Can anybody provide proof of a successful reenactment of Oswald's feat?

[Mitch Todd]

"precisely aimed"

A misaligned scope, sticky bolt, iron sights zeroed in for 200 yards, and a 2 stage hair trigger.

It couldn't be precisely aimed.

Firing that rifle twice in 1.6 seconds, if it didn't jam, would have given a shooter from 6th floor SE corner TSBD as much chance of hitting JFK in the neck and/or head as if they had taken their time firing from the 2nd floor lunchroom.

1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches.
2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be.
3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.
4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself.   

Simmons was saying that CE139 was set up differently from what his shooters were used to, and his guys had to adjust to it. Even then, all of them were able to perform to the WC's 2-out-of-3 hits, and at least one was able to achieve 3 hits in less than 5.6 seconds.  Each design has it's idiosyncrasies, and any shooter used to one type is liable to face a learning curve if they pick up another and try to shoot it. The only thing you had right is that the scope sucked. Read Frazier's account of it -- it lost zero and they had to shoot several rounds out of it to get the reticle to stabilize itself enough so that it could be reliably zeroed. The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it.

[Mitch Todd]

Yeah, by lining up the marks in his mind when they didn’t line up under the microscope. 

here's the photograph of CE569 (the base/jacket fragment found on the floor of SS100X) compared to a bullet fired from the CE139 rifle:

Please show us all the places where Frazier had to line up marks in his mind.

(typoed "CE569" earlier, fixed)

[John Iacoletti]

Please show us all the places where Frazier had to line up marks in his mind.

Ask Frazier. He’s the one who said that’s what he did.

[Gary Craig]

1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches.
2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be.
3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.
4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself.   

Simmons was saying that CE139 was set up differently from what his shooters were used to, and his guys had to adjust to it. Even then, all of them were able to perform to the WC's 2-out-of-3 hits, and at least one was able to achieve 3 hits in less than 5.6 seconds.  Each design has it's idiosyncrasies, and any shooter used to one type is liable to face a learning curve if they pick up another and try to shoot it. The only thing you had right is that the scope sucked. Read Frazier's account of it -- it lost zero and they had to shoot several rounds out of it to get the reticle to stabilize itself enough so that it could be reliably zeroed. The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it.

"1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches."

At 88 yards it sailed over the top of the board holding the target.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing
posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second
targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which
extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette
"Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?
Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first
target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.

"2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be."

"3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.'

It's not what I believe it's what is in the testimony of the CO of the Army team of expert shooters, Mr. Simmons.

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull.
When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to
have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you
feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired,
and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into
the weapon.

"4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself."

Never said it did. I did however point out the testimony of Mr. Simmons who said his men found working the bolt caused them to take the sights off the target. I noted that a shooter in the 6th floor SE corner TSBD wouldn't have had time to reacquire a moving target in the WC scenario.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=451

Mr. Eisenberg: Was it reported to you by the person who ran the machine-run tests whether they had difficulties with
sighting the weapon in?

Mr. Simmons: Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using
the iron sight. We did adjust the telescope sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth,
and one which adjusted an elevation.

[Gary Craig]

1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches.
2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be.
3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.
4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself.   

Simmons was saying that CE139 was set up differently from what his shooters were used to, and his guys had to adjust to it. Even then, all of them were able to perform to the WC's 2-out-of-3 hits, and at least one was able to achieve 3 hits in less than 5.6 seconds.  Each design has it's idiosyncrasies, and any shooter used to one type is liable to face a learning curve if they pick up another and try to shoot it. The only thing you had right is that the scope sucked. Read Frazier's account of it -- it lost zero and they had to shoot several rounds out of it to get the reticle to stabilize itself enough so that it could be reliably zeroed. The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it.

"Simmons was saying that CE139 was set up differently from what his shooters were used to, and his guys had to adjust to it. Even then, all of them were able to perform to the WC's 2-out-of-3 hits, and at least one was able to achieve 3 hits in less than 5.6 seconds.  Each design has it's idiosyncrasies, and any shooter used to one type is liable to face a learning curve if they pick up another and try to shoot it. The only thing you had right is that the scope sucked. Read Frazier's account of it -- it lost zero and they had to shoot several rounds out of it to get the reticle to stabilize itself enough so that it could be reliably zeroed. The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it."

Read number 14 below.

[Matt Grantham]

And you are one of those doing said beholding

 Sorry Bill , but if I understood what you were implying I was a little worried

[Bill Chapman]

Sorry Bill , but if I understood what you were implying I was a little worried

Huh?

[Walt Cakebread]

"1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches."

At 88 yards it sailed over the top of the board holding the target.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing
posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second
targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which
extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette
"Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?
Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first
target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.

"2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be."

"3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.'

It's not what I believe it's what is in the testimony of the CO of the Army team of expert shooters, Mr. Simmons.

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull.
When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to
have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you
feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired,
and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into
the weapon.

"4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself."

Never said it did. I did however point out the testimony of Mr. Simmons who said his men found working the bolt caused them to take the sights off the target. I noted that a shooter in the 6th floor SE corner TSBD wouldn't have had time to reacquire a moving target in the WC scenario.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=451

Mr. Eisenberg: Was it reported to you by the person who ran the machine-run tests whether they had difficulties with
sighting the weapon in?

Mr. Simmons: Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using
the iron sight. We did adjust the telescope sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth,
and one which adjusted an elevation.

Gary, The Mannlicher Carcano does not have a precision "two stage trigger" like those found on expensive target rifles.     The carcano does in fact have a two stage trigger, but it is crude and unpredictable .....  The trigger has a long stiff "take-up" before it reaches the trip point, and then it requires significant additional pressure to release the firing pin.   

Please don't believe that the carcano trigger was conducive to accurate shooting.....