Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination rifle/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

i saw his marine corp trianing book it said he got a 48 out of a possible 50 many many days (Esskater11 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

You can't prove this at all: impossible. Extremely sexy 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And if Oswald fired over open sights, as Bugliosi claims is very possible, the condition of the scope is irrelevant. To shoot that fast with a scope, you lose your sight picture when you take your head away to cycle the bolt. The field of view was very narrow and re-acquiring the target would take a long time. By the time Oswald was lining up the final shot, the President was travelling on a downward slope at a slow rate of speed, making his head appear motionless to a firer in the TSBD. No need for a scope at that point. This next point of mine is irrelevant to the article, but I can speak from personal experience; the CF uses 3.5 power optical sights on the standard service rifle now - it does take a bit longer to reacquire a sight picture on the 200 metre range on the man sized Figure 12 target - similar in size to what LHO was firing at. He was using a 4 power scope at shorter range, making his sight picture, depending on the field of view, probably the same or possibly even smaller. 68.146.200.201 13:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you wrote, "No need for a scope at that point." The shooter wouldn't be aiming at a man sized target but just a human head and the iron sights of the Carcano rifle are larger than a human head at 100 yards. Puttng it another way, the front site of the Carcano covers 12" at 100 yards and a human head is about 8" wide. When your sights are larger than your target, you can't shoot with any accuracy. Bugliosi's hypothesis that the shots were fired over open sights is ludicrous. Also, President Kennedy wouldn't be a "motionless target" although that is a minor nuisance compared to the other problem. I think the scope got knocked off target when the weapon was discarded by Oswald. It seems improbable but that's the only good choice I can see.

If anyone thinks Oswald is a bad shot, just attach an 8 x 10.5" sheet of regular notebook paper to a telephone pole or building, measure off 100 yards and look back at that small piece of paper (Be sure to actually measure the 100 yards and not just estimate it). See if you agree with Sergeant Zahm testimony that it's "a very easy shot."

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)

• I own a Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 6.5mm which I bought in part out of curiosity about the assassination. I also recall walking into J&M Wholesale several years ago, spotting a rack of military rifles and openly wondering where they found those Carcanos. On close examination, however, they were 7.65mm Argentine Mauser Model 1891 cavalry carbines, which from a distance resemble the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano Series 1891 Model 1938 carbine.Naaman Brown (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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).

This Fucile Mod. 91/38 is called a rifle in ENglish because that is also the official Italian denomination, and because it was indeed construed - by designation of purpose - as an unitary short rifle for infantry. This was a general tactical trend and not limited to the Italians. The former long rifle Fucile Mod. 91 was to be replaced by the short rifles Fucili Mod. 1938 (in 7,35x51mm) and Mod. 91/38 (6,5x52mm) while proper carbines (moschetti) which were still shorter were indeed retained in parallel. Obviously, this plan was not fulfilled (the longer Fucile 91/41 succceeded the Fucile 91/38), but that does not change the fact that the designation as "rifle" is not dependent upon length, as is often mistakenly believed. On the other hand, carbines in full classical rifle length also exist, e.g. the German Kar 98b.

Alexander Eichener carcano91@hotmail.com

Note also that the standard German rifle in the Second World War was actually designated a "carbine" - the Kar98k. Ironically, it was a Mauser. But most books refer to it as a rifle. Both terms are correct, at least colloquially. In any event, a carbine is a rifle, but not all rifles are carbines.68.146.200.201 20:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Italian rifles in WWII had 27" or 20" barrels. The Italian carbines were 18" barreled (ok, 17.7"). The Italians considered the 20" barrel model 91/38 a rifle (compared to their 17.7" barrel carbine it was). Naaman Brown (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

definition

what is the exact definition of "officially accepted"? the american majority believes it wasnt just oswald, or wonder if it was oswald at all so... officially accepted? i dunno 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 00:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this. Extremely sexy 20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm...accepted by officials - which the Warren Commission was made up of, the official investigators of the assassination. What Johnny No Brain in his trailer in Red Neck Bend, Deep South wants to think after 12 Coors and a night of watching Alien Autopsy on his VCR probably has less merit.68.146.200.201 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would be more inclined to agree with Johnny No Brain, in his trailer, than the government officials appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson(who was also a redneck-by the definition of the offensive word in your Yankee vocabulary), who were thus constrained to give the desired verdict rather than presenting a truthful account of events which took place in Dallas, Texas on 22 November 1963. What I cannot believe is how so many American people, after all these years, can still trust in a report commissioned by the government who had the most to gain by suppressing the truth. And these same ingénues have the temerity to disparage southerners, most of whom at least have the wisdom to suspect the motives behind the Warren Commission's findings and not swallow everything hook, line and sinker.--jeanne (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Left- or right-handed scope

There is a reason why the claim in CE 2560 remained unused and uncommented. There is no such thing as a left- or right-handed telescopic sight. The location of a telescopic sight on a rifle is determined not by whether it is to be shot left-handed or right-handed, but rather by such factors as receiver design, cartridge case ejection direction and bolt handle travel pattern. On CE 139, the telescopic sight is mounted on the left side of the receiver because of the vertical bolt handle travel pattern and the split receiver. Because this rifle has a right-handed action, a telescopic sight cannot be mounted on the right side of the receiver. — Walloon 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The "because" conclusion by Walloon is incorrect. The (cheap) Japanese aftermarket scope had to be mounted offset towards the left side because the rifle could not be loaded otherwise; it depends upon an integral charger clip which is to be inserted vertically from above into the magazine. It is barely possible (though difficult), but not feasible to shoot any Carcano rifle in single-shot mode without the charger.

Alexander Eichener carcano91@hotmail.com

• The 2 Apr 1964 letter at the link is about a parafin test on the right cheek of a shooter of the rifle. I have mounted a scope sight on a 91/38. Due to the split bridge and bolt handle, I had to use a left side mount. Due to the need to allow clearance for the en-bloc clip which must be inserted vertically from the top, I had to offset the scope and mount further to the left, rather than center the scope over the action as is the usual practice to allow left and right handed use (as with the Savage 340 which is split bridge, but loads from the bottom, and allows left side mount with the scope centered). With Carcano design, to allow clip loading, you are limited to mounting the scope extreme left for right-handed use only. So doing a parafin test on the left cheek would be counter-intuitive. However, I have shot my rifle left-handed by using the iron sights on the barrel and not using the offset scope. I am amazed that discussion of the assassination assumes the 'scope sight was used and not the iron sights.Naaman Brown (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the rifle today.?

Does anyone know the current location of the rifle..? Is it in a museum or in federal storage.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 16:27, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

It's in the National Archives. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not based on the Mauser design

since the Carcano action (see this article) was historically based on the Mauser design,

No, not so (even the linked article points this out). The Carcano M91's bolt and lock were based on the German Commission Rifle Gw1888, which was *not* a Mauser design.

They do however look similar.

FWIW, I don't think the tentative 'Mauser' identification holds much water. It would be a perfectly ordinary mistake by anyone not familiar with the weapon, which looked basically like any military bolt-action of European origin.

• One synonym for the Carcano is "Paraviccino Mauser" and the gun is described by several arms authorities as a combination or adaptation of Mauser and Mannlicher features. Compare the breech bolts of the 1888 Commission Rifle, the Mauser 1891 rifle and the Carcano 1891 rifle. They are very similar.Naaman Brown (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 discovery channel

I edited the bit about the History Channel 2008 documentary. In fact it was by the discovery channel. I changed the paragraph somewhat, as I couldn't find information in the Discovery article to back up everything. 86.17.248.19 (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Image needs a caption

The first image of the rifle needs a caption.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Why FBI?

Back in 1963, seeing as it was not a federal crime to assassinate the US president, surely it was the job for the local Dallas police to have conducted the investigation. Why was Lt. Day forced to hand the rifle over to the FBI?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The FBI requested the rifle, and on the night of November 22, 1963, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry and Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade agreed to turn over that and other evidence for the FBI to analyze. It was their decision to make. They were not obligated to do so. Local authorities, then and now, routinely send crime materials to the FBI labs. — Walloon (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Walloon. I had always presumed the Dallas police were ordered to give up the rifle to the FBI.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Curry "was ordered" to send rifle to FBI?

The article currently claims that Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry "was ordered" to send the rifle to the FBI. I placed a "citation needed" after that claim. Someone recently linked to Curry's Warren Commission testimony, with no page citation, the whole testimony, as the source. But nowhere in Curry's testimony does he ever claim that he was ordered to send the rifle. He said the FBI requested it, and he discussed that request with the District Attorney. Both decided to acquiesce to the request. If no one has a pinpoint citation on this, I will change "was ordered" to "was asked". — Walloon (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would surely have been better to leave the citation rather than reverting it? Using the word "ordered" reflects in summary the reluctance and uncertainty Curry expresses to hand over the evidence. Clearly Dallas did not feel the transfer of material was procedural but were over-ruled or otherwise influenced to go against their instincts. To me the testimony makes clear their actions were directed by a more powerful influence, which would seem to be a pretty good definition of "ordered" Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in late here - no, to insert "ordered" implies Curry was compelled against his will to hand over the rifle. Or, even if willing, was told he had no choice in the matter. He may have had a request for the rifle, hesitating because he felt that it was not an appropriate request, yet handed it over willingly. Which is in fact, I believe, what he testified. To me the testimony makes clear their actions were directed by a more powerful influence, which would seem to be a pretty good definition of "ordered". That's your opinion, it's not a fact, and it would be something easily verified if Curry in fact testified that he was ordered. Canada Jack (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly is a bit late to jump in, since the article lost the wording you're objecting to five months ago. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pass the Ammo

When the authorities searched Ruth Paine’s garage, they did not find any ammunition for the rifle. The only ammunition that has ever been recovered, associated with the rifle were the three shells on the floor of TSBD and the one found still in the chamber of the rifle.207.49.66.19 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So? Canada Jack (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Canada Jack here. I don't think the lack of ammunition in Ruth Paine's garage adds up to anything. The ammo (if it had existed) could have been hidden elsewhere or dumped.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

More than One Rifle

Source: http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html

The Carcano Rifle which Oswald is holding in the backyard photos clearly has a sling mount on the bottom of the rifle. However, the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Dipository has a sling mount on the side of the rifle. Also, in photos of the rifle from the Warren Commission Report and photos from the Life magazine article, one can notice how the font of the serial numbers look different in both of the rifles; indicating that there is more than one rifle with the serial number C2766. Shotgunsteve93 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The rifle that is held by Oswald in the backyard photos, due to the shadowing and clarity, cannot possibly be 100% confirmed as the same rifle that the WC marked as Exhibit 139.207.49.66.19 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with these assertions is a) the bullets fired were linked to that specific rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles, b) Oswald was proven to have purchased the same rifle with the same serial number under an alias, c) Oswald denied he had a rifle, a provable lie, d) the rifle found in the TSBD was photographed before it was moved and filmed when it was moved and has been verified by numerous photographic experts to have been the same rifle the WC examined, e) the backyard photographs with the rifle were assessed by experts who noted marks on the stock which matched the same rifle, f) the photographs (the ones with matching negatives) were shown to have been unaltered and therefore were authentic images of Oswald with the murder weapon, g) Oswald under questioning listed all the addresses he lived at save for the one where the photo was taken, an omission which suggests he was hiding incriminating information, h) Oswald's wife and associates confirmed he owned a rifle of the type which he was accused of killing the president with, and one of those people had a photo from Oswald holding the rifle with his own handwriting on the photo.

While one or several of the above facts may not "prove" that Oswald owned the rifle and that it was the rifle which killed the president, it is hard to imagine ALL of the evidence above could have been forged or faked. Which would have been required if Oswald's assertion that the Dallas police were trying to frame him for being a Soviet sympathizer. Yet that is what we are asked to believe by many pro-conspiracy authors. There are some doubts on the case because some evidence is ambiguous or evidence wasn't handled as best it could have been. But that doesn't prove a negative. And these doubts are overwhelmed by the mountain of corroborative evidence. And the complete lack of evidence for the presence of another assassin in the TSBD or elsewhere. But, I suppose some people believe in the Tooth Fairy since his/her existence can't be 100 per cent disproven... Canada Jack (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet when Time photographed the rifle, the 2 and C had changed shape in the serial number and the 6.5 Cal had dissapeared from the rifle. That sounds normal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresyert (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. Canada Jack (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate and in violation of WP:CIVIL. Jtpaladin (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There are some Mannlicher-Carcanos with sling mounts or evidence of them on both the bottom and side of the stock (I checked by watching videos). Even if the backyard photo rifle had side and bottom sling mounts (though Oswald only exposes the right side to view), the Depository rifle appears to have them only on the side. The archive should reveal the underside of the rifle stock, which is not directly exposed to view in photos. If there is no evidence that a sling was ever attached to the lower edge of the Depository rifle stock, then Shotgunsteve93 is correct, and the claimed matching of stock scratches would have to be invalid. But if there are two rifles (Depository and backyard photos), still Oswald's finger prints have successfully been matched to photographed prints from the Depository rifle trigger guard. Oswald's prints are on the rifle. Whose rifle is it, if not his, and what happened to Oswald's own C2766 rifle?Cdg1072 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One Rifle or Two?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v_9pOsRL0o&feature=channel_video_title

Was the Depository rifle REALLY the rifle that Oswald Ordered ?

Gil Jesus examines the differences between the sling mounts on the rifle in the "backyard photo" and the rifle removed from the Texas School Book Depository, im not supporting any conspircay theroies, I Just want people to see this becasue it likely it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.24.58 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know about you, but it is clear in my mind that they are two diffrent rifles.

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm

and it proves that Oswald did Not have a rifle,

the evidvence shows DURING THE TIME OSWALD SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASING, FILLING OUT AND MAILING THE MONEY ORDER FOR THE RIFLE,

HE WAS AT WORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.24.58 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Gil, I see you have used a lot of evidence from Armstrong's How the CIA framed Lee Harvey Oswald [8]. Don't you think he deserves some credit?

The idea that there are two different rifles is a real laugh. The line in Lattimer where he appears to claims to have a M91/38 Carcano with the same serial number (C2766) as Oswald's, has long since been been refuted and debunked, and admitted to be a simple error in Lattimer. The confusion between the 36" M91 TS Carcanos that Klein's sold as "6.5 mm Italian carbines" before mid 1962, and the 40" M91/38 Carcanos like the one that Oswald bought in March 1963 has made for some confusion, but it's no big deal. Somebody forgot to change the length in the ads Klein's ran in gun magazines at the time they made the change from one rifle to the the other, is all. It happens (do you really think businesses are scrupulous about their ads? What world do you live in?). By late in 1963 Klein's actually had made this change and were advertising these weapons as 40" carbines, as you well know. Perhaps Oswald ordered a "36" carbine and got a 40". So? Apparently he never noticed or complained. Yes, you caught the Klein's guy saying that the rifle was an M91/38 EFF when the "EFF" means only that the change from one type Carbine to the other is effective on the April 1962 date. TRUE! But so what? The man made an error and didn't know his firearms.

I was amused you attack [9] the rather critical Feb 7, 1963 invoice from Cresent Firearms to Klein's, because it is for 10 boxes of 10 weapons each, and only that last one doesn't have a little check next to it, and it happens to be the one which we know contained C2766. The problem with your theory is that there are 10 box numbers, and the invoice is for 100 weapons, and so is the bill. What you really want us to believe is that this checkmark indicates that this last carton (#3376) of 10 rifles (containing the assassination weapon!) is missing, and thus there are only 9 boxes and 90 rifles, YET Klein's gets billed by Crescent for the full 100 riles and 10 boxes anyway! Sorry, I believe in the evidence of money owed on an invoice more than the (stupid meaningless) lack of a check mark on that invoice. It's an invoice for 100 rifles, and 10 box numbers of 10 each, are shown. If one was missing, it would not have been included in the total numbers or charges. No jury would see it your way.

The stuff about Oswald's alleged inability to pick up a rifle mailed to A. Hidell at his PO box, is not convincing. If the form for alternate pickup names is missing, it is missing. It doesn't matter if the Post Office should have kept it-- if we can't see it, we don't know who is on it. Hidell might have been. We have testimony from the postal people themselves that a package too big to go in a box would result in a card, and anybody who turned up at the front window would be assumed to have access to the box (else they would not have the card) and would be given the associated package with no ID check. You may disagree with this policy, but that doesn't matter; what matters is, that it WAS the policy (if not on paper, it was in fact-- sue them). Moreover it makes sense, as anybody with the box key could have gotten anything directly out of the box in the first place, if it was small enough, so failure to change the lock from a previous user is the problem, there. The post office took care of all these problems with a key and lock, not an ID check.

Next, there is the matter of PBS TV showing what is obviously a forged or "recreated" color order black from the American Rifleman, using the microfilmed order from Klein's (the original not existing anymore). You can ask PBS why they did that, but this is not evidence of a giant conspiracy. Nobody gave PBS the original Oswald order slip, and I hardly think they pretend they have it!

Next, Oswald's alleged lack of time to get a money order on the AM of March 12, which he must so that the money order can be dated Mar 12, the outgoing letter for the rifle can be postmarked 10:30 AM, March 12, and go by airmail to Chicago and Klein's where it arrives March 13! (which we know it does). Airmail was pretty good back then! The anomalies are only two: Oswald says he's at work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall by 8 AM, but we have no time-clock to prove it-- only the timesheet Oswald himself fills out (duh, this is why punchclocks were invented; obviously you've never employed any "clockers" as I have, or you would be totally embarassed to put in "evidence" like this.) Oswald's own work history is mildly interestingly, but proves nothing. He may have been on time most mornings, but missed quite being on time this morning. Oswald lived in the Lake Cliff area at the house (214 W. Neeley, Dallas 75208) where he would be seen in the backyard photos less than 3 weeks after ordering the rifle. He worked then at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall at 522 Browder Street in Dallas 75201, not far from the Dallas City Hall. You can mapquest the distance and it's only 2.6 miles by the shortest route on N. Zhang Bvld. That's half an hour walk, or perhaps he sometimes took a bus. If he bought his money order as soon as the post office opened March 12 (we don't know what time that was) he presumably had time to mail it and get to work at 9 AM, without being too late for notice. Nor would be be the first person to back-forge a timesheet.

Finally, the cancellation stamp from postal zone 12 on the letter is odd (you're not the first to notice it) and I can't explain it. However, perhaps airmail letters (with the special airmail stamp in 1963, remember) were not cancelled at the main office. Perhaps Oswald bought the money order on the way to work at the terminal or freight stations in Dallas, and then walked across the Trinity River to mail the letter from postal delivery zone 12, which is just across the Trinity River, west of classic downtown Dallas (in fact it's not that far on Commerce Street, after taking it under the triple underpass, going West from Dealey Plaza). Getting to a corner mailbox in district 12 that AM would not have been hard (it's about a mile out of Oswald's way to work, and for all I know, along a bus route so he has to run at no time). And would have been a typical Oswald deception (he was not using his own name, either, remember). And by the way, before we go into it, where is your evidence that the "12" on this postmark actually represents a postal zone, and isn't just a repeat of the date? Do you have other Dallas postmarks showing clearly that the zone goes in that space? SBHarris 04:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff here, SB. As usual, CTs seem to live in a different world than the rest of us. I worked in the post office here in Toronto for a while, and as a practical matter I can tell you in the stations I worked with PO boxes, if it's addressed to a particular box, little attention is paid if the person doesn't match, unless there is a forwarding notice. That's because posties don't want to deal with the hassle of customers complaining about having legitimate mail being returned to sender. What would generally happen if a name was not familiar or unknown, the letter would be sorted and if there was a complaint ("Not my mail!"), it would be noted on the box NOT to sort Person X to said box. Believe me, some customers are near-fanatical about either receiving "wrong" mail or about having "their" mail (even with an unfamiliar name) being returned. And... why do many people use post office boxes in the first place? Some have what we would term secret lives, perhaps receiving illicit material away from prying eyes at home, or in contact with persons they don't want their wives to know about, and some of these people use aliases. Oswald certainly fell into that category. Sure, some posties would be more officious and not sort the said mail to said box if there was no match, but in a practical sense, it's not surprising that a PARCEL was sorted to the box as returning a parcel, presumably ordered by the owner of the box or a friend, would presumably cause the box owner to blow a gasket. A letter returned? Maybe. A parcel? I don't think so.

As for the mystery of the stamp, again, this assumes that the post office operates as the most efficient organization on the planet. If Oswald had simply dropped the letter off where his box was, the letter may simply not have been cancelled there. AGAIN, this happens all the time, where a letter is not cancelled at its drop-off point, it is missed, then later cancelled further down the line. I've seen tons of letters with no cancellations arrive at a station, whereupon we cancel it. This doesn't mean the letter was posted at the very station! Canada Jack (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why you don't respond to the fact that the sling in the backyard photos is attached to the bottom of the rifle? Is it your view that this rifle is the type of Carcano equipped to hold a sling on the bottom and on the side? Or that the appearance of lower sling attachment in the backyard photos is a misinterpretation of the photo? Or is all of this irrelevant since after all Oswald's prints are on the TSBD rifle trigger guard? Cdg1072 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You have an overactive imagination if you think any attachment is seen in any backyard photo. The only thing that disturbs the line of the rifle in the CE-133A is a leaf from the shrub in back of it, and it's too low. Actually, most of the forward sling in CE-133A is invisible, since it's behind the rifle (which is why you don't see it going under Oswald's hand or any place else). A lower attachment is NOT seen in the photo where Oswald holds the literature away from his body, so it's clearly not part of the rifle. In fact, as explained below, both sling attachment rings in this model are on the side of the rifle away from the viewer (both in the backyard photos and the usual CE photo of the rifle). So they're invisible. SBHarris 00:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this documentary (0:31:38), it is clear that two rifles can be seen.--andreasegde (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a second rifle can be seen. The Dallas police had their own rifles and shotguns. The Carcano was photographed in place. Canada Jack (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So a Dallas policeman laid his own rifle on the floor against a box while someone was holding the Carcano?--andreasegde (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, a Dallas policeman leaned his own rifle against a box. Sorry, but what is the mystery here? Is it suspicious that the Dallas police were armed? Canada Jack (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that Dallas detectives (not policemen) carried rifles with them while investigating. Did they, back then?--andreasegde (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you pretending there were no policeman in the TSBD? How silly an argument is that? Canada Jack (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would there be uniformed policemen upstairs looking for a gun? That was the detectives' job (Weitzman and Boone). My question was if detectives carried rifles around with them at that time.--andreasegde (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Because gunshots had been fired from the location and whether there was a gunman or several gunmen still there was not initially known. Whether the shotguns/rifles were carried in by detectives or policeman is of no particular relevance as we know policemen were on the scene. This is one of the sillier allegations I have seen in a while. Again, what is the mystery here? Canada Jack (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevance is that two rifles were filmed being on the same floor. If Dallas detectives did not carry rifles, the film clip is interesting, no? Whose rifle was it? BTW, I am not making any kind of "allegation" = "An assertion, especially an accusation, not necessarily based on facts", but merely asking.--andreasegde (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I ask again; did detectives carry rifles in 1963?--andreasegde (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your line of questioning is relevant only if the two following conditions can be determined. 1) That no Dallas detectives ever carried a rifle into the building. 2) That only detectives were on the 6th floor and any others who might be carrying rifles or shotguns were not. However, in the very video you post, there is a shot of a Dallas cop holding a shotgun/rifle by the elevators. Further, in the Alyea film, we see a detective... holding a rifle! It doesn't seem to be the Carcano as it doesn't have a sling. [10] The onus is on you to establish that other rifles could not have been present on the floor. A lot of time has been wasted with people like David Groden making wild and silly allegations without bothering to do their basic research, like what weaponry we'd expect the police to be routinely carrying, and who was on which floors after the assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Again, what is the mystery here?" The mystery is why an idiot like you is still pretending Oswald shot Kennedy. ANYONE who wants to know the truth can now EASILY find it on the Internet. The evidence that you're a lying shill is far beyond overwhelming. This entire page should be deleted, it's such crap.76.6.94.150 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, 76, show us the evidence. Can't? I thought not. I can defend my scenario - you can't defend yours, and, I predict, you won't. Next. Canada Jack (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

C2766 Length?

One useful item in the specs, if anyone has a good handle on it, would be the length of the rifle. I am under the impression that this Carcano 91/38 was about 36 inches long but some sources claim C2766 was actually a "long" version of the Carcano, roughly 40 inches. Just wanna know. MrG 70.58.6.53 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The longest part of the C2766 rifle when disassembled is 34.8 inches. Testimony by FBI weapons expert Robert A. Frazier. Photo of the same model. — Walloon (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a spec on the assembled length? I assume 36 inches but like I said, some claim it was 40 inches. I don't believe it was 40 inches but "ah could be wrong". MrG 70.58.6.53 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall length of the assembled rifle is 40.2 inches. I just corrected that link I gave above. — Walloon (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good shot, silly me, I should have traced back the link. So from this link (http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/models.html) I determine that C2766 is a "91/38 Fucile Corto" model. There's some fussing over issues related to Klein's sporting goods shipping 36-inch versus 40-inch Carcanos but I don't want to get into that headache, just knowing the length is good enough. Thanks. MrG 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the short version which is around 10 cm shorter than the shortest Mauser (K98), the design is totally different and how anybody who has any knowledge about rifles (like maybe a Texan homicide detective)could confuse them, is unclear to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.16.139 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How or why they could have confused them is down to a) making a human mistake and b) being human by not admitting to the mistake. That's because we know what was recovered was a Carcano as it was photographed in situ and its recovery was filmed. I can see how a detective could be wrong (they screw up just like the rest of us, and won't admit to it just like the rest of us); I don't see how the photos could be wrong or the film could be wrong. Canada Jack (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate Mannlicher-Carcanos

OK, bear with me on this ... I've been going through the mania online about the possibility of multiple Mannlicher-Carcano rifles with SN C2766. The story about John Lattimer having one due to a comment in KENNEDY & LINCOLN has been cleared up; looked like a typo, somebody wrote him in 2004 and he wrote back: yep, it was a typo. All she wrote there.

However, now other arguments come to the fore, one being that Klein's got an MC with SN C2766 in 1962 -- there's an affidavit from a manager at Crescent Firearms named Feldsott to that effect in the WC exhibits -- and then got another one with SN C2766 in 1963. The Feds traced back the 1963 but ... ahem ... "completely dropped the ball" on the 1962 one. So I'm getting two stories, something's not adding up, given that conspiracy theorists have unconventional ideas about how to add I'm suspicious of them. But anybody got anything more specific? Dave von Pein did point out that Feldsott said nothing about shipping Klein's a C2766 in 1963.

There's also a bewildering argument about shipping weights. I got REALLY suspicious of that one when it seemed they were saying a 40.2 inch MC weighed 40% more than a 36 inch MC, when the difference in length is less than 12%. Half a century of muddying the waters and this is what we end up with. MrG 71.208.35.177 (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sling, and post office pickup

What looks like a forward sling attachment is a leaf. And it's too low.

As you may notice above in a similarly labeled discussion, I proposed that it has not been proven (publicly) that the Depository rifle had no evidence of bottom sling mounts, which seem clearly visible in the backyard photos, since there is no other way Oswald's makeshift sling in the photos could be attached. How do LN's respond to this? Do they claim that it only looks like the sling in backyard photos is attached to the rifle underside?

However, I do not deny that Oswald could have picked up a rifle from the post office during his workday at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. As Epstein wrote in Legend (1978), he apparently picked up on March 25th the rifle he had ordered, and "brought it back to his office, where he showed it to one of his fellow employees, Jack Bowen" (Epstein 209). This should settle that question, which still seems to linger with CTs.Cdg1072 ([[User talk:Cdg1072|talk]]) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Do you have a proposal for a change in the article? Location (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be possible to mention in the article that the backyard rifle does not match the TSBD and archives rifle. However, I know not what reliable source exists through which to bring that up in the article besides the unpublished work of Mr. G. Jesus (I only italicize reliable source for emphasis). If there isn't an appopriate published source, then the issue might for now be abandoned. Your question might also be directed at the individuals who raised this topic, on this page, in June, 2010. Their discussants subsequently continued, for about 10 times more text than did I (as you see above). I ought to have considered that their question was raised without a purpose in terms of changing or adding to the article text.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the interlocutors also swore: "Bullshit," and no one said a thing in protest to his language.24.136.7.211 (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It indeed may LOOK like the sling is attached to the underside of the rifle in the backyard photos, since it disappears into the rifle on its way to rings on the side you can't see. The best backyard photo to see this, is the one where Oswald holds the literature in his right hand *away* from his body (CE-133C), not under the chin, as he does in in photo CE-133A (shown at right). In particular, what looks like a forward sling mount in CE-133A is really a piece of shrubbery, not visible in the CE-133C photo that didn't surface until 1977 (as some cop had it as a souvenir): [11]. Which is why the bottom of the sling simply seems to disappear into the butt in this photo-- it's actually going past the butt to a ring on the side away from you, and the same happens at the forward sling ring mount. You can't see any sling mounts because in the M91/38 carbine, both mounts are on the left side (the shooter's left and he holds it in firing position) of the rifle. Which is why neither of them show in the backyard photo, OR the CE photo, which both both only show the rifle's right side, which is not the side with the sling rings. If you want to see what these rings actually look like on an M91/38 carbine, see HERE. That's what you're not seeing. Below is a CE (Warren Commission) photo of Oswald's Carcano with sling still attached, published by the LA Times, and you can see that the sling doesn't attach to the bottom of the rifle, but goes behind it, where you can't see how it attaches. So where does it attach? On the side you can't see.Commission Exhibit CE-139.

Note that the M91/38 short carbine is the only Carcano model in which you can't see any sling swivels when looking at it from the right side, since they're both on the left side of the rifle, not the bottom. Here are a bunch of different Carcanos examined by the HCSA committee, and Oswald's model, the M91/38 is second from the top. See, no swivels visible [12], because they're on the far side.

Now, as for Oswald. I don't know if he even bought a sling with the original rifle. The original leather slings would have been as old as he was (okay, made in 1940, so one year newer) and they are rare. The backyard photo shows a sling that looks light in color, as though Oswald had attached some old rope to the rifle, just after he got it. I'd have to do further research to find out. Maybe nobody knows. In any case, the rifle was found in the TSBD with a better leather sling (complete with a wide middle armpiece, which is NOT military issue) attached, since it is carried out after being found BY the sling, as per proper police procedure. [13]. You see the sling with wide arm section in the rifle the officer holds up at the TSBD, but you don't see any swivels on this photo, either, because, again, they are on the wrong (invisible) side, when the barrel points to the viewer-right. Here is a very nice AP photo of the TSBD and its distinctive sling, and you can see it's attached on the side of the rifle you cannot see, with NO sling swivels hanging down. Again see CE-139. Okay? If you think you actually see sling swivels or rings in any backyard photo, you have a very overactive imagination. I've looked and looked, and don't see either attachment. They're on the wrong side of the rifle. SBHarris 23:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I see it -- Oswald's sling indeed is attached to the left side from the firing perspective.Cdg1072 (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an even better photo of the sling attachment on the book depository rifle, moments after it was discovered there.

Sling mount on TSBD rifle SBHarris 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I never doubted that the rifle found in the building had a side sling. But you've made it clear that it was Oswald's, and all doubts that it was his are baseless.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WC-139 ?

Suddenly in the article the term WC-139 is introduced in the word string: "allowed to use WC-139 at an FBI firing range." This term required definition and/or explanation. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC))

For future reference

• Wheeler, Keith (August 27, 1965). "'Cursed Gun'—The Track of C7266". LIFE. 59 (9). Chicago: Time, Inc.: 62–65. ISSN 0024-3019. Retrieved July 1, 2015.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) - Location (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325103144/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/13/jfk-forensics-tech-02.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/13/jfk-forensics-tech-02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ballistics Research Laboratory tests

This section includes a great deal of information regarding some test conducted by CBS on the ballistics issue. Is there a source citation for this? That's a great deal of info without proper citation. There are a number of claims made throughout this article where a citation does not exist. As per, WP:CITE, I'm sharping my Wiki-Scissors to make some cuts if someone doesn't place citations where ones are required. Jtpaladin (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://http//www.wf.net/~biles/jfk/delgado.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225054037/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/13/jfk-forensics-tech-02.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/13/jfk-forensics-tech-02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Did he sign for it?

"He also purchased a revolver from a different company, by the same method. Both weapons were signed for in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. "

I am sorry to have added the "dubious" ref tag, but I cannot find anything in appendix 10 of the Warren report (the cited ref) to say Oswald signed for the rifle as Lee Oswald. Or as anybody. Here is the section of the WR: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#questioned. It has an excellent discussion of various documents, including ordering material as A.J.Hidell, and a good analysis of the two sets of documents found on Oswald on capture, making the case that one had been forged from the other, and that therefore "Hidell" WAS Oswald's alias. Surely Oswald had the pistol on capture, said it was his, and yet the pistol was ordered by A.Hidell and Oswald had at some time taken possession of it!

Nevertheless, there is a hole in the actual moment of pickup of the rifle in Dallas, and probably the pistol also. People with keys to deposit boxes and personally at the post office, didn't need to sign anything! Elsewhere in the WR (sorry I can't find it at this second) there is testamony that Oswald wouldn't have had to sign anything to pick up a package (like the rifle) at the post office. The reason is he had a key to the box, and thus was assumed to have access to anything shipped to the box (even if he had to present the "too big to fit in box" ticket to the window to get the rifle). No point in requiring a signature just for size, and apparently the post office didn't require one. Thus Oswald wouldn't have had to sign for the rifle as Oswald OR Hidell. He just used his key to get the "too big" tag, and was given the package. I don't know what happened at the freight office where he picked up the pistol. But it needs to be looked at. Anyway, here is the place to hash his out, so we don't end up spreading nonsense. SBHarris 04:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. Page 121 states: "Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes of the Dallas Post Office testified, however, that when a package is received for a certain box, a notice is placed in that box regardless of whether the name on the package is listed on the application as a person entitled to receive mail through that box. The person having access to the box then takes the notice to the window and is given the package. Ordinarily, Inspector Holmes testified, identification is not requested because it is assumed that the person with the notice is entitled to the package." It appears as though the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald was matched to the order forms and PO box application, but it does not appear that he signed "Lee Harvey Oswald" to order the weapons or to pick them up. -Location (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You found it, and my memory was good. Gunna have to fix this. Will do it in a few days. Meanwhile I'll just remove the "signed in his own name" from the intro, and discuss the problem later in in the article. SBHarris 03:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in John F. Kennedy assassination rifle

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of John F. Kennedy assassination rifle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYTimes":

• From Robert MacNeil: New York Times interview, May 5, 1994
• From John K. Lattimer: Hevesi, Dennis. "John K. Lattimer, Urologist of Varied Expertise, Dies at 92", The New York Times, May 13, 2007. Accessed May 13, 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Lane's comments

I do not believe that Mark Lane is a good source regarding the initial misidentification of the manufacturer. He admitted that he wasn't a firearms expert. What do others think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As Mark Lane suggested, it doesn't require a firearms expect to note that the rifle is stamped with, "Made in Italy." He was called as a witness and made a relevant observation. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is a relevant observation, then surely it is discussed in reliable sources by experts. The article already discusses the misidentification. Mark Lane is a highly controversial source, and I believe quoting his non-expert observation detracts from the neutrality of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The recent edits also link within the body of the article to a primary document, Weitzman's brief report filed November 23. That is not appropriate. Gerald Posner in Case Closed page 271 reports that Weitzman's identification was made "at first glance" and that he immediately admitted that he had made a mistake. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How about replacing it with an observation along the same lines from Gary Mack of the 6th floor museum. Reasonably expert on the evidence, non-controversial, and in-context.[14] Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The section needs to be rewritten. It places FAR too much weight to the thoroughly and completely debunked "Mauser" claim. All we need to note is the rifle was found and initially thought by some to be a Mauser. Upon examination at the police lab, it was determined in fact to be a Carcano, and the correction was issued. Because of persistent claims by authors like Lane, the HSCA examined the photos of the rifle in place, the WFAA footage of it being recovered, the Beers and Allen photos of Lt. Day carrying the rifle from the TSBD, and multiple images of it taken by numerous news organizations from around the world at the police station. They concluded that that rifle was the same rifle held at the National Archives, which was also the same rifle their photographic panel concluded was in the unaltered photographs of Oswald holding a rifle. And that rifle is a Carcano, and the identical individual rifle. It really matters squat what Weitzman said n his affidavit or what Lane said to the WC, the rifle in those photos was the rifle recovered and that is the rifle in the archives. Only the delusional deny these basic facts. Canada Jack (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I took out Lane`s remarks as they were irrelevant. They`d be relevant if he was on the 6th floor at the time of the recovery and in a position to see or not see the markings he described to the Warren Commission. As it stood, the remarks were simply his opinion that the markings were obvious and unmissable. Others beg to differ, as others note that the markings would not have been visible when the rifle was in place and without a more thorough exam than the cursory looks done on the 6th floor when it was pulled out. I also rewrote the Mauser claims to mention the initial claim, the correction, the WC`s conclusion this was an error, and the HSCA`s closer examination of this issue. Canada Jack (talk)

Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman misidentified the Carcano as a '7.65 Mauser' simply because, if you've never seen a Carcano before -- and few Americans had -- it looks very like the Argentine army's Mauser Model 1891, derived from the Belgian army's Model 1889, which took a 7.65mm cartridge. The Argentine M1891 was very familiar on the American market at the time, repurposed as a sporting rifle, and it was often sold with a cut-down barrel to make it more marketable, which also made it resemble Oswald's 1940-pattern Italian army Carcano more closely. See the Montgomery Ward press advertisement here, whose typography clearly dates it to the late 1950s or early 1960s. http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?190242-1891-mauser-guestions

Dallas police officer Roger Craig, who had severe mental problems and killed himself in 1975, claimed that he saw the stamp '7.65 Mauser' on the rifle, in a TV interview with the conspiracist Mark Lane shortly before Craig's death. In fact the markings on an Argentine M1891 Mauser look rather different. The rollmark just next to the breech will read, in full caps, 'Mauser Modelo Argentino 1891,' and, on the line underneath, 'Manufactura Loewe Berlin.' If the rifle was made after 1896, the second line will say 'Deutsche Munitions und Waffen Fabriken', with 'Berlin' on a third line. The Argentine national symbol, which is fairly unmistakable, will be stamped on the metal band ahead of the breech, unless it was ground off for political reasons during the early 20th century when Argentina didn't want people to know who it was supplying weapons to.

"Whether made by Loewe or DWM, the 1891 Argentine Mausers are beautifully made firearms well-known for their spectacular receiver markings. In addition to the model designation and the manufacturer information, the front receiver band of each rifle and carbine was beautifully rollmarked with the distinctive Argentine national crest. This emblem consists of a wreath enclosing three symbols important to the country’s national identity: a pair of hands in mid-handshake representing unity, a wooden pike representing power and a Phrygian cap representing freedom. At the apex of the crest, the sun shines down in a metaphor indicating a national aspiration and optimism that would not follow Argentina through the politically complicated 20th century. The Phrygian cap and the shaking hands also appear on various parts and components of the 1891 rifles and carbines as proof and acceptance stamps, making each gun a handsome example of late 19th-century gunmaking craftsmanship."

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2017/4/18/the-1891-argentine-mauser-a-history/

Roger Craig, always unstable as far as one can tell, was fired from the police, injured in a serious car accident, and then shot in the shoulder with a shotgun by the husband of a woman he was seeing, and then shot himself dead, in his father's house, while on Diazepam and three times over the alcohol limit for driving. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig_death.htm His own daughter, Michelle Palmer, allegedly claimed that he was always crazy and always given to self-harm, and that he knew nothing about exotic firearms. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/3-PfhXeqrj0%5B1-25%5D Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)