Chapter XXVIII: Part 28

It is loaded with a full metal-jacketed bullet of the military type. Cartridges of this type which I have examined, having this type of bullet, have bullets weighing 160 to 161 grains.

Mr. McCLOY. When you mentioned that cartridge as being a Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that be fired, for example, in a Mannlicher 6.5 Schoenauer?

Mr. FRAZIER. I am not familiar with that.

Mr. McCLOY. That is the normal sporting rifle--that Mannlicher Schoenauer is the normal 6.5 Austrian sporting rifle that you buy. I just wondered if it was the same cartridge.

Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry. I don't know whether there is a distinction between these two or not.

Mr. McCLOY. I happen to have one of those. And I was just wondering if it is the same cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a series of three cartridge cases. I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am. I received these cartridge cases on two different occasions for examination in the laboratory, and comparison with the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do these cases have your mark on them?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they do. Each is marked with my initials and the inscription for identification purposes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce these cartridge cases into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 543, 544, and 545 and received in evidence.)

Mr. McCLOY. Will you introduce evidence to show where they came from?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, sir, the record will show at the conclusion of the hearings where they came from. This witness is able to identify them only as to his examination.

Mr. McCLOY. I understand that. I understand that witness cannot identify them. But I simply asked for the record whether you have evidence to show where they did come from.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; for the record, these cartridges were found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building. They were found near the southeast corner window--that is, the easternmost window on the southern face of the sixth floor of that building.

Mr. Frazier, are these cartridge cases which have just been admitted into evidence the same type of cartridge--from the same type of cartridge--as you just examined, Commission Exhibit No. 141?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You gave the weight of the bullet which is found in this type of cartridge. Could you give us a description of the contour of the bullet, and its length?

Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length--possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters. The diameter is .267 inches, and a length of 1.185, or approximately 1.2 inches.

Mr. McCLOY. You say that the diameter is 6.65. Did you mean 6.65 or 6.5 millimeters?

Mr. FRAZIER. I was looking for that figure on that. It is about 6.6--6.65 millimeters.

The bullet, of course, will be a larger diameter than the bore of the weapon to accommodate the depths of the grooves in the barrel.

On the base of the bullet is a crimp ring, or a cannelure, which is located two-tenths of an inch from the base up the bullet and which is 6/100ths of an inch in width--that is, it is a band around the bullet 6/100ths of an inch wide.

I believe that is a description of the bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 with the type of ammunition you have been looking at to determine the muzzle velocity of that type of ammunition in this weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two different lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003.

I might point out that there were four lots of ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., only two of which are available.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give the results?

Mr. FRAZIER. Possibly I can give the results shot by shot, so the record will show each one, and then give an average for them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Fine.

Mr. FRAZIER. The first shot, Lot 6,000, the velocity was 2199.7 feet per second.

Shot No. 2, Lot 6,000, velocity 2,180.3 feet per second.

The third shot, velocity--same lot--velocity 2,178.9 feet per second.

The third shot, velocity--and this is Lot No. 6,003--velocity was 2,184.8 feet per second.

The fourth shot, Lot No. 6,003, was 2,137.6 feet per second.

Fifth shot, Lot No. 6,000, 2,162.7 feet per second.

The sixth shot, Lot 6,003, 2,134.8 feet per second.

An average of all shots of 2,165 feet per second.

Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the differences between the muzzle velocities of the various rounds in terms of whether that difference was a large or small difference?

Mr. FRAZIER. This is a difference well within the manufacturer's accepted standards of velocity variations. They permit in their standard ammunition manual, which is a guide to the entire industry in the United States, a 40-foot-per-second, plus or minus, variation shot to shot in the same ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you calculated the muzzle energy of this 6.5 millimeter ammunition in this weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER. It was furnished by letter to the Commission. Yes, sir--the muzzle energy was calculated on the basis of the average velocity of 2,165 feet per second as 1,676 foot-pounds.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is a calculation rather than a measurement?

Mr. FRAZIER. Necessarily a calculation, because it is merely a term used to compare one bullet against another rather than for any practical purposes because--because of the bullet's extremely light weight.

The bullet's velocity and weight, and gravity enter into the determination of its energy in foot-pounds.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano with which we are dealing an accurate type of ammunition as opposed to other types of military ammunition--as compared, I should say, with other types of military ammunition?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it is also accurate. As other types of ammunition the 6.5 millimeter cartridge or bullet is a very accurate bullet, and ammunition of this type as manufactured in the United States would give fairly reasonable accuracy. Other military cartridges may or may not give accurate results.

But the cartridge inherently is an accurate cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this type of cartridge readily available for purchase?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. Information we have indicates that 2 million rounds of this ammunition was reimported into this country and placed on sale.

Mr. EISENBERG. Commission Exhibit No. 141, the cartridge found in the chamber--I should say, was found in the chamber. Do you draw any inference from the fact that the cartridge was found in the chamber? In your experience, does one automatically reload whether or not one intends to fire, or is there a special significance in the fact that the cartridge had been chambered?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say no, there would be no inference which I could draw based on human behavior as to why someone would or would not reload a cartridge. Normally, if you were--in my experience--shooting at some object, and it was no longer necessary to shoot, you would not reload.

You may or may not reload. It would be a normal thing to automatically reload. But not necessarily in every instance.

Mr. McCLOY. Do you have any information of your own knowledge as to whether this cartridge was in the chamber or not at the time the rifle was found?

Mr. FRAZIER. Only as furnished to me--it was submitted as having been removed from the rifle by the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. McCLOY. As having been removed from the chamber?

Mr. FRAZIER. From the chamber of the rifle.

Mr. McCLOY. But you did not remove it yourself?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test to determine the pattern of the cartridge-case ejection of Commission Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I made two studies in connection with the ejection pattern--one to determine distance and one to determine the angle at which the cartridge cases leave the ejection port.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you summarize your examination by diagrams?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us those diagrams?

Mr. FRAZIER. In this diagram----

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me just a second, Mr. Frazier.

Were these diagrams prepared by you?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were--not the actual physical diagrams, but the figures on the diagrams were furnished by me to the draftsman.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these diagrams as Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547?

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547, and were received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of your tests by using these diagrams, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

In this test, Commission Exhibit 546, the diagram illustrates the positions on the floor at which cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139. In the top portion of Exhibit 546, the barrel was held depressed at a 45-degree angle, and in the lower half of the exhibit it shows the pattern with the barrel held in a horizontal position. Each spot marked with a figure on the diagram shows where one cartridge case landed in both instances, and each one is marked with the distance and the angle to which the cartridge case was ejected.

With the barrel held in the depressed condition, all of the cartridge cases landed within an 85-inch circle located 80 degrees to the right front of the rifle. That may be confusing. It was 80 degrees to the right from the line of sight of the rifle and at a distance of 86 inches from the ejection port.

Now, this circle will not necessarily encompass all cartridge cases ejected from the rifle, since the ejection is determined, not only by the angle of the weapon, but more by the force with which the bolt is operated. A very light force on the bolt can cause the cartridge case to tip gently out and fall at your feet. However, under normal conditions of reloading in a fairly rapid manner, we found the cartridge cases to land in this circle.

The same situation is true of the test made with the muzzle in the horizontal condition.

All of the cartridge cases landed within a 47-inch circle, which was located at right angles to the ejection port, or 90 degrees from the line of sight, and at a distance 80 inches from the ejection port.

In both of these tests, the ejection port of the weapon was held 32 inches above the floor.

In the second test performed, Commission Exhibit 547, the test was made to ascertain how high above the ejection port a cartridge case would fly as it was being ejected.

After ejecting numerous cartridge cases from the weapon with the barrel held in a depressed condition, it was found that the cartridge cases did not exceed two inches above the level of the ejection port. And with the muzzle held horizontally, it did not exceed 12 inches above the level of the ejection port.

Mr. EISENBERG. In making these tests, was the bolt pulled with a normal degree of rifle pull?

Mr. FRAZIER. It was pulled with various pulls, to determine what the effect would be with different speeds of the bolt.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you select the distance above the floor at which the rifle was fired?

Mr. FRAZIER. We selected a distance which we thought might be typical of a condition which would give an overall picture of the ejection pattern, and not from any basis of previous information as to possibly how the weapon had been fired previously. Thirty-two inches happened to be approximately table height, so that we could control the height of the weapon readily.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you three Commission Exhibits, 510, 511, and 512, which are photographs which have been identified as giving the location of the cartridges--cartridge cases--Nos. 543, 544, and 545, on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building. I ask you to examine these pictures, and to determine whether if the rifle had been fired from the window shown in these pictures, the location of the cartridge cases is consistent with the results of the tests you ran to determine the ejection patterns.

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say yes; it is consistent--although the cartridge cases are--two of them--against the wall. There is a stack of boxes fairly near the wall, and the position of the cartridge cases could very well have been affected by the boxes. That is, they could strike the box and bounce for several feet, and they could have bounced back and forth in this small area here and come to rest in the areas shown in the photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. In making your tests, did you notice much ricochet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; considerable. Each time a cartridge case hit the floor, it would bounce anywhere from 8 inches to 10 to 15 feet.

Mr. McCLOY. Make a lot of noise?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; a clatter.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 to determine its accuracy under rapid-fire conditions?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe these tests?

Mr. FRAZIER. A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time.

The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target.

Mr. EISENBERG. A silhouette of a man?

Mr. FRAZIER. A paper silhouette target of a man; yes.

Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them.

Mr. EISENBERG. These targets were made by you or in your presence?

Mr. FRAZIER. These are actually copies of the actual targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do on the actual targets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I request permission to introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits 548 and 549.

Mr. McCLOY. You have made these copies, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I had them made. They are actual xerox copies of the original targets, which are black, and do not show the markings placed around the holes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.

Mr. Frazier, you have the original targets that were used in this experiment.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Were you one of the three that fired?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Can you identify your target as distinguished from the other two?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Do you have the target that you fired?

Mr. FRAZIER. I fired--yes, I do. However, another examiner also fired at this same target.

Mr. McCLOY. Have you made a copy of that--or did you cause a copy of that target to be made?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you have that with you?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I do.

Mr. McCLOY. Have you marked it yet?

Mr. EISENBERG. No. That would be 548.

Mr. McCLOY. Suppose you identify that copy.

Mr. EISENBERG. This copy that you are presenting to us has initials at the bottom "CC-R-CK"?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the numbers and letters D-2 on the right-hand margin?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that has been copied under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCLOY. That can be admitted as Commission Exhibit 548.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 548, and received in evidence.)

Mr. McCLOY. Now, is Commission Exhibit 548 an accurate copy of the target which you have--that you fired, and which you presented?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you also have a copy here which has the name on it Killion, and similar initials, letters, and numbers to the other target. Is this an accurate copy which you had prepared?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. That was the target fired by Charles Killion in my presence.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 549?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 549, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.

Mr. EISENBERG. And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the date?

Mr. FRAZIER. November 27, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many shots did each agent fire?

Mr. FRAZIER. Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.

Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.

Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.

Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And your time, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?

Mr. FRAZIER. The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2-1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.

On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were--landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the second series of tests?

Mr. FRAZIER. The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.

We did not attempt--I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.

This is the actual target which I fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that target has all six holes in it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked No. 2.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.

Mr. McCLOY. That will be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.

That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.

Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the date?

Mr. FRAZIER. That also was on the 27th of November.

Mr. EISENBERG. Same date as the first tests?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you performed one more test, I believe?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And I have the four targets we fired here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551 through 554, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. I fired them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3-1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds.

The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4-1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point.

Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2-1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.

These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.

And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3-1/2-inch circle.

Mr. McCLOY. The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. Have you prepared a diagram of the telescopic sight?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could show us that now to help illustrate the point you are making.

Let me mark that.

This diagram was prepared by you?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. And illustrates----

Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. The actual diagram was copied by me from a textbook, showing a diagrammatic view of how a telescopic crosshair ring is mounted in a telescope.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is a generalized diagram, rather than a diagram of the specific scope on Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. However, I have checked the scope on Exhibit 139 and found it to be substantially the same as this diagram.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 555?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 555, and received in evidence.)

Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit No. 555 is a diagrammatic drawing of the manner in which the crosshair ring is mounted in Exhibit 139, showing on the right-hand side of the diagram a circular drawing indicating the outer part of the tube, with an inner circle with a crossed line in it representing the crosshairs in the telescope.

There is an elevation-adjusting screw at the top, which pushes the crosshair ring down against a spring located in the lower left-hand portion of the circle, or which allows the crosshair ring to come up, being pushed by the spring on the opposite side of the ring. There is a windage screw on the right-hand side of the scope tube circle which adjusts the crosshair ring laterally for windage adjustments.

The diagram at the left side of Commission's Exhibit 555 shows diagrammatically the blade spring mounted in the telescope tube which causes the ring to be pressed against the adjusting screws.

We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon inasfar as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.

And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized and fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true--when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots.

Mr. EISENBERG. And because of the difficulty you had stabilizing the crosshair, you did not wish to pursue it to a further refinement, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. We sighted the scope in relatively close, fired it, and decided rather than fire more ammunition through the weapon, we would use these targets which we had fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you find that they stayed, remained stabilized?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they did.

Mr. EISENBERG. How long do you think the crosshairs would remain stabilized in Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?

Mr. FRAZIER. They should remain stabilized continuously.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be--do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?

Mr. FRAZIER. No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER. When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was introduced?

Mr. FRAZIER. As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could you have compensated for this defect?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have the shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no different from taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the center of the bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you would have--an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the high right corner.

Mr. EISENBERG. If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a bulls-eye pattern, what would you have--what action, if any, would you have taken, to improve your score?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding how high the bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low left, or adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would cause the hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had you had with the rifle before the last series of four targets were shot by you?

Mr. FRAZIER. I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in addition had operated the bolt repeatedly.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with this weapon--materially shorten the time in which three shots could be accurately fired?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; very definitely.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would practice without actually firing the weapon be helpful--that is, a dry-run practice?

Mr. FRAZIER. That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action weapon, where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area to the bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing the bolt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think three shots could be fired accurately within 5-1/2 seconds if no rest was utilized?

Mr. FRAZIER. That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary or needed or which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in that length of time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or 4-inch circle without either resting or possibly using the sling as a support--I doubt that you could accomplish that.

Mr. EISENBERG. How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100 yards--how do you think your time would have been affected by use of a moving target?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give an amount?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards you or at right angles.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think you could shorten your time with further practice with the weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate on that?

Mr. FRAZIER. I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice with the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the 4.6-second time?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area--4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions concerning the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin on November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired.

Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet.

And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and third shots was 5-1/2 seconds.

Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope.

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say he would have to lead approximately 2 feet under both such situations. The lead would, of course, be dependent upon the direction in which the object was moving, primarily. If it is moving away from you, then, of course, the actual lead of, say, 2 feet which he would have to lead would be interpreted as a considerably less lead in elevation above the target, because the target will move the 2 feet in a direction away from the shooter, and the apparent lead then would be cut to one foot or 12 inches or 8 inches or something of that nature, due to the movement of the individual.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made calculations to achieve the figures you gave?

Mr. FRAZIER. I made the calculations, but I don't have them with me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply these to us, either in further testimony or by letter, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. I have one object here, a diagram which will illustrate that lead, if you would like to use that. This is drawn to scale from those figures which you quoted as building height, and distances of 175 feet and 265 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these figures are approximations of the figures believed to be involved in the assassination.

Will you supply the data at a later date?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I can furnish that.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to introduce this as 556?

Mr. McCLOY. That will be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 556, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the lead in that diagram, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. In Commission Exhibit 556, it shows a triangular diagram with the vertical line on the left-hand side illustrating the height of the building. The figures of a 60-foot building height plus----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is height of the muzzle above the ground?

Mr. FRAZIER. No--window sill--60-foot window sill height above the ground, with an assumed 2-foot height in addition to accommodate the height of the rifle above the possible--the possible height of the rifle above the window sill.

The horizontal line extends outward from the building to a small rectangular block, and then a sloping line illustrates a 5-foot slope from the 175-foot point to the 265-foot point.

(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)

Mr. FRAZIER. The time of flight of the bullet of approximately 8/100ths of a second and, again, it was necessary to assume--the time of flight of the bullet from the window to this first location of 175 feet is approximately 8/100ths of a second, which means a 2-foot lead on the target. That is, the target would move 2 feet in that interval of time, thereby necessitating shooting slightly ahead of the target to hit your aiming point. That has been diagrammatically illustrated by a 2-foot distance laid off on this rectangular block here, and two lines, very fine lines, drawn back towards the window area.

The right-hand side of Commission's 556 shows the same rectangular block, again with two lines drawn to it, one illustrating the point of aim and the other the amount of lead which would be necessary to strike an object aimed at which was moving, according to the time of flight of the projectile.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you calculated the speed of the car by translating the figures on total time elapsed between first and third shots?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The time--the speed of the moving object was calculated on the basis of an assumed 5.5-second interval for a distance of 90 feet, which figures out mathematically to be 11.3 miles per hour.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said before that in order to give this 2-foot lead, you would have to aim 2 inches--for a target going away from you, you would have to aim 2 inches above the target, or in front of the target.

Mr. FRAZIER. 2 feet in front of the target, which would interpolate into a much lower actual elevation change.

Mr. EISENBERG. The elevation change would be 2 inches, is that it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, no. It would be on the order of 6 to 8 inches.

Mr. EISENBERG. 6 to 8 inches?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your 2-inch figure?

Mr. FRAZIER. I don't recall.

Mr. EISENBERG. But it is 6 to 8 inches in elevation?

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?

Using that telescopic lens, how would you aim that rifle to achieve that distinction?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, it would be necessary to hold the crosshairs an estimated distance off the target, of say, 6 inches over the intended target, so what when the shot was fired the crosshairs should be located about 6 inches over your target, and in the length of time that the bullet was in the air and the length of time the object was moving, the object would move into actually, the path of the bullet in approximately 1/10th to 13/100ths of a second.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the target of the assassin was the center of the President's head, and he wanted to give a correct lead, where would he have aimed, if we eliminate the possibility of errors introduced by other factors?

Mr. FRAZIER. He would aim from 4 to 6 inches--approximately 2 inches, I would say, above the President's head, which would be actually 6 inches above his aiming point at the center of the head.

Mr. EISENBERG. How difficult is it to give this--a lead of this size--to this type of target?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would not be difficult at all with a telescopic sight, because your target is enlarged four times, and you can estimate very quickly in a telescopic sight, inches or feet or lead of any desired amount.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would it be substantially easier than it would be with an open or peep sight?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It would be much more difficult to do with the open iron sights, the notched rear sight and the blade front sight, which is on Exhibit 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have been able to calculate the precise amount of lead which should be given, because you have been given figures. If you had been in the assassin's position, and were attempting to give a correct lead, what lead do you think you would have estimated as being the necessary lead?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would have been a very small amount, in the neighborhood of a 3-inch lead.

Mr. EISENBERG. As opposed to the 6 or 8 inches?

Mr. FRAZIER. As opposed to about 6 inches, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What would the consequence of the mistake in assumption as to lead be--that is, if you gave a 3-inch lead rather than the correct lead?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would be a difference of a 3-inch variation in the point of impact on the target.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if you had aimed at the center of the President's head, and given a 3-inch lead, again eliminating other errors, where would you have hit, if you hit accurately?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would be 3 inches below the center of his head--from the top--it would be not the actual center from the back, but the center would be located high. The bullet would strike at possibly the base of the skull.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, suppose you had given no lead at all and aimed at that target and aimed accurately. Where would the bullet have hit?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would hit the base of the neck--approximately 6 inches below the center of the head.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, would you have tried to give a lead at all, if you had been in that position?

Mr. FRAZIER. At that range, at that distance, 175 to 265 feet, with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead--I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size.

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask a question?

In your experimentation, in your firing of those shots that you have testified to a little while back, when you fired the first shot, was the shot in the chamber, or did you have to push it into the chamber by use of the bolt?

Mr. FRAZIER. This was fired with a loaded chamber, and timed from the time of this first shot until the last shot.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you shoot offhand or did you shoot with a rest?

Mr. FRAZIER. We shot with a rest, both the other individuals and myself, on each occasion, with one arm resting on a bench or a table.

Mr. McCLOY. Were you prone, or were you standing up?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, we were sitting, actually, sitting or kneeling, in order to bring the arm down to the rest we were using.

Mr. McCLOY. One other question.

You keep referring to, and the questions kept referring to, "lead." By "lead," in this instance, you would mean height above the aiming point rather than----

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. To the right, let's say, of the aiming point?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. McCLOY. Because it was a going away shot?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. That is all.

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?

Where did you conduct these tests?

Mr. FRAZIER. The targets were fired both on the indoor range in the FBI range here in Washington and the 100-yard tests were fired at the Quantico, Va., FBI ranges.

Representative BOGGS. Have any tests--have there been any simulated tests in the building in Texas?

Mr. FRAZIER. I don't know, sir.

Representative BOGGS. But the FBI has not conducted any?

Mr. FRAZIER. Not to my knowledge. There may have been measurements and things of that nature taken, but I don't know.

Representative BOGGS. Now, in these tests, was there any difficulty about firing this rifle three times within the space or period of time that has been given to the Commission--5 seconds, I think.

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, let me say this. I fired the rifle three times, in accordance with that system of timing it from the first shot with the chamber loaded until the last shot occurred--three times in 4.6 seconds, 4.8 seconds, 5.6 seconds, 5.8, 5.9, and another one a little over 6, or in that neighborhood. The tenth of a second variation could very easily be as a result of the timing procedure used. A reflex of just not stopping the stopwatch in a tenth of a second.

Representative BOGGS. You were firing at a simulated target?

Mr. FRAZIER. These targets previously introduced, or copies of the targets, are those which we actually fired.

Representative BOGGS. My questions are really a followup of the Chairman's question.

These practices--were you just practicing for time, or were you practicing under conditions similar to those existing in Dallas at the time of the assassination?

Mr. FRAZIER. The tests we ran were for the purposes of determining whether we could fire this gun accurately in a limited amount of time, and specifically to determine whether it could be fired accurately in 6 seconds.

Now, we assumed the 6 seconds empirically--that is, we had not been furnished with any particular time interval. Later we were furnished with a time interval of 5.5 seconds. However, I have no independent knowledge--had no independent knowledge of the time interval or the accuracy. But we merely fired it to demonstrate the results from rapidly firing the weapon, reloading the gun and so on, in a limited time.

Representative BOGGS. Were there other tests conducted to determine the accuracy of the weapon and so on?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir--only the rapid-fire accuracy tests were fired by the FBI.

Representative BOGGS. There is no reason to believe that this weapon is not accurate, is there?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that.

Representative BOGGS. That was the point I was trying to establish.

Mr. FRAZIER. This Exhibit 549 is a target fired, showing that the weapon will, even under rapid-fire conditions, group closely--that is, one shot with the next.

Representative BOGGS. How many shots in the weapon? Five?

Mr. McCLOY. The clip takes six itself. You can put a seventh in the chamber. It could hold seven, in other words. But the clip is only a six-shot clip.

Representative BOGGS. Was the weapon fully loaded at the time of the assassination?

Mr. McCLOY. I don't know how many shells--three shells were picked up.

Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation crosshair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed to be given to the target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right.

If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance.

The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.

I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, on that last question, did you attempt to center the windage crosshair, to sight-in the windage crosshair?

Mr. FRAZIER. We attempted to, and found that it was changing--the elevation was changing the windage. So we merely left the windage as it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you say conclusively that the windage crosshair could not be centered in, sighted-in?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. I would say that the windage could have been centered in the telescope to bring the windage to the aiming line.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that--and if that had been done, then you would not have this problem of dispersion to the right?

Mr. FRAZIER. That's true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to----

Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.

Representative BOGGS. One other question, then.

It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.

Representative BOGGS. So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?

Mr. FRAZIER. If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.

Representative BOGGS. But they were not there when you received it originally?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.

Now, turning to another possible source of error in aim, Mr. Frazier, if a rifle such as Exhibit 139 is sighted-in with the use of a target at a given distance, and it is aimed at a target which is further away or closer than the target which was used for sighting-in purposes, will any error be introduced by reason of the fact that the target is further or closer away than the sighting-in target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it will, because the bullet in leaving the muzzle follows a curved path rather than a straight path, and in order to hit a specific target at a specific range, it is necessary for the bullet to travel up and drop down to the target, rather than have the bore pointed right at the target at the time of discharge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you calculate the amount of error which would be introduced by a specific projectile?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made such calculations?

Mr. FRAZIER. I have taken calculations for similar weight and velocity bullets from ballistics tables, which bullets approximate the velocity of the 6.5 mm. bullet and the weight of that bullet as fired from 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are these results affected by the rifle which is employed, or do they depend upon the missile?

Mr. FRAZIER. They depend upon the weight and shape of the missile and the velocity, but not upon the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of these calculations?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.