Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Rifle


Recommended Posts

[...]

[...]

The barrel band/sling swivel mount are completely interchangeable to either side of the 91/38 Carcano rifle.

In order to move it from the left-side normal mount, to the right side, all that one has to do is take the assembly off, turn the barrel band around (reverse it) and slide it back onto the weapon and thereafter mount the assembly with the screw/bolt coming through from the left side of the weapon and the sling keeper (and nut) on the right side.

[deleted irrelevant,"chit chat" text]

As noted in these photo's, the "sling keeper" can actually slide up or down through a hole which is in the nut portion of the screw/bolt & nut head assembly.

Interesting thread. Too bad all of the photos have gone missing.

I gather from the text that Purvis showed, photographically, why the "sling keeper" / "sling swivel" on Oswald's 40.2 inch MC looked the way it did in the backyard photos.

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Uh, not really, Thomas. The side mounted sling mount on the M91/38 Carcano in the backyard photos could be mounted on the left or right side of the rifle, but not on the bottom of the rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, not really, Thomas. The side mounted sling mount on the M91/38 Carcano in the backyard photos could be mounted on the left or right side of the rifle, but not on the bottom of the rifle.

Robert,

I'm no expert and I don't feel like diving into the arcana (or even going back and reading all the freaking posts) of the Carcano models, dates, factory modifications, etc, so I'd like to ask you an honest question if I may:

What kind of (Carcano?) carbine / short rifle / rifle do you think "Oswald" is holding in the backyard photos? A 91/24? Some sort of 91/38? What?

Thanks,

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is either an M91/38 6.5x52mm short rifle or an M38 7.35x51mm short rifle. The two are indistinguishable.

Thanks, Robert.

And what model Carcano is in the National Archives as "the JFK assassination rifle"? (I'm just too lazy to look it up.) Do you think the National Archives / Warren Commission Report has that one labeled correctly, or are those dirty rotten scoundrels trying to deceive us on that, too?

-- Tommy :sun

PS Which one of those two possibilities you mentioned had the little strap thingy on the bottom rather than on the side(s), Robert? Both of them? Neither of them?

PPS I've just found this old post by Tom Purvis again after doing a "search this topic" query using the search term "turned." (We can only try to imagine what the photos he's talking about look like since they were deleted some time ago by the administrator in a "housekeeping" operation.) Do you disagree with his analysis, Robert?

Post #37 [by Tom Purvis]

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 photos in which the bolt action and receiver can be seen.

Of the attached photos:

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.) In this much better quality photo there 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. [emphasis added by T. Graves]

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.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rifle in the Archives is an M91/38 6.5x52mm short rifle.

Neither the M91/38 or the M38 short rifle had a bottom mounted sling mount on the forestock. However, there is a Carcano registry, in which Carcano owners can register their Carcano as part of a database, and every once in a while one can find an M91/38 short rifle with bottom sling mounts, or combination side/bottom sling mounts, on the forestock.

There are a couple of possible reasons for this.

1. Toward the end of Italy's involvement in the Second World War, it may have become difficult to procure all of the various parts that go into making a new rifle. It may have been necessary to salvage bottom sling mounts off of older worn out or broken Carcanos just to be able to mount a sling mount on a short rifle and, as the majority of Carcanos had bottom sling mounts, some of these would inevitably find their way onto a short rifle.

2. When the Italian government sold the majority of the Carcano rifles as surplus, many were in disrepair and missing parts. As above, it would have been necessary to salvage parts off of the worst rifles to make whole rifles out of the better ones, and bottom sling mounts would have been more common than slide sling mounts, as they were more prevalent on older models of Carcanos.

Tom Purvis was completely wrong on this, as he was completely wrong on a great number of other things involving the Carcano. I know it is not fair to criticize a dead man who is unable to respond but, that's just the way I see it.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree, Robert, that in at least one BY photo we can see that the sling is bottom-mounted in the front? For example, below.

If your answer is yes, then do you agree that that cannot be the same rifle that is in all the photos of the official assassination weapon?

It looks like in the BY photos that the sling is a rope. If Oswald decided he'd prefer a nice, leather one, is there reason to believe that he'd have to remove the front mount and replace it with a side mount? To accommodate the leather sling?

LHO.png

[credit: DVP]

Day__TSBD_Rifle_Rare.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree, Robert, that in at least one BY photo we can see that the sling is bottom-mounted in the front? For example, below.

If your answer is yes, then do you agree that that cannot be the same rifle that is in all the photos of the official assassination weapon?

It looks like in the BY photos that the sling is a rope. If Oswald decided he'd prefer a nice, leather one, is there reason to believe that he'd have to remove the front mount and replace it with a side mount? To accommodate the leather sling?

LHO.png

[credit: DVP]

Day__TSBD_Rifle_Rare.jpg

Sandy,

Tom Purvis' whole point is that "Oswald" in the backyard photo is holding the Carcano in such a way that the top of it is turned or tilted slightly towards the camera, causing part of the front sling "thingy" to be visible below the "bottom" as it hangs down a bit from it's side-mount position .

I think he has a valid point because, although the "sling/belt" can be seen to be connected to the rear sling thingy in the BYP, it can't be seen to be connected to the front one because it isn't -- it's connected to the side mount and is, therefore, out of view.

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree, Robert, that in at least one BY photo we can see that the sling is bottom-mounted in the front? For example, below.

If your answer is yes, then do you agree that that cannot be the same rifle that is in all the photos of the official assassination weapon?

It looks like in the BY photos that the sling is a rope. If Oswald decided he'd prefer a nice, leather one, is there reason to believe that he'd have to remove the front mount and replace it with a side mount? To accommodate the leather sling?

LHO.png

[credit: DVP]

Day__TSBD_Rifle_Rare.jpg

Sandy,

Tom Purvis' whole point is that "Oswald" in the backyard photo is holding the Carcano in such a way that the top of it is turned or tilted slightly towards the camera, causing part of the front sling "thingy" to be visible below the "bottom" as it hangs down a bit from it's side-mount position .

I think he has a valid point because, although the "sling/belt" can be seen to be connected to the rear sling thingy in the BYP, it can't be seen to be connected to the front one because it isn't -- it's connected to the side mount and is, therefore, out of view.

-- Tommy :sun

What you say surprises me Tommy. Because what I see is completely different.

Looking at the BYPs, I can see the sling connected to the side mount at the rear and the bottom mount at the front. The sling is something narrow, and is very light colored. I'm guessing it's just plain rope, though in one photo it does look wider than rope.

We can't see it hang down in the BYP above simply because its gray-tone is the same color as the background. But we can see that it covers the part of the front mount that it is tied around. (It makes it appear that the ring is not a complete circle, or whatever shape it is.)

I don't know if I've explained myself well or not. But to say it another way, If you zoom in on the BYP above, you will see the front mount, on the bottom, and if the color of the sling wasn't the same color as the background, we'd see it hanging down from the bottom mount.

I don't believe Purvis, that the gun is slightly rotated. It looks very straight to me, with the bottom mount right there on the bottom.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree, Robert, that in at least one BY photo we can see that the sling is bottom-mounted in the front? For example, below.

If your answer is yes, then do you agree that that cannot be the same rifle that is in all the photos of the official assassination weapon?

It looks like in the BY photos that the sling is a rope. If Oswald decided he'd prefer a nice, leather one, is there reason to believe that he'd have to remove the front mount and replace it with a side mount? To accommodate the leather sling?

LHO.png

[credit: DVP]

Day__TSBD_Rifle_Rare.jpg

Bump for Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree, Robert, that in at least one BY photo we can see that the sling is bottom-mounted in the front? For example, below.

If your answer is yes, then do you agree that that cannot be the same rifle that is in all the photos of the official assassination weapon?

It looks like in the BY photos that the sling is a rope. If Oswald decided he'd prefer a nice, leather one, is there reason to believe that he'd have to remove the front mount and replace it with a side mount? To accommodate the leather sling?

LHO.png

[credit: DVP]

Day__TSBD_Rifle_Rare.jpg

Sandy,

Tom Purvis' whole point is that "Oswald" in the backyard photo is holding the Carcano in such a way that the top of it is turned or tilted slightly towards the camera, causing part of the front sling "thingy" to be visible below the "bottom" as it hangs down a bit from it's side-mount position .

I think he has a valid point because, although the "sling/belt" can be seen to be connected to the rear sling thingy in the BYP, it can't be seen to be connected to the front one because it isn't -- it's connected to the side mount and is, therefore, out of view.

-- Tommy :sun

What you say surprises me Tommy. Because what I see is completely different.

Looking at the BYPs, I can see the sling connected to the side mount at the rear and the bottom mount at the front. The sling is something narrow, and is very light colored. I'm guessing it's just plain rope, though in one photo it does look wider than rope.

We can't see it hang down in the BYP above simply because its gray-tone is the same color as the background. But we can see that it covers the part of the front mount that it is tied around. (It makes it appear that the ring is not a complete circle, or whatever shape it is.)

I don't know if I've explained myself well or not. But to say it another way, If you zoom in on the BYP above, you will see the front mount, on the bottom, and if the color of the sling wasn't the same color as the background, we'd see it hanging down from the bottom mount.

I don't believe Purvis, that the gun is slightly rotated. It looks very straight to me, with the bottom mount right there on the bottom.

Sandy,

Look at the part of the barrel that has the wooden "stock" below it. The fact that you can see so much both the "thick" and the "skinny" parts of the barrel which are above the wooden "stock" indicates that the top of the rifle is tilted slightly towards the camera.

I also think the "front sight" would stick up more if the rifle was being held level.

Question: Roughly what percentage of the overall thickness of wooden stock plus the "skinny" part of the barrel does just the skinny part of the barrel comprise in the below photo? More or less than in the BYP? Another way of asking the same question is: In which photo does the wooden "stock" look thicker / wider?

of the barrel compoCarcanoRifleNARA.gif

Also look at the Carcano that the detective is carrying. (In that photo the rifle looks "level" in the dimension we're talking about (yes, the front part of the rifle is tilting away from the camera, but that doesn't matter for purposes of our conversation) Look at how thick / wide the wooden "stock" looks, compared to the "skinny" part of the barrel above the stock. Now look again at the BYP and compare them.

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree, Robert, that in at least one BY photo we can see that the sling is bottom-mounted in the front? For example, below.

If your answer is yes, then do you agree that that cannot be the same rifle that is in all the photos of the official assassination weapon?

It looks like in the BY photos that the sling is a rope. If Oswald decided he'd prefer a nice, leather one, is there reason to believe that he'd have to remove the front mount and replace it with a side mount? To accommodate the leather sling?

[photos deleted by T. Graves]

Sandy,

Tom Purvis' whole point is that "Oswald" in the backyard photo is holding the Carcano in such a way that the top of it is turned or tilted slightly towards the camera, causing part of the front sling "thingy" to be visible below the "bottom" as it hangs down a bit from it's side-mount position .

I think he has a valid point because, although the "sling/belt" can be seen to be connected to the rear sling thingy in the BYP, it can't be seen to be connected to the front one because it isn't -- it's connected to the side mount and is, therefore, out of view.

-- Tommy :sun

What you say surprises me Tommy. Because what I see is completely different.

Looking at the BYPs, I can see the sling connected to the side mount at the rear and the bottom mount at the front. The sling is something narrow, and is very light colored. I'm guessing it's just plain rope, though in one photo it does look wider than rope.

We can't see it hang down in the BYP above simply because its gray-tone is the same color as the background. But we can see that it covers the part of the front mount that it is tied around. (It makes it appear that the ring is not a complete circle, or whatever shape it is.)

I don't know if I've explained myself well or not. But to say it another way, If you zoom in on the BYP above, you will see the front mount, on the bottom, and if the color of the sling wasn't the same color as the background, we'd see it hanging down from the bottom mount.

I don't believe Purvis, that the gun is slightly rotated. It looks very straight to me, with the bottom mount right there on the bottom.

Sandy,

Look at the part of the barrel that has the wooden "stock" below it. The fact that you can see so much both the "thick" and the "skinny" parts of the barrel which are above the wooden "stock" indicates that the top of the rifle is tilted slightly towards the camera.

I also think the "front sight" would stick up more if the rifle was being held level.

Question: Roughly what percentage of the overall thickness of wooden stock plus the "skinny" part of the barrel does just the skinny part of the barrel comprise in the below photo? More or less than in the BYP? Another way of asking the same question is: In which photo does the wooden "stock" look thicker / wider?

of the barrel compo

Also look at the Carcano that the detective is carrying. (In that photo the rifle looks "level" in the dimension we're talking about (yes, the front part of the rifle is tilting away from the camera, but that doesn't matter for purposes of our conversation) Look at how thick / wide the wooden "stock" looks, compared to the "skinny" part of the barrel above the stock. Now look again at the BYP and compare them.

-- Tommy :sun

Here, Sandy. Maybe this will help. It's a photo my CIA buddies put together so I could try to fool you. Notice how the horizontal part of the bent-down bolt is visible? That's because the top of the rifle is tilted slightly towards the camera.

oswalds-backyard-photo_1.jpg?w=700

Please also note all the stuff I was talking about in the previous post. Those things are easier to see in this ligher version of the photo.

Thanks.

-- Tommy :ph34r:

PS It looks like Roscoe White was holding the same Carcano here that was "found" in the TSBD.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Comparing the photo of the Carcano alone (in your post above) with the Carcano held by Rosco/Oswald (in the posts above), certainly it is true that the one held by Rosco/Oswald is rotated in a way that it shows more of the barrel.

However, rotating the rifle that direction (clockwise if looking at the end of the rifle's butt) will show the sling's side-mount less, not more. Right? If so, then I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

(The side-mounts of a Carcano are on the side opposite the bolt.handle.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Comparing the photo of the Carcano alone (in your post above) with the Carcano held by Rosco/Oswald (in the posts above), certainly it is true that the one held by Rosco/Oswald is rotated in a way that it shows more of the barrel.

However, rotating the rifle that direction (clockwise if looking at the end of the rifle's butt) will show the sling's side-mount less, not more. Right? If so, then I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

(The side-mounts of a Carcano are on the side opposite the bolt.handle.)

Sandy,

A good indication that the front metal sling thingy is mounted on the left side of the rifle, rather than on the bottom, is the fact that none of the sling / belt is visible near the front. IMHO, if the sling thingy were truly mounted on the bottom as you claim, then we should see the sling / belt connecting to it there.

In this different BYP, it looks like the belt / sling is attached, both front and back, to the left side of the rifle. If you look closely, you can even see the roundish spectral highlights [q.v.] on the bottom of the side-mounted thingy. (Click on the white "X" at the top right corner of the photo to make it larger and easier to see. The circular thingy is right at the black horizontal line in the fence.)

http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Comparing the photo of the Carcano alone (in your post above) with the Carcano held by Rosco/Oswald (in the posts above), certainly it is true that the one held by Rosco/Oswald is rotated in a way that it shows more of the barrel.

However, rotating the rifle that direction (clockwise if looking at the end of the rifle's butt) will show the sling's side-mount less, not more. Right? If so, then I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

(The side-mounts of a Carcano are on the side opposite the bolt.handle.)

Sandy,

A good indication that the front metal sling thingy is mounted on the left side of the rifle, rather than on the bottom, is the fact that none of the sling / belt is visible near the front. IMHO, if the sling thingy were truly mounted on the bottom as you claim, then we should see the sling / belt connecting to it there.

As I pointed out earlier, the color of the sling (rope?) is whitish. It could be that we can't see it against the same color (gray tone) of the fence behind it.

In this different BYP, it looks like the belt / sling is attached, both front and back, to the left side of the rifle.

To me it looks like the sling is pulled through the bottom sling mount (a hoop), and then (presumably) attached to the side mount. There ARE Carcano mounts that include both the bottom and side hoops.

If you look closely, you can even see the roundish spectral highlights [q.v.] on the bottom of the side-mounted thingy. (Click on the white "X" at the top right corner of the photo to make it larger and easier to see. The circular thingy is right at the black horizontal line in the fence.)

http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Sandy Larsen
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...