Please bear with me on this question as I know it is a little off topic. But last night I watched a documentary of the "Kennedy assignation". I have always had a hard time believing that Oswald was such a great shot, as to accomplish what he did. How many of you that shoot all the time think you could hit a Moving target going perhaps 10 mph, at 88 to 100 yards all within 8 secs, and using a old bolt action rifle, and under intense pressure. Posted below is a picture of your moving target. Please note how the road will curve two ways.
extremely difficult to shoot accurately 3 times within 8 secs with a bolt-action and having to re-acquire your target on the scope at the same time.
I think one of the investigative reports on TV or cable a few years ago hired an expert marksman or Army sharp shooter to do the same, and he was able to do it in 8 secs but not with the same accuracy. I guess it could be done, anything is possible, but no doubt it is a herculean task under that kind of pressure. If a person practiced say out in the dessert at the same distance with similar targets for a long time, from an elevated position, I suppose it's possible. We 'll probably never know what really happened, unless someone talks in their death bed..
BTW, did anyone see Tom Hank's latest hit, National Treasure #2? There is a small mention of the Kennedy assassination when they are going through the "President's book" that is supposedly passed down from President to President and it's for their eyes only. That was a very entertaining movie btw. Non-stop action with plenty of suspense and very funny as well.
An "old bolt action" with three shots and a scope at a hundred yards? Three shots? Remember this guy was waiting for the shot and he was in position and rested. If the veiw you're showing is correct, then he only has to correct for trajectory but not windage.
You don't have to great to make that shot. Just steady. And a bolt action rifle is still considered the most accurate of all types of feed systems. Unless there's some new gizmo I'm not aware of.
I regularly hit squirrels or pests with air rifles at approximately 35 yards. And yes, sometimes they're on the move. I know some won't agree with me, but then we haven't shot together either.
Harvey, I have to disagree. I've shot many shots with centerfire rifles and use to be a very good shot in the military. But this is not a sniper rifle, it was at the time a old Italian Bolt action with a cheap scope. The shooter has to shoot, allow for recoil, bolt another round, find the NEW target lead the target, shoot, adjust from recoil, readjust and located NEW target, lead the car and target to the road, fire,. Iam not saying a bolt action gun is not accurate. Of course they are one on the most accurate. But for rapid shooting they are slow. I think Harry is right. I do remember the show he is talking about. And if I remember correctly, they had a hard time hitting the target. Something really smells with this.
was the gun used . I saw that show also - they made the shot but the guy they had doing the shooting a "sniper" said it was "real tough" . I doubt very much Oswald was of the same class as a shooter . Conspiracy theory continues...
I agree w Dave and Rick. It'd be hard to do. The action and barrel don't lend themselves to sniper shooting. I shot a .270 Rem m700 most of my firearm years and the time to recover from the recoil and reacquire the target would make the 8 sec really tough. The 6.5 would have less recoil though. I killed a lot of deer(more than I should have) back then and very few were running. Moving targets make a much more difficult shot.
I can remember reading the "Hy Hunter" gun ads in my old "Outdoor Life" magazines as a kid in the 1950s. I'll never forget the Carcano ads. He called them "Garibaldi's greasy growlers; The gun the Italians lost the war with." or something very close to that.
Even then the Carcanos had no respect. I saved enough to buy a Schmidt-Rubin for $29.95 shipped to me as a 16 yr old. Times have changed. If I had had $50, I could have gotten a Schmeisser MP-40--fully operable.
I just can't see one shooter with a Carcano doing what was done, but the Warren committee had more info than me.
Dave and Rick, I'll have to agree with you guys. The chances are as slim as you say. As far as I can go is that this might be one of those flukes. I'd like to think I'm not a conspiricist but there are other things which make me wonder about this particular case. Like the missing time between his being shot and the arrival at the hospital.
Anything's possible but looking at that again, I think you guys are on track based upon the evidence. Its too hard not to think this shouldn't have happened the way its portrayed.
It'd be a difficult shot, but Oswald (or whoever) was no magic shooter. He did shoot 3 shots in 8 seconds, and one was a head shot. I think 2 connected with his intended victim. That said, he actually had to shoot 2 shots in 8 seconds. He had all the time in the world for the first one. The time (8 sec) is the time from the report of the first to the report of the last. So 8 secs to recock, resight, fire, recock, resight, fire. Hard, but not impossible.
Could I do it? Probably not, but on a good day? Maybe!
From everything I have read, I could shoot better on my worst day, than Oswald ever dreamed of. Could I make those shots with that gun. Not hardly! Here is something to read and think over. I know that some things appear easier than they look. Oswald must have really done some serious and I mean serious training after he left the Marines. From what the Marines said in this article Oswald was a pussy shot. I wonder how he became an expert sniper? If he became that great, you would have thought he would have forked out a a little more cash for a real sniper rifle. Why would you go from being a total pussy, weak ass shooter to
Super Sniper and not buy a decent gun? Makes no sense. Sorta like driving a clunker on a dirt track, becoming a national stock car champ and in the biggest race of your lifetime, deciding to drive your old clunker!
