Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Rifle


Recommended Posts

Guest John Gillespie

Odd???? Have you read ANY JFK related evidence? Geez, Len.

You are aware, LIFE (amongst other publications) touched up "backyard photos", aren't you?

Oh, As the designated contact person for RZavada/RFielding, how are they making out? Plenty of proof readers?

David

__________________________

Ooh, a left, a right, another left...

At the risk of seeming eager to emulate Peter Dale Scott (that proposition would seem laughable), there runs to this day - throughout this still ongoing operation - a seemingly interminable number of red herrings, likely as planned. Some of these fishes, i.e., the rifle(s), photo(s) of the rifle(s), fake Oswalds, "agents" in Dealey Plaza, autopsy photos, etc. are close to the surface but, as attested on this site, there are many, many more below, within view and possible reach. In a related metaphor, one easily gets the 'bends' after chasing them and trying to return to the top to catch one's breath.

Dick Russell described his investigation, in "TMWKTM", as peeling the layers of an onion and the entire realm of the assassination itself as a hydra. I like both of those, but let's just apply Mathematics and Physics: sprinkle this whole business with false trails, the chasing of wild geese and those aforementioned rutili clupeidae. This is done before, during and after the dirty deed and stays ongoing. Throw in need-to-know, compartmentalization, the manufacturing of profile/legend and, most of all, unintended consequences and you have what David C. Martin so aptly and beautifully characterized as a

"Wilderness Of Mirrors", feeding upon itself and ever developing, exponentially.

Paul Simon's "Slip, Sliding Away" comes to mind as well, n'est ce pas? That's my nutshell. What the hell, I'm entitled. Ha.

Regards, JG

Edited by John Gillespie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Odd???? Have you read ANY JFK related evidence? Geez, Len.

You are aware, LIFE (amongst other publications) touched up "backyard photos", aren't you?

Are you really trying to equate Life and other magazines touching up the backyard photos for publication with theories that they were doctored or don’t show the same carbine found at the TSBD? What does one have to do with the other? If the photos were faked this would had to have been done before the assassination, Life retouched them after.

Oh, As the designated contact person for RZavada/RFielding, how are they making out? Plenty of proof readers?

Zavada said he would produce a "disertation" a few weeks ago but didn't give a deadline for when he would complete it. You on the other had promised some ground breakinng revelation "soon" over 2 months ago.

I'll be making my formal claim, soon -- we'll see what kind of offense you can mount -- not that I suspect you can mount anything -- oh, your gonna need Roland Zavada -- I'll venture say you lone neuters MAY find a optical film printing expert within 30 day's, right.... ?

ding-dong!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=51766

We're still waiting. What's the problem still getting ir proof read. LOL what a joke!

You and the other alterationists have yet to adequately respond to his last paper* on the subject anyway. Since you have his email and are anxious to hear what he has to say why don't you ask him when his paper will be ready?

Len

*http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd???? Have you read ANY JFK related evidence? Geez, Len.

You are aware, LIFE (amongst other publications) touched up "backyard photos", aren't you?

Are you really trying to equate Life and other magazines touching up the backyard photos for publication with theories that they were doctored or don’t show the same carbine found at the TSBD? What does one have to do with the other? If the photos were faked this would had to have been done before the assassination, Life retouched them after.

Oh, As the designated contact person for RZavada/RFielding, how are they making out? Plenty of proof readers?

Zavada said he would produce a "disertation" a few weeks ago but didn't give a deadline for when he would complete it. You on the other had promised some ground breakinng revelation "soon" over 2 months ago.

I'll be making my formal claim, soon -- we'll see what kind of offense you can mount -- not that I suspect you can mount anything -- oh, your gonna need Roland Zavada -- I'll venture say you lone neuters MAY find a optical film printing expert within 30 day's, right.... ?

ding-dong!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=51766

We're still waiting. What's the problem still getting ir proof read. LOL what a joke!

You and the other alterationists have yet to adequately respond to his last paper* on the subject anyway. Since you have his email and are anxious to hear what he has to say why don't you ask him when his paper will be ready?

Len

*http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

Why Len, Here I thought all along you wanted to be part of this? Put yourself right in the middle, yes? tap---tap---tap...

tap--tap--tap.... How many proof readers you need over there? surely Ray Fielding will bury me -- this isn't Film 101 guy! tap...tap...tap...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Jack;

Thanks for the information.

Certainly a well researched item, and, not unlike most of the evidence, a book which deals with only "THE RIFLE" could be, and should be undertaken by someone.

I am familiar with a portion of this writing as someone long ago sent me that portion which deals with the importation of the weapons and the formation of Adams Consolidated/Folsom Arms/Crescent, etc;

This was done to ask what knowledge I may have of this operation.

The work by Armstrong in relationship to two items related to the Carcano is of prime importance.

The shipping weights, and the rifle serial numbers.

Regarding rifle serial numbers, the following additional information may add to what Armstrong has indicated.

1.  Carcano Carbines. (pre-1938)

a.  Manufactured at multiple factories.

c.  Manufactured in two seperate versions. (Cavalry Carbine & TS Carbine)

d.  Barrell length for each model is the same and barells can be interchanged.

2.  Each plant that manufactured the Carcano (in any version of the weapon) issued it's own serial numbers. 

The only distinction between other plants being that of the stamp mark of the actual plant of assembly.

With the TS Carbine, we could conceiveably have:

a.  Serial# C2766 made at the Brescia plant (M91)

b.  Serial# C2766 made at the Terni plant (M91/28)

c.  Serial# C2766 made at the Beretta plant (M91/28)

d.  Serial# C2766 made at the Brescia plant (M91/28)

e.  Serial# C2766 made at the Gardone plant (M9128)

f.   ??Two additional plants are listed, however there is no actual record of these plants having produced any weapons, and this appears to possibly be the plants at which the modifications to the Model 91/28 were made which added the grenade launcher to this model of the weapon.

3.  In addition to actual production of the TS Carbine, various plants also manufactured the Cavalry Carbine.

This weapon is entirely different in design from the TS Carbine and is a completely separate model identification.  However, this weapon utilized the exact same 17.7 inch length barrel as that utilized in the TS Carbine, and the barrels are completely interchangeable.

Therefore, we could have the following additional carbine barrels with the C2766 serial number on them:

a.  Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Brescia

b.  Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Gardone

c.  Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Terni

With this, the potential for 17.7 inch length carbine rifle barrels which bear the same C2766 serial number has now increased to 8 barrels.  And, in fact, some of these barrels could in fact bear the identical plant of manufacture stamp as some of them were made for the TS Carbine, and others were made for the Cavalry Carbine, which actually constituted different models of the rifle.

4.  To add additional confusion to the serial number issue, we can interject what is referred to as the Model 91/24TS Carbine.

As indicated previously, this weapon was not originally a carbine.  It was in fact originally a 50.8 inch long rifle with a 30.7 inch length barrell.

The Italian Government, in needing more TS Carbines, embarked on "cutting down" many of the old long rifles and conversion of these weapons to the exact same length as the TS Carbine.

Since the "RIFLE" was in fact a totally separate model identification, then it too could, and would have issues from the various plants which could easily bear the serial# C2766.

Therefore, one could add in the potential of:

a.  Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Beretta

b.  Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Brescia

c.  Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Mida-Brescia

d.  Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Roma

e.  Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Terni

f.   Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Torino

g.  Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Torre Annunzio

Obviously, one can not assume that each and every M91 rifle which may have carried the serial number C2766 was ultimately cut down and made into 36-inch length Carbines, Model 91/24.

This however demonstrates the potential of how many pre-1938 "Carbine" rifle barrels could exist which bear the serial number C2766.

And, this does not take into consideration the numbers of Rifles & Carbines produced which would contain a variation of the C2766 serial number, which could easily be made to match this exact number.  IE:

a.  C 276------with an additional "6" added

b.     276------with a "C" and an additional "6" added

c.     2766-----With a "C" added.

Nor, does this take into consideration those weapons produced, beginning in 1938, which will be discussed next.

In 1938, the Italian Government embarked on a major caliber change for the Carcano.

Production of the weapon in a 7.35mm caliber was instituted, and the following weapons were produced in this new and larger size.

a. Cavalry Carbine

b. TS Carbine

c. Short Rifle*

*The Short Rifle was a new design weapon which had not been produced prior to this.

These weapons, in the 7.35mm caliber, are referred to as the Model 38.

In addition to this larger caliber, the old fold-up/long range rear sight of the weapons was deleted and a fixed rear sight was installed and became an identifying characteristic of those weapons produced begining in 1938.

**It is noted that production of the Rifle (long rifle) in the 7.35mm was not done.

This weapon remained in the 6.5mm caliber.

A further discussion of the 7.35mm caliber will be forthcoming after discussion of the post-1938 6.5mm weapons.

___________________________________________________________________

Within a short time of having converted to the 7.35mm calliber, the Italian Government decided not to proceed with this major design change as WWII was starting. Therefore, a change back to production of only 6.5mm weapons was begun.

With this came the Model 91/38 production in the following rifle designs.

a. Cavalry Carbine

b. TS Carbine

c. Short Rifle.

The new Cavalry Carbine in the 6.5mm version was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

c. Gardone

The new TS Carbine in the 6.5mm version was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

With this new design production, the possiibility of a Carbine rifle barrel which contained the serial number C2766 now has an additional five more barrels added to the already large number from the pre-1938 weapons.

This of course also adds to the numbers of those variations of "C2766" which could be made into that number by merely adding additional stamping.

Lastly, of course this new design production also included the new "Short Rifle" in the 6.5mm caliber as well.

Records indicate that this weapon was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

c. Gardone

d. Terni

Which should serve to indicate that even with the Carcano M91/38 (6.5mm), Short Rifle, there exists the possibility of having four virtually identical weapons which bear the serial number C2766, with the only identifiable difference being the plant stamp of manufacture/assembly.

Now, the Italian Government has come full circle back to production of only 6.5mm rifles for it's forces.

However, there also exists a considerable supply of Cavalry Carbines; TS Carbines; and Short Rifles, which were produced in the 7.35mm version.

Thereafter, many of these weapons were recalled into the Italian Armament plants and the weapons were modified back to the 6.5mm version.

Since this was a originally a totally separate model and caliber weapon, it's serial number issue was separate as well.

Therefore, there could have easily been serial# C2766 weapons issued in each of the three versions of weapons by each of the separate plants which produced these rifles.

It is unknown as to what serial numbering system was utilized when these weapons were returned and re-conditioned to the 6.5mm caliber.

To date, I have found only three indicators as a means to determine which of the M91/38 6.5mm Short Rifles may be originally produced as this, as opposed to formerly 7.35mm versions which were converted back to the 6.5mm versions.

These are:

a. Serial number on the weapon stock. If the serial number on the weapon stock does not match that of the actual rifle barrel, then to a relative high probability, the weapon was a 7.35mm which was converted back.

b. "Double" barrel alignment marks. On the bottom/underside of the barrel, at the juncture where the barrel screws up tight against the frame/breech, the barrel has a slightly flat surface area.

This area was utilized to install "alignment" marks on the weapon once the barrel was fully seated and tested, at the factory.

After which, a mark was made with a form of chisel, which created a mark on the barrel as well as a corresponding mark on the receiver.

These marks remain in alignment and can be readily observed when the weapon is disassembled.

In the event there has been a barrel change on the weapon, the receiver will generally bear two indications of alignment markings. One mark from the original barrel alignment and one mark from the new alignment, which should correspond to/align with the marking on the current barrel.

In event the receiver has two of these alignment markings, then to a relative high degree of probability, this is as a result of having a previous barrel installed, prior to the current weapon barrel.

C. "Crown" & "TNI" mark. Those weapons which have exibited a barrel change that I have observed, also had stamped onto the receiver, markings which were not observed on "original" weapons.

This marking consists of an extremely small oval/circle with the inside of the circle bearing a "Crown" and "TNI", which appears to be for the Terni plant where the modifications to the weapon was done.

Although adequate verification of this marking and reasons for the marking are still speculative, the one "changeout" Short Rifle in my possession has this marking, with a "Terni" barrel installed, as well as the dual barrel alignment marks and separate serial numbers on the stock as opposed to the barrel.

Oddly enough, this weapon also has a "39" stamped into the underside of the frame, whereas the barrel has the "1940 XVIII" mark.

With the inadequate information available relative to the changeout of the 7.35mm version back to the 6.5mm version of the Short Rifle, there is no way to verify, or disprove that the serial number C2677 was or was not installed on the new 6.5mm barrels when these weapons were changed back.*

*The entire topic of the "changeout" of the Carcano is still an item of dispute.

Some persons contend that no confirmed records exists which would prove that any of the 7.35mm versions were converted back to the 6.5mm versions.

The contradictory serial numbers on the stocks, as opposed to the actual weapon provide no substantive proof that this occurred, as this change could have easily occurred at any stage in the life of the weapon.

The singly most indicative evidence that this actually occurred is the barrel alignment marks on the underside of the barrel and weapon frame, which frequently serves to indicate barrel changes.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear that we have a difference of opinions!

So, lets look for a "third party" to break the tie.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol25_0419b.htm

"William Sucher on March 12, 1964, advised he has bought hundreds of thousands of rifles overseas as Italian Government Surplus."

"Sucher advised the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was manufactured in Italy from 1891 to 1941 however in the 1930"s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano.

Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Exhibit 2562

Pages 14 & 15

Imagine that! Serial numbers on these weapons mean NOTHING!

I would suppose that the FBI neglected to inform Frazier of this finding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Today, 03:25 AM

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 28 2005, 11:13 PM)

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 28 2005, 03:54 PM)

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 27 2005, 03:05 PM)

Jack;

Thanks for the information.

Certainly a well researched item, and, not unlike most of the evidence, a book which deals with only "THE RIFLE" could be, and should be undertaken by someone.

I am familiar with a portion of this writing as someone long ago sent me that portion which deals with the importation of the weapons and the formation of Adams Consolidated/Folsom Arms/Crescent, etc;

This was done to ask what knowledge I may have of this operation.

The work by Armstrong in relationship to two items related to the Carcano is of prime importance.

The shipping weights, and the rifle serial numbers.

Regarding rifle serial numbers, the following additional information may add to what Armstrong has indicated.

1. Carcano Carbines. (pre-1938)

a. Manufactured at multiple factories.

c. Manufactured in two seperate versions. (Cavalry Carbine & TS Carbine)

d. Barrell length for each model is the same and barells can be interchanged.

2. Each plant that manufactured the Carcano (in any version of the weapon) issued it's own serial numbers.

The only distinction between other plants being that of the stamp mark of the actual plant of assembly.

With the TS Carbine, we could conceiveably have:

a. Serial# C2766 made at the Brescia plant (M91)

b. Serial# C2766 made at the Terni plant (M91/28)

c. Serial# C2766 made at the Beretta plant (M91/28)

d. Serial# C2766 made at the Brescia plant (M91/28)

e. Serial# C2766 made at the Gardone plant (M9128)

f. ??Two additional plants are listed, however there is no actual record of these plants having produced any weapons, and this appears to possibly be the plants at which the modifications to the Model 91/28 were made which added the grenade launcher to this model of the weapon.

3. In addition to actual production of the TS Carbine, various plants also manufactured the Cavalry Carbine.

This weapon is entirely different in design from the TS Carbine and is a completely separate model identification. However, this weapon utilized the exact same 17.7 inch length barrel as that utilized in the TS Carbine, and the barrels are completely interchangeable.

Therefore, we could have the following additional carbine barrels with the C2766 serial number on them:

a. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Brescia

b. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Gardone

c. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Terni

With this, the potential for 17.7 inch length carbine rifle barrels which bear the same C2766 serial number has now increased to 8 barrels. And, in fact, some of these barrels could in fact bear the identical plant of manufacture stamp as some of them were made for the TS Carbine, and others were made for the Cavalry Carbine, which actually constituted different models of the rifle.

4. To add additional confusion to the serial number issue, we can interject what is referred to as the Model 91/24TS Carbine.

As indicated previously, this weapon was not originally a carbine. It was in fact originally a 50.8 inch long rifle with a 30.7 inch length barrell.

The Italian Government, in needing more TS Carbines, embarked on "cutting down" many of the old long rifles and conversion of these weapons to the exact same length as the TS Carbine.

Since the "RIFLE" was in fact a totally separate model identification, then it too could, and would have issues from the various plants which could easily bear the serial# C2766.

Therefore, one could add in the potential of:

a. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Beretta

b. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Brescia

c. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Mida-Brescia

d. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Roma

e. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Terni

f. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Torino

g. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Torre Annunzio

Obviously, one can not assume that each and every M91 rifle which may have carried the serial number C2766 was ultimately cut down and made into 36-inch length Carbines, Model 91/24.

This however demonstrates the potential of how many pre-1938 "Carbine" rifle barrels could exist which bear the serial number C2766.

And, this does not take into consideration the numbers of Rifles & Carbines produced which would contain a variation of the C2766 serial number, which could easily be made to match this exact number. IE:

a. C 276------with an additional "6" added

b. 276------with a "C" and an additional "6" added

c. 2766-----With a "C" added.

Nor, does this take into consideration those weapons produced, beginning in 1938, which will be discussed next.

In 1938, the Italian Government embarked on a major caliber change for the Carcano.

Production of the weapon in a 7.35mm caliber was instituted, and the following weapons were produced in this new and larger size.

a. Cavalry Carbine

b. TS Carbine

c. Short Rifle*

*The Short Rifle was a new design weapon which had not been produced prior to this.

These weapons, in the 7.35mm caliber, are referred to as the Model 38.

In addition to this larger caliber, the old fold-up/long range rear sight of the weapons was deleted and a fixed rear sight was installed and became an identifying characteristic of those weapons produced begining in 1938.

**It is noted that production of the Rifle (long rifle) in the 7.35mm was not done.

This weapon remained in the 6.5mm caliber.

A further discussion of the 7.35mm caliber will be forthcoming after discussion of the post-1938 6.5mm weapons.

___________________________________________________________________

Within a short time of having converted to the 7.35mm calliber, the Italian Government decided not to proceed with this major design change as WWII was starting. Therefore, a change back to production of only 6.5mm weapons was begun.

With this came the Model 91/38 production in the following rifle designs.

a. Cavalry Carbine

b. TS Carbine

c. Short Rifle.

The new Cavalry Carbine in the 6.5mm version was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

c. Gardone

The new TS Carbine in the 6.5mm version was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

With this new design production, the possiibility of a Carbine rifle barrel which contained the serial number C2766 now has an additional five more barrels added to the already large number from the pre-1938 weapons.

This of course also adds to the numbers of those variations of "C2766" which could be made into that number by merely adding additional stamping.

Lastly, of course this new design production also included the new "Short Rifle" in the 6.5mm caliber as well.

Records indicate that this weapon was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

c. Gardone

d. Terni

Which should serve to indicate that even with the Carcano M91/38 (6.5mm), Short Rifle, there exists the possibility of having four virtually identical weapons which bear the serial number C2766, with the only identifiable difference being the plant stamp of manufacture/assembly.

Now, the Italian Government has come full circle back to production of only 6.5mm rifles for it's forces.

However, there also exists a considerable supply of Cavalry Carbines; TS Carbines; and Short Rifles, which were produced in the 7.35mm version.

Thereafter, many of these weapons were recalled into the Italian Armament plants and the weapons were modified back to the 6.5mm version.

Since this was a originally a totally separate model and caliber weapon, it's serial number issue was separate as well.

Therefore, there could have easily been serial# C2766 weapons issued in each of the three versions of weapons by each of the separate plants which produced these rifles.

It is unknown as to what serial numbering system was utilized when these weapons were returned and re-conditioned to the 6.5mm caliber.

To date, I have found only three indicators as a means to determine which of the M91/38 6.5mm Short Rifles may be originally produced as this, as opposed to formerly 7.35mm versions which were converted back to the 6.5mm versions.

These are:

a. Serial number on the weapon stock. If the serial number on the weapon stock does not match that of the actual rifle barrel, then to a relative high probability, the weapon was a 7.35mm which was converted back.

b. "Double" barrel alignment marks. On the bottom/underside of the barrel, at the juncture where the barrel screws up tight against the frame/breech, the barrel has a slightly flat surface area.

This area was utilized to install "alignment" marks on the weapon once the barrel was fully seated and tested, at the factory.

After which, a mark was made with a form of chisel, which created a mark on the barrel as well as a corresponding mark on the receiver.

These marks remain in alignment and can be readily observed when the weapon is disassembled.

In the event there has been a barrel change on the weapon, the receiver will generally bear two indications of alignment markings. One mark from the original barrel alignment and one mark from the new alignment, which should correspond to/align with the marking on the current barrel.

In event the receiver has two of these alignment markings, then to a relative high degree of probability, this is as a result of having a previous barrel installed, prior to the current weapon barrel.

C. "Crown" & "TNI" mark. Those weapons which have exibited a barrel change that I have observed, also had stamped onto the receiver, markings which were not observed on "original" weapons.

This marking consists of an extremely small oval/circle with the inside of the circle bearing a "Crown" and "TNI", which appears to be for the Terni plant where the modifications to the weapon was done.

Although adequate verification of this marking and reasons for the marking are still speculative, the one "changeout" Short Rifle in my possession has this marking, with a "Terni" barrel installed, as well as the dual barrel alignment marks and separate serial numbers on the stock as opposed to the barrel.

Oddly enough, this weapon also has a "39" stamped into the underside of the frame, whereas the barrel has the "1940 XVIII" mark.

With the inadequate information available relative to the changeout of the 7.35mm version back to the 6.5mm version of the Short Rifle, there is no way to verify, or disprove that the serial number C2677 was or was not installed on the new 6.5mm barrels when these weapons were changed back.*

*The entire topic of the "changeout" of the Carcano is still an item of dispute.

Some persons contend that no confirmed records exists which would prove that any of the 7.35mm versions were converted back to the 6.5mm versions.

The contradictory serial numbers on the stocks, as opposed to the actual weapon provide no substantive proof that this occurred, as this change could have easily occurred at any stage in the life of the weapon.

The singly most indicative evidence that this actually occurred is the barrel alignment marks on the underside of the barrel and weapon frame, which frequently serves to indicate barrel changes.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear that we have a difference of opinions!

So, lets look for a "third party" to break the tie.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol25_0419b.htm

"William Sucher on March 12, 1964, advised he has bought hundreds of thousands of rifles overseas as Italian Government Surplus."

"Sucher advised the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was manufactured in Italy from 1891 to 1941 however in the 1930"s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano.

Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Exhibit 2562

Pages 14 & 15

Imagine that! Serial numbers on these weapons mean NOTHING!

I would suppose that the FBI neglected to inform Frazier of this finding.

Nevertheless, two or more different Carcanos have been presented as evidence against Lee Oswald. Perhaps Lee managed to obtain two Carcanos with the exact same serial numbers. Funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antti wrote:

"Nevertheless, two or more different Carcanos have been presented as evidence against Lee Oswald. Perhaps Lee managed to obtain two Carcanos with the exact same serial numbers. Funny."

Funny Antti should say that. Long ago I showed that the

rifle in the backyard photos being held by "Oswald" is not

the same rifle said to have been used by "Oswald" in the

TSBD. They have different sling rings.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antti wrote:

"Nevertheless, two or more different Carcanos have been presented as evidence against Lee Oswald. Perhaps Lee managed to obtain two Carcanos with the exact same serial numbers. Funny."

Funny Antti should say that. Long ago I showed that the

rifle in the backyard photos being held by "Oswald" is not

the same rifle said to have been used by "Oswald" in the

TSBD. They have different sling rings.

Jack

Personally, my vision is somewhat diminished and I therefore can not determine the serial number of the rifle being held in the photo.

And although FBI Agent Frazier (or Shaneyfelt) (do not recall which, and too lazy to look it up), claimed that the "stocks" could be matched due to anomalies, the "stock" has little to do with the serial number on the operational end of the weapon.

Just wanted the general public to know that there are those, other than myself, Mr. White, and a few others, who know the actual "validity" of serial numbers on Carcano rifles.

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Today, 03:25 AM

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 28 2005, 11:13 PM)

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 28 2005, 03:54 PM)

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 27 2005, 03:05 PM)

Jack;

Thanks for the information.

Certainly a well researched item, and, not unlike most of the evidence, a book which deals with only "THE RIFLE" could be, and should be undertaken by someone.

I am familiar with a portion of this writing as someone long ago sent me that portion which deals with the importation of the weapons and the formation of Adams Consolidated/Folsom Arms/Crescent, etc;

This was done to ask what knowledge I may have of this operation.

The work by Armstrong in relationship to two items related to the Carcano is of prime importance.

The shipping weights, and the rifle serial numbers.

Regarding rifle serial numbers, the following additional information may add to what Armstrong has indicated.

1. Carcano Carbines. (pre-1938)

a. Manufactured at multiple factories.

c. Manufactured in two seperate versions. (Cavalry Carbine & TS Carbine)

d. Barrell length for each model is the same and barells can be interchanged.

2. Each plant that manufactured the Carcano (in any version of the weapon) issued it's own serial numbers.

The only distinction between other plants being that of the stamp mark of the actual plant of assembly.

With the TS Carbine, we could conceiveably have:

a. Serial# C2766 made at the Brescia plant (M91)

b. Serial# C2766 made at the Terni plant (M91/28)

c. Serial# C2766 made at the Beretta plant (M91/28)

d. Serial# C2766 made at the Brescia plant (M91/28)

e. Serial# C2766 made at the Gardone plant (M9128)

f. ??Two additional plants are listed, however there is no actual record of these plants having produced any weapons, and this appears to possibly be the plants at which the modifications to the Model 91/28 were made which added the grenade launcher to this model of the weapon.

3. In addition to actual production of the TS Carbine, various plants also manufactured the Cavalry Carbine.

This weapon is entirely different in design from the TS Carbine and is a completely separate model identification. However, this weapon utilized the exact same 17.7 inch length barrel as that utilized in the TS Carbine, and the barrels are completely interchangeable.

Therefore, we could have the following additional carbine barrels with the C2766 serial number on them:

a. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Brescia

b. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Gardone

c. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Terni

With this, the potential for 17.7 inch length carbine rifle barrels which bear the same C2766 serial number has now increased to 8 barrels. And, in fact, some of these barrels could in fact bear the identical plant of manufacture stamp as some of them were made for the TS Carbine, and others were made for the Cavalry Carbine, which actually constituted different models of the rifle.

4. To add additional confusion to the serial number issue, we can interject what is referred to as the Model 91/24TS Carbine.

As indicated previously, this weapon was not originally a carbine. It was in fact originally a 50.8 inch long rifle with a 30.7 inch length barrell.

The Italian Government, in needing more TS Carbines, embarked on "cutting down" many of the old long rifles and conversion of these weapons to the exact same length as the TS Carbine.

Since the "RIFLE" was in fact a totally separate model identification, then it too could, and would have issues from the various plants which could easily bear the serial# C2766.

Therefore, one could add in the potential of:

a. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Beretta

b. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Brescia

c. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Mida-Brescia

d. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Roma

e. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Terni

f. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Torino

g. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Torre Annunzio

Obviously, one can not assume that each and every M91 rifle which may have carried the serial number C2766 was ultimately cut down and made into 36-inch length Carbines, Model 91/24.

This however demonstrates the potential of how many pre-1938 "Carbine" rifle barrels could exist which bear the serial number C2766.

And, this does not take into consideration the numbers of Rifles & Carbines produced which would contain a variation of the C2766 serial number, which could easily be made to match this exact number. IE:

a. C 276------with an additional "6" added

b. 276------with a "C" and an additional "6" added

c. 2766-----With a "C" added.

Nor, does this take into consideration those weapons produced, beginning in 1938, which will be discussed next.

In 1938, the Italian Government embarked on a major caliber change for the Carcano.

Production of the weapon in a 7.35mm caliber was instituted, and the following weapons were produced in this new and larger size.

a. Cavalry Carbine

b. TS Carbine

c. Short Rifle*

*The Short Rifle was a new design weapon which had not been produced prior to this.

These weapons, in the 7.35mm caliber, are referred to as the Model 38.

In addition to this larger caliber, the old fold-up/long range rear sight of the weapons was deleted and a fixed rear sight was installed and became an identifying characteristic of those weapons produced begining in 1938.

**It is noted that production of the Rifle (long rifle) in the 7.35mm was not done.

This weapon remained in the 6.5mm caliber.

A further discussion of the 7.35mm caliber will be forthcoming after discussion of the post-1938 6.5mm weapons.

___________________________________________________________________

Within a short time of having converted to the 7.35mm calliber, the Italian Government decided not to proceed with this major design change as WWII was starting. Therefore, a change back to production of only 6.5mm weapons was begun.

With this came the Model 91/38 production in the following rifle designs.

a. Cavalry Carbine

b. TS Carbine

c. Short Rifle.

The new Cavalry Carbine in the 6.5mm version was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

c. Gardone

The new TS Carbine in the 6.5mm version was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

With this new design production, the possiibility of a Carbine rifle barrel which contained the serial number C2766 now has an additional five more barrels added to the already large number from the pre-1938 weapons.

This of course also adds to the numbers of those variations of "C2766" which could be made into that number by merely adding additional stamping.

Lastly, of course this new design production also included the new "Short Rifle" in the 6.5mm caliber as well.

Records indicate that this weapon was produced at:

a. Beretta

b. Brescia

c. Gardone

d. Terni

Which should serve to indicate that even with the Carcano M91/38 (6.5mm), Short Rifle, there exists the possibility of having four virtually identical weapons which bear the serial number C2766, with the only identifiable difference being the plant stamp of manufacture/assembly.

Now, the Italian Government has come full circle back to production of only 6.5mm rifles for it's forces.

However, there also exists a considerable supply of Cavalry Carbines; TS Carbines; and Short Rifles, which were produced in the 7.35mm version.

Thereafter, many of these weapons were recalled into the Italian Armament plants and the weapons were modified back to the 6.5mm version.

Since this was a originally a totally separate model and caliber weapon, it's serial number issue was separate as well.

Therefore, there could have easily been serial# C2766 weapons issued in each of the three versions of weapons by each of the separate plants which produced these rifles.

It is unknown as to what serial numbering system was utilized when these weapons were returned and re-conditioned to the 6.5mm caliber.

To date, I have found only three indicators as a means to determine which of the M91/38 6.5mm Short Rifles may be originally produced as this, as opposed to formerly 7.35mm versions which were converted back to the 6.5mm versions.

These are:

a. Serial number on the weapon stock. If the serial number on the weapon stock does not match that of the actual rifle barrel, then to a relative high probability, the weapon was a 7.35mm which was converted back.

b. "Double" barrel alignment marks. On the bottom/underside of the barrel, at the juncture where the barrel screws up tight against the frame/breech, the barrel has a slightly flat surface area.

This area was utilized to install "alignment" marks on the weapon once the barrel was fully seated and tested, at the factory.

After which, a mark was made with a form of chisel, which created a mark on the barrel as well as a corresponding mark on the receiver.

These marks remain in alignment and can be readily observed when the weapon is disassembled.

In the event there has been a barrel change on the weapon, the receiver will generally bear two indications of alignment markings. One mark from the original barrel alignment and one mark from the new alignment, which should correspond to/align with the marking on the current barrel.

In event the receiver has two of these alignment markings, then to a relative high degree of probability, this is as a result of having a previous barrel installed, prior to the current weapon barrel.

C. "Crown" & "TNI" mark. Those weapons which have exibited a barrel change that I have observed, also had stamped onto the receiver, markings which were not observed on "original" weapons.

This marking consists of an extremely small oval/circle with the inside of the circle bearing a "Crown" and "TNI", which appears to be for the Terni plant where the modifications to the weapon was done.

Although adequate verification of this marking and reasons for the marking are still speculative, the one "changeout" Short Rifle in my possession has this marking, with a "Terni" barrel installed, as well as the dual barrel alignment marks and separate serial numbers on the stock as opposed to the barrel.

Oddly enough, this weapon also has a "39" stamped into the underside of the frame, whereas the barrel has the "1940 XVIII" mark.

With the inadequate information available relative to the changeout of the 7.35mm version back to the 6.5mm version of the Short Rifle, there is no way to verify, or disprove that the serial number C2677 was or was not installed on the new 6.5mm barrels when these weapons were changed back.*

*The entire topic of the "changeout" of the Carcano is still an item of dispute.

Some persons contend that no confirmed records exists which would prove that any of the 7.35mm versions were converted back to the 6.5mm versions.

The contradictory serial numbers on the stocks, as opposed to the actual weapon provide no substantive proof that this occurred, as this change could have easily occurred at any stage in the life of the weapon.

The singly most indicative evidence that this actually occurred is the barrel alignment marks on the underside of the barrel and weapon frame, which frequently serves to indicate barrel changes.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear that we have a difference of opinions!

So, lets look for a "third party" to break the tie.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol25_0419b.htm

"William Sucher on March 12, 1964, advised he has bought hundreds of thousands of rifles overseas as Italian Government Surplus."

"Sucher advised the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was manufactured in Italy from 1891 to 1941 however in the 1930"s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano.

Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Exhibit 2562

Pages 14 & 15

Imagine that! Serial numbers on these weapons mean NOTHING!

I would suppose that the FBI neglected to inform Frazier of this finding.

Nevertheless, two or more different Carcanos have been presented as evidence against Lee Oswald. Perhaps Lee managed to obtain two Carcanos with the exact same serial numbers. Funny.

Actually, this problem represents the single most important piece of evidence to exist in regards to the potential "framing" of LHO.

Since it is quite unlikely that LHO could have acquired "two" seperate Carcano's (be they both Model 91/38's or otherwise) which contained the same serial number, and the records not only do not demonstrate that he received the Model 91/38, but instead received the true 38-inch length Truppe Special Carbine, then the implications of this are immense in determination of the true and potential guilt of LHO as to being the actual shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scenario:

Covert OSS/CIA officials find a stash of high quality Mannlicher "palace guard" rifles in Italy in 1943.

In 1963 shoddy cheap Mannlicher marked C2766 is "found" and linked to Oswald.

Another reserve gun, also stamped C2766 is entered as evidence, although the stamping looks different.

Meanwhile triangulated sniper fire in Dealey Plaza used the high quality unmarked Mannlicher Carcano rifles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scenario:

Covert OSS/CIA officials find a stash of high quality Mannlicher "palace guard" rifles in Italy in 1943.

In 1963 shoddy cheap Mannlicher marked C2766 is "found" and linked to Oswald.

Another reserve gun, also stamped C2766 is entered as evidence, although the stamping looks different.

Meanwhile triangulated sniper fire in Dealey Plaza used the high quality unmarked Mannlicher Carcano rifles.

For answers to most questions about the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, go

to Jerry McLeer's page at

http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html

Jerry took much of my research and carried it further with his own

excellent observations. It is especially good on the serial numbers,

which he analyzes in detail.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to John Simkin's great link contained in his new thread "JFK Assassination Newspaper Archive". I was only able to open the Panama City paper in the top right corner of the home page with Adobe Reader. Everything else asked me to try again later. In the bottom right corner of that front page is the famous picture of the rifle being carried from the TSBD. The caption says it is a ".25 Japanese made" weapon. Anybody familiar with this? I'd never heard of it. Pretty soon we will have enough rifles to fire the 7-8 shots which some claim were fired.

Edited by JL Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
Antti wrote:

"Nevertheless, two or more different Carcanos have been presented as evidence against Lee Oswald. Perhaps Lee managed to obtain two Carcanos with the exact same serial numbers. Funny."

Funny Antti should say that. Long ago I showed that the

rifle in the backyard photos being held by "Oswald" is not

the same rifle said to have been used by "Oswald" in the

TSBD. They have different sling rings.

Jack

Mr. Mark McKnight,

still out there?

It is "debunking" time again.

I was going to do this long ago but could not find my photo's and had to drag out one of the 91/38's and go through the hassle of taking my own photo's.

Anyway, the "sling swivel" discrepancy means absolutely nothing, as there is no discrepancy.

The attached photo shows the entire forward sling swivel assembly. This constututes:

1. The Barrell/forearm band.

2. The screw/bolt which goes through the band and through a hole in the underside of the stock.

3. The Locking nut/keeper which screws onto the bolt.

4. The actual sling "keeper" in which the leather sling goes through.

The photo's are oriented as if one were looking down the barrel of the rifle. The left photo demonstrates the entire assembly as it would normally be installed onto the left side of the forearm of the rifle stock.

The right photo demonstrates the position in which the sling swivel appears if one takes if off the rifle, turns it around, and reinstalls it onto the right hand side/bolt action side of the stock.

It is easily interchangable to either side of the forearm grip of the stock

The second set of photo's shows the locking nut and the sling keeper seperately, and then the bottom photo demonstrates how the entire assembly would appear were it installed onto the rifle.

Please note that the actual sling keeper is free to slide up, or down, through a hole which is a part of the head of the bolt.

In both photos I have slid the sling keeper down to it's maximum lowest position to which it can travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before continuation, I would add that the sling keeper makes it quite simple to remove the entire sling swivel assembly.

If the assembly has not been overtightened, a dime held in the screw slot to hold the screw head will suffice as one merely has to grasp the sling keeper portion and turn it in order to unscrew the assembly.

Of course, if the assembly has been overtightened, then it would require a screwdriver or similar tool in order to hold the screw head stable while the sling keeper is turned in order to unscrew the bolt which holds the assembly together as well as holding it onto the rifle stock position.

Next photo:

This photo demonstrates the sling swivel assembly installed on the 91/38 rifle with the sling keeper on the right hand side of the weapon.

An extremely simple task to accomplish.

One should note two items:

1. The actual sling keeper is again slid down into it's lowest position which can be achieved.

2. The photo is taken from an angle in which the camera is slightly lower than the actual weapon and the weapon is in virtually a perfectly "sights vertical" position.

* I also added a yardstick in the background so that we all know that I am "playing fair" and not showing a reverse image photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post #37

Might I recommend that one take a close look at LHO holding the rifle and especially look at whether or not the rifle appears to be slightly turned "out" /rolled towards the camera.

This is more obvious in the larger and better photo's in which the bolt actin and receiver can be seen.

Of the attached photo;s:

1. The bottom photo has the rifle "rolled" at approximately the same amount as the rifle held by LHO.

In so doing, the sling keeper mounted onto the right hand side and slid down to it's lowest position (which it would be were a rope pulling on it), now, even in this much better quality photo, appears to be a sling swivel mount which is mounted on the underside/bottom of the weapon.

2. The top photo demonstrates an even greater amount of "roll" in which the outline of the sling keeper on the right hand side is even more pronounced.

The rifle held by LHO merely has the sling swivel mounted onto the right hand side of the weapon, and due to the manner in which the weapon is being held, a portion of the keeper appears to protrude from some mounting on the bottom of the weapon.

The poor quality of the photographs as well as the distance from camera to target make this another of those deceptive things which people see, and without verification of the facts, launch off into Alice in Wonderland theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, the last photo, is a little confusing yet worth posting.

In it the rifle is not "rolled" forward to the extent as is the rifle held by LHO.

Yet, the sling keeper can still be clearly observed protruding below the bottom level of the stock.

The "keeper" is the left most image and the right most and longer image is merely the shadow of the keeper as caused by the lighting.

Even with this slight problem of the shadow, this photo continues to demonstrate that when the sling swivel & keeper are mounted onto the right side of the forearm grip and the rifle has even the slightest amount of roll towards the camera, that the sling keeper can be seen protruding below the bottom of the forearm of the stock in what many would initially assume is some form of bottom mounted sling swivel.

Even these close photo's require a good close look to see that this is not the case.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...