Did Oswalds rifle scope ever have shims?

[Walt Cakebread]

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?

I'd suggest that you actually try to use he iron sights of the carcano....Personally, I find them difficult to use to fire the rifle accurately.     But I was trained to use the peep & blade sights of the M-1 Garand.    Thers no doubt that the peep & blade sights are far superior to the open V notch of the carcano.    Sure, the carcano sights are effective ....but in a shooting contest, the Peep & blade are far and away superior. ( the peep sights score far more "bullseyes" than the V notch sights, with the rifles in the hands of the same shooter. )

[Joe Elliott]

You forgot the horisontal offset, genius.

I know this was not directed toward me, but I have calculated the horizontal offset. Although I have not calculated the horisontal offset, whatever that is. 😊

******************************************************************************************

In any case, the approximate horizontal offset for the three shots were:

First shot:   z153:   4.6 inches   miss to the left
Second shot:   z222:   3.0 inches   miss to the left
Third shot:   z312:   0.7 inches   miss to the left

All three shots would miss, in theory, to the left, due to the motion of the limousine.

******************************************************************************************

The approximate vertical offset for the three shots were:

First shot:   z153:   0.8 inches    miss low
Second shot:   z222:   1.5 inches   miss low
Third shot:   z312:   1.7 inches   miss high

This takes into account both the motion of the limousine and the iron sights being zero-sighted at 200 meters.

******************************************************************************************

The approximate angular speed for the three shots were:

First shot:   z153:   4.8 degrees per second
Second shot:   z222:   1.9 degrees per second
Third shot:   z312:   0.6 degrees per second

Note, this vertical offset takes into account both

******************************************************************************************

The shots would, in theory, get easier and easier for Oswald, primarily due to the angular speed of the target getting smaller and smaller, from 4.8 to 1.9 to 0.6 degrees per second for the three shots. This matches well with Oswald missing the center of the head by over 60 inches, then 8 inches, then 2 inches, for the three shots.

And the iron sights being set to 200 meters allows all three shots to be, vertically, hitting within two inches of the center of the head, if the sights were lined up on the center of the head when the shot was fired.

If the iron sights could have been adjusted between shots (impossible even with adjustable sights in the time allowed) for a range of 43, 63 and 88 yards, the shots would have all missed low by 4.6, 6.1 and 3.7 inches.

All in all, Oswald was, unfortunately, well served having a rifle with fixed sights set to 200 meters, for this particular target.

[Richard Smith]

So how wonky was Whitman's scope?

This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK.  However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination.  His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped).  The authorities actually removed the scope to search for prints before testing the rifle.  So it is impossible to say whether Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used it to assassinate JFK and, for similar reasons, impossible to compare to any other situation.  What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle.  Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.

[John Iacoletti]

I know this was not directed toward me, but I have calculated the horizontal offset. Although I have not calculated the horisontal offset, whatever that is. 😊

If you’re going to be pedantic, you should at least be aware that not everybody around the world uses American spellings.

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

 You fire at a target.  Notice that it fires a bit high.  Next time you aim a bit lower to compensate.

Wow!...  That's all there is to it?.....   You know with just one shot that it was a misalignment of the sights that caused the bullet to strike high?    So you fire a bit lower at the target on the second shot....   

How did you know that it wasn't for some other reason ( there are many) that the first round struck high?   
I tell ya, Mr "Smith" yer a genius!.....   

[Walt Cakebread]

This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK.  However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination.  His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped).  The authorities actually removed the scope to search for prints before testing the rifle.  So it is impossible to say whether Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used it to assassinate JFK and, for similar reasons, impossible to compare to any other situation.  What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle.  Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.

His rifle was hidden behind BENEATH some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped).

So you were there, and saw that it was Lee Oswald who hid the rifle....And you saw him drop it....    Is that right mr  "Smith"?

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe he used the iron sights. That was his only choice as regardless of shims at all, Oswald would have known that disassembling a rifle, placing it in a paper bag, and then assembling it inside the TSBD would mean the scope could not be trusted as it had not been zeroed in in its assembled state which is the only way to zero in a rifle.

You guys would believe it if there were no sights at all on a bald barrel
? Question---Why proceed and mount this presumably useless scope in the first place?
That is if a [theoretical] shooter would have known it could not be trusted

[Martin Weidmann]

This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK.  However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination.  His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped).  The authorities actually removed the scope to search for prints before testing the rifle.  So it is impossible to say whether Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used it to assassinate JFK and, for similar reasons, impossible to compare to any other situation.  What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle.  Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.

This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK.  However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination.

If nobody knows what the condition of the scope was, then how do you know that the question contains a false premise?

His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped).

How do you know the rifle was dropped?

What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle.  Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.

And how exactly do "we" know that is was an easy shot for Oswald (or anybody else)?