The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear

[Bill Chapman]

____________________________________________________________

Shooting the 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm Cartridges and the Carcano Rifles,
an article by Dave Emary, Senior Ballistician of Hornady Manufacturing

____________________________________________________________

The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard
to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding
cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a
156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average
pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to
produce this meager gain in performance. The . 30-30 Winchester, regarded
as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear
produces 2,220 fps in a 24” barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52
mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher
velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the
.30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with
its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder
charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This
would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact,
much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at
long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what
it was intended.

The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many “through and
through” wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet
typically would not tumble inside its’ target unless it encountered
something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is
well known.

____________________________________________________________


The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The gain
twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel progressively
getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at the muzzle. The
slow initial twist results in substantially less torque being imparted to
the bullet during the highest loading phase of the interior ballistic
cycle. This results in significantly less barrel wear in the throat. This
coupled with the very deep rifling of the barrel would result in barrels
that would have a very long wear and accuracy life. This in fact is the
case. Many M91 model rifles show signs of considerable amounts of
ammunition being fired through them, because of the crazed/frosted
condition of the bore, yet still show very strong rifling and shoot well
with the proper size bullets. The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a
standard fixed twist barrel. The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple,
easy to field strip bolt. It is about as fool proof as you can get for a
common soldier. The Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of
criticism. The trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In
almost all cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing
the sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
triggers I have encountered.

The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made
from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid
royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you
will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also
received a reputation as being a “weak” design. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in
WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8
X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge.
The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is
73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.

____________________________________________________________

The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of
5.5” – 6.5” at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on
barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220
meters. The Carcano’s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight
picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with
the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 – 350 meters. This is
about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
iron sights. I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very
intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically
fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that
nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed
sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier
under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The
soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of
his enemy for ranges out to 220 – 230 meters. How much more simple and
effective could it have been made.

____________________________________________________________

6.5 x 52 mm

The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the exception
of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are very pleasant
to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above mentioned sight
picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of the rear sight
notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock- cheek weld for
consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a carbide lamp or a
sight black product to blacken the sights, which improves contrast and
sight picture.

____________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION:

The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a
military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an
even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing
been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62
X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the
6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of
very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no
means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles
that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings
for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle
as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most
efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their
era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of
accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.

____________________________________________________________
Carcano Homepage: Italian Military Rifles and Carbines
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/

[Charles Collins]

Interesting article. Thanks!

[John Mytton]

Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.

Oswald's rifle.


JohnM

[Jerry Organ]

"91/38 Carcano Carbine Review" ( Link )

(Not the Carcano Short Rifle)

February 23, 2021; Excerpts ...

Carcano clips

The Carcano uses the Mannlicher clip setup. Reproduction clips cost around $10-15. To load them, pull the bolt back, press the loaded clip into the magazine hard until you hear/feel it click in place, and the rifle is loaded. Run the bolt and shoot, once you load the last round, the clip will automatically fall out the bottom. .. .as long as it’s clean and unbent. If the clip chute is dirty or the clip is bent, it might not fall out like it’s supposed to, but you can just ram a full clip in from the top to push out the spent one.

To release a clip that’s full or partially full, press the en-block down a bit, then push forward on the button inside the front of the trigger guard. The clip will pop into your hands, kinda like the clip release on an M1 Garand if you’re familiar with those.

6.5x52mm Carcano

In the middle of so many overpowered rifle rounds in late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the 6.5×52 Carcano is . . .almost futuristic? While other nations were fielding beasty 30 cal cartridges like the 30-06 (3000 ft-lbs of energy) and 7.62x54R (2700 ft-lbs), the Italians were running a more reasonable cartridge at 1900 ft-lbs of energy. Had they been running a lighter 129-140 grain bullet instead of their tank of a 160 grain bullet, it would have been very close to an 1890’s 6.5 Creedmoor. And unlike many other rounds of this age, it’s unrimmed so there’s no potential issues with rimlock like you’d get in the SMLE or Mosin Nagant.

That all said, 6.5 Carcano does not use 6.5mm bullets like other 6.5 rifles of today. Instead of the 0.264″ diameter 6.5 everyone else uses, they’re 0.268″ in diameter. This means you need Carcano-specific bullets, and regular 6.5 bullets off the shelf may not be accurate. Commercial ammo for the 6.5 Carcano is also usually 0.264″, so you won’t get tip-top accuracy. You’ll need to reload with Prvi 139 grain, Carcano-specific bullets to get it right.

Is the Carcano any good?

I think there are pros and cons to the Carcano like any rifle. The cartridge is more reasonable and a better choice than most other cartridges of the same age. The fact it uses a weird bullet diameter is a pain in the ass for owners today because bullets are harder to find.

For the rifle, the bent bolt is nicer to use than a straight bolt though the action feels much rough and slower than something like a Lee Enfield No1 mk3 or a No 4 mk 1. Still not as bad as a Mosin Nagant.

The clip system is a bit faster than stripper clips but it brings additional possible points of failure. It’s also not possible to top up while the clip’s in the gun.

Sights on the Carcano vary depending on your model. Both the original M91 adjustable sight and the newer M38 fixed sights have wide V-notch rear sights and a simple front post. The M91’s and some M91/38’s have adjustable sights that adjust to ridiculous ranges you’d never be able to make a hit at.

Use a Carcano for hunting?

Unless your Carcano shoots the 0.264″ bullets well, or you found some rare 0.268″ soft points to reload with, I’d strongly recommend against hunting with a Carcano. You may need to modify the sights, the safety is terrible for hunting, and there are just much better new production hunting rifles.

     My Note ...

     Many Carcano surplus rifle owners would use modern "6.5" (.264" version)
     ammo, thinking it would work fine. When they consistently missed using the
     "wrong" ammo, they declared the Carcano junk. But the reviewer notes that
     the factory-spec 6.5 ammo is necessary for a proper evaluation. I would bet
     most of the conspiracy kooks who fired a Carcano used the readily-available
     modern 6.5 ammo (not ready meant for the 6.5 Carcano) rather than factory-
     spec ammunition. By contrast, Dr John Lattimer,  "Beyond the Magic Bullet"
     and the Haags used authentic factory-spec 6.5x52 ammunition."

     (Wikipedia states ".268 cal, actually 0.2675 inches")

[Joe Elliott]

Bill has provided the following quote from Dave Emary:

The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many “through and
through” wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet
typically would not tumble inside its’ target unless it encountered
something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is
well known.

The Carcano cartridge, and full metal jacket bullets are ‘humane’ weapons. It is sort of standard history that advocates for more humane weapons forced the major powers to adopt more humane bullets, against the wishes of the military. They truth is, even without the Hague convention, the military would have chosen the more ‘humane’ bullets. The humane advocates thought they had triumphed over the generals with the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions, but they really didn’t.

A non Full Metal Jacket bullet, or a non FMJ bullet will due great damage to a body, but only for a short distance, like within two feet of the impact spot when travelling through organic material. In contrast, a FMJ bullet will do much less damage but can travel more live four feet within organic material before stopping. It would seem that a non FMJ bullet would be more effective because after travelling two feet through a body, a bullet will usually be leaving a human body behind, so a person standing in the open will have a more serious wound from a non FMJ bullet than a FMJ bullet. So, the choice is simple:

•   A bullet that does maximum damage, per inch of wound path, but over a shorter wound path, of something like two feet.
Or:
•   A bullet that does less damage along the wound path, per inch of the wound path, but provides a longer wound path.

In modern warfare, soldiers are not always standing in the open. They may be hiding behind barriers, like trees, wood, maybe even bodies of horses or people. A non FMJ bullet might fail to even wound a soldier behind such a barrier while a FMJ bullet might still reach him.

In the American Civil War, both sides used highly destructive bullets, relatively slow velocity, but soft lead bullets that would always deform on impact, expand and make terrible wounds, often requiring amputation of a limb. Amputation would still be the standard treatment to this day, even with modern medical techniques, were such bullets still used in warfare. But these bullets were not always effective. A common story of the Civil War is that a smaller force would first reach a vital crossroad, maybe only a few minutes ahead of a larger enemy force. With only a few minutes to prepare, they could quickly tear down rail post fences, pile up the wood as a barrier and use that to hide behind. This would prove to be an effective barrier. This would have been a waste of time and effort if the enemy force employed more modern weapons, firing FMJ bullets, like the Carcano, because those bullets would have passed through the wooden barrier and continued on to wound the defending soldiers.

Modern armies are willing to use a more humane bullet if it greatly increases the odds of at least wounding an enemy soldier.

So, as it turns out a less humane bullet is not necessarily the more effective military bullet.

[Joe Elliott]

The Carcano appears to be inappropriate because the iron sights could not be adjusted for an exact range. They were permanent set to provide a proper aim at a stationary target exactly 200 meters, or 218 yards away. So, the rifle would tend to miss high at ranges under 218 yards. It would miss high by about 4.5 inches at 63 yards, the second shot at z222. And miss high by about 5.5 inches at 88 yards, the third shot at z312.

But this would actually help Oswald, because he was firing down on a target moving away from him. With a rifle adjusted properly for each distance, at a stationary target, with the moving target a rifle would tend to miss low by 6.2 inches with the second (z222) shot, and miss low by 3.8 inches with the third (z312) shot.

So, the two ‘errors’:

1.   error from the non-adjusting iron sights
2.   error from the moving target

largely cancel each other out.

For the second shot at z222, Oswald should, in theory miss low by (6.2 - 4.5 ) or 1.7 inches.
For the third shot at z312, Oswald should, in theory miss high by (5.5 – 3.8 ) or 1.7 inches.

So, by a quirk, while one might expect Oswald to miss the moving center of the head by four to five inches (which still might be fatal), the iron sights provide a lead that should cause him to hit within two inches of where the rifle is aimed at the time of its firing.

There is no need for Oswald to remember to aim at the top of the head, not at the center of the head. And this might be more difficult than it would appear, because the end of the barrel of the rifle would largely block his view of the head if he needed to aim just above it. But no problem in he just has to aim at the center of the head. I suspect that Oswald knew he had a rifle that would tend to miss high at ranges under 200 meters, but this is what he needed because the target was continuously rising.

[Jerry Organ]

The Commission thought it was possible to use the scope, even if it was off-zero at 100 yards as it was during the FBI tests. The distance from the Z313 head shot to the Sniper's Nest window as 218 feet (72.67 yards).

    "Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards
     in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed
     within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches. Although all of the
     shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was
     because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI
     agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming
     to hit a bull's-eye. They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the
     weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be
     placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect
     occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate
     for it. Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the
     assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said,
     "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate
     for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this
     weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be
     necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object.
     The scope would accomplish the lead for you." Frazier added that the
     scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however,
     that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third
     shot was fired.

     Based on these tests the experts agreed that the assassination rifle was
     an accurate weapon. Simmons described it as "quite accurate," in fact,
     as accurate as current military rifles. Frazier testified that the rifle was
     accurate, that it had less recoil than the average military rifle and that one
     would not have to be an expert marksman to have accomplished the
     assassination with the weapon which was used.

     Conclusion

     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."

          — Warren Report, pp.194-195



(Yet another example of the exemplary unbiased work contributed by the Warren Commission and the federal agencies.)

[Bill Chapman]

The Carcano appears to be inappropriate because the iron sights could not be adjusted for an exact range. They were permanent set to provide a proper aim at a stationary target exactly 200 meters, or 218 yards away. So, the rifle would tend to miss high at ranges under 218 yards. It would miss high by about 4.5 inches at 63 yards, the second shot at z222. And miss high by about 5.5 inches at 88 yards, the third shot at z312.

But this would actually help Oswald, because he was firing down on a target moving away from him. With a rifle adjusted properly for each distance, at a stationary target, with the moving target a rifle would tend to miss low by 6.2 inches with the second (z222) shot, and miss low by 3.8 inches with the third (z312) shot.

So, the two ‘errors’:

1.   error from the non-adjusting iron sights
2.   error from the moving target

largely cancel each other out.

For the second shot at z222, Oswald should, in theory miss low by (6.2 - 4.5 ) or 1.7 inches.
For the third shot at z312, Oswald should, in theory miss high by (5.5 – 3.8 ) or 1.7 inches.

So, by a quirk, while one might expect Oswald to miss the moving center of the head by four to five inches (which still might be fatal), the iron sights provide a lead that should cause him to hit within two inches of where the rifle is aimed at the time of its firing.

There is no need for Oswald to remember to aim at the top of the head, not at the center of the head. And this might be more difficult than it would appear, because the end of the barrel of the rifle would largely block his view of the head if he needed to aim just above it. But no problem in he just has to aim at the center of the head. I suspect that Oswald knew he had a rifle that would tend to miss high at ranges under 200 meters, but this is what he needed because the target was continuously rising.

'The Carcano appears to be inappropriate because the iron sights could not be adjusted for an exact range'
> Pretty sure JFK & JBC would find the Carcano all too appropriate. 
> Are you saying that Oswald needed to adjust his sights every time he took a shot? Are you saying that if an enemy soldier pops up right in front of you, you should ask him to wait a moment while you adjust your sights? Haha.. shades of Monty Python right there.

DAVE EMARY EXCERPT
____________________________________________________________

The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of
5.5” – 6.5” at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on
barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220
meters. The Carcano’s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight
picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with
the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 – 350 meters. This is
about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
iron sights. I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very
intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically
fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that
nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed
sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier
under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The
soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of
his enemy for ranges out to 220 – 230 meters. How much more simple and
effective could it have been made.

____________________________________________________________


----------------
BONUS TIP for
HIGH SCHOOL
DROP-OUTS (aka
OSWALD ARSE
KISSERS (aka
OAKers) 
-----------------
> Placed emphasis
on Emary's abundantly
obvious point that no
re-sighting is needed
out to the 200 meter
(Carcano factory-default)
battle zero.