Shells, rifle, SN... Who?

[Walt Cakebread]

There is footage in the Frontline documentary called "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" but i'm not sure the footage is clear enough to make a positive identification of a Carcano rifle.

Can you post a link to "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?.....   The video that I recall shows Cuban "Freedom Fighters" with Mannlicher Carcanos in their hands....I believe the video was taken in the summer of 1963 when they CIA was planning another attack on Cuba.

[Walt Cakebread]

The DPD lied about all kinds of stuff. They mishandled all the evidence. They converged on Oz within an hour of the Big Event. The were all over the backyard photos. They served up Oz to Ruby on a silver platter. They were without a doubt conspirators in the Big Event under the tutelage of Hoover, Who knows what deal they struck. They were the scum of the earth, not the heroes the LNers claim they were.

The DPD lied about all kinds of stuff.

Yes, And Will Fritz was at the head of the pack of liars......     And since he was becoming senile, he wasn't a very good liar.

His handling of the spent shells and the live round is as bad as anything Roger Craig lied about.....       

[Mitch Todd]

Mitch Todd: What do you mean by "detailed?" I say because you've incandescently proven that you know very little, if anything, about the underlying subject matter here. What you deride as a "Mauser owner's manual" is the underlying knowledge required to understand what would differentiate a Mauser from another rifle. You simply don't have that knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about the Mauser "clip" having a window.

Iacoletti: What I know is completely irrelevant.  Weitzman said he saw a Mauser with a 5 shot clip.  It's not my job to explain how he determined that, just as it's not your job to decide that he didn't really see what he claimed to see.

You are the guy who is pushing the idea that Weitzman determined the magazine's capacity via direct observation. It is your responsibility to show how Weitzman would be able to do that just by looking.


Weitzman 302: a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt-action rifle,

Mitch Todd: All you need to know to figure out the caliber is to see the single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard and assume the rifle is a Mauser to expect it to be a 7.65

Iacoletti: Bull.  You can't determine the caliber of a rifle by glancing at its trigger guard.

That's not what I said. I said, "single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard." "Trigger guard" is the where; "single stack magazine" is the what. When you see that style of magazine on a Mauser bolt-action rifle, you know that the rifle came from the factory chambered in 7.65x53. It's the only caliber that particular model came in.


Weitzman 302: which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.

Mitch Todd: As I've said before, "locked on the underside of the receiver" either refers to and en block clip or to the magazine itself. An en block clip would eliminate any Mauser, but not the Carcano.

Iacoletti: That also doesn't matter.  You don't know what Weitzman knew or didn't know about the design of the Mauser.  He's describing what he saw, not what he knows about how Mausers are built. What's the point of mentioning a 5-shot clip that he never really saw?

Now that's rich! You wanna jump me because you think I'm being presumptuous about what Weitzman would have known, yet you wanna lecture me that Weitzman was only "describing what he saw." Let's play your hand by your own rules: You have no idea whether Weitzman was describing something he saw, or something that he divined from what he saw, or something he divined from what he thought he saw. For that matter, Sayers doesn't directly quote Weitzman in the report, so we can't be sure how much of the description was what Weitzman actually said, some misremembrance by Sayers, or an editorial addition by the hopefully helpful FBI agent.

As to why it would be mentioned in that particular case, maybe FBI HQ was curious to know whether the rifle was a single shot or a repeater. But, who knows?


Mitch Todd: As for the five shot part, we just went through that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in.

Iacoletti: Then take it up with Weitzman.  He's the one who said the rifle he examined had a 5-shot clip.

And why did he say that the "clip" held five shots? They're little steel boxes that are only open on one end, and that end is only one round wide. Unless you want to claim that he was gifted with clairvoyance or x-ray vision, you're stuck with him grabbing some rifle ammunition out of his pockets and loading the rifle until it's full. Of course, you can just resign yourself to the inevitable: Weitzman already knew that Mauser bolt action rifles hold five rounds. Once he decided the rifle was a Mauser, then he "knew" the capacity of the "clip".


Mitch Todd: The universal shortcut is simply to know how many rounds a particular model rifle will hold beforehand and work backwards via syllogistic logic.

Iacoletti: They didn't ask him how many rounds a Mauser holds. They asked him to describe what he saw. You don't know what they actually asked him.

You don't know what they actually asked him, either. So why do you get off trying to scold me when you did the same thing one sentence before your scold gland kicked in?


Weitzman 302: the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.

Mitch Todd: Would be true for either a Carcano or a Mauser

Iacoletti: Show me the visible wear on the CE139 bolt.

Ah, so now you're going to change the subject, huh?

This is from the National Archives: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134.

The cocking-piece nuts at the rear of the bolt were blued at the factory. You can still see that the bluing remains on the neck of the nut, but it's worn off of the knurling. Also, notice that the bolt handle knob shows use-related polishing compared to the blotchily oxidized bolt body.

For reference, here are a couple of good close-up shots of the rear of a Carcano bolt from other Carcano rifles. They show the bluing on the nut, and different degrees or wear on the nut and knurling:





Weitzman 302: The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown in color and of rough wood apparently having been used or damaged to a considerable extent.

Mitch Todd: Dark brown wood of rough and well-used appearance wouldn't be exactly unexpected on a surplus rifle, no matter the make or origin.

Iacoletti: Show me the dark brown rough damaged wood on CE139.

Day talks about this in his testimony, but look at the photos in the archive. They show the dark color of the wood, as well as its rough-and-tumble surface.


Weitzman 302: The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.

Mitch Todd: As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading. Unlike the metal-on-metal stamped and etched text on the rifle itself. Anyway, this is the scope rather than the rifle itself.

Iacoletti: The fact remains that CE139 is stamped "Made in Italy" and "6.5".  You don't just get to decide what Weitzman could see easily and what he could not.

We've been over this particular issue before in this thread; see post #232. I pointed out that the text on the scope is white on a black background, while the stamping and etching on the rifle is gun metal letters on a gun metal background. Contrast still matters. I then asked you to look at the set of photos of CE139 maintained by the National Archives and show me where the text on the scope is, then show me where the "Cal 6.5" and "Made Italy" stamps are. It may just be me, but I don't recall you responding to that request. Mind you, I don't really expect you to show me legible text, just where we can see the text in the photos. It's the same photo set as before: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134. The rough condition of the wood stock is evident in these photos, as is the stock's color.


Weitzman 302: It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling

Mitch Todd: And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

Iacoletti: Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

The sling is very dark brown or black on one side and brown on the other. Whether the sling would be considered to be "thick" or not would depend on how kinky you are. Every leather bandolier sling I've seen, the bandolier is a separate part that's significantly wider than the sling itself. The sling proper passes through holes on either end of the bandolier, or the assembled sling is held together via loops or buckles. The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."


Mitch Todd: In the end, there's nothing in Weitzman's "detailed" description that would prove that he saw a Mauser.

Iacoletti: There's nothing in Weitzman's detailed description that would prove that he saw CE139.

Technically true, but nothing in Weitzman's description that could identify it as *any* specific individual rifle. However, that's not really the point being argued here, now is it?

[Gerry Down]

The DPD lied about all kinds of stuff.

Yes, And Will Fritz was at the head of the pack of liars......     And since he was becoming senile, he wasn't a very good liar.

His handling of the spent shells and the live round is as bad as anything Roger Craig lied about.....     

Fritz was too easy going. Wasn't even looking at Oswald as he was being led to his death in the basement of the DPD.

[John Iacoletti]

You are the guy who is pushing the idea that Weitzman determined the magazine's capacity via direct observation. It is your responsibility to show how Weitzman would be able to do that just by looking.

No.  It's not.  Whether you think he was able to or not, that's what he described.  If you want to claim that he described stuff he didn't actually see then it's your job to prove that with something other than conjecture.

That's not what I said. I said, "single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard." "Trigger guard" is the where; "single stack magazine" is the what. When you see that style of magazine on a Mauser bolt-action rifle, you know that the rifle came from the factory chambered in 7.65x53. It's the only caliber that particular model came in.

You might know that, but you don't know that Weitzman and Boone knew that.  And that that's the reason they said "7.65".

Now that's rich! You wanna jump me because you think I'm being presumptuous about what Weitzman would have known, yet you wanna lecture me that Weitzman was only "describing what he saw." Let's play your hand by your own rules: You have no idea whether Weitzman was describing something he saw, or something that he divined from what he saw, or something he divined from what he thought he saw.

"Mr. Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber Mauser . . ."

"After he had observed this rifle to the extent described above . . ."

Mitch Todd: As for the five shot part, we just went through that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in.

I came out of it just fine, thank you.  Ego isn't evidence.  He observed and described a 5 shot clip.  Full stop.  I don't know how this happened and neither do you.

Iacoletti: Show me the visible wear on the CE139 bolt.

Ah, so now you're going to change the subject, huh?

I'm not changing the subject.  If you're so sure he saw and described CE139, then CE139 should match Weitzman's description.  Without a bunch of contrived handwaving.

The cocking-piece nuts at the rear of the bolt were blued at the factory. You can still see that the bluing remains on the neck of the nut, but it's worn off of the knurling. Also, notice that the bolt handle knob shows use-related polishing compared to the blotchily oxidized bolt body.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Is this what you're talking about?



But didn't Weitzman say "the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn"?

Day talks about this in his testimony, but look at the photos in the archive. They show the dark color of the wood, as well as its rough-and-tumble surface.

But there's a difference between "rough and tumble" and "used or damaged to a considerable extent".

Weitzman 302: The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.

Mitch Todd: As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading.

Apparent Japanese manufacture?  It just says "JAPAN".  It says "HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA" in bigger letters.

We've been over this particular issue before in this thread; see post #232. I pointed out that the text on the scope is white on a black background, while the stamping and etching on the rifle is gun metal letters on a gun metal background. Contrast still matters.

You don't know how much it matters in this case, because you don't know what Weitzman looked at.

I then asked you to look at the set of photos of CE139 maintained by the National Archives and show me where the text on the scope is, then show me where the "Cal 6.5" and "Made Italy" stamps are.

They're not visible in these particular photo angles.  And if Weitzman only examined these particular photos, you might have a point.  At least about the engravings, if not the stock and the bolt and the strap.

Weitzman 302: It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling

Mitch Todd: And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

You don't.  But if he is describing CE139, why don't several of the details (like the sling) match his description?

The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."

Well of course you do.  Because you want it to be this rifle that Weitzman was describing.

[Walt Cakebread]

Mitch Todd: What do you mean by "detailed?" I say because you've incandescently proven that you know very little, if anything, about the underlying subject matter here. What you deride as a "Mauser owner's manual" is the underlying knowledge required to understand what would differentiate a Mauser from another rifle. You simply don't have that knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about the Mauser "clip" having a window.

Iacoletti: What I know is completely irrelevant.  Weitzman said he saw a Mauser with a 5 shot clip.  It's not my job to explain how he determined that, just as it's not your job to decide that he didn't really see what he claimed to see.

You are the guy who is pushing the idea that Weitzman determined the magazine's capacity via direct observation. It is your responsibility to show how Weitzman would be able to do that just by looking.


Weitzman 302: a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt-action rifle,

Mitch Todd: All you need to know to figure out the caliber is to see the single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard and assume the rifle is a Mauser to expect it to be a 7.65

Iacoletti: Bull.  You can't determine the caliber of a rifle by glancing at its trigger guard.

That's not what I said. I said, "single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard." "Trigger guard" is the where; "single stack magazine" is the what. When you see that style of magazine on a Mauser bolt-action rifle, you know that the rifle came from the factory chambered in 7.65x53. It's the only caliber that particular model came in.


Weitzman 302: which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.

Mitch Todd: As I've said before, "locked on the underside of the receiver" either refers to and en block clip or to the magazine itself. An en block clip would eliminate any Mauser, but not the Carcano.

Iacoletti: That also doesn't matter.  You don't know what Weitzman knew or didn't know about the design of the Mauser.  He's describing what he saw, not what he knows about how Mausers are built. What's the point of mentioning a 5-shot clip that he never really saw?

Now that's rich! You wanna jump me because you think I'm being presumptuous about what Weitzman would have known, yet you wanna lecture me that Weitzman was only "describing what he saw." Let's play your hand by your own rules: You have no idea whether Weitzman was describing something he saw, or something that he divined from what he saw, or something he divined from what he thought he saw. For that matter, Sayers doesn't directly quote Weitzman in the report, so we can't be sure how much of the description was what Weitzman actually said, some misremembrance by Sayers, or an editorial addition by the hopefully helpful FBI agent.

As to why it would be mentioned in that particular case, maybe FBI HQ was curious to know whether the rifle was a single shot or a repeater. But, who knows?


Mitch Todd: As for the five shot part, we just went through that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in.

Iacoletti: Then take it up with Weitzman.  He's the one who said the rifle he examined had a 5-shot clip.

And why did he say that the "clip" held five shots? They're little steel boxes that are only open on one end, and that end is only one round wide. Unless you want to claim that he was gifted with clairvoyance or x-ray vision, you're stuck with him grabbing some rifle ammunition out of his pockets and loading the rifle until it's full. Of course, you can just resign yourself to the inevitable: Weitzman already knew that Mauser bolt action rifles hold five rounds. Once he decided the rifle was a Mauser, then he "knew" the capacity of the "clip".


Mitch Todd: The universal shortcut is simply to know how many rounds a particular model rifle will hold beforehand and work backwards via syllogistic logic.

Iacoletti: They didn't ask him how many rounds a Mauser holds. They asked him to describe what he saw. You don't know what they actually asked him.

You don't know what they actually asked him, either. So why do you get off trying to scold me when you did the same thing one sentence before your scold gland kicked in?


Weitzman 302: the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.

Mitch Todd: Would be true for either a Carcano or a Mauser

Iacoletti: Show me the visible wear on the CE139 bolt.

Ah, so now you're going to change the subject, huh?

This is from the National Archives: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134.

The cocking-piece nuts at the rear of the bolt were blued at the factory. You can still see that the bluing remains on the neck of the nut, but it's worn off of the knurling. Also, notice that the bolt handle knob shows use-related polishing compared to the blotchily oxidized bolt body.

For reference, here are a couple of good close-up shots of the rear of a Carcano bolt from other Carcano rifles. They show the bluing on the nut, and different degrees or wear on the nut and knurling:





Weitzman 302: The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown in color and of rough wood apparently having been used or damaged to a considerable extent.

Mitch Todd: Dark brown wood of rough and well-used appearance wouldn't be exactly unexpected on a surplus rifle, no matter the make or origin.

Iacoletti: Show me the dark brown rough damaged wood on CE139.

Day talks about this in his testimony, but look at the photos in the archive. They show the dark color of the wood, as well as its rough-and-tumble surface.


Weitzman 302: The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.

Mitch Todd: As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading. Unlike the metal-on-metal stamped and etched text on the rifle itself. Anyway, this is the scope rather than the rifle itself.

Iacoletti: The fact remains that CE139 is stamped "Made in Italy" and "6.5".  You don't just get to decide what Weitzman could see easily and what he could not.

We've been over this particular issue before in this thread; see post #232. I pointed out that the text on the scope is white on a black background, while the stamping and etching on the rifle is gun metal letters on a gun metal background. Contrast still matters. I then asked you to look at the set of photos of CE139 maintained by the National Archives and show me where the text on the scope is, then show me where the "Cal 6.5" and "Made Italy" stamps are. It may just be me, but I don't recall you responding to that request. Mind you, I don't really expect you to show me legible text, just where we can see the text in the photos. It's the same photo set as before: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134. The rough condition of the wood stock is evident in these photos, as is the stock's color.


Weitzman 302: It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling

Mitch Todd: And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

Iacoletti: Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

The sling is very dark brown or black on one side and brown on the other. Whether the sling would be considered to be "thick" or not would depend on how kinky you are. Every leather bandolier sling I've seen, the bandolier is a separate part that's significantly wider than the sling itself. The sling proper passes through holes on either end of the bandolier, or the assembled sling is held together via loops or buckles. The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."


Mitch Todd: In the end, there's nothing in Weitzman's "detailed" description that would prove that he saw a Mauser.

Iacoletti: There's nothing in Weitzman's detailed description that would prove that he saw CE139.

Technically true, but nothing in Weitzman's description that could identify it as *any* specific individual rifle. However, that's not really the point being argued here, now is it?

The cocking-piece nuts at the rear of the bolt were blued at the factory. You can still see that the bluing remains on the neck of the nut, but it's worn off of the knurling. Also, notice that the bolt handle knob shows use-related polishing compared to the blotchily oxidized bolt body.

For reference, here are a couple of good close-up shots of the rear of a Carcano bolt from other Carcano rifles. They show the bluing on the nut, and different degrees or wear on the nut and knurling:




Mitch...you're being intellectually dishonest....There is no wear visible on the bolt of the carcano.

[Walt Cakebread]

No.  It's not.  Whether you think he was able to or not, that's what he described.  If you want to claim that he described stuff he didn't actually see then it's your job to prove that with something other than conjecture.

You might know that, but you don't know that Weitzman and Boone knew that.  And that that's the reason they said "7.65".

"Mr. Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber Mauser . . ."

"After he had observed this rifle to the extent described above . . ."

I came out of it just fine, thank you.  Ego isn't evidence.  He observed and described a 5 shot clip.  Full stop.  I don't know how this happened and neither do you.

I'm not changing the subject.  If you're so sure he saw and described CE139, then CE139 should match Weitzman's description.  Without a bunch of contrived handwaving.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Is this what you're talking about?



But didn't Weitzman say "the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn"?

But there's a difference between "rough and tumble" and "used or damaged to a considerable extent".



Apparent Japanese manufacture?  It just says "JAPAN".  It says "HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA" in bigger letters.

You don't know how much it matters in this case, because you don't know what Weitzman looked at.

They're not visible in these particular photo angles.  And if Weitzman only examined these particular photos, you might have a point.  At least about the engravings, if not the stock and the bolt and the strap.

You don't.  But if he is describing CE139, why don't several of the details (like the sling) match his description?

Well of course you do.  Because you want it to be this rifle that Weitzman was describing.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Is this what you're talking about?



The part that you've circled in red is the safety on a Mannlicher Carcano ....The Mauser is totally different and THAT is what Weitzman was describing....NOT a carcano.    The term the "rear of the bolt" is not very lucid.....  Did he mean the bolt knob ( handle) or the bolt itself .... At any rate there is NO PART of the CARCANO bolt that is visibly worn.      This is one of the points that convinced me that Weitzman was handling a mauser, and not a carcano.


Iacoletti: Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

The sling is very dark brown or black on one side and brown on the other. Whether the sling would be considered to be "thick" or not would depend on how kinky you are. Every leather bandolier sling I've seen, the bandolier is a separate part that's significantly wider than the sling itself. The sling proper passes through holes on either end of the bandolier, or the assembled sling is held together via loops or buckles. The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."


A bandolier type holster belt is one that has loops in which cartridges can be inserted.....  We've all seen the bandolier type belts that many police forces used when the revolvers were common.   And Bandolier type rifle slings have loops for carrying spare cartridges....   The wide pad on the sling on the carcano is a sentry type carrying strap. .....and it most certainly is NOT a thick heavy brownish black  sling.   

[Mitch Todd]

Iacoletti: Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

The sling is very dark brown or black on one side and brown on the other. Whether the sling would be considered to be "thick" or not would depend on how kinky you are. Every leather bandolier sling I've seen, the bandolier is a separate part that's significantly wider than the sling itself. The sling proper passes through holes on either end of the bandolier, or the assembled sling is held together via loops or buckles. The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."


A bandolier type holster belt is one that has loops in which cartridges can be inserted.....  We've all seen the bandolier type belts that many police forces used when the revolvers were common.   And Bandolier type rifle slings have loops for carrying spare cartridges....   The wide pad on the sling on the carcano is a sentry type carrying strap. .....and it most certainly is NOT a thick heavy brownish black  sling.

Lemme go for the quick win here before I hit a couple more posts later.

I'm well aware of a pistol belt. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I suspect not what the Sayers/Weitzman is getting at.

I had an uncle who lived about a mile and a half away when I was a kid. He had a security business and was, for a time, a reserve police officer IIRC. Had the belt with cartridge loops and the whole nine yards: revolver, cuffs, nightstick, flashlight, pouch for a speed loader, the whole shebang. A belt can be pretty cool when you're 10, if it's decorated with the right accessories. It was thick, it was wide, it was surprisingly stiff for a belt. It was heavy. Heavy for a belt, just by itself. All that was because of all the cop bling it had to support. It seemed to do its job pretty well. But I wouldn't want to use it as a sling.

I'm sure you know, if maybe others don't, that one of the prime purposes of a sling is to help the shooter hold a rifle steady while aiming. This function generally involves the shooter wrapping the sling around his or her non-dominant forearm to take up slack and help keep the sling taut. Something as wide and stiff as one of those bandolier gunbelts is going to be too stiff, heavy and bulky to be very useful as a rifle sling. I've seen a number of what you could call leather "bandolier slings'" over the years though they don't seem to be too popular.  And everyone of these leather slings that I could call a "bandolier sling" looks something like this:



where the bandolier piece is separate from the rest of the sling, relatively short, and wider than the sling proper. Connected to the sling with metal loops or buckles or just a pair of holes that the sling slides through, like in the example I posted. The idea is that the semi-fixed bandolier piece can be moved to keep it out of the way when you need to wrap it around your arm to assume a proper shooting position. While the pad on the CE139 "sling" doesn't have loops, it does give the sling the kind of silhouette one would expect from a "bandolier type sling."