Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination rifle

Photos show Oswald with a Carbine not full length Rifle

He ordered a standard full length rifle which is the model found at the store. The photos are of the shorted carbine version as evident by the sling location and the rifles length compared to him in the photo! The artielce should be honest and mention the fact the rifle in the photos is the shorted carbine model--Apemonkey1 (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Afraid not. Oswald ordered a "carbine" from the ad, but the ad does not say how long it is. The ad had been used to sell TS carbines, but when they ran out, he dealer simply sold short infantry rifles (fanteria) which were 4 inches longer. Technically a carbine by the length of the barrel, they weren't called carbines by Carcano. However, apparently nobody noticed. Oswald had no way of knowing he didn't get a rifle originally sold with this ad.

The backyard photo in the article does NOT show a Carcano TS carbine (36 inches). It has been claimed to do so, because people think they see a carbine mount at the bottom of the stock in the backyard photo, where the TS had one, but the 91/38 fanteria (40 inches, the one now in the archives, found at the Texas School Book Depository) did not. The short infantry fanteria in the national archives, shown in this WP article, had two ring mounts on the left side of the rifle where they cannot be seen from the right side at all. But what people think they see at the bottom of the rifle in the photo, is a flower from the bush behind Oswald (other flowers of the same shape can be seen near it on the bush). No mounts are actually visible.

Oswald denied he ever had a rifle, dispite overwhelming evidence that he did. Long after the Warren Commission in 1977 a photo Oswald had made of himself holding the Carcano, turned up. He had sent it to his friend George de Mohrenschildt. It is dated April 5th, 1963, probably when Oswald got his prints (the Commission estimated the backyard photo had been taken March 31) and it is personally signed by Oswald, and addressed to de Mohrenschildt. Marina said she took these photos and that Oswald had a rifle and she took the photos of him with it. A negative found with the camera after the assassination was matched to the camera, like a fingerprint. Oswald was confronted with a backyard photo during questioning. I'd like to see what his answer would have been had it been signed by himself and sent to somebody he knew, who could testify he got it. It's hard to imagine something more damning. You can have a fake photo, but one you sign and give to a friend? SBHarris 06:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Scope had to be remounted before testing so the target could actually be seen.

The scope had to be remounted (not adjusted) so that the target could be seen in it. This is in the FBIs (the testers) report to the Warren Commission. Its usual practice to be able to see the target in the scope even when not doing some thing so critical.--Apemonkey1 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor:

"with a target moving away from the shooter, no lead correction would have been necessary to follow the target." The target was moving basically directly away, so need for movement adjust apart from the down hill lowering the target meaning the shooter would have to adjust. Also during a .1 second flight the target would move 50 cms forward. It would not have helped.--Apemonkey1 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am wondering if there is interest in an article about the pistol?

It's an unusual pistol, a Victory model made in .38/200 and shipped to the UK, but later sent back as surplus after the war and modified by having the cylinder bored out to .38 special, and the barrel shortened. But the remaining barrel was left intact and is slightly larger than the .357 standard. This caused .38 special bullets to wobble down it, not making contact and giving them an odd set of marks that could be linked with a converted Victory pistol but not a particular one. Two types of .38 special ammo cases were found at the J.D. Tippit murder scene, and these had been fired by Oswald's pistol (they also matched the two types Oswald had on capture). Oswald did murder Officer Tippit, an odd thing to do unless he was guilty of murdering JFK.

If there is interest in a pistol article, I'll put one together with references. I'm not about to do it and try to swim upstream against people who want to colapse it (and the Tippit murder) and keep them as is. You can't fight determined editors who want things kept the same length. I've done that, and I'm not wasting my time doing it again. Could I have some people pledging to support an effort in this direction? SBHarris 06:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. I am interested in seeing such an article and would back it up assuming reliable sources. I also understand the frustration of swimming upstream and know how these arguments can go. Do you have a couple of wp:rs that would prove it is significant enough for a stand alone article? If so, you could stand it up as a stand alone article. I'm sure you know the drill after that. Some editors argue it should be merged, then argue it is insignificant within the context of the merged article, and then off oblivion. You can count on me to be unbiased in this. My experience is you may need more then one unbiased editor. -- Work permit (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ungrammatical words need revision

As written, it says "Upon the publication of the Attorney General's determination, "all rights, title, and interest in and to" the weapons "vested in the United States"." These words need a verb, like were. (TerryKave (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC))