Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

Contents

[edit] Chain of custody

The chain of custody of the rifle is very puzzling. If Oswald had admitted killing the president or at least admitted to owning the rifle, perhaps the casual handling and examination of the alleged murder weapon might be understandable, but the fact that Oswald denied everything and in fact claimed he was being framed, would seem to dictate a great deal of care should be used in every aspect of the murder weapon.

And, lets face it professional pride of the people involved would dictate that a murder weapon be handled with the utmost care (especially one used to kill a president).

Others should take a look at this in the transcripts. Explanations may be found for some or all of this. The mystery, according the House Select Committee on Assassinations, revolves around the identity of the alleged second shooter, not whether Oswald was involved.

However, one can understand why some researchers believe that perhaps Oswald was "patsy." RPJ 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some contributors simply revert evidence they don't like. This is improper.

One Contributor named "Gamaliel" continually reverts evidence that doesn not fit into his personal belief system. he rarely gives any reason except to say that what he doesn't like is not a "neutral point of view."

This appears to be one of the drawbacks of the Wikipedia system. Gamaliel rarely provides any research but seems to hit the revert button whenever the mood strikes him.

Unfortunately "Gamaliel" has gotten to be system operator for Wikipedia and has some minor but bothersome powers in that postion.

RPJ 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My position as an administrator has nothing to do with this. I have no control over article content and my administrative powers can only be used against vandals and people who break Wikipedia policy. I have not blocked any user I disagree with in this matter, nor have I locked any article in regards to this matter, so I'll thank you to refrain from implying that I am guilty of some sort of administrative abuse. Gamaliel 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text that was inserted by RPJ then removed by Gamaliel. I will suggest, per Wikipedia guidelines, if an editor is going to add atext dump, it's better to do it in the Talk section. Then other editors can hash it out try to get it NPOV.

The Warren Commission struggled with the rifle identification issue through throughout its hearings. On the one hand, Oswald claimed he did not own a rifle. But, he was murdered himself very soon after being arrested so he wasn't available to give his testimony. Also, the two officers who found a rifle came to what the Commission believed was a mistaken belief that the rifle was a Mauser, rather than the Carcano the Commission believed Oswald did own. And, finally, the Commission was surprised by the testimony that, in fact, a Mauser was taken into the building and seen two days before the shooting of Kennedy. The commission handled these problems in this manner. The officers who found the rifle, and believed it was a Mauser, testified before the Commission, but were not handed the Carcano (Exhibit 139)and asked whether that was the rifle they found. Nor were they handed the Mauser that was seen in the building two days before the murder and asked if that was the weapon they found. Instead, a third policeman (Lt. Day) was asked if Exhibit 139 was the weapon that the other policemen had found. Unfortunately the only picture Lt. Day took of the rifle that was found by the other two, is half concealed by boxes in an attempt to show its location, but the picture of the rifle in full view and with lighting wasn't taken at the of the alleged shooting but taken later back at Lt. Day's office.

Then the chain of custody of the rifle became confusing. Police Chief Jesse Curry testified that the was ordered to send the rifle and all other evidence to Washington to the FBI and the night of Kennedy's murder the rifle was taken by an FBI agent from Dallas named Vincent Drain who took it to Washington and gave to FBI agent Robert Frazier. He testified he kept in in their offices until November 27, 1963, when it sent back to Dallas and given back to someone at the Dallas Police Department for reasons unclear, and then, later it was sent back to FBI headquarters in Washington.

Therefore, the Commission was fortunate that the proceedings were not adversarial and that all this testimony was conducted in secret. Other wise’ someone may have asked whether such rifle was the rifle found near the Sniper’s Lair and if it was, why the history of the rifle was so ineptly documented, since this was the rifle that supposedly killed the president.

Does RPJ have a source for this statement? Who is speaking hear? It's going to take some work, if you want to make this section encyclopedic and non-point of view. Mytwocents 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel is now censoring the discussion pages

Contributor Gamaliel who is constantly reverting others work with dismissive one-liners has now started removing things written on the discussion page.

This has to stop.

Here is what Gamaliel says about himself on his page:

"What I'm proudest of and spent more time working on than anything else are my contributions to Lee Harvey Oswald. The Oswald entry is even mentioned in a newspaper article (broken link) on wikipedia. If you want to go insane, try monitoring these articles for conspiracy nonsense."

When this was pointed out on the discussion pages he reverted it out.

This conduct is quite annoying.

66.135.233.230 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The silent censor is back

This article is devoted to the rifle that allegedly was used to assassinate Kennedy.

Reader "Gamaliel" is convinced that Warren Commission correctly concluded the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was owned by Lee Oswald. Why? Because that is what the Warren Commission said.

Under the Neutral Point of View rule that governs this website, that theory, verifiable by a reference to the Warren Report's conclusion, has a right to be in this article.

But, there are other views of this and much evidence to establish that the Warren Commission's opinion was wrong. These verifiable views and verifiable evidence also have the right to be on this page. that is the very basic rule of the website: All significant views be presented and let the reader make up his or her own mind.

Here is what reader Gamaliel is improperly censoring out of the article now about the "Carcano" rifle without even a comment.


The Captain of the Dallas Homicide Squad, J.W. Fritz, did immediately handle the rifle that was found at the scene, and ejected a live round from it. Officer Boone, who was standing there when Captain Fritz was examining the rifle heard Captain Fritz identify it as a Mauser. [2]

Captain Fritz never testified that the rifle was a Carcano that Oswald allegedly owned. He did, at first, deny that he identified the rifle as a Mauser, but then on further questioning said, if he did say it, he wasn't postitive that it was a Mauser.

Captain Fritz: "If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself."[3]

Then, for reasons never explained, Captain Fritz did not initial the rifle to begin a chain of custody on the rifle suspected of shooting the president.

Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?
Captain FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir. [4]

The Carcano rifle allegedly owned by Oswald was later identified by Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department as the weapon found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository. The Dallas Police nor anyone else ever tested the Carcano to deterine if it was fired that day. 66.135.233.230 06:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussion about this matter. Your attempts to insert the Mauser conspiracy theory into three different articles have been repeatedly rejected by all other editors. Gamaliel 06:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Website rules prohibit removing views with which one disagrees

This website prohibits removing views with which one disagrees. The rule on this website is that all viewpoints are included and the reader can then make up his or her own mind.

Therefore, simply because a reader fervently believes that the Warren Commission correctly decided a rifle called a Mannlicher-Carcano was found on the 6th floor of the building where accused assassin Lee Oswald worked, does not mean the fervent believer can cut out all the contrary evidence. The website rule demands different viewpoints be included to allow the reader to decide for him or her self. Therefore censoring out viewpoints is flatly against website policy.

In this situation, the self appointed censor cut out information about what brand name of rifle was found where oswald worked. The two law enforcement officers who found the rifle not only identified it as a Mauser, but one of them also heard the Captain of the Homicide that handled the rifle and ejected a live round identify the rifle as a Mauser. Also cut out was the failure of the Captain to put his initials on the rifle to start a chain of custody so that a rifle that appears much later can be identified as the rifle found on the 6th floor. The fervervent believer also cut ot the information that the police did not examine the rifle to determine whether it had been fired that day.

The fervent Warren Report believer cut all this contrary information out simply because he disagrees with it. But that is for the reader to decide, not some anonymous censor to decide. This is basic rule of this website.

72.234.117.64 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This website also prohibits namecalling and incivility. Gamaliel 19:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want the mis-identification of the Carcano rifle as a Mauser, show us in the talk section. Give the other editors a chance to see how much weight we should give it in the article. Please stop assuming bad faith.Mytwocents 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Website rules are being seriously violated

A reader called Mytwocents (a member of that small and ever dwindling group of Warren Report believers) must read the rules of this website before chopping out any further information with which he doesn't agree.

The policy of this website is to provide a neutral point of view. This means all viewpoints are included (even minoritiy views such as held by Mytwocents) and let the reader decide for him or herself.

Mytwocents just can't understand this rule; or he won't understand this rule; or he is just deliberately violating this rule. Anything that Mytwocents doesn't like he just deletes-sometimes with a derogatory comment and sometimes not.

It involves the rifle found a Book depository. At the time the rifle was found, no one identified it as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The law enforcement officials believed it was a brand name of a rifle called a Mauser. In fact a Mauser was also seen in the building just two days before the assassination.

Here is what this ferevent Warren Report believer chopped out recently about the rifle found in the building where Oswald worked. The sworn testimony shows that when the rifle was found it was identified as a Mauser, not a Carcano such as the Warren Commission believed Oswald owned.

Therefore, Mytwocents feels compelled to delete as much information about the Mauser being found as he can. He also doesn't want information included that shows the rifle did not have Oswald's fingerprints on it when the FBI got it. He also doesn't want the readers to know that no one tested the Carcano to determine whether it had been fired on the day that the president was shot.

Here is text cut out by Mytwocents in clear violation of this website:

Oswald claimed he did not own a rifle, and was being set up as a "patsy." The two officers who found a rifle, but did not handle it, intitially came to, what the Warren Commission concluded, was a mistaken belief that the rifle was a Mauser, rather than the Carcano the Commission concluded that Oswald owned.
The Captain of the Dallas Homicide Squad, J.W. Fritz, did immediately handle the rifle that was found at the scene, and ejected a live round from it. Officer Boone, who was standing there when Captain Fritz was examining the rifle heard Captain Fritz identify it as a Mauser. [1] Captain Fritz never testified that the rifle was a Carcano. He did, at first, deny that he identified the rifle as a Mauser, but then on further questioning said, if he did say it, he wasn't positive that it was a Mauser.
Captain Fritz: "If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself."[2]
Then, for reasons never explained, Captain Fritz did not initial the rifle to begin a chain of custody on the rifle suspected of shooting the president.
Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?
Captain FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir. [3]
The Dallas Police nor anyone else ever tested the Carcano to determine if it was fired that day.


Sebastian Latona, supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint section of the FBI’s identification Division (Warren Commission Report pg.123) testified that the palm print allegedly found on the barrel of the rifle belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. The FBI did not find the print on the rifle, but was told about it later by the Dallas Police.
One skeptic and researcher on the subject points out that Lt. J. C. Day, the police crime lab technician who said he found and lifted the Oswald print from the rifle, "failed to take a single photograph of it before he allegedly lifted it, in violation of both common sense and standard procedure."
Moreover, he points out the Dallas police said nothing about finding a palm print on the rifle until after Oswald was dead. When earlier, Lt. Day, handed the rifle over to FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain, Drain said Day didn't even mention the finding of a palm print on the weapon. Lt. Day said part of the palm print was still visible on the barrel after he allegedly lifted it.
But the FBI fingerprint expert who examined the rifle a few hours later said there was no trace of a print on the barrel and that the barrel didn't even look like it had been processed for prints. [4]

These violations of website rules by Mytwocents are becoming quite serious.

RPJ 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of violating "rules", when they edit out statements culled from conspiracy websites[5] is tiresome and non-productive. The questions are, why do you assume bad-faith in my (and other wikieditors) edits?; and why do you refer to other editors as "readers"? Mytwocents 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Editing

I have edited a few stylistic things. Judging by the comments on this page I thought I should point that out. I hold a neutral position about Oswald and do not like POVs, because they hurt (ouch...)

andreasegde 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Oswald - poor shot?

These pages include testimony from the Warren Commission, as well as other sources.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Oswald_poor_shot.html

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/delgado.htm

Before the Warren Commission:

Q. Did you fire with Oswald? DELGADO. "Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn".

andreasegde 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article riddled with POV

I read this article and have to say it doesn't live up to any wikipedia-standard. A *pedia-page shouldn't have 'conclusions' stated before the presentation of facts, and NEVER be presented like the TRUTH. A conclusion should always be credited to someone, otherwise it looks like the wikipedia states it - which it doesn't. Which it can't.

Example: "Not only was the gun found in the Book Depository identified as the gun that killed Kennedy, but it was purchased by Oswald, and had his prints on it and cotton fibers similar to that of a shirt of Oswald’s were found on it."

Removed this entry before the shirt-segment.

It's clearly POV, since it haven't been fully established that Oswald did indeed purchese the weapon. He most likely did POV - but that isn't the same thing. Unfortuanly this section acts like a bridge between the rifle and revolver into the shirt-section without allowing the reader to stop and think for themselfs. Cult-litterature uses the same technique.

Infact several passages on the pages suffer from this same thing, but since I removed the section above I thought I would cite it here for reference. And someone should really 1) look into a re-write 2) alert a neutral admin to monitor this page. 124.120.77.194 11:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Zarkow


If this article is, as you say, not "up to any wikipedia-standard", then why are you not signed in, I ask? andreasegde 05:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


It has now been changed. As other people are apt to criticise, but not actually work on it, I did it. Do I have too much time on my hands, you may ask? Quite possibly so.... andreasegde 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Both sides

As I have said, I am neutral about Oswald, but I put some citations in to show both sides of the CBS coin. If these things are not presented, the page will be accused of harbouring official POVs, and also accused of only presenting one side of the "citation" fence. I hope this will suffice. andreasegde 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some clarification needed

The following is a section from the conclusion of the article. I read it and found it raised more questions then it answered...which is not what a conclusion should do. ;) This bit of text, or varients thereof shows up in several articles...without listed sources...


"The FBI tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano's accuracy showed that the rifle was: 1) Inaccurate from 15 yards. 2) Carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed person (Oswald was right-handed). 3) The rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims (small metal plates) which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found."

Point 2: I know rifles and scopes fairly well, i've thought about this for about 10 minutes and have no idea what that sentance is supposed to meen. As far as i know scopes are not mounted based on hand dominance.

Was the rifle actualy "inaccurate" at 15 yards (not placing the bullets consistantly), or was it simply not hitting point of aim, the problem mentioned in point 3? I don't wish to sound condecendiing, but that is a distinction that many non-shooters would have difficulty making...however it is a massively important one. (From 72.200.169.107)

I don´t know anything about guns, but if the FBI said it was set-up for a left-handed person, then they must know what they are talking about. If you have any citations to the contrary, then please put them in here first.(Oh, and sign in, BTW.) andreasegde 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I think the points you raise are quite valid. Second, regarding the left-handed scope: the gunsmith at the Aberdeen Proving Ground where the Carcano was examined reported to the WC that the scope had been aligned as if for a left-handed person. I can get you an actual WC reference on this. My understanding is, all this expert meant was that in his opinion the holes for the scope had been drilled in such a way that might make it slightly easier for a left handed person to use. I can't imagine a left-handed person wanting to use this rifle, wouldn't the bolt kick you right in the face?!

Third, as for the rifle being inaccurate, let me see if I can explain without mangling the point too much. If a scoped rifle is disassembled and reassembled, many test shots would have to be fired while adjusting the scope until accuracy is achieved. This is "sighting in." Oswald of course would have had no chance to do this, maybe he just hoped to get lucky. When the rifle was found, the scope was so far off as to be less than useless. Then, the testers discovered that no attempt to adjust the scope would put it on target, hence the shims. The question has always been, how could anyone have fired the rifle accurately when looking through a scope that was so far off target that he might as well have been firing with his eyes closed? Joegoodfriend 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

References: 1. CE 2560, Message to WC consel from the Aberdeen Proving Ground 4/6/64: "There were three pieces in the scope examined by the BRL gunsmith. Two pieces were .015 inches thick, so placed to elevate the scope with respect to the gun. One piece was .020 inches thick so placed as to point the scope leftward with respect to the gun. The gunsmith observed that the scope as we received it was installed as if for a left-handed man."
2. (3H 444): The impression that the scope was not suitable for use by a right-handed man is reinforced by the information that shims had to be inserted to elevate it and move it to the left of the rifle before the weapon was utilized in tests to "determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon on a given target at a given distance under rapid-fire conditions." Joegoodfriend 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This page badly needs more references/notes - and not only from the Warren Commission. Everything that does not have a reference/note (and book notes must have page numbers included) should be deleted. This is the new Wikipedia standard for FA articles. No more POV... --andreasegde 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I agree. There is a substantial body of people who believe that the Warren Commission was, at the very least, not completely correct about everything. There should be at least a couple non-Warren Commission citations - it's impossible to maintain a NPOV and only cite a single source. Anutherdavid 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever anyone's views are re: the Warren Commission is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the WC is a reliable secondary source and it's findings can be used here. If any editor has contrary information to the WC, and it is also from a reliable secondary source, it should be added to the article provided it complies with NPOV, and is relevant. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some more clarifications are in order

The final paragraph of the article states:

“ The FBI tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano's accuracy showed that the rifle was:

1) Inaccurate from 15 yards.[10]

2) Carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed person (Oswald was right-handed).[11]

3) The rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims (small metal plates) which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[12]

During efforts supervised by the FBI to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match Oswald's performance. No tests have ever been made using Oswald's rifle in the condition in which it was found.[16]

 ”

The supporting sources for each of these findings seem to be primary sources of WC exhibits. In addition the citations may be innaccurate (CE 549 is this), (CE 2560 is here) and (the relevant testimony of Simmons is found here). Notwithstanding the testimony of Simmons concerning the mounted site, the Warren Commission Report states:

“ In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet. The target at 265 feet was placed to the right of the 240-foot target which was in turn placed to the right of the closest silhouette.797 Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. They had not even pulled the trigger because of concern about breaking the firing pin.798

The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target and all hit the target.799 For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot. by several inches. 800 The angle from the first to the second shot was greater than from the second to the third shot and required a movement in the basic firing position of the marksmen.801 This angle was used in the test because the majority of the eyewitnesses to the assassination stated that there was a shorter interval between shots two and three than between shots one and two.802 As has been shown in chapter III, if the three shots were fired within a period of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, the shots would have been evenly spaced and the assassin would not have incurred so sharp an angular movement.803

Five of the six shots hit the third target where the angle of movement of the weapon was small.804 On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range at which they were hit was very high.805

 ”

Further on the basis of these tests the Commission concluded that:

“ The various tests showed that the Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing. Oswald's Marine training in marksmanship, his other rifle experience and his established familiarity with this particular weapon show that he possessed ample capability to commit the assassination. Based on the known facts of the assassination, the Marine marksmanship experts, Major Anderson and Sergeant Zahm, concurred in the opinion that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6 seconds.816 Concerning the shots which struck the President in the back of the neck, Sergeant Zahm testified: "With the equipment he [Oswald] had and with his ability I consider it a very easy shot." 817 Having fired this slot the assassin was then required to hit the target one more time within a space of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. On the basis of Oswald's training and the accuracy of the weapon as established by the tests, the Commission concluded that Oswald was capable of accomplishing this second hit even if there was an intervening shot which missed. The probability of hitting the President a second time would have been markedly increased if, in fact, he had missed either the first or third shots thereby leaving a time span of 4.8 to 5.6' seconds between the two shots which struck their mark. The Commission agrees with the testimony of Marine marksmanship expert Zahm that it was easy shot" to hit some part of the President's body, and that the range where the rifleman would be expected to hit would include the President's head.818 ”

I think there should be some mention of the final conclusion of the WC since the primary record is being cited and Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. FTR--I am no gun expert, so I don't understand the relevance of adding the shims. If the addition of the shims somehow affected the final conclusions regarding the accuracy of the weapon, i.e. without the shims the weapon would be inaccurate, then I don't understand why that fact isn't explained or approached in the final report. It's all very odd to me. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The scope issue is an important one. To summarize, when the rifle was first tested, the scope could not be adjusted to the point that a target could be accurately sighted through it, so the shims were added for the assassination reconstruction test. You can read some details here. [6]
First thing to consider: A scoped rifle must be sighted, i.e., test fired and adjusted for accuracy every time it is reassembled. This would especially be true of Oswald’s piece of junk. If Oswald assembled it on the spot, he couldn’t have done this.
Second, according to Robert Frazier testifying before the WC, and according to Warren defenders today, (see 9.2.2) [7] Oswald would have been aware of the misaligned scope, and the misalignment may have actually aided him by accomplishing his “lead” on the moving target.
So we are to believe that Oswald, the non-practicing, piece-of-junk-owning rifleman was not only able to hit his target two out of three times in 8 seconds when the target was getting smaller in his sight, and moving downward on a curve at a varying speed, and sometimes blocked by foliage, but that he also did so while aiming away from the target. That is, Oswald was NOT putting the crosshairs of his scope on his target, but aiming elsewhere and making a guess as to how far off the scope was. Some may believe Oswald could do this, but I would call it a miracle just short of the parting of the Red Sea.
To be fair, this is not the only explanation WC defenders have offered on the sight issue. Is has also been suggested that:
1. Oswald ignored the scope and used the iron sights. This seems impossible to me, but then I don’t have the rifle.
2. The scope could have been accurate at the time of the assassination, but was banged around so much post-facto that the scope or its mounting was damaged. Given the careful way the rifle was hidden, I don’t believe this either. Joegoodfriend 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation JGF. It is an embarassment that the WC doesn't explain the misaligned scope, or for that matter even mention it in the final report. You'd think something so important would warrant an explanation on when the misalignment occurred (i.e. before or after the assassination) and the effects of the misalignment on the accuracy of the weapon. Or maybe I'm just missing something here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A 7.65mm Mauser found in the TSBD??

http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/weitz.jpg

at that link a law enforcement officer said he and 2 others found a 7.65mm Mauser, anyone has some more info about this? If they founded a mauser, where did the rifle from Oswald come from?

See the section above "The silent Censor is back." Rifle was identified as a 7.65 (.30 cal) Mauser by Capt. Fritz, which is hardly suprising since the Carcano action is a Mauser design copy, and large numbers of WW II surplus Mausers had been shipped to the US to be converted to popular 30.'06 deer rifles. Fritz later admitted he was no expert on Mausers, but alas in the meantime, a lot of other officers heard his judgement and accepted it. And the newspapers soon got hold of it. Later it came out that the Carcano is about .26 caliber, not .30, but it fires a similarly sized round, and certainly LOOKS a lot like a Mauser. Case of off-hand on-site misidentification of a rifle by a nonexpect, as being another rifle of very similar look. Boring. SBHarris 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not long enough to be a rifle!

Why do you call this Carcano firearm a "rifle"? Based on its short barrel lenght, this is clearly a carbine (cavalry firearm). 82.131.210.162 09:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines "rifle" as "a shoulder weapon with a rifled bore", and the verb "rifle" as "to cut spiral grooves into the bore of". The Carcano is fired from the shoulder, and it does have a rifled bore. It is a rifle. The Warren Commission Report says:
The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository shortly after the assassination was a bolt-action, clip-fed, military rifle, 40.2 inches long and 8 pounds in weight. . . . The rifle was identified as a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Italian military rifle, Model 91/38. This identification was initially made by comparing the rifle with standard reference works and by the markings inscribed on the rifle. The caliber was independently determined by chambering a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter cartridge in the rifle for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the rifle's barrel which was measured with a micrometer. . . . The Model 91/38 rifle was one of the 1891 series of Italian military rifles, incorporating features designed by Ritter von Mannlicher and M. Carcano. — Walloon 13:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An infantry rifle is a full-lenght shoulder fired weapon. A carbine is a shorter barreled variant of the shoulder fired weapon, meant for support troops (like artillery and sappers) as well as some cavalry units. The "stutzen" is an even shorter variant of the shoulder fired weapon, meant for cavalry and sometimes used for wearing in a thigh holster. To call the shorty JFK weapon a rifle is like calling a Geo Metro a full-size car, when it is in fact a small hatchback. 82.131.210.162 08:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here you can see a photo of the different lenght rifle, carbine and stutzen variants of the same Carcano weapon family:

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/images/armisrc.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle_431a.html"