Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?

[Walt Cakebread]

It's easy sitting on the sidelines and playing Monday morning quarterback, but don't you have half a dozen Carcano's laying around, why don't you demonstrate your ability to be a neutral witness and do the above demonstration yourself, and finally you may gain some credibility?

JohnM

do the above demonstration yourself,

What demonstration?

[Walt Cakebread]

While I have high regard for Jerry’s research, and we are usually in general agreement with our opinions, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel. It is my opinion that after many years of contact of the two dissimilar materials and who knows what kind of conditions and treatment, that the edges of the slot caused the bottom of the barrel to oxidize, etc. right along the edges. And that roughness on the bottom of the metal barrel was what caused the lines in the lift.

I didn’t waste any time, I didn’t alter any evidence. (What the heck makes you think Jerry’s opinion is evidence?) I didn’t expect you to change your tune either. You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

 You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

Be specific.....  In reference to the current subject ( the palm print card )  WHAT do you believe is a "nutty conclusion".....

The size of the card?....    Yes, my original statement that the card's dimensions were 3" X 5"  was incorrect.   This discussion has opened my eyes to the fact that the card could not have been 3 X 5.....So I'm indebted to you for enlightening to that fact.

What is your conclusion about the dimensions of that card, and the width of the tape?

[Walt Cakebread]

While I have high regard for Jerry’s research, and we are usually in general agreement with our opinions, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel. It is my opinion that after many years of contact of the two dissimilar materials and who knows what kind of conditions and treatment, that the edges of the slot caused the bottom of the barrel to oxidize, etc. right along the edges. And that roughness on the bottom of the metal barrel was what caused the lines in the lift.

I didn’t waste any time, I didn’t alter any evidence. (What the heck makes you think Jerry’s opinion is evidence?) I didn’t expect you to change your tune either. You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

"You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.".... Charles Collins

"Whatever that linear feature is, it's probably not the bayonet lug. It might be that gunpowder residue, dirt and/or cleaning oil seeped in around the bayonet lug and left two lines of accumulation."   Jerry Organ

Charles,... Is Jerry's statement a " nutty conclusion", ....Or do you believe Jerry's statement is an example of solid and rational reasoning?

[Charles Collins]

You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

Be specific.....  In reference to the current subject ( the palm print card )  WHAT do you believe is a "nutty conclusion".....

The size of the card?....    Yes, my original statement that the card's dimensions were 3" X 5"  was incorrect.   This discussion has opened my eyes to the fact that the card could not have been 3 X 5.....So I'm indebted to you for enlightening to that fact.

What is your conclusion about the dimensions of that card, and the width of the tape?

I haven’t concluded anything yet. I try to base any conclusions on as much evidence as possible without relying on assumptions if possible. But my educated guess so far is that the tape is around 1-1/2” to 2”. If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut or not, that would be more information we could use to try to better form a conclusion regarding the sizes that you are asking about.

[Walt Cakebread]

I haven’t concluded anything yet. I try to base any conclusions on as much evidence as possible without relying on assumptions if possible. But my educated guess so far is that the tape is around 1-1/2” to 2”. If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut or not, that would be more information we could use to try to better form a conclusion regarding the sizes that you are asking about.

If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut

I don't understand what you mean by " over cut"......   I have several carcano's and one rough stock that was manufactured for the model 91/38 short rifle but it never was assembled into a complete rifle.  it is cut and drilled and ready to accept the metal pieces to make up a complete rifle.

The bayonet slot is cut into the wooden foregrip.   It is 3/16 of an inch wide by 3/8" deep.....it extends 3 1/2 inches to the rear of the front end of the foregrip,  The sides of the slot are parallel  over nearly the entire length of the slot......but they gradually narrow to a width of 1/8 inch at the rear of the slot about 1/2 inch from the rear or end of the slot.   At about the same place the slot starts to narrow the 1/2 inch depth of the slot starts to decrease .    ( Probably matching the tip of the bayonet blade that it was designed to accept )....

I hope this answers your question......

[Charles Collins]

If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut

I don't understand what you mean by " over cut"......   I have several carcano's and one rough stock that was manufactured for the model 91/38 short rifle but it never was assembled into a complete rifle.  it is cut and drilled and ready to accept the metal pieces to make up a complete rifle.

The bayonet slot is cut into the wooden foregrip.   It is 3/16 of an inch wide by 3/8" deep.....it extends 3 1/2 inches to the rear of the front end of the foregrip,  The sides of the slot are parallel  over nearly the entire length of the slot......but they gradually narrow to a width of 1/8 inch at the rear of the slot about 1/2 inch from the rear or end of the slot.   At about the same place the slot starts to narrow the 1/2 inch depth of the slot starts to decrease .    ( Probably matching the tip of the bayonet blade that it was designed to accept )....

I hope this answers your question......

That description helps. Thanks.

[Charles Collins]

If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut

I don't understand what you mean by " over cut"......   I have several carcano's and one rough stock that was manufactured for the model 91/38 short rifle but it never was assembled into a complete rifle.  it is cut and drilled and ready to accept the metal pieces to make up a complete rifle.

The bayonet slot is cut into the wooden foregrip.   It is 3/16 of an inch wide by 3/8" deep.....it extends 3 1/2 inches to the rear of the front end of the foregrip,  The sides of the slot are parallel  over nearly the entire length of the slot......but they gradually narrow to a width of 1/8 inch at the rear of the slot about 1/2 inch from the rear or end of the slot.   At about the same place the slot starts to narrow the 1/2 inch depth of the slot starts to decrease .    ( Probably matching the tip of the bayonet blade that it was designed to accept )....

I hope this answers your question......

Walt, here is an image showing the components of that area of the rifle. Is this an accurate depiction? If so, can you describe how it all fits together please? Thanks.

[Jerry Organ]

You're right, the two parallel lines seen at the right hand side of the "palm print" photo ( CE 639) were not created by the bayonet lug.  That lug is 3/8 " wide ....  and the two parallel lines are 3/16" apart....   Which just happens to be the width of the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip ( The slot allows the bayonet blade to be folded back when the bayonet wasn't required )

You're preaching to NO ONE who believes the lifting tape was one-inch ("the two parallel lines are 3/16" apart"). Get with the program, Sad Sack. On two-inch tape, the linear (possibly residue) feature is the same width as the bayonet slot.