Subject: Re: << The Rifle << Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 23:45:32 -0500 From: AnthonyMarsh Organization: Star-Telegram Usenet server Newsgroups: startext.jfk John Ritchson wrote: > > AnthonyMarsh wrote: > > [snip] > > > Of course I looked at Mike O'Neils photo. It is the same one used in > > LIFE Classic Photographs. Why didn't you know that? The difference is > > that usually the quality of a photo is much better in the book than the > > magazine. I also have the same photos from the French magazine Photo. > > You need to start examining better quality photos. That will reduce your > > errors. > > There are two issues. One is the supposed vent. I never argued that the > > HSCA study had anything to do with that. The other is whether the rifle > > was a routine infantry weapon. The HSCA study addresses that because it > > pointed out the many areas of wear and tear, even gouges which a routine > > infantry rifle would receive and which C 2766 shows. That has nothing to > > do with the photo in LIFE. That photo shows only the left side and you > > would never see ALL the wear and tear marks which the HSCA study pointed > > out. THAT is why I brought up the HSCA study, for your edification. > > First of all, My photo was not pulled out of Life Magazine, or made > from any other magazine or book. It is a professional high resolution > enlargment made from Mike O'Neil's origional photo which he sent to > researcher Walt Cakebread, who then forwarded it to me. It represents > a 2mb scan, otherwise I would post it for all to see for themselves. > Yada, yada, yada. OK, if you don't want to clog up the overly busy newsgroup, then e-mail the 2 Mb file to me. > I as does Richard Dobbs know for a fact that the only rifles that > match the rifle depicted in that photograph are the Gardia del Duce > Carcanos. Call him yourself. > Based on only that one photo you showed him? Not likely. > [snip] > > > Again you resort to the old 'Nam swagger. I have heard it from hundreds > > of guys like you over the years. Your claim to expertise simply because > > you served in Vietnam. We thank you for your service, but that service > > does not make you a scientist. > > Typically a vet like you will say something like, "You know nothing > > about 'Nam. You can't talk the talk. You can't walk the walk." And you > > think that you have won the argument simply by swagger. > > Above and beyond being a Nam Vet, I am also a professional gunsmith > and ballistician with nearly 30 years experience in this field, who > also spent the last year of military service in a ceremonial honor > guard and precision drill team at Ft. Eustice Virginia where I trained > with a specially made Model 1903 Springfield rifle which I must have > dropped a 100 times in learning such as the "Queen Ann's Salute," > which is a highly difficult manuever and I expect the Italians had > no better luck learning it than I did. Ergo, one banged up rifle. > How can you call yourself a professional gunsmith when you don't know what that screw is? How do you replace barrels? > I'm not claiming scientific expertise based upon my military service > even though I worked in technical areas. I am a tradesman that builds > firearms and special ammunition from the ground up and I know my > business. > And yet you don't even have a M-C of your own and you don't know anyone who does? I might trust you to mod an M-16, but I can't depend on you to know anything about the Mannlicher. > [snip] > > > Dobbs? Bring him on. Let him try to prove for himself what YOU claim > > that he thinks. Horst? Any quotes? > > Several reloading specialists recommend great caution when dealing with > > the M-C. Ask Paul Burke. Supposedly he overloaded some ammo and the > > rifle blew up in his face. Klein's had complaints from customers that > > the rifle was dangerous. Yes, reloading for that rifle is dangerous. > > You have to know what you are doing. But many people own the rifle > > and still use the rifle. The DPD marksmen had no fear of test shooting > > their M-Cs in August 1978 for the BBN tests, even using the Norman ammo. > > White Labs had no problem > > test firing their M-Cs for the WC. Various people in the JFK newsgroups > > own and routinely shoot their M-C's. Eventually someone will do > > something stupid and overload his ammo and viola, blown rifle. > > You can find both Dobbs and Horst in the White Pages. > > [snip] > > > I am not a LNer. Show me a plethora of professional gunsmiths and > > shooters. You can't name any at all. > > I listed 5 or so and can come up with a bunch more if necessary, > all world-class people. But I've got a feeling it wouldn't matter > much to you who I listed or what their credentials are. > You have not shown me any evidence of what these people you listed think about the issues we are discussing. Nothing. > [snip] > > > Show me a schematic for the M-C which ever mentioned a > > vent. You can't. > > In the case of a left shouldered shooter: > > [ Quote:] "To make the action safer there should be a *HOLE* in the > *LEFT SIDE* of the *RECIEVER RING* (emphasis mine) to coincide with > the undercut in the bolt face recess." [End Quote:] (Frank de Haas, 1971 > edition of Bolt Action Rifles page78) > Yes, that would be a nice suggestion for customizing a righty rifle for lefty shooting. There is absolutely no indication that anyone customized Oswald's rifle for left-handed shooting. Rather difficult to reload quickly when the ejection port is on the right side and the bolt knob is also on the right side. Oswald shot righty. There is absolutely no evidence that the rifle depicted was designed for lefty operation. And what you call a gas port vent is being plugged by a screw. That would make it rather difficult to vent gas when there is a screw in the way. > Without this gas vent any blow-by of propellent gas that enters into > the left lug raceway will most certainly be felt by the shooter. > Conversely, once modified this rifle is no longer safe for the right > shouldered shooter now having the propensity to expell propellent- > gas in both lateral directions. > Yeah, if you vent gases in both directions, it would be dangerous to fire both lefty and righty? As in, why would you want to do that in the first place if you make it useless for either lefty or righty? > [snip] > > > You did not say "could." You said "would." > > The gas port is only in your imagination. > > Kindly produce my quote that says any such thing. Sure thing: > [NOTE:] > After consulting with various experts on Carcano rifles including > Richard Dobbs who is concidered one of the top people in this area, > I have concluded that the rifle depicted in Mike O'Neil's Life photo, > and identified as CE-139, Serial #2766, is in fact a very rare model > known as a Moschettieri del Duce Carcano which is a ceremonial rifle > of Mussolini's Guard, of which only a few hundred were ever made. I > can't imagine such a weapon would ever turn up as part of a cheap > batch of surplus Carcanos being offered for sale by a sporting goods > store in Chicago for around $25.00. Far more likely is the probability > that it was in fact a battlefield trophy which hung on someone's wall > until such a time as it turned up as evidence in the JFK case. Also > noteworthy is the fact that due to the gas port on the left side of ----------------------------------------------------------| | > reciever ring, firing this rifle from the right shoulder would be -----------------------------------------------------------^^^^^ > quite hazardous, exposing the shooter to hot propellent gas in the > event of any gas blow-by, and/or cartridge failure and primer rupture > which are fairly common to old leaky, sloppy bolt action rifles. > "Would" "Would" and "could" are not the same. "Would" means probable. Could means possible. Possible is not the same thing as probable. It is possible that our sun will go supernova. It is not probable that our sun will go supernova tomorrow. > > [snip] > > > You are not talking about getting a first generation print directly from > > the photographer. You are talking about picking up a magazine at the > > supermarket. That quality will not be as good as the book. > > I'm talking about the photo-evidence that I am evaluating which is > as I stated. > > [snip] > > > It makes you look very foolish when you falsely claim to be an expert > > and you can not tell the difference between a screw and a gas port. > > All right Professor, would you kindly enumerate for the edification > of we mere mortals just what mechanical purpose/advantage would be > served by drilling/milling, tapping and inserting a threaded fastner > into the left side of the reciever ring? > The fact that you don't know this give me no confidence in your claim to be a gunsmith. The barrel is threaded and the receiver is threaded. The barrel screws into the receiver. To lock it into place, a lock screw is inserted which goes through the hole in the receiver and shallowly into a hole in the barrel. The hole does not go all the way through the barrel to the bore. When you want to replace the barrel you have to back off that screw before you can unscrew and remove the barrel from the receiver. This procedure is explained in the case of another rifle, which has interchangeable barrels, in the August 1998 issue of Guns and Ammo on page 25. It is necessary to first back off the socket head gap screws for that rifle discussed. Again, the fact that you do not know simple principles like this indicates to me that you are faking your way through this. > Hint: There is only one mechanical function for a hole in the left > side of the reciever ring. > > In conclusion, you may consider this my final word in this matter. > > With Regard, > John Ritchson(SSGT. 499th TC USATC HG US Army Class of 69) > (GunSmith/Ballistician,Black Eagle Gun Works) > (Survivor, SE Asian Games, 11BRAVO7,Tet 1970) > ************************************************************ > The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that > heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but > "That's Funny..." Isaac Asimov > ************************************************************ -- Anthony Marsh The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh