Oswald couldn't have done it alone: Because his gun could not have done it!
R
An Italian made 6.5mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Model 38 was
the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC Report.
Proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Oswald couldn't have done it because the
Italians labeled their own piece-of-junk weapon "the rifle that never
killed anybody on purpose."
If Oswald used a decent rifle, such as the M-1 Garlands semi-automatic
used in WW2, he could have fired 8 rounds as fast as you can pull the
trigger.
The Italian rifle could barely fire 3 rounds in 8 sec. and was notorious
for exploding in the hands of its users.
Oswald was also trained on the M-1 or its variant, the M-14 when in the
Marines. So why the hell would he use the crappy MC Italian rifle when in
'63 you could buy the terrific M-1?
Conclusion: He was framed or fired at most 1 shot. He was a "patsy" (his
own perfect word he used for himself) for a professional killing team that
planted the Italian rifle that used the same cartridge they used.
Case against Oswald as the 'lone gun nut' disproven in just a few
paragraphs of simple logic!
Plus the Z-film shows by the simple laws of physics, JFK moving backward
violently after the Z-313 frame. Proves the fatal shot had to come from
the front--"neurospam" argument by David Belin of the WC (counsel) to the
contrary, notwithstanding!
So Oswald at best fired one shot--if that, and was the patsy for the hired
assassination team.
Now, the only big question remains besides the exact names of the other
shooters: who hired them, and what was the reason and motive for the
killing?
AnthonyMarsh
>
Close, very close. But some of your facts are just slightly wrong.
> An Italian made 6.5mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Model 38 was
> the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC Report.
>
The 91/38 rifle was quite capable of killing.
> Proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Oswald couldn't have done it because the
> Italians labeled their own piece-of-junk weapon "the rifle that never
> killed anybody on purpose."
>
Not exactly. You are basing that on one particular conspiracy author's
sarcasm.
> If Oswald used a decent rifle, such as the M-1 Garlands semi-automatic
> used in WW2, he could have fired 8 rounds as fast as you can pull the
> trigger.
>
If Oswald could have afford such a weapon. Now, wouldn't you find it a
little suspicious if someone as poor as Oswald suddenly came up with a
specialty $5000 assassination rifle? Your question would be who bought
it for him and who paid for the assassination.
> The Italian rifle could barely fire 3 rounds in 8 sec. and was notorious
> for exploding in the hands of its users.
>
Some people can fire three shots within 5 seconds.
The rifle indeed did explode in the hands of its users occasionally, but
only when using bad ammo. The SMI ammo is highly suspect. And one wag
tried loading rounds himself very hot and found out that the old rifles
can't take anything above 50,000 psi.
The actual ammo that Oswald found somewhere is excellent with no
misfires or any problems.
> Oswald was also trained on the M-1 or its variant, the M-14 when in the
> Marines. So why the hell would he use the crappy MC Italian rifle when in
> '63 you could buy the terrific M-1?
>
Not M-14 quite yet. Still the old M-1 Garand.
Oswald did not want to just walk into a local gun store and use his real
name and risk being identified. He needed to buy the rifle via mail
order. The Mannlicher was about the cheapest he could find via mail
order.
Would we have been any happier if he had bought an Enfield for a few
dollars more?
Oswald could not afford to buy an M-1 via mail order.
> Conclusion: He was framed or fired at most 1 shot. He was a "patsy" (his
> own perfect word he used for himself) for a professional killing team that
> planted the Italian rifle that used the same cartridge they used.
>
Close. His actual rifle was used for three of the shots. But we have no
proof that he was the one pulling the trigger. If you examine what the
TSBD accomplished, it is not that impressive. One hit out of three
shots.
> Case against Oswald as the 'lone gun nut' disproven in just a few
> paragraphs of simple logic!
>
Everyone in this newsgroup tries to use simple logic to prove his
preconceived conclusion, but the problem is that even perfect logic
reaches false conclusions when the data is faulty and the premises are
flawed.
> Plus the Z-film shows by the simple laws of physics, JFK moving backward
> violently after the Z-313 frame. Proves the fatal shot had to come from
> the front--"neurospam" argument by David Belin of the WC (counsel) to the
> contrary, notwithstanding!
>
> So Oswald at best fired one shot--if that, and was the patsy for the hired
> assassination team.
>
> Now, the only big question remains besides the exact names of the other
> shooters: who hired them, and what was the reason and motive for the
> killing?
Perhaps when you learn the identity of the grassy knoll shooter, it will
become obvious who was behind the JFK assassination.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Robert
"R" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
news:iSu8a.8833$M85.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> An Italian made 6.5mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Model 38 was
> the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC Report.
>
> Proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Oswald couldn't have done it because the
> Italians labeled their own piece-of-junk weapon "the rifle that never
> killed anybody on purpose."
Citation, please.
> The Italian rifle could barely fire 3 rounds in 8 sec.
Citation, please.
and was notorious
> for exploding in the hands of its users.
Citation, please.
> Case against Oswald as the 'lone gun nut' disproven in just a few
> paragraphs of simple logic!
Try again.
Sam McClung
> The Italian rifle could barely fire 3 rounds in 8 sec. and was notorious
> for exploding in the hands of its users.
then that explains what shook the tsbd
and yes, there were users, they were so backwards it took two of them to hold
the rifle (roscoe and mac), one to work the bolt (colin), and one to "pull"
the trigger (radiocontrolled "safe" switch and trigger pull, operated by time
warp from the dallas hilton in tyler, texas), and a couple californians to
experience it all
> Now, the only big question remains besides the exact names of the other
> shooters: who hired them, and what was the reason and motive for the
> killing?
see above
motives were free briefings, dr. pepper, fried chicken, and airplane rides
Ritchie Linton
> R wrote:
> > If Oswald used a decent rifle, such as the M-1 Garlands semi-automatic
> > used in WW2, he could have fired 8 rounds as fast as you can pull the
> > trigger.
> >
>
> If Oswald could have afford such a weapon. Now, wouldn't you find it a
> little suspicious if someone as poor as Oswald suddenly came up with a
> specialty $5000 assassination rifle? Your question would be who bought
> it for him and who paid for the assassination.
++++
++++
Thats right=thats a good point.Obviously the people who framed Oswald
with the selection of a cheap rifle knew something of his meager
circumstances and limited finances.Given that Oswald was himself cheap
you can see the consistency in selection for tracable weapon planted
in the frame=otherwhise people after would "find it a little
suspicious if someone as poor as Oswald suddenly came up with
specialty..assassination rifle".Good point,Tony.You make another one:
> Oswald did not want to just walk into a local gun store and use his real
> name and risk being identified.
++++
++++
Actually there was no requirement then in Texas that an
over-the-counter gun purchaser provide his identification for
record.Thats why the frame-up used a mail-order since it appeared to
leave a paper trail that could be eventually linked to the patsy
Oswald in the frame.A whole SB was found whole enough to make the
ballistic link back to the rifle as it did "to the exclusion of all
others"; hence via.the paperwork to the patsy.
Ritchie
John Fiorentino
solved in an instant!......Wonders never cease!
John F.
R <r*@att.net> wrote in message
news:iSu8a.8833$M85.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Vern Pascal
Effects. I don't think one has been designed quite yet.......Jeff
Rob Spencer
Ah...nice try, check out Chad Zimmerman's page.
http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000008.htm
The MC/91/38 is a very accurate, reliable and quiet weapon if do say so
myself Chad.
Spence
Erin Crowe
center mass,I hate to say it but at 100 yards I could do better with a
1911.Yeah that was accurate,notice where all the rounds went off to the
right and left, guess where he was aiming for the circle in the middle,The
rifle plain sucks.Also remember JFK was a moving target not some piece of
paper thats sitting there.
There is a old saying when shooting matches and a guy shows up with some POS
rifle like the carcano,and wonders why can I not qualify,USE THE RIGHT TOOL
FOR THE JOB,So with this guys shooting he basically killed everyone except
Kennedy,he killed Jackie and the passenger rear view mirror.
"Rob Spencer" <rob_s...@elementk.com> wrote in message
news:91cf87f2.03030...@posting.google.com...
Gerry Simone (Home)
(Don't ask me for a citation).
The Italian soldiers have a sense of humour too.
The MC may not be the most accurate, etc., etc., but I wouldn't doubt that
it still is a deadly weapon.
"Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:b3u45s$fbd$1...@nd.eastky.net...
GMcNally
> the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC Report.
Another sucker falls for the Mark Lane line of BS!
What is it that P.T. Barnum said about suckers - one is born every minute.
And they all show up here parading their ignorance for all to see.
<ROFL>
Jerry
Chad Zimmerman
like to ask you just one question:
Would you be willing to ride in an open limo with me and my Carcano perched
above looking for a little target practice? I believe that is the true
question.
Chad
"R" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
news:iSu8a.8833$M85.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
AnthonyMarsh
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> > Close, very close. But some of your facts are just slightly wrong.
>
> > > An Italian made 6.5mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Model 38 was
> > > the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC
> Report.
>
> > The 91/38 rifle was quite capable of killing.
>
> still, he would have
> a great chance of hitting what he aimed at.
> Which was not the case in Dealey Plaza on the 6th fl. of the TSBD,
> approx. 260 ft. from the target, moving away about 11 mph at an angle.
>
Maybe you haven't read any of the other messages I have written. I think
that the TSBD shooter missed two out of his three shots. My point to you
was that the rifle itself is quite capable of killing.
> > > Proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Oswald couldn't have done it because
> the
> > > Italians labeled their own piece-of-junk weapon "the rifle that never
> > > killed anybody on purpose."
>
> > Not exactly. You are basing that on one particular conspiracy author's
> > sarcasm.
>
> Ask the Italians themselves on the quote--it was an exact quote.
>
Not exactly. You can't find the quote. You forgot which conspiracy book
it came from.
You might be able to find the quote online. Look for the keyword
"Humanitarian."
> > > If Oswald used a decent rifle, such as the M-1 Garlands semi-automatic
> > > used in WW2, he could have fired 8 rounds as fast as you can pull the
> > > trigger.
>
> > If Oswald could have afford such a weapon. Now, wouldn't you find it a
> > little suspicious if someone as poor as Oswald suddenly came up with a
> > specialty $5000 assassination rifle? Your question would be who bought
> > it for him and who paid for the assassination.
>
> Is that $5,000 in 2002 US $, or would it be a lot less in Spring 1963
> for a non-specialty, ordinary M-1 at any war surplus store? Say for less
> than $750 in '63? Maybe as low as $600? Not that much that couldn't be
> financed from his friends who financed his expensive travel in his last 4
> years!
Hmm, don't know. Could be $5,000 in 2003 US $. The exact figure is not
important. The concept is important.
If Oswald was lucky enough to find an M-1 in 1963 for less than $500 he
still did not have the money to buy it and we'd be suspicious of where
he got the money to buy it. The WC went through a lengthy process of
trying to estimate exactly how much money Oswald had at each moment.
BTW, what expensive travel?
> Who financed his comings-and-goings to: the U.S.S.R., Mexico, New
> Orleans, etc. from 1959-63? The same men who got the money for him to buy
> the rifle in '63, most likely!
>
No way. He could afford those trips. He borrowed money from the US
government in one case and then paid it back. A trip to Mexico was not
expensive. Do you really think that someone had to loan him $20 to buy
the Mannlicher-Carcano when he left $179 for his wife on the day of the
shooting?
> > > The Italian rifle could barely fire 3 rounds in 8 sec. and was notorious
> > > for exploding in the hands of its users.
>
> > Some people can fire three shots within 5 seconds.
>
> And how well can they aim that rifle with the excitement of shooting at
> the most important man in the world as a moving target? Oswald was not a
> great shot, if you examine his Marine score.
>
Exactly. I am not assuming that Oswald fired any shots. Someone who was
unfamiliar with his M-C might indeed have difficulty using it. I also
believe in the acoustical evidence, which places two shots within 1.66
seconds and then a lull of about 5 seconds. I believe the rifle jammed
after the second shot. Evidenced by the cartridge with the dented lip.
> > The rifle indeed did explode in the hands of its users occasionally, but
> > only when using bad ammo. The SMI ammo is highly suspect. And one wag
> > tried loading rounds himself very hot and found out that the old rifles
> > can't take anything above 50,000 psi.
>
> > The actual ammo that Oswald found somewhere is excellent with no
> > misfires or any problems.
>
> Prove it!
>
It has been test fired by many people and found flawless. See Lattimer,
McCarthy, HSCA.
> > > Oswald was also trained on the M-1 or its variant, the M-14 when in the
> > > Marines. So why the hell would he use the crappy MC Italian rifle when
> > > in '63 you could buy the terrific M-1?
>
> > Not M-14 quite yet. Still the old M-1 Garand.
>
> > Oswald did not want to just walk into a local gun store and use his real
> > name and risk being identified. He needed to buy the rifle via mail
> > order.
>
> Who knew Oswald in early '63 in Dallas that would identify him? And why
> wouldn't he want himself made known if the conspiracy people did NOT want to
> make him the visible patsy just a few months later?
Oswald thought that the FBI was following him around. And certainly a
local gun shop owner could give a description of the only person who
bought a M-C that month.
> Examples of that:
>
> Who was the Oswald (impersonator?) that prominently made himself visible
> specifically identifying himself at a used car store in Dallas getting in a
> particularly loud argument with a salesman? Who was the Oswald
> (impersonator?) who made a point of showing up at a target shooting range
> and identified himself, making himself obnoxious by shooting his rifle at
> other peoples' targets?
>
Not necessarily the original Oswald.
> > The Mannlicher was about the cheapest he could find via mail order.
>
> And that is precisely why he couldn't have pulled off one of the
> greatest shooting feats in recorded history all by himself!
>
Of course he couldn't. But it had to be a cheap rifle.
> > Would we have been any happier if he had bought an Enfield for a few
> > dollars more?
> > Oswald could not afford to buy an M-1 via mail order.
>
> > > Conclusion: He was framed or fired at most 1 shot. He was a "patsy"
> (his
> > > own perfect word he used for himself) for a professional killing team
> that
> > > planted the Italian rifle that used the same cartridge they used.
>
> > Close. His actual rifle was used for three of the shots. But we have no
> > proof that he was the one pulling the trigger. If you examine what the
> > TSBD accomplished, it is not that impressive. One hit out of three
> > shots.
>
> Then you agree with me, as I said maybe 1 shot at most. Most likely 0
> shots!
>
Well, this gets a little too complicated, but basically 1 hit of his
intended target out of three with his rifle and his ammo.
> > > Case against Oswald as the 'lone gun nut' disproven in just a few
> > > paragraphs of simple logic!
>
> > Everyone in this newsgroup tries to use simple logic to prove his
> > preconceived conclusion, but the problem is that even perfect logic
> > reaches false conclusions when the data is faulty and the premises are
> > flawed.
>
> No faulty data, and no faulty premises used.
>
Faulty premise that the rifle and ammo were not capable of killing.
> > > Plus the Z-film shows by the simple laws of physics, JFK moving backward
> > > violently after the Z-313 frame. Proves the fatal shot had to come from
> > > the front--"neurospam" argument by David Belin of the WC (counsel) to
> the
> > > contrary, notwithstanding!
>
> > > So Oswald at best fired one shot--if that, and was the patsy for the
> hired
> > > assassination team.
>
> > > Now, the only big question remains besides the exact names of the other
> > > shooters: who hired them, and what was the reason and motive for the
> > > killing?
>
> > Perhaps when you learn the identity of the grassy knoll shooter, it will
> > become obvious who was behind the JFK assassination.
>
> They were just the hired professional team of shooters, the names of
> which wouldn't necessarily provide any clues on who hired them and why. And
> they are likely all dead or very old and in retirement now.
>
Or agents.
Whenever you see Cuban exiles involved in any operation you know exactly
who hired them.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> "R" <r*@att.net> wrote in message news:<iSu8a.8833$M85.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > An Italian made 6.5mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Model 38 was
> > the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC Report.
>
> Another sucker falls for the Mark Lane line of BS!
>
Lost in translation. You quote something and then reply to it. I do not
see the specific thing that you are objecting to. And exactly what is it
that you think Mark Lane said with which you disagree? Don't be afraid
to spell it out.
Frostbiteman
claim that the gun could have done anything.
Robert
"R" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
news:2vG8a.305$gF3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "John Fiorentino" <jston...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3e62...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > Whew!........Now we can all go home......Imagine that, 40 years of
debate
> > solved in an instant!......Wonders never cease!
>
> I thought you would enjoy that important point.
> But not so fast on going home!
> We have to figure out the reason for the killing.
> That may take a bit more time.
> Here's an often overlooked point in JFK's Administration that may tell
> us
> something:
>
> Would the fact that JFK ordered (accidentally translated by his
lackeys
> into murder instead of simply 'remove from office'?) the death of Diem in
> [Catholic] Vietnam a mere 3 weeks earlier hold the key?
> Was there some sort of 'secret code' or unwritten rule in Western
> Civilization (with the notable exclusion in the Moslem countries) that
> prohibits a leader of one country to order the murder (i.e.,
assassination,
> is expressly made illegal in all non-Moslem countries) of a leader in
> another country--or face the possibility of same by a professional
worldwide
> team that enforces the unspoken rule of governments?
Walt
Garland....
I believe the M1 Garand could have been purchased for less than $100 in
1963... I'll check the ads in the American Rifleman and let you know.....
Walt
Erin Crowe
from your shooting you have no control,I can tell just by looking at your
targets what your doing wrong,So with that I have confidence you wouldnt
hit me while im moving.Now I'll give 3 shots and 6 seconds,but when you
miss your 3 shots I get to show you what that rifle is good for,Nothing
but a one swing club.
Oh and target practice lol,you need more then practice.
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3e63...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
AnthonyMarsh
Don't worry about simple misspellings like that. I knew what he meant
and what point he was trying to make.
BTW, I am not sure who would be selling M-1s with scopes already mounted
back in 1963. Oswald wanted the scope.
> I believe the M1 Garand could have been purchased for less than $100 in
> 1963... I'll check the ads in the American Rifleman and let you know.....
>
I have several of the 1963 American Rifleman magazines. Oswald wanted to
buy the cheapest rifle with a scope he could find mail order.
Robert
"Erin Crowe" <3slam...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ZlU8a.303080$iG3.36638@sccrnsc02..
> Sure since me and you both know you are not a gun expert,and we both know
> from your shooting you have no control,I can tell just by looking at your
> targets what your doing wrong,So with that I have confidence you wouldnt
> hit me while im moving.Now I'll give 3 shots and 6 seconds,but when you
> miss your 3 shots I get to show you what that rifle is good for,Nothing
> but a one swing club.
Let's see....the guy is a complete neophyte to high-powered rifles
(less than 20 rounds ever fired), picks up a gun he's totally unfamiliar
with and, using iron sights at 85 yards, put 3 rounds on paper and he's only
2/10's of a second off of the best time recorded by the WC's experts.
Oh, yeah,that's a crappy gun, for sure.
GMcNally
> like to ask you just one question:
>
> Would you be willing to ride in an open limo with me and my Carcano perched
> above looking for a little target practice? I believe that is the true
> question.
Chad,
The writer no doubt would demur lest when you try to fire the rifle
blow up in your hands and harm you!
As to the rifle, he assures us that it 'never killed anyone on
purpose'.
So matters of his personal safety are logically non-existent.
Jerry
GMcNally
> GMcNally wrote:
> >
> > "R" <r*@att.net> wrote in message news:<iSu8a.8833$M85.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > An Italian made 6.5mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Model 38 was
> > > the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC Report.
> >
> > Another sucker falls for the Mark Lane line of BS!
> >
>
> Lost in translation. You quote something and then reply to it. I do not
> see the specific thing that you are objecting to. And exactly what is it
> that you think Mark Lane said with which you disagree? Don't be afraid
> to spell it out.
All the crap parroted above about the rifle being no good and
incapable of killing anybody - save those fool enough to try to fire
it. And the ammo was no good and in sum the rifle was incapable of
killing JFK.
Thank Mark Lane for those lies.
You can spell L-I-E can't you?
Or do you cut Lane some slack because he's one of the CT Founding
Fathers?
Jerry
AnthonyMarsh
>
> AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3E6399B2...@quik.com>...
> > GMcNally wrote:
> > >
> > > "R" <r*@att.net> wrote in message news:<iSu8a.8833$M85.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > > An Italian made 6.5mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Model 38 was
> > > > the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC Report.
> > >
> > > Another sucker falls for the Mark Lane line of BS!
> > >
> >
> > Lost in translation. You quote something and then reply to it. I do not
> > see the specific thing that you are objecting to. And exactly what is it
> > that you think Mark Lane said with which you disagree? Don't be afraid
> > to spell it out.
>
> All the crap parroted above about the rifle being no good and
> incapable of killing anybody - save those fool enough to try to fire
> it. And the ammo was no good and in sum the rifle was incapable of
> killing JFK.
>
The stories about the unreliability of the Mannlicher-Carcano predate
Mark Lane's works.
As I have pointed out the WCC was quite reliable, but the SMI ammo was
suspect and even more so now.
I have stated that Oswald's rifle was quite capable of killing, but it
still had defects which might confuse an inexperienced shooter.
> Thank Mark Lane for those lies.
>
> You can spell L-I-E can't you?
>
I don't think that we can point out any lies from Mark Lane. I did
suggest that someone might want to point out who was passing along the
saying that the rifle was called the Humitarian because it didn't kill
anyone. That was a bit over the top sarcasm on his part.
> Or do you cut Lane some slack because he's one of the CT Founding
> Fathers?
>
Sure, if that's what you call it. Just as I can overlook any of Josiah
Thompson's errors. I just keep pointing them out though.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3e63...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> > With such vocal confidence in the inferior quality of the rifle, I would
> > like to ask you just one question:
> >
> > Would you be willing to ride in an open limo with me and my Carcano perched
> > above looking for a little target practice? I believe that is the true
> > question.
>
> Chad,
>
> The writer no doubt would demur lest when you try to fire the rifle
> blow up in your hands and harm you!
>
A Mannlicher-Carcano has blown up in the hands of a shooter. A LNer who
thought that he knew more about firearms than anyone here.
> As to the rifle, he assures us that it 'never killed anyone on
> purpose'.
>
Unfortunately some people do believe the sarcasm when they read it.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> "Erin Crowe" <3slam...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:ZlU8a.303080$iG3.36638@sccrnsc02..
>
> > Sure since me and you both know you are not a gun expert,and we both know
> > from your shooting you have no control,I can tell just by looking at your
> > targets what your doing wrong,So with that I have confidence you wouldnt
> > hit me while im moving.Now I'll give 3 shots and 6 seconds,but when you
> > miss your 3 shots I get to show you what that rifle is good for,Nothing
> > but a one swing club.
>
> Let's see....the guy is a complete neophyte to high-powered rifles
What high-powered rifle? The Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-powered
rifle. Which ones did you have in mind?
And which guy is the neophyte who knows nothing whatsoever about
bolt-action rifles? Even Blakey was able to fire two shots within 1.66
seconds. (by not aiming)
> (less than 20 rounds ever fired), picks up a gun he's totally unfamiliar
> with and, using iron sights at 85 yards, put 3 rounds on paper and he's only
> 2/10's of a second off of the best time recorded by the WC's experts.
And I imagine he could hit some paper totally blindfolded with the rifle
locked into a vice. That is not exactly the same as sighting in a moving
target.
> Oh, yeah,that's a crappy gun, for sure.
charles wallace
I have no problem with your belief that JFK was hit only once with
Oswald's rifle from the three shots that were fired from it during the
assassination. I also don't have a problem with you speculating that
the shooter had difficulty with the bolt action between shot 2 and shot
3. I do have a problem with your speculation that the shell was
("evidenced by the cartridge with the dented lip") CE 543. Josiah
Thompson proved that CE 543 was not fired in Oswald's rifle because it
did not have a chamber mark like the others. How about explaining the
faulty analysis that you apparenty think Thompson did.
Regards, Charles
P.S. My empty shell theory on my webpage explains my take on CE 543.
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
rights......Its--It had to be some silly little communist". Mrs.
Kennedy, November 22, 1963; "I'm just a patsy". Lee H. Oswald,
November, 1963.
President Kennedy was assassinated " as a result of the hatred
and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by
bigots." Chief Justice Earl Warren, November 22, 1963. Dallas Morning
News
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/JFKAssassins
Ed Cage
SPENCE YOU & RON JUDGE ARE MAKING SENSE AGAIN.. Obviously you both
have looked into the MC as I have.. The paper I am presenting
below is one I personally researched w personal contact via emails,
etc.. I address both pro & con including the "exploding" issue
someone brought up.. The reason my paper is mostly Pro MC is bc
that's exactly where the facts led me.. I know it to be factual bc
I did the research myself (I am kinda proud of it) John Fiorentino,
if you wish you may use/quote/edit this in your book. It will hold
up under scrutiny I assure you..
-----------------
The Quality of the Carcano
Could the Carcano make the shots?
Research by Ed Cage
What support is there for the Carcano rifle?
I was recently concerned with what I believed to be an unbalanced
evaluation of the Carcano by someone who claimed to own one. What
follows below is evidence about the Carcano to support both the
Warren Commission's finding and the finding of the 1976 House Select
Committee on Assassination's findings that the Carcano did indeed,
and certainly could have fired the two shots that hit John F.
Kennedy. Both blue ribbon committees agreed that Lee Harvey Oswald's
Carcano was not only capable of the shots; They also agreed that his
Carcano rifle DID make the shots. The claim I am responding to was
that the "Carcano was simply incapable of making two out of three
hits on JFK in Dealy Plaza." The writer (A member of another JFK
group which I put together), went on to emphasize that his claim was
not merely an opinion, but a "fact." This observation offered as
"fact," caused me to do further research in an effort to present
conflicting evidence. I believe, and extensive post assassination
tests have proven, that the Carcano most certainly can make two out
of three hits and in some cases surpass Oswald's performance with
the rifle on 11-22-63.
The Quality of the Carcano - There have been various disparaging
remarks made about the Carcano which -- over the time -- have
tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are hearsay rumors
which one firearm writer has copied from the other, as so frequently
happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II Allied
soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the Carcano
the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing
pin backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of
the unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no
one seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of
the incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been
no other reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident,
thus either suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false
wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of
times in the Warren Commission Report. This rumor apparently has it
roots in the false belief that the Carcano is so poorly made that it
will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when actually fired,
you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that is), or
that the terminal performance if its 6.5 mm bullet is so insufficient.
Thus it would be considered "humane" to the enemy.
Actually, this quotation seems to go back to an (in) famous
Mussolini speech of early 1943 date in which he tried (with his usual
flamboyant rhetoric's) to veil the complete failure of Italian
military leadership.. Notably his own -- by blaming equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate:
According to expert Bloomgarden, on the sporting (competitive)
use of the Model 91 Carcano:
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc.
in the mid-1960s]:in an experiment a Model 91 of her own,
with sight modified to make it correspondent with a modern
Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta, displayed a greater
accuracy than the Garand."
The president of Interarms, the largest private
wholesaler of ammunition and armaments [stated]:
"It's interesting to note that the Italian army NATO
rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches
and still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every
year, against all other NATO teams with all the other rifle
types. It uses their own original 6.5-mm cartridges, which are,
now, at least ten years old minimum."
-----------------
According to expert Hobbs: "Several years ago the Editor of Banzai
called me about the Type I Carcano, it seems at the annual Alabama
Shoot Out they had shot the Type I Carcano for the first time and
were surprised to find it was more accurate than the Arisakas."
-----------------
According to a kind notice I recently received from expert
John Stovall:
From:John.A....@cdc.com (John A. Stovall) Subject: Re: Kennedy
Assassination Rifle:
"If you haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I
suggest you read, "Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin.
Mullin fired over a hundred different military weapons of this century
and a few of the last. And guess what, it ended up in the five best
rifles he tested."
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was
the most surprising of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them
these rifles as cheap wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are
light, handy, and easy to shoot with great combat sights. It is he
best
rifle fielded by the Italians during the war and much better than any
other bolt action rifle used in the two world wars by the combatants..
Except with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield."
-----------------
I was inspired to respond to the writer's comments (He is a member of
another JFK Q&A group I formed), because he described his opinion that
the Carcano could not make the JFK shots as "a fact."
Ed Cage / 972-964-3826
PS: There have been various tests of the Carcano since the 11-22-63
assassination of JFK. If I get at least two independent requests
for research/input on this particular subject, I will also address
them as well. - Ed Cage
Ed Cage_____________________________4.1357_____________3.0809
rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer) wrote in message news:<91cf87f2.03030...@posting.google.com>...
Erin Crowe
the world? In front off a couple hundred people?His shooting skills are
sad,my best friend's son who is 12 years old held better groups with the
carcano rifle with iron sights.
Have you ever shot at a moving target thats alive,it aint that easy.From
your post I can tell you have no range time or any type of training,so
your post really doesnt count.
Oh by the way,Iron sights are easier and faster to put on target then a
scope is especially at close range.
"Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:b429aa$k7a$1...@nd.eastky.net...
AnthonyMarsh
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> SPENCE YOU & RON JUDGE ARE MAKING SENSE AGAIN.. Obviously you both
> have looked into the MC as I have.. The paper I am presenting
> below is one I personally researched w personal contact via emails,
> etc.. I address both pro & con including the "exploding" issue
> someone brought up.. The reason my paper is mostly Pro MC is bc
> that's exactly where the facts led me.. I know it to be factual bc
> I did the research myself (I am kinda proud of it) John Fiorentino,
> if you wish you may use/quote/edit this in your book. It will hold
> up under scrutiny I assure you..
Nice try, but you have specifically ignored several examples I
presented. If you'd bother checking past messages, you'd see the Philip
Sharpe quote which deals with the reliability of the SMI ammo.
And the Dr. Chapman example of the danger of not using the proper
ammunition in the Mannlicher.
And the example of Paul Burke who loaded his rounds too hot and caused
his Mannlicher to blow up in his hands.
And as to the accuracy of Oswald's Mannlicher, I have quoted FBI
firearms expert Robert Frazier describing his problems with the scope.
> -----------------
> The Quality of the Carcano
> Could the Carcano make the shots?
> Research by Ed Cage
>
> What support is there for the Carcano rifle?
> I was recently concerned with what I believed to be an unbalanced
> evaluation of the Carcano by someone who claimed to own one. What
> follows below is evidence about the Carcano to support both the
> Warren Commission's finding and the finding of the 1976 House Select
1978.
> Committee on Assassination's findings that the Carcano did indeed,
> and certainly could have fired the two shots that hit John F.
> Kennedy. Both blue ribbon committees agreed that Lee Harvey Oswald's
There is no problem with proposing the the Mannlicher-Carcano is capable
of firing bullets.
That is not at issue. One malfunction out of millions is not uncommon
for all rifles.
> Carcano was not only capable of the shots; They also agreed that his
> Carcano rifle DID make the shots. The claim I am responding to was
> that the "Carcano was simply incapable of making two out of three
> hits on JFK in Dealy Plaza." The writer (A member of another JFK
> group which I put together), went on to emphasize that his claim was
> not merely an opinion, but a "fact." This observation offered as
> "fact," caused me to do further research in an effort to present
> conflicting evidence. I believe, and extensive post assassination
> tests have proven, that the Carcano most certainly can make two out
> of three hits and in some cases surpass Oswald's performance with
> the rifle on 11-22-63.
>
> The Quality of the Carcano - There have been various disparaging
> remarks made about the Carcano which -- over the time -- have
> tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are hearsay rumors
> which one firearm writer has copied from the other, as so frequently
Show us the paper trail of one firearms write copying from the other.
> happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II Allied
> soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the Carcano
> the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
> ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing
> pin backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of
> the unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no
> one seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of
> the incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been
So it is claimed on one web site. The problem is that simply pointing
out that the case was not well documented does not ipso facto prove that
it never happened.
> no other reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident,
> thus either suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false
> wartime rumor.
>
Fluke? Of course. That is the point. Not every case.
> The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of
> times in the Warren Commission Report. This rumor apparently has it
> roots in the false belief that the Carcano is so poorly made that it
> will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when actually fired,
No person on this planet has ever claimed that the Carcano is called
humanitarian because it can not fire a bullet. That is your fantasy.
> you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that is), or
Possibly so inaccurate that it will miss the target, as many rifles did.
With a midrange trajectory height of 10 inches shooting at someone's
head the bullet might sail over his head and miss him entirely at
midrange.
> that the terminal performance if its 6.5 mm bullet is so insufficient.
> Thus it would be considered "humane" to the enemy.
> Actually, this quotation seems to go back to an (in) famous
What quotation? None was offered or cited.
> Mussolini speech of early 1943 date in which he tried (with his usual
> flamboyant rhetoric's) to veil the complete failure of Italian
> military leadership.. Notably his own -- by blaming equipment.
>
So you claim, but YOU do not provide any quotation to support that idea.
> Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate:
> According to expert Bloomgarden, on the sporting (competitive)
> use of the Model 91 Carcano:
> "[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc.
> in the mid-1960s]:in an experiment a Model 91 of her own,
> with sight modified to make it correspondent with a modern
> Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta, displayed a greater
> accuracy than the Garand."
Sure, you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but Oswald bought
the sow's ear, not the silk purse.
> The president of Interarms, the largest private
> wholesaler of ammunition and armaments [stated]:
>
> "It's interesting to note that the Italian army NATO
> rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches
> and still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every
> year, against all other NATO teams with all the other rifle
> types. It uses their own original 6.5-mm cartridges, which are,
> now, at least ten years old minimum."
Yeah, great citation. Which YEAR? Which model? What condition? With a
damaged and defective cheap scope such as Oswald's? These little
unknowns can add up to major differences.
> -----------------
> According to expert Hobbs: "Several years ago the Editor of Banzai
> called me about the Type I Carcano, it seems at the annual Alabama
> Shoot Out they had shot the Type I Carcano for the first time and
> were surprised to find it was more accurate than the Arisakas."
Yes, if one wants to put in the effort and knows what he is doing the
model 91/38 can shoot well. You don't say and you don't even hint if
Hobbs said which ammo was used, what condition the rifle was in and how
expert the shooter was.
How about even a little documentation for your claims. And stating the
facts and conditions of the examples you cited?
> Ed Cage_____________________________4.1357_____________3.0809
>
> rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer) wrote in message news:<91cf87f2.03030...@posting.google.com>...
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Tony,
> I have no problem with your belief that JFK was hit only once with
> Oswald's rifle from the three shots that were fired from it during the
> assassination. I also don't have a problem with you speculating that
> the shooter had difficulty with the bolt action between shot 2 and shot
> 3. I do have a problem with your speculation that the shell was
> ("evidenced by the cartridge with the dented lip") CE 543. Josiah
> Thompson proved that CE 543 was not fired in Oswald's rifle because it
> did not have a chamber mark like the others. How about explaining the
> faulty analysis that you apparenty think Thompson did.
I don't think that is correct. And I think that even Tink himself would
disavow some things he said in Six Seconds in Dallas. Why not ask him
yourself directly? Chamber marks or lack of chamber marks is not
absolute proof that the cartridge had never held a live bullet and fired
it. I don't think that Josiah said exactly that. His point was, and
incorrect as I have pointed out here many times, that the dent in the
lip meant that the cartridge did not hold a bullet. Well, obviously it
could have and did hold a bullet before the round was shot.
> Regards, Charles
>
> P.S. My empty shell theory on my webpage explains my take on CE 543.
>
> "He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
> rights......Its--It had to be some silly little communist". Mrs.
> Kennedy, November 22, 1963; "I'm just a patsy". Lee H. Oswald,
> November, 1963.
> President Kennedy was assassinated " as a result of the hatred
> and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by
> bigots." Chief Justice Earl Warren, November 22, 1963. Dallas Morning
> News
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/JFKAssassins
Robert
> R wrote:
> >
>
> Close, very close. But some of your facts are just slightly wrong.
>
> > the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC
Report.
> >
>
>
> > Proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Oswald couldn't have done it because
the
> > Italians labeled their own piece-of-junk weapon "the rifle that never
> > killed anybody on purpose."
> >
>
> sarcasm.
>
> > used in WW2, he could have fired 8 rounds as fast as you can pull the
> > trigger.
> >
>
> little suspicious if someone as poor as Oswald suddenly came up with a
> specialty $5000 assassination rifle? Your question would be who bought
> it for him and who paid for the assassination.
>
> > for exploding in the hands of its users.
> >
>
> only when using bad ammo. The SMI ammo is highly suspect. And one wag
> tried loading rounds himself very hot and found out that the old rifles
> can't take anything above 50,000 psi.
Sure, Tony.
Quoting Dave Emary:
"The best case I can make for the strength of the Carcano was a personal
experience attempting to blow one up for a hunter safety course video. I was
asked by the Department of Game and Fish of New Mexico about 12 years ago to
help them with this. At the time I was one of the ones ignorant about the
Carcano, believing it to be a weak action and easy to take apart. Well, the
morale to this story was a full case of Bullseye failed to do anything
significant to the action or barrel. We finally had to fill a cartridge case
with C4 explosive and detonate it to get anything that looked like what we
wanted. One other incident I have experienced with the Carcano further
convinces me of the great strength of these actions. In my early
experiments making bullets I made several bullets with jackets that were too
thin. The bullets would on occasion come apart. On one occasion apparently
the bullet failed early in the barrel and became temporarily lodged. I know
this because out of the clear blue I got a round that was so hot the
cartridge swelled so much it had a belt. The bolt had to be tapped opened
with a plastic hammer and the primer fell out. The gun showed no signs of
this abuse, no gas leakage, no marks on the bolt lugs and no change in the
headspace. I know from my experience as a ballistician that pressures in
excess of 90,000 psi are required to do this type of damage to a cartridge
case. I immediately abandoned this bullet design. A good condition Carcano
rifle is as safe and strong as any other military bolt-action rifle you will
encounter."
Robert
"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23570-3E...@storefull-2313.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Pretty good post- unless Oswald's Rifle fired Magic Bullets and Jet
> Effects. I don't think one has been designed quite yet.......Jeff
You miss the truth of the matter, Vern, and the salient point.
People confuse possibility, reality, and truth.
The truth of the matter is that the Z-film itself is demonstrable
evidence of at least one shot from somewhere in front of the limousine.
The reality is that the Mannlicher-Carcano is a perfectly fine
service rifle that's been used all over the world to bag game as large as
elephants, is _not_ prone to blowing up, and commentary to the contrary is
fixated on JFK legend.
What is "possible" is the realm wherein people around here make
themselves look utter asses.
Robert
> Robert wrote:
> >
> > "Erin Crowe" <3slam...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZlU8a.303080$iG3.36638@sccrnsc02..
> >
> > > Sure since me and you both know you are not a gun expert,and we both
know
> > > from your shooting you have no control,I can tell just by looking at
your
> > > targets what your doing wrong,So with that I have confidence you
wouldnt
> > > hit me while im moving.Now I'll give 3 shots and 6 seconds,but when
you
> > > miss your 3 shots I get to show you what that rifle is good
for,Nothing
> > > but a one swing club.
> >
> > Let's see....the guy is a complete neophyte to high-powered
rifles
>
> What high-powered rifle?
Hey, ask him.
>The Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-powered
> rifle.
*yawn* Call it "medium" if you wish, I don't care.
>Which ones did you have in mind?
Since he lacks experience, I suspect that encompasses _all_ of them.
If he said he lacked experience driving tractor-trailers, would you want to
know _which_ ones he lacked experience with? Mack? White? Freightliner?
> And which guy is the neophyte who knows nothing whatsoever about
> bolt-action rifles?
Geez, try following the thread.
> Even Blakey was able to fire two shots within 1.66
> seconds. (by not aiming)
>
> > (less than 20 rounds ever fired), picks up a gun he's totally unfamiliar
> > with and, using iron sights at 85 yards, put 3 rounds on paper and he's
only
> > 2/10's of a second off of the best time recorded by the WC's experts.
>
> And I imagine he could hit some paper totally blindfolded with the rifle
> locked into a vice. That is not exactly the same as sighting in a moving
> target.
Irrelevant, as the argument is that the MC is a crap rifle.
GMcNally
> GMcNally wrote:
> >
> > AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3E6399B2...@quik.com>...
> > > GMcNally wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "R" <r*@att.net> wrote in message news:<iSu8a.8833$M85.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > > > An Italian made 6.5mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Model 38 was
> > > > > the supposed 'murder weapon' according to the FBI and the final WC Report.
> > > >
> > > > Another sucker falls for the Mark Lane line of BS!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lost in translation. You quote something and then reply to it. I do not
> > > see the specific thing that you are objecting to. And exactly what is it
> > > that you think Mark Lane said with which you disagree? Don't be afraid
> > > to spell it out.
> >
> > All the crap parroted above about the rifle being no good and
> > incapable of killing anybody - save those fool enough to try to fire
> > it. And the ammo was no good and in sum the rifle was incapable of
> > killing JFK.
Tony,
> The stories about the unreliability of the Mannlicher-Carcano predate
> Mark Lane's works.
> As I have pointed out the WCC was quite reliable, but the SMI ammo was
> suspect and even more so now.
How is anything about the SMI ammo relevant?
> I have stated that Oswald's rifle was quite capable of killing, but it
> still had defects which might confuse an inexperienced shooter.
All rifles have "defects which might confuse an inexperienced
shooter."
> > Thank Mark Lane for those lies.
> >
> > You can spell L-I-E can't you?
> >
>
> I don't think that we can point out any lies from Mark Lane.
I absolutely can. No question about it.
I did
> suggest that someone might want to point out who was passing along the
> saying that the rifle was called the Humitarian because it didn't kill
> anyone. That was a bit over the top sarcasm on his part.
Lane is the guy who published this info - still available at
bookstores.
> > Or do you cut Lane some slack because he's one of the CT Founding
> > Fathers?
> Sure, if that's what you call it. Just as I can overlook any of Josiah
> Thompson's errors. I just keep pointing them out though.
You'd rather quibble with me than straighten out the bozo who showed
up with the bogus info "proving" that a MC couldn't have killed JFK -
it really doesn't kill anybody.
Jerry
GMcNally
> GMcNally wrote:
> >
> > "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3e63...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> > > With such vocal confidence in the inferior quality of the rifle, I would
> > > like to ask you just one question:
> > >
> > > Would you be willing to ride in an open limo with me and my Carcano perched
> > > above looking for a little target practice? I believe that is the true
> > > question.
> >
> > Chad,
> >
> > The writer no doubt would demur lest when you try to fire the rifle
> > blow up in your hands and harm you!
Tony,
> A Mannlicher-Carcano has blown up in the hands of a shooter. A LNer who
> thought that he knew more about firearms than anyone here.
But not in Dallas, TX on 11/22/63.
> > As to the rifle, he assures us that it 'never killed anyone on
> > purpose'.
> >
>
> Unfortunately some people do believe the sarcasm when they read it.
It is indeed unfortunate. I hope you strive to straighten out the poor
confused individual who showed up here for his one "contribution" and
probably has gone back to his video games and computer porn where his
true interests lie.
Jerry
AnthonyMarsh
>
> "Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:23570-3E...@storefull-2313.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> > Pretty good post- unless Oswald's Rifle fired Magic Bullets and Jet
> > Effects. I don't think one has been designed quite yet.......Jeff
>
> You miss the truth of the matter, Vern, and the salient point.
> People confuse possibility, reality, and truth.
> The truth of the matter is that the Z-film itself is demonstrable
> evidence of at least one shot from somewhere in front of the limousine.
You and I may think that, but it is a different matter to prove it.
> The reality is that the Mannlicher-Carcano is a perfectly fine
> service rifle that's been used all over the world to bag game as large as
> elephants, is _not_ prone to blowing up, and commentary to the contrary is
> fixated on JFK legend.
You are saying that Oswald's model 91/38 has been used all over the
world to bag game as large as elephants?
I'd like to see you document that.
The Mannlicher-Carcano has blown up a few times.
Pointing out facts is not predicated on which particular theory you are
trying to prove.
> What is "possible" is the realm wherein people around here make
> themselves look utter asses.
I don't see you documenting the claims that you have made, whereas I
have been documenting the claims I make.
Robert
> Robert was the target moving?Was he shooting at the most powerfull man in
> the world? In front off a couple hundred people?His shooting skills are
> sad,my best friend's son who is 12 years old held better groups with the
> carcano rifle with iron sights.
What, is that a retraction of the statement that the rifle is no
better than a club? That's the point I'm addressing, your perpetuation of
the myth that the MC is a poor rifle.
> Have you ever shot at a moving target thats alive,it aint that easy.
Yes.
>From
> your post I can tell you have no range time or any type of training,so
> your post really doesnt count.
That's amusing. I shot expert just about every time I had to qualify
during 10 years in the military, doing it under Navy, Air Force and Army
qualification officers and scoring systems, at the Goose Creek weapons
station, MacDill AFB and Camp Blanding, shooting the .45, the .38 and the
M-16.
> Oh by the way,Iron sights are easier and faster to put on target then a
> scope is especially at close range.
*yawn*
GMcNally
<3slam...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<GOc9a.360850$vm2.272092@rwcrnsc54>...
> Robert was the target moving?
No. Not relative to Oswald.
Was he shooting at the most powerfull man in
> the world? In front off a couple hundred people?
Silly, silly questions.
His shooting skills are
> sad,my best friend's son who is 12 years old held better groups with the
> carcano rifle with iron sights.
Is his son a Marine qualified sharpshooter?
My son was able to fire a MC 3X in under 8 sec and hit three pop up,
ie, stationary targets, at the aprox distances of Oswald's three
shots.
It was very easy to do.
Jerry
Jerry
AnthonyMarsh
Sure, that's nice, but it's only anecdotal about ONE particular rifle
and ignores the fact that many other rifles were found in much worse
condition. When Riva was contracted to prepare the rifles for export he
had to replace defective parts and remove rust. See Bloomgarden's "The
Gun" Chapter 4.
And you ignore Dave Emary's qualifiers. He says that a "good condition"
Carcano is safe. YOU generalize that to all Carcanos. You could make the
same mistake talking about cars. A car expert can tell you that a
well-designed and properly maintained car is safe. Then you'd generalize
and claim that all cars are safe. You'd overlook the individual cases of
unsafe cars.
The wording on page 101 of "The Gun" seems to imply that out of all the
foreign military rifles the only one which failed was the Mannlicher.
"all rifles passed these abusive tests in a satisfactory manner; the
failure of the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano . . . was due to the failure
of the ammunition and not the rifle."
And in the case of Chapman, the cause was attempting to underload ammo
to produce lower muzzle velocities for tests. The result? "On one
occasion, experimentation with powder loads caused a bullet to explode
in the chamber, thereby shattering the stock and embeddeding metallic
fragments in the doctor's cheek."
In the other case Paul Burke was trying to show off by over loading his
home made rounds with very hot powder. The rifle blew up in his face.
Is the rifle itself dangerous? It could be depending on the exact model
and its condition.
W.H.R. Smith notes in his "Small Arms of the World" on page 532:
One case was reported during the War of an Allied soldier killed while
target shooting with an Italian rifle. The small bolt sleeve lug
crystallized and let the striker and sleeve be blown into his head. This
type of accident cannot happen with the screw in type of bolt sleeve.
And he goes on to give important advice on page 533:
Recommendations: Have bolt sleeve and lug checked to be sure it is not
brittle or crystallized. Heat
treat if advisable. Increase size of gas escape hole. Use only
recommended ammunition. If arm is converted to American caliber, keep
pressures well within official Italian pressures (about 38,000 foot
pounds).
This is not to be taken as a blanket condemnation of Italian rifles.
However, it must be kept in mind that many are very old weapons which
have not had the best of care.
The basic reason for this specific recommendation however, is that by
standards of all other nations, the Italian bolt sleeve is a potentially
dangerous design. All military rifles except this type were designed to
prevent sleeve blow out or equivalent trouble.
GMcNally
> "Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:23570-3E...@storefull-2313.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> > Pretty good post- unless Oswald's Rifle fired Magic Bullets and Jet
> > Effects. I don't think one has been designed quite yet.......Jeff
>
> You miss the truth of the matter, Vern, and the salient point.
> People confuse possibility, reality, and truth.
> The truth of the matter is that the Z-film itself is demonstrable
> evidence of at least one shot from somewhere in front of the limousine.
Ballistics and forensics experts called by the HSCA refuted this
claim.
In fact, except in Hollywood movies, a tiny (compared to the body's
mass) mass acting on it for about 1/20,000 of a second, cannot throw a
body with force.
It's obvious that it was a neuromuscular response that did that.
Jerry
Erin Crowe
Erin Crowe
can kill someone with it,I just dont agree with 3 shot groups in a quarter
size hole.What I want to know is,what shots hit when,meaning where did the
first shot hit the second Shot hit etc.Since you say you qualify as expert
in military shooting,which we both know is area shooting not pin point
shooting ala competition shooting,Robert wouldnt you agree that your first
shot is your most accurate shot.
Also we both must agree that when shooting for accuracy there are
steps,steps that Oswald was taught.Its way to hard to believe that Oswald
used any of those steps in the time they said he got off those shots,Also
lets look at Oswald shooting,while racking the bolt did his eye come off of
the eye relief,reason being the stock is very short.If his eye did come off
eye relief then there is know way those times are right,I would have loved
to seen that scope and seen where the scope was set ala dialed in,for what
range.
I wont argue that Oswald wasnt involved and maybe took a shot but I think
there was more then one shooter,someone shooting from a lower area,shooting
a faster round with alot of tumble.
Does anyone know of any rumors of other weapons involved in the
shooting,Calibers im looking at are .222 .223 or 22.250 even 22 hornet.news:b44ujj$neu$1...@nd.eastky.net...
charles wallace
From SSID Tink writes "I observed on two of the cartridge cases (CE
544, 545) an impression on the side in the same relative position on
each."..............One way to test my hypothesis was to examine CE
577--two cartridge cases from test rounds fired in Oswald's rifle. Both
of these cases displayed the characteristic mark in the same spot." The
dented lip of CE 543 has no bearing on the question. As for asking Tink
what he thinks now would be like asking you if still standby your
acoustic shot of Z330. You or Tink will need to prove that his original
hypothesis is wrong before I'll believe it.
Regards, Charles
Sam McClung
> Okay since we cannot agree on the carcano,Which I will agree that yes you
> can kill someone with it,I just dont agree with 3 shot groups in a quarter
> size hole.What I want to know is,what shots hit when,meaning where did the
> first shot hit the second Shot hit etc. <snippage>
Robert
> Okay since we cannot agree on the carcano,Which I will agree that yes you
> can kill someone with it,I just dont agree with 3 shot groups in a quarter
> size hole.
If you're referring to the assassination, you've got a lot more
spread than that. Assuming (strictly for argument's sake) that Oswald
_did_ do the shooting, you've got what, 8" or so between the hypothetical
head wound and back wound. Dunno how Connaly's wound(s) would figure in
that.
>What I want to know is,what shots hit when,meaning where did the
> first shot hit the second Shot hit etc.Since you say you qualify as expert
> in military shooting,which we both know is area shooting not pin point
> shooting ala competition shooting,Robert wouldnt you agree that your first
> shot is your most accurate shot.
With a stationary target I'd say that depends on the shooter. With
a moving target, conditionally yes. (Caveat: "cold barrel" phenomenon.)
> Also we both must agree that when shooting for accuracy there are
> steps,steps that Oswald was taught.Its way to hard to believe that Oswald
> used any of those steps in the time they said he got off those shots,
Well, whoever shot from the TSBD (if any shots actually came from
there), could see the motorcade coming, right? I'd say they had enough
time to take a few deep breaths and settle in. It's really going to depend
on the shooter.
>Also
> lets look at Oswald shooting,while racking the bolt did his eye come off
of
> the eye relief,reason being the stock is very short.If his eye did come
off
> eye relief then there is know way those times are right,I would have loved
> to seen that scope and seen where the scope was set ala dialed in,for what
> range.
That's one we'll never really know, given the damage to the scope.
> I wont argue that Oswald wasnt involved
There's plenty of good arguments against Oswald being involved;
the mythical junk-gun status of the Carcano just ain't one of 'em.
>and maybe took a shot but I think
> there was more then one shooter,someone shooting from a lower
area,shooting
> a faster round with alot of tumble.
> Does anyone know of any rumors of other weapons involved in the
> shooting,Calibers im looking at are .222 .223 or 22.250 even 22 hornet.
See Dr. Truth on the Remington XP-100....
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Tony,
> From SSID Tink writes "I observed on two of the cartridge cases (CE
> 544, 545) an impression on the side in the same relative position on
> each."..............One way to test my hypothesis was to examine CE
> 577--two cartridge cases from test rounds fired in Oswald's rifle. Both
> of these cases displayed the characteristic mark in the same spot." The
> dented lip of CE 543 has no bearing on the question. As for asking Tink
> what he thinks now would be like asking you if still standby your
> acoustic shot of Z330. You or Tink will need to prove that his original
> hypothesis is wrong before I'll believe it.
> Regards, Charles
>
Again, my point is that you should not be citing Six Seconds in Dallas
about a specific point if the author has changed his opinion. What is it
that you wonder if he is wrong about?
> "He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
> rights......Its--It had to be some silly little communist". Mrs.
> Kennedy, November 22, 1963; "I'm just a patsy". Lee H. Oswald,
> November, 1963.
> President Kennedy was assassinated " as a result of the hatred
> and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by
> bigots." Chief Justice Earl Warren, November 22, 1963. Dallas Morning
> News
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/JFKAssassins
AnthonyMarsh
>
> AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3E651455...@quik.com>...
> > GMcNally wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3e63...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> > > > With such vocal confidence in the inferior quality of the rifle, I would
> > > > like to ask you just one question:
> > > >
> > > > Would you be willing to ride in an open limo with me and my Carcano perched
> > > > above looking for a little target practice? I believe that is the true
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > Chad,
> > >
> > > The writer no doubt would demur lest when you try to fire the rifle
> > > blow up in your hands and harm you!
>
> Tony,
>
> > A Mannlicher-Carcano has blown up in the hands of a shooter. A LNer who
> > thought that he knew more about firearms than anyone here.
>
> But not in Dallas, TX on 11/22/63.
>
> > > As to the rifle, he assures us that it 'never killed anyone on
> > > purpose'.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately some people do believe the sarcasm when they read it.
>
> It is indeed unfortunate. I hope you strive to straighten out the poor
> confused individual who showed up here for his one "contribution" and
> probably has gone back to his video games and computer porn where his
> true interests lie.
>
> Jerry
Well, sometimes I give little hints or ask open questions for people to
post citations and I wait a little while to see if anyone picks up on
them. If no one ever picks up on them eventually I have to answer my own
questions. OK, hint. Mark Lane was not the first to mention the idea
that the Mannlicher-Carcano was not a quality weapon. Go back as far as
you can and see where this whole notion started. Who first brought it
up?
And then try to label that source as an "irresponsible conspiracy
monger."
I see nothing wrong with the Socratic method.
Robert
Just the abso-fraggin'-lutely opposite. What happens with neglected
and/or abused weapons in shoddy condition is in no way a reflection on the
quality of the arm in question.
>You could make the
> same mistake talking about cars.
Actually, it wouldn't be a mistake, it would be common sense. I
could go to a junkyard, find a wrecked Rolls Royce, and opine that Rolls
Royce's are shoddily built, dangerous vehicles...and I'd be completely
wrong.
>A car expert can tell you that a
> well-designed and properly maintained car is safe. Then you'd generalize
> and claim that all cars are safe. You'd overlook the individual cases of
> unsafe cars.
What bullshit, but a good analogy. The generalization is being made
that the Carcano is unsafe and poorly built based on neglected, abused
weapons that should have been junked. Kinda like over-loading one, causing
it to blow up, and then blaming the gun.
> The wording on page 101 of "The Gun" seems to imply that out of all the
> foreign military rifles the only one which failed was the Mannlicher.
> "all rifles passed these abusive tests in a satisfactory manner; the
> failure of the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano . . . was due to the failure
> of the ammunition and not the rifle."
It says quite clearly there in the last sentence it was the ammo
that failed, NOT the Carcano. Geez, read your own cites.
> And in the case of Chapman, the cause was attempting to underload ammo
> to produce lower muzzle velocities for tests. The result? "On one
> occasion, experimentation with powder loads caused a bullet to explode
> in the chamber, thereby shattering the stock and embeddeding metallic
> fragments in the doctor's cheek."
Proves nothing about the Carcano. You can blow up _any_ gun
conducting experiments on it.
> In the other case Paul Burke was trying to show off by over loading his
> home made rounds with very hot powder. The rifle blew up in his face.
And this reflects on the construction, material and workmanship of
the Carcano in what fashion?
> Is the rifle itself dangerous? It could be depending on the exact model
> and its condition.
> W.H.R. Smith notes in his "Small Arms of the World" on page 532:
>
> One case was reported during the War of an Allied soldier killed while
> target shooting with an Italian rifle. The small bolt sleeve lug
> crystallized and let the striker and sleeve be blown into his head. This
> type of accident cannot happen with the screw in type of bolt sleeve.
Un-substantiated rumor; see the Carcano homepage. No one has _ever_
been able to identify this supposed soldier or provide _any_ details about
the incident.
> And he goes on to give important advice on page 533:
>
> Recommendations: Have bolt sleeve and lug checked to be sure it is not
> brittle or crystallized.
There is no "bolt sleeve" listed in parts lists for the Carcano
bolt.
> Heat
> treat if advisable. Increase size of gas escape hole. Use only
> recommended ammunition. If arm is converted to American caliber, keep
> pressures well within official Italian pressures (about 38,000 foot
> pounds).
> This is not to be taken as a blanket condemnation of Italian rifles.
Too bad that that's exactly what's being done with his information.
> However, it must be kept in mind that many are very old weapons which
> have not had the best of care.
> The basic reason for this specific recommendation however, is that by
> standards of all other nations, the Italian bolt sleeve is a potentially
> dangerous design. All military rifles except this type were designed to
> prevent sleeve blow out or equivalent trouble.
Yeah, bang that tired old drum....
Ed Cage
Erin, you made an interesting quote/claim:
------------------------
"I wont argue that Oswald wasnt involved and maybe took a
shot but I think there was more then one shooter,someone
shooting from a lower area,shooting a faster round with
------------------------
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE/REASONING TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION?
Ed___________________________________________________5.2113
"Erin Crowe" <3slam...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<ZTs9a.365002$HN5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
Erin Crowe
Dr Truth? who is that.
XP-100 Now thats a nasty little bugger,Its a great short range shooter,Ive
actually got good results at 200 yards 3/4 to 1 inch at 100.Is there a rumor
that this gun was used.This would be a very affective gun to use especially
from the grassy knoll,very flat shooting at that distance.I have studied
ballistics,and have hunted with this round and the trauma affects are
brutal. A round like a .222 explodes when it hits a somewhat dense object
like bone,and has a great tumble affect.
Also is there any pictures of front and rear wounds of JFK'S head that shows
entry and exit wounds?news:b468ss$obg$1...@nd.eastky.net...
Ricky Tobias
>"Erin Crowe" -
>
>
><3slam...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<GOc9a.360850$vm2.272092@rwcrnsc54>...
>> Robert was the target moving?
>
>No. Not relative to Oswald.
>
>Was he shooting at the most powerfull man in
>> the world? In front off a couple hundred people?
>
>Silly, silly questions.
>
>His shooting skills are
>> sad,my best friend's son who is 12 years old held better groups with the
>> carcano rifle with iron sights.
>
>Is his son a Marine qualified sharpshooter?
>
>My son was able to fire a MC 3X in under 8 sec and hit three pop up,
>ie, stationary targets, at the aprox distances of Oswald's three
>shots.
>
>It was very easy to do.
>
BS. No shooter who has seen or attempted the test says it is easy to
do. Produce some films of it being done.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Robert
"Erin Crowe" <3slam...@attbi.com> wrote
> Robert,
> Dr Truth? who is that.
Stick around and you'll see his posts. One of the assassins
supposedly confessed and claimed to have used an XP-100 - a google-groups
search ought to turn up the thread for ya.
> XP-100 Now thats a nasty little bugger,Its a great short range shooter,Ive
> actually got good results at 200 yards 3/4 to 1 inch at 100.Is there a
rumor
> that this gun was used.This would be a very affective gun to use
especially
> from the grassy knoll,very flat shooting at that distance.I have studied
> ballistics,and have hunted with this round and the trauma affects are
> brutal. A round like a .222 explodes when it hits a somewhat dense object
> like bone,and has a great tumble affect.
> Also is there any pictures of front and rear wounds of JFK'S head that
shows
> entry and exit wounds?
Another point of contention - what the autopsy photos show, whether
or not they were tampered with, whether or not they've all been released
(although I think it's accepted that some are missing, or were missing),
etc.
I've got so many links I can't keep 'em straight - here's some
head-wound stuff:
GMcNally
Tony,
> I see nothing wrong with the Socratic method.
And you use it better than anybody else here so as to make a unique contribution.
Using it you've informed me - or helped me to inform myself - in invaluable ways.
Believe me I am grateful for the efforts you take - with all sides.
Jerry
Robert
> If you call that accurate,That is sad,14 inch target and he couldnt even
hit
> center mass,I hate to say it but at 100 yards I could do better with a
> 1911.
Sure you could.
Ed Cage
SPENCE YOU & RON JUDGE ARE MAKING SENSE AGAIN.. Obviously you both
have looked into the MC as I have.. The paper I am presenting
below is one I personally researched w personal contact via emails,
etc.. I address both pro & con including the "exploding" issue
someone brought up.. The reason my paper is mostly Pro MC is bc
that's exactly where the facts led me.. I know it to be factual bc
I did the research myself (I am kinda proud of it) John Fiorentino,
if you wish you may use/quote/edit this in your book. It will hold
up under scrutiny I assure you..
-----------------
The Quality of the Carcano
Could the Carcano make the shots?
Research by Ed Cage
What support is there for the Carcano rifle?
I was recently concerned with what I believed to be an unbalanced
evaluation of the Carcano by someone who claimed to own one. What
follows below is evidence about the Carcano to support both the
Warren Commission's finding and the finding of the 1976 House Select
Committee on Assassination's findings that the Carcano did indeed,
and certainly could have fired the two shots that hit John F.
Kennedy. Both blue ribbon committees agreed that Lee Harvey Oswald's
Carcano was not only capable of the shots; They also agreed that his
Carcano rifle DID make the shots. The claim I am responding to was
that the "Carcano was simply incapable of making two out of three
hits on JFK in Dealy Plaza." The writer (A member of another JFK
group which I put together), went on to emphasize that his claim was
not merely an opinion, but a "fact." This observation offered as
"fact," caused me to do further research in an effort to present
conflicting evidence. I believe, and extensive post assassination
tests have proven, that the Carcano most certainly can make two out
of three hits and in some cases surpass Oswald's performance with
the rifle on 11-22-63.
The Quality of the Carcano - There have been various disparaging
remarks made about the Carcano which -- over the time -- have
tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are hearsay rumors
which one firearm writer has copied from the other, as so frequently
happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II Allied
soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the Carcano
the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin
ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing
pin backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of
the unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no
one seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of
the incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been
no other reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident,
thus either suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false
wartime rumor.
The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times
in the Warren Commission Report. This rumor apparently has it roots in
the false belief that the Carcano is so poorly made that it will
either
not fire, or is so inaccurate that when actually fired, you'll
probably
miss the target (the opposing soldier that is), or that the terminal
performance if its 6.5 mm bullet is so insufficient. Thus it would be
considered "humane" to the enemy.
Actually, this quotation seems to go back to an (in) famous Mussolini
speech of early 1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant
rhetoric's) to veil the complete failure of Italian military
leadership..
Notably his own -- by blaming equipment.
Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate:
According to expert Bloomgarden, on the sporting (competitive)
use of the Model 91 Carcano:
"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc.
in the mid-1960s]:in an experiment a Model 91 of her own,
with sight modified to make it correspondent with a modern
Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta, displayed a greater
accuracy than the Garand."
The president of Interarms, the largest private
wholesaler of ammunition and armaments [stated]:
"It's interesting to note that the Italian army NATO
rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches
and still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every
year, against all other NATO teams with all the other rifle
types. It uses their own original 6.5-mm cartridges, which are,
now, at least ten years old minimum."
-----------------
According to expert Hobbs: "Several years ago the Editor of Banzai
called me about the Type I Carcano, it seems at the annual Alabama
Shoot Out they had shot the Type I Carcano for the first time and
were surprised to find it was more accurate than the Arisakas."
-----------------
According to a kind notice I recently received from expert
John Stovall:
From:John.A....@cdc.com (John A. Stovall) Subject: Re: Kennedy
Assassination Rifle:
"If you haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I
suggest you read, "Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin.
Mullin fired over a hundred different military weapons of this century
and a few of the last. And guess what, it ended up in the five best
rifles he tested."
"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was
the most surprising of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them
these rifles as cheap wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are
light, handy, and easy to shoot with great combat sights. It is he
best
rifle fielded by the Italians during the war and much better than any
other bolt action rifle used in the two world wars by the combatants
--
Except with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield."
-----------------
I was inspired to respond to the writer's comments (He is a member of
another JFK Q&A group I formed), because he described his opinion that
the Carcano could not make the JFK shots as "a fact."
Ed Cage / 972-964-3826
PS: There have been various tests of the Carcano since the 11-22-63
assassination of JFK. If I get at least two independent requests
for research/input on this particular subject, I will also address
them as well. - Ed Cage
Ed Cage_________________________________________________3.0809
rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer) wrote in message news:<91cf87f2.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> Ah...nice try, check out Chad Zimmerman's page.
> http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000008.htm
>
> The MC/91/38 is a very accurate, reliable and quiet weapon if do say so
> myself Chad.
>
> Spence
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On 5 Mar 2003 13:09:43 -0500, jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote:
>
> >"Erin Crowe" -
> >
> >
> ><3slam...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<GOc9a.360850$vm2.272092@rwcrnsc54>...
> >> Robert was the target moving?
> >
> >No. Not relative to Oswald.
> >
> >Was he shooting at the most powerfull man in
> >> the world? In front off a couple hundred people?
> >
> >Silly, silly questions.
> >
> >His shooting skills are
> >> sad,my best friend's son who is 12 years old held better groups with the
> >> carcano rifle with iron sights.
> >
> >Is his son a Marine qualified sharpshooter?
> >
> >My son was able to fire a MC 3X in under 8 sec and hit three pop up,
> >ie, stationary targets, at the aprox distances of Oswald's three
> >shots.
> >
> >It was very easy to do.
> >
> BS. No shooter who has seen or attempted the test says it is easy to
> do. Produce some films of it being done.
>
Go to Blockbusters and buy the tape "Who Shot JFK?" from CBS video,
their special edition of the show 48 HOURS.
AnthonyMarsh
There is more to it than just that.
> >You could make the
> > same mistake talking about cars.
>
> Actually, it wouldn't be a mistake, it would be common sense. I
> could go to a junkyard, find a wrecked Rolls Royce, and opine that Rolls
> Royce's are shoddily built, dangerous vehicles...and I'd be completely
> wrong.
>
But the vehicle in that condition that you found it would indeed be
dangerous.
Not the same was when it was first built.
> >A car expert can tell you that a
> > well-designed and properly maintained car is safe. Then you'd generalize
> > and claim that all cars are safe. You'd overlook the individual cases of
> > unsafe cars.
>
> What bullshit, but a good analogy. The generalization is being made
> that the Carcano is unsafe and poorly built based on neglected, abused
> weapons that should have been junked. Kinda like over-loading one, causing
> it to blow up, and then blaming the gun.
>
Yes, that is an unfair characterization. But the problem is that the
Mannlicher is less forgiving of such errors.
> > The wording on page 101 of "The Gun" seems to imply that out of all the
> > foreign military rifles the only one which failed was the Mannlicher.
> > "all rifles passed these abusive tests in a satisfactory manner; the
> > failure of the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano . . . was due to the failure
> > of the ammunition and not the rifle."
>
> It says quite clearly there in the last sentence it was the ammo
> that failed, NOT the Carcano. Geez, read your own cites.
>
But that was the very point I was making. All those cases I cited
involved the ammo.
> > And in the case of Chapman, the cause was attempting to underload ammo
> > to produce lower muzzle velocities for tests. The result? "On one
> > occasion, experimentation with powder loads caused a bullet to explode
> > in the chamber, thereby shattering the stock and embeddeding metallic
> > fragments in the doctor's cheek."
>
> Proves nothing about the Carcano. You can blow up _any_ gun
> conducting experiments on it.
>
Show that these same things happened with other rifles. And remember
that Emary was not able to blow up his test Mannlicher.
> > In the other case Paul Burke was trying to show off by over loading his
> > home made rounds with very hot powder. The rifle blew up in his face.
>
> And this reflects on the construction, material and workmanship of
> the Carcano in what fashion?
>
That it can not tolerate high pressures as well as other rifles.
> > Is the rifle itself dangerous? It could be depending on the exact model
> > and its condition.
> > W.H.R. Smith notes in his "Small Arms of the World" on page 532:
> >
> > One case was reported during the War of an Allied soldier killed while
> > target shooting with an Italian rifle. The small bolt sleeve lug
> > crystallized and let the striker and sleeve be blown into his head. This
> > type of accident cannot happen with the screw in type of bolt sleeve.
>
> Un-substantiated rumor; see the Carcano homepage. No one has _ever_
> been able to identify this supposed soldier or provide _any_ details about
> the incident.
>
Does the Carcano homepage refute this particular incident with any
facts?
> > And he goes on to give important advice on page 533:
> >
> > Recommendations: Have bolt sleeve and lug checked to be sure it is not
> > brittle or crystallized.
>
> There is no "bolt sleeve" listed in parts lists for the Carcano
> bolt.
>
The bolt sleeve is integral, not a separate part. But of course you'd
already know this if you actually owned a Mannlicher-Carcano yourself.
> > Heat
> > treat if advisable. Increase size of gas escape hole. Use only
> > recommended ammunition. If arm is converted to American caliber, keep
> > pressures well within official Italian pressures (about 38,000 foot
> > pounds).
> > This is not to be taken as a blanket condemnation of Italian rifles.
>
> Too bad that that's exactly what's being done with his information.
>
Yes, too bad, but often people generalize based on a few incidents. Look
at the first impressions of the M-16.
> > However, it must be kept in mind that many are very old weapons which
> > have not had the best of care.
> > The basic reason for this specific recommendation however, is that by
> > standards of all other nations, the Italian bolt sleeve is a potentially
> > dangerous design. All military rifles except this type were designed to
> > prevent sleeve blow out or equivalent trouble.
>
> Yeah, bang that tired old drum....
His advice is sound.
Robert
What, exactly?
> > >You could make the
> > > same mistake talking about cars.
> >
> > Actually, it wouldn't be a mistake, it would be common sense. I
> > could go to a junkyard, find a wrecked Rolls Royce, and opine that Rolls
> > Royce's are shoddily built, dangerous vehicles...and I'd be completely
> > wrong.
> >
>
> But the vehicle in that condition that you found it would indeed be
> dangerous.
> Not the same was when it was first built.
No kidding, Tony. And its condition, due to abuse/neglect, in no way
reflects upon that type of car in general, does it?
> > >A car expert can tell you that a
> > > well-designed and properly maintained car is safe. Then you'd
generalize
> > > and claim that all cars are safe. You'd overlook the individual cases
of
> > > unsafe cars.
> >
> > What bullshit, but a good analogy. The generalization is being
made
> > that the Carcano is unsafe and poorly built based on neglected, abused
> > weapons that should have been junked. Kinda like over-loading one,
causing
> > it to blow up, and then blaming the gun.
> >
>
> Yes, that is an unfair characterization. But the problem is that the
> Mannlicher is less forgiving of such errors.
Besides only deserving a "so what?" response, that's completely
unsubstantiated.
> > > The wording on page 101 of "The Gun" seems to imply that out of all
the
> > > foreign military rifles the only one which failed was the Mannlicher.
> > > "all rifles passed these abusive tests in a satisfactory manner; the
> > > failure of the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano . . . was due to the failure
> > > of the ammunition and not the rifle."
> >
> > It says quite clearly there in the last sentence it was the ammo
> > that failed, NOT the Carcano. Geez, read your own cites.
> >
>
> But that was the very point I was making. All those cases I cited
> involved the ammo.
Again....so what? Google rec.guns with the keyword "kaboom" and have
a look at all the ammo problems for non-Carcano guns.
> > > And in the case of Chapman, the cause was attempting to underload ammo
> > > to produce lower muzzle velocities for tests. The result? "On one
> > > occasion, experimentation with powder loads caused a bullet to explode
> > > in the chamber, thereby shattering the stock and embeddeding metallic
> > > fragments in the doctor's cheek."
> >
> > Proves nothing about the Carcano. You can blow up _any_ gun
> > conducting experiments on it.
> >
>
> Show that these same things happened with other rifles.
What, you want me to _prove_ that other rifles can blow up? Good
god. You've never heard of _any_ instance of a rifle failing?
http://www.fulton-armory.com/Kaboom.htm
That took all of 30 seconds to find....
And here's an M1A that went blooey:
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762r.html
> And remember
> that Emary was not able to blow up his test Mannlicher.
Well, yes he was. He had to use C-4 to do it.
> > > In the other case Paul Burke was trying to show off by over loading
his
> > > home made rounds with very hot powder. The rifle blew up in his face.
> >
> > And this reflects on the construction, material and workmanship
of
> > the Carcano in what fashion?
> >
>
> That it can not tolerate high pressures as well as other rifles.
Gee, Tony, to substantiate that claim you'd have to show that other
rifles can survive the sort of abuse Burke heaped on his. There's a _reason_
they make reloading tables, you know, and they carry the same warnings for
ALL calibers, not just the 6.5. You can take any gun in the world, subject
it to super-hot rounds and it _will_ eventually blow up.
> > > Is the rifle itself dangerous? It could be depending on the exact
model
> > > and its condition.
> > > W.H.R. Smith notes in his "Small Arms of the World" on page 532:
> > >
> > > One case was reported during the War of an Allied soldier killed while
> > > target shooting with an Italian rifle. The small bolt sleeve lug
> > > crystallized and let the striker and sleeve be blown into his head.
This
> > > type of accident cannot happen with the screw in type of bolt sleeve.
> >
> > Un-substantiated rumor; see the Carcano homepage. No one has
_ever_
> > been able to identify this supposed soldier or provide _any_ details
about
> > the incident.
> >
>
> Does the Carcano homepage refute this particular incident with any
> facts?
Yes, the fact that nobody can provide _any_ details about this
alledged incident.
> > > And he goes on to give important advice on page 533:
> > >
> > > Recommendations: Have bolt sleeve and lug checked to be sure it is not
> > > brittle or crystallized.
> >
> > There is no "bolt sleeve" listed in parts lists for the Carcano
> > bolt.
> >
>
> The bolt sleeve is integral, not a separate part. But of course you'd
> already know this if you actually owned a Mannlicher-Carcano yourself.
I own two, as you know. If he means the bolt body, he's using the
wrong nomenclature for the Carcano.
> > > Heat
> > > treat if advisable. Increase size of gas escape hole. Use only
> > > recommended ammunition. If arm is converted to American caliber, keep
> > > pressures well within official Italian pressures (about 38,000 foot
> > > pounds).
> > > This is not to be taken as a blanket condemnation of Italian rifles.
> >
> > Too bad that that's exactly what's being done with his
information.
> >
>
> Yes, too bad, but often people generalize based on a few incidents. Look
> at the first impressions of the M-16.
>
>
> > > However, it must be kept in mind that many are very old weapons which
> > > have not had the best of care.
> > > The basic reason for this specific recommendation however, is that by
> > > standards of all other nations, the Italian bolt sleeve is a
potentially
> > > dangerous design. All military rifles except this type were designed
to
> > > prevent sleeve blow out or equivalent trouble.
> >
> > Yeah, bang that tired old drum....
>
> His advice is sound.
His advice applies to _any_ old military bolt rifle.
Erin Crowe
moving rounds,.222 .223 or 5.56.
When I first watched the Z film and watching JFK'S head,I was watching
this film at the range,I was sitting with my shooting team,half Swat half
military and everyone said that was a fast & light moving round.Of course
you will never have proof,but there was alot of experts in that
room,People who have shot and killed people and know ballistics and what
diffrent bullet effects looklike.Most of the guys on the shooting team
have used everything from .300 .338 30-06 308 .270 .223,everyone agreed
that the round that hit JFK'S head was light under 100 grain and moved
3000fps+.The guys on SWAT are the ones that I listen to the most because
most of there shooting is done under 100 and thats where the lighter
rounds perform best.
The reason we agreed that we thought there was another shooter at a lower
area was the way JFK's body reacted to the head shot,If shot from the rear
and from above,which alot of SWAT snipers shoot from"above"you have alot
of down force,where JFK had a more flat and slightly up momentum.Im going
to pick there brains a little more and see what I can come up with.
"Ed Cage" <ECag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:88e2b237.03030...@posting.google.com...
Erin Crowe
years,1/4 of the plates are 10 inch plates at 100 yds you have to knock
75% at 100 yds.I shoot a 1911 made by KINGS gun works and shoot 1500 to
2000 ..45SWC and HB every week,If ya ever get down this way I'll show
ya,It takes a little practice but trust me it isnt hard.
"Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:b3vupr$hp5$2...@nd.eastky.net...
Erin Crowe
"GMcNally" <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Erin Crowe" -
>
>
> <3slam...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<GOc9a.360850$vm2.272092@rwcrnsc54>...
> > Robert was the target moving?
>
> No. Not relative to Oswald.
targets,especially ones moving away from you which is very difficult.
> Was he shooting at the most powerfull man in
> > the world? In front off a couple hundred people?
>
> Silly, silly questions.
> His shooting skills are
> > sad,my best friend's son who is 12 years old held better groups with the
> > carcano rifle with iron sights.
>
> Is his son a Marine qualified sharpshooter?
that for you, NO.
Also wasnt Oswalds scope loose and not set properly,and when they tested the
rifle they had to re-set the scope?
Robert
> I shoot IDPA comp at least once a week,Ive also shot plate comp for 9
> years,1/4 of the plates are 10 inch plates at 100 yds you have to knock
> 75% at 100 yds.I shoot a 1911 made by KINGS gun works and shoot 1500 to
> 2000 ..45SWC and HB every week,If ya ever get down this way I'll show
> ya,It takes a little practice but trust me it isnt hard.
See, that's another of the sort of "typos" that crops up around
here. ;) Specialized match guns don't really fall under the sobriquet
"1911" in the real world, imo.
I used to shoot every weekend at a range near Charleston, SC with
my room-mate. One day I found these odd, oblong holes in my target (100
yards, CAR-15). After watching me scratch my head for awhile, my roomie
finally busts out laughing - he'd been standing over at the first pistol
lane, using his Commander like a mortar, lobbing rounds at my target...
Erin Crowe
you scratch your head,Thats just to damn funny lol.
One time at the range,I was shooting my .338 lapua at 800,my buddy decide's
to use a bench next to me,Im thinking he is shooting his .M40A1,boy was I
wrong,he made 3 shots with a 50 barrett,now my head is ringing my target is
history and half of my face was black,I was laughed at by the whole shooting
lane,as they all new what was going to happen,ERRRRRR.
>
>
>
AnthonyMarsh
Design. Workmanship.
> > > >You could make the
> > > > same mistake talking about cars.
> > >
> > > Actually, it wouldn't be a mistake, it would be common sense. I
> > > could go to a junkyard, find a wrecked Rolls Royce, and opine that Rolls
> > > Royce's are shoddily built, dangerous vehicles...and I'd be completely
> > > wrong.
> > >
> >
> > But the vehicle in that condition that you found it would indeed be
> > dangerous.
> > Not the same was when it was first built.
>
> No kidding, Tony. And its condition, due to abuse/neglect, in no way
> reflects upon that type of car in general, does it?
>
Of course not. But the example provided deals with neglect that makes
the design flaw fatal, not just annoying.
Sure. Please cite the fatalities.
> > > > And in the case of Chapman, the cause was attempting to underload ammo
> > > > to produce lower muzzle velocities for tests. The result? "On one
> > > > occasion, experimentation with powder loads caused a bullet to explode
> > > > in the chamber, thereby shattering the stock and embeddeding metallic
> > > > fragments in the doctor's cheek."
> > >
> > > Proves nothing about the Carcano. You can blow up _any_ gun
> > > conducting experiments on it.
> > >
> >
> > Show that these same things happened with other rifles.
>
> What, you want me to _prove_ that other rifles can blow up? Good
> god. You've never heard of _any_ instance of a rifle failing?
>
Good God, man. I am talking about a rifle blowing up in someone's hands.
And you are talking about a screw falling out? What? What about the
bullets that get stuck in the barrel?
Show me something.
> http://www.fulton-armory.com/Kaboom.htm
>
> That took all of 30 seconds to find....
>
> And here's an M1A that went blooey:
>
> http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762r.html
>
> > And remember
> > that Emary was not able to blow up his test Mannlicher.
>
> Well, yes he was. He had to use C-4 to do it.
>
Yeah, not ammo.
BTW, refresh my memory. Did they have C-4 in WWII?
> > > > In the other case Paul Burke was trying to show off by over loading
> his
> > > > home made rounds with very hot powder. The rifle blew up in his face.
> > >
> > > And this reflects on the construction, material and workmanship
> of
> > > the Carcano in what fashion?
> > >
> >
> > That it can not tolerate high pressures as well as other rifles.
>
> Gee, Tony, to substantiate that claim you'd have to show that other
> rifles can survive the sort of abuse Burke heaped on his. There's a _reason_
The sort of abuse that Burke heaped on it? Lots of people over load
their home made rounds. Maybe they even blow up the rifle.
> they make reloading tables, you know, and they carry the same warnings for
Who the hell cares about reloading tables? Burke is a LNer. He's a
master worldclass marksman. He knows more about rifles than any of you
guys have forgotten. He's a hot shot!
> ALL calibers, not just the 6.5. You can take any gun in the world, subject
> it to super-hot rounds and it _will_ eventually blow up.
>
Yup. Except for a few factors. There is only just so much room in that
cartridge to hold the powder. It also helps if you keep using the same
cartridges over and over many times until they become brittle.
I think that someone has indeed tried to blow up some rifles and found
that it takes extraordinary pressure to do so, so much that he had to
use something like C4 to accomplish it because he couldn't do so only
using ammunition. You should ask Burke what witches brew was
responsible.
> > > > Is the rifle itself dangerous? It could be depending on the exact
> model
> > > > and its condition.
> > > > W.H.R. Smith notes in his "Small Arms of the World" on page 532:
> > > >
> > > > One case was reported during the War of an Allied soldier killed while
> > > > target shooting with an Italian rifle. The small bolt sleeve lug
> > > > crystallized and let the striker and sleeve be blown into his head.
> This
> > > > type of accident cannot happen with the screw in type of bolt sleeve.
> > >
> > > Un-substantiated rumor; see the Carcano homepage. No one has
> _ever_
> > > been able to identify this supposed soldier or provide _any_ details
> about
> > > the incident.
> > >
> >
> > Does the Carcano homepage refute this particular incident with any
> > facts?
>
> Yes, the fact that nobody can provide _any_ details about this
> alledged incident.
>
Does the Carcano homepage mention this incident by name, citing Smith's
book?
> > > > And he goes on to give important advice on page 533:
> > > >
> > > > Recommendations: Have bolt sleeve and lug checked to be sure it is not
> > > > brittle or crystallized.
> > >
> > > There is no "bolt sleeve" listed in parts lists for the Carcano
> > > bolt.
> > >
> >
> > The bolt sleeve is integral, not a separate part. But of course you'd
> > already know this if you actually owned a Mannlicher-Carcano yourself.
>
> I own two, as you know. If he means the bolt body, he's using the
> wrong nomenclature for the Carcano.
>
Maybe he's British or something like that. I think they still say
cordite instead of gunpowder.
> > > > Heat
> > > > treat if advisable. Increase size of gas escape hole. Use only
> > > > recommended ammunition. If arm is converted to American caliber, keep
> > > > pressures well within official Italian pressures (about 38,000 foot
> > > > pounds).
> > > > This is not to be taken as a blanket condemnation of Italian rifles.
> > >
> > > Too bad that that's exactly what's being done with his
> information.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, too bad, but often people generalize based on a few incidents. Look
> > at the first impressions of the M-16.
> >
> >
> > > > However, it must be kept in mind that many are very old weapons which
> > > > have not had the best of care.
> > > > The basic reason for this specific recommendation however, is that by
> > > > standards of all other nations, the Italian bolt sleeve is a
> potentially
> > > > dangerous design. All military rifles except this type were designed
> to
> > > > prevent sleeve blow out or equivalent trouble.
> > >
> > > Yeah, bang that tired old drum....
> >
> > His advice is sound.
>
> His advice applies to _any_ old military bolt rifle.
Exactly!
AnthonyMarsh
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> SPENCE YOU & RON JUDGE ARE MAKING SENSE AGAIN.. Obviously you both
> have looked into the MC as I have.. The paper I am presenting
> below is one I personally researched w personal contact via emails,
> etc.. I address both pro & con including the "exploding" issue
> someone brought up.. The reason my paper is mostly Pro MC is bc
> that's exactly where the facts led me.. I know it to be factual bc
> I did the research myself (I am kinda proud of it) John Fiorentino,
> if you wish you may use/quote/edit this in your book. It will hold
> up under scrutiny I assure you..
No it won't. You also overlooked another problem with the
Mannlicher-Carcano that affects its reliability as the assassination
weapon. It has a tendency to jam. Roger Feinman had posted the results
of the CBS shooting tests in 1967 which used a rifle similar to Oswald's
(better?) to try to duplicate his supposed shooting in Dealey Plaza. I
will cut and paste it here:
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
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 less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three
hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade
your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher-
Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and
jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge
for
yourself.
-roger-
________________
Do you happen to notice a common thread running through all the tests?
Jammed.
Jammed.
Jammed.
Jammed.
Jammed.
Jammed.
Their rifle jammed so many times that they often could not get any
results at all.
The Mannlicher-Carcano has a tendency to jam after the second or third
shot, when you try to recycle the bolt too quickly. Now, what impact
does that have for the assassination? Well, in fact Oswald's rifle
jammed, leaving a cartridge with a dented lip. It was this malfunction
which delayed the last shot from the TSBD for 5 seconds. This pause
caused the grassy knoll shooter, who had not yet fired a shot, to take
the insurance shot from the grassy knoll. His shot hit the President in
the right forehead and JFK's head went back and to the left, out of the
aiming point for the last shot fired from the TSBD less than a second
later, causing it to miss Kennedy's head and hit Connally instead.
Without this defect of the Mannlicher-Carcano the conspirators might
have been able to get away with a LN scenario of all shots fired from
the sniper's nest in the TSBD.
Robert
Anything of any design or level of workmanship can and does fail if
neglected or abused, Tony.
If a gun blows up in a catastrophic failure, but fortunately doesn't
kill anybody....it didn't _really_ blow up?
Nice little dance you're doing, Tony. If a firearm blows up for
_any_ reason, your argument is shot...unless you're going to drop Chapmann.
And Burke.
> > > > > And in the case of Chapman, the cause was attempting to underload
ammo
> > > > > to produce lower muzzle velocities for tests. The result? "On one
> > > > > occasion, experimentation with powder loads caused a bullet to
explode
> > > > > in the chamber, thereby shattering the stock and embeddeding
metallic
> > > > > fragments in the doctor's cheek."
> > > >
> > > > Proves nothing about the Carcano. You can blow up _any_ gun
> > > > conducting experiments on it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Show that these same things happened with other rifles.
> >
> > What, you want me to _prove_ that other rifles can blow up? Good
> > god. You've never heard of _any_ instance of a rifle failing?
> >
>
> Good God, man. I am talking about a rifle blowing up in someone's hands.
That's right.
> And you are talking about a screw falling out?
What in the world are you smoking?
> What? What about the
> bullets that get stuck in the barrel?
> Show me something.
I did, but you apparently didn't follow the links below:
>
> > http://www.fulton-armory.com/Kaboom.htm
> >
> > That took all of 30 seconds to find....
> >
> > And here's an M1A that went blooey:
> >
> > http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762r.html
Right up there, Tony: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just click.
> > > And remember
> > > that Emary was not able to blow up his test Mannlicher.
> >
> > Well, yes he was. He had to use C-4 to do it.
> >
>
> Yeah, not ammo.
> BTW, refresh my memory. Did they have C-4 in WWII?
What fucking difference does _that_ make?
> > > > > In the other case Paul Burke was trying to show off by over
loading
> > his
> > > > > home made rounds with very hot powder. The rifle blew up in his
face.
> > > >
> > > > And this reflects on the construction, material and
workmanship
> > of
> > > > the Carcano in what fashion?
> > > >
> > >
> > > That it can not tolerate high pressures as well as other rifles.
> >
> > Gee, Tony, to substantiate that claim you'd have to show that
other
> > rifles can survive the sort of abuse Burke heaped on his. There's a
_reason_
>
> The sort of abuse that Burke heaped on it?
What, you don't consider that abuse?
>Lots of people over load
> their home made rounds.
Cite, please.
>Maybe they even blow up the rifle.
Yes, due to carelessness and abuse.
> > they make reloading tables, you know, and they carry the same warnings
for
>
> Who the hell cares about reloading tables?
They are a guide to the PROPER reloading of ammunition for ALL
CALIBERS, Tony; not just the poor wimpy 6.5 Carcano.
> Burke is a LNer. He's a
> master worldclass marksman. He knows more about rifles than any of you
> guys have forgotten. He's a hot shot!
Well, he apparently forgot quite about reloading.
Are you on any sort of medication we should be aware of?
AnthonyMarsh
Silly point. Apples and oranges. Back to the car analogy. If two cars
are neglected and abused, on one model the ash tray falls out. On the
other the engine falls out. Ever hear of the Pinto?
More apples and oranges, eh? If you're in a firefight and your M-16
jams, you're just as dead.
> Nice little dance you're doing, Tony. If a firearm blows up for
> _any_ reason, your argument is shot...unless you're going to drop Chapmann.
> And Burke.
My argument is not shot at all. I never said that other rifles have
never blown up.
Or that bullets don't get stuck in the barrel.
Chapman and Burke should be important cautions for those who shoot a
Mannlicher-Carcano. One the other hand, some people just never learn
from mistakes.
You seemed to think that Emary's method was the ONLY way to blow up a
Mannlicher-Carcano, so how did they manage to blow up one in WWII? They
didn't have C-4 back then, did they? Or is that what they used in the
pipes used to blow holes in the barbed wire on D-day?
And what type of wimpy guy religiously follows those reloading tables?
Burke is a hot shot.
> > Burke is a LNer. He's a
> > master worldclass marksman. He knows more about rifles than any of you
> > guys have forgotten. He's a hot shot!
>
> Well, he apparently forgot quite about reloading.
>
YOU tell him that.
Claritin. Why is it that you assholes always use the same old tired ad
hominems when someone tells you something that you don't want to hear?
Why not get original and make up some new ad hominems? Maybe you could
accuse me of being an alien or something.
Robert
And it's a false analogy, irrelevant to the subject matter. If I
abuse two different firearms by using extremely hot loads, one isn't going
to just develop some harmless problem.
The logic of this escapes me. We're discussing catastrophic failures
of firearms, not jams. You want citations of fatalities due to catastrophic
failures, as if it makes a difference, but now you're talking about jams?
> > Nice little dance you're doing, Tony. If a firearm blows up for
> > _any_ reason, your argument is shot...unless you're going to drop
Chapmann.
> > And Burke.
>
> My argument is not shot at all. I never said that other rifles have
> never blown up.
Then why are you asking me to prove it?
> Or that bullets don't get stuck in the barrel.
> Chapman and Burke should be important cautions for those who shoot a
> Mannlicher-Carcano. One the other hand, some people just never learn
> from mistakes.
Chapman and Burke should be important cautions for _anybody_ who
shoots ANY firearm.
> >
> > > > > > > And in the case of Chapman, the cause was attempting to
underload
> > ammo
> > > > > > > to produce lower muzzle velocities for tests. The result? "On
one
> > > > > > > occasion, experimentation with powder loads caused a bullet to
> > explode
> > > > > > > in the chamber, thereby shattering the stock and embeddeding
> > metallic
> > > > > > > fragments in the doctor's cheek."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proves nothing about the Carcano. You can blow up _any_
gun
> > > > > > conducting experiments on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Show that these same things happened with other rifles.
This from the guy who is now saying: "I never said that other rifles
have never blown up." Stupid people doing stupid things with guns of _any_
quality create their own "accidents".
> > > > What, you want me to _prove_ that other rifles can blow up?
Good
> > > > god. You've never heard of _any_ instance of a rifle failing?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Good God, man. I am talking about a rifle blowing up in someone's
hands.
> >
> > That's right.
> >
> > > And you are talking about a screw falling out?
> >
> > What in the world are you smoking?
> >
> > > What? What about the
> > > bullets that get stuck in the barrel?
> > > Show me something.
> >
> > I did, but you apparently didn't follow the links below:
---------------------IMPORTANT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE,-------------------
------------------------JUST FOR YOU TONY----------------------------------
> > > > http://www.fulton-armory.com/Kaboom.htm
> > > >
> > > > That took all of 30 seconds to find....
> > > >
> > > > And here's an M1A that went blooey:
> > > >
> > > > http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762r.html
> >
> > Right up there, Tony: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just click.
------------------------STILL NO COMMENT ON THESE-----------------------
-----------------"QUALITY" ARMS THAT BLEW UP?-------------------------
> > > > > And remember
> > > > > that Emary was not able to blow up his test Mannlicher.
> > > >
> > > > Well, yes he was. He had to use C-4 to do it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, not ammo.
> > > BTW, refresh my memory. Did they have C-4 in WWII?
> >
> > What fucking difference does _that_ make?
> >
>
> You seemed to think that Emary's method was the ONLY way to blow up a
> Mannlicher-Carcano,
Hardly.
so how did they manage to blow up one in WWII?
Unsubstantiated rumor, Tony. Absolutely no supporting data - no names,
no witnesses, no dates, no death report, NOTHING.
>They
> didn't have C-4 back then, did they? Or is that what they used in the
> pipes used to blow holes in the barbed wire on D-day?
>
> > > > > > > In the other case Paul Burke was trying to show off by over
> > loading
> > > > his
> > > > > > > home made rounds with very hot powder. The rifle blew up in
his
> > face.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And this reflects on the construction, material and
> > workmanship
> > > > of
> > > > > > the Carcano in what fashion?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That it can not tolerate high pressures as well as other rifles.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, Tony, to substantiate that claim you'd have to show
that
> > other
> > > > rifles can survive the sort of abuse Burke heaped on his. There's a
> > _reason_
> > >
> > > The sort of abuse that Burke heaped on it?
> >
> > What, you don't consider that abuse?
> >
> > >Lots of people over load
> > > their home made rounds.
> >
> > Cite, please.
I'm serious - I'd like to read about these people, particularly the
emergency room records.
> > >Maybe they even blow up the rifle.
> >
> > Yes, due to carelessness and abuse.
> >
> > > > they make reloading tables, you know, and they carry the same
warnings
> > for
> > >
> > > Who the hell cares about reloading tables?
> >
> > They are a guide to the PROPER reloading of ammunition for ALL
> > CALIBERS, Tony; not just the poor wimpy 6.5 Carcano.
> >
>
> And what type of wimpy guy religiously follows those reloading tables?
> Burke is a hot shot.
That is without doubt the stupidest thing I've read this month.
> > > Burke is a LNer. He's a
> > > master worldclass marksman. He knows more about rifles than any of you
> > > guys have forgotten. He's a hot shot!
> >
> > Well, he apparently forgot quite about reloading.
> >
> YOU tell him that.
Why don't you quit lending validity to his stupidity?
Tony, you're so illogical and inconsistent in this little tirade
it's almost scary. You demand a cite for something and then admit to the
fact, then flip-flop all over the damn place, wander off chasing irrelevant
rabbits and overall look quite clinical.
AnthonyMarsh
Just because you do not understand the analogy does not make it false.
Take the two rifles. Abuse them with extremely (who said extremely? Not
I) hot loads. In one the barrel blows apart. No one is killed.
In the other the chamber blows up and the bolt is blown back through the
head of the shooter, killing him.
That is the difference.
And the harmless problem may be only that the stock is destroyed, but
those splinters can still hurt.
And again I caution anyone test shooting a Mannlicher-Carcano to wear
protective goggles.
I never asked you to prove that rifles have blown up. I am asking to
examine those cases and note the differences. And while you are
researching it, try to find the fatalities.
> > Or that bullets don't get stuck in the barrel.
> > Chapman and Burke should be important cautions for those who shoot a
> > Mannlicher-Carcano. One the other hand, some people just never learn
> > from mistakes.
>
> Chapman and Burke should be important cautions for _anybody_ who
> shoots ANY firearm.
>
> > >
> > > > > > > > And in the case of Chapman, the cause was attempting to
> underload
> > > ammo
> > > > > > > > to produce lower muzzle velocities for tests. The result? "On
> one
> > > > > > > > occasion, experimentation with powder loads caused a bullet to
> > > explode
> > > > > > > > in the chamber, thereby shattering the stock and embeddeding
> > > metallic
> > > > > > > > fragments in the doctor's cheek."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Proves nothing about the Carcano. You can blow up _any_
> gun
> > > > > > > conducting experiments on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Show that these same things happened with other rifles.
>
> This from the guy who is now saying: "I never said that other rifles
> have never blown up." Stupid people doing stupid things with guns of _any_
> quality create their own "accidents".
>
How would the soldier in WWII know that he was doing a stupid thing? How
would the soldiers in Vietnam know that they were doing a stupid thing
just shooting an M-16?
> > > > > What, you want me to _prove_ that other rifles can blow up?
> Good
> > > > > god. You've never heard of _any_ instance of a rifle failing?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good God, man. I am talking about a rifle blowing up in someone's
> hands.
> > >
> > > That's right.
> > >
> > > > And you are talking about a screw falling out?
> > >
> > > What in the world are you smoking?
> > >
> > > > What? What about the
> > > > bullets that get stuck in the barrel?
> > > > Show me something.
> > >
> > > I did, but you apparently didn't follow the links below:
>
> ---------------------IMPORTANT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE,-------------------
> ------------------------JUST FOR YOU TONY----------------------------------
>
> > > > > http://www.fulton-armory.com/Kaboom.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > That took all of 30 seconds to find....
> > > > >
> > > > > And here's an M1A that went blooey:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762r.html
> > >
> > > Right up there, Tony: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just click.
>
> ------------------------STILL NO COMMENT ON THESE-----------------------
So, where are the photos of the chamber blowing up and the autopsy
photos of the person killed by the malfunction?
> -----------------"QUALITY" ARMS THAT BLEW UP?-------------------------
Whoever said that the Mannlicher-Carcano was a "quality" arm?
>
> > > > > > And remember
> > > > > > that Emary was not able to blow up his test Mannlicher.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, yes he was. He had to use C-4 to do it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, not ammo.
> > > > BTW, refresh my memory. Did they have C-4 in WWII?
> > >
> > > What fucking difference does _that_ make?
> > >
> >
> > You seemed to think that Emary's method was the ONLY way to blow up a
> > Mannlicher-Carcano,
>
> Hardly.
>
He couldn't blow it up just using ammo. No matter how hard he tried to
abuse it.
> so how did they manage to blow up one in WWII?
>
> Unsubstantiated rumor, Tony. Absolutely no supporting data - no names,
> no witnesses, no dates, no death report, NOTHING.
>
Keep telling yourself that.
I never said anything about emergency rooms.
Pretend that you don't know that some people load their own rounds and
experiment with hot loads. Go ahead.
In his book "Complete Guide to Handloading" Philip B. Sharpe
specifically warns against developing custom hand loads for the foreign
calibers. He devotes an entire chapter to this subject, entitled
"Loading Foreign Oddities." On page 163 he discusses the 8 x 60 Magnum
for the MannlicherSchönauer.
"In a Mauser 8 x 60 Magnum, 52 grains with the Barnes 200 grain .323
bullet showed less indication of pressure with either primer than with
the Winchester 120 [primer] in the Mannlicher. We did not argue with the
facts -- we cut the load back for the Mannlicher and while we'd love to
learn the reason, we've had enough experience to know that our equipment
and experience are too limited to pursue the matter further. We'll
theorize and argue for days about the matter -- BUT THE LOAD IN THE
MANNLICHER STAYS CUT BACK! Don't tempt fate, we implore you; that buck
can't tell you which load kills better, and 48 grains will kill him just
as handily as 52 grains will -- BUT THE 52 GRAINS MIGHT KILL YOU!"
Gee, I wonder what he means by that? How could a rifle kill the
shooter?????
On pages 168 and 169 he discusses the 6.5 x 50.5 Arisaka.
"Again, many authorities claim that this rifle is distinctly unsafe, so
we recommend that you hang it on the wall. After developing this light
gas-check load, the carbine we used was hung on the wall, and as far as
we are concerned it will stay there. What is more, a rifle in this
caliber that is seemingly sound and spotless, will remain unfired as
long as it is our possession."
"I have shot many hundreds of rounds of Jap-made ammunition in both
rifle and carbines in military testing, and found accuracy to be
terrible in any of the dozen or more guns used. We estimated pressure at
about 35,000 pounds, and some of the ammunition being offered today by
"custom handloaders" is definite poison -- operating at a pressure level
of about 50,000 pounds to soup-up the cartridge. P.B.S"
He then goes on to discuss the 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano on page 169.
"We refuse to experiment with loading for this caliber as we classify
these military rifles as just another decoration for the rumpus room."
"I agree that it is not worthwhile risking one's neck trying to
develop loads for these guns and cartridge. P.B.S."
Risking one's neck? Gee, I wonder what he means by that????
Now, does anyone actually hand load custom rounds for the 6.5 mm?
Yes. See the article "Ball Powder in the 6.5x55mm" by Al Miller in the
March-April 1981 issue of "Handloader" magazine, pages 36-37,62-63.
He experimented with various bullets and powders. But he does provide
one telling caveat on page 63:
"Current factory loads generate pressures around forty-seven thousand
pounds per square inch. In a good, stout modern action, the 6.5 x 55mm
can be loaded hotter than that with perfect safety, but since most of
the 6.5 x 55s in use are either Swedish Mausers or Norwegian Krags, the
loads listed were developed with their limitations in mind."
Did you understand what he meant? There is a real difference in quality
and tolerances between a new rifle and a WWII surplus rifle. If you
don't believe me, call up Al Miller and ask him yourself.
> > > >Maybe they even blow up the rifle.
> > >
> > > Yes, due to carelessness and abuse.
> > >
> > > > > they make reloading tables, you know, and they carry the same
> warnings
> > > for
> > > >
> > > > Who the hell cares about reloading tables?
> > >
> > > They are a guide to the PROPER reloading of ammunition for ALL
> > > CALIBERS, Tony; not just the poor wimpy 6.5 Carcano.
> > >
> >
> > And what type of wimpy guy religiously follows those reloading tables?
> > Burke is a hot shot.
>
> That is without doubt the stupidest thing I've read this month.
>
Burke seemed to think that reload tables are for wimps.
> > > > Burke is a LNer. He's a
> > > > master worldclass marksman. He knows more about rifles than any of you
> > > > guys have forgotten. He's a hot shot!
> > >
> > > Well, he apparently forgot quite about reloading.
> > >
>
> > YOU tell him that.
>
> Why don't you quit lending validity to his stupidity?
>
Who said that he was stupid?
Nice try. I show you something that you didn't know about and your only
way out is to call me nuts.
Great tactic.
Robert
Oh, I understand it just fine.
> Take the two rifles. Abuse them with extremely (who said extremely? Not
> I) hot loads. In one the barrel blows apart. No one is killed.
> In the other the chamber blows up and the bolt is blown back through the
> head of the shooter, killing him.
> That is the difference.
Yeah, right. Whatever.
> And the harmless problem may be only that the stock is destroyed, but
> those splinters can still hurt.
> And again I caution anyone test shooting a Mannlicher-Carcano to wear
> protective goggles.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! What for, to slow the bolt down for a microsecond?
Did Burke or Chapman die? If they didn't, you don't have a logical
point.
You haven't proven he exists, and I was addressing the activities of
your two morons.
>How
> would the soldiers in Vietnam know that they were doing a stupid thing
> just shooting an M-16?
Why do you persist in bringing up this red herring?
> > > > > > What, you want me to _prove_ that other rifles can blow
up?
> > Good
> > > > > > god. You've never heard of _any_ instance of a rifle failing?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Good God, man. I am talking about a rifle blowing up in someone's
> > hands.
> > > >
> > > > That's right.
> > > >
> > > > > And you are talking about a screw falling out?
> > > >
> > > > What in the world are you smoking?
> > > >
> > > > > What? What about the
> > > > > bullets that get stuck in the barrel?
> > > > > Show me something.
> > > >
> > > > I did, but you apparently didn't follow the links below:
> >
> > ---------------------IMPORTANT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE,-------------------
> > ------------------------JUST FOR YOU
TONY----------------------------------
> >
> > > > > > http://www.fulton-armory.com/Kaboom.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That took all of 30 seconds to find....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And here's an M1A that went blooey:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762r.html
> > > >
> > > > Right up there, Tony: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just click.
> >
> > ------------------------STILL NO COMMENT ON THESE-----------------------
>
> So, where are the photos of the chamber blowing up and the autopsy
> photos of the person killed by the malfunction?
That's your standard? Somebody has to actually _die_?
> > -----------------"QUALITY" ARMS THAT BLEW UP?-------------------------
>
> Whoever said that the Mannlicher-Carcano was a "quality" arm?
Can't grasp a simple argument, eh?
> >
> > > > > > > And remember
> > > > > > > that Emary was not able to blow up his test Mannlicher.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, yes he was. He had to use C-4 to do it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, not ammo.
> > > > > BTW, refresh my memory. Did they have C-4 in WWII?
> > > >
> > > > What fucking difference does _that_ make?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You seemed to think that Emary's method was the ONLY way to blow up a
> > > Mannlicher-Carcano,
> >
> > Hardly.
> >
>
> He couldn't blow it up just using ammo. No matter how hard he tried to
> abuse it.
Which would seem to indicate that the Carcano is a very strong
action..
> > so how did they manage to blow up one in WWII?
> >
> > Unsubstantiated rumor, Tony. Absolutely no supporting data - no
names,
> > no witnesses, no dates, no death report, NOTHING.
> >
>
> Keep telling yourself that.
Easy enough to prove me wrong, Marsh. Provide the data. Who got
killed, who witnessed it, when it happened, an autopsy report - you know;
the usual.
Not likely.
> In his book "Complete Guide to Handloading" Philip B. Sharpe
> specifically warns against developing custom hand loads for the foreign
> calibers.
Yep. Good advice. Why would you suggest I ignore it?
He devotes an entire chapter to this subject, entitled
> "Loading Foreign Oddities." On page 163 he discusses the 8 x 60 Magnum
> for the MannlicherSchönauer.
>
> "In a Mauser 8 x 60 Magnum, 52 grains with the Barnes 200 grain .323
> bullet showed less indication of pressure with either primer than with
> the Winchester 120 [primer] in the Mannlicher. We did not argue with the
> facts -- we cut the load back for the Mannlicher and while we'd love to
> learn the reason, we've had enough experience to know that our equipment
> and experience are too limited to pursue the matter further. We'll
> theorize and argue for days about the matter -- BUT THE LOAD IN THE
> MANNLICHER STAYS CUT BACK! Don't tempt fate, we implore you; that buck
> can't tell you which load kills better, and 48 grains will kill him just
> as handily as 52 grains will -- BUT THE 52 GRAINS MIGHT KILL YOU!"
>
> Gee, I wonder what he means by that? How could a rifle kill the
> shooter?????
Gee Tony, because it's too hot a load for the gun?
> On pages 168 and 169 he discusses the 6.5 x 50.5 Arisaka.
>
> "Again, many authorities claim that this rifle is distinctly unsafe, so
> we recommend that you hang it on the wall. After developing this light
> gas-check load, the carbine we used was hung on the wall, and as far as
> we are concerned it will stay there. What is more, a rifle in this
> caliber that is seemingly sound and spotless, will remain unfired as
> long as it is our possession."
> "I have shot many hundreds of rounds of Jap-made ammunition in both
> rifle and carbines in military testing, and found accuracy to be
> terrible in any of the dozen or more guns used. We estimated pressure at
> about 35,000 pounds, and some of the ammunition being offered today by
> "custom handloaders"
Hehehe. You think that supports your point?
>is definite poison -- operating at a pressure level
> of about 50,000 pounds to soup-up the cartridge. P.B.S"
>
> He then goes on to discuss the 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano on page 169.
>
> "We refuse to experiment with loading for this caliber as we classify
> these military rifles as just another decoration for the rumpus room."
>
> "I agree that it is not worthwhile risking one's neck trying to
> develop loads for these guns and cartridge. P.B.S."
>
> Risking one's neck? Gee, I wonder what he means by that????
"Develop loads"? I wonder what he means by that?
>
> Now, does anyone actually hand load custom rounds for the 6.5 mm?
> Yes. See the article "Ball Powder in the 6.5x55mm" by Al Miller in the
> March-April 1981 issue of "Handloader" magazine, pages 36-37,62-63.
> He experimented with various bullets and powders. But he does provide
> one telling caveat on page 63:
>
> "Current factory loads generate pressures around forty-seven thousand
> pounds per square inch. In a good, stout modern action, the 6.5 x 55mm
> can be loaded hotter than that with perfect safety, but since most of
> the 6.5 x 55s in use are either Swedish Mausers or Norwegian Krags, the
> loads listed were developed with their limitations in mind."
>
> Did you understand what he meant? There is a real difference in quality
> and tolerances between a new rifle and a WWII surplus rifle.
Pick up a dictionary and look up "abuse", Marsh.
>If you
> don't believe me, call up Al Miller and ask him yourself.
You don't even understand what you've just posted.
>
> > > > >Maybe they even blow up the rifle.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, due to carelessness and abuse.
> > > >
> > > > > > they make reloading tables, you know, and they carry the same
> > warnings
> > > > for
> > > > >
> > > > > Who the hell cares about reloading tables?
> > > >
> > > > They are a guide to the PROPER reloading of ammunition for
ALL
> > > > CALIBERS, Tony; not just the poor wimpy 6.5 Carcano.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And what type of wimpy guy religiously follows those reloading tables?
> > > Burke is a hot shot.
> >
> > That is without doubt the stupidest thing I've read this month.
> >
>
> Burke seemed to think that reload tables are for wimps.
*yawn*
> > > > > Burke is a LNer. He's a
> > > > > master worldclass marksman. He knows more about rifles than any of
you
> > > > > guys have forgotten. He's a hot shot!
> > > >
> > > > Well, he apparently forgot quite about reloading.
> > > >
> >
> > > YOU tell him that.
> >
> > Why don't you quit lending validity to his stupidity?
> >
>
> Who said that he was stupid?
I'm saying it.
Bullshit.
>and your only
> way out is to call me nuts.
> Great tactic.
Judging by the scathing attack you leveled at me in the thread
"Previous Motorcade Security" where I _supported_ your post against Heel's
ludicrously illogical "rebuttal"....
YOU'RE A FUCKING LOOOOON.