Mark Knight Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 (edited) For Mr. Knight!"High and to the Right" Think on that one Mark. Tom, I must be a bit more dense than usual today...that "shot" wasn't even "on the paper" with me. IOW, not sure if it was a reference to the effects of the scope being mounted as it was, or what other element you may have had in mind. It was a long day at work today, and my thinking apparatus is operating at a low level of efficiency. "High and to the Right" is the general impact location for shots fired from the Carcano when the weapon was first tested by the FBI after having been received from DPD. With the manner in which the scope was mounted, generally for all shots fired, the shot grouping was some 4 to six inches "high", and generally slightly "right" of the actual aiming point on center of target. Many have immediately "jumped" onto this information with no knowledge and have thereafter attempted to utililze it to buttress their asinine claims that the rifle (Carcano) found on the sixth floor could not have even been utilized by anyone during the shooting, as no one could have hit anything with it due to the failure of the sighting mechanicism (scope) to be able to align with and hit the target. Even many of the supposedly "shooters" have never taken the time to explain a few of the items necessary for accurate shooting, which would have also shed some light onto this subject. It would appear to the unobservant, then, that if the MC in police custody actually was the weapon of choice of the assassin...UNLESS the assassin was left-eye dominant, [or knew how to compensate for the sight], the only "logical" conclusion would be that he actually intended to shoot JACKIE in the derrierre, and "accidentally" hit JFK in the head. [High and to the right...correct?] Am I close? Edited October 5, 2007 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 LHO Rangefire Qualification @ USMC Firing Stations:Yardage--Slow Fire--------Rapid Fire----------Position------LHO Score-------%tile Rating 200--------------X-----------------------------------Standing-----39 of 50*------------ 78 (80) 200--------------X-----------------------------------Sitting 200----------------------------------X---------------Sitting--------48 of 50--------------96 --------------------------------------------------------------- 300--------------X-----------------------------------Sitting ----------------------------------------------------------------------37 of 50**-----------74 300--------------X-----------------------------------Kneeling 300----------------------------------X------Prone------------------46 of 50-------------92 500--------------X---------------------- Prone**---------------46 of 50 ------92 -------------------------------------------------------------Total: 216 of 250 Correct Score should have been 217 out of a possible 250 points when the 1-point error in addition for the 200-yard Standing/Offhand shooting station is added to the Total. Scoring of 160 to 211 qualifies as MARKSMAN Scoring of 212 to 219 qualifies as SHARPSHOOTER Score of 220 and above qualifies as EXPERT LHO’s Military Record indicates that he fired 212 out of a possible 250 points, which had it been correct, would have qualified him as a SHARPSHOOTER. Yet, his record demonstrates that he was erroneously awarded the lower qualification rating of MARKSMAN. And, his actual Rangefire Qualification Records indicate that he fired a total score of 217 out of a possible 250 points, which placed him only 3 points below the qualification standard for the EXPERT rating. ================================================================ * If one correctly adds the scoring for this firing station, the score totals 40 points out of a possible 50. **During actual rangefire qualification, the 300 yard slow-fire sitting & the 300 yard kneeling position were combined into a single station at which the participant fired 5 rounds at each position. In addition, during this firing station (& only this station) the cross-winds had gone from a previous Zero mph to a reported 5mph. These winds were coming from almost directly left, to right as one looks down the line of fire. During the course of attempting to fire, LHO went through 5 separate windage adjustments on his sights in attempt to get his shot grouping from right-of-center to center of target. Since his windage adjustments corrections appear to have been mostly a “trial & error” method of correction, and the Drill/Range Instructors are forbidden from giving any advice and/or assistance during actual rangefire qualification for record, it would appear that LHO’s failure to do well at this station is due more to a lack of understanding on the correct formula application method necessary to correct for crosswinds, than it is as a result of poor marksmanship. Therefore, one must look at exactly who’s responsibility was it to insure that the Recruit fully understand the mathematical computation formula necessary for cross-wind correction. ***Although the 500 yard slow-fire station is defined as being fired from the “prone” position, and LHO on the day prior to actual qualification fired a score of 44 out of a possible 50 when firing from this position, his actual rangefire for qualification appears to state that he fired from the “sitting” position when he fired for record the following day. All recruits were required to keep their own “Scoring”. Thusly, LHO is responsible for the errors which exist between what his specific records indicate that he shot, and the added totals for each station as well as apparently for the error of his total score. As demonstrated, the actual Rangefire Qualification Records of LHO indicates that he fired an actual score of 217 during his qualification for record. (3-points below the requirement for EXPERT) For those who are unfamiliar with how the reported "212" score got it's start. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol19_0017b.htm LHO's "Record", which was of course entered by some Clerk, apparantly indicates that he fired a score of 212. The letter which indicates this, also clarifies that, based on this score (which also appears to be incorrect), that LHO should have been awarded the "SHARPSHOOTER" qualification badge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 (edited) For Mr. Knight!"High and to the Right" Think on that one Mark. Tom, I must be a bit more dense than usual today...that "shot" wasn't even "on the paper" with me. IOW, not sure if it was a reference to the effects of the scope being mounted as it was, or what other element you may have had in mind. It was a long day at work today, and my thinking apparatus is operating at a low level of efficiency. "High and to the Right" is the general impact location for shots fired from the Carcano when the weapon was first tested by the FBI after having been received from DPD. With the manner in which the scope was mounted, generally for all shots fired, the shot grouping was some 4 to six inches "high", and generally slightly "right" of the actual aiming point on center of target. Many have immediately "jumped" onto this information with no knowledge and have thereafter attempted to utililze it to buttress their asinine claims that the rifle (Carcano) found on the sixth floor could not have even been utilized by anyone during the shooting, as no one could have hit anything with it due to the failure of the sighting mechanicism (scope) to be able to align with and hit the target. Even many of the supposedly "shooters" have never taken the time to explain a few of the items necessary for accurate shooting, which would have also shed some light onto this subject. It would appear to the unobservant, then, that if the MC in police custody actually was the weapon of choice of the assassin...UNLESS the assassin was left-eye dominant, [or knew how to compensate for the sight], the only "logical" conclusion would be that he actually intended to shoot JACKIE in the derrierre, and "accidentally" hit JFK in the head. [High and to the right...correct?] Am I close? Am I close? Unfortunately, we will most likely never know for certain now. http://www.snipercountry.com/mark1.htm When shooting a rifle without a scope, it is important to align the front and rear sights perfectly and consistently. There are four things in this equation -- your shooting eye,* the rear sight, the front sight, and the target. The Target ( a still target) is a fixed point! The Front Sight is a fixed point! The Rear Sight is a fixed point! *The only variable is the alignment of the shooting eye in relationship to these three fixed points when firing a rifle and utilizing the sights on the rifle. Edited October 5, 2007 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 (edited) http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/...php/t-9076.html Bear, You really do thirst for knowledge don't you? That's ok though. That's what I, and any other intstructor likes best. Someone who asks questions. Qualification in the Marine Corps is very different than that of the Army. The Marines have two different courses. One for the Recruits, (which is based more on precision shooting) and one for Marines who have already completed recruit training, (which is based more on combat...or so they say.) For our purposes I'm only going to cover the course of Fire for recruit training. You will fire what is known as the ELR (Entry Level Rifle.) When you arrive at Edson Range (Recruits going to San Diego Only...Those going to Parris Island will stay there when going to the range,) your first week will consist of classes with your PMI. Each recruit platoon will have there own. You will get classes for the entire week. These classes will include all of the fundamentals of marksmanship, effects of weather on the shooter, and on the rounds/weapon, classes on how to "zero" the M-16 A2, the sighting system, the course of fire, how to "build" a good prone, sitting, kneeling, or standing position. You will learn more knowledge about good marksmanship than you know what to do with. PAY ATTENTION!!! There is nothing taught that first week that isn't important. On Wednsday of that first week you will go to the range in the afternoon to do your "grouping exersize" This is the first time most recruits ever shoot the weapon. The following Monday, or the next week you will actually go to the rifle range. Course of fire: 200 yard slow fire Stage 1 5 rounds sitting 5 rounds kneeling 5 rounds standing...the time limit for this stage of fire is 20 minutes. 200 yard rapid fire stage 2 10 rounds fired from 2 magazines containing 5 rounds each in a time limit of 70 seconds. You will go from standing up to a sitting position in order to fire.300 yard slow fire stage 3 5 rounds sitting in a time limit of 5 minutes 300 yard rapid fire stage 4 Again you will fire 10 rounds from 2 magazines of 5 rounds each in a time limit of 70 seconds. For this you will go from standing to a prone position.500 yard slow fire stage 5 10 rounds prone in a time limit of 10 minutes That is the entire course of fire it consists of 50 rounds with a possible score of 5 points each, totaling 250 points. Keep in mind no one has ever shot a perfect score. There are 3 different types of targets you will fire on. The "Able" target which is a basic square target with a 12" round bullseye. The "Dog" target which is designed as the sillouette of a man in the prone, so it only shows a head and shoulders. (That is the target you will fire your rapid fires on.) Then there is the "B mod" target which is the sillouette of a man from waist to head. (That is the target you will fire on at 500 Yards.) During monday through thursday of your "firing" week you will practice all of the marksmanship skills you learned the week prior, only you will be firing live rounds. SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT!!!!!!!!!! The best part is however, you will have a "Coach" a marksmanship instructor who will work with you through the entire week to help "ingrain" the fundamentals of marksmanship with you. He will help you to perfect each of the firing positions, and guide you through the process. Now, on friday you will have to qualify. The coach will only be there to help you in between stages of fire on friday, while your on the firing line, YOUR ON YOUR OWN! So you better pay attention. If you did pay attention and ask plenty of questions, qualification will be easy and fun, if you didn't pay attention, it can and probably will be a very stressfull day for you. As far as the other techniques of fire you asked about, you will learn those the week after qualification (providing you qualify) during your "Feild Week." I don't handle this phase of boot camp, but I do know about it so if you have questions on that ask me and I'll tell you what I can. As far as instruction on the M249 Saw, and other such weapons, that takes place at SOI. I am not currently a SAWI (Small Arms Weapons Instructor.) However I will be going to that school (SAWIS...Small Arms Weapons Instructors School) in November. So, for those of you who are going to boot camp after that, you can ask me questions about that when I return from the school. In SOI/ITB you will learn basic patrolling techniques in a semi dense vegitation are abord MCB Camp Pendleton (San Diego) and you will have the oppertunity to learn some basic MOUT techniques as well. However, since all of the training takes place abord Camp Pendleton, you will not have desert training or the like until you get to your infantry unit. Ranks: Unlike the Army where a Staff Sergeant is a squad leader. In the Marine Corps we place more responibility on our NCO's. Corporals are usually Fire team leaders, sometimes squad leaders when Sergeants are in short supply. Staff Sergeants are platoon Sergeants in the Marine Corps. I hope this answers all your questions fully, but if not feel free to ask me some more. I enjoy answering them Until next time. Semper Fi Sgt Chapman ================================================================================ *Emphasis (bold) added. In the rapid fire courses, one must go from the standing position to the firing position, acquire the target, shoot 5 rounds, re-load the weapon with a new magazine, re-acquire the target, and then complete another 5-round firing. All in 70 seconds or less. Which time includes going from the standing position to the actual firing position and acquiring the target for the first shot, as well as that time required to reload the weapon, and yet still average a firing time of 7-seconds per shot. LHO's Record: 200 yard Rapid Fire Station: Score----48 of 50 Percentile Rating:-------96 300 yard Rapid Fire Station: Score----46 of 50 Percentile Rating:-------92 Edited October 5, 2007 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 No offense, but this has the kind of relevance of how many angels can dance on the head of a firing pin....for Lee was having lunch and not on the sixth floor. Further, NO one about to kill anyone would use such a horrible rifle....an assassin would use a real rifle for sharpshooting, not an old WW1 nothing and, further, they'd not buy it mail order [implicating themselves]...in TX they could have bought it annonymously over the counter..... Lastly, several phony weapons were found and all others but the horrible self-incriminating pre-prescribed by sabot bullets MC made to disappear....poof...magic.....watch this hand...as the other is doing the dirty deed....so just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?...even the firing pin of a MC...like those Morrow was asked to buy...? NB - the fatal final shots came from the right front - not the TSBD......so how many angels can dance on the whole Plaza is perhaps more apt. Peter; Thank you for that excellent example as to why this forum should consider changing it's name to "The Un-Educated Forum". Or "The Lack Of Education Forum"! 40+ years and an entire realm of learning potential at one's fingertips with the internet, and yet there are still those such as yourself who clearly demonstrate that they know absolutely nothing about the reliability; accuracy; and capabilities of the WWII model 91/38 Carcano, and they also continue to demonstrate exactly how little that they actually know in regards to the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts of the assassination of JFK. Hopefully, at some point prior to my demise, I would love to gain additional insight in regards to the human species and their frequent inability to correlate what is generally quite simple and factual information, while at the same time totally dis-regarding all existing factual knowledge and information, merely because it conflicts with their overall understanding of events. Irrelevant as to the factual validity of those simple items. What you have to say as regards the Carcano rifle, does not make it factual! What I say regarding the Carcano rifle, does not make it factual! The demonstrated ability of the Carcano rifle, makes it a physical fact as to it's reliability and accuracy. Irrelevant as to what anyone has to say on the subject matter. Now! Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition. Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it? Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14. Exactly what portion of this was it that you did not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 (edited) http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...80f013f5ff1aa67? 1. The Model 91/38 Carcano in relatively good condition, hardly rates as a "virtual piece of junk". In the event that it did, then beginning with the issue of the M-14 to all US Armed Forces, then we immediately equipped them with a "virtual piece of junk", as the Model 91/38 Carcano which was utilized in the assassination, in bench-test firing, coupled with ammunition produced to Military Starndard, fired as accurately as did the US issue weapon, the M-14. Therefore, your thesis is immediately "slanted" to a non-factual conclusion. "garbage in/garbage out" is, if recalled, the correct saying! 2. In shooting application, there are many who, for whatever reason, (eyesight, etc:) can not hit the side of a barn at various ranges, yet at other ranges can pop the heads off chickens. In that regards, one needs to take a look at the ENTIRE Rangefire Practice as well as Rangefire Qualification of LHO. In that, anyone who is actually familiar with LHO's entire Rangefire Record as well as his initial Qualification for Record, and who is familiar with the actual shooting ability of various individuuals, should come to the virtual same conclusion. A. For Record, LHO fired in/above the 90th percentile rating for three of 5 firing stations. Two stations of which were in the "Rapid Fire" firing condition. B. Of the two remaining stations which LHO did poorly, during one of these stations at which he had demonstrated during practice that he had the capability of actually doing well at, he did poorly. 10-shots at 5 separate windage adjustments! This has little to do with whether one is or is not a good shot! Primarily, it has to do with having accurate information relative to wind speed and direction, and the correct calculation for a correction factor to apply to the weapon to compensate for this variable. That LHO went through 5 separate "windage" settings during this shooting station is quite indicative that the single most problem was an incorrect application of windage correction to his sight adjustments. Anyone who is of the misconception that LHO was a poor shot, had best take this Qualification for Record shooting record to someone who knows something and have them properly evaluate the shot grouping. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0346a.htm And, although LHO quite obviously had not, at this time, developed the fine points of shooting which would have allowed this type accuracy virtually all the time, one does not achieve this type shot grouping by being a poor shot. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0346a.htm Not suprisingly, LHO did his absolute best firing when faced with the "Rapid Fire" situation! "There exists the possibility that Oswald's scores were either > inaccurately or unfairly recorded, thus accounting for his obviously > mediocre to horrendous performances with a rifle" An "inaccurately or unfairly recorded" score has absolutely ZERO to do with LHO's ability/performance with a rifle. Since each recruit was responsible for keeping his own score, it demonstrates that LHO was clearly not that good at math. Which, would also serve to indicate why he had difficulties in computation of, and application of the windage correction factor, which is a mere math problem. An inaccurate score merely demonstrates that one can not add correctly. Totally irrelevant as to shooting ability. As is clearly demonstrated by the fact that LHO "lost" one point at one firing station during Rangefire Qualification, merely due to an addition error. As well as the fact that when one correctly adds all of LHO's totals from the 5 separate firing stations, they come up with a score of 217, which actually places him only 3 points below the EXPERT category, even though he completely failed on firing station and barely passed another firing station due to what appears to be more "extenuating circumstances" than actual shooter ability. In "Academic Terms" An actual GPA of 86.8 (217/250) does not demonstrate that one is either smart or dumb. However, when one looks at those separate grades of 46 of 50/--92nd percentile; 46 of 50/--92nd percentile; 48 of 50/--96th percentile; 40 of 50/--80th percentile; & 37 of 50/--74th percentile, which went into determination of that grade point average, then anyone who is even vaguely familiar with how we grade our school students can see that LHO was an absolute "A" student in 3 of four of his classes. The demonstrated marksmanship ability of LHO, based on the only factual record which we have, (his Recruit Rangefire Practice & Qualification Record) clearly demonstrates that LHO was by far, and even better shot than any LNer, to include John McAdams, was fully aware of. Overall average of 88th percentile for the EXPERT RATING! 92nd/92nd/&96th percentile ratings in 3 of 5 IS NOT accidental. Edited October 6, 2007 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 However, the only shooting which LHO would/should have needed and required was that which was necessary to zero the scope if he were going to utilize it, and/or boresight the rifle, which by all reports was done at a Dallas gun shop. Thomas: I missed this post when it first appeared, and would appreciate your comments. Am I correct in thinking that 1. In order to prove the theory that Lee Oswald COULD have carried out the assassination using the scope, it is neccessary to prove, at a minimum, that he had in fact zeroed in the scope? 2. In order to prove that he could have accomplished the deed using the iron sights, it would be necessary to prove that he had in fact "boresighted" the weapon? (perhaps you could explain "boresighting") Please tell us the name of the Dallas gun shop where this "zeroing in" and "boresighting" was accomplished. Did the Warren commission establish that this was done and, if so, could you point us to the WC source? Also, forgive me if you have addressed this, but could you also comment on why, after the assassination, it was necessary to have a machinist add shims to the scope to enable the rifle to be zeroed in before it could be fired with any degree of accuracy. To a lay jury this makes it sounds as though the rifle found in the TSBD, while it may have a good weapon in and of itself, could not have been the murder weapon given the condition of the scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 Boresighting: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/s...ainst_Mr_X.html I raised the question of the gunsmith in an article in Commentary in March 1964, which the Commission was aware of and cited in a note concerning something else. Dial D. Ryder is employed as a gunsmith and general serviceman at the Irving Sports Shop in Irving, the Dallas suburb where Marina Oswald lived with Ruth Paine and where Oswald came to pass his weekends. On November 28, 1963, Ryder told a reporter that he had found in his shop a repair tag in Oswald’s name for a job done a few weeks earlier: mounting a telescopic lens on a rifle. The press and television took this as still another proof against Oswald, until someone remembered that the Mannlicher-Carcano sent from Chicago to Hidell-Oswald already had a telescopic lens. In one stroke, what had already been sensational information a few hours earlier became retroactively non-existent, and the Irving gunsmith disappeared from the affair. When I telephoned Ryder in February 1964, he told me that the repair tag in Oswald’s name (no first name or initial, just “Oswald”) was still in his possession. The fbi apparently saw no reason to bother with this piece of paper. The questioning of Ryder by the Commission on March 25, 1964, revealed that the repair tag was finally obtained from him in March, after the publication of my article. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ryder.htm http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H22_CE_1334.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 Boresighting:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/s...ainst_Mr_X.html I raised the question of the gunsmith in an article in Commentary in March 1964, which the Commission was aware of and cited in a note concerning something else. Dial D. Ryder is employed as a gunsmith and general serviceman at the Irving Sports Shop in Irving, the Dallas suburb where Marina Oswald lived with Ruth Paine and where Oswald came to pass his weekends. On November 28, 1963, Ryder told a reporter that he had found in his shop a repair tag in Oswald’s name for a job done a few weeks earlier: mounting a telescopic lens on a rifle. The press and television took this as still another proof against Oswald, until someone remembered that the Mannlicher-Carcano sent from Chicago to Hidell-Oswald already had a telescopic lens. In one stroke, what had already been sensational information a few hours earlier became retroactively non-existent, and the Irving gunsmith disappeared from the affair. When I telephoned Ryder in February 1964, he told me that the repair tag in Oswald’s name (no first name or initial, just “Oswald”) was still in his possession. The fbi apparently saw no reason to bother with this piece of paper. The questioning of Ryder by the Commission on March 25, 1964, revealed that the repair tag was finally obtained from him in March, after the publication of my article. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ryder.htm http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H22_CE_1334.pdf http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/136/197/ http://www.ehow.com/how_2076492_boresight-rifle-scope.html http://hunting.about.com/c/ht/00/07/How_Bo...n0962933346.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 Boresighting:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/s...ainst_Mr_X.html I raised the question of the gunsmith in an article in Commentary in March 1964, which the Commission was aware of and cited in a note concerning something else. Dial D. Ryder is employed as a gunsmith and general serviceman at the Irving Sports Shop in Irving, the Dallas suburb where Marina Oswald lived with Ruth Paine and where Oswald came to pass his weekends. On November 28, 1963, Ryder told a reporter that he had found in his shop a repair tag in Oswald’s name for a job done a few weeks earlier: mounting a telescopic lens on a rifle. The press and television took this as still another proof against Oswald, until someone remembered that the Mannlicher-Carcano sent from Chicago to Hidell-Oswald already had a telescopic lens. In one stroke, what had already been sensational information a few hours earlier became retroactively non-existent, and the Irving gunsmith disappeared from the affair. When I telephoned Ryder in February 1964, he told me that the repair tag in Oswald’s name (no first name or initial, just “Oswald”) was still in his possession. The fbi apparently saw no reason to bother with this piece of paper. The questioning of Ryder by the Commission on March 25, 1964, revealed that the repair tag was finally obtained from him in March, after the publication of my article. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ryder.htm http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H22_CE_1334.pdf http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/136/197/ http://www.ehow.com/how_2076492_boresight-rifle-scope.html http://hunting.about.com/c/ht/00/07/How_Bo...n0962933346.htm http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=...ts=&as_ft=i ; however, during World War I, the Italians did issue a Model 91 sniper rifle with a scope offset along the left side of the receiver. It was used by three man sniper teams to eliminate artillery forward observers, and it is reported that the additional mission of the two spotters was to insure that the sniper rifle would not be captured under any conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 Boresighting:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/s...ainst_Mr_X.html I raised the question of the gunsmith in an article in Commentary in March 1964, which the Commission was aware of and cited in a note concerning something else. Dial D. Ryder is employed as a gunsmith and general serviceman at the Irving Sports Shop in Irving, the Dallas suburb where Marina Oswald lived with Ruth Paine and where Oswald came to pass his weekends. On November 28, 1963, Ryder told a reporter that he had found in his shop a repair tag in Oswald’s name for a job done a few weeks earlier: mounting a telescopic lens on a rifle. The press and television took this as still another proof against Oswald, until someone remembered that the Mannlicher-Carcano sent from Chicago to Hidell-Oswald already had a telescopic lens. In one stroke, what had already been sensational information a few hours earlier became retroactively non-existent, and the Irving gunsmith disappeared from the affair. When I telephoned Ryder in February 1964, he told me that the repair tag in Oswald’s name (no first name or initial, just “Oswald”) was still in his possession. The fbi apparently saw no reason to bother with this piece of paper. The questioning of Ryder by the Commission on March 25, 1964, revealed that the repair tag was finally obtained from him in March, after the publication of my article. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ryder.htm http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H22_CE_1334.pdf http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/136/197/ http://www.ehow.com/how_2076492_boresight-rifle-scope.html http://hunting.about.com/c/ht/00/07/How_Bo...n0962933346.htm http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=...ts=&as_ft=i ; however, during World War I, the Italians did issue a Model 91 sniper rifle with a scope offset along the left side of the receiver. It was used by three man sniper teams to eliminate artillery forward observers, and it is reported that the additional mission of the two spotters was to insure that the sniper rifle would not be captured under any conditions. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQ...50/ai_113853252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Thomas: Thank you for responding to my question, and I hope you don't mind if I have follow-ups. As one who has only a rudimentary knowledge of fireams, I greatly appreciate the opportunity this forum gives me to discuss the firearms issues with someone knowledgable like yourself. I consider it an added bonus that you are one of a minority that believes Lee Oswald murdered JFK. I know your answers will not be slanted towards telling me what I want to hear. I would like to make it clear that I personally have no doubt that a Mannlicher-Carcano short rifle is as deadly as any other rifle. Thank you for the info on boresighting and zeroing in the scope, which brings me back to the questions that trouble me (and I am not alone). 1. In order to prove the theory that Lee Oswald COULD have carried out the assassination using the scope, it is necessary to prove, at a minimum, that he had in fact zeroed in the scope? Thomas, You did not answer that question directly, but from the fact that you reference Dial Ryder, a gunsmith, and from reading the linked articles on boresighting, etc., I come away with the distinct impression that any rifleman who had that weapon would have had to boresight and have the scope zeroed in before he could go "hunting" with any serious prospects of success. The question becomes: Is there any evidence that Lee Oswald did so? You answered that question back in November 2006 when you wrote "However, the only shooting which LHO would/should have NEEDED and REQUIRED was that which was necessary to zero the scope if he were going to utilize it, and/or boresight the rifle, which by all reports was done at a Dallas gun shop." when asked to elaborate on the identity of the gun shop, you pointed me to the testimony of Dial Ryder, where I found this: Mr. Ryder ... from the picture I told him as far as I could remember I told him I hadn't mounted that scope, you know. Mr. Liebeler. You based that statement that you had not mounted the scope on your recollection that you had not worked on that particular kind of rifle, is that correct? Mr. Ryder. Right, on this Italian rifle I never worked on them. I seen them but as far as doing any physical work, I haven't done none even to this date, I haven't worked on any of them. Mr. Liebeler. You are absolutely sure about that? Mr. Ryder. I am positive on that, very positive. Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 226 So we have the word of Dial Ryder, under oath, that if Lee Oswald DID have the rifle boresighted, it was not done by Dial Ryder. For once I am in agreement with the Warren report AND with Vincent Bugliosi. There is no evidence that Dial Ryder ever installed OR ever sighted in a scope on a Carcano rifle for ANYBODY. http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page315.php WR on Dial Ryder If the rifle was not boresighted or zeroed in by Dial Ryder, is there evidence that it was done in ANOTHER Dallas gunshop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 Boresighting:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/s...ainst_Mr_X.html I raised the question of the gunsmith in an article in Commentary in March 1964, which the Commission was aware of and cited in a note concerning something else. Dial D. Ryder is employed as a gunsmith and general serviceman at the Irving Sports Shop in Irving, the Dallas suburb where Marina Oswald lived with Ruth Paine and where Oswald came to pass his weekends. On November 28, 1963, Ryder told a reporter that he had found in his shop a repair tag in Oswald’s name for a job done a few weeks earlier: mounting a telescopic lens on a rifle. The press and television took this as still another proof against Oswald, until someone remembered that the Mannlicher-Carcano sent from Chicago to Hidell-Oswald already had a telescopic lens. In one stroke, what had already been sensational information a few hours earlier became retroactively non-existent, and the Irving gunsmith disappeared from the affair. When I telephoned Ryder in February 1964, he told me that the repair tag in Oswald’s name (no first name or initial, just “Oswald”) was still in his possession. The fbi apparently saw no reason to bother with this piece of paper. The questioning of Ryder by the Commission on March 25, 1964, revealed that the repair tag was finally obtained from him in March, after the publication of my article. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ryder.htm http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H22_CE_1334.pdf http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/136/197/ http://www.ehow.com/how_2076492_boresight-rifle-scope.html http://hunting.about.com/c/ht/00/07/How_Bo...n0962933346.htm Final ZERO? http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/wood_s.htm http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/wood_h.htm Also worth review: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_f.htm http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/price_m.htm "Boresighting" is merely the quickie way of getting the alignment of the sights and/or scope crosshairs into alignment with the centerline of the barrell of the rifle. With the newer technology & use of lasers, this can be done so accurately (when ballistic data is available) that one can actually boresight and never truly have to field fire the weapon to achieve the final "Zero". Provided of course that one, not unlike in Golf & other skills, has the "correct" posture and grip to begin with.**** As noted in the boresight portion, once actually boresighted with the scope, ZERO can frequently be accomplished by firing as little as three rounds on a rifle range. One must think "High & too the Right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 Thomas: Thank you for responding to my question, and I hope you don't mind if I have follow-ups. As one who has only a rudimentary knowledge of fireams, I greatly appreciate the opportunity this forum gives me to discuss the firearms issues with someone knowledgable like yourself. I consider it an added bonus that you are one of a minority that believes Lee Oswald murdered JFK. I know your answers will not be slanted towards telling me what I want to hear.I would like to make it clear that I personally have no doubt that a Mannlicher-Carcano short rifle is as deadly as any other rifle. Thank you for the info on boresighting and zeroing in the scope, which brings me back to the questions that trouble me (and I am not alone). 1. In order to prove the theory that Lee Oswald COULD have carried out the assassination using the scope, it is necessary to prove, at a minimum, that he had in fact zeroed in the scope? Thomas, You did not answer that question directly, but from the fact that you reference Dial Ryder, a gunsmith, and from reading the linked articles on boresighting, etc., I come away with the distinct impression that any rifleman who had that weapon would have had to boresight and have the scope zeroed in before he could go "hunting" with any serious prospects of success. The question becomes: Is there any evidence that Lee Oswald did so? You answered that question back in November 2006 when you wrote "However, the only shooting which LHO would/should have NEEDED and REQUIRED was that which was necessary to zero the scope if he were going to utilize it, and/or boresight the rifle, which by all reports was done at a Dallas gun shop." when asked to elaborate on the identity of the gun shop, you pointed me to the testimony of Dial Ryder, where I found this: Mr. Ryder ... from the picture I told him as far as I could remember I told him I hadn't mounted that scope, you know. Mr. Liebeler. You based that statement that you had not mounted the scope on your recollection that you had not worked on that particular kind of rifle, is that correct? Mr. Ryder. Right, on this Italian rifle I never worked on them. I seen them but as far as doing any physical work, I haven't done none even to this date, I haven't worked on any of them. Mr. Liebeler. You are absolutely sure about that? Mr. Ryder. I am positive on that, very positive. Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 226 So we have the word of Dial Ryder, under oath, that if Lee Oswald DID have the rifle boresighted, it was not done by Dial Ryder. For once I am in agreement with the Warren report AND with Vincent Bugliosi. There is no evidence that Dial Ryder ever installed OR ever sighted in a scope on a Carcano rifle for ANYBODY. http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page315.php WR on Dial Ryder If the rifle was not boresighted or zeroed in by Dial Ryder, is there evidence that it was done in ANOTHER Dallas gunshop? If one reviews testimony of Ryder, then reads that of his boss, Greener; http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/greener.htm As well as comparison with the FBI statements and the testimony of: Hunter Schmidt: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony...idt.htm#schmidt Then they can go around in great circles. Someone is quite obviously not telling the factual truths here. Why???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 8, 2007 Author Share Posted October 8, 2007 High & to the Right: (finally) Anyone familiar with the Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSDB, as well as the testing of this weapon afterwards by the FBI & the Weapons Evaluation Branch, would be aware of the scope mounting alignment problems as well as the fact that FBI Agent Robert Frazier and his group of individuals who tested the weapon, found that when sighting through the scope, the weapon consistently fired "High & too the Right". There have been many who have jumped onto this wagon and made attempt to explain that this proves that the weapon could not be utilized as it was not even sighted properlyl. Obviously, these persons have little experience in shooting, as well as virtually everything from golf to pool shooting, to not understand the difference in individual grasping, holding of tools, etc;. First, the Cacano: The Model 91/38 Carcano is a "fixed sight" weapon in which there is absolutely no means and/or method to correct for either true "windage" variables or, any other shooting variable. The weapon is "machine" sighted in at the factory, and the only means by which an individual can consistantly hit the bullseye of the target is to either take up a shooting posture which contains the same exactly perfect alignment as the machine with which the weapon was sighted, or esle "adjust" the shooting to the point where one knows that he must shoot at some "offset" sighting point in order to actually hit the bullseye. The M1-Garand is also "factory sighted", however, it's rear sight has the ability for left and/or right movement, as well as up or down movement. These adjustments are incorporated into the weapon as US forces long ago learned that no two persons hold the weapon exactly the same, in the same position, etc; etc; due to a variety of physical as well as natural aspects. Thus, it would be extremely time consuming in attempting to train each and every member of the US Armed Forces in the shooting proceedures for "perfection" shooting in which, not unlike in golf and/or pool shooting, all things must be in perfection. Of course, the key element in the 4-alignment sighting of the weapon (eye-rear sight-front sight-target) is of course the placement of the sighting eye. It's proximity to centerline of the actual rifle barrell, and perfect centerline over the center of the stock. Also, the elevation of the eye becomes a key element in this sighting arrangement. So, knowing the time consuming process of attempting to correct already bad shooting posture habits on the part of those who entered the USMC/US Forces already shooting weapons, as well as not having the time to go through all of the repetative drills necessary in order to get the recruit/shooter to placing his handgrip; check spot weld; and eye--to-sight alignment in some "perfect" alignment which a machine can achieve, US Forces merely taught the basics of what was comfortable to the shooter, and allowed the shooter to compensate for whatever error in eye--over sights---to target alignment error occurs, through the usage of the windage and elevation adjustments which were a part of the weapon. In that regards, LHO consistently fired to the "Left" of center of target due to his own particular sighting error. In order to correct for this sighting error, LHO's standard (or ZERO if one will) for the 200 yard target was consistently (1R), being one adjustment click to the right on the rear sight adjustment. 1-click adjusted the bullet impact alignment by 1-inch at 100 yards, 2-inches at 200 yards, and so on. It is also noted that LHO frequently fired a "ZERO" of 2R (2 clicks right) on the 300 yard targets, which would ultimately demonstrate that through his "Battlesight ZERO" factory sight setting, he was aiming at the target center, yet bullet impact was some 3 to 6 inches left of bullseye. Therefore, were one to be a thoroughly qualified shooter who had been fully trained in the accurate grip and sighting alignment for weapons firing, and were they to pick up a weapon which had been fired and adjusted to LHO's specific sighting alignment, then in all probability, a trained shooter would consistantly hit "RIGHT" of target center in firing this weapon. HIGH Not unlike the left/right sighting alignment, the elevation of the eye in the shooting alignment is a key factor. With the fixed sights of the Carcano, one would have to place their eye at the exact perfect elevation as was the elevation of the factory machine, in event that they expected to have the same elevation impact for the bullet at the 300 yard factory sighting point of the Carcano. The Garand also comes with "Factory" sighting alignments. In fact, the Garand had a "slide" in which the rear sight could be immediately raised to the factory sighting elevations for the 100 yard/200 yard/250 yard/& 300 yard elevation variance due to bullet trajectory. In addition, the rear sight also had an individual adjustment for "fine tuning" of this elevation to compensate for the shooter's specific sight picture. In that regards, LHO's ZERO elevation for the 200 yard target was a (+6) additional clicks, which meant that LHO consistantly, due to his specific sighting picture alignment, fired some 12-inches low on a 200 yard target (which would equate to approximately 6-inches low on a 100 yard target). In Summary: LHO consistantly, utilizing "Battlesight ZERO"/aka factory ZERO rifle settings, fired and struck the target at a point which at 100 yards range would have placed impact point of the bullet to the left and below the actual bullseye. In the USMC, is "windage" & "elevation" adjustments of the rear sight of the M1-Garand were utilized to compensate for this shooter "error" in sighting alignment, and with this capability, LHO managed to do quite well. The Model 91/38 has a FIXED "Battlesight ZERO" setting, with absolutely no means for adjustment for specific shooter error in sighting picture. Based upon his USMC firing record, had LHO fired the Carcano utilizing only the fixed sights on the weapon, then his bullet impacts should have been consistently some 4 to 6 inches low, as well as some 2 to 3 inches left of actual target. Had LHO placed a scope onto the weapon in which he now had the ability to adjust for this sight alignment error on his part, he could have easily utilized the crosshairs of the sight to compensate for this variable, just as he did with the adjustable rear sight of the M1-Garand. However, were a well trained shooter to pick up this same weapon and thereafter shoot it, utilizing the scope sighting alignment which had been adjusted to compensate for LHO's sighting alignment, then in all probability, the weapon would have consistently fired "HIGH & To the RIGHT" for a well trained shooter. Based on LHO's lack of proper sighting alignment techniques, he would have had great difficulty in making repetatively accurate shots with the Carcano utilizing the fixed sights. The Scope gave him the room for compensation for the shooter "variable" which he needed. And, because the parallel axis through the scope was already "left of center" of the rifle barrell, and LHO consistantly fired 'Left of Center" even with his best sighting alignment, then the vertical crosshairs of the scope would have had to have been run far to the right hand side of the scope picture in order for LHO to have be able to correct for the left-of-center scope alignment and his left-of-center shooting pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now