>On 11/8/2012 2:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509ad90...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>>> required in production.

>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>> looking into.

>>> John F.

>> I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas.  The article by Dave
>> Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
>> impressive groups with the one he was using in his test.  I no longer
>> think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.

>> Bill Clarke

>It would be nice if you would actually read what Dave Emary wrote:

>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
> cops dropped it.

> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
> inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
> Same same as Dallas that day.

>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>> which revealed the conspiracy.

> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.

>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>> out for a better model.

>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>> material required in production.

>> None of that is true.

> Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
> the .223 round?

>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> As Dave Emary said:

> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.

>>   6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>> looking into.

>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

> The 0.268.

> When you bone up on your manners, *maybe* I'll respond to you.

> John F.

> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:509be0f5$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination. He missed a
>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>> The iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim
>> at a point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches
>> about the point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.

>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>> which revealed the conspiracy.

>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing
>> it out for a better model.

>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>> material required in production.

>> None of that is true.

>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> As Dave Emary said:

>>  6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
>> model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
>> sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
>> sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user
>> standpoint the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of
>> effectiveness and simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with
>> the fixed battle sight being at 300 meters was probably not the
>> greatest decision but reflected the trend of that time. With this
>> sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height of trajectory of
>> approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards, depending on
>> barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life was
>> spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>> looking into.

>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

>>> John F.

>>> "claviger" <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5ff1cb4b-cb08-4046-b63a-e2ebbc1dba14@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 7, 12:11 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <d2dd8d5a-46f1-473d-a46d-13223c79a...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> claviger says...

>>>> >MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
>>>> >http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar
>>>> >pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
>>>> >ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
>>>> >Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
>>>> >attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...

>>>> >Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
>>>> >http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe
>>>> >6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
>>>> >long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
>>>> >placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
>>>> >bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
>>>> >insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.

>>>> I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
>>>> for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
>>>> grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.

>>>> For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off
>>>> with
>>>> a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100
>>>> grain
>>>> bullet.

>>>> Bill Clarke

>>> Agreed.  Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a
>>> military surplus rifle.  A pro would make sure they had the right kind
>>> of rifle for a hit on such an important target.

>> On 11/8/2012 2:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509ad90...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>>>> required in production.

>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>> looking into.

>>>> John F.

>>> I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas.  The article by Dave
>>> Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
>>> impressive groups with the one he was using in his test.  I no longer
>>> think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.

>>> Bill Clarke

>> It would be nice if you would actually read what Dave Emary wrote:

> I've read the article.  It would be nice if you wouldn't twist what he said with
> the facts.  The fact are that this foolish 300 yard zero was not used for long
> and then the 200 yard zero was used. That gives you around a 4 inch mid
> trajectory height and I doubt many Austrian soldiers were spared by 4 inches.

> Bill Clarke

>>    6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
>> model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
>> sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
>> sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint
>> the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and
>> simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight
>> being at 300 meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected
>> the trend of that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a
>> maximum height of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to
>> 200 yards, depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian
>> soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

> The most important point is that Oswald learned of the opportunity chance
> circumstance had dealt him and he only had one rifle, so it's not as if he
> really made a choice about which rifle to use for the task at hand. He
> chose the MC the previous March possibly for the purpose of killing
> Walker. His reasons for selecting that particular rifle were known only to
> him. My guess is it's relatively cheap price and his financial situation
> had a lot to do with his choice.

>On 11/9/2012 12:09 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509c241...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>> On 11/8/2012 2:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509ad90...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>>>>> required in production.

>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>>> looking into.

>>>>> John F.

>>>> I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas.  The article by Dave
>>>> Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
>>>> impressive groups with the one he was using in his test.  I no longer
>>>> think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.

>>>> Bill Clarke

>>> It would be nice if you would actually read what Dave Emary wrote:

>>I've read the article.  It would be nice if you wouldn't twist what he said with
>>the facts.  The fact are that this foolish 300 yard zero was not used for long
>> and then the 200 yard zero was used. That gives you around a 4 inch mid
>> trajectory height and I doubt many Austrian soldiers were spared by 4 inches.

>> Bill Clarke

>You're right that 50 years is not long. But it was long enough to cause
>the rifle to miss at close range.

>Never having served in war you have your wars mixed up.

>On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>The one in the TSBD failed.

>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>> cops dropped it.

>Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>elephant stepped on it.

>>   The
>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.

>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>> inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>> Same same as Dallas that day.

>Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>You pulled that number out of your ass.

>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>> which revealed the conspiracy.

>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.

>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>> out for a better model.

>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>> material required in production.

>>> None of that is true.

>> Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
>> the .223 round?

>Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>bullets for the same weight.

>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>> As Dave Emary said:

>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.

>>>   6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>> looking into.

>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

>> The 0.268.

>Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>ammo was.

>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>> The one in the TSBD failed.

> Horse apples.

>>>    He missed a
>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.

>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>> cops dropped it.

>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>> elephant stepped on it.

>>>    The
>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.

>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>> inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>> Same same as Dallas that day.

>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> You pulled that number out of your ass.

> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
> close to 100 yards.

>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.

>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.

>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>>> out for a better model.

>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>>> material required in production.

>>>> None of that is true.

>>> Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
>>> the .223 round?

>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>> bullets for the same weight.

> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
> true. Good.

>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>>> As Dave Emary said:

>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.

>>>>    6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>>> looking into.

>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

>>> The 0.268.

>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>> ammo was.

> Good going Marsh.

> Bill Clarke

>On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>> Horse apples.

>Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>Just like the CBS tests.

>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>>> cops dropped it.

>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>>> elephant stepped on it.

>>>>    The
>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.

>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>>> inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.

>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.

>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>> close to 100 yards.

>So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
>inches to the cowlick?

>Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
>You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.

>> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.

>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.

>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>>>> out for a better model.

>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>>>> material required in production.

>>>>> None of that is true.

>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
>>>> the .223 round?

>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>>> bullets for the same weight.

>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
>> true. Good.

>I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.

>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>>>> As Dave Emary said:

>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.

>>>>>6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>>>> looking into.

>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

>>>> The 0.268.

>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>>> ammo was.

>> Good going Marsh.

>> Bill Clarke

>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>> Horse apples.

>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> Just like the CBS tests.

> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>>>> cops dropped it.

>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>>>> elephant stepped on it.

>>>>>     The
>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.

>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>>>> inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.

>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.

>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>>> close to 100 yards.

>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
>> inches to the cowlick?

> I don't know where he aimed.  You don't either.

>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass.  Run it yourself.  I
>>> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.

>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.

>>> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.

>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.

>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>>>>> out for a better model.

>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>>>>> material required in production.

>>>>>> None of that is true.

>>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
>>>>> the .223 round?

>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>>>> bullets for the same weight.

>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
>>> true. Good.

>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.

> Weak Marsh.

>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:

>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.

>>>>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>>>>> looking into.

>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

>>>>> The 0.268.

>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>>>> ammo was.

>>> Good going Marsh.

>>> Bill Clarke

> >>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

> >>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

> >>> Horse apples.

> >> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
> >> Just like the CBS tests.

> > This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
> three shots because the rifle jammed.
> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.

>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>>> Horse apples.

>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.

> "One volunteer was unable to operate his rifle effectively so the
> following statistics are based on the 10 remaining shooters. The average
> time of all 10 was 5.64 seconds. The mode was 5.55 seconds and the mean
> was 5.70 seconds. The average for the top five shooters was 5.12 seconds,
> and for the bottom five shooters 6.16 seconds. There was a high occurrence
> of jamming during the test. On average the rifles jammed after 6 rounds.
> The most rounds fired without jamming were 14, 11, 10 in a row. The least
> was 0 (back to back)."

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

>On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>> Horse apples.

>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>three shots because the rifle jammed.

>>>>>>     He missed a
>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.

>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>>>>> cops dropped it.

>>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>>>>> elephant stepped on it.

>>>>>>     The
>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>>>>>point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.

>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>>>>> inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.

>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.

>>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>>>> close to 100 yards.

>>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
>>> inches to the cowlick?

>> I don't know where he aimed.  You don't either.

>  But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.

>>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.

>>>> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.

>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.

>>>>>>>>The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>>>>>> out for a better model.

>>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>>>>>> material required in production.

>>>>>>> None of that is true.

>>>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
>>>>>> the .223 round?

>>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>>>>> bullets for the same weight.

>>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
>>>> true. Good.

>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.

>> Weak Marsh.

>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:

>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.

>>>>>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>>>>>>that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>>>>>>depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>>>>>> looking into.

>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

>>>>>> The 0.268.

>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>>>>> ammo was.

>>>> Good going Marsh.

>>>> Bill Clarke

>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>>> Horse apples.

>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.

>>>>>>>      He missed a
>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.

>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>>>>>> cops dropped it.

>>>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.

>>>>>>>      The
>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.

>>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
>>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>>>>>> inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.

>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.

>>>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>>>>> close to 100 yards.

>>>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
>>>> inches to the cowlick?

>>> I don't know where he aimed.  You don't either.

>>   But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.

> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
> necessary make a missed shot.  I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
> for years now.  You just don't get it.

>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass.  Run it yourself.  I
>>>>> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.

>>>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.

>>>>> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.

>>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.

>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>>>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>>>>>>> out for a better model.

>>>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>>>>>>> material required in production.

>>>>>>>> None of that is true.

>>>>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
>>>>>>> the .223 round?

>>>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.

>>>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
>>>>> true. Good.

>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.

>>> Weak Marsh.

>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:

>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.

>>>>>>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>>>>>>> looking into.

>>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

>>>>>>> The 0.268.

>>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>>>>>> ammo was.

>>>>> Good going Marsh.

>>>>> Bill Clarke

>On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>>>> Horse apples.

>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

>>It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.

>Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>only be caused by the rifle jamming.

>>>>>>>>      He missed a
>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.

>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.

>>>>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.

>>>>>>>>      The
>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>>>>>>>point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.

>>>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle.  And again you
>>>>>>>>fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched.  Now
>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>>>>>>> inches.  The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.

>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.

>>>>>>Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>>>>>> close to 100 yards.

>>>>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
>>>>> inches to the cowlick?

>>>> I don't know where he aimed.  You don't either.

>>>   But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.

>>No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
>> necessary make a missed shot.  I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
>> for years now.  You just don't get it.

>Aiming at the head it does.

>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass.  Run it yourself.  I
>>>>>> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.

>>>>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.

>>>>>> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

>>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.

>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.

>>>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll.  Sure.

>>>>>>>>>>The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:

>>>>>>>>>Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.

>>>>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38"  which is the correct name.

>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.

>>>>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.

>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.

>>>>>>>>Actually a good bit of it is true.  Do you know why our military went to
>>>>>>>> the .223 round?

>>>>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.

>>>>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
>>>>>> true. Good.

>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.

>>>> Weak Marsh.

>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.

>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:

>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.

>>>>>>>>>6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>>>>>>>>M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>>>>>>>>Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>>>>>>>>The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>>>>>>>>era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>>>>>>>>early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>>>>>>>>meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>>>>>>>>that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>>>>>>>>depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

>>>>>>>>>>The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>>>>>>>> looking into.

>>>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?

>>>>>>>> The 0.268.

>>>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>>>>>>> ammo was.

>>>>>> Good going Marsh.

>>>>>> Bill Clarke

>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>>>>> Horse apples.

>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

>>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.

>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.

> No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
> you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?

>On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>>>>>> Horse apples.

>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

>>>>It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.

>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.

>>No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
>>reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
>> you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?

>No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
>of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
>1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
>internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.

>Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
>H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
>about an earlier trial.

>On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
>track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
>six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
>interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
>and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
>height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
>the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
>figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
>rounds each six times.  Here were the results:

>1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
>2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>head.
>3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>over head.
>5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>shoulder, 1 blue higher
>6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.

>Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
>order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
>Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).

>Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
>As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
>rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.

>Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
>the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
>both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
>participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
>Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
>January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
>within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
>with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
>not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
>back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained.  If
>CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.

>Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
>feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
>in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
>target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
>"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
>Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
>action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
>before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
>audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
>you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
>the best):

>1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

>2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

>3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

>4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
>target)

>5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
>6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

>6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

>7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>NO TIME -- jam again
>6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

>8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

>9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>NO TIME -- jammed again
>5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

>10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
>4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

>11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>NO TIME -- jammed
>NO TIME -- jammed
>6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target

>We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
>scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.  The same was not
>necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.

>I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
>satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>assassination).  In the end, one must also consider the difference between
>what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
>conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
>actual circumstances on 11/22/63.

> > In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

> >> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

> >>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

> >>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

> >>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
> >>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

> >>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

> >>>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

> >>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

> >>>>>>> Horse apples.

> >>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
> >>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

> >>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

> >>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
> >>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

> >>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.

> >> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
> >> only be caused by the rifle jamming.

> > No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
> > reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
> > you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?

> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.

> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
> although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission.  It was discussed by
> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968).  Another poster has quoted
> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
> incorporated the same information.  I independently verified the accuracy
> of his information during the mid-Seventies.  In evaluating the results of
> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
> that Oswald is alleged to have used.  (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
> use the actual rifle in evidence.)

> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
> duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
> about an earlier trial.

> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
> six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
> the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
> figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
> rounds each six times.  Here were the results:

> 1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
> head.
> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
> over head.
> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
> shoulder, 1 blue higher
> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.

> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (liv> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).

> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.

> Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
> within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.

> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
> feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
> before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
> the best):

> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
> 5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
> target)

> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
> 6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
> NO TIME -- jam again
> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
> NO TIME -- jammed again
> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
> 5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
> NO TIME -- jammed
> NO TIME -- jammed
> 6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target

> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.  The same was not
> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.

> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
> assassination).  In the end, one must also consider the difference between
> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
> actual circumstances on 11/22/63.  To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
> or

>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.

>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>>>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

>>>>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.

>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.

>>> No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
>>> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
>>> you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?

>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.

> Yes she did.  And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.

>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission.  It was discussed by
>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968).  Another poster has quoted
>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
>> incorporated the same information.  I independently verified the accuracy
>> of his information during the mid-Seventies.  In evaluating the results of
>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
>> that Oswald is alleged to have used.  (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)

>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>> duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
>> about an earlier trial.

>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
>> six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
>> the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
>> figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
>> rounds each six times.  Here were the results:

>> 1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>> head.
>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>> over head.
>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.

>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).

>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.

>> Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
>> within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained.  If
>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.

>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
>> feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
>> before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
>> the best):

>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>> 5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
>> target)

>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>> 6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>> 5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> NO TIME -- jammed

>On Nov 14, 4:56=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:

>> > In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>> >> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>> >>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says..=
>.

>> >>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says=
>...

>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>> >>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in=
> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for=
> the job.

>> >>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>> >>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? =A0It damn sure worked.

>> >>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>> >>>>>>> Horse apples.

>> >>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>> >>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>> >>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> >>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

>> >>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswal=
>d or not.

>> >> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>> >> only be caused by the rifle jamming.

>> > No you don't. =A0Despite my relating personal experience and despite th=
>e excellent
>> > reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifl=
>e jamming
>> > you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?

>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.

>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =A0It was discussed by
>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =A0Another poster has quoted
>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
>> incorporated the same information. =A0I independently verified the accuracy
>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the results of
>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =A0(Of course, CBS was not permitted to
>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)

>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>> duplicating Oswald's feat. =A0It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first tell you
>> about an earlier trial.

>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
>> six trials. =A0Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =A0The slopoe of the track approximated
>> the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target because they
>> figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of three
>> rounds each six times. =A0Here were the results:

>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>> head.
>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>> over head.
>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.

>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (liv=
>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).

>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.

>> Two important points to note are these: =A0First, the person who recorded
>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. =A0The
>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
>> within the orange silhouette. =A0In May, however, Lister was content merely
>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.

>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
>> feat. =A0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =A0What happened in the other 17 cases?
>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
>> before they could get off their third shot. =A0Of course, CBS never told its
>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
>> the best):

>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>> 5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
>> target)

>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>> 6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>> 5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> 6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target

>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =A0The same was not
>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.

>> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>> assassination). =A0In the

>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.

>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>>>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

>>>>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.

>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.

>>> No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
>>> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
>>> you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?

>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.

>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission.  It was discussed by
>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968).  Another poster has quoted
>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
>> incorporated the same information.  I independently verified the accuracy
>> of his information during the mid-Seventies.  In evaluating the results of
>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
>> that Oswald is alleged to have used.  (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)

>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>> duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
>> about an earlier trial.

>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
>> six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
>> the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
>> figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
>> rounds each six times.  Here were the results:

>> 1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>> head.
>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>> over head.
>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.

>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (liv> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).

>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.

>> Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
>> within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.

>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
>> feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
>> before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
>> the best):

>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>> 5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
>> target)

>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>> 6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>> 5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> 6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target

>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.  The same was not
>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.

>> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>> assassination).  In the end, one must also consider the difference between
>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
>> conditions, and what is reasonably

>On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.

>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that?  It damn sure worked.

>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.

>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.

>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.

>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.

>>>>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.

>>>>>>It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.

>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.

>>>>No you don't.  Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
>>>>reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
>>>> you continue to support a falsehood.  Why is that?

>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.

>>Yes she did.  And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.

>Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference means.

>The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>quickly.

>>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>>> duplicating Oswald's feat.  It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md.  Let me first tell you
>>> about an earlier trial.

>>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
>>> six trials.  Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD.  The slopoe of the track approximated
>>> the slope of Elm Street.  Remember the colors of the target because they
>>> figure prominently in all the results.  Crossman fired clips of three
>>> rounds each six times.  Here were the results:

>>> 1- 6.54 seconds.  3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>>> head.
>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>>> over head.
>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.

>>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).

>>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.

>>> Two important points to note are these:  First, the person who recorded
>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.  The
>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
>>> within the orange silhouette.  In May, however, Lister was content merely
>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained.  If
>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.

>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
>>> feat.  However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST.  What happened in the other 17 cases?
>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
>>> before they could get off their third shot.  Of course, CBS never told its
>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
>>> the best):

>>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

>>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

>>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

>>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>>> 5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
>>> target)

>>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>>> 6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
>>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

>>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

>>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>>> NO TIME -- jam again
>>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

>>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

>>> 9. Carl Holden,