RIFLE: Carcano serial numbers
MGC
Question on the identifying stamping on the MC.
If Manlicher-Carcano is the manufacturer stamped on the rifle, would
those rifles not manufactured at Terni and were instead the product of
Beretta-Gardone be stamped "Manlicher-Carcano" or "Beretta-Gardone"?
After looking at the detailed color stock photographs of the MC I am
impressed by how similar the receiver area and the front mounted sights
are to the Beretta-Gardone I have mentioned elsewhere. I especially
remember once screwing the safety tab the wrong way on the bolt of that
rifle and spending amusing minutes trying to put the disassembled bit
back together, hence my recollection of that piece in detail.
Also, I have been told by the ubiquitous firearms know-it-alls that one
defect of this sort of rifle was that the bolt assembly tended to be
rather weak and was known to fly back into the shooter's eye when the
rifle was fired. Is there anything to that, or is it simply a three beer
story?
Regards,
Michael Cortese
--
||<*>|--------------------------------|<*>||
Michael Gordon Cortese
hypa...@hi-inc.com
http://www.chewable.com/hypatian/
||<*>|--------------------------------|<*>||
The most costly of all follies is to believe
passionately in the palpably not true. It is
the chief occupation of mankind -H.L. Mencken
MGC
art a swanson wrote:
>
> you might be interested to know that the fbi files reveal that htere
> were 2... thats right, 2....carcanos in this drama...c 2766 and 2766..with
> no "c" in the number... so there is another point of confusion.
> my photo analysis has already proved that there are 2 different rifles
> involved, the one shown people at the archives is not the same one that is
> in one of the warren volumes..... i will do a paper on this in the next
> year or so for the 4th decade publication..watch for it...
I think you are confused a bit. There may have been several
Manlicher-Carcanos with the serial number "2766", but I have yet to
heard of one without the letter designation of the plant in which it was
manufactured, which is what the "C" represents. The "C" designation
refers to the manufacturing plant at Terni. There may have been ones
stamped
"UC 2766" which would be the Beretta-Gardone plant. The only one whole I
recall suggested that there were rifles made with the serial number and
not the plant letter was Sylvia Meagher after some exhaustive
non-research.
Also, are you either suggesting that the rifles with a 2766 number were
squirreled away at the time of manufacter in order to be used in future
assassinations, or that the conspiritors searched the planet for
Manlicher-Carcanos bearing the "2766" number?
In any case, this doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to do with what I
asked.
Isabell Fuhrmann
On 7 Dec 1996, MGC wrote:
> Question on the identifying stamping on the MC.
>
> If Manlicher-Carcano is the manufacturer stamped on the rifle,
It is not. The Carcano (not Mannlicher-Carcano; it is as much and
as little of Mannlicher design as of Mauser design) has its manu-
facturing plants stamped on the barrel (and often also on the stocks),
but Salvatore Carcano is not commemorated anywhere :-)
> would
> those rifles not manufactured at Terni and were instead the product of
> Beretta-Gardone be stamped "Manlicher-Carcano" or "Beretta-Gardone"?
They would be stamped "Beretta" or, also, "Beretta Gardone". Please
keep in mind that Fucili M 1938 from Beretta are rather rare. Terni
ones are the most common, then comes F.N.A. Brescia.
> After looking at the detailed color stock photographs of the MC I am
> impressed by how similar the receiver area and the front mounted sights
> are to the Beretta-Gardone I have mentioned elsewhere. I especially
The gun of your father was a Moschetto TS 91/28 in all likelihood.
It looks a bit akin to the Fucile 1938, and can be distinguished by close
looks and/or exact measurement, but could easily fool a casual observer.
> Also, I have been told by the ubiquitous firearms know-it-alls that one
> defect of this sort of rifle was that the bolt assembly tended to be
> rather weak and was known to fly back into the shooter's eye when the
> rifle was fired. Is there anything to that, or is it simply a three beer
> story?
It is a three-whiskey story.
The idiots who brought it up in 1946 did not even bother to have *a look*
at the action arrangement of a Carcano (and neither did W.H.B. Smith),
or they would have seen how the safety/decocker sleeve locks into a
recess in the receiver.
Richard Hobbs has written a short and fittingly disparaging section
about this common old-wives tale in his new Carcano book (published
November 1996).
Regards,
Alexander Eichener
c...@oink.rhein.de
MGC
Mr. Eichener,
Thank you for your timely and informed responses to what are obviously
neophyte questions regarding the Carcano.
I have been playing a bit of devil's advocate. One of my father's
beliefs is that the BG he has is in fact identical to the MC and I have
accrued enough information to become a complete buzz-kill to this
belief.Other than that I was swayed by his conviction. Of course, I
really should have started earlier, because he is getting on in years
and telling him anything now is as difficult as telling me anything when
I was 18 years old. Invariably he will just wipe out that picture of the
MC being held aloft for the press and ...
Personally, the "bolt-in-the-eye" defect seemed a little urban-legendish
as it wouldn't make sense for a relatively successful, mass produced,
government issue weapon as the Carcano was to have this defect. There
may be a tinge of condescending xenophobia to it, insinuating something
about the Italian manufacture on the same way that people used to
disparage Japanese electronics. Obviously Italians circa 1940 were the
highest form of life on the planet at that time producing such
high-quality goods as the Carcano, Alpha Romeros, and Sophia Loren --
Benito Mussolini notwithstanding.
--
Regards,
Michael Cortese
Isabell Fuhrmann
On 9 Dec 1996, Tony Pitman wrote:
> In article <E23rn...@world.std.com>,
> a...@world.std.com (art a swanson) wrote:
> > my photo analysis has already proved that there are 2 different rifles
> >involved, the one shown people at the archives is not the same one that is
> >in one of the warren volumes..... i will do a paper on this in the next
> >year or so for the 4th decade publication..watch for it...
>
> That could explain why there are photos showing the alledged rifle with
> the sling fitted to the underside of the stock in some and quite clearly
> fitted to the side of the stock in at least one other.
*If* this were so, this would be quite interesting because it would
mean that the alleged two rifles would have had different barrel bands
and sling swivels. Normally, the Fucile M 1938 has *only* side mounts
for the slings, but Richard Hobbs has described some late species
which had additional bottom mounts, like the later Fucile 91/41.
May I ask you, Art and Tony, upon which photographs your interesting
observation is based ?
Thanks and regards,
Alexander Eichener
c...@oink.rhein.de
art adams swanson
i assure you i am not confused at all... i have 12 rolls
of fbi docs on microfilm, and there are several memos in
them about the multiple rifle problem..
there was one rifle with the serial no. 2766... period.
there is no doubt on this question. i will be posting the
images from scannings soon on a wab site i am sharing with
tony marsh...then you can see for yourself...
i am not speculating what the purpose was for having two
such rifles... i will leave that to others...
art adams swanson
> In article <E23rn...@world.std.com>,
> a...@world.std.com (art a swanson) wrote:
> > you might be interested to know that the fbi files reveal that htere
> >were 2... thats right, 2....carcanos in this drama...c 2766 and 2766..with
> >no "c" in the number... so there is another point of confusion.
> > my photo analysis has already proved that there are 2 different rifles
> >involved, the one shown people at the archives is not the same one that is
> >in one of the warren volumes..... i will do a paper on this in the next
> >year or so for the 4th decade publication..watch for it...
> >
> >
> That could explain why there are photos showing the alledged rifle with
> the sling fitted to the underside of the stock in some and quite clearly
> fitted to the side of the stock in at least one other.
>
> Regards, Tony Pitman
>
..i have already proved that there are two different
rifles used by warren commission... the one now in the
archives is not the same one as pictured in one of the
wc photos in the volumes.... the relative dimensions
proove that beyond any possible doubt....
also in his testimony in the wc vols, declan ford, the
husband of katya ford, recounts the day he overheard the
lawyer, mckenzie, say to marina oswald..."be sure you
always say 'there was only one gun' ".. marina and
mckenzie were in the next room with door open...read
declan fords wc testimony.. that snippet is in one of the
concluding pages of it. now...if there WAS only one gun,
why was mckenzie admonishing marina about the matter?
Anthony Marsh
Which reminds me. Do you have a copy of that CIA document from the
Italian station in which the officer talks about the Mauser which Oswald
ordered from Klein's? I would guess that his source was so indignant
that a M-C was used that he decided to change all the info to read
"Mauser" instead of M-C.
Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
Isabell Fuhrmann wrote:
>
> On 9 Dec 1996, Tony Pitman wrote:
>
> > a...@world.std.com (art a swanson) wrote:
> > > my photo analysis has already proved that there are 2 different rifles
> > >involved, the one shown people at the archives is not the same one that is
> > >in one of the warren volumes..... i will do a paper on this in the next
> > >year or so for the 4th decade publication..watch for it...
> >
> > That could explain why there are photos showing the alledged rifle with
> > the sling fitted to the underside of the stock in some and quite clearly
> > fitted to the side of the stock in at least one other.
>
> mean that the alleged two rifles would have had different barrel bands
> and sling swivels. Normally, the Fucile M 1938 has *only* side mounts
> for the slings, but Richard Hobbs has described some late species
> which had additional bottom mounts, like the later Fucile 91/41.
>
> May I ask you, Art and Tony, upon which photographs your interesting
> observation is based ?
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Alexander Eichener
> c...@oink.rhein.de
I am not sure where Art saw any photos of a M-C with sling mounts on the
bottom of the stock. I don't remember seeing any, but I can look around.
I am pretty sure it would not be any of the Oswald type of M-C, the
91/38. Maybe a calvary carbine? Maybe a youth model?
Anthony Marsh
jackwhite
Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> Isabell Fuhrmann wrote:
> >
> > On 9 Dec 1996, Tony Pitman wrote:
> >
> > > In article <E23rn...@world.std.com>,
> > > a...@world.std.com (art a swanson) wrote:
> > > > my photo analysis has already proved that there are 2 different rifles
> > > >involved, the one shown people at the archives is not the same one that is
> > > >in one of the warren volumes..... i will do a paper on this in the next
> > > >year or so for the 4th decade publication..watch for it...
> > >
> > > That could explain why there are photos showing the alledged rifle with
> > > the sling fitted to the underside of the stock in some and quite clearly
> > > fitted to the side of the stock in at least one other.
> >
> > *If* this were so, this would be quite interesting because it would
> > mean that the alleged two rifles would have had different barrel bands
> > and sling swivels. Normally, the Fucile M 1938 has *only* side mounts
> > for the slings, but Richard Hobbs has described some late species
> > which had additional bottom mounts, like the later Fucile 91/41.
> >
> > May I ask you, Art and Tony, upon which photographs your interesting
> > observation is based ?
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Alexander Eichener
> > c...@oink.rhein.de
>
> I am not sure where Art saw any photos of a M-C with sling mounts on the
> bottom of the stock.
CE133A (BACKYARD PHOTO) SHOWS AN MC WITH THE SLING MOUNT ON THE BOTTOM. THE
KLEIN*S AD USED TO PLACE THE ORDER SHOWED THE SLING MOUNT ON THE BOTTOM.
JACK
Anthony Marsh
I am not so sure about CE 133A. About the ad from Klein's, wasn't that a
slightly different version than the one shipped to Oswald's alias? I
think I have seen some versions where the sling mount is on the bottom.
But appearing in an ad does not indicate a second M-C being used in the
assassination.
Anthony Marsh
Isabell Fuhrmann
On 11 Dec 1996, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> jackwhite wrote:
> >
> > CE133A (BACKYARD PHOTO) SHOWS AN MC WITH THE SLING MOUNT ON THE BOTTOM. THE
> > KLEIN*S AD USED TO PLACE THE ORDER SHOWED THE SLING MOUNT ON THE BOTTOM.
>
> I am not so sure about CE 133A.
Well, I do not have access to a good-quality rendering of CE 133A.
The reproduction in the Warren Report (as well as CE 134, the enlargement)
does not show a visible sling swivel. Below the barrel band, there is
a form is most beling below to the brushes in the rear, a branch or
leave.
Jack - could you direct us to a high-quality (unretouched) reproduction
of CE 133A ?
Thanks,
ALexander Eichener
MGC
art a swanson wrote:
>
> you might be interested to know that the fbi files reveal that htere
> were 2... thats right, 2....carcanos in this drama...c 2766 and 2766..with
> no "c" in the number... so there is another point of confusion.
> involved, the one shown people at the archives is not the same one that is
> in one of the warren volumes..... i will do a paper on this in the next
> year or so for the 4th decade publication..watch for it...
I think you are confused a bit. There may have been several
Manlicher-Carcanos with the serial number "2766", but I have yet to hear
of one without the letter designation of the plant in which it was
manufactured, which is what the "C" represents. The "C" designation refers
to the manufacturing plant at Terni. There may have been ones stamped "UC
2766" which would be the Beretta-Gardone plant.
Also, are you either suggesting that the rifles with a 2766 number were
squirreled away at the time of manufacter in order to be used in future
assassinations, or that the conspiritors searched the planet for
Manlicher-Carcanos bearing the "2766" number?
In any case, this doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to do with what I
asked.
Regards,
Michael Cortese
--
||<*>|--------------------------------|<*>||