|
|
 January 04, 2012, 05:22:18 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
Gary insists on communicating through the personal message system when he could easily just respond here on the post he has an issue with. Someone started a post about him and ALL I did was ask what made him change his mind (IF he did in fact do so) from a conspiracy and he sent me this in the PM system on 12/27/11: Well Rob, since you never bothered to ask, how in the world would you know if there was a defining moment? Isn't it interesting how so many alleged researchers just make stuff up? Oh well, at least their comments separate the real researchers from the conspiracy buffs. As for me, I've mentioned a significant event many times on many forums. Here's one from 2000: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginGary Mack I think the *whole point* of my question was to find out the "defining moment" for him IF there was one! Why is he so touchy about this question? What was I "making up" when I only asked a question about what changed his mind (IF he did)? Does this make any sense to anyone else? It sure doesn't to me. What is with the term 'conspiracy buff' by the way? I thought only LNers used that term in a nasty way?  I tried to access the link he gave me for AAJ (a moderated board by John McAdams that I avoid at all costs most of the time), but it did not work, so I am still wondering what changed his mind (IF he did)? Oh well.
-------------------------
-------------------------
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
"Benavides- Saw Oswald kill Tippit, picked him out of a lineup." - Brian "Doesn't Know His Rear From His Back" Walker
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 30, 2012, 03:57:25 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 858
|
What you are saying is illogical. You are only guessing. A short rifle is not a carbine. Different weapon, different barrel length. That's why they are different words.
Klein's ordered Terni short rifles in 1962, but they sat in the Crescent warehouse until 1963.
Did not Fred Rupp start removing 40" Carcanos from Harborside in late-Aug 62, clean them up and send them on to Klein's? Wasn't that his contract? Wasn't Klein's expecting the changeover to the new Carcano model since they agreed to have them sent in Apr 62? "Short Rifle" is only a term used by a few gunmakers off-and-on over the years. It's not a class of weapon as is "carbine" and "rifle". If "Short Rifle" was a classification of gun make, it would be applied to all such rifles with that particular barrel length. But it was never applied: to gunsellers, it's either a "carbine" or "rifle". Given the 40" Carcano's barrel length, it falls into the "carbine" category. But the Carcano makers were already using the term "carbine" for two models; this new model was a little longer, hence the " Short Rifle". If the Carcano manufacturer considered the 40" a "Rifle", they would have called it that (the term "Rifle" was available as the only other model at the time was a "Long Rifle"). I would assume that generally among all gunmakers the term "Short Rifle" was inevitably used more often on carbine models than on rifles proper.
-------------------------
-------------------------
 "It's, uh, very heavy." — President Johnson on receiving the Warren Report in the Oval Office, Sept. 24, 1964
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 30, 2012, 10:50:01 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 305
|
Did not Fred Rupp start removing 40" Carcanos from Harborside in late-Aug 62, clean them up and send them on to Klein's? Wasn't that his contract? Wasn't Klein's expecting the changeover to the new Carcano model since they agreed to have them sent in Apr 62?
"Short Rifle" is only a term used by a few gunmakers off-and-on over the years. It's not a class of weapon as is "carbine" and "rifle". If "Short Rifle" was a classification of gun make, it would be applied to all such rifles with that particular barrel length. But it was never applied: to gunsellers, it's either a "carbine" or "rifle".
Given the 40" Carcano's barrel length, it falls into the "carbine" category. But the Carcano makers were already using the term "carbine" for two models; this new model was a little longer, hence the "Short Rifle". If the Carcano manufacturer considered the 40" a "Rifle", they would have called it that (the term "Rifle" was available as the only other model at the time was a "Long Rifle").
I would assume that generally among all gunmakers the term "Short Rifle" was inevitably used more often on carbine models than on rifles proper.
Since the correct name is "Fucil Corto" , and "Corto" means short, it does not require a whole lot of cerebral capacity to determine exactly where the english term "Short Rifle" originated from.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 30, 2012, 11:18:48 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 858
|
Since the correct name is "Fucil Corto" , and "Corto" means short, it does not require a whole lot of cerebral capacity to determine exactly where the english term "Short Rifle" originated from.
I would bet almost all longterm JFK researchers know that the Carcano M91/38 "Short Rifle" was originally called "Fucile Corto" in Italian. Prior to that, I believe a handful of rifles made in Britain, the US and elsewhere were termed "Short Rifle" in English. The point is that the category never caught on. If it did, then all rifles a certain length (as defined by "Short Rifle") would be called "Short Rifles" or later classified as such. To date, the only two shoulder weapon categories that are generally used are "carbine" (which the 40" Carcano falls under) and "rifle". To say "Short Rifle" is a category would be like saying "Plymouth" is the common name for all cars that were made roughly that length. It a Model Name and NOT a category. The term as a rifle classification wasn't in use when Klein's asked for more "carbines" from Crescent in April 1962. Thus Klein's was correct to use the term "Carbine" when it advertised the 40" Carcano.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 31, 2012, 02:58:32 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
I would bet almost all longterm JFK researchers know that the Carcano M91/38 "Short Rifle" was originally called "Fucile Corto" in Italian.
Prior to that, I believe a handful of rifles made in Britain, the US and elsewhere were termed "Short Rifle" in English. The point is that the category never caught on. If it did, then all rifles a certain length (as defined by "Short Rifle") would be called "Short Rifles" or later classified as such.
To date, the only two shoulder weapon categories that are generally used are "carbine" (which the 40" Carcano falls under) and "rifle".
To say "Short Rifle" is a category would be like saying "Plymouth" is the common name for all cars that were made roughly that length. It a Model Name and NOT a category. The term as a rifle classification wasn't in use when Klein's asked for more "carbines" from Crescent in April 1962. Thus Klein's was correct to use the term "Carbine" when it advertised the 40" Carcano.
Nope. And length alone is not the criterion. It is BARREL length. Your car analogy is a little off. It might work better if you talked about the differences between a luxury car, a hatchback, a pony car or a muscle car.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 31, 2012, 03:55:18 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 858
|
Nope. And length alone is not the criterion. It is BARREL length.
Your car analogy is a little off. It might work better if you talked about the differences between a luxury car, a hatchback, a pony car or a muscle car.
Geeze. I may have it wrong. Anthony. From the article As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login by Chuck Hawks (Underline added by me) | | Compact rifles have become numerous. By "compact" I do not mean traditional youth rifles intended for use by hunters not fully grown, or even rifles intended to be sold to short or small framed adults (man or woman). I am referring to short rifles marketed to full size, male, adult hunters.
"Carbine" is the word formerly applied to short rifles, and they were usually created by the simple expedient of lopping off the barrel. At one time the U.S. Army preferred a 26" barrel on an infantry rifle and a 22" barrel on a calvary carbine. (Horse soldiers, naturally, wanted a weapon with a shorter barrel.)
The Army decided that, rather than produce a new service rifle with two barrel lengths, a 24" barrel would be a reasonable compromise, and that is the length that they adopted. To this day, the 24" barrel remains the nominal "standard" length, and that is the barrel length upon which most factory ballistics tables are based.
At a time when 28-30" barrels were common and a 26" barrel was standard on most hunting rifles, a carbine typically might wear a 22" barrel, or even a 20" tube. The famous Winchester Model 94 lever action carbines are a case in point. Since these rifles were intended to be fired by men, stock length of pull was usually the same on carbines as on rifles. (Length of pull is measured from the face of the trigger to the center of the butt plate.) |
Some Carcano barrel lengths (some figures rounded off): | | Carcano Model | | Barrel Length | | M91 Long Rifle | | 30.7" (78 cm) | | TS and Cavalry | | 17.7" to 19" (45-46 cm) | | M91/38 Short Rifle | | 21.18" (53.8 cm) | | M91/41 Long Rifle | | 27.24 (69.2 cm) |
Hawks seems to want the term "Short Rifle" to be used today instead of "carbine". However, at the end of the day, he's talking about TWO rifle classifications: those with a barrel length somewhat less than 24" are "Short Rifles" (nee "carbines") and those about 24" and over are "Rifles".
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 03, 2012, 06:10:26 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
No. I wasn't using a trick. I was only proving your statement to be 100% wrong.
Sadly for you, there is NO evidence in the 26 volumes showing LHO ordered a 40" Carcano and received at his Dallas P.O. Box as you and the WC claimed. You are the one uttering 100% incorrect statements on here.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 03, 2012, 06:14:37 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
I never said anyone was served OR charged, wacko. I WAS pointing out that a non governmental commission would not have that power. Would you have testified before the commission if requested???
Now he changes his tune! You made it sound like they used these powers so all the testimony had to be honest, but they never ENFORCED them despite having the ability to do so! Why is that?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
