The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Sat 07 Dec 2013, 5:19 pm

First topic message reminder :

I would like to begin a discussion about the side mounted rifle scope on the rifle allegedly owned by Oswald. Was it a good scope? Was it difficult to track a moving target with this scope? Did its offset mounting make it difficult to use? Did its offset mounting make using the open sights a possibility?

Is a side mounted scope difficult to sight or "zero" in at a rifle range? Did Oswald's training in the USMC cover sighting in rifle scopes? Once sighted in, is a side mounted scope as accurate as a top mounted scope?

I am sure, once the discussion begins, we will have many other questions.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 9:39 am

Trav11, I figured I had overcompensated for the height of the scope. I can recompute.

And, now that I look at it, by my reckoning, the maximum of the curve (the apex, where the bullet reverses position) is indeed beyond the end of this graph (so it shouldn't be bending down at all).

The point of reversal would be where the vertical velocity is 0:

vj = v0j - 32t (initial velocity minus acceleration from gravity)

so t = v0j/32

since we determined v0j to be 1800*sin(0.69), or 21.68 ft/sec, then t = 21.68/32 or 0.6775.

What is the horizontal distance then, according to my calculations?

1800*cos(.69)(0.6775), which looks to be 1220 feet, or 300 yards. That's considerably more than your reckoning, so I'm starting to worry that my approach is not valid, or that I have made some blunder here.

Oh, I just reread, and you said "well over 200 yards". If this is a guess from practical experience, we must also remember that these equations are idealized, and do not account for air resistance. If we did, somewhere between 200 and 300 yards seems about right.

I can recompute using the smaller h and the larger V0 (2200/sec).
I don't do this kind of thing every day (I'm a software developer), and am rusty, to be sure.

So, take what I have presented here cum grano salis (with a grain of salt).

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 9:51 am

Okay, I think I follow what you are saying here. Are you saying that the apex of the parabola is at 300 yards, or the point where the bullet returns to the level of the rifle is at 300 yards?

When I said 300-400 yards earlier on, this was entirely an estimate. If you calculate a distance greater than that, do not immediately think you have made a mistake.

I will do some looking and post links to some tables and calculators that show how to calculate bullet drop, muzzle velocity at varying ranges and the ballistic coefficient of different bullets. Once you get a grasp of these concepts, your obvious math skills will allow you to place on paper the exact path followed by a bullet fired from this rifle.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 10:03 am

The apex is where the bullet stops climbing and begins to drop, not where the bullet returns to bullseye level.

I punched in h=1.5 inches for distance muzzle to scope and 2200 ft/sec, and I now get

alpha = 0.425°
t2      = 0.13636 secs
e2     = 1.8 ft

So it's not as high above as before, but it still is considerable more than 0.5 ft (6", to round Frazier's figure).

However, what worries me here is that my calculations assume that the rifle was sighted once (however it was done); but I have a sneaking suspicion that the rifle was sighted separately for the two ranges.   All my exercise demonstrates, ceteris paribus, is that if the mark is off by 2.5" inches at 45 feet, it cannot possibly be off by only 5" at 300 feet, unless you were firing into a headwind or something.

At 2200 ft/sec, vertical velocity has not arrived at 0 yet at 300 feet out if alpha is what I compute it to be, so the bullet is still climbing.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 10:08 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA2PZBD5Tjg

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 10:21 am

Albert Rossi wrote:The apex is where the bullet stops climbing and begins to drop, not where the bullet returns to bullseye level.

I punched in h=1.5 inches for distance muzzle to scope and 2200 ft/sec, and I now get

alpha = 0.425°
t2      = 0.13636 secs
e2     = 1.8 ft

So it's not as high above as before, but it still is considerable more than 0.5 ft (6", to round Frazier's figure).

However, what worries me here is that my calculations assume that the rifle was sighted once (however it was done); but I have a sneaking suspicion that the rifle was sighted separately for the two ranges.   All my exercise demonstrates, ceteris paribus, is that if the mark is off by 2.5" inches at 45 feet, it cannot possibly be off by only 5" at 300 feet, unless you were firing into a headwind or something.

At 2200 ft/sec, vertical velocity has not arrived at 0 yet at 300 feet out if alpha is what I compute it to be, so the bullet is still climbing.

Hi Albert

The scope height obviously makes quite a difference, I see. Your figure of 18" as the apex (is this correct?) makes my figure of 16.67" high at 100 yards sound much better. Of course, neither of us have allowed for bullet drop, decreasing muzzle velocity or the ballistic coefficients of a 6.5mm 162 grain round nosed flat bottomed bullet but these factors would not likely throw our figures out by more than an inch.

I cannot see Frazier sighting in this rifle for the two separate ranges. As I said before, the crossover point, with the typical rifle is 10-15 yards from the muzzle so a rifle sighted in to hit a bullseye at 100 yards should also hit a bullseye at 10-15 yards with no adjustments.

I believe we have either caught SA Frazier (and the FBI) out in a monstrous lie, or Frazier is not nearly the expert he was made out to be.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 10:29 am

Here is an article by shooting expert Chuck Hawks discussing a state-of-the-art rifle scope. This thing does everything but whistle Dixie. It tells you the range out to your target, the angle in degrees uphill or downhill to you target, the compensated distance to aim at a target for the angle and so much more! I'll PM my mailing address to anyone who wants to buy me one of these as a belated Xmas present. Smile

http://www.chuckhawks.com/leupold_RX-III.htm

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 10:35 am

Yes, Trav, I think the second computation comes pretty close. 1.8 ft is really about 22", not 17", but it's not off by a humongous amount (like what I originally thought).

So perhaps we should try this backwards. That is, assume the 100 yards 2.5 to 5" is correct, and see what we come up with at 15 yards. That would reflect the actual sighting at 100 yards better, assuming the figures he gives are true.

That was an informative clip on minutes of angle. Good practicum, I would imagine. One thing, of course, is that his explanation about the bullet always dropping depends on the frame of reference. In my math, I take the reference as the x-axis. In his, it would be the line drawn from the muzzle. The ballistic curve is of course always "below" that line, but in the equations it has a positive velocity (upward) until gravitational acceleration cancels out the initial velocity and then takes over.

BTW -- to all on the forum -- I am more often called Al than Albert; though I don't mind the latter, it does remind me a little of my teachers (or currently my wife, who is Italian and to whom "Al" comes less naturally).

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 3:52 pm

Hi Al

I think I could work backwards on this with the same simple algebraic formula I used to extrapolate the height of the bullet at 100 yards (3600") from the amount the bullet was high at 15 yards (540").

2.5" high @ 100 yds. would be 540 x 2.5 over 3600 = .375" or 3/8" high at 15 yards

5" high @ 100 yds. would be 540 x 5 over 3600 = .75" or 3/4" high at 15 yards

You only have to be out a little bit up close to be out a lot at 100 yards.

And I can see where you would dispute the rising and falling of the parabola. To you, accustomed to x/y graphs, there is a definite rise and fall to a parabolic curve, while the shootist sees only the line of departure and the bullet falling away from this line from the moment the bullet leaves the barrel.

And you can call me Bob, as this is what my friends call me; along with a few other names not repeatable here LOL.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 5:31 pm

Traveller11 wrote:Hi Al

I think I could work backwards on this with the same simple algebraic formula I used to extrapolate the height of the bullet at 100 yards (3600") from the amount the bullet was high at 15 yards (540").

2.5" high @ 100 yds. would be 540 x 2.5 over 3600 = .375" or 3/8" high at 15 yards

5" high @ 100 yds. would be 540 x 5 over 3600 = .75" or 3/4" high at 15 yards

And I managed to work backwards using the second order parametric equations, but it was a little more complicated because it involved a substitution of a term for a quadratic (u = t^2) in order to be able to apply the quadratic formula. Ignoring all the sign manipulations from squaring and root taking, and looking at only at the signed values which fit intuitively, I seem to have come up with the following:

if e2 is 6" (.5 ft, rounded for simplification) at 100 yards (300 ft), then
e1 is 1.24" at 15 yards (45 ft)

which is half of the error Frazier found (2.5").

Methodologically, I am still unsure whether you linear extrapolation or my parabolic vector equations more accurately capture the underlying reality, but they both agree in the sense that there is a considerable margin of difference, calculating in either direction, for the expected error and the error Frazier claimed.

You only have to be out a little bit up close to be out a lot at 100 yards.

And I can see where you would dispute the rising and falling of the parabola. To you, accustomed to x/y graphs, there is a definite rise and fall to a parabolic curve, while the shootist sees only the line of departure and the bullet falling away from this line from the moment the bullet leaves the barrel.

Yes, I wasn't disputing that idea, only that it depended on the reference line.

And you can call me Bob, as this is what my friends call me; along with a few other names not repeatable here LOL.

Bob, you don't want to know what I have been called on occasion, either.

This was an interesting excursion, fun to dig out some very rusty elementary calculus again. But now I must devote myself to the Mexico City charade again (I'm currently picking over the Lopez-Hardway report with a fine-toothed comb).

Wed 08 Jan 2014, 1:58 pm

In a few of the previous posts, I have made passing reference to a phenomenon observed in shooting that would most definitely influence the ability of a shooter to hit a target at the downward slope 0f 20° from the 6th floor of the TSBD to the limo on Elm St.

Let us say we have a rifle zeroed in to be able to hit a target at 100 yards on level ground. If we take this rifle and attempt to hit a target at a 45° slope 100 yards away from us, uphill OR downhill, our bullet will land high of our aiming point. The effect increases with the increasing degree of slope and increasing distance.

The solution is to aim slightly lower than where you want your bullet to hit. This sounds easy but judging distance and angle of slope in wooded mountainous ground is one of the most difficult things in hunting. A second solution is to wait until the target is on a level with you, and a third is to stalk your target and move yourself into a position where you are level with your target. This is still difficult as one must still estimate range. Also, it is not always easy to tell if you are looking at something on the level.

The fourth, and best, solution is to make use of advanced technology and let it do your thinking for you.

The simplest form of rangefinder scope is accomplished with lines below the horizontal line of the scope crosshairs. For this, you must have a rough idea of the height of the target you are shooting; in this case, a deer.

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlD_Uq7VqIK2uyt_pRGYP5wONWAXTfrtK_7x4Iclh4HS45nF3AIg

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlD_Uq7VqIK2uyt_pRGYP5wONWAXTfrtK_7x4Iclh4HS45nF3AIg

The simplest slope indicator is of the pendulum type, and is usually mounted on the left side of the rifle scope.

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzn-kQdyOu3G-bouEtJl_EpyLqRVZjaDX4esyM1ee7DRzedEXCoA

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzn-kQdyOu3G-bouEtJl_EpyLqRVZjaDX4esyM1ee7DRzedEXCoA

Then we get into the real expensive scopes that employ lasers and microprocessors, such as the Leupold RX-III. It will give you the following display:

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Leupold_RX-III_TBR

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Leupold_RX-III_TBR

This scope not only tells you the range to your target and the slope you are shooting at, it tells you how much to compensate for in order to hit the target.

Oswald had none of these features on his Ordnance Optics 4x18 scope that was designed for a .22 calibre rifle. Chances are, he did not have a lot of training in shooting at downhill moving targets, either. While the amount the bullet would have gone high, at the furthest shot of 88 yards, might have only been an inch, it must be remembered that this was rapid shooting at a very small moving target (JFK's head) with a rifle which, by SA Frazier's own testimony, shot "three to five inch groups" at 100 yards.

Adding a rifle shooting high, due to the downhill slope, complicates an already very difficult shot.

And, for those who feel he may have used the open sights, there are problems here, as well. Not only is it extremely awkward to look around a side mounted scope to see open sights, the open sights on the M91/38 were fixed, and did not have the variable rear scope seen on earlier Carcano models. The front sight and rear sight of the M91/38 were aligned in such a way to make this rifle zeroed at 200 metres. If aimed at a target at 100 metres, the bullet would, again, hit a target about 1.5-2" high, as this is the apex of a parabola of this bullet if shot at a 200 metre target. Once again, Oswald would have had to aim low, compounded with already aiming low to compensate for shooting downhill AND compounded with having to aim low because the scope could not be adjusted enough to prevent it from hitting 2.5-5" high of a bullseye at 100 yards.

Once again, not even considering the likelihood of the FBI lying to the WC about Oswald's rifle hitting 2.5" high of the bullseye at 15 yards and thus hitting a mininmum of 16" high of the bullseye of a 100 yard target on level ground, we have demonstrated the impossibility of the rifle found on the 6th floor being the weapon that assassinated JFK.

Thu 16 Jan 2014, 8:18 pm

While we are on the subject of the rifle, there are some interesting things about the ammunition we should discuss, as well.

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 2:59 am

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 6d26bdbf0c_md-1_zpsbda004de

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 ImagesCA2OK25Q_zps0d085ae9

While these two bullets are obviously of different construction, they are, allegedly, supposed to be the same diameter of .268". Both have allegedly been fired from a 6.5mm calibre Carcano rifle. (the labelling of the carbine in the one photo as an "M38" is incorrect, as this would make the rifle a 7.35mm calibre. It would correctly be an M91/38 carbine)

Outside of construction, can you see an obvious difference between these two bullets?

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:21 am

Traveller11 wrote:

While these two bullets are obviously of different construction, they are, allegedly, supposed to be the same diameter of .268". Both have allegedly been fired from a 6.5mm calibre Carcano rifle. (the labelling of the carbine in the one photo as an "M38" is incorrect, as this would make the rifle a 7.35mm calibre. It would correctly be an M91/38 carbine)

Outside of construction, can you see an obvious difference between these two bullets?

Not exactly sure what you are asking Bob. The two top bullets look to have similar construction. But comparing these two, the lower "DoctorBill" bullet seems a little skinnier than the one above it. The rifle marks look fatter on the top two as compared to CE 399.

Where are you going with this?

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:30 am

Traveller11 wrote:

While these two bullets are obviously of different construction, they are, allegedly, supposed to be the same diameter of .268". Both have allegedly been fired from a 6.5mm calibre Carcano rifle. (the labelling of the carbine in the one photo as an "M38" is incorrect, as this would make the rifle a 7.35mm calibre. It would correctly be an M91/38 carbine)

Outside of construction, can you see an obvious difference between these two bullets?

Steel jacket as opposed to copper jacket? Or perhaps what appears to possibly be different rifling marks depth?

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:43 am

The only difference I see is CE399 copper jacketed ? and the "rifling" on the bullet, has more angle to it on the CE399 or is it the photo that make it look different

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:43 am

Congratulations to Stan the Man!! Smile

You win a cigar!

Yes, the grooves left by the raised rifling land of the rifle that shot the bullets in Doctor Bill's photo do look wider than the groove left in CE 399. I do not have the technological ability to do a photo analysis of the two photos to prove it but, it is so obvious I am sure there is a difference. BTW, it is assumed that the bullets in Doctor Bill's photo are actually two differing views of the same bullet.

The other difference in the grooves, between the two photos, is the depth of the grooves. Do the grooves on the bullets in the top photo not look to be deeper, as well, than the groove on CE 399?

If you think the groove in CE 399 does not look as deep as the grooves in Doctor Bill's photo, I will show you a perfectly plausible reason why it would not be as deep. And, if my explanation is correct and true, it will call into question whether or not the 6.5mm Carcano, allegedly owned by Oswald, could have even hit a target at 88 yards, good or bad scope.

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:44 am

Oops, just read Ian's and FaroeIslander's posts. I guess they get cigars, too! Smile

This could get expensive LOL.

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:45 am

Is this because the short rifle and progressive rifling ?

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:48 am

The bullets in Doctor Bill's photo are not steel jacketed. They are cast lead bullets that are then swaged to a precise diameter and shape. They are strictly target bullets and can be a pain in the butt, as they require more frequent cleaning of the rifle barrel to remove lead deposits.

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:51 am

Faroe Islander wrote:Is this because the short rifle and progressive rifling ?

Officially, by the time Oswald's rifle was made, the progressive twist rifling had been dropped in favour of a standard twist rifling in the 6.5 Carcano. However, emphasis should be placed on the word "officially". The topic of progressive twist rifling and 6.5 Carcano carbines and short rifles, once we get to it, can likely take up an entire thread on its own.

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 7:49 am

Bob:

Let me stop, step back, and re-ask a question I know has probably been asked countless times before. I'm trying to connect a few dots in my mind.

In this and the other firearms/bullet-related threads here, you discussed the differences between full metal jacketed and hollow point bullets, with the former not allowed for use in hunting because they pass through the game doing little damage and not killing the animal right away. This makes sense.

In Dealey Plaza, the second shot, CE 399, the Magic Bullet, was a FMJ projectile that supposedly penetrated JFK and Connally, doing all the well-known damage without hardly a scratch on the bullet itself. Talk about an intact bullet!

The third shot—the same kind of bullet—passes through JFK's head and apparently disintegrates? They found bullet fragments (CE 843) from his head, but nothing much more than that. Wouldn't the third bullet, one of the FMJ bullets fired by Oswald—the one they say hit JFK in the head—wouldn't that FMJ bullet have passed through JFK's and, being on a downward trajectory, lodged itself somewhere in the car, somewhat intact?

Wouldn't you expect to find the copper jacket somewhere?

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 12:28 pm

Yes and yes. I've seen soft tipped spire pointed hunting bullets, travelling at much higher velocities than the bullets from a Carcano, do far less damage to a deer's head than that FMJ bullet supposedly did to JFK's head.

Sat 18 Jan 2014, 2:38 pm

I hope by now I have you wondering how one bullet fired from a 6.5mm Carcano can have deeper rifling grooves left in it than a bullet fired from another 6.5mm Carcano. Actually, we could use the same rifle and get different depths of grooves.

One thing that confuses many novices is that the calibre of a rifle (ie. 6.5 mm) is not necessarily the diameter of that rifle's bullet. In the case of the 6.5mm Carcano, the actual bullet diameter is about 6.8 mm, or .268". Just to confuse things, the .308 calibre rifle actually shoots a bullet .308" in diameter, while its calibre or "bore" is .30 calibre (.300").

While you are getting a headache working all that over, let's take a look at the inside of a rifle barrel and try to explain the rifling grooves; and how they determine things like calibre (bore) diameter, groove diameter and bullet diameter.

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Z

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Z

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTx2sp6RukuIbgJS_GI8mLkO8-BCcUb_RVi8Cq9KKyuJOrsIkLd5g

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTVMq4evfFkaO6y4k0VGiUAWKH4qIgsKxY45zNfkwnmKl827-7Q

When a rifle barrel is made, a piece of roundstock is drilled or "bored" from one end to the other, creating a hollow tube. The diameter of the hole bored becomes the "bore diameter" or calibre of the rifle; ie. 6.5 mm in the Carcano or "A" in the last diagram. In the next step, a special cutting tool is run through the barrel, twisting as it goes, and cutting spiral "grooves" in the inside of the barrel. The depth they are cut too becomes the "groove diameter" of the rifle; ie. 6.8 mm in the Carcano or "B" in the last diagram. The groove diameter is also the diameter of the bullet; this is very important to remember.

When a bullet travels down a barrel, the raised portion of the riflings, known as "lands" ("D") actually cut into the sides of the bullet, leaving distinctive grooves in a bullet. The bottom diagram (left side) is a fairly close depiction of the four lands and four grooves in a 6.5 Carcano barrel, as the Carcano did not have very wide lands. The diagram above it shows a barrel with much wider lands and narrower grooves.

The purpose of the riflings is to impart a spin to the bullet and stabilize it gyroscopically. Rifles are often referred to as having "fast twist" (1:8 or faster) or "slow twist" (1:10 or slower). The numbers mean the number of complete turns a bullet will make in how many inches. For instance, a 1:8 pitch means the bullet will make one complete spin in the space of 8 inches; 1:10 means one complete turn in 10 inches, etc. Heavier bullets tend to require a faster pitch while lighter bullets require a slower pitch.

The early Carcanos (pre-1938) had a type of rifling known as "gain" or "progressive" twist rifling. This was a difficult thing to machine in a rifle barrel but, it is still felt by some that it extended barrel life. There was another reason it was done but, we will look at that later. This type of rifling began with a very slow 1:19 twist at the breech, where the bullet begins its journey, and progressively got tighter as it travelled through the barrel; exiting at the muzzle where the twist ended up at a fast 1:8 twist.

The 6.5 mm is a popular European calibre, and has been chambered for many hunting as well as military rifles. What makes the Carcano unique is that while it shares the 6.5 mm calibre with these other rifles, it and it alone shoots a bullet greater in diameter than the other 6.5 mm rifles. The designers of the Carcano chose to give it extra deep rifling grooves; requiring a wider bullet. All other 6.5 mm calibre rifles shoot a bullet that is 6.7 mm (.264") in diameter while the Carcano shoots a bullet 6.8 mm (.268") in diameter. It is believed the Carcano lands were made narrow because, with their added height, they were already displacing a lot of the bullet jacket material. It is also believed, because the lands were taking such a deep bite, that the progressive twist rifling made the initial forward movement of the bullet easier.

While rifling grooves that are only .002" deeper, on each side of the barrel, than other 6.5mm rifles may not seem capable of having much effect on accuracy, it is a well established fact that shooting a bullet .264" in diameter from a 6.5 Carcano will redefine the expression "can't hit the broad side of a barn".

I'm getting a little tired here. Think over what I have written, and I will continue tomorrow.

Sun 19 Jan 2014, 2:50 am

thank you for this excellent explaining of the "rifling" as we call it in Europe
I have one question about different materials such as copper jacketet and plain lead bullets for this rifle, is there a lot of difference when shooting with e.g. lead first and then copper jacketet as lead is softer than copper, would that explain the 2. shot missing the target ?
I have a very big problem in seeing that LHO should have shot these three shots, and hit anything, because I also believe that the rifle stock was varped on this rifle and there is no chance that he could have used the scope for aiming leaving him only with the Iron sights on this crappy rifle.
Anyway, I have read the testimony of SA Frazier and it is very sloppy police work, they would have zero chance of getting LHO convicted in the court, at least if it was based on the facts.
Is the Carcano still in national archives or is it missing in action ?
What are the chances of getting it out to a test, would be great to get a chance too see if the wood of the stock has been sanded to get the rifle shooting straight for the second tests.

Sun 19 Jan 2014, 6:05 am

Vincent Bugliosi…

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 137_bu10

…puts forward the hypothesis that Oswald fired the Carcano over open sights, which reduced the time necessary to take the three shots postulated by the Warren Commission. He notes that with the downward slope on Dealey Plaza, President Kennedy's head would have appeared to Oswald to be a stationary target as the vehicle moved down and away at a slow speed. This suggestion also therefore makes any claim that the scope was defective to be meaningless with respect to Oswald's shooting ability. However, with the M91/38 open sights being factory set to be accurate at 200 metres, the final shot being well under 100 metres and the M91/38 not being a very flat shooting rifle to begin with (up to ten inches high at 100 metres), this rifle would have been shooting quite high and would have made hitting JFK extremely difficult. This would have been further exacerbated by the steep downward angle from the sixth floor of the TSBD to the limo which would have made the shot go even higher than what Oswald would have been aiming at.

Reference: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

Not known as a mouthpiece for conspiracy theories, Wikipedia is basically saying here that Oswald couldn't have hit the bung hole on an elephant, with or without the chinsy scope. Yet Bugs says:

With the Kennedy case, I learned that there is absolutely no bottom to the pile. It’s a bottomless pit. While I am talking right now, at least a hundred people are looking at some document from the National Archives, looking for some contradiction, inconsistency, discrepancy, some hint of a conspiracy, working full time on it, and probably another thousand working part-time. When you have intelligent people like this (I think that with respect to this case they’re certifiably psychotic), they can create a lot of mischief, which they have. They have succeeded in convincing 75 percent of Americans of this conspiracy.

Reference: History News Network http://hnn.us/article/41490

Hey, Bugs…you and your lone nutter cronies never stop trotting out your lamebrain, faith-based hypotheses and you call us certifiably psychotic?

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 138_bu10

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano - Page 2 138_bu10

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano