Gauging LHO’s Marksmanship

[Charles Collins]

Most of us have read that LHO scored above average on his rifle training in the USMC basic training. But we haven’t really explored what that means. I did this exercise for my own benefit and decided to share what I have found. I am not an expert by any means. But I have learned a few things about shooting guns in the last couple of years.

  In target shooting, a minute of angle (MOA) is defined as 1-inch at 100-yards distance. In other words, two hits on a target at 100-yards distance that are spaced at one-inch apart (center to center) equals one-MOA. A MOA, being an angle, means that as the distance to the target changes, so does the distance between the hits that lie on that target. Examples: at 200-yards distance, one-MOA equals 2-inches. At 500-yards distance, one-MOA equals 5-inches. At only 50-yards, one-MOA equals 0.5-inches. Measuring the size of groups of shots in minutes of angle is one way of gauging (measuring) the precision and accuracy of guns, marksmen, ammo, sights, etc.

Precision airgun competitors (think Olympics, etc) typically shoot at only 10-meters (~10.9-yards) distance. The 10-meter targets are sized accordingly. The aiming black (aka: 4-point ring) is 30-mm (1.190-inches) in diameter and at the 10-meter distance equals ~11MOA. Within the aiming black are the 3-point ring through the 10-point dot, which is ~0.75-mm (~0.03-inches). The one-point outer ring is 45-mm (~1.79-inches) or ~16-MOA.




Compare the dimensions of the 10-meter targets to the dimensions of the United States Marine Corps (USMC) targets in use in 1956 (which are used at much greater distances).




The “A” target, used for 200 & 300 yard distances, had an aiming black (worth 5-points) of 10-inches in diameter. At 200-yards distance the aiming black equals 5-MOA, the 4-point ring equals 13-MOA, and the 3-point ring equals 23-MOA. However, at 300-yards distance the “A” target aiming black equals 3.33-MOA, the 4-point ring equals 8.66-MOA, and the 3-point ring equals 15.33-MOA. See how this works?

Okay, so for an example, let us take a look at one of the “targets” that LHO shot (as shown in his USMC rifle training scorebook, aka: CE239).




This is indicated to be a 200-yard distances slow target which was shot standing and offhand (the least stable position. This target was shot on Tuesday, which was a preliminary practice round (didn’t count in his final score). Counting all ten shots in a group, it measures (in diameter using the distance between the two shots furthest apart) something a little greater than 23-MOA. If we consider that he was aiming to hit the center of the target, we can see that his worst shot missed the intended point of impact by about half of the slightly greater than 23-MOA (~11.5-MOA).

[Charles Collins]

I think that this is a good time to show the different shooting positions and where each one was used:



As can be seen on page 10 of the scorebook, they had the following positions for the indicated distances and targets.

200-yards slow — standing (one target of which we just looked at)
300-yards slow — sitting
300-yards slow — kneeling
500-yards slow — prone
200-yards rapid — sitting
300-yards rapid — prone

None of the positions included any external supports (such as the boxes set up in the sniper’s nest window). The shooter is depending on support from his own body and the ground only.  However, I think the prone position could be compared with shooting with an external support (example: boxes of books) because in the prone position the ground is supporting both his body and arms. The other positions (standing, kneeling, and sitting) all depend on his own body for arm support. That’s why I believe the prone position is used for the longest distances at both slow and rapid fire. It is not surprising that LHO did some of his best USMC basic training shooting from the prone position (as we shall see later on).

[Charles Collins]

Friday was typically scoring day for the USMC basic rifle training course. Let’s take a look at LHO’s 200-yard slow standing offhand target on scoring day. This should be compared to his Tuesday preliminary target at the same distance and position, which is shown above. The scoring book (CE239) is not the actual targets but a record of the approximate locations of the hits. He scored 39-points on this target. All shots appear to be well within the 3-point ring (23-MOA). Only two shots were outside the 4-point ring. And if the marks are indicative, those two shots were only slightly outside the 4-point ring. This is definitely an improvement from the Tuesday target. It shows progress and that he apparently wasn’t overly anxious or nervous enough to adversely affect his shooting performance under the pressure of these shots counting on his score. So, when it counted, LHO’s worst miss (from the center of the target) appears to be only slightly outside the 4-point (13-MOA) ring, or off-center-of-target by slightly greater than 6.5-MOA (compared to the slightly greater than 11.5-MOA on the Tuesday target). To a casual observer just glancing at and comparing the two targets, I don’t think he would think the difference was that much improved. But a closer look shows that it was.




Now let’s take a look at the 300-yard rapid target that was fired at in the prone position. In the prone position the shooter’s body (including the arms) is supported by the ground. Somewhat comparable to the sniper’s nest, where I believe that the seat box supports the shooter at the hips and the window boxes support the shooter’s arms. The rapid fire targets (“D” targets) have a silhouette in lieu of a round bullseye type aiming black. The 5-point aiming black is 26-inches wide and 19-inches high, the 4-point “ring” is 34-inches wide and 37-inches wide, the 3-point ”ring” is 50-inches wide and 51-inches high. At 300-yards the aiming black is 8.66-MOA wide and 6.33-MOA high, the 4-point “ring” is 11.33-MOA wide and 12.33-MOA high, the 3-point ”ring” is 16.66-MOA wide and 17-MOA high. However the top part of the silhouette is narrower, like the head of a human, which makes it more difficult to hit and more complicated to directly relate the scoring to MOAs.



 

[Charles Collins]

On Friday, when the scoring counted, LHO apparently scored 7-shots (out of ten) in the 5-point aiming black. Two shots hit the 4-point silhouette. One shot hit in the 3-point silhouette. The total equals 46-points. I think that the simplest way to relate this type of target to MOA is to draw a circle around the shot group which is the same diameter as the distance that furthest two shots are apart. When we do this it gives us the group size but does not relate that to the intended point of aim. But it does provide some useful measurements.




The circle is ~20-inches in diameter. So, the 10-shot group is ~6.66-MOA. It is difficult to say what LHO’s intended point of impact was. If we go by the numbered grid, the origin is below where all of the bullets hit the target. So, it appears that LHO may have been content to hit the target a little higher than the origin. Even though the aiming black is narrower up that high and would therefore make scoring a 5-point shot more difficult (especially if there was any variable wind). Then again, the origin of the grid is close to the bottom of the aiming black, so any low shots would most likely be out of the 5-point aiming black. I think that the numbered grid is there mainly to help them zero the sights for the distance and conditions and may not even be on the actual targets. I think that in a rapid-fire situation, the instructors probably said they should aim for a point of impact to be at the center of the aiming black. So, let’s assume he was aiming to hit the center of the aiming black. That’s what I believe I might do if I was able to shoot a ~6.66-MOA group (with all but one shot in a ~4.22-MOA group) at 300-yards. That’s some fine shooting by even USMC standards. If he was aiming to hit the center of the aiming black, it would be in the lower part of his ~4.22-MOA group. Based on that assumption, his single worst shot was ~5.07-MOA off the intended point of impact; with 9 out of ten shots missing by less than ~2.1-MOA (Wow!).

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Not to divert too much from Charles' detailed examination of Oswald's Marine markmanship let me quote the late Norman Mailer on this issue. I think it's a good overview of the question of his skills/ability and the debate about his ability to pull off the assassination.

Mailer: "[Oswald] is judged by various people, depending on the needs of the ax they grind, to be a poor rifleman, a fair one, a good one, or virtually an expert. Much the same has been stated about the difficulty of the shot itself. It has been estimated to be everything from as easy as Sergeant Zahm has testified to nearly impossible.

Such a debate is, however, moot. A rifleman can fire with accuracy one day and be far off target on another. Why should we ascribe any more consistency to a man with a gun (in the equivalent of combat conditions) than we would expect from a professional basketball player whose accuracy often varies dramatically from night to night?

Moreover, we are dealing with Oswald. We have seen him become hysterical on one occasion and, on another, be the coolest man in the room. If we have come through the turnings of this book without comprehending that the distance between his best and worst performance is enacted over a wide spectrum, then we have not gained much. The point is that Oswald, at his best, was certainly capable of hitting a moving target at eighty-eight yards on two out of three shots over five and a half seconds even if in Russia he could not drop a rabbit with a shotgun from ten feet away. We need only compare his performance in New Orleans on the radio with Stuckey to the incapacities demonstrated by his worst dyslexia two weeks later — or, for that matter, his hysteria before the KGB in Mexico to his calm during interrogation by Captain Fritz in Dallas at police headquarters."

Just one point on the Russia matter: Robert Oswald said Oswald told him about the experience and that the shotgun he had malfunctioned, it had a faulty firing pin. He had trouble firing it. And that's why he missed.

In any case, back to Charles's analysis.

[Charles Collins]

Not to divert too much from Charles' detailed examination of Oswald's Marine markmanship let me quote the late Norman Mailer on this issue. I think it's a good overview of the question of his skills/ability and the debate about his ability to pull off the assassination.

Mailer: "[Oswald] is judged by various people, depending on the needs of the ax they grind, to be a poor rifleman, a fair one, a good one, or virtually an expert. Much the same has been stated about the difficulty of the shot itself. It has been estimated to be everything from as easy as Sergeant Zahm has testified to nearly impossible.

Such a debate is, however, moot. A rifleman can fire with accuracy one day and be far off target on another. Why should we ascribe any more consistency to a man with a gun (in the equivalent of combat conditions) than we would expect from a professional basketball player whose accuracy often varies dramatically from night to night?

Moreover, we are dealing with Oswald. We have seen him become hysterical on one occasion and, on another, be the coolest man in the room. If we have come through the turnings of this book without comprehending that the distance between his best and worst performance is enacted over a wide spectrum, then we have not gained much. The point is that Oswald, at his best, was certainly capable of hitting a moving target at eighty-eight yards on two out of three shots over five and a half seconds even if in Russia he could not drop a rabbit with a shotgun from ten feet away. We need only compare his performance in New Orleans on the radio with Stuckey to the incapacities demonstrated by his worst dyslexia two weeks later — or, for that matter, his hysteria before the KGB in Mexico to his calm during interrogation by Captain Fritz in Dallas at police headquarters."

Just one point on the Russia matter: Robert Oswald said Oswald told him about the experience and that the shotgun he had malfunctioned, it had a faulty firing pin. He had trouble firing it. And that's why he missed.

In any case, back to Charles's analysis.

Good point Steve, thanks!

[Charles Collins]

Let’s relate some of this to Dealey Plaza. The target (head) would be about 6.5” in diameter.

An early missed shot around Z133 would be about 104-feet in distance. 1-MOA = ~0.346” at 104-feet distance. A 6.5” target at 104-feet distance = ~18.79-MOA.

A second shot (using data from Robert Frazier’s testimony) would be about 175’ in distance. 1-MOA = ~0.583” at 175’ distance. A 6.5” target at 175’ distance = ~11.15-MOA.

A third shot (using data from Robert Frazier’s testimony) would be about 265’ in distance. 1-MOA = ~0.883” at 265’ distance. A 6.5” target at 265’ distance = ~7.36-MOA.

As we saw above, all of the above three target MOA are well within the shooting abilities demonstrated by LHO in his USMC rifle training.

I have related all of the above information in hopes that it might help drive home what a suggested minimum of 36” miss from the intended point of impact at a 104’ distance really looks like. It has been suggested that an intended shot missed the entire limo due to the limo’s movement. Let’s see what that would look like in MOA. A 36” miss means that 36” would be the radius of a circle target centered on the intended point of impact. That means a 72” in diameter target would have been completely missed from a distance of 104’. That size target is ~208-MOA at 104’. Does it seem reasonable to believe that LHO might have missed by that much if his shot was an intentional shot that was not interfered with? It definitely doesn’t seem reasonable to me. And that is just one reason why I believe an early missed shot was probably inadvertent due to some unexpected interference from the box in the window.