Practice, Practice, Practice

[Charles Collins]

To help people understand how LHO might have been able to fire three shots in such a short period of time with enough accuracy, I think that practice with the Carcano rifle was a huge factor. Below, we can see that Marina testified that LHO practiced often with the rifle on the screened porch in New Orleans. The porch had a limited field of view of the street due being recessed between the houses on each side. Therefore, I firmly believe that LHO's practice would have necessarily been to acquire a moving target in his sights and (dry) fire quickly (before it disappeared behind the house on the leaving side of the porch). Even though LHO had no way of knowing this ahead of time, I cannot think of a better way to practice for the challenges that were presented to him on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza.


Mr. Rankin. From what you observed about his having the rifle on the back porch, in the dark, could you tell whether or not he was trying to practice with the telescopic lens?

 Mrs. Oswald. Yes. I asked him why. But this time he was preparing to go to Cuba.
 
Mr. Rankin. That was his explanation for practicing with the rifle?

Mrs. Oswald. Yes. He said that he would go to Cuba. I told him I was not going with him—that I would stay here.

Mr. Rankin. On these occasions when he was practicing with the rifle, would they be three or four times a week in the evening, after the Fair Play for Cuba incident?
 
Mrs. Oswald. Almost every evening. He very much wanted to go to Cuba and have the newspapers write that somebody had kidnaped an aircraft. And I asked him "For God sakes, don't do such a thing.



So, just how important was this practice? I think that it was extremely important. It allowed LHO to acquire a feel for operating the bolt very quickly. It also allowed LHO to develop the skills necessary for quickly acquiring the target in the sights. It also allowed LHO to develop a feel for the trigger.

If you want to see what practice can do for speed shooting, watch some videos (online) of (air gun) speed silhouette shooting competitions. The winner of this year's speed silhouette competition in the Extreme Benchrest event in Arizona:  Lauren Parsons, posted a fantastic time of just 17.74 seconds to clear the 25-target course, using a Daystate Delta Wolf. Yes, that’s an incredible 0.7 seconds per target!

https://hardairmagazine.com/news/more-extreme-benchrest-2025-moments/

[Tom Graves]

To help people understand how LHO might have been able to fire three shots in such a short period of time with enough accuracy, I think that practice with the Carcano rifle was a huge factor.

10.2 seconds is a short period of time for firing three rounds?

[Benjamin Cole]

This guy fires six shots in 5.1 seconds, using a Mannlicher Carcano.

Even seems to be aiming, though at a still target.

Worth watching, short vid.

Could we have been underestimating LHO?

[Charles Collins]

10.2 seconds is a short period of time for firing three rounds?

Not with enough practice with the actual rifle. Plus many folks believe the shots were fired much faster than 10.2 seconds.

[Charles Collins]

This guy fires six shots in 5.1 seconds, using a Mannlicher Carcano.

Even seems to be aiming, though at a still target.

Worth watching, short vid.

Could we have been underestimating LHO?

They were discussing the 100-yard targets in the following testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG - How much practice had you had with the rifle before the last series of four targets were shot by you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in addition had operated the bolt repeatedly.
Mr. EISENBERG - Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with this weapon--materially shorten the time in which three shots could be accurately fired?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; very definitely.
Mr. EISENBERG - Would practice without actually firing the weapon be helpful--that is, a dry-run practice?
Mr. FRAZIER - That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action weapon, where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area to the bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG - Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think three shots could be fired accurately within 5 1/2 seconds if no rest was utilized?
Mr. FRAZIER - That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary or needed-or which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in that length of time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or 4-inch circle without either resting or possibly using the sling as a support--I doubt that you could accomplish that.


Could we have been underestimating LHO?

Some people who are biased will never, ever admit it. But the evidence suggests they are.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another lone-gunman theorist exercise in self-delusion, misrepresentation, and omission of contrary facts.

Notice there's not one word about the WC's rifle test, which used the alleged murder weapon itself, or the 1967 CBS rifle test. In the WC's test, three Master-rated riflemen utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were not required to fire through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

BTW, here's what WC staffer Wesley Liebeler said about Oswald's alleged "practice" and the alleged shooting feat in internal WC memos in which Liebeler critiqued the draft of the Warren Report (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

I do not see how someone can conclude that a shot is easy or hard unless he knows something about how long the firer has to shoot, that is, how much time allotted for the shots.

4. On the nature of the shots--Frazier testified that one would have no difficulty in hitting a target with a telescopic sight, since all you have to do is put the crosshairs on the target. On page 51 of the galleys, however, he testified that shots fired by FBI agents with the assassination weapon were "a few inches high and to the right of the target * * * because of a defect in the scope."

Apparently no one knows when that defect appeared, or if it was in the scope at the time of the assassination. If it was, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary one may assume that it was, putting the crosshairs on the target would clearly have resulted in a miss, or it very likely would, in any event. I have raised this question before.

There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.

This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest.

And when we consider the information that this thread's OP omits, I think it is clear that the OP is likewise "simply dishonest." To get more of an idea of the key information that Charles Collins is ignoring, see my posts in these threads:

The 1967 CBS Rifle Test: More Evidence Against the Lone-Gunman Theory
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4580.0.html

What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4589.0.html

When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4543.0.html

[Benjamin Cole]

Another video, the shooter claims seven shots in 6.8 seconds with Mannlicher Carcano, and hits target at 75 yards.

The video specifies that correct ammo must be used in a M-C.

BTW, the M-Cs were built to military specs, to be accurate at 200 yards.

Of course, this still does not explain the smoke-and-bang show at the GK.

It leaves open the possibility LHO as the shooter, but does not rule others as the shooter(s).

By some accounts there were three wild misses on 11/22. Interesting.

[Charles Collins]

Another lone-gunman theorist exercise in self-delusion, misrepresentation, and omission of contrary facts.

Notice there's not one word about the WC's rifle test, which used the alleged murder weapon itself, or the 1967 CBS rifle test. In the WC's test, three Master-rated riflemen utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were not required to fire through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

BTW, here's what WC staffer Wesley Liebeler said about Oswald's alleged "practice" and the alleged shooting feat in internal WC memos in which Liebeler critiqued the draft of the Warren Report (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

I do not see how someone can conclude that a shot is easy or hard unless he knows something about how long the firer has to shoot, that is, how much time allotted for the shots.

4. On the nature of the shots--Frazier testified that one would have no difficulty in hitting a target with a telescopic sight, since all you have to do is put the crosshairs on the target. On page 51 of the galleys, however, he testified that shots fired by FBI agents with the assassination weapon were "a few inches high and to the right of the target * * * because of a defect in the scope."

Apparently no one knows when that defect appeared, or if it was in the scope at the time of the assassination. If it was, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary one may assume that it was, putting the crosshairs on the target would clearly have resulted in a miss, or it very likely would, in any event. I have raised this question before.

There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.

This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest.

And when we consider the information that this thread's OP omits, I think it is clear that the OP is likewise "simply dishonest." To get more of an idea of the key information that Charles Collins is ignoring, see my posts in these threads:

The 1967 CBS Rifle Test: More Evidence Against the Lone-Gunman Theory
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4580.0.html

What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4589.0.html

When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4543.0.html

Here’s some of what Howard wrote about Wesley Liebeler in his book “History Will Prove Us Right” page 116:

With Liebeler, conversation was never far from debate. Few things gave him more pleasure than decimating a colleague’s reasoning or written work. Years later, when Liebeler stayed at my house for an extended period, he engaged my wife in a lively debate about what materials could or could not properly be put down the kitchen garbage disposal. One day while we were at work, he put a sign over the sink reminding her to mend her errant ways in this regard.


The point of this thread is that none of the “Expert Riflemen” had extensive practice practically every night on the screened porch in New Orleans (or anything comparable). Therefore any attempt to declare their tests a valid comparison to LHO’s shooting is ridiculous.