in the recipients mail receptacle.  The notice would have included where the package was from, the amount due to the sender and the payment options (if any).  The item itself would have been stored at the post office with a date of its arrival and for its return (usually 30 days although the sender could specify less).  Items remaining in the post office for five (5) days would be marked with "2nd Notice" and another notice would be put in the recipients box.  This notice would show the specified return date letting the recipient know that if the item was not picked up it would be returned no later than that date.  If not claimed by that date, it would be returned to the sender as "unclaimed".  I think until relatively recent times no other entity had access to PO box delivery.  Until the USPS signed contracts with UPS/FEDEX only postal deliveries were allowed to PO boxes as well as residential mail boxes.  Non postal deliveries are still not allowed to be made directly into "mail receptacles" by the outside agencies.  The outside agencies must present mail to postal employees for the actual delivery inside a post office.  Even residential delivery cannot be made by non postal employees into mail receptacles (mailboxes) and has to be delivered to the door/porch or other location.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Richard Price
Additional information:

[Ron Bulman]

Gil, you may cover some of this in coming parts.  It's been several years since I've read about Oswald's handgun, here are a couple of things to think about though this is from memory.  I can't site sources off the top of my head though I know I've read work on this by David Josephs among others.

First, allegations that Oswald didn't have a hand gun.  Until one was "planted" on him then confiscated during his submission and arrest.  

That the one in the National Archives is a .38, the most popular caliber revolver of police departments throughout the United States in 1963.

Something about at some point it being a 38 Special.  Same caliber but uses a longer casing with more gunpowder, thus a more powerful farther reaching (accurately) shot.  That his had been modified from a .38 to 38 Special (?).  Maybe 38 Special casings found at the Tippit murder scene?  I need to check Nightmare on that. 

That someone involved in Oswald's interrogation said at some point, I don't think from any notes, that Oswald said he had bought his pistol in Fort Worth at a pawn shop.  Something about him carrying it for protection.  In a movie theater.  Shades of Aurora.

[Mark Knight]

Actually, Ron...the handgun was a Smith & Wesson [S&W] Victory series, shipped to England for WWII service. There it was "proofed." It was chambered in .38 S&W from the factory.

Factory .38 S&W specifications: 

Bullet diameter .361 in (9.2 mm)

Neck diameter .3855 in (9.79 mm)

Base diameter .3865 in (9.82 mm)

Rim diameter .440 in (11.2 mm)

Rim thickness .055 in (1.4 mm)

Case length .775 in (19.7 mm)

Overall length 1.240 in (31.5 mm)

Primer type Small pistol

Maximum pressure 14,500 psi (100 MPa)

 

On the other hand, factory .38 Special specifications:

Parent case.38 Long Colt

Case type Rimmed, straight

Bullet diameter .357 in (9.1 mm)

Neck diameter .379 in (9.6 mm)

Base diameter .379 in (9.6 mm)

Rim diameter .44 in (11 mm)

Rim thickness .058 in (1.5 mm)

Case length 1.155 in (29.3 mm)

Overall length 1.550 in (39.4 mm)

Case capacity 23.4 gr H2O (1.52 cm3)

Primer type Small pistol

Maximum pressure 17,500 psi (121 MPa)

 

So what do these specs mean? Well, the .38 Special ammunition will fit in the .38 S&W cylinder, but .38 S&W ammunition won't fit in a revolver chambered for .38 Special. The case of the .38 Special is .38" longer than the .38 S&W, which means that when a .38 Special round is fired in a revolver chambered for .38 S&W, the longer case will "balloon" somewhat at the open end where the bullet was, making it difficult to remove the bullet casings from the revolver. FBI expert Cortland Cunningham mentioned that in his WC testimony. Cunningham stated that, while it's not uncommon for the ends of these casings to split when fired in the .38 S&W gun, none of the casings he tested split. 

Notice also that the bullet diameter for the .38 S&W is .361", while the .38 Special is .357. The result of firing a .38 Special bullet in a barrel chambered for .38 S&W is that the bullet doesn't expand as much and engage the rifling in the barrel. Cunningham said that, from the bullets that came from Tippit's body, one was too mangled to tell; the other three had different enough barrel marks on them due to the diameter discrepancy that he could not say with absolute certainty that the Tippit bullets were fired from the Oswald revolver, to the exclusion of all other weapons. But Cunningham said that the markings on the bullets had enough similarity that he also could not say with absolute certainty that they were NOT fired from the Oswald revolver.

And that's called "reasonable doubt."

 

[Gil Jesus]

21 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Gil, can you clarify.  I'm sure I have read in the distant past that U.S. Post Offices in '63 would not accept C.O.D. items to a persons post box.  True or false?

Pete: I think I've read that before someplace, but after researching it I find it to be false. The Post Office has been receiving CODs for over a hundred years, what difference would it make if it was sent to a post office box or not ? It's all in the same building being handled by the same people. The Post Office would receive the COD item to their facility, then send a notice to the post office box that the package had arrived. Then when he or she received the notice, the recipient would go to the counter with the notice and pay the outstanding amount in order to receive their package.

What I DID find out is that FREIGHT companies like UPS, Fed-Ex and DHL ( back then it was REA Express ) would NOT DELIVER to a post office box. They would receive the COD item to their facility, then send a notice to the post office box that the package had arrived. When he or she received the notice, the recipient would go to their facility and pay the outstanding amount in order to receive their package.

Both of these procedures would insure that all charges ( balance on the item, COD charges and shipping charges ) would be paid in full.

I hope this answers your question.

BTW, I'm going to go through this in part III.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

9 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

when a .38 Special round is fired in a revolver chambered for .38 S&W, the longer case will "balloon" somewhat at the open end where the bullet was, making it difficult to remove the bullet casings from the revolver.

 

Thank You Mark. It's always nice to have feedback from someone who knows what their talking about. I wonder of this was the reason why, from the witness accounts, the Tippit killer seemed to have so much trouble in emptying the revolver after the shooting.

[Pete Mellor]

21 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Pete, I can't speak to 1960's C.O.D. handling directly.  I do know that some things changed when the Post Office Department was changed over to USPS, but I am pretty sure handling of C.O.D. packages was not substantially changed.  The package was handled as what was known as "accountable" mail.  The sender paid a fee on top of postage so the post office would collect the money and send it back when the package was delivered.  It had a number assigned and as it flowed from sender to receiver it was tracked on a paper record.  When it arrived at the delivery post office, it would have been recorded and a notice placed in the recipients mail receptacle.  The notice would have included where the package was from, the amount due to the sender and the payment options (if any).  The item itself would have been stored at the post office with a date of its arrival and for its return (usually 30 days although the sender could specify less).  Items remaining in the post office for five (5) days would be marked with "2nd Notice" and another notice would be put in the recipients box.  This notice would show the specified return date letting the recipient know that if the item was not picked up it would be returned no later than that date.  If not claimed by that date, it would be returned to the sender as "unclaimed".  I think until relatively recent times no other entity had access to PO box delivery.  Until the USPS signed contracts with UPS/FEDEX only postal deliveries were allowed to PO boxes as well as residential mail boxes.  Non postal deliveries are still not allowed to be made directly into "mail receptacles" by the outside agencies.  The outside agencies must present mail to postal employees for the actual delivery inside a post office.  Even residential delivery cannot be made by non postal employees into mail receptacles (mailboxes) and has to be delivered to the door/porch or other location.

Cheers Richard, I think that covers all bases! 

[Pete Mellor]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

I hope this answers your question.

BTW, I'm going to go through this in part III.

Thanks, Richard & yourself have clarified that issue.  I've tried to find where I came across that false info, but no luck so far.

[Ron Bulman]

On 6/11/2022 at 9:27 PM, Mark Knight said:

Actually, Ron...the handgun was a Smith & Wesson [S&W] Victory series, shipped to England for WWII service. There it was "proofed." It was chambered in .38 S&W from the factory.

Factory .38 S&W specifications: 

Bullet diameter .361 in (9.2 mm)

Neck diameter .3855 in (9.79 mm)

Base diameter .3865 in (9.82 mm)

Rim diameter .440 in (11.2 mm)

Rim thickness .055 in (1.4 mm)

Case length .775 in (19.7 mm)

Overall length 1.240 in (31.5 mm)

Primer type Small pistol

Maximum pressure 14,500 psi (100 MPa)

 

On the other hand, factory .38 Special specifications:

Parent case.38 Long Colt

Case type Rimmed, straight

Bullet diameter .357 in (9.1 mm)

Neck diameter .379 in (9.6 mm)

Base diameter .379 in (9.6 mm)

Rim diameter .44 in (11 mm)

Rim thickness .058 in (1.5 mm)

Case length 1.155 in (29.3 mm)

Overall length 1.550 in (39.4 mm)

Case capacity 23.4 gr H2O (1.52 cm3)

Primer type Small pistol

Maximum pressure 17,500 psi (121 MPa)

 

So what do these specs mean? Well, the .38 Special ammunition will fit in the .38 S&W cylinder, but .38 S&W ammunition won't fit in a revolver chambered for .38 Special. The case of the .38 Special is .38" longer than the .38 S&W, which means that when a .38 Special round is fired in a revolver chambered for .38 S&W, the longer case will "balloon" somewhat at the open end where the bullet was, making it difficult to remove the bullet casings from the revolver. FBI expert Cortland Cunningham mentioned that in his WC testimony. Cunningham stated that, while it's not uncommon for the ends of these casings to split when fired in the .38 S&W gun, none of the casings he tested split. 

Notice also that the bullet diameter for the .38 S&W is .361", while the .38 Special is .357. The result of firing a .38 Special bullet in a barrel chambered for .38 S&W is that the bullet doesn't expand as much and engage the rifling in the barrel. Cunningham said that, from the bullets that came from Tippit's body, one was too mangled to tell; the other three had different enough barrel marks on them due to the diameter discrepancy that he could not say with absolute certainty that the Tippit bullets were fired from the Oswald revolver, to the exclusion of all other weapons. But Cunningham said that the markings on the bullets had enough similarity that he also could not say with absolute certainty that they were NOT fired from the Oswald revolver.

And that's called "reasonable doubt."

 

Thank you for the clarification Mark.  Are you or anyone else aware of questions about a 38 Special somehow being involved with Oswald or the Tippit shooting other than the questioning Gil mentions about the order form from Seaport Traders?  Does anyone remember anything about a .38 being planted on him at the Texas Theater or a report of him saying he bought a pistol from a pawn shop in Fort Worth?

[Gil Jesus]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thank you for the clarification Mark.  Are you or anyone else aware of questions about a 38 Special somehow being involved with Oswald or the Tippit shooting other than the questioning Gil mentions about the order form from Seaport Traders?  Does anyone remember anything about a .38 being planted on him at the Texas Theater or a report of him saying he bought a pistol from a pawn shop in Fort Worth?

Ron, I remember one of the Dallas cops testfiying that he asked Oswald whose gun it was and he replied, "the suspect's".

Also, George Applin said in an affidavit that of Oswald and MacDonald, "one of the two had a pistol in his right hand." ( CD 87, pg. 558 )

I find it interesting that he didn't say Oswald specifically.

There were newspaper reports that the revolver had a bent firing pin and that the firing pin had been purposely bent by the DPD so no officer would get shot when they tried to plant the gun on Oswald.

But to that I ask: wouldn't it have been easier and safer ( if they were going to plant a gun on him ) to just plant an EMPTY gun ?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just load it and fire it at a later time to get the bullets and shells as evidence ?

I believe the Fort Worth story came from the testimony of Fritz. I'm not sure of the exact citation.

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Gil Jesus