Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK [View all]Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)49. "Eleventy-thousand posts about the inaccuracy"...
all of them untrue. Fact: Oswald's rifle was tested. It was found to be "very accurate, in fact, as accurate as current military rifles" (ie, as accurate as the M-14).
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the Springfield 1906 ammunition?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14 in its accuracy and the 1906 Springfield. These are very similar in their dispersion.
Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is the dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the Springfield 1906 ammunition?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14 in its accuracy and the 1906 Springfield. These are very similar in their dispersion.
Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is the dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Me neither, it's very well done, chilling to watch, lots of evidence presented. I'm not
RKP5637
Nov 2013
#4
I counter this with this seasons Nova. A real science show. FFS, will this shit ever end? n-t
Logical
Nov 2013
#2
What people love are facts. When they feel they have been lied to about the facts, they have
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#9
I agree so much, I just don't think the real story has/will ever come out ... there
RKP5637
Nov 2013
#11
The Deniers will, sooner or later, simply have to accept the fact that people just don't believe
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#12
Those who know the truth are masters of deception. We have so much misinformation and
RKP5637
Dec 2013
#15
I'll see if I can find that airing archived on the net, NOVA, it would be interesting to watch. n/t
RKP5637
Dec 2013
#17
Well, if everyone lies all the time, why would you think that only the WC was telling the truth?
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#22
People have explained where the WC was flawed. But some people would rather ignore those
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#23
The part that bothers me in all of this is surely someone would have noticed an
RKP5637
Dec 2013
#39
That's hilarious coming from a person who suggested we not be distracted by the forensic science.
The Midway Rebel
Dec 2013
#26
That BS is a limited hangout. For decades they have been peddling the Lee Harvey Oswald
GoneFishin
Nov 2013
#3
Yeah, you touched on the part that I don't see either, "... And then everyone in authority
RKP5637
Nov 2013
#5
Of course. An AR-15 went off by accident and nobody noticed. One of the more absurd CTs.
DanTex
Nov 2013
#8
Yeah, the part I have difficulty with in all of this is it would have been so blatantly
RKP5637
Nov 2013
#10
My example was actually meant to be "worst case". It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that
cherokeeprogressive
Dec 2013
#50
If you try to catch up on the 22 years of scientific investigation since Stone's JFK,
greyl
Dec 2013
#53
The "back and to the left" thing has ALWAYS seemed to me to be a muscular/nerve reaction.
cherokeeprogressive
Dec 2013
#55
The book was a fabrication and the subject of a lawsuit. See my post upthread.
duffyduff
Dec 2013
#65