JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on June 29, 2022, 05:05:48 AM
-
Ballistic Calculator
The following is a website that has a Ballistic Calculator, that can calculate where a well-aimed bullet should end up (Impact) and the time it takes for the bullet to reach the target at various ranges.
The following numbers are for Oswald's Carcano rifle.
Ballistic Calculator:
http://www.handloads.com/calc/ (http://www.handloads.com/calc/)
I find this website works best with Internet Explorer.
Using the elevation of Dealey Plaza and a headwind of 15 mph. The wind was blowing from the Limousine toward the sniper’s nest at 10 to 15 mph. While a crosswind can make a difference, particularly at longer ranges, a headwind has little effect on the shot.
Diameter 0.26
Grains 162
RoundNose
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.275
Main chart
Velocity: 2160
Bullet Wt. 162
Sight in at: 219
Ball Coefficient: 0.275
Sight Ht. 0.5
Intervals: 5
Mx Range: 250
Muz Elv.: 0
Temp: 65
Altitude: 424
Wind mph: 15
Wind dir: 180
Time of
Range Velocity Impact Drop Flight Energy Drift
yards feet/sec inches inches seconds
0 2160 -0.50 0.00 0.00 1678 0
5 2141 0.00 0.03 0.01 1649 0
10 2126 0.50 0.07 0.02 1626 0
15 2112 0.97 0.13 0.02 1605 0
20 2098 1.42 0.21 0.03 1583 0
25 2084 1.85 0.31 0.04 1562 0
30 2070 2.27 0.43 0.05 1541 0
35 2056 2.66 0.57 0.05 1521 0
40 2042 3.02 0.74 0.06 1500 0
45 2028 3.37 0.92 0.07 1479 0
50 2014 3.71 1.12 0.07 1459 0
55 2000 4.01 1.35 0.08 1439 0
60 1987 4.30 1.59 0.09 1420 0
65 1973 4.57 1.86 0.10 1400 0
70 1960 4.80 2.16 0.10 1382 0
75 1946 5.02 2.47 0.11 1362 0
80 1933 5.21 2.81 0.12 1344 0
85 1919 5.39 3.17 0.13 1325 0
90 1906 5.54 3.55 0.14 1307 0
95 1893 5.66 3.96 0.14 1289 0
100 1879 5.76 4.39 0.15 1270 0
105 1866 5.84 4.85 0.16 1253 0
110 1853 5.89 5.33 0.17 1235 0
115 1840 5.91 5.84 0.18 1218 0
120 1827 5.90 6.38 0.18 1201 0
125 1814 5.88 6.94 0.19 1184 0
130 1802 5.83 7.52 0.20 1168 0
135 1789 5.75 8.13 0.21 1151 0
140 1776 5.64 8.78 0.22 1135 0
145 1764 5.51 9.44 0.23 1119 0
150 1751 5.34 10.14 0.23 1103 0
155 1739 5.15 10.86 0.24 1088 0
160 1726 4.93 11.62 0.25 1072 0
165 1714 4.68 12.40 0.26 1057 0
170 1702 4.40 13.21 0.27 1042 0
175 1689 4.09 14.05 0.28 1026 0
180 1677 3.75 14.93 0.29 1012 0
185 1665 3.38 15.83 0.30 997 0
190 1653 2.98 16.76 0.30 983 0
195 1641 2.55 17.73 0.31 969 0
200 1629 2.08 18.73 0.32 955 0
205 1618 1.58 19.76 0.33 942 0
210 1606 1.04 20.83 0.34 928 0
215 1594 0.48 21.93 0.35 914 0
220 1583 -0.12 23.06 0.36 901 0
225 1571 -0.76 24.23 0.37 888 0
230 1560 -1.43 25.43 0.38 875 0
235 1549 -2.13 26.67 0.39 863 0
240 1538 -2.88 27.95 0.40 851 0
245 1526 -3.66 29.26 0.41 838 0
250 1515 -4.47 30.61 0.42 826 0
Time of
Range Velocity Impact Drop Flight Energy Drift
yards feet/sec inches inches seconds
0 2160 -0.50 0.00 0.00 1678 0
5 2140 0.00 0.03 0.01 1647 0
10 2126 0.50 0.07 0.02 1626 0
15 2111 0.97 0.13 0.02 1603 0
30 2068 2.28 0.43 0.05 1538 0
35 2054 2.67 0.57 0.05 1518 0
40 2040 3.04 0.74 0.06 1497 0
45 2026 3.39 0.92 0.07 1477 0
50 2012 3.73 1.12 0.07 1456 0
55 1998 4.03 1.35 0.08 1436 0
60 1984 4.32 1.60 0.09 1416 0
65 1970 4.58 1.87 0.10 1396 0
70 1956 4.82 2.16 0.10 1376 0
75 1943 5.05 2.47 0.11 1358 0
80 1929 5.24 2.81 0.12 1339 0
85 1915 5.42 3.17 0.13 1319 0
90 1902 5.56 3.56 0.14 1301 0
95 1889 5.69 3.97 0.14 1284 0
100 1875 5.79 4.40 0.15 1265 0
245 1518 -3.69 29.38 0.41 829 0
250 1506 -4.51 30.74 0.42 816 0
"Impact" is the critical number in the chart above. How many inches, high or low, the Carcano will miss when aimed at a stationary target at a certain range. Positive numbers mean miss high, negative, miss low.
**********
Information on the Carcano rifle:
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html (http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html)
"For those wishing to do their own trajectory calculations the ballistic coefficient for the Italian 162 grain FMJ RN bullet is approximately .275."
**************************************************
On another note, for the limousine at z222, it was moving about 12 MPH or 17.6 feet per second or 210 inches per second. In the time the bullet reaches the limousine in 0.10 seconds, the limousine will have traveled 21 inches. From Oswald's angle, 18 degrees above the line of travel of the limousine, the limousine would move up 21 * sin (18) or 6.5 inches.
At z222, the rifle zeroed to the "correct" distance will miss 6.5 inches low. In contrast, Oswald's rifle would miss 6.5 - 4.5 or 2 inches low.
For the limousine at z312, it was moving about 9 MPH or 13.2 feet per second or 160 inches per second. In the time the bullet reaches the limousine in 0.13 seconds, the limousine will have traveled 20 inches. From Oswald's angle, 13 degrees above the line of travel of the limousine, the limousine would move up 20 * sin (13) or 4.5 inches.
At z312, the rifle zeroed to the "correct" distance will miss 4.5 inches low. In contrast, Oswald's rifle would miss 5.5 - 4.5 or 1 inch high.
**************************************************
In conclusion:
For the seconds shot, at z222, with a rifle properly adjusted for 65 yards, the shot should miss 6.5 inches low, due to the motion of the limousine.
But with Oswald’s rifle, zero sighted for 200 meters, the shot should miss 2.0 inches low.
For the third shot, at z312, with a rifle proper adjusted for 90 yards, the shot should miss 4.5 inches low, due to the motion of the limousine.
But with Oswald’s rifle, zero sighted for 200 meters, the shot should miss 1.0 inches high.
So, the Carcano rifle provides Oswald with a very good lead, for the moving target, for the second and third shot, both of which struck JFK. I do not know if any other rifle would provide as good a lead. All this was due to luck, nothing more. Not due to the Carcano being designed to high moving targets. It was just luck.
-
Very interesting. I presume when you are talking about the sighting of the rifle you are referring to the iron sights? The iron sights were sighted to 200 meters (which I presume you mean yards)?
-
Thanks for the nice work and information Joe! Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the approximate distance of the shot that missed at the house of General Walker? I think that I have read that it is a relatively close-range shot also. But just wondering how it compares distance-wise to the shots in Dealey Plaza.
-
Very interesting.
The CTers don’t think so.
I presume when you are talking about the sighting of the rifle you are referring to the iron sights? The iron sights were sighted to 200 meters (which I presume you mean yards)?
Yes, I am referring to the iron sights. They were zero sighted to 200 meters.
Since the scope was almost certainly not zero sights, and I believe could not have been easily zero sighted because the scope was mounted to the side and not right on top, talking about what distance the scope was zero sighted to would be meaningless. Even at a distance it would hit vertically, the shot should miss to the left, because the scope was mounted at the ’10:00 position’, not the ’12:00 position’ that would be needed for accurate shooting.
The iron sights were sighted to 200 meters (which I presume you mean yards)?
No, it is 200 meters, or about 218 yards. This was an Italian rifle.
-
Thanks for the nice work and information Joe! Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the approximate distance of the shot that missed at the house of General Walker? I think that I have read that it is a relatively close-range shot also. But just wondering how it compares distance-wise to the shots in Dealey Plaza.
Excellent question.
I understand the distance for the shot at General Walker was 105 feet, or 35 yards. And it was a stationary target. So, one would think if Oswald was going to make any shot, it would be that one.
However, there are two complications.
1. At 105 feet, the 200 meter zero sighted Carcano would miss high by 2.6 inches, as you can see from the chart I have in the original post.
This is more than Oswald should miss for the second and third shot at Dealey Plaza, 1.5 inches low and 1.7 inches high.
It is possible that Oswald had not practiced firing his rifle when he shot at General Walker and did not know his rifle would miss 2.6 inches high. This would increase the chances of a missed shot, if aiming at the head.
2. A much more significant factor, is the bullet either struck the glass, or the frame, or both, of a window. Even if General Walker was just a few feet beyond the window, a slight deflection could cause an accurately aimed shot to miss completely.
In 1991, at a Good Guys store in Sacramento, the police tried to shoot a gunman holding many people hostage. But the shot went through glass, causing a deflection, which left the gunman slightly wounded in the ear, instead of being seriously wounded or killed.
-
A point I should make about the Carcano rifle.
Expert shooters, attempting really difficult shots, like between 1000 to 1500 yards, when they miss, they usually miss not because they didn’t line up the crosshairs on the target, but because they misestimated something.
They may misestimate the amount of crosswind. If they do, that could turn what would be an accurate shot at a human into a complete miss by several feet.
They may misestimate the range. The bullet start dropping pretty sharply after 1000 yards. A small error in an estimate of the range can cause a miss by several feet.
What would be useful, even for an expert, is a magical rifle that automatically provides the correct setting for the scope, to within two inches, every time. This would not guarantee a hit with each shot. But if the crosshairs were lined up on the center of the target when the trigger was pulled, the shot would hit, every time. And could do so with both stationary and moving targets, regardless of the speed or direction of the motion.
Oswald, at Dealey Plaza, with the Carcano, had a rifle that was as good as such a magical rifle. At least in the vertical. For all three shots, he would miss by less than two inches, high or low, if the iron sights were lined up with the center of the head.
Miss low by 0.8 inches for the first, miss low by 1.5 inches for the second, and miss high by 1.7 inches for the third.
The Carcano, of course, was not designed to do this, to provide a sighting that is accurate to within two inches at any range. Regardless of how the target was moving. No rifle can be designed to do that. Some weapon system could be designed to do that, I suppose, to use radar or some other method to automatically estimate the range of the target, and estimate the target’s velocity, and provide a scope that automatically makes the proper adjustment, but no rifle in the world can do this.
The Carcano did so by nothing more than luck. It just turns out that the Carcano, with the iron sights adjusted to 200 meters, just happens to provide a good adjustment for all three shots. Once the angular velocity of the target dropped low enough that Oswald was able to center the shots on the head, he made a successful shot.
-
Excellent question.
I understand the distance for the shot at General Walker was 105 feet, or 35 yards. And it was a stationary target. So, one would think if Oswald was going to make any shot, it would be that one.
However, there are two complications.
1. At 105 feet, the 200 meter zero sighted Carcano would miss high by 2.6 inches, as you can see from the chart I have in the original post.
This is more than Oswald should miss for the second and third shot at Dealey Plaza, 1.5 inches low and 1.7 inches high.
It is possible that Oswald had not practiced firing his rifle when he shot at General Walker and did not know his rifle would miss 2.6 inches high. This would increase the chances of a missed shot, if aiming at the head.
2. A much more significant factor, is the bullet either struck the glass, or the frame, or both, of a window. Even if General Walker was just a few feet beyond the window, a slight deflection could cause an accurately aimed shot to miss completely.
In 1991, at a Good Guys store in Sacramento, the police tried to shoot a gunman holding many people hostage. But the shot went through glass, causing a deflection, which left the gunman slightly wounded in the ear, instead of being seriously wounded or killed.
Thanks!
I have also read that Walker said that he moved his head downward to retrieve something at just the instant that the shot was fired. And that he believes that if that hadn’t happened he would have been hit in the head. The photos that I have seen do show damage to a wooden piece of the window. A combination of all these items appears to me to be probable.
I should have also asked what the distance is that the investigators used to attempt to zero-in the scope. Just curious.
-
Thanks for the nice work and information Joe! Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the approximate distance of the shot that missed at the house of General Walker? I think that I have read that it is a relatively close-range shot also. But just wondering how it compares distance-wise to the shots in Dealey Plaza.
In his book on the assassinations of Lincoln and JFK, John Lattimer theorized that it was less than 100 feet. That's if Oswald got inside the fence of Walker's backyard.
Source: "Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistics Comparisons of Their Assassination", pg. 134.
-
According to Marina he spent at least two months preparing for the Walker shooting and you suggest he didn't practiced with the the rifle!
Any doubt that you're genuine Nutter material has now been eliminated.
Thumb1:
I thought it was contrarians who didn't believe Marina? Going on and on asking for "corroborating" evidence of what see observed. LOL. Try to be consistent. Oswald missed Walker only because his bullet deflected off the window frame. You can see the damage in photos.
-
Based on your premise that Marina, being Oswald's own wife, would be the Nutter's preferred witness.
Perfectly consistent.
Thumb1:
Good. So you finally agree that Marina saw a "rifle" in the blanket and took the BY photos! Progress.
-
No, I simply pointed out that a nutjob who believe in the Walker fantasy can't put together a coherent argument.
BTW, did you work out why he only brought one round?
LOL
So you cast doubt on Marina when she says that she saw a "rifle" but then suggest in another context that it is unreasonable for someone to doubt her testimony about Oswald practicing with a rifle (something you have argued yourself). But then suggest that others here believe in a fantasy. And finish with the standard LOL as though you have proven something (which should be SOL in your case). The rabbit hole beckons.
-
Joe,
Your analysis approach looks interesting and inputs look pretty good to me. Nice job pulling it together.
I've only used a trajectory calculators briefly before and don't have much experience with them so I wondered if you are familiar enough with this trajectory calculator to have any sense on how sensitive gravitational drop distance might be to muzzle elevation?
I am actually asking this because of the first shot that missed. That is the shot I have spent some time on and I am in the camp of a pretty early missed shot that would necessitate a fairly steep muzzle elevation deviation from horizontal toward vertical, and if the bullet drop distance, relative to say a laser line of sight, is largely related to flight time (while gravity is acting), it may simply be that be the muzzle elevation doesn't have much effect.
Maybe running the calculator by changing only the muzzle elevation from 0 to -30 degrees or something would give the same drop in a given time versus the respective bore site. I suspect the calculators don't make a distinction between X (horizontal) and Y (vertical/gravity) direction of travel relative to the effective ballistic coefficient used.
Just sort of curious on these trajectory calculators. I have never done any hunting is why I never really used them, but I have done some target shooting in the past and I think I might have gotten a marksman merit badge in cub scouts, but I was told I wore pants that looked like Maggie’s drawers.
-
The information provided by Joe regarding the ballistics appears to me to be to be enlightening with respect to the scope limitations when attempting to zero-in at 100-yards. There are multiple aspects to consider regarding zeroing-in the side-mounted scope. But to focus on one of them, it appears to me that if the scope was originally mounted by using the typical bore-sight method, then, elevation-wise, it should have been closely matched to the stationary iron sight’s 200-meter zero-in distance. This is due to the ballistics calculator showing only about a -0.1” impact (in elevation) from the centerline of the barrel at that distance.
Looking again at the ballistics calculator data for this rifle and ammunition, we can see that at 100-yards the impact of the bullet is 5.76” above the centerline of the barrel (bore sight line). The scope is an inexpensive relatively small (compared with a typical high-powered hunting rifle scope) scope. It is more typical of one we might put on a .22 caliber rifle and use to learn to shoot with (similar to what I had as a teenager). When reading Robert Frazier’s description and diagrams as testified to the Warren Commission, it appears to me that the adjustment necessary (5.76”) to zero-in the scope at 100-yards is close to (if not exceeding) the range of adjustment available in the mechanism of that scope. And I suggest that the description of a “defective” scope that has become common in this case, is not accurate. I believe that a more accurate description would be that the limited range of adjustment of that scope doesn’t allow it (as mounted on that rifle) to be easily zeroed-in at 100-yards.
Taking this further (and making some assumptions) it appears to me that LHO did make some detailed plans before he attempted to shoot General Walker. Also, it seems to me that if the scope on the rifle was defective and/or useless, that he would have taken it off. So, when we look at the ballistics calculator again for the distance of the shot at Walker (only ~100-feet, or 33-yards) the impact of the bullet is only about 2.5” above the centerline of the barrel (bore sight). If I am thinking about this correctly, the available range of adjustment of the scope should allow this much smaller amount (compared to the 5.76” required at 100-yards). But I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me. So, it seems to me that it is probable that in all the careful planning that was apparently made for the Walker shooting, the distance of the shot should have been noted and estimated. And that the scope could have been zeroed-in at that distance when practice shooting the rifle. And if that is what happened, then it seems to me that (assuming normal careful handling of the rifle) when the rifle was used in Dealey Plaza that the scope was probably still at or close to that setting due to an apparent lack of time to zero-in the rifle again before the shots were taken.
-
The information provided by Joe regarding the ballistics appears to me to be to be enlightening with respect to the scope limitations when attempting to zero-in at 100-yards. There are multiple aspects to consider regarding zeroing-in the side-mounted scope. But to focus on one of them, it appears to me that if the scope was originally mounted by using the typical bore-sight method, then, elevation-wise, it should have been closely matched to the stationary iron sight’s 200-meter zero-in distance. This is due to the ballistics calculator showing only about a -0.1” impact (in elevation) from the centerline of the barrel at that distance.
Looking again at the ballistics calculator data for this rifle and ammunition, we can see that at 100-yards the impact of the bullet is 5.76” above the centerline of the barrel (bore sight line). The scope is an inexpensive relatively small (compared with a typical high-powered hunting rifle scope) scope. It is more typical of one we might put on a .22 caliber rifle and use to learn to shoot with (similar to what I had as a teenager). When reading Robert Frazier’s description and diagrams as testified to the Warren Commission, it appears to me that the adjustment necessary (5.76”) to zero-in the scope at 100-yards is close to (if not exceeding) the range of adjustment available in the mechanism of that scope. And I suggest that the description of a “defective” scope that has become common in this case, is not accurate. I believe that a more accurate description would be that the limited range of adjustment of that scope doesn’t allow it (as mounted on that rifle) to be easily zeroed-in at 100-yards.
Taking this further (and making some assumptions) it appears to me that LHO did make some detailed plans before he attempted to shoot General Walker. Also, it seems to me that if the scope on the rifle was defective and/or useless, that he would have taken it off. So, when we look at the ballistics calculator again for the distance of the shot at Walker (only ~100-feet, or 33-yards) the impact of the bullet is only about 2.5” above the centerline of the barrel (bore sight). If I am thinking about this correctly, the available range of adjustment of the scope should allow this much smaller amount (compared to the 5.76” required at 100-yards). But I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me. So, it seems to me that it is probable that in all the careful planning that was apparently made for the Walker shooting, the distance of the shot should have been noted and estimated. And that the scope could have been zeroed-in at that distance when practice shooting the rifle. And if that is what happened, then it seems to me that (assuming normal careful handling of the rifle) when the rifle was used in Dealey Plaza that the scope was probably still at or close to that setting due to an apparent lack of time to zero-in the rifle again before the shots were taken.
My understanding of factory-zeroed-in-at-230m means that the sights do not have to be adjusted between 0-230m
-
My understanding of factory-zeroed-in-at-230m means that the sights do not have to be adjusted between 0-230m
If you are referring to the factory iron sights on the Carcano 91-38 rifles, it is my understanding that they are fixed (non-adjustable). And according to Joe’s ballistic calculator data, impact of the bullet would be 5.76” high at 100-yards. It would be ~0.1” low at 219-yards (200 meters). So, the shooter has to compensate accordingly when shooting at an distance other than the 200 meters that he factory iron sights are made for.
-
If you are referring to the factory iron sights on the Carcano 91-38 rifles, it is my understanding that they are fixed (non-adjustable). And according to Joe’s ballistic calculator data, impact of the bullet would be 5.76” high at 100-yards. It would be ~0.1” low at 219-yards (200 meters). So, the shooter has to compensate accordingly when shooting at an distance other than the 200 meters that he factory iron sights are made for.
Seems to me that when one is on the battlefield trying to avoid having
to learn German eventually, one can simply point-and-shoot at a Nazi torso
without needing a personal nerd tagging along with his degree in math.
___________________________________________________________
Shooting the 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm Cartridges and the Carcano Rifles,
an article by Dave Emary, Senior Ballistician of Hornady Manufacturing
____________________________________________________________
The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard
to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding
cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a
156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average
pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to
produce this meager gain in performance. The . 30-30 Winchester, regarded
as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear
produces 2,220 fps in a 24” barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52
mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher
velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the
.30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with
its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder
charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This
would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact,
much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at
long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what
it was intended.
The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many “through and
through” wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet
typically would not tumble inside its’ target unless it encountered
something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is
well known.
____________________________________________________________
The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The gain
twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel progressively
getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at the muzzle. The
slow initial twist results in substantially less torque being imparted to
the bullet during the highest loading phase of the interior ballistic
cycle. This results in significantly less barrel wear in the throat. This
coupled with the very deep rifling of the barrel would result in barrels
that would have a very long wear and accuracy life. This in fact is the
case. Many M91 model rifles show signs of considerable amounts of
ammunition being fired through them, because of the crazed/frosted
condition of the bore, yet still show very strong rifling and shoot well
with the proper size bullets. The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a
standard fixed twist barrel. The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple,
easy to field strip bolt. It is about as fool proof as you can get for a
common soldier. The Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of
criticism. The trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In
almost all cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing
the sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
triggers I have encountered.
The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made
from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid
royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you
will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also
received a reputation as being a “weak” design. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in
WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8
X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge.
The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is
73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.
____________________________________________________________
The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of
5.5” – 6.5” at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on
barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220
meters. The Carcano’s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight
picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with
the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 – 350 meters. This is
about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
iron sights. 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.
____________________________________________________________
6.5 x 52 mm
The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the exception
of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are very pleasant
to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above mentioned sight
picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of the rear sight
notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock- cheek weld for
consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a carbide lamp or a
sight black product to blacken the sights, which improves contrast and
sight picture.
____________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION:
The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a
military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an
even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing
been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62
X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the
6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of
very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no
means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles
that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings
for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle
as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most
efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their
era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of
accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
____________________________________________________________
Carcano Homepage: Italian Military Rifles and Carbines
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/

-
Seems to me that when one is on the battlefield trying to avoid having
to learn German eventually, one can simply point-and-shoot at a Nazi torso
without needing a personal nerd tagging along with his degree in math.
___________________________________________________________
Shooting the 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm Cartridges and the Carcano Rifles,
an article by Dave Emary, Senior Ballistician of Hornady Manufacturing
____________________________________________________________
The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard
to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding
cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a
156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average
pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to
produce this meager gain in performance. The . 30-30 Winchester, regarded
as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear
produces 2,220 fps in a 24” barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52
mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher
velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the
.30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with
its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder
charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This
would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact,
much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at
long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what
it was intended.
The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many “through and
through” wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet
typically would not tumble inside its’ target unless it encountered
something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is
well known.
____________________________________________________________
The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The gain
twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel progressively
getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at the muzzle. The
slow initial twist results in substantially less torque being imparted to
the bullet during the highest loading phase of the interior ballistic
cycle. This results in significantly less barrel wear in the throat. This
coupled with the very deep rifling of the barrel would result in barrels
that would have a very long wear and accuracy life. This in fact is the
case. Many M91 model rifles show signs of considerable amounts of
ammunition being fired through them, because of the crazed/frosted
condition of the bore, yet still show very strong rifling and shoot well
with the proper size bullets. The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a
standard fixed twist barrel. The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple,
easy to field strip bolt. It is about as fool proof as you can get for a
common soldier. The Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of
criticism. The trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In
almost all cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing
the sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
triggers I have encountered.
The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made
from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid
royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you
will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also
received a reputation as being a “weak” design. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in
WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8
X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge.
The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is
73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.
____________________________________________________________
The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of
5.5” – 6.5” at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on
barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220
meters. The Carcano’s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight
picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with
the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 – 350 meters. This is
about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
iron sights. 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.
____________________________________________________________
6.5 x 52 mm
The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the exception
of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are very pleasant
to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above mentioned sight
picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of the rear sight
notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock- cheek weld for
consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a carbide lamp or a
sight black product to blacken the sights, which improves contrast and
sight picture.
____________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION:
The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a
military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an
even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing
been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62
X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the
6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of
very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no
means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles
that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings
for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle
as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most
efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their
era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of
accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
____________________________________________________________
Carcano Homepage: Italian Military Rifles and Carbines
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/

Agreed! :)
Hitting the torso of a human enemy soldier is quite different than zeroing-in a telescopic sight for maximum accuracy at 100-yards. This is what Frazier and his team was trying to accomplish and had some difficulty with.
-
A point I should make about the Carcano rifle.
Expert shooters, attempting really difficult shots, like between 1000 to 1500 yards, when they miss, they usually miss not because they didn’t line up the crosshairs on the target, but because they misestimated something.
They may misestimate the amount of crosswind. If they do, that could turn what would be an accurate shot at a human into a complete miss by several feet.
They may misestimate the range. The bullet start dropping pretty sharply after 1000 yards. A small error in an estimate of the range can cause a miss by several feet.
What would be useful, even for an expert, is a magical rifle that automatically provides the correct setting for the scope, to within two inches, every time. This would not guarantee a hit with each shot. But if the crosshairs were lined up on the center of the target when the trigger was pulled, the shot would hit, every time. And could do so with both stationary and moving targets, regardless of the speed or direction of the motion.
Oswald, at Dealey Plaza, with the Carcano, had a rifle that was as good as such a magical rifle. At least in the vertical. For all three shots, he would miss by less than two inches, high or low, if the iron sights were lined up with the center of the head.
Miss low by 0.8 inches for the first, miss low by 1.5 inches for the second, and miss high by 1.7 inches for the third.
The Carcano, of course, was not designed to do this, to provide a sighting that is accurate to within two inches at any range. Regardless of how the target was moving. No rifle can be designed to do that. Some weapon system could be designed to do that, I suppose, to use radar or some other method to automatically estimate the range of the target, and estimate the target’s velocity, and provide a scope that automatically makes the proper adjustment, but no rifle in the world can do this.
The Carcano did so by nothing more than luck. It just turns out that the Carcano, with the iron sights adjusted to 200 meters, just happens to provide a good adjustment for all three shots. Once the angular velocity of the target dropped low enough that Oswald was able to center the shots on the head, he made a successful shot.
I think that whether using the iron sights or the scope, it was a relatively easy shot. Frazier stated that the scope would have made it easier due to the 4X magnification. And below, he says no correction for lead was necessary on a target that size.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, would you have tried to give a lead at all, if you had been in that position?
Mr. FRAZIER - At that range, at that distance, 175 to 265 feet, with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead--I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size.
-
Well, relative to my previous post my concern for the first shot was the small error of missing the target (impact inches) trajectory calculators would predict. But the first shot appears to have missed the limo and the rifle zeroing distance issue would not account for a limo miss. What I believe would account for it would require adding an additional term to Joe's model. That term could be called a Raw Aim Error (d aim) and is simply the error in aim off target (the total in y & z directions) determined at the time of trigger pull i.e. at the exact time the bullet exits from the rifle barrel. At the instant of shooting, errors due to gravity or limo/target movement downfield are not in effect yet so this is a separate error term.
If the first shot was a spontaneous effort in order to get off an extra shot close-in, there could have been some rush in aiming and trigger pull when not yet perfectly sighted on target and there definitely was a much higher angular velocity vs the third shot (perhaps as much as 9x higher angular velocity depending how early it was taken). This is what Joe refers to as the target motion settling down by the third shot. For the first shot, d aim would then be proposed to be the source of error that would make the Total Error enough to miss the limo (the bullet would need to miss its target by up to 3 feet to miss the limo). But looking at it another way, the aim error relative to how far the notched sight was momentarily aligned off target (slightly off target at its location on the rifle) at trigger pull, it would only momentarily have to have been about 1/2 inch off of a perfect alignment on target to have the shot miss the limo.
The error equation I am thinking about for the first shot is described below. I think Joe's approach covers all these error sources except for adding in the Raw Aim Error (d aim) which may have uniquely affected the first shot to where it could have dominated other values in the Total Error equation leading to missing the limo.
Nomenclature on terms:
x direction is the direction of the bullets travel. Generally considered essentially horizontal.
y direction is the up/down direction perpendicular to x (for most cases approximately parallel to both gravity and the direction bullet motion drop occurs)
z direction is the horizontal direction, left/right, perpendicular to x (for most cases involves a crosswind component and an error perpendicular to flight path and gravity)
Error terms based on [bullet deviation from path due to gravity (y) and crosswind (z)] forces:
d yzero: the error in y direction due to error in zeroing the rifle for an expected fixed target distance. A gravity & flight time effect. This is from the effect of gravity acting on the bullet over flight time and is what a trajectory calculator apparently would typically do.
d zzero: the error in the z direction due to error in zeroing the rifle for a crosswind for an expected fixed target distance. A crosswind & flight time effect.
Error terms based on target deviation from path due to target movement during bullet travel.
d target y: the error off target in y direction over time due to a target's x motion (change in distance which changes flight time while under the influence of gravity)
d target z: the error off target in the z direction over time due to target's x motion (change in distance which changes flight time while seeing a crosswind)
The time of flight is dependent on the velocity and is simplified here by not digging into the effects of ballistic coefficient/velocity or head wind effects on slowdown. The trajectory calculators should automatically do that but these are probably not too significant here.
Total Error is sum of Raw Aim Error at trigger pull (beginning of bullet flight) and total errors accumulated after trigger pull (during bullet flight).
Total Error = d aim + [d yzero + d zzero] + [d target y + d target z]
This is a simplified scenario and there may be other effects that I haven't included, but this is generally how I think I would address my initial concern.
-
Seems to me that when one is on the battlefield trying to avoid having
to learn German eventually, one can simply point-and-shoot at a Nazi torso
without needing a personal nerd tagging along with his degree in math.
___________________________________________________________
Shooting the 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm Cartridges and the Carcano Rifles,
an article by Dave Emary, Senior Ballistician of Hornady Manufacturing
____________________________________________________________
The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard
to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding
cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a
156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average
pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to
produce this meager gain in performance. The . 30-30 Winchester, regarded
as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear
produces 2,220 fps in a 24” barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52
mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher
velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the
.30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with
its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder
charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This
would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact,
much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at
long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what
it was intended.
The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many “through and
through” wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet
typically would not tumble inside its’ target unless it encountered
something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is
well known.
____________________________________________________________
The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The gain
twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel progressively
getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at the muzzle. The
slow initial twist results in substantially less torque being imparted to
the bullet during the highest loading phase of the interior ballistic
cycle. This results in significantly less barrel wear in the throat. This
coupled with the very deep rifling of the barrel would result in barrels
that would have a very long wear and accuracy life. This in fact is the
case. Many M91 model rifles show signs of considerable amounts of
ammunition being fired through them, because of the crazed/frosted
condition of the bore, yet still show very strong rifling and shoot well
with the proper size bullets. The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a
standard fixed twist barrel. The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple,
easy to field strip bolt. It is about as fool proof as you can get for a
common soldier. The Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of
criticism. The trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In
almost all cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing
the sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
triggers I have encountered.
The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made
from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid
royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you
will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also
received a reputation as being a “weak” design. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in
WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8
X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge.
The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is
73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.
____________________________________________________________
The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of
5.5” – 6.5” at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on
barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220
meters. The Carcano’s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight
picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with
the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 – 350 meters. This is
about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
iron sights. 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.
____________________________________________________________
6.5 x 52 mm
The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the exception
of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are very pleasant
to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above mentioned sight
picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of the rear sight
notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock- cheek weld for
consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a carbide lamp or a
sight black product to blacken the sights, which improves contrast and
sight picture.
____________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION:
The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a
military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an
even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing
been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62
X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the
6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of
very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no
means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles
that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings
for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle
as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most
efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their
era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of
accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
____________________________________________________________
Carcano Homepage: Italian Military Rifles and Carbines
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/

Seems to me that when one is on the battlefield trying to avoid having
to learn German eventually, one can simply point-and-shoot at a Nazi torso
without needing a personal nerd tagging along with his degree in math.
Perhaps you'll be surprised to learn that Germany and Italy were "the Axis" and fighting against The Allies...
-
If you are referring to the factory iron sights on the Carcano 91-38 rifles, it is my understanding that they are fixed (non-adjustable). And according to Joe’s ballistic calculator data, impact of the bullet would be 5.76” high at 100-yards. It would be ~0.1” low at 219-yards (200 meters). So, the shooter has to compensate accordingly when shooting at an distance other than the 200 meters that he factory iron sights are made for.
Most soldiers of the first have of the twentieth century were armed with rifles. Most casualties were caused, not by ordinary soldiers but by artillery (about 60%) or machineguns (about 30%). When an ordinary soldier, with a rifle, did inflect a casualty on the enemy, it was generally at short range, often with the entire body of the enemy visible. Most shooting may be at invisible or barely visible enemies hiding in trenches. But most shots that hit are at the rare times the enemy is totally exposed, either because they are charging, or the soldier in question is.
I remember reading some article on the Carcano, that an Italian soldier was instructed to always aim at the belt buckle of the enemy. That way, so long they were within 200 meters (a longer shot would likely be a miss anyway), they are guaranteed a torso wound, since the bullet would be off only between zero to six inches high. So, they were not instructed to adjust their aim depending on whether they were 20, 50, 100 or 150 yards away. Sometimes it's best to just keep it simple.
That is why the Italians went with non-adjustable sights, unlike most nations. They figured making a rifle that could hit at 300, 400, or 500 yards won't do any good for most soldiers, who are not accurate enough to get a hit at those ranges anyway. And gives one more way a soldier could mess up, by having his sights adjusted for long range just when he just needs a critical hit at short range (possibly just before the enemy is about to shoot him) and ends up missing a relatively easy shot at short range because the bullet flew too high.
A good weapon in war? Yes. A good weapon to assassinate someone, where you don't want the sights to be off by as much as six inches? No. Except at Dealey Plaza. Where all the shots were well under 200 meters and the rifle missing "high" actually give a pretty good lead (within two inches) of the target, which was always rising.
-
Most soldiers of the first have of the twentieth century were armed with rifles. Most casualties were caused, not by ordinary soldiers but by artillery (about 60%) or machineguns (about 30%). When an ordinary soldier, with a rifle, did inflect a casualty on the enemy, it was generally at short range, often with the entire body of the enemy visible. Most shooting may be at invisible or barely visible enemies hiding in trenches. But most shots that hit are at the rare times the enemy is totally exposed, either because they are charging, or the soldier in question is.
I remember reading some article on the Carcano, that an Italian soldier was instructed to always aim at the belt buckle of the enemy. That way, so long they were within 200 meters (a longer shot would likely be a miss anyway), they are guaranteed a torso wound, since the bullet would be off only between zero to six inches high. So, they were not instructed to adjust their aim depending on whether they were 20, 50, 100 or 150 yards away. Sometimes it's best to just keep it simple.
That is why the Italians went with non-adjustable sights, unlike most nations. They figured making a rifle that could hit at 300, 400, or 500 yards won't do any good for most soldiers, who are not accurate enough to get a hit at those ranges anyway. And gives one more way a soldier could mess up, by having his sights adjusted for long range just when he just needs a critical hit at short range (possibly just before the enemy is about to shoot him) and ends up missing a relatively easy shot at short range because the bullet flew too high.
A good weapon in war? Yes. A good weapon to assassinate someone, where you don't want the sights to be off by as much as six inches? No. Except at Dealey Plaza. Where all the shots were well under 200 meters and the rifle missing "high" actually give a pretty good lead (within two inches) of the target, which was always rising.
Thumb1:
Also, the line of sight from the fixed sights on top of the barrel is slightly different that the line of sight from the center of the barrel (bore). The bore line of sight is even more different from the line of sight from the scope which is mounted above the barrel. These line-of-sight differences also come into play when calculating off-target distances at targets closer than the zero-in distance.
-
Seems to me that when one is on the battlefield trying to avoid having
to learn German eventually, one can simply point-and-shoot at a Nazi torso
without needing a personal nerd tagging along with his degree in math.
Perhaps you'll be surprised to learn that Germany and Italy were "the Axis" and fighting against The Allies...
No surprise here. In fact Italy declared war on Germany, switching sides in October, 1943.
-
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory
of the Department of the Army.
-------------------------------
Mr. Mccloy.
If you were having a dry run with this, you could certainly make yourself used to the drag in the trigger without
discharging the rifle, could you not?
Mr. Simmons.
Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull.
When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you
tend to have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. Mccloy.
This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. Simmons.
This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you feel
greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired,
and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder
into the weapon.
------------------------------
Mr. Eisenberg.
How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. Simmons.
On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the
firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts
on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile
went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
--------------------------
Mr. Eisenberg.
Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot
in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons.
Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think
also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons.
Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the
target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
---------------------------
-
. . .
------------------------------
Mr. Eisenberg.
How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. Simmons.
On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the
firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts
on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile
went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
---------------------------
. . .
Yes, but Specialist Miller had very little experience firing Carcano rifles, probably a lot less than Oswald had. And he had never used the iron sights on a Carcano before. He probably did not know that the Carcano would miss high by 3.2, 4.7 and 5.5 inches at 43, 63 and 88 yards.
Most rifles fire a bullet at around 2000 MPH, but the Carcano fired at 1400 MPH. This means the rifle has to be aimed at a higher angle to hit a target at 200 meters, then it would with a different rifle. I don’t think that Specialist Miller would have been aware of this.
As I recall, now that Specialist Miller was made aware of how high the Carcano shot at a target at 88 yards, he wanted another try but they did not allow him to try again. They wanted to limit the use of Oswald’s rifle to keep it in the same condition as the time of the assassination, as much as possible.
Even so, if the target Specialist Miller was aiming at had been moving at the same distance, angle and speed as the limousine at z312, the target would have risen 3.7 inches by the time the bullet arrived. Resulting not in a miss of 5.5 inches high, as at a stationary target, but of a miss of 5.5 – 3.7 or 1.8 inches, and he would have hit the target.
-
Yes, but Specialist Miller had very little experience firing Carcano rifles, probably a lot less than Oswald had. And he had never used the iron sights on a Carcano before. He probably did not know that the Carcano would miss high by 3.2, 4.7 and 5.5 inches at 43, 63 and 88 yards.
Most rifles fire a bullet at around 2000 MPH, but the Carcano fired at 1400 MPH. This means the rifle has to be aimed at a higher angle to hit a target at 200 meters, then it would with a different rifle. I don’t think that Specialist Miller would have been aware of this.
As I recall, now that Specialist Miller was made aware of how high the Carcano shot at a target at 88 yards, he wanted another try but they did not allow him to try again. They wanted to limit the use of Oswald’s rifle to keep it in the same condition as the time of the assassination, as much as possible.
Even so, if the target Specialist Miller was aiming at had been moving at the same distance, angle and speed as the limousine at z312, the target would have risen 3.7 inches by the time the bullet arrived. Resulting not in a miss of 5.5 inches high, as at a stationary target, but of a miss of 5.5 – 3.7 or 1.8 inches, and he would have hit the target.
"Yes, but Specialist Miller had very little experience firing Carcano rifles, probably a lot less than Oswald had.'
Miller was a Master Marksman who was actively competing and training.
The WC's self critique of it's evaluation of LHO's rifle capability on the other hand.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities.png?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities1.png?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)
-
"Yes, but Specialist Miller had very little experience firing Carcano rifles, probably a lot less than Oswald had.'
Miller was a Master Marksman who was actively competing and training.
The WC's self critique of it's evaluation of LHO's rifle capability on the other hand.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities.png?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities1.png?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)
One misconception that I see written in the above linked critique, and repeated in arguments, is the need to zero-in the scope after a period of non-use. While it is something that is often done by hunters and competition shooters, it isn’t necessary (especially for the short-distance shot requirements in Dealey Plaza). Weather extremes can sometimes make a slight difference (less than 1-inch at 100-yards). Changing the type of ammunition is a good reason to zero-in a scope because of the differences in the ammo, etc. But some folks would have us believe that unless the scope was zeroed-in just before the assassination, that no one could hit the broadside of a barn with it. That is nonsense.
-
One misconception that I see written in the above linked critique, and repeated in arguments, is the need to zero-in the scope after a period of non-use. While it is something that is often done by hunters and competition shooters, it isn’t necessary (especially for the short-distance shot requirements in Dealey Plaza). Weather extremes can sometimes make a slight difference (less than 1-inch at 100-yards). Changing the type of ammunition is a good reason to zero-in a scope because of the differences in the ammo, etc. But some folks would have us believe that unless the scope was zeroed-in just before the assassination, that no one could hit the broadside of a barn with it. That is nonsense.
That's not exactly the point the critique is making about the reason the scope on the TSBD Carcano needed to be sighted in.
"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."
In addition the official story claims LHO broke the rifle down and carried it to work in a paper sack, then used a dime to to reassemble it. That in itself would have compromised it's accuracy.
-
That's not exactly the point the critique is making about the reason the scope on the TSBD Carcano needed to be sighted in.
"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."
In addition the official story claims LHO broke the rifle down and carried it to work in a paper sack, then used a dime to to reassemble it. That in itself would have compromised it's accuracy.
Neither one of those two statements have any merit whatsoever. They are used to try to mislead people who don’t know any better.
-
Neither one of those two statements have any merit whatsoever. They are used to try to mislead people who don’t know any better.
Charles, the only one who is attempting to mislead those who don't know any better is you.
From Wesley J. Liebeler, one of the Warren Commission's senior attorney?:
"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."
My statement from personal experience:
"In addition the official story claims LHO broke the rifle down and carried it to work in a paper sack, then used a dime to to reassemble it. That in itself would have compromised it's accuracy."
-
Charles, the only one who is attempting to mislead those who don't know any better is you.
From Wesley J. Liebeler, one of the Warren Commission's senior attorney?:
"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."
My statement from personal experience:
"In addition the official story claims LHO broke the rifle down and carried it to work in a paper sack, then used a dime to to reassemble it. That in itself would have compromised it's accuracy."
Liebeler is wrong. People do it regularly.
Tell us all about your personal experience. Exactly what parts have you disassembled on the rifle that compromised it’s accuracy?
-
"Yes, but Specialist Miller had very little experience firing Carcano rifles, probably a lot less than Oswald had.'
Miller was a Master Marksman who was actively competing and training.
Yes, but not with the Carcano rifle. The first time he ever used the iron sights of a Carcano rifle, was when he fired the three shots, all of which went high, particularly the third shot. Exactly as to be expected of a rifleman who can line up the iron sights with the target, but does not know that the Carcano will miss high by 5.7 inches at 88 yards.
Being an expert rifleman, as Specialist Miller was, does not mean that he can shoot accurately with all rifles, including the ones he has no experience with. With any expert rifleman, he has to be allowed to become acquainted with his weapon first, before he can demonstrate proficiency with it.
Expecting Specialist Miller to do well with the Carcano, or any rifle he is unfamiliar with, is like expecting the winner of the Indianapolis 500, an expert in driving Indy style racecars, to place in the top three that year’s Monte Carlo race, driving a Formula 1 racecar, of which he is totally unfamiliar with and has never driven until the day of the race when he dashes up and jumps into his Formula 1 racecar and starts it up, assuming he can figure out how to do so.
-
Liebeler is wrong. People do it regularly.
Tell us all about your personal experience. Exactly what parts have you disassembled on the rifle that compromised it’s accuracy?
Obviously you haven't had much experience around rifles.
-
Yes, but not with the Carcano rifle. The first time he ever used the iron sights of a Carcano rifle, was when he fired the three shots, all of which went high, particularly the third shot. Exactly as to be expected of a rifleman who can line up the iron sights with the target, but does not know that the Carcano will miss high by 5.7 inches at 88 yards.
Being an expert rifleman, as Specialist Miller was, does not mean that he can shoot accurately with all rifles, including the ones he has no experience with. With any expert rifleman, he has to be allowed to become acquainted with his weapon first, before he can demonstrate proficiency with it.
Expecting Specialist Miller to do well with the Carcano, or any rifle he is unfamiliar with, is like expecting the winner of the Indianapolis 500, an expert in driving Indy style racecars, to place in the top three that year’s Monte Carlo race, driving a Formula 1 racecar, of which he is totally unfamiliar with and has never driven until the day of the race when he dashes up and jumps into his Formula 1 racecar and starts it up, assuming he can figure out how to do so.
Ok. fair enough.
In your opinion a NRA Master Marksman who is training & competing in shooting competitions regularly would have a hard time making accurate shots at stationary targets he knows the distances of?
Yet Oswald. who was so clumsy and uncoordinated he was unable to drive a automobile, was able to hit JFK in the back of the neck & back of the head while he is riding in a moving vehicle at a unknown speed & at unknown distances from 60 feet in the air. Miller fired from a 30 foot tower. And there is as much evidence of LHO training shooting the Carcano as there is of Miller practicing shooting it. None.
Obviously you have little practical experience with firearms.
-
Obviously you haven't had much experience around rifles.
Obviously, you don’t have a clue about my experience with rifles. And if you cannot answer the question, I will assume you don’t have a clue about what you are claiming regarding disassembling and reassembling a rifle compromising it’s accuracy.
-
Do scopes like to be stepped on?
Has anyone confessed to stepping on it?
-
Why would you assume no one did?
Still holding for General Hux? ::)
-
Whenever you screw up, which is pretty much every day.
Thumb1:
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that inspired the “Beware of Poe Dameron Types” thread. Thanks for demonstrating why some folks should just be ignored (once again).
-
Except you just couldn't keep your mouth shut (once again).
Thumb1:
Fully expecting you to, once again, demonstrate that you have absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever to contribute to the conversation. Thanks for meeting those expectations.
-
Sure, and you obviously chose to bail-out instead of answering this simple question:
Thumb1:
I haven’t assumed anything. Here’s your “question” which infers that you assumed that the scope was stepped on.
Do scopes like to be stepped on?
Now, if you don’t have any evidence or confessions that someone actually did step on the scope. Then your “question” is loaded with an invalid, unproven statement. And it deserves to be ridiculed.
-
Ok. fair enough.
In your opinion a NRA Master Marksman who is training & competing in shooting competitions regularly would have a hard time making accurate shots at stationary targets he knows the distances of?
Yet Oswald. who was so clumsy and uncoordinated he was unable to drive a automobile, was able to hit JFK in the back of the neck & back of the head while he is riding in a moving vehicle at a unknown speed & at unknown distances from 60 feet in the air. Miller fired from a 30 foot tower. And there is as much evidence of LHO training shooting the Carcano as there is of Miller practicing shooting it. None.
Obviously you have little practical experience with firearms.
In your opinion a NRA Master Marksman who is training & competing in shooting competitions regularly would have a hard time making accurate shots at stationary targets he knows the distances of?
Yes, he could. If he was unfamiliar with the rifle. If he didn’t know the Carcano would miss high by 5.7 inches at 88 yards.
The sort of rifles Specialist Miller was mostly familiar with would be ones that fire higher speed bullets. So, the rifle would not have to be pointed up at a high angle for it to strike a target 200 yards, or meters, away.
It’s not enough to know the distance to the target. He would also have to be familiar with the rifle.
Yet Oswald. who was so clumsy and uncoordinated he was unable to drive a automobile, was able to hit JFK in the back of the neck & back of the head while he is riding in a moving vehicle at a unknown speed & at unknown distances from 60 feet in the air. Miller fired from a 30 foot tower. And there is as much evidence of LHO training shooting the Carcano as there is of Miller practicing shooting it. None.
Oswald could not, legally at least, drive an automobile, not because he was clumsy and uncoordinated. It was because, until the last few weeks of his life, no one had ever trained him.
It is unreasonable, to think, that Oswald, without training, should be expected to be able to drive a car.
It is unreasonable, to think, that an Indy style race car driver, and winner of the Indianapolis 500, could do well in the Monte Carlo Grand Prix, without any training in Formula One racecars.
It is unreasonable, to think, that Specialist Miller could, without being familiar with the Carcano, accurately hit a target the first time he fires some shots using the iron sights of the Carcano.
And finally, Oswald had one big advantage over Specialist Miller. Oswald had opportunities to fire a Carcaro rifle. WCC bullets come in boxes with 20 bullets each. Oswald fired one bullet at General Walker. He fired three at JFK. And one was left in the rifle. That leaves, at least 15 bullets unaccounted for. Or 35 or 55 bullets, if Oswald bought two or three boxes of WCC ammunition, which was not very expensive.
What happened to this missing 15+ bullets? Did Oswald throw them away? Likely he used them in informal target practice. In which case, he could learn that while using the iron sights, the rifle fires quite high at ranges from 50 to 100 yards. Which would prove using at the constantly rising target at Dealey Plaza he had to shoot at.
He could have also learned to forget about using the scope. Or he may never have tried out the scope, but used what he was trained to use, iron sights. But keep the scope on the rifle, because it makes him look like a more proficient assassin.
True, we have no eye witness testimony saying they saw the Oswald practice with his rifle. But his wife did say that on occasion he would take his rifle with him somewhere. She also saw him practice working the bolt of the rifle. And why would Oswald buy a rifle if not to at least do some shooting with it. And if he never practiced with it, what happened to the missing 15+ bullets?
And finally, Oswald had one advantage that Specialist Miller didn’t. Miller was firing at a stationary target, while Oswald was firing at a target that was constantly rising, at just about the right rate to compensate for the rifle firing high at under 100 yards. So, Oswald was a lot less likely to miss high.
-
Get it now, Einstein?
'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'
-Mark Twain —
-
BS:
The question is why you (I.e. Oswald) would assume it wasn't stepped on when found on the garage floor?
Get it now, Einstein?
Again, I am not assuming anything, nothing, nada. Get it now numbnuts?
-
Then you should have no trouble naming ”people" who store scoped rifles on garage floors for months and expect them to fire accurately.
And remember, they don't control who's messing around in the garage.
Thumb1:
It is you who is insinuating that someone stepped on the scope. Show us some evidence that it actually happened. Otherwise you are just “holding for Hux”.
-
Nope, the BS claim came from you:
As it turns out, you couldn't come up with a single name so it has once again been confirmed you're simply FoS.
Thumb1:
This is Gary Craig’s claim that I responded to regarding some mysterious perceived need to sight-in the scope.
That's not exactly the point the critique is making about the reason the scope on the TSBD Carcano needed to be sighted in.
"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."
In addition the official story claims LHO broke the rifle down and carried it to work in a paper sack, then used a dime to to reassemble it. That in itself would have compromised it's accuracy.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a scope would need to be re-sighted-in simply because a rifle was transported in a station wagon and stored on the floor.
Your insinuation that someone stepped on it is, without any evidence that it actually happened, without any merit whatsoever. Now, it is you who is full of it.
-
Yes, he could. If he was unfamiliar with the rifle. If he didn’t know the Carcano would miss high by 5.7 inches at 88 yards.
The sort of rifles Specialist Miller was mostly familiar with would be ones that fire higher speed bullets. So, the rifle would not have to be pointed up at a high angle for it to strike a target 200 yards, or meters, away.
It’s not enough to know the distance to the target. He would also have to be familiar with the rifle.
Oswald could not, legally at least, drive an automobile, not because he was clumsy and uncoordinated. It was because, until the last few weeks of his life, no one had ever trained him.
It is unreasonable, to think, that Oswald, without training, should be expected to be able to drive a car.
It is unreasonable, to think, that an Indy style race car driver, and winner of the Indianapolis 500, could do well in the Monte Carlo Grand Prix, without any training in Formula One racecars.
It is unreasonable, to think, that Specialist Miller could, without being familiar with the Carcano, accurately hit a target the first time he fires some shots using the iron sights of the Carcano.
And finally, Oswald had one big advantage over Specialist Miller. Oswald had opportunities to fire a Carcaro rifle. WCC bullets come in boxes with 20 bullets each. Oswald fired one bullet at General Walker. He fired three at JFK. And one was left in the rifle. That leaves, at least 15 bullets unaccounted for. Or 35 or 55 bullets, if Oswald bought two or three boxes of WCC ammunition, which was not very expensive.
What happened to this missing 15+ bullets? Did Oswald throw them away? Likely he used them in informal target practice. In which case, he could learn that while using the iron sights, the rifle fires quite high at ranges from 50 to 100 yards. Which would prove using at the constantly rising target at Dealey Plaza he had to shoot at.
He could have also learned to forget about using the scope. Or he may never have tried out the scope, but used what he was trained to use, iron sights. But keep the scope on the rifle, because it makes him look like a more proficient assassin.
True, we have no eye witness testimony saying they saw the Oswald practice with his rifle. But his wife did say that on occasion he would take his rifle with him somewhere. She also saw him practice working the bolt of the rifle. And why would Oswald buy a rifle if not to at least do some shooting with it. And if he never practiced with it, what happened to the missing 15+ bullets?
And finally, Oswald had one advantage that Specialist Miller didn’t. Miller was firing at a stationary target, while Oswald was firing at a target that was constantly rising, at just about the right rate to compensate for the rifle firing high at under 100 yards. So, Oswald was a lot less likely to miss high.
Maggies Drawers