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

[Benjamin Cole]

TG-

Right, Shaw was the "thoracic surgeon," and also someone who had worked on 700 gunshot victims during WWII.

Shaw in fact deferred to Gregory, and Gregory said the wrist-bullet had entered the "dorsal" side of JBC's wrist, pushing fibers inwards. 

Shaw said he thought it would make sense in the bullet had entered the ventral side of JBC's wrist, and questioned Gregory on this matter, but Gregory stuck to his analysis.

Shaw was open to the idea that another projectile had struck JBC's wrist.

Yes, I am open to the view there was more than on gunner on 11/22.

I would not say I believe in more one than one gunner, "beyond reasonable doubt." But then, I am just a wag in rural Thailand, and what I believe has all the importance of a fart in a typhoon.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

This is primo example of why discussions in this forum never go anywhere. They never go anywhere because you guys won't admit anything, and I mean anything, no matter how clear the facts are to a rational mind and even if the issue is not necessarily fatal to the lone-gunman theory.

-- I've pointed out the fact that even the Air Force still requires its personnel, new trainees and veterans alike, to zero their rifles before firing for qualification, as do the Army and the Marine Corps. I've pointed out that marksmanship manuals recommend zeroing before firing. I've pointed out that the FBI zeroed the alleged murder rifle before the WC's rifle test (gee, I wonder why).

Yet, you still argue that zeroing is no big deal and that a skilled, experienced rifleman will often skip zeroing even when accuracy is crucial.

-- I've pointed out that the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, though firing under much easier conditions than those that Oswald would have faced, utterly failed to duplicate his alleged shooting feat, and this is crucial because they were using the alleged murder weapon itself after its scope had been zeroed.

I've pointed out that out of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test, 10 of whom were highly skilled and experienced, only one--an expert and veteran gunman--managed to substantially duplicate Oswald's alleged feat by scoring two hits in under 6 seconds on his first attempt, and he was not required to fire through a half-open window and was allowed to fire nine practice shots right before the test, and his shots were counted as hits as long as they landed somewhere within the target silhouettes, even if they landed far outside the small area that Oswald allegedly hit.

Yet, you guys continue to claim that the alleged shooting feat would not have been very difficult, and that anyone who barely managed to qualify in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories would be skilled enough to perform the feat (never mind that some new recruits qualify in the second category even though they've never fired a rifle before in their lives, and never mind that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle when he fired at Marine Corps ranges and thus had no bolt action to work).

You don't want to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been abjectly impossible for someone with Oswald's rifle skills, and that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, even for a world-class rifleman.

[Lance Payette]

To Ben's point, I find that the most rational discussions of the Carcano are found on hunting and gun enthusiast sites. LOTS of people own Carcanos and like to play around with them. There is far less "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" stuff than we find in CT discussions. One example, more or less at random:

My neighbor gave me a rifle that belonged to his father. He knew nothing about it, never shot it, and it just sat in the back of the safe. I did a little research and determined it’s a 91/24 Carcano. It is possibly the worst rifle I’ve ever fired. From what I’ve read, the 91 Carcano initially had a 30 inch barrel. Later variants had shorter barrels. But the 91/24 was the result of re-arsenaling the original M91s. They cut the barrel down to 20 inches, but the first Carcanos had progressive rifling that increased the twist rate over the length of the barrel. The 10 inches of barrel they cut off left the rifle with a pitch that won’t stabilize the bullet. When I pulled the target I shot, I laughed my ass off. There are keyholed hits everywhere. But there’s still one in the X ring. It’s sideways, but it’s there.

I can't reproduce his target for some reason, but there were also three shots in the 10 ring and others in the 9 ring.

The CT assumption always seems to be that the head shot was some fabulous, precise shot. As the gun sites point out, Oswald could have been aiming for the middle of the back for all we know.

I also can't get past my own experience. My father-in-law was an old cowpoke with a ranch on which we lived. He didn't even CLEAN his arsenal, teasing me because I did: "I just let each bullet clean up after the one before it." We had a makeshift shooting range with old refrigerators, washing machines and whatnot. With my own WWII Mauser and Remington 30.06, and my father-in-law's .308 - none of which, I guarantee you, had been zeroed-in in years, if ever - I never had an experience that caused me to say, "Holy cow, that missed the entire refrigerator - is there something wrong with this gun?" I thought my Mauser with iron sites was wonderful, and for all I know it hadn't been touched since WWII. Yes, this wasn't precision target practice, but neither was the JFKA.

My sense is that the "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" argument is just another CT red herring.

[Charles Collins]

This is primo example of why discussions in this forum never go anywhere. They never go anywhere because you guys won't admit anything, and I mean anything, no matter how clear the facts are to a rational mind and even if the issue is not necessarily fatal to the lone-gunman theory.

-- I've pointed out the fact that even the Air Force still requires its personnel, new trainees and veterans alike, to zero their rifles before firing for qualification, as do the Army and the Marine Corps. I've pointed out that marksmanship manuals recommend zeroing before firing. I've pointed out that the FBI zeroed the alleged murder rifle before the WC's rifle test (gee, I wonder why).

Yet, you still argue that zeroing is no big deal and that a skilled, experienced rifleman will often skip zeroing even when accuracy is crucial.

-- I've pointed out that the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, though firing under much easier conditions than those that Oswald would have faced, utterly failed to duplicate his alleged shooting feat, and this is crucial because they were using the alleged murder weapon itself after its scope had been zeroed.

I've pointed out that out of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test, 10 of whom were highly skilled and experienced, only one--an expert and veteran gunman--managed to substantially duplicate Oswald's alleged feat by scoring two hits in under 6 seconds on his first attempt, and he was not required to fire through a half-open window and was allowed to fire nine practice shots right before the test, and his shots were counted as hits as long as they landed somewhere within the target silhouettes, even if they landed far outside the small area that Oswald allegedly hit.

Yet, you guys continue to claim that the alleged shooting feat would not have been very difficult, and that anyone who barely managed to qualify in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories would be skilled enough to perform the feat (never mind that some new recruits qualify in the second category even though they've never fired a rifle before in their lives, and never mind that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle when he fired at Marine Corps ranges and thus had no bolt action to work).

You don't want to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been abjectly impossible for someone with Oswald's rifle skills, and that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, even for a world-class rifleman.

I've pointed out the fact that even the Air Force still requires its personnel, new trainees and veterans alike, to zero their rifles before firing for qualification, as do the Army and the Marine Corps. I've pointed out that marksmanship manuals recommend zeroing before firing. I've pointed out that the FBI zeroed the alleged murder rifle before the WC's rifle test (gee, I wonder why).


So far I haven’t heard back from my old classmates regarding USAF basic training in 1973. So, here is the results from a simple Google search:


In 1973, the USAF basic training rifle range training did not include zeroing-in rifles for recruits. Due to the drawdown of the Vietnam War and ammunition shortages, the training was reduced to "weapons familiarization" with minimal live firing. A former recruit who went through Lackland AFB in late 1973 confirmed that trainees received M-16 rifle instruction but did not do any range qualification.

https://www.google.com/search?q=In+1973%2C+did+the+USAF+basic+training+rifle+range+training+include+zeroing-in+the+rifles%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari


Although I was readily willing to admit that my memory could have been faulty regarding this, apparently, my memory was accurate. We did some minimal shooting (and it was scored) in early 1973. Apparently, according to Google AI, by the later part of 1973, they didn’t even do any shooting.


I've pointed out that the FBI zeroed the alleged murder rifle before the WC's rifle test (gee, I wonder why).

Going from memory only (yes it could be faulty) the FBI first shot the rifle as they received it. Then afterwards they took it to a range with greater distance to the targets and attempted to zero it.



Yet, you still argue that zeroing is no big deal and that a skilled, experienced rifleman will often skip zeroing even when accuracy is crucial.

Precision shooting (especially at long distances) typically requires zeroing if one wants to consistently shoot accurately (as close to the point of aim as possible). The shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 were neither long distance or required accuracy better than about 7.2 MOA. There is no doubt in my mind that LHO was a much better marksman than I am. I easily achieved better accuracy than 7.2 MOA picking up five different rifles that hadn’t been zeroed-in in many months, using at random picked ammo, and scoring the first three shots with each rifle. Now I think that LHO would have preferred to have had the opportunity to zero-in his rifle and practice with it. But the evidence suggests that he simply did not have an opportunity to do that.



I've pointed out that the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, though firing under much easier conditions than those that Oswald would have faced, utterly failed to duplicate his alleged shooting feat, and this is crucial because they were using the alleged murder weapon itself after its scope had been zeroed.

And I have pointed out that none of them had practiced dry-firing the rifle in the same manner that LHO reportedly did in New Orleans on his screened porch. Nor have any of them been deemed to have very fast reflexes like Robert Oswald said LHO had. And finally, I think that there was an early (missed and perhaps inadvertent) shot. So the “alleged shooting feat” is incorrect in my opinion due to the wrong assumption that three shots were fired in such a short time period.



Yet, you guys continue to claim that the alleged shooting feat would not have been very difficult, and that anyone who barely managed to qualify in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories would be skilled enough to perform the feat (never mind that some new recruits qualify in the second category even though they've never fired a rifle before in their lives, and never mind that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle when he fired at Marine Corps ranges and thus had no bolt action to work).

The rifle training that USMC recruits receive is superb. They and their fellow marines lives could depend on each other’s abilities with their rifles. Whether or not some of them had never before fired a rifle is irrelevant. It is the skills acquired during training that matters. Any marine has to be able to shoot well or else they do not graduate basic training and are released from being in the marines.



You don't want to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been abjectly impossible for someone with Oswald's rifle skills, and that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, even for a world-class rifleman.

If this were true, then I would readily admit it. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. Anyone who has followed my posts here on this forum has probably seen me admit when I was wrong. You can go on forever believing (deluding yourself in my opinion) whatever you wish. To steal a line from a movie, it don’t make no never-mind to me.

[Charles Collins]

To Ben's point, I find that the most rational discussions of the Carcano are found on hunting and gun enthusiast sites. LOTS of people own Carcanos and like to play around with them. There is far less "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" stuff than we find in CT discussions. One example, more or less at random:

My neighbor gave me a rifle that belonged to his father. He knew nothing about it, never shot it, and it just sat in the back of the safe. I did a little research and determined it’s a 91/24 Carcano. It is possibly the worst rifle I’ve ever fired. From what I’ve read, the 91 Carcano initially had a 30 inch barrel. Later variants had shorter barrels. But the 91/24 was the result of re-arsenaling the original M91s. They cut the barrel down to 20 inches, but the first Carcanos had progressive rifling that increased the twist rate over the length of the barrel. The 10 inches of barrel they cut off left the rifle with a pitch that won’t stabilize the bullet. When I pulled the target I shot, I laughed my ass off. There are keyholed hits everywhere. But there’s still one in the X ring. It’s sideways, but it’s there.

I can't reproduce his target for some reason, but there were also three shots in the 10 ring and others in the 9 ring.

The CT assumption always seems to be that the head shot was some fabulous, precise shot. As the gun sites point out, Oswald could have been aiming for the middle of the back for all we know.

I also can't get past my own experience. My father-in-law was an old cowpoke with a ranch on which we lived. He didn't even CLEAN his arsenal, teasing me because I did: "I just let each bullet clean up after the one before it." We had a makeshift shooting range with old refrigerators, washing machines and whatnot. With my own WWII Mauser and Remington 30.06, and my father-in-law's .308 - none of which, I guarantee you, had been zeroed-in in years, if ever - I never had an experience that caused me to say, "Holy cow, that missed the entire refrigerator - is there something wrong with this gun?" I thought my Mauser with iron sites was wonderful, and for all I know it hadn't been touched since WWII. Yes, this wasn't precision target practice, but neither was the JFKA.

My sense is that the "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" argument is just another CT red herring.

Yes, this wasn't precision target practice, but neither was the JFKA.


That’s exactly right! If you want to learn all about true precision long-distance shooting I can recommend a book titled “Sight Alignment Trigger Control & The Big Lie” by M/Sgt Jim Owens, USMC (Ret.)

[Lance Payette]

What I'm not fathoming is: Oswald had owned the rifle some eight months, certainly fiddled with it, perhaps actually practiced with it, and took a shot at Walker that missed only because it nicked a window frame. Is there any reason to suppose it was wildly out of alignment when he carefully packaged it (as described by Michael Paine) and it sat in the Paine garage? Assuming there were three shots, the first missed everything for some reason. The second hit JFK in the right shoulder. The head shot was how far from the second shot - 10", a foot maybe? Isn't this a pretty good fit with my theory that the JFKA was a last-minute, what-the-hell operation and that he simply trusted the rifle as it was? What's the big deal about zeroing in? If he'd had a fully zeroed-in scoped rifle, would the shot pattern have looked like it did? Isn't this all just based on the head shot supposedly being some "impossibly precise" shot when it may have been nothing but dumb luck and the other shots don't suggest "impossible precision" at all?

If we assume he was actually trying to hit the head, isn't what we see a typical on-the-fly adjustment? "Oops, a little low and to the right. Bingo, got him. No need for another shot. I'm outta here."