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

[Charles Collins]

It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.

No, this argument is completely unreasonable. One, there's no credible evidence that Oswald fired at Walker. Two, the gunman who fired at Walker somehow managed to miss him even though he was firing from a level and supported position and was firing at a large person who was sitting down. Three, the best eyewitness said neither of the men he saw leaving the Walker scene resembled Oswald. Four, Walker himself insisted that the bullet recovered from his house was not a 6.5 copper-jacketed bullet. Five, before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said that she never heard Oswald say anything about target practice and never even saw him holding a rifle.

You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even know basic stuff. In fact, you don't even know your own side's talking points.

The Warren Commission rejected all of the Oswald target-practice sightings, including the Sports Drome sightings, as "mistaken" because they claimed Oswald was known to be elsewhere and/or that there was inconsistency in the accounts. Have you not read the Warren Report? Gerald Posner makes the same argument. Have you not read Case Closed?

Following the WC's lead, your fellow WC apologists use the tactic of lumping in the Woods' accounts with all the others and then dismissing them as "mistaken." They also rely on FBI interviews where certain witnesses supposedly changed their stories or gave contradictory descriptions of the man, ignoring the numerous times when the FBI misrepresented what witnesses told them.

"Almost certainly bogus"? Oh, really? That's not what you said in your OP for your thread on the Sports Drome sightings. You first said that the sightings were reported by witnesses who seemed  sincere and believable and who were interviewed by journalists who did not appear to have an agenda.

And you again ignore the fact that Oswald was known to be at his daughter's birthday party at the same time the Woods saw the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome range, that the Woods were solid and credible people (the father was a dentist), and that both Dr. Wood and his son independently positively the man at the range as Oswald when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.

You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? When you started that thread, you clearly did not realize that you were talking about Oswald sightings (reported by witnesses you said were sincere and believable) that occurred at times when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere.

And when I pointed out this fact, you began royally back-pedaling, bobbing, and weaving, rather than just admit you'd blundered.

Oh, boy. Well, you'll forgive me if I just don't believe you. Anyone who knows anything about rifles--and I spent 21 years in the Army firing rifles--will tell you that relying on "mechanical zero," i.e., not sighting-in your rifle, especially if it has been a long time since it was previously fired, is risky and unwise.

Furthermore, go read MSG Zahm's WC testimony about sighting-in the supposed Oswald Carcano. It was of such poor quality that it took 10 rounds to zero it. And even then, when Master-rated rifleman Miller fired three shots with the iron sights, they were his most inaccurate shots.

It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.

First I want to thank you for your service in the US Army.      Second, I also trained with an M-16 while in the USAF basic training. In 1973 USAF basic training entailed (in additional to classroom instructions) actual shooting at the rifle range. It was a one day affair. If I remember correctly, there was absolutely no adjustments made or needed on the sights by anyone. I scored above average that day.

Your assumption that the reason you went to the “zero range” to sight-in/zero your rifles was “because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings” is not correct. The actual reasons have to do with variable wind conditions, different distances to the targets, and to teach the soldiers how to properly zero-in their rifles and (once they are taught how to do this) to keep them proficient at it. And generally speaking, if the opportunity to zero-in a rifle is feasible, it is good practice to do that. However completely unnecessary for the short distances and relatively large target size in Dealey Plaza.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.

First I want to thank you for your service in the US Army.      Second, I also trained with an M-16 while in the USAF basic training. In 1973 USAF basic training entailed (in additional to classroom instructions) actual shooting at the rifle range. It was a one day affair. If I remember correctly, there was absolutely no adjustments made or needed on the sights by anyone. I scored above average that day.

Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.

Since I was in intelligence, I spent about 1/4 of my 21-year Army career on Air Forces bases and firing at Air Force qualification ranges (Hellenikon Air Force Base in Athens, Greece, and Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas). Our Air Force counterparts were always required to zero their rifles before firing for qualification--it was part of their mandatory Combat Arms Training and Maintenance (CATM) course that they had to complete before they could fire for qualification. So you'll forgive me for doubting your alleged memory that you were not required to zero your rifle before firing for qualification.

I might add that Air Force rifle qualification standards have always been lower/easier than those in the Army and the Marine Corps, since the vast majority of Air Force personnel will never fire a rifle in wartime. Even in the 1960s, as today, the Air Force did not have the three qualification categories used by the Army and the Marines. The Air Force revamped its rifle qualification standards in 2011, but they are still easier than those of the Army and the Marines.

Your assumption that the reason you went to the “zero range” to sight-in/zero your rifles was “because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings” is not correct. The actual reasons have to do with variable wind conditions, different distances to the targets, and to teach the soldiers how to properly zero-in their rifles and (once they are taught how to do this) to keep them proficient at it. And generally speaking, if the opportunity to zero-in a rifle is feasible, it is good practice to do that.

This is a load of nonsense mixed in with a one ancillary fact. Yes, basic trainees go to the zero range to learn how to zero their rifles, but in later years they will still zero their rifles before firing for qualification, even though the targets and distances are always the same. Zeroing ensures that the point of aim is the same as the point of impact.

"Variable wind conditions" are a minimal factor at military rifle ranges. A number of military rifle ranges are indoors, where windage is a non-factor, and windage is rarely a factor at outdoor military rifle ranges due to their location and construction.

One can always gamble on mechanical zero when using the iron sights, but any experienced rifleman will tell you this is unwise and risky.

You can check any rifle or marksmanship manual, and it will tell you that you should zero your rifle after mounting new optics, after changing ammunition, or after any significant event, such as a substantive jolt or dropping the rifle or accidentally banging it against something, which can happen when the rifle is handled, transported, cleaned, and stored in between firings.

You shouldn't try to bluff your way through discussions on rifles with your minimal Air Force experience, especially not with Army and Marine Corps veterans.

However completely unnecessary for the short distances and relatively large target size in Dealey Plaza.

More nonsense. One, no competent gunman would risk not zeroing the rifle, especially if he were going to use a scope, before using it in an assassination. Two, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting feat while firing at those "short distances" and "relatively large" targets. It is amazing that you guys keep ignoring the WC and CBS rifle tests.

I'm guessing you still haven't read Zahm and Frazier's WC testimony about sighting-in the alleged murder weapon's scope. Here's some of what Frazier said on the matter:

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
(3 H 405-406)

And it's worth repeating (1) that MSG Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult, and (2) that when Miller used the iron sights, he fired his most inaccurate shots.

[Charles Collins]

Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.

Since I was in intelligence, I spent about 1/4 of my 21-year Army career on Air Forces bases and firing at Air Force qualification ranges (Hellenikon Air Force Base in Athens, Greece, and Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas). Our Air Force counterparts were always required to zero their rifles before firing for qualification--it was part of their mandatory Combat Arms Training and Maintenance (CATM) course that they had to complete before they could fire for qualification. So you'll forgive me for doubting your alleged memory that you were not required to zero your rifle before firing for qualification.

I might add that Air Force rifle qualification standards have always been lower/easier than those in the Army and the Marine Corps, since the vast majority of Air Force personnel will never fire a rifle in wartime. Even in the 1960s, as today, the Air Force did not have the three qualification categories used by the Army and the Marines. The Air Force revamped its rifle qualification standards in 2011, but they are still easier than those of the Army and the Marines.
 

This is a load of nonsense mixed in with a one ancillary fact. Yes, basic trainees go to the zero range to learn how to zero their rifles, but in later years they will still zero their rifles before firing for qualification, even though the targets and distances are always the same. Zeroing ensures that the point of aim is the same as the point of impact.

"Variable wind conditions" are a minimal factor at military rifle ranges. A number of military rifle ranges are indoors, where windage is a non-factor, and windage is rarely a factor at outdoor military rifle ranges due to their location and construction.

One can always gamble on mechanical zero when using the iron sights, but any experienced rifleman will tell you this is unwise and risky.

You can check any rifle or marksmanship manual, and it will tell you that you should zero your rifle after mounting new optics, after changing ammunition, or after any significant event, such as a substantive jolt or dropping the rifle or accidentally banging it against something, which can happen when the rifle is handled, transported, cleaned, and stored in between firings.

You shouldn't try to bluff your way through discussions on rifles with your minimal Air Force experience, especially not with Army and Marine Corps veterans.

More nonsense. One, no competent gunman would risk not zeroing the rifle, especially if he were going to use a scope, before using it in an assassination. Two, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting feat while firing at those "short distances" and "relatively large" targets. It is amazing that you guys keep ignoring the WC and CBS rifle tests.

I'm guessing you still haven't read Zahm and Frazier's WC testimony about sighting-in the alleged murder weapon's scope. Here's some of what Frazier said on the matter:

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
(3 H 405-406)

And it's worth repeating (1) that MSG Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult, and (2) that when Miller used the iron sights, he fired his most inaccurate shots.

Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.

My memory could very well be at fault. I am still in contact with some high school classmates who went through USAF basic training very close to the same time I did. I am waiting to see what they might remember.

As far as scopes go, I currently have 11 rifles, seven of them have scopes. I can test four of them in my basement gun range. It is approximately 44-feet (14.7-yards) distance to the targets. If we designate a human head (average ~ 6.5” wide) as the target, that would be 6.5 MOA at 100-yards. This would calculate to a little over 7 MOA at the longest shot distance in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And, if my math is correct, this 7 MOA would calculate to a target size of approximately 0.978” at 44-feet. On the NRA 10-meter air rifle targets this equals approximately anything within the 5-ring or better.

I did this exercise this morning just to satisfy myself. I have no doubts that you will go on believing whatever you wish to believe no matter what the actual evidence indicates. However you are welcome to visit us and I will demonstrate this again while you are watching. I started at one end of the gun rack and worked my way around to the other end. I picked up each rifle and shot three shots with each one. Before I shot I reduced the magnification of each scope to 4X with the exception of the first one which only goes as low as 8X. No other adjustments were made on the scopes or rifles. I have been busy with other projects and so I have not zeroed in or even picked up any of these rifles’ sights in many months. All of these rifles and their scopes were set up and adjusted by me, myself, and I long ago.

Below please see the first target. The gun is a Barra 250Z pellet gun. It is a relatively inexpensive gun compared to the top end competition rifles available. Three shots made one ragged hole. All three shots are within the target (5-ring or better). Now if I were shooting competitively, I would adjust the zero to try to hit the aim point of the center dot in the target. However it should be clear to anyone that sees this that it is close enough to hit the target in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.




Below is the second target. The rifle is a Benjamin Marauder pellet gun. Three shots made two holes, the one on the right is two overlapping holes. All three shots are well within the 5-ring.




Below is the third target. The rifle is a Crossman 3622 which is an entry level inexpensive pellet rifle. Three shots made three overlapping holes. All three shots touch or are within the 5-ring.





Below is the fourth target. The rifle is an Umarex Notos which is another inexpensive pellet rifle. Three shots made one oval shaped hole. All three shots are well within the five-ring.




For kicks and giggles I also took three shots with a Crossman Challenger rifle. These rifles are used by youth groups such as ROTC, 4-H, etc for competition. They are still relatively inexpensive (by specification of the groups involved). It has precision sights that are not magnified. Below is the target. Three shots made two holes, the one on the right is oval shaped. All three shots touched the 9-ring, with one touching the 10-dot.



There were no practice or sight-in shots taken with any of these rifles. The ammunition was different for each gun. Each different tin of pellets was chosen at random and was probably not the same ammo that was used for zeroing-in the rifles many months ago.

[Charles Collins]

Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.

Since I was in intelligence, I spent about 1/4 of my 21-year Army career on Air Forces bases and firing at Air Force qualification ranges (Hellenikon Air Force Base in Athens, Greece, and Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas). Our Air Force counterparts were always required to zero their rifles before firing for qualification--it was part of their mandatory Combat Arms Training and Maintenance (CATM) course that they had to complete before they could fire for qualification. So you'll forgive me for doubting your alleged memory that you were not required to zero your rifle before firing for qualification.

I might add that Air Force rifle qualification standards have always been lower/easier than those in the Army and the Marine Corps, since the vast majority of Air Force personnel will never fire a rifle in wartime. Even in the 1960s, as today, the Air Force did not have the three qualification categories used by the Army and the Marines. The Air Force revamped its rifle qualification standards in 2011, but they are still easier than those of the Army and the Marines.
 

This is a load of nonsense mixed in with a one ancillary fact. Yes, basic trainees go to the zero range to learn how to zero their rifles, but in later years they will still zero their rifles before firing for qualification, even though the targets and distances are always the same. Zeroing ensures that the point of aim is the same as the point of impact.

"Variable wind conditions" are a minimal factor at military rifle ranges. A number of military rifle ranges are indoors, where windage is a non-factor, and windage is rarely a factor at outdoor military rifle ranges due to their location and construction.

One can always gamble on mechanical zero when using the iron sights, but any experienced rifleman will tell you this is unwise and risky.

You can check any rifle or marksmanship manual, and it will tell you that you should zero your rifle after mounting new optics, after changing ammunition, or after any significant event, such as a substantive jolt or dropping the rifle or accidentally banging it against something, which can happen when the rifle is handled, transported, cleaned, and stored in between firings.

You shouldn't try to bluff your way through discussions on rifles with your minimal Air Force experience, especially not with Army and Marine Corps veterans.

More nonsense. One, no competent gunman would risk not zeroing the rifle, especially if he were going to use a scope, before using it in an assassination. Two, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting feat while firing at those "short distances" and "relatively large" targets. It is amazing that you guys keep ignoring the WC and CBS rifle tests.

I'm guessing you still haven't read Zahm and Frazier's WC testimony about sighting-in the alleged murder weapon's scope. Here's some of what Frazier said on the matter:

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
(3 H 405-406)

And it's worth repeating (1) that MSG Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult, and (2) that when Miller used the iron sights, he fired his most inaccurate shots.

The issues Frazier encountered trying to zero the scope at 100-yards are quite common whenever most any scope’s reticle tube is adjusted too far away from the action of the spring’s tension. Frazier’s basic generic diagram and his testimony explain why these problems happened. As I demonstrated in my exercise this morning, close enough to hit within 6.5 MOA of the point of aim is all that is needed for the JFK assassination shots.

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG--

We just had two horrible events---the Kirk assassination, and the Trump near-miss (Butler)---by amateur gunners, with off the shelf rifles, at way longer shots than seen in DP. No zeroing in.

Kirk was a one-shot affair.

Trump turned just before being shot, and was missed by a whisker (clipped his ear).

LHO's M-C rifle was designed to be good to 200 yards, military specs. It was good enough at 70 yards.

LHO was familiar with firearms, served in the Marines (excellent shot in 1956), had a rifle in the Soviet Union, always owned guns. It is unclear whether LHO practiced shooting at Dallas' Sportsdrome, or possibly in Mexico City, or somewhere else.

But to repeat, unpracticed amateurs executed Kirk, and nearly Trump.

In fact, I am unsure whether LHO fired lethally at JFK on 11/22. He is the best suspect as the TSBD6 sniper.

The Western Cartridge slug Paul Landis found in the limo strongly suggests an M-C rifle was used in the JFKA.

None of this rules out a conspiracy, or the use of a second rifle, and there is also the GK smoke-and-bang show, suggesting yet another conspirator.

But I think the JFKA research community goes too far, stretches the narrative and evidence, in trying to exonerate LHO.

[Tom Graves]

LHO's M-C rifle was designed to be good to 200 yards, military specs. It was good enough at 70 yards.

LHO was familiar with firearms, served in the Marines (excellent shot in 1956), had a rifle in the Soviet Union, always owned guns. It is unclear whether LHO practiced shooting at Dallas' Sportsdrome, or possibly in Mexico City, or somewhere else.

But to repeat, unpracticed amateurs executed Kirk, and nearly Trump.

In fact, I am unsure whether LHO fired lethally at JFK on 11/22. He is the best suspect as the TSBD6 sniper.

The Western Cartridge slug Paul Landis found in the limo strongly suggests an M-C rifle was used in the JFKA.

None of this rules out a conspiracy, or the use of a second rifle, and there is also the GK smoke-and-bang show, suggesting yet another conspirator.

But I think the JFKA research community goes too far, stretches the narrative and evidence, in trying to exonerate LHO.

How did the bullet (CE-399) that that penetrated JBC's thigh end up on top of the back seat where Cellar-dweller Landis allegedly found it?

By saying, "I think the JFKA research community goes too far, stretches the narrative and evidence, in trying to exonerate LHO," you're admitting that the goal of most of the "JFKA Research Community" is to exonerate Oswald.

[Benjamin Cole]

TG-

Yes, I agree, in much of the JFKA research community the ideology drive the agenda, and the agenda writes the narrative.

The left-wing narrative is that high powers in the citadels of enterprise and government had JFK assassinated to pursue endless global wars. LHO was only a patsy. The anti-Semitic crackpots add Mossad into the mix.

My best guess is LHO was involved in the JFKA, and likely the visible TSBD6 sniper, though no solid ID was made.

On the bullet that Landis said he found in the limo...I have provided the same-day 11/22 FBI memo that that says a Secret Service agent found a slug in the limo.

Frankly, I don't understand the nature of Gov. JBC's injuries. We know he was shot in the back. JBC's surgeon (Shaw) was of the view that JBC's wrist bullet wound entry, to the "dorsal" or wristwatch side on the wrist, was unlikely to have resulted from a bullet passing through JBC's chest.

I am open to the idea there was more than one shooter on 11/22.

But as I always say, thanks for the collegial comments, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

[Tom Graves]

We know JBC was shot in the back. His surgeon (Shaw) was of the view that JBC's wrist bullet wound entry, to the "dorsal" or wristwatch side on the wrist, was unlikely to have resulted from a bullet passing through JBC's chest.

Shaw was JBC's thoracic surgeon.

What did his wrist surgeon (Gregory) say about it?

IIRC, he said the bullet had penetrated JBC's coat sleeve near his wrist kinda rear-end-first and carried some fibers from same into the wound.

"I am open to the idea there was more than one shooter on 11/22."

LOL!

It sounds as though you've already made up your mind.