When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?

[Michael T. Griffith]

WC apologists never mention the fact that the supposed lone gunman, Oswald, would have needed to fire about 10 rounds just to sight-in, or "zero," the weapon in order for it to fire accurately. Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant James Zahm, who was an instructor in marksmanship training, explained this to the WC:

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds. (11 H 308) 

And FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Commission how difficult it was to sight-in the Carcano rifle:

Mr. FRAZIER. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.

And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon in as far as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots. (3 H 405-406)

The FBI found that the rifle's scope was so clumsily attached and so unrelated to the weapon's line of fire that it could not be adjusted; indeed, metal shims had to be placed under the scope before the rifle's accuracy could even be tested.

Okay, so when and how would Oswald have been able to sight-in the alleged murder weapon before 12:30 on the day of the assassination?

[Tom Graves]

WC apologists never mention the fact that the supposed lone gunman, Oswald, would have needed to fire about 10 rounds just to sight-in, or "zero," the weapon in order for it to fire accurately. Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant James Zahm, who was an instructor in marksmanship training, explained this to the WC:

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds. (11 H 308) 

And FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Commission how difficult it was to sight-in the Carcano rifle:

Mr. FRAZIER. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.

And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon in as far as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots. (3 H 405-406)

WC apologists such Gerald Posner have resorted to arguing that Oswald may have used the rifle's iron sights. Why? Because the FBI found that the rifle's scope was so clumsily attached and so unrelated to the weapon's line of fire that it could not be adjusted; indeed, metal shims had to be placed under the scope before the rifle's accuracy could even be tested.

Okay, so when and how would Oswald have been able to sight-in the alleged murder weapon before 12:30 on the day of the assassination?

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Maybe you didn't know it, but in order to become a Marine (Oswald was a Marine) you have to hit a relatively small target that's 500 yards away from you several times by using only the iron sights that are built into the carbine.

In other words, Oswald probably didn't use the out-of-alignment scope when he shot at his relatively largish target that was, at most, 85 yards away.

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Maybe you didn't know it, but in order to become a Marine (Oswald was a Marine) you have to hit a relatively small target that's 500 yards away from you several times by using only the iron sights that are built into the carbine.

In other words, Oswald probably didn't use the out-of-alignment scope when he shot at his relatively largish target that was, at most, 85 yards away. -- Tom

Apparently, you don't know that the alleged murder weapon's iron sights would have had to be sighted-in as well, and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult. Posner apparently didn't know these things either when he floated the idea that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights.

MSG Zahm explained to the WC why using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat harder:

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)

And, BTW, what ammo would Oswald have used to sight-in the iron sights? Not a single bullet was found in his possessions. In addition, no gun-cleaning equipment, no gun-cleaning oil, no spent cartridges, no nothing related to maintaining or using a rifle was found among his possessions. Humm, how about that?

Moreover, despite an exhaustive canvassing of gun shops, the FBI was unable to find any evidence that Oswald purchased ammo or any gun-cleaning supplies for the rifle. Humm, how about that?

[Tom Graves]

[...]

You don't think a former Marine sharpshooter, firing Oswald's Carcano twice from the Sniper's Nest at 70 and 90 yards, could hit JFK with those two shots if he took five or six seconds to do so?

[Michael T. Griffith]

You don't think a former Marine sharpshooter, firing Oswald's Carcano twice from the Sniper's Nest at 70 and 90 yards, could hit JFK with those two shots if he took five or six seconds to do so?

HUH? I'm almost tempted to ask if this is a joke. How many times are you going to ignore the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, using the alleged murder weapon, were unable to do this, even though one of them took 8 seconds on his first set of shots and 7 seconds on his second set, and even though another took 6.75 seconds on his first set and 6.45 seconds on his second set, despite the fact that they were only firing from 30 feet up and were firing at stationary target boards?

I take it you're not going to address the fact not a single bullet or any gun-cleaning supplies and equipment were found among Oswald's possession, that the FBI found no evidence that Oswald ever bought ammo or gun-cleaning supplies, and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult? BTW, Miller's most inaccurate set of shots was the set he fired using the iron sights.

I just don't understand how you or anyone else can brush aside these facts and pretend that Oswald had the skill to perform the alleged shooting feat, when he clearly did not.

And I've explained to you before why it is quite misleading, not to mention inaccurate, to call Oswald a "Marine sharpshooter." But you just keep doing it.

[Charles Collins]

I suggest reading this thread:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4151.msg159173.html#msg159173

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG--

Enjoyed your post. But I think I disagree in some regards.

Just recently we have had one assassination--Charlie Kirk---and one very close call (Trump-Butler, missed by less than one inch) by what appears to amateur-lone nuts armed with off-the-shelf gear (in fact Kirk appears to have been shot with a gun his assassin's grandfather owned, a family heirloom).

JFK was moving, but more or less in a straight line from the TSBD6 sniper's nest and the Dal-Tex building.

Even if there were a second gunsel in the Dal-Tex building (I think that is possible), the Dal-Tex sniper also would  not have had the opportunity to sight-in his weapon in the immediate circumstance.

However, the distance at which JFK on 11/22 was shot was not especially great, perhaps 70 yards.

LHO was putting good clusters on silhouettes at 300 and 500 yards in 1956, with an M-1.

In light of the real-world recent assassination and near-miss assassination attempt...I wonder if too much is being made about the difficulty of the shots on 11/22.

The timing of the 11/22 shots...is another matter. Too rapid a sequence for a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.

Just IMHO, caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions.