How Fast Could Lee Harvey Oswalds Rifle Be Fired An Interesting 1960's Analysis

[Andrew Mason]

You are suggesting that the only difficulty Oswald would have with a shot from 67 feet away is with providing the correct lead. So with a good aim at the center of the head, the limousine would only move 7 inches in the time it takes for the bullet to get there so Oswald should only miss by 7 inches.

I would suggest, instead, that with a target moving at 15.7 degrees per second, almost 6 times as fast as the 1908 Olympics Running Deer competition, the main problem would be in aiming. The limousine moving 7 inches before the bullet gets there would be a minor problem. If you can't aim because your blinded by bright lights, your view to the target is blocked, or the angular speed is simply way too high for you to handle, you could easily miss the entire limousine.

None of the FBI shooters attempted a shot at a target moving at 4.8 degrees per second. And I don't know if any of them had no experience at shooting at a moving target before. I believe the "FBI shooters" test you are referring to was conducted by the Warren Commission and only involved shooting at stationary targets. So these tests tell us nothing of how the angular speed of the target can effect aiming.

[Edit: Joe, it's ok. I did the vertical angle at 3.5 degree change in 1 second which, with the 3.22 horizontal angle works out to 4.75 degrees per second total. close enough.]

I am not sure how you are doing your calculation of the angular speed at z153.

At z 153 the rifle would be at a horizontal angle to the direction of the car of arctan(40/98)=22.2 degrees based on this diagram:


So if the car moves 18.3 feet in one second (1 foot per zframe or 12.5 mph) the 98 feet is now 116.3 feet so the angle is arctan(40/116.3)=18.98 degrees. That is a difference of 3.22 degrees in one second, horizontally. You would then have to work out the change in vertical angle as well which I haven't yet done and work out the total angle (one can't just add them together because they are at right angles).  One has to take into account the 3 degree downward slope of Elm St. You might be right. But I would be interested to know how you get 4.8 degrees.
 

I would suggest that real world tests are needed. Not you or I guessing what is the most important factor, range, angular speed, or other factors.

And, for what's it is worth, I think the combination of:

* Oswald having no experience at shooting at rifle at a moving target.
* The angular speed being quite large 4.8 degrees per second, much faster than the 1908 Olympic Running Deer competition 3.2 degrees per second.
* Oswald needing a half standing posture to aim at z152, a much less accurate posture than a sitting posture he could have used for shots at z222 and z312.

may cause him to miss (in terms of degrees) by 6 times as much, 2 degrees instead of 0.33 degrees, as some of the Olympic shooters did. But real world tests need to have the final say.

We don't know what targets Oswald shot at.  I don't think we can say he had no experience in shooting at a moving target. 

Re:Oswald half standing:  Why would he assume such and uncomfortable position to fire at z160 when he knew he could comfortably kneel and take shots farther down Elm St. ?

Shooting at a target moving in a straight line at constant speed should not be difficult. If the shooter is tracking the target in the sights, the only question is how far it moves between the trigger being pulled and the bullet hitting the target.

[Joe Elliott]

[Edit: Joe, it's ok. I did the vertical angle at 3.5 degree change in 1 second which, with the 3.22 horizontal angle works out to 4.75 degrees per second total. close enough.]

I am not sure how you are doing your calculation of the angular speed at z153.

I started a thread on how to calculate angular velocity in 3-D space. It is at:

How to Calculate the Angular Velocities of a Target
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2640.msg93376.html#msg93376

Given 3 angles, the distance and the speed of the target, one can plug in these values in a formula to calculate the angular velocity of the target in 3-D space.


And the thread I started on the 1908 Olympic Running Deer Competition is at:

Running Deer Shooting at the 1908 Olympics.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3570.msg139366.html#google_vignette

A Wikipedia article on these competitions is at the following site. I use the 1908 Olympics because this article provided the most details on that competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_meter_running_deer

At z 153 the rifle would be at a horizontal angle to the direction of the car of arctan(40/98)=22.2 degrees based on this diagram:


So if the car moves 18.3 feet in one second (1 foot per zframe or 12.5 mph) the 98 feet is now 116.3 feet so the angle is arctan(40/116.3)=18.98 degrees. That is a difference of 3.22 degrees in one second, horizontally. You would then have to work out the change in vertical angle as well which I haven't yet done and work out the total angle (one can't just add them together because they are at right angles).  One has to take into account the 3 degree downward slope of Elm St. You might be right. But I would be interested to know how you get 4.8 degrees.
 [/i]We don't know what targets Oswald shot at.  I don't think we can say he had no experience in shooting at a moving target. 

Re:Oswald half standing:  Why would he assume such and uncomfortable position to fire at z160 when he knew he could comfortably kneel and take shots farther down Elm St. ?

I think Oswald made a mistake shooting at z153 which was such a difficult shot, because of the high angular velocity and awkward stance he would have to assume to fire at such a steep angle downward.

I would guess he did so because he may have feared that if he waited until after the target cleared the tree, the follow up limousine with the standing Secret Service Agents might block his line of sight. As it turned out, they didn't, but he would not have known that at z153. If this is not the reason then I have no idea why he attempted such a difficult shot where it appears he could not line up the iron sights with Kennedy.

Shooting at a target moving in a straight line at constant speed should not be difficult. If the shooter is tracking the target in the sights, the only question is how far it moves between the trigger being pulled and the bullet hitting the target.

But we know for a fact that this is difficult. In the 1908 Olympics the shooters each had ten attempts at a target moving at 3.2 degrees per second. With each attempt they would get just one shot. A minute or two later, the target would be moved back and they could make their next attempt until all ten shots were made.

It shooting at a stationary target, I would expect all shooters to score 40 points, to get each shot with a few inches of the center of the central bullseye.

The best of them scored 25 out of a possible 40 points on the moving target. So that indicates he was able to get most shots within a 6 inches (I guess) of the center of the target, assuming the "2", "3" and "4" concentric circles were 12 inches, 8 inches and 4 inches across (just my guess). So that he typically scored two or three points on most shots to get a score of 25.

The worst shooter scored 3 points, meaning he generally missed all the concentric circles and the deer outline. So he missed most shots by around two feet or more. Only on about three shots did he git a hit on the deer outline.

So clearly shooters, even good shooters, with prior practice (I assume) at a moving target, did have difficulty hitting a target moving at a pretty constant angular velocity of 3.2 degrees per second. I suspect the scores would have been a lot worst if the target was moving at 4.8 degrees per second. Perhaps the shooter who won the gold medal would have only gotten three points if it was moving that fast.


Experienced shooters do have problems consistently hitting a target moving at a pretty constant 3.2 degrees per second. That is shown in real world shooting competitions. There is no reason to think that Oswald would do as well as even the worst of the 1908 Olympic shooters. Hence the z153 shot missing the limousine does not seem to be wildly improbable.

[Zeon Mason]

Ok if the premise is that Oswald would have to be half standing at Z150 ish then somebody will have to replicate the sequence the shooter would use to go from Mr Collins’s proposed “seated on the box “  position for the shooter to remain hidden from Hughes camera

The CBS shooters certainly did NOT anywhere near replicate this kind of moving around.

It would NOT be quite as easy at Z150-160 to just lean over as Mr.Collins demonstrated in his experiment in reconstructing the 6th floor TSBD SN and fire a shot while still seated.

It would be more like the shooter would have to stand UP from his seated position on the box to try to make this 150ish 1st shot, and then after missing that shot, he would have to sit back down on the box, lean forward , adjust his rifle position to rest atop the window ledge box, and then reacquire  and track his moving target correctly , thru either scope or fixed sights, and squeeze trigger to fire the shot.

Can that sequence be done in 4 seconds?

Even is it is possible it does not compare favorably with the 1…… 2..3. shot spacing  that  majority of witness heard.
 
The sequence Would instead be 1….2…..3

[Zeon Mason]

Additional note: And if the 3 shots are spaced over a 8.8 sec spread then that’s over 2x longer time than what Harold Norman (right beneath the TSBD shooter)  replicated with his Boom click click sequence which he completed in less that 4 secs.