Message from discussion Mannlicher Carcano Carbine
Received: by 10.180.91.34 with SMTP id cb2mr89993wib.3.1352439079806;
Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:31:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: Mannlicher Carcano Carbine
Date: 9 Nov 2012 00:31:19 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.60
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1352439079 18.104.22.168 (8 Nov 2012 23:31:19 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 8 Nov 2012 23:31:19 -0500, 22.214.171.124
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.
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.
>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.
>> 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?