Did Oswalds rifle scope ever have shims?

[Richard Smith]

Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.

Please post verification that Lee Oswald was even introduced to a scope mounted rifle while in the USMC..... The USMC never trained it's recruits to use rifles with telescopic sights....so how would Lee have known how to compensate for a misaligned scope?    A person can compensate for a slight misalignment of a telescopic sight when firing at a fixed target....But not even an expert could  fire a rifle with a misaligned sight at a MOVING  target that was behind a tree 50 yards away.

Please keep presenting your absurd ideas..... Many of us need a good belly laugh...

I keep forgetting that the intellectual capabilities of forum members ranges widely with some on the lower end of the scale.  Here's how you do it.  Take notes if necessary.  You fire at a target.  Notice that it fires a bit high.  Next time you aim a bit lower to compensate.  Not rocket science.  JFK was not behind a tree when he was shot.  LOL.  Although he was "moving" he was doing so at a very slow rate of speed.  Charles Whitman, who received similar USMC training during a similar timeframe as Oswald, hit moving human targets at distances three times that of Oswald. 

[Richard Smith]

Being low and off the chart yourself why would you bring up the subject?

Um, I don't see Oswald's notes in evidence.

At what range?

You forgot the horisontal offset, genius.

You worked that out yourself?

False equivalence.

False equivalence.  LOL.  I thought you objected to fancy words?  HA HA HA.  No wonder since you misapplied it here.  Charles Whitman was trained in the USMC around the same time as Oswald.  He received similar training on how to use a rifle.  He hit moving targets at three times the distance of Oswald.  And it was Walt who suggested that JFK was behind a tree when he was shot.  Take it up with him.

[Walt Cakebread]

The world’s best authority on the Carcano is (was?) Dave Emary

In the following article:

https://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html

he states that:

“I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of his enemy for ranges out to 220 - 230 meters. How much more simple and effective could it have been made.”

Dave Emary believes the fixed sights of the Carcano are good to use, even easy to use, even under very stressful situations.

Question:

Why should I trust you opinion about the Carcano more than that of Dave Emary?

I'd suggest that you actually try to use he iron sights of the carcano....Personally, I find them difficult to use to fire the rifle accurately.     But I was trained to use the peep & blade sights of the M-1 Garand.    Thers no doubt that the peep & blade sights are far superior to the open V notch of the carcano.    Sure, the carcano sights are effective ....but in a shooting contest, the Peep & blade are far and away superior. ( the peep sights score far more "bullseyes" than the V notch sights, with the rifles in the hands of the same shooter. )

[Joe Elliott]

You forgot the horisontal offset, genius.

I know this was not directed toward me, but I have calculated the horizontal offset. Although I have not calculated the horisontal offset, whatever that is. 😊

******************************************************************************************

In any case, the approximate horizontal offset for the three shots were:

First shot:   z153:   4.6 inches   miss to the left
Second shot:   z222:   3.0 inches   miss to the left
Third shot:   z312:   0.7 inches   miss to the left

All three shots would miss, in theory, to the left, due to the motion of the limousine.

******************************************************************************************

The approximate vertical offset for the three shots were:

First shot:   z153:   0.8 inches    miss low
Second shot:   z222:   1.5 inches   miss low
Third shot:   z312:   1.7 inches   miss high

This takes into account both the motion of the limousine and the iron sights being zero-sighted at 200 meters.

******************************************************************************************

The approximate angular speed for the three shots were:

First shot:   z153:   4.8 degrees per second
Second shot:   z222:   1.9 degrees per second
Third shot:   z312:   0.6 degrees per second

Note, this vertical offset takes into account both

******************************************************************************************

The shots would, in theory, get easier and easier for Oswald, primarily due to the angular speed of the target getting smaller and smaller, from 4.8 to 1.9 to 0.6 degrees per second for the three shots. This matches well with Oswald missing the center of the head by over 60 inches, then 8 inches, then 2 inches, for the three shots.

And the iron sights being set to 200 meters allows all three shots to be, vertically, hitting within two inches of the center of the head, if the sights were lined up on the center of the head when the shot was fired.

If the iron sights could have been adjusted between shots (impossible even with adjustable sights in the time allowed) for a range of 43, 63 and 88 yards, the shots would have all missed low by 4.6, 6.1 and 3.7 inches.

All in all, Oswald was, unfortunately, well served having a rifle with fixed sights set to 200 meters, for this particular target.

[Richard Smith]

So how wonky was Whitman's scope?

This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK.  However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination.  His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped).  The authorities actually removed the scope to search for prints before testing the rifle.  So it is impossible to say whether Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used it to assassinate JFK and, for similar reasons, impossible to compare to any other situation.  What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle.  Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.

[John Iacoletti]

I know this was not directed toward me, but I have calculated the horizontal offset. Although I have not calculated the horisontal offset, whatever that is. 😊

If you’re going to be pedantic, you should at least be aware that not everybody around the world uses American spellings.

[Walt Cakebread]

I keep forgetting that the intellectual capabilities of forum members ranges widely with some on the lower end of the scale.  Here's how you do it.  Take notes if necessary.  You fire at a target.  Notice that it fires a bit high.  Next time you aim a bit lower to compensate.  Not rocket science.  JFK was not behind a tree when he was shot.  LOL.  Although he was "moving" he was doing so at a very slow rate of speed.  Charles Whitman, who received similar USMC training during a similar timeframe as Oswald, hit moving human targets at distances three times that of Oswald.

 You fire at a target.  Notice that it fires a bit high.  Next time you aim a bit lower to compensate.

Wow!...  That's all there is to it?.....   You know with just one shot that it was a misalignment of the sights that caused the bullet to strike high?    So you fire a bit lower at the target on the second shot....   

How did you know that it wasn't for some other reason ( there are many) that the first round struck high?   
I tell ya, Mr "Smith" yer a genius!.....