Did Oswalds rifle scope ever have shims?

[Walt Cakebread]

Oswald's bullet deflected off the window frame otherwise Walker would have been hit.  There is no way to know whether any misalignment existed at the time of the JFK assassination.  The rifle was dropped by Oswald in the aftermath and the scope was actually removed to search the rifle for prints before it was tested for accuracy.  Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.

Oswald's bullet deflected off the window frame otherwise Walker would have been hit.

So you think that flimsy window sash was effective in deflecting  a 30mm ( !.19" ) long  160 grain FMJ bullet? 

Why don't you take that idea to the government.....and tell them that our troops and Police officers don't need that heavy body armor....   All they need as some cedar  window sash ......

There is no way to know whether any misalignment existed at the time of the JFK assassination.  The rifle was dropped by Oswald in the aftermath and the scope was actually removed to search the rifle for prints before it was tested for accuracy.  Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.

[Walt Cakebread]

Oswald's bullet deflected off the window frame otherwise Walker would have been hit.  There is no way to know whether any misalignment existed at the time of the JFK assassination.  The rifle was dropped by Oswald in the aftermath and the scope was actually removed to search the rifle for prints before it was tested for accuracy.  Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.

 Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.

Please post verification that Lee Oswald was even introduced to a scope mounted rifle while in the USMC..... The USMC never trained it's recruits to use rifles with telescopic sights....so how would Lee have known how to compensate for a misaligned scope?    A person can compensate for a slight misalignment of a telescopic sight when firing at a fixed target....But not even an expert could  fire a rifle with a misaligned sight at a MOVING  target that was behind a tree 50 yards away.

Please keep presenting your absurd ideas..... Many of us need a good belly laugh...

[Joe Elliott]

The Carcano was not designed to have a scope. A scope does not work well because it can’t be mounted on the top, without preventing the bolt from working. So, the scope won’t help the rifle aim high, which is necessary to take into account gravity, but will aim high and to the left.

Also, the scope added to the rifle only added a few dollars to the cost. They could have not zero-sighted the rifle without losing money. So, the rifle probably did not have shims installed with the scope.

Why sell a rifle with a scope? Because a scope looks cool. It makes a buyer think he looks like a real dangerous shooter, who really knows what he is doing. This may have been the reason why Oswald bought the rifle with a scope and kept it on.

Also, as I recall, an executive with the company told WC investigators, that the scope added to the rifle was not zero sighted. The scope was just slapped onto the rifle. The executive would have no motive to lie, to make his company’s products sound not as good as they really were.

So, it would unlikely that a company would add a scope, go through the expense of zero-sighting the scope, sell the rifle/scope at a lost and claim they never bothered to zero-sight the scopes. That makes no sense.

All this is irrelevant because Oswald could just simply use the iron sights. Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights. At ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Much further than the maximum range at Dealey Plaza of 88 yards. And the scope does not prevent the iron sights from being used.

Also, the iron sights help with the accuracy of the second and third shots, at z222 and z312. The target is rising and at the short ranges, the rifle would miss high, at a stationary target, but provides a lead that in theory should hit the target within two inches for both shots.

More details on this are in a post I made six years ago, which disappeared when all the posts at this site disappeared, but which I have reposted.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3522.0.html

These figures are reasonably accurate. Since making this post, I have adjusted my estimate of the limousine at z312 from 9 mph to 8 mph. And I use the ranges of 65 and 90 yards instead of 63 and 88 yards because the ballistic calculator program only provides numbers for every 5 yards. I could have extrapolated but did not bother. My 2016 estimates are still pretty accurate.

My expertise in rifle shooting? None. But I am good at math and I think I have entered the appropriate settings for the ballistic calculator and my analysis is pretty good, I believe.

[Walt Cakebread]

The Carcano was not designed to have a scope. A scope does not work well because it can’t be mounted on the top, without preventing the bolt from working. So, the scope won’t help the rifle aim high, which is necessary to take into account gravity, but will aim high and to the left.

Also, the scope added to the rifle only added a few dollars to the cost. They could have not zero-sighted the rifle without losing money. So, the rifle probably did not have shims installed with the scope.

Why sell a rifle with a scope? Because a scope looks cool. It makes a buyer think he looks like a real dangerous shooter, who really knows what he is doing. This may have been the reason why Oswald bought the rifle with a scope and kept it on.

All this is irrelevant because Oswald could just simply use the iron sights. Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights. At ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Much further than the maximum range at Dealey Plaza of 88 yards. And the scope does not prevent the iron sights from being used.

Also, the iron sights help with the accuracy of the second and third shots, at z222 and z312. The target is rising and at the short ranges, the rifle would miss high, at a stationary target, but provides a lead that in theory should hit the target within two inches for both shots.

More details on this are in a post I made six years ago, which disappeared when all the posts at this site disappeared, but which I have reposted.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3522.0.html

These figures are reasonably accurate. Since making this post, I have adjusted my estimate of the limousine at z312 from 9 mph to 8 mph. And I use the ranges of 65 and 90 yards instead of 63 and 88 yards because the ballistic calculator program only provides numbers for every 5 yards. I could have extrapolated but did not bother. My 2016 estimates are still pretty accurate.

My expertise in rifle shooting? None. But I am good at math and I think I have entered the appropriate settings for the ballistic calculator and my analysis is pretty good, I believe.

All this is irrelevant because Oswald could just simply use the iron sights. Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights. At ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Much further than the maximum range at Dealey Plaza of 88 yards. And the scope does not prevent the iron sights from being used.

Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights.

Are the iron sights on a M-1 Garand anything comparable to a Model 91/38 carcano?  Aren't the adjustable sights peep and blade sights on a Garand far and away superior to fixed V notch / blade sights on a carcano?   And what is odd about the sight picture for the V notch  / blade sight on the carcano ?....   Isn't it true that the correct sight picture for the carcano has the top of the front blade resting at the bottom of the V....?.   This makes it difficult aim the rifle....

[Joe Elliott]

All this is irrelevant because Oswald could just simply use the iron sights. Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights. At ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Much further than the maximum range at Dealey Plaza of 88 yards. And the scope does not prevent the iron sights from being used.

Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights.

Are the iron sights on a M-1 Garand anything comparable to a Model 91/38 carcano?  Aren't the adjustable sights peep and blade sights on a Garand far and away superior to fixed V notch / blade sights on a carcano?   And what is odd about the sight picture for the V notch  / blade sight on the carcano ?....   Isn't it true that the correct sight picture for the carcano has the top of the front blade resting at the bottom of the V....?.   This makes it difficult aim the rifle....

The world’s best authority on the Carcano is (was?) Dave Emary

In the following article:

https://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html

he states that:

“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.”

Dave Emary believes the fixed sights of the Carcano are good to use, even easy to use, even under very stressful situations.

Question:

Why should I trust you opinion about the Carcano more than that of Dave Emary?

[Bill Chapman]

The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists Don't Want to Hear
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3042.msg114164.html#msg114164

[Richard Smith]

Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.

Please post verification that Lee Oswald was even introduced to a scope mounted rifle while in the USMC..... The USMC never trained it's recruits to use rifles with telescopic sights....so how would Lee have known how to compensate for a misaligned scope?    A person can compensate for a slight misalignment of a telescopic sight when firing at a fixed target....But not even an expert could  fire a rifle with a misaligned sight at a MOVING  target that was behind a tree 50 yards away.

Please keep presenting your absurd ideas..... Many of us need a good belly laugh...

I keep forgetting that the intellectual capabilities of forum members ranges widely with some on the lower end of the scale.  Here's how you do it.  Take notes if necessary.  You fire at a target.  Notice that it fires a bit high.  Next time you aim a bit lower to compensate.  Not rocket science.  JFK was not behind a tree when he was shot.  LOL.  Although he was "moving" he was doing so at a very slow rate of speed.  Charles Whitman, who received similar USMC training during a similar timeframe as Oswald, hit moving human targets at distances three times that of Oswald. 

[Richard Smith]

Being low and off the chart yourself why would you bring up the subject?

Um, I don't see Oswald's notes in evidence.

At what range?

You forgot the horisontal offset, genius.

You worked that out yourself?

False equivalence.

False equivalence.  LOL.  I thought you objected to fancy words?  HA HA HA.  No wonder since you misapplied it here.  Charles Whitman was trained in the USMC around the same time as Oswald.  He received similar training on how to use a rifle.  He hit moving targets at three times the distance of Oswald.  And it was Walt who suggested that JFK was behind a tree when he was shot.  Take it up with him.