The Rifle
Brokedad
Some on this forum continue to demonstrate their lack of research in
all aspects of the assassination and evidence.
Recently, one of the "great" shooters on this forum described the
Carcano as an "inferior" weapon.
Which, not unlike most of his other postings, merely continues to
demonstrate how little he actually knows, as well as how little
research he has actually conducted into the subject matter.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is
as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of
accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms,
we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of
three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however,
which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller
values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you
designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I long ago explained some of the problems associated with how
the Carcano got it's reputation, and not unlike most other aspects, it
did so due to the completely uneducated speculation of individuals
who, for whatever reason, never bothered to check what they thought
were facts.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781&hl=Rifle
Having better things to do than waste my time in argument with persons
who apparantly know little or nothing as relates to the Carcano and
it's inherent accuracy when in relatively good condition and coupled
with quality ammo, these postings and a little factual research will
not end this silly speculation, but for some it may serve as a guide
to search out the facts for themselves, as opposed to believing anyone
who posts on these forums.
eca...@tx.rr.com
An excellent post and here's an article I did on
the Mannlicher Carcano in 2003:
----- ON: -----
The MC really was far from a "junk bolt action
rifle" as some seem to think. And it was capable
enough.. Somebody damn sure used a Mannlicher
Carcano to kill Kennedy. Here's an article on
the Mannlicher Carcano after researching it. I
posted this article in circa March 2003 if anyone
wants a more in depth perspective:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a535f576b345fe5e
----- OFF -----
Thanks again Brokedad.
MR ;^D
Ed Cage
On Sep 25, 9:00 pm, Brokedad <temptypock...@aol.com> wrote:
> Some on this forum continue to demonstrate their lack of research in
> all aspects of the assassination and evidence.
>
> Recently, one of the "great" shooters on this forum described the
> Carcano as an "inferior" weapon.
>
> Which, not unlike most of his other postings, merely continues to
> demonstrate how little he actually knows, as well as how little
> research he has actually conducted into the subject matter.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
>
> Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is
> as accurate as the current American military rifles?
> Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
> Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of
> accuracy?
> Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms,
> we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of
> three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however,
> which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller
> values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
> Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you
> designate it?
> Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1120784878&page=3
oops, at a shoot in central lake mi. called 'second chance' 1990 or
'91 the scene was re-enacted. after the first left-handed shooter did
it so did nearly everyone else. Masaad Ayoob published results in the
fall of that year in 'American Handgunner' and perhaps elsewhere. So
it has been repeated, by nearly 250 shooters IIRC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long ago, I presented the entire "American Handgunner" article for
those who actually take some pride in presentation of factual
evidence.
Massad Ayoob wrote an important article relative to the capability of
the rifle as well as it's inherent accuracy.
Of course, it is recognized that Massad has never been in the USMC or
"Coached" anyone, and the fact that he is in fact a relatively world-
known EXPERT in firearms is merely an accident as he certainly could
have no understanding of the ability/capability of the Carcano after
having written such a favorable article.
In event you wish to speak with Massad, I will provide his email
address. However, he will merely inform you of what you already know.
And, it is most unlikelly that his input will have any bearing in
extraction from "foot in mouth" disease from those who continue to
expouse erroneous information relative to this weapon and it's
inherent accuracy when in good condition and coupled with excellent
ammo.
And, since the WCC ammo with which the Carcano was evaluated by the
Weapons Evaluation Branch was merely run-of-the-mill/line production,
one has to ask exactly how accurate would this weapon have been had
someone actually taken some "match" ammo and tested it.
Answer: Since, with standard production ammo, the assassination
weapon matched in accuracy the US issue M-14, then with "Match" ammo,
the weapon would have been within the same realm of accuracy as the US
M-14 shooting "Match" ammo.
And, that happens to have been quite accurate!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
The U.S. Army also converted several M14s into the M21 sniper rifle,
which remained standard issue for this purpose until the adoption of
the M24 SWS in 1988. (see M21 rifle for more details)
Although the M14 was phased out as the standard-issue rifle in the
sixties, M14 variants are still used by various branches of the US
Military as well as other armed forces, especially as a sniper rifle
and/or a designated marksman rifle, due to its excellent accuracy and
effectiveness at long range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the final reality being that the Model 91/38 6.5mm Carcano
Rifle, in good condition, coupled with quality ammo, was in fact a
more accurate weapon than was the M-1 Grand with which LHO faired
quite well on the rifle range.
And, the Carcano is considerably lighter and more maneuverable weapon
than was the heavy Garand.
Of course, this forum, as well as virtually all of the others, is
laden with "Experts" who will inform differently.
Ben Holmes
says...
Actually, he never did more than average ... and his *MOST RECENT* scores were
poor indeed.
When you have to lie about the facts to support your argument, perhaps you need
to re-examine what argument you're willing to support.
>And, the Carcano is considerably lighter and more maneuverable weapon
>than was the heavy Garand.
ROTFLMAO!!! You don't even realize what you've just said, do you?
Tell us, oh expert, why the M1A2, which "is considerably lighter and more
maneuverable weapon" than the M14, isn't used in competition shooting or
sniping?
Do you even know the answer?
>Of course, this forum, as well as virtually all of the others, is
>laden with "Experts" who will inform differently.
Why bother? You duck and run when citations that prove you in error have been
provided.
Demonstrating that you are *again* wrong would be an exercise in futility.
You've been proven to be a liar - so by all means, say anything you want....
Everyone here already knows that you're too much of a coward to answer to the
facts... when it's demonstrably in contradiction to your assertions.
As for "experts", I did indeed fire a 'match' M14 for several years, and am
quite well acquainted with it. There are reasons that the USMC uses the M14
rather than the MC, or the M16A2 for competition shooting. You won't be able to
name them, however.
Ben Holmes
Top Post - Brokedad has indeed run away again from the facts. He can't give any
authoritative citation for his (and Tom Purvis') mistaken factoid about scoring
on the Marine Corp Rifle Range.
Brokedad will *CONTINUE* to run away, and refuse to directly respond - because
that's what LNT'ers do. They have no character - they are forced to lie because
the evidence simply doesn't favor them.
In article <fde5m...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
As another instrumental "teaching point" regarding the Model 91/38
(as well as the M38 7.35mm weapons), beginning in 1938, the weapon now
had an absolutely "fixed" sight, which was sighted-in/zeroed at the
factory for a (an often debatable) 200 yard range/300 yard range.
Nevertheless, (whichever range one accepts as being correct), in order
to consistantly obtain a tight shot pattern grouping which would fall
within the "bullseye" portion of the target, one had to obtain and
hold the exact same perfect sighting pattern as the factory alignment.
Which by the way was not even reasonable.
In the US Armed Forces, all rifles long ago were produced with the
ability for adjustment to the rear sight for what was referred to as
"Windage" as well as "Elevation" adjustments.
In fact, prior to 1938, the Carcano had this ability as well.
Recognizing that virtually no two persons are going to hold the weapon
in the absolutely exact/same position when firing, the US Armed Forces
recognized that some method for compensation for the introduced error
of how the weapon was held and exactly what "sight-picture" the
shooter obtained.
All of which had such varieties as their arm length, and even facial
structure which creates slight variations in the dimensions between
the cheek bone and the eye.
Thus, the primary reason for the "windage" and "elevation" adjustments
to the rear sight for US Military Weapons, and the critical
application of these adjustments in achieving repetitive shot pattern
groupings within a given target.
In fact, few US Armed Forces personnel ever merely picked up a weapon,
which was initially set at Zero Windage and Zero Elevation
adjustments, and thereafter started placing their first rounds fired
into the center of the targets.
Not that actual wind speeds and wind directions do not have an effect
on the ultimate accuracy, but one must consider that any inaccuracy
imposed upon the projectile as a result of human deficiency, grows in
proportion the farther the target is away from the shooter.
I might also add that even the extremely accurate Model 91/38 (6.5mm
Carcano) was often decreed to be a non-accurate weapon by those
"shooters" who either never learned that it was they who were not
placing their aiming eye into the perfect three-point alignment
necessary for accuracy, or else learned it in the military service,
yet forgot it when they picked up and fired a "fixed sight" weapon.
Anyone who grew up shooting the old "fixed sight" weapons was
thoroughly familiar with how one, if they wanted to shoot the eye out
of rabbits, had to make a slight adjustment in their aiming point
location on the rabbit's head in order to actually hit the rabbits
eye.
Of course, those who knew/know no better, liked to blame the weapon
for any inaccuracy, when in fact, it was for the most part, all up to
the shooter.
Thusly, inability to shoot accurately with a relatively good condition
Model 91/38 Carcano, coupled with quality WCC Ammunition, was by far
more a result of "shooter error" in sight picture alignment, as
opposed to an error and/or problem with the actual weapon.
The only way to determine the accuracy capability of the weapon is to
do as did the Weapons Evaluation Branch, and that being to fire the
weapon from "Machine Rest" which eliminates those interjected aspects
of human error.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is
as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of
accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you
designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although not likely that this (repetitive) posting will enlighten
everyone, hopefully,at least some of those who have been listening to
the BS as regards the inaccuracies of the Carcano Rifle, just may step
back and take a second look at this "Factoid"!
Hertz_Donut
news:1191094559.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
And those of us that have experience with the Carcano will tell you that at
best it is average.
Your "factoid" does not change that fact.
Honu
Brokedad
> "Brokedad" <temptypock...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually!
One would consider the possibility that you were in fact USMC,
impersonating SF Personnel.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is
as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of
accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms,
we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of
three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however,
which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller
values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you
designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Now! Exactly what part of "that this rifle is as accurate as the
current American military rifles" was it that you were having
difficulty with in understanding.
Kind of makes it appear as more like "shooter" error if one can not
shoot accurately with a good Model 91/38 Carcano & good 6.5mm WCC
ammo.
P.S. My 12 year old son did quite well with it, considering that he
had never fired anything other than a BB gun and the Remington .22
rifle prior.
But then again, he had not received either USMC and/or SF training
which would have explained to him the difficulty rating of this feat.
Ben Holmes
says...
By all means, let's hear the specifics... what was his shot grouping at 200 or
300 yards? What position was he using? How much time was he allowed for his
shots?
Don't keep us in suspense...
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
Mr. EISENBERG - Is the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano with which we
are dealing an accurate type of ammunition as opposed to other types
of military ammunition--as compared, I should say, with other types of
military ammunition?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say it is also accurate. As other types of
ammunition the 6.5 millimeter cartridge or bullet is a very accurate
bullet, and ammunition of this type as manufactured in the United
States would give fairly reasonable accuracy. Other military
cartridges may or may not give accurate results. But the cartridge
inherently is an accurate cartridge.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on
the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have
the four targets we fired here.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552,
553, and 554.
Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5
inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line
horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were
fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired
in 5.9 seconds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce551.jpg
The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three
shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-
inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of
the aiming point.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce552.jpg
Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of
three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches
high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.
These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce553.jpg
And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5
seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the
right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle.
Mr. McCLOY - The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is
it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all
landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right.