GlockTalk Forum banner

301 - 320 of 330 Posts

·
AAAMAD
Joined
·
30,986 Posts
He is also hoping you have the sense to realize that NONE of the shooters in that video used the rifle's open sights--they used the scope--which was unusable on Oswald's gun, according to the Warren Commission. Remember them? And yet you place your faith in CBS News for accurate reporting....

A, you don’t know what the shooters were using.

B, you don’t know what Oswald used. His scope was recorded as damaged when the gun was evaluated. There is nothing that proves the scope was damaged before the shots.



I dont understand why you keep trying to use the WC report to argue against the WC findings.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Solids are solids. They still go bang.
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?

Hollow point defensive or hunting ammo of today is much better than the SuperVel, and Glasser Safety slugs, etc. of the 60's and 70's.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
A, you don’t know what the shooters were using.
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, you don’t know what Oswald used. His scope was recorded as damaged when the gun was evaluated. There is nothing that proves the scope was damaged before the shots.
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.

I dont understand why you keep trying to use the WC report to argue against the WC findings.
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,704 Posts
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?
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?

How many years have you been shooting? I've been shooting over 70 years. Granted I was pretty young when my father first held that 22 rifle up in the 40's so I could pull the trigger. But in the 50's and years following, I was shooting plenty of mil surplus stuff. And I don't recall any misfires or squibs, except with cheap 22 ammo on occasion.

I recall about 5 or 6 years ago when I had three or four squibs out of two boxes of some cheap modern made CF pistol ammo. So that can always happen, today or back then. But it's absolutely not common place. Not even back then.

I recall getting several boxes of 45ACP military ammo in the old brownish/gray military boxes indicating they were made in the 40's and they had been in storage for at least 30 years. They all went bang.

Centerfire ammo just doesn't give that many problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,054 Posts
Isn't the FACT that contradictions exist the big reason why conspiracy theories have plagued the story from the beginning?
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.

Man, you like to argue. Entertaining but also exhausting.

I posted in this thread earlier and used inexcusable hyperbole. I would like to apologize and agree with you on a point:

We can never duplicate the shots Oswald took.

Reason #1 - we seem to be out of Oswalds as shooters, not to mention Kennedys as targets.

Reason #2 - the exact rounds Oswald used have been, well, used. We cannot use the exact ammuntion he did.

Reason #3 - we cannot travel back in time to November 22, 1963 thus cannot reproduce the event exactly.
 

·
AAAMAD
Joined
·
30,986 Posts
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.
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.

Secondly, the WC report does not agree with you.

The weapon was purchased with the scope mounted, Oswald did not mount it himself.


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.
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.

Secondly, the scope was noted by the FBI as damaged when they recovered it. You're attempting to argue about the condition of the scope before its recovery, with evidence of its condition after its recovery......

Lastly

"Three FBI firearms experts tested the rifle in order to determine the speed with which it could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired. The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4.8 seconds.808 At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime.809 The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively.810 Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches.811 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."


You are making up a lot of the evidence you're trying to use to defend your position.


For a man who claims to have spent a considerable amount of time in competitive shooting, your arguments have substantial and glaring issues with your comprehension of shooting and ballistics.
 

·
Formerly retired EE.
Joined
·
13,279 Posts
I've shot a lot of 60's ammo back in the day. Nothing wrong with it. I've even shot corrosive stuff left over from WWII. It was readily available back in those days.

Edit: It wasn't the stone age back in those days.
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.
 

·
AAAMAD
Joined
·
30,986 Posts
I've got a whole bunch of ancient greek surplus 30-06 that I use for my 1903A4 and formerly my M1 Garand.

Shoots fine. Must just be a problem for the 6.5 Carcano
 

·
Native Mainiac
Joined
·
20,625 Posts
I've got a whole bunch of ancient greek surplus 30-06 that I use for my 1903A4 and formerly my M1 Garand.

Shoots fine. Must just be a problem for the 6.5 Carcano
And even the old Russian 7.62x56R spam can stuff for my Mosin works fine....never had a dud.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
You don't need sub minute of angle ammo accuracy to make that kind of shot at that range.
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.

Marksman in WWII made some amazing shots with military ammo and iron sights. Ever read about Alvin York?
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.

How many years have you been shooting?
50.

... I was shooting plenty of mil surplus stuff. And I don't recall any misfires or squibs, except with cheap 22 ammo on occasion.
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.

I recall about 5 or 6 years ago when I had three or four squibs out of two boxes of some cheap modern made CF pistol ammo. So that can always happen, today or back then. But it's absolutely not common place. Not even back then.
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.

Centerfire ammo just doesn't give that many problems.
I agree. Especially modern, American-made centerfire ammo. It is great.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
I've got a whole bunch of ancient greek surplus 30-06 that I use for my 1903A4 and formerly my M1 Garand.
Shoots fine. Must just be a problem for the 6.5 Carcano
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Interesting argument, considering you didn't even know about the report last night,
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.

and now you're an SME testifying as to what 10 shooters did based on a video clip of one shooter.
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.

Secondly, the WC report does not agree with you.
The weapon was purchased with the scope mounted, Oswald did not mount it himself.
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)
So that leaves some unknown doofus at Klein's installing that scope so amateurishly that it really was unusable. So why did Oswald leave it that way? And how did he make his "lucky" shots using that scope? If he knew the scope was unusable the way Klein's sent it, why didn't he fix it? Or remove it and use the iron sights?

The Guns America test used an identical rifle, with an identical scope (actually imported in the same batch as Oswalds rifle)
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:
"The 6.5mm Carcano we were able to find is serial-numbered C4880, and Oswald’s was C2766. That puts it only a couple thousand rifles away in the production line, and our test rifle has the original scope mount and scope found on Oswald’s as well, almost exactly like the rifle/scope combo he bought out of the February 1963 American Rifleman ad from Kleins for $19.99. We don’t know if the parts were originally on this gun and that they were part of that small batch of imports for Kleins, but it sure is cool, albeit a bit morbid, to shoot a nearly exact replica of the gun that changed the course of America..."

So why are you trying to claim the scope mount was the "wrong type"?
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?

"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, but as you can see in the pictures, I don’t see where such shims would even go. Our scope is clearly a replica and not the same model as the Oswald scope, but it is the same power and the mount is identical. It was difficult to zero because of the very old and rudimentary design, but zero it we did."

Secondly, the scope was noted by the FBI as damaged when they recovered it.
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.
 

·
AAAMAD
Joined
·
30,986 Posts
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.
No, you're assuming because it fits what you want to have happened. There is no evidence to support your claim.

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.
Did you even watch the video? It doesn't show anything like what you're claiming.

And unsubstantiated comments following a youtube video do not lend any sort of credit to your case.

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)
So that leaves some unknown doofus at Klein's installing that scope so amateurishly that it really was unusable. So why did Oswald leave it that way? And how did he make his "lucky" shots using that scope? If he knew the scope was unusable the way Klein's sent it, why didn't he fix it? Or remove it and use the iron sights?
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."

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:
"The 6.5mm Carcano we were able to find is serial-numbered C4880, and Oswald’s was C2766. That puts it only a couple thousand rifles away in the production line, and our test rifle has the original scope mount and scope found on Oswald’s as well, almost exactly like the rifle/scope combo he bought out of the February 1963 American Rifleman ad from Kleins for $19.99. We don’t know if the parts were originally on this gun and that they were part of that small batch of imports for Kleins, but it sure is cool, albeit a bit morbid, to shoot a nearly exact replica of the gun that changed the course of America..."
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
LOL....he also confuses losing an argument with a strawman.
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."

But in the real world, that is the definition of a Straw Man fallacy. Look it up some time when you have acquired the skills to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,884 Posts
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."

But in the real world, that is the definition of a Straw Man fallacy. Look it up some time when you have acquired the skills to do so.
LOL....thanks for the entertainment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Did you even watch the video?
I obviously did, and you apparently didn't.

It doesn't show anything like what you're claiming.
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.

View: https://youtu.be/ghmY6HmR4fs



The narrator says ELEVEN volunteer marksmen took turns shooting the test rifle.
If you look REEEEALLLLY CLOSELY, you see that the camera cuts away from one shooter to another, and his shirt color, age, hair color, etc. "magically" are different from the preceding shooter.

Now, maybe you believe some wacky theory about this actually being just one man--the same man--each time. Maybe you think CBS News was part of some conspiracy to make it look like multiple marksmen, but I think many people would say it's a different man each time.

And unsubstantiated comments following a youtube video do not lend any sort of credit to your case.
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?

There is no evidence that the scope would not function
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.

So your very own source you just quoted, says that the rifle, scope and mount are the same as Oswalds.
Really? Last time I read it--which was when I was quoting it--it seemed to be saying this:

"Our scope is clearly a replica and not the same model as the Oswald scope, but it is the same power and the mount is identical."

Do you think some conspiracy changed the wording between when I posted it and when you read it?

Are you even reading the stuff you're quoting?
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.

You just proved your own statement incorrect.
Seems to me that I just proved your false assertion to be....false.
 
301 - 320 of 330 Posts
Top