Choose Search Type

Search

Similar topics

Latest topics

Log in

Social bookmarking

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of

**REOPENKENNEDYCASE**on your social bookmarking website# The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Page **2** of **3** • 1, **2**, 3

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Hi Stan

That is an interesting analogy you describe with the rifle and scope being separated. Although this exaggerates the setup somewhat, it is essentially still the same situation.

It is interesting to note that Frazier's bullets, at 15 yards, hit the target 1" to the right of the bullseye. Coincidentally (or not) the centre of the barrel on the Carcano and the centre of the scope seem to be separated laterally by about 1".

As I said earlier, the only way to zero a side mounted scope for left to right impacts is to zero it for one range, and one range only. This Carcano may very well have had its line of sight and its bullet path converging at 100 yards. At 15 yards, barely away from the muzzle, the bullet path and line of sight are still 1" apart and will not meet until out at 100 yards. Past 100 yards, the bullet path and line of sight have crossed and the distance between the two is now growing, and any shots beyond 100 yards will be hitting to the left of the bullseye.

Although Frazier does not testify where the Carcano bullets were hitting the target laterally at 100 yards, he does say that the bullets were spread out in a 5" circle. This tells me there was something drastically wrong with this rifle and, coupled with his testimony of the bullets "walking away" to the right of the bullseye with each shot, due to a "faulty" scope, convinces me the Carcano had a badly warped forestock that was pressing against the lower left portion of the forward end of the barrel. I am sure this problem was dealt with (secretly) before any of the marksman at the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory were allowed to replicate Oswald's alleged shooting. It is laughable to even consider that they were shooting the same rifle Frazier had tested.

That is an interesting analogy you describe with the rifle and scope being separated. Although this exaggerates the setup somewhat, it is essentially still the same situation.

It is interesting to note that Frazier's bullets, at 15 yards, hit the target 1" to the right of the bullseye. Coincidentally (or not) the centre of the barrel on the Carcano and the centre of the scope seem to be separated laterally by about 1".

As I said earlier, the only way to zero a side mounted scope for left to right impacts is to zero it for one range, and one range only. This Carcano may very well have had its line of sight and its bullet path converging at 100 yards. At 15 yards, barely away from the muzzle, the bullet path and line of sight are still 1" apart and will not meet until out at 100 yards. Past 100 yards, the bullet path and line of sight have crossed and the distance between the two is now growing, and any shots beyond 100 yards will be hitting to the left of the bullseye.

Although Frazier does not testify where the Carcano bullets were hitting the target laterally at 100 yards, he does say that the bullets were spread out in a 5" circle. This tells me there was something drastically wrong with this rifle and, coupled with his testimony of the bullets "walking away" to the right of the bullseye with each shot, due to a "faulty" scope, convinces me the Carcano had a badly warped forestock that was pressing against the lower left portion of the forward end of the barrel. I am sure this problem was dealt with (secretly) before any of the marksman at the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory were allowed to replicate Oswald's alleged shooting. It is laughable to even consider that they were shooting the same rifle Frazier had tested.

Last edited by Traveller11 on Thu 09 Jan 2014, 4:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Hi Albert

Yes, it is approximately a 20° angle from the 6th floor to the limo, depending on which of the three shots we are discussing. By all accounts, Elm St. slopes downwards at an average of 3°.

Frazier's tests of the Carcano were all done on level ground. The effects of shooting a rifle at a target uphill or downhill is another science unto itself, and is something that plagues hunters in hilly or mountainous country. Regardless of whether you are shooting uphill or downhill, it is necessary to aim low, as your shot will always land higher than where you aim. I have blown enough antlers off the heads of deer to be able to personally testify to the truth of this.

If the rifle was hitting 2.5" high at 15 yards, I do not think the downward leg of the parabola would be anywhere near 100 yards. I have not done the calculation on this but, with this rifle elevated this high, the zenith of the parabola would likely be past 200 yards, and the downward leg would begin after that.

The best way to understand this is to go back to the video I posted about the gunsmith boresighting a rifle scope the "old fashioned" way. If we had placed the Carcano in the gun vise and aligned the view through the barrel so that the barrel was aligned with the target, we would likely find the crosshairs of the scope to be centred on the target 2-2.5" below the bullseye. With no adjustments to the Carcano scope, shooting at a target 15 yards out, we would be raising scope and barrel 2.5" to aim at a bullseye. As I said before, simple extrapolation of a 2.5" high shot at 15 yards out to 100 yards gives us a bullet hitting 16.67" high.

Frazier lied, and he knows he lied.

Yes, it is approximately a 20° angle from the 6th floor to the limo, depending on which of the three shots we are discussing. By all accounts, Elm St. slopes downwards at an average of 3°.

Frazier's tests of the Carcano were all done on level ground. The effects of shooting a rifle at a target uphill or downhill is another science unto itself, and is something that plagues hunters in hilly or mountainous country. Regardless of whether you are shooting uphill or downhill, it is necessary to aim low, as your shot will always land higher than where you aim. I have blown enough antlers off the heads of deer to be able to personally testify to the truth of this.

If the rifle was hitting 2.5" high at 15 yards, I do not think the downward leg of the parabola would be anywhere near 100 yards. I have not done the calculation on this but, with this rifle elevated this high, the zenith of the parabola would likely be past 200 yards, and the downward leg would begin after that.

The best way to understand this is to go back to the video I posted about the gunsmith boresighting a rifle scope the "old fashioned" way. If we had placed the Carcano in the gun vise and aligned the view through the barrel so that the barrel was aligned with the target, we would likely find the crosshairs of the scope to be centred on the target 2-2.5" below the bullseye. With no adjustments to the Carcano scope, shooting at a target 15 yards out, we would be raising scope and barrel 2.5" to aim at a bullseye. As I said before, simple extrapolation of a 2.5" high shot at 15 yards out to 100 yards gives us a bullet hitting 16.67" high.

Frazier lied, and he knows he lied.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Yes, it was the linear extrapolation which I wondered about. So here is what I did.

All measurements in feet, seconds and degrees.

Assuming: the error at 45' was 2.5 inches above, and the distance between the center of the muzzle and the center of the scope is 4" (I'm not a rifle person, that measurement may be off), and with the 1800 ft/sec muzzle velocity (it is my understanding MCs are medium powered, not high powered), the following is what I get.

In this diagram (which is definitely not to scale), X is the target bulls-eye which I place on the scope line of sight level with the ground (S). The coordinate axis takes M0 (the position of the muzzle) as the origin. Alpha is the elevation of the muzzle. V0 is the muzzle velocity, with its vector components v0i and v0j. In computing alpha, for the sake of simplicity, I simply ignored the delta y between the parabola and the vector from M0 at T1 (it should be at the point very small).

Not being a practicing sharpshooter, I probably have made some conceptual mistakes here. But I was more interested in seeing what the ballpark figures give using the classical ballistics problem from high school calculus.

Sorry it took so long to post this, but I am not used to using the mathematical formula editor.

All measurements in feet, seconds and degrees.

Assuming: the error at 45' was 2.5 inches above, and the distance between the center of the muzzle and the center of the scope is 4" (I'm not a rifle person, that measurement may be off), and with the 1800 ft/sec muzzle velocity (it is my understanding MCs are medium powered, not high powered), the following is what I get.

In this diagram (which is definitely not to scale), X is the target bulls-eye which I place on the scope line of sight level with the ground (S). The coordinate axis takes M0 (the position of the muzzle) as the origin. Alpha is the elevation of the muzzle. V0 is the muzzle velocity, with its vector components v0i and v0j. In computing alpha, for the sake of simplicity, I simply ignored the delta y between the parabola and the vector from M0 at T1 (it should be at the point very small).

Not being a practicing sharpshooter, I probably have made some conceptual mistakes here. But I was more interested in seeing what the ballpark figures give using the classical ballistics problem from high school calculus.

Sorry it took so long to post this, but I am not used to using the mathematical formula editor.

Last edited by Albert Rossi on Mon 06 Jan 2014, 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total

**Albert Rossi**- Posts : 417

Join date : 2013-08-29

Age : 62

Location : Naperville, IL USA

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Hi Goban

I am basically saying the the Carcano, as found on the 6th floor, was so out of whack in so many ways that I do not believe it could have hit a target at all that day, let alone a moving target.

I am basically saying the the Carcano, as found on the 6th floor, was so out of whack in so many ways that I do not believe it could have hit a target at all that day, let alone a moving target.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Albert Rossi wrote:Yes, it was the linear extrapolation which I wondered about. So here is what I did.

All measurements in feet, seconds and degrees.

Assuming: the error at 45' was 2.5 inches above, and the distance between the center of the muzzle and the center of the scope is 4" (I'm not a rifle person, that measurement may be off), and with the 1800 ft/sec muzzle velocity (it is my understanding MCs are medium powered, not high powered), the following is what I get.

In this diagram (which is definitely not to scale), X is the target bulls-eye which I place on the scope line of sight level with the ground (S). The coordinate axis takes M0 (the position of the muzzle) as the origin. Alpha is the elevation of the muzzle. V0 is the muzzle velocity, with its vector components v0i and v0j. In computing alpha, for the sake of simplicity, I simply ignored the delta y between the parabola and the vector from M0 at T1 (it should be at the point very small).

Not being a practicing sharpshooter, I probably have made some conceptual mistakes here. But I was more interested in seeing what the ballpark figures give using the classical ballistics problem from high school calculus.

Sorry it took so long to post this, but I am not used to using the mathematical formula editor.

Very interesting, Albert. Your math skills are obviously way beyond mine, and I consider this to be a very valuable resource. Now that your secret skills are out in the open, I will be bugging you all the time to do calculations.

The only two errors I can see in your work are that the centre of rifle scopes are typically only 1.5-2" above the centre of the barrel, and that the bullet, as I said earlier, from a rifle elevated to this position, may not begin to drop until well after 200 yards.

Other than that, everything seems to be right (yeah, like I checked all of your math out LOL). If your figures and method are correct, this is an even more damning condemnation of Frazier's testimony.

P.S. While Frazier gave the muzzle velocity of this rifle at 1965 fps, tests done with M91/38 short rifles shooting 6.5mm Carcano ammo made by the Western Cartridge Co. typically show muzzle velocities at around 2200 fps.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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

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).**Albert Rossi**- Posts : 417

Join date : 2013-08-29

Age : 62

Location : Naperville, IL USA

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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.

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.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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,

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.

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.

**Albert Rossi**- Posts : 417

Join date : 2013-08-29

Age : 62

Location : Naperville, IL USA

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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.

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

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

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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).

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).

**Albert Rossi**- Posts : 417

Join date : 2013-08-29

Age : 62

Location : Naperville, IL USA

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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.

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.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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 yardsAnd 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).

**Albert Rossi**- Posts : 417

Join date : 2013-08-29

Age : 62

Location : Naperville, IL USA

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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

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:

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.

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

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:

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.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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?

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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.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?

Where are you going with this?

**Stan Dane**- Posts : 2814

Join date : 2013-09-03

Age : 64

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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

**ianlloyd**- Posts : 151

Join date : 2010-03-18

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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

**Faroe Islander**- Posts : 61

Join date : 2011-10-10

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Congratulations to Stan the Man!! 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.

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.

Last edited by Traveller11 on Sat 18 Jan 2014, 5:54 am; edited 2 times in total

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Oops, just read Ian's and FaroeIslander's posts. I guess they get cigars, too! This could get expensive LOL.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

Is this because the short rifle and progressive rifling ?

**Faroe Islander**- Posts : 61

Join date : 2011-10-10

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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.

**Guest**- Guest

## Re: The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano

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.

**Guest**- Guest

Page **2** of **3** • 1, **2**, 3

Similar topics

» Mercury's hidden side imaged

» Clean Clothes Hanging Out Side

» Scope and Application

» Pain on right side

» pain in left side

» Clean Clothes Hanging Out Side

» Scope and Application

» Pain on right side

» pain in left side

Page

**2**of**3****Permissions in this forum:**

**cannot**reply to topics in this forum

Yesterday at 10:00 am by Goban Saor

» Oswald's CIA 201 File

Yesterday at 3:52 am by Steve Thomas

» Willing To Make Some Phone Calls Here in The States

Yesterday at 1:43 am by Terry W. Martin

» More Greg Bashing From Hargrove

Tue 12 Dec 2017, 8:46 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» the Ed Forum and the shutting down of threads

Tue 12 Dec 2017, 12:05 pm by Terry W. Martin

» More Garbage

Tue 12 Dec 2017, 11:30 am by Terry W. Martin

» More Key Figures from LHOCW

Tue 12 Dec 2017, 11:07 am by Terry W. Martin

» Charles Givens Arrests

Tue 12 Dec 2017, 8:14 am by greg parker

» Joe Rodiguez Molina

Mon 11 Dec 2017, 5:12 am by barto