Not theoretical. That is exactly what witnesses said occurred: “ 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle” (Emmett Hudson).
I didn't know Emmett Hudson was timing the shooter.
Most witnesses described the last two shots as being in rapid succession and several estimated the time between them to be no more than two seconds.
If those witnesses were correct, those two shots couldn't have been fired by Oswald. Some of these witnesses said they thought the last two shots sounded like they came one on top of the other. That doesn't fit your sill scenario of a Z270 shot followed by the Z313 head shot. The likelihood is that those witnesses heard two reports from the same shot. There are several possible explanations for hearing the muzzle blast and one other sound. It could have been and echo. It could have been the sound of the impact on JFK's skull. It could have been the sound a supersonic bullet will make when it passes near someone. I have personally experienced that third one. I have a neighbor who sometimes take target practice with his muzzle loading rifle. I have heard the double sound that rifle makes when he fires that rifle. A muzzle loader can't possibly fire two shots closely spaced. Therefore, it had to be two distinct sounds from the same shot.
You prefer your reasoning. But your reasoning is not evidence.
Nor is yours. My reasoning actually makes sense.
I prefer to base conclusions on evidence. Courts do too.
I would suggest it is ridiculous to suggest that your reasoning should supplant the evidence of 45+ witnesses who described the last two as being in rapid succession, real quick, etc. Besides, reasoning could also work the other way: it makes sense that he would want to get the last shots off quickly as the car was getting farther away.
It doesn't matter if your reasoning is based on evidence if your reasoning is hair brained.