MANNLICHER CARCANO v. 7.65 MAUSER

[kenmurray]

Sherman Cooley Cooley said the following in an interview with former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt: If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas. (REASONABLE DOUBT, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/griffit ... _shot.html

[Phil Dragoo]

RobertIn additon to your open loop and alien thumb, the chin implant and identical nose shadow mitigate against photo authenticity.Marina claimed she looked through the reflex camera--not possible. She was wrong on the date, the number of pictures, the camera location, indicating she did not take the alleged photos, but was coached.Gil Jesus is joined by many others including George Michael Evica in discounting Oswald's having anything to do with the weapon.Further, the 6.5 mm artifact on the anterior-posterior (AP) x-ray has been shown by Dr. David Mantik's use of radiation densitometry to be a forgery, not a bullet fragment.The CE 399 is a fraud. Testing showed great deformity when such a bullet penetrated any bone target.The trail of metal fragments emanating from the right orbit destroys the official propaganda.And of course the seven subjects at Oak Ridge showed firing the M-C left GSR on the cheek, something absent in the test on Oswald.

[RobertP]

HelloOkay, on with the 6.5 Carcano history.We left off our history in 1938. The Italians had brought out an all new rifle with an all new cartridge. They were replacing their 6.5mm M91 long rifles with the 7.35mm M38 short rifle. This was a progressive move, as the short rifle was far easier to carry and manage than the long rifle and the new cartridge had ballistic properties giving it far more killing power than the 6.5mm cartridge. As we saw before, poor planning for war and resulting shortages of 7.35mm cartridges forced them to abandon the 7.35mm cartridge in 1940 and to fit their new short rifles with the old 6.5mm cartridge, re-designating the M38 as the M91/38. They had ample stores of 6.5mm cartridges although it was old ammunition by this time.Now, here is something very interesting that happened in 1941. The 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle was only produced in 1940. Production records for all four Italian small arms factories show that no M91/38 short rifles were made after 1940, except for a handful made at the Turin factory in the early months of 1941. Coincidentally, Italy introduced a new long rifle in 1941, the M91/41, and this was the only rifle, aside from carbine versions of the M91/38, produced until the end of the war. The M91/41 was slightly shorter than the M91 long rifle with a 27" barrel as opposed to the M91's 31" barrel (the M91/38 short rifle had a 22" barrel).This may all be a bit hard to follow but think of it this way: the new M38 short rifle in 7.35mm calibre was produced from 1938 to 1940. Production of the 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle (Oswald's alleged rifle) did not start until 1940, and ended at the end of 1940! What happened? Can anyone find another military rifle with such a short production history? What was so wrong with the 6.5mm M91/38 (the very rifle that Oswald supposedly assassinated JFK with) that it was replaced after only ONE YEAR of production??? I am going to try to answer these questions but I would like it understood that a lot of what I am going to say is assumption and, without access to vast stocks of M91/38 short rifles, impossible to prove. That being said, let us continue.As I was able to show in my last post, the Italians seemed to have a knack for getting themselves into bad supply situations. It is interesting to see how they solved these problems. In WWI, they solved the M91 rifle shortage with a bizarre adaptation of obselete 10.35mm rifles to 6.5mm calibre. Carbines were made by simply cutting long rifles' barrels from 31" to 17" with complete disregard to what cutting off the tightest part of the progressive twist rifling would do to the carbines' accuracy. Even the all new 7.35mm M38 short rifle was to rely on hand-me-downs. Instead of making new 7.35mm barrels, the Italians planned to salvage worn out (make careful note of the words "worn out" for later reference) M91 long rifle barrels and cut them short to 22". This was not a bad plan as the shortened barrels would then be bored out to 7.35mm and re-rifled with a standard 1:10 twist, essentially making a new barrel.As I have stated, lack of 7.35mm cartridges and a demanding war forced them to go back to the 6.5mm round for the short rifle. So, if the Italians had been unable to produce enough 7.35mm cartridges and were NEVER planning to make the short rifle in 6.5mm, where did they get all of the 6.5mm short rifle barrels to make the M91/38 in 1940?? I seriously doubt, with a barrel being far more complicated to make than a cartridge, that they were any better at stockpiling barrels than they were cartridges; especially a barrel they had never intended to make in the first place.There was a readily available source of M91/38 short rifle barrels, though. These would have been the worn out M91 long rifle barrels they had planned to make short 7.35mm barrels from. It would have been a simple matter of cutting the barrels from 31" to 22". No re-rifling would have been done as the two rifles would be the same calibre and there would be nothing to work with. Once again, the progressive twist rifling (1:19 or one turn in 19" at the chamber and slowly tightening to 1:8 or one turn in 8" at the muzzle) of these M91 barrels would have lost the tightest part of rifling at the muzzle end and the short rifle's performance would have been severely compromised.Italy was not alone in making compromises to their small arms production in WWII. Following the Battle of Dunkirk, where the majority of British weapons were abandoned on French shores during the subsequent evacuation of British troops, Britain faced a rather drastic shortage of their .303 Lee Enfield rifle, standard issue for the British Army. The Germans were knocking at the door and it was necessary to quickly produce vast quantities of rifles to fend off the imminent invasion. As stated, the barrel and its riflings are the most complex part of making a rifle and it was here the British made their compromises. A standard .303 Lee Enfield has five riflings in its barrel; left hand twist with a 1:10 pitch (one turn in ten inches). To speed up production, the five riflings were reduced to two. Accuracy suffered but it was felt that, as a man presented a 2' x 5.5' target, a bullet aimed at a man's stomach was likely to hit him somewhere on his body and, if not kill him, tie up many other men in retrieving the wonded soldier from the field and tending to his wounds. Lovely game, this war, eh?I am by no means saying this would have been the case in 100% of M91/38 production. They may have begun the production of M91/38 short rifles with every intention of manufacturing new 6.5mm barrels. However, it must be remembered that this is a war Italy lost. Who can say what compromises they were forced to make in 1940? Try to imagine what it would have been like being the manager of a small arms factory in Italy in 1940 facing material shortages, machining equipment and associated parts shortages, unrealistic production demands from military procurement officers, aerial bombardment, loss of skilled workers from aerial bombardment, etc., etc., etc. It is not hard to understand the sloppy action and rough stock of the M91/38 when viewed in this context.In my opinion, the final judgement on the M91/38 as a good or bad rifle lies with its one year production run and its replacement by the M91/41 in 1941. Who in their right mind would introduce an all new rifle (actually almost identical to the M91 long rifle) in the middle of a major war they just happen to be losing? The only reason I can see is that a large number (if not the majority) of M91/41 long rifles were cut down M91 long rifles and by cutting the M91 barrel to 27" (M91/41) instead of 22" (M91/38) they gained an extra 5" of progressive twist rifling. It is possible that, in this extra 5", the rifling tightened enough to give the 6.5mm bullet that much more spin that it would stabilise in flight and improve its performance. It is also possible that the M91/41 was never considered until their ability to make new 6.5mm short rifle barrels was eliminated and the resulting disaster in accuracy, from shortened M91 barrels, forced them to seek an alternative.Records show that the M91/41 was to be manufactured with a 1:10 standard twist barrel. Once again, intentions and reality are seldom working together during a losing war and it is entirely possible many M91/41 long rifles were merely cut down versions of the M91 long rifles with progressive twist rifling.As I stated earlier, these are only theories. The only way to prove them is to examine the barrels of great numbers of M91/38 and M91/41 rifles. The one I'd like to start with is Oswald's supposed rifle; a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 made sometime in 1940.Next post: 6.5x52mm Carcano ammunition - wrong bullets?RegardsBob

[Dealey Joe]

Thanks Bob

[SLogan]

Just my opinion here .To me the the Carcano is a prop,albeit an important one for the McDamage and Von Pein robots, but just a prop. It reminds me of a Three Stooge's skit where Moe tells the homeowner to help them out and go mix a batch of spotted paint. People can spew disinformation and so can evidence.

[RobertP]

SloganAll the more reason that we are diligent in examining if the 6.5mm Carcano M91/38, supposedly owned by Oswald, was likely even capable of the spectacular performance credited to it on 22/11/63.RegardsBob

[kenmurray]

The dented shell:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critic ... shell.html

[RobertP]

KenThank you for the excellent link. I had heard vague references to the "dented" shell casing before but this is the first in-depth aticle I've read on it.Wow...the impossibilities just keep stacking up.RegardsBob

[kenmurray]

You welcome Robert. Here is more on the dent shell:http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle_shell ... shells.htm

[RobertP]

HelloThe following is an exchange, from a bullet handloading forum, covering a discussion between two posters over a 6.5 Carcano rifle manufactured in WWII. Keep in mind that, officially, Italy discontinued the "progressive twist" rifling in 1938 and all rifles made after that, in 6.5mm calibre, would have new barrels with "standard twist" rifling. Note: "progressive twist" is also referred to as "gain twist" and the first poster takes the liberty of calling it "progressive gain".Quote: Originally Posted by bkbville Boz, Here are carcano bolt disassembly instructions: M91/38: http://www.surplusrifle.com/carcano9...mbly/index.asp M91/41 http://www.surplusrifle.com/carcano9...mbly/index.asp {You mention yours was a late war production; is it progressive gain? I didn't think any past '41 or so were progressive gain.} Have you slugged it? (or tried factory in yours?) This reminds me - I was talking to a guy at the range; a few years ago he had been shooting a carcano with poor results. He finally discovered it was 7.35; he was firing 6.5 ammo. (At least it wasn't the other way around.) I tried to recover some boolits last week to see if I could figure out what gives with the keyholing. I had 3 thick wet phone books; I thought at 1600fps three would be sufficient (about 8".) It wasn't. They passed right through and lodged deeply in the 4x4 target stand behind them. I'm on the look out for a few more phone books. Thanks for the links.{ It is definitely a 6.5 and gain twist. You can really tell the difference in the twist looking from the different ends.} It slugs at .269 and the lino mix boolits are .273, a little bigger than the WWs. I was hoping to find a boolit in the berm but no luck. I still think that the long driving area is stripping and cutting the boolit length will help. It sure can't hurt. No I haven't tried any jacketed and don't really want to. I have lots of different 6.5 bullets in stock, all .264. One of my first HP rifles was a Vanguard in 264 Mag and also a Swede so I'm stocked well. In fact I probably have more 6.5 jacketed than anything else. Bob(brackets inserted into post by me for emphasis)Of course, as I pointed out in my last post, 6.5mm Carcano barrels with progressive twist rifling were readily available. These would be the worn out M91 long rifle barrels that had been slated for manufacture into 7.35mm barrels for the M38 short rifle. It didn't matter, for the 7.35mm conversion, if they were worn out as they were to be re-drilled and re-bored. However, as any good quality M91 rifles likely went to front line troops, we can be sure that many 6.5mm M91/38 short rifles (Oswald's) were doubly cursed. Not only did cutting the barrels from 31" to 22" completely eliminate the best part of the progressive twist rifling, what was left of the barrel was worn out to begin with.RegardsBob