Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Mannlicher-Carcano testing  (Read 542 times)

Offline Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Mannlicher-Carcano testing
« on: October 31, 2019, 10:34:45 AM »
On page 243 of “JFK Assassination Logic” John McAdams writes:

“When pathology professor and assassination researcher John Nichols tested a Mannlicher-Carcano identical to Oswald’s, he found that the bullet penetrated forty-seven inches of laminated, knot-free pine.”

The source note 119: J.M. Nichols, “Assassination of President Kennedy,” The Practitioner 211(1973): 625-33.

While searching for confirmation, I watched a (2013) documentary film for Nova titled “Cold Case JFK.” In it a test is shown where the bullet penetrates 47 pieces of pine. These are 3/4” thick pieces (which are commonly called 1 by whatever the nominal width is). The actual penetration was therefore 36 inches (not 47”). I have a problem believing that there is actually 11” difference in the two tests. And thought that a likely explanation might be the confusion in the nomenclature of calling a 3/4” thick board a 1 by.

Does anyone here have access to the 1973 test report by Nichols? My searches have come up empty so far. Thanks.

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Mannlicher-Carcano testing
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2019, 01:32:55 PM »
On page 243 of “JFK Assassination Logic” John McAdams writes:

“When pathology professor and assassination researcher John Nichols tested a Mannlicher-Carcano identical to Oswald’s, he found that the bullet penetrated forty-seven inches of laminated, knot-free pine.”

The source note 119: J.M. Nichols, “Assassination of President Kennedy,” The Practitioner 211(1973): 625-33.

While searching for confirmation, I watched a (2013) documentary film for Nova titled “Cold Case JFK.” In it a test is shown where the bullet penetrates 47 pieces of pine. These are 3/4” thick pieces (which are commonly called 1 by whatever the nominal width is). The actual penetration was therefore 36 inches (not 47”). I have a problem believing that there is actually 11” difference in the two tests. And thought that a likely explanation might be the confusion in the nomenclature of calling a 3/4” thick board a 1 by.

Does anyone here have access to the 1973 test report by Nichols? My searches have come up empty so far. Thanks.
Charles: I believe you want this?

 http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/Nichols%20John/Item%2016.pdf

It's a crude copy and is hard to read.

Offline Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Mannlicher-Carcano testing
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2019, 01:49:26 PM »
Charles: I believe you want this?

 http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/Nichols%20John/Item%2016.pdf

It's a crude copy and is hard to read.

Thanks Steve, that looks like what I am looking for! Thumb1:

Offline Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Mannlicher-Carcano testing
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2019, 02:15:23 PM »
Charles: I believe you want this?

 http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/Nichols%20John/Item%2016.pdf

It's a crude copy and is hard to read.

Thanks again Steve, unless I missed something, it appears that Nichols only did some mathematical calculations concerning the penetrating power and didn't actually fire a bullet into the laminated pine. This would explain the real world test results (by Haag in the Nova program) difference of about 11-inches.

 

Mobile View