True. they go bang almost every time. The question is: When they are military surplus ammo, do they go bang and then consistently go to the same place?
Yes, today's factory ammo--whether it's made at the Hornady factory or the Wolf factory in Russia--is better than factory ammo that factories cranked out 60 years ago. That is why shooting modern factory ammo and claiming that its accuracy (group size) replicates that of 1960s factory ammo, is specious.
A. If you're referring to sights used by the shooters in the CBS replication attempt, it seems apparent in the video that they are using the telescopic sight. Which the WC implies Oswald did not use--OR, if he DID use it, his shots went wild, far from point of aim, which means we really don't know what he was aiming at, which means that for all we know he wasn't aiming at JFK. Which also calls into question the claim that he knew how to set up a rifle.
B. The WC report implies--and the gunsamerica team more directly claims--that the scope's mounting system was the wrong type for the "Mannlicher Carcano" (CBS didn't even get that right) rifle that was found in the sniper's nest. That means that the slop in the mount was so bad that the ONLY way the WC could get the scope tight enough to be usable was by adding shims--shims which were not present when the rifle was found. That means that whoever mounted that scope had no idea what he was doing, and that anyone taking the rifle to a range for sighting in or target practice in the days before the assassination, would have known that the using that scope would result in terrible shot groups. That means that Oswald either didn't know how to properly match and mount a scope to a rifle--or he mounted it like a beginner with no intention of using the scope. That means that he used the rifles iron sights. Which the CBS re-enactors DID NOT USE. That means that the CBS re-enactment was fundamentally flawed as an attempt to duplicate what Oswald did.
Really? Even members of the WC saw contradictions. Why would it be weird if we did, too? Actually what would be weird is if we DIDN'T see any problematic findings. It was the WC who discovered that the scope was useless, and that one of those super-penetrating bullets disintegrated instead--upon merely entering a human skull. Are you saying you don't understand why anyone would see contradictions in some of the findings? Isn't the FACT that contradictions exist the big reason why conspiracy theories have plagued the story from the beginning?
You don't need sub minute of angle ammo accuracy to make that kind of shot at that range. Marksman in WWII made some amazing shots with military ammo and iron sights. Ever read about Alvin York?
No. Many events that have happened in the world have conspiracy theories attached to them. Human nature, no contradictions necessary. They are invented if they don't actually exist.
I tried to give my cat a suppository once.
Interesting argument, considering you didn't even know about the report last night, and now you're an SME testifying as to what 10 shooters did based on a video clip of one shooter.
This is not correct. The Guns America test used an identical rifle, with an identical scope (actually imported in the same batch as Oswalds rifle) So why are you trying to claim the scope mount was the "wrong type"? It seems you aren't even familiar with your own source.
My go-to 7.62x51mm is German military surplus from the 70's. I have no problem getting 2 to 3 MOA groups with that from my FAL. That is a 50 year old surplus rifle shooting 50 year old surplus ammo.
And even the old Russian 7.62x56R spam can stuff for my Mosin works fine....never had a dud.
That is great, but I never said you NEED sub minute of angle ammo accuracy to make that kind of shot at that range, so why the Straw Man? I said that anyone claiming they did a great job of re-enacting the Oswald shooting--who used, for example, modern ammo instead of ammo just like Oswald used--didn't do a good job of replicating it. Which calls into question any results and conclusions they reach.
Yes, he is famous. In fact, I was listening to the John Batchelor program just last week, when the topic was a book about York's life, and the author was John's guest. York had major qualms about killing anyone, even enemy combatants, after he made a commitment to follow Jesus. He was thus in a dilemma, since he could shoot so well and his skills were needed by his country, but he didn't want to use those skills for the purpose the Army wanted to use them for.
50.
I am not the one claiming that misfires and squibs invalidate a re-enactment. The Gunsamerica team said the hangfires they experienced with the old ammo they used (trying to keep the re-creation as close to original as possible) prevented them from even finishing their course of fire. Therefore, they never found out how accurately their shooters would have been compared to Oswald.
Out of the thousands of rounds of issued pistol ammo I fired during all my firearms requalifications as a federal LEO, I can only remember at most 5 duds. But again, the issue isn't non-firing ammo, it's the fact that if you wanted to duplicate what Oswald did, you'd need to find period-correct ammo for your made-in-1940 6.5mm Carcano, and Gunsamerica had no luck getting such ammo to fire, so they couldn't find out how well their shooters could shoot with it. The next-best thing you could do is figure out what the ballistics of Oswald's ammo were, get some of the brass and bullets, use a modern powder that somehow closely approximates the orignal powder, and handload something that came close to those original pressure and velocity specs. Then you would have reliable ammo that would put bullets on paper close to where Oswald's ammo would have.
I agree. Especially modern, American-made centerfire ammo. It is great.
That is possible, but I bet other calibers, or other brands, when they become 50 years old, start becoming similarly unreliable. Also, how the ammo was stored during those decades can make a big difference in how reliable it remains.
Me too, and alot of that stuff is 50-60 years old....
How long did YOU have to be studying that short video to figure out that the CBS shooters were sighting through the scope and not the iron sights? It only took me a minute.
The video clip I posted showed MOST of the CBS shooters. Not one. If you read the comments accompanying that video, one person says there were other shooters hired by CBS to participate but they kept missing so their results were deleted from the documentary in order to create the impression that all shooters who participated easily got most of their shots on target.
It is true that the Klein's ad that Oswald apparently saw and used to order his rifle shows that you can also order the scope for an extra $7 or so. (IIRC)
Yes, pretty much but it appears you are wrong about the scope since they said theirs was not the same model as the Oswald scope. Here is what they say:
Because of the primary source of all that is known about the assassination: THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT. If the WC determined that the scope was so loose in its mount, or the mount was so loose on the receiver, that it couldn't be sighted in until the FBI shimmed it, then what does that tell YOU?
I will get my copy of the WC Report down from my shelf and check that out, and then I will be back with a response the rest of your post.
LOL....he also confuses losing an argument with a strawman.
No, you're assuming because it fits what you want to have happened. There is no evidence to support your claim.
Did you even watch the video? It doesn't show anything like what you're claiming.
There is no evidence that the scope would not function, in fact that FBI fired it, and "Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye.812 They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it.813 Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you." Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired."
So your very own source you just quoted, says that the rifle, scope and mount are the same as Oswalds. Are you even reading the stuff you're quoting? You just proved your own statement incorrect.
Seems like you have re-defined "winning an argument" to mean "falsely claiming that a person said something, and then attacking what you falsely claimed he said."
LOL....thanks for the entertainment.
I obviously did, and you apparently didn't.
Here it is again. Watch it this time. Then work on removing your foot from your mouth. Faceplant even quoted it and made his usual 3rd-grade ad hominem insult (which made no sense, BTW) in that post.
Well, the "youtube video" is just a portion of the CBS documentary that someone posted on Youtube. If the fact that the comments about the documentary appear after the video render those comments worthless, then doesn't the fact that your comments appear in a GT forum render them worthless as well?
I already quoted Gunsamerica's statement that "The FBI reported to the Warren Commission that they actually could not zero the scope on Oswald’s gun without putting some kind of shims in it." If that statement is accurate, then your assertion appears to be wrong.
Really? Last time I read it--which was when I was quoting it--it seemed to be saying this:
I think so. Are you even reading the stuff you're attacking, before attacking it? Seems like maybe you are knee-jerk-reacting to what you think you read, without actually reading for comprehension first.
Seems to me that I just proved your false assertion to be....false.
