Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: CE 2562  (Read 2781 times)

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
    • Plaza 3D
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2020, 08:47:38 PM »


Is this what you're looking for (Lifschultz at lower-left)? Highlighting not on originals.

It was in the Moyers article also: ( Link )

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2020, 05:26:52 AM »
Thanks. But that's a Crescent document. Which says "weight subject to correction". Would appreciate seeing Lifschutz Fast Freight bill of lading.

You asked to see D171. I gave you D171.

Online John Tonkovich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2020, 06:38:44 AM »
You asked to see D171. I gave you D171.
Yes. Thanks. My error.

Thanks , Mr. Organ.  All good.

Online John Tonkovich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2020, 05:05:38 PM »


Thanks for the rendering.
Is that a wooden crate?
( My knowledge of rifle packing crates, cartons? is limited to what I see in films..i.e. worthless.)

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
    • Plaza 3D
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2020, 07:15:18 PM »
Thanks for the rendering.
Is that a wooden crate?
( My knowledge of rifle packing crates, cartons? is limited to what I see in films..i.e. worthless.)

Don't take anything literal from the illustration. I have no idea how the Carcanos were placed in the box. May have been 2 rows of 5 or some other configuration.

I can't prove it to your satisfaction but I believe the Carcanos were shipped in cardboard boxes. This box, for example, could hold ten Carcanos and it claims to hold up to 80 lbs. ( Link ). Back in the 1960s, balled-up newspaper and bagged popcorn or wood chips made lightweight packing material. Maybe a few cardboard cut-outs that supported the rifle inside the box.

Can't see them using wood and all that extra shipping weight for surplus weapons with a small profit margin. Since the container was cardboard, a shipper might be willing to charge "Net Weight" only (weight of goods, excluding container) to secure a contract.

Online John Tonkovich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2020, 10:03:25 PM »
Don't take anything literal from the illustration. I have no idea how the Carcanos were placed in the box. May have been 2 rows of 5 or some other configuration.

I can't prove it to your satisfaction but I believe the Carcanos were shipped in cardboard boxes. This box, for example, could hold ten Carcanos and it claims to hold up to 80 lbs. ( Link ). Back in the 1960s, balled-up newspaper and bagged popcorn or wood chips made lightweight packing material. Maybe a few cardboard cut-outs that supported the rifle inside the box.

Can't see them using wood and all that extra shipping weight for surplus weapons with a small profit margin. Since the container was cardboard, a shipper might be willing to charge "Net Weight" only (weight of goods, excluding container) to secure a contract.

Thanks.


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2020, 04:33:25 PM »
The FBI, in CE 2562, reports on a carton containing 100 Carcano rifles, including serial number C2766 rifle. The carton containing the rifles is listed as weighing 750 lbs. I.e. 7.5 lbs per rifle.
The rifle in the national archives is listed as weighing 8 lbs.

Your thoughts?

(Sorry for not linking to CE 2562. Having technical problems. CE 2562 is readily available at History Matters. And elsewhere.)

Thank you.

The rifle in the archives has the added weight of a telescopic sight and a leather sling......The rifles that were delivered to Kleins had neither the telescopic sight or the leather sling.     

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2020, 07:11:09 PM »
The ad says 7.5 lb. Your posting. Bayonet is irrelevant. Removed afterward? Never there? We're talking original 100 rifle shipment. 750 lbs. FBI report, WC.

750 lbs in a 60lb container?

Still, that's about 810 lbs.

The 36" rifle weighs 5.5 lbs.

FBI paperwork suggests..100 36" rifles.

I just weighed my model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle ( 40.2 inches long)  It weighs 7.8 pounds with a leather sling attached.

 I would guess that the sling probably weighs 2 ounces .....

Klein's order form allegedly filled out by Oswald..36" rifle.

National archives rifle..40".

( P.S. A tip of the hat to Martha Moyer. And crazy John " I invented two Oswalds.. because...?" Armstrong, who is occasionally a good researcher...but a complete charlatan otherwise..)

The rifles did not come with bayonets....So the weight of the rifle without the sling or scope should have been 7 and 1/2 pounds.....

I weighed my model 91/38 short rifle ( 40.2") and it weighs 7.8 pounds with a leather sling attached.   I'd guess the sling weighs about 2 ounces....
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 08:03:15 PM by Walt Cakebread »

Online John Tonkovich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2020, 08:26:27 PM »
The rifles did not come with bayonets....So the weight of the rifle without the sling or scope should have been 7 and 1/2 pounds.....

I weighed my model 91/38 short rifle ( 40.2") and it weighs 7.8 pounds with a leather sling attached.   I'd guess the sling weighs about 2 ounces....


Interesting. Thanks.

Your post - I'm sure it's accidental- has your reply in your quote of my post. For the record, I own no rifles.

Online John Tonkovich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: CE 2562
« Reply #49 on: January 21, 2020, 04:01:18 PM »
Don't take anything literal from the illustration. I have no idea how the Carcanos were placed in the box. May have been 2 rows of 5 or some other configuration.

I can't prove it to your satisfaction but I believe the Carcanos were shipped in cardboard boxes. This box, for example, could hold ten Carcanos and it claims to hold up to 80 lbs. ( Link ). Back in the 1960s, balled-up newspaper and bagged popcorn or wood chips made lightweight packing material. Maybe a few cardboard cut-outs that supported the rifle inside the box.

Can't see them using wood and all that extra shipping weight for surplus weapons with a small profit margin. Since the container was cardboard, a shipper might be willing to charge "Net Weight" only (weight of goods, excluding container) to secure a contract.

I have some doubt about the "net weight" theory, since shippers usually deduct "tare" from containers they provide to clients. (I'm willing to be corrected on that; I am no expert on shipping, and yes, I am not - unlike the Pope, allegedly - infallible.)

But if we go with your proposition on shipping weight of the rifles, 750lbs for 100 units, then the rifles would be 7.5lbs each, i.e. 40" rifle, not the 36" model Oswald ordered. No? Yes?

 

Mobile View