Part 62

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did, but I did not make any comparisons of either extractor or ejector marks or chambering marks, since the purpose of my examination was primarily to determine whether they were fired in this rifle, and such marks would not have assisted in that determination. They were not necessary because they would have indicated only that it may have been loaded into and extracted from the weapon, whereas the marks which I found served to identify it as having been fired in the weapon, actually.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, unless you have further questions on the cartridge cases or bullets, I would like to move on to another subject.

Mr. McCLOY. From your examination of the actual bullets that you have been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle, and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?

Mr. FRAZIER. Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet, then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet in two parts.

Mr. McCLOY. And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from one bullet or two separate ones?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at the minimum?

Mr. FRAZIER. I meant at least two bullets.

Mr. McCLOY. There were at least two different bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. At least two, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets fired in the various tests made with this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 60 rounds.

Mr. EISENBERG. And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find the ammunition dependable?

Mr. FRAZIER. Very dependable.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might think this is an undependable type of ammunition?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; The Western Cartridge Co. has always manufactured, in my experience, very dependable ammunition. There is other ammunition on the market available for this particular rifle in this caliber, which in my opinion is undependable or would be a very poor quality of ammunition. It may have been a confusion between that other ammunition of the same caliber and this Western ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you elaborate as to what that other ammunition consists of?

Mr. FRAZIER. Certain companies have imported into the United States cartridges of foreign manufacture. Those I have seen for this rifle were of Italian manufacture. They have pulled the military bullets from those cartridges and reloading hunting type or soft-point bullets into the cartridges. In doing that, they did not, apparently, take any great pains in loading them. Occasionally, the mouth of the case would be bent over and the bullet driven in right on top of the bent case.

I have seen split cartridge cases, even before they were fired, badly corroded cartridge cases. All in all, the ammunition is of generally poor overall appearance, and it has been reported to me that it was of poor firing quality.

I have not fired any of it, personally.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you heard anything about the dependability of the Italian-made ammunition, unreloaded?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; not as such.

However, I have experienced the examination of Italian ammunition of various years of manufacture and, of course, various makes. And I think it is rather poor quality in this particular caliber, primarily due to the very short seating depth to which bullets of this type are seated in the cartridge, which causes the bullets to loosen very readily in the cartridge case even before they are loaded into a clip or fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice, Mr. Frazier, in your examination of targets and so forth, whether there was any marked degree of yaw or tumbling by the bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. No evidence at all of tumbling or yaw.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, would the firing of 60 shots materially affect the microscopic characteristics of Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would change them, if not completely, practically completely.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, some witnesses to the assassination have stated that they heard more than three shots. Can you think of any reason why they might have come to that conclusion--in terms of acoustical properties of high-velocity bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. They could very readily have heard other sounds which could be confused with shots. It is apparent--it is obvious with any weapon in which the bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, which is 1,127, approximately, feet per second, the bullet itself will cause a shock wave or a sound wave, and a person standing in front of that weapon will hear the report of the bullet passing and then subsequently the sound will reach them of the cartridge explosion, which could very easily be confused with two shots. There will be the crack of the bullet going by, overhead or in the vicinity, and then the sound of the shot.

So that you would hear for three shots actually six reports, which could have caused some confusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a bullet in a pill box which is marked Q-188. I ask you whether you are familiar with this bullet.

I would like to state for the record that this bullet was found in the Walker residence after the attempted assassination of General Walker.

Mr. McCLOY. As far as you know, we have no proof of that yet?

Mr. EISENBERG. That is right.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am familiar with it. I have made an examination of that bullet.

With reference to this bullet, I could furnish everything except the weight of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Just taking one thing at a time. You are familiar with it. Does it have your marking on it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 573?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 573, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this bullet, do you recall, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would need to refer to my notes for that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply that for us at a subsequent time?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the weight.

Is this bullet in the same condition as it was when you received it in the laboratory, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean it up or in any way alter it when you received it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet to determine whether it was or might have been fired in Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER. I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions. And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this a jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a copper-alloy jacketed bullet having a lead core.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.

The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.

The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was the direction of the twist?

Mr. FRAZIER. To the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how many types of rifle would produce, on a 6.5 mm. bullet, four lands and four grooves, right twist, with the width of lands and grooves which you established as being those on this bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Only from experience, I could say that it would be relatively few which would agree with all of those characteristics. I have, of course, not seen or measured all of the foreign rifles, and therefore I could not estimate the number that there might be.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any miscroscopic characteristics or other evidence which would indicate that the bullet was not fired from 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine the depth of the grooves of the bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet, 573, had what appeared to be normal-depth grooves.

However, this bullet is completely flattened due to hitting a plaster or cement or other hard material on one side, and the opposite side, as a result of the flattening--has assumed a concave appearance, which has stretched the surface in various places and changes its overall appearance--that is the basis for actually having to state that there were not enough unmutilated marks for identification purposes on it.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you do conclude that this was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, or a rifle with similar barrel characteristics?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, do you have any further questions on this?

Mr. McCLOY. When you say you were able to determine it was fired from this type of rifle or one similar to it, that would include a number of different kinds of rifles besides the Mannlicher-Carcano?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it could include a variety of weapons with which I am not familiar in the foreign field.

Mr. McCLOY. But it is definitely, according to your best judgment, a 6.5 mm. bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And the bullet, such as we find it, has now characteristics similar to the type of bullet which was our Exhibit No. 399?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does. Placing them side by side, the cannelure, which is really the only physical characteristic apparent, comes to exactly the same place on both 399 and 573, indicating that this bullet was loaded to exactly the same depth in the cartridge--the two bullets, both 399 and 573.

Mr. McCLOY. I think I have no further questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did any other firearms experts in the FBI laboratory examine the three cartridge cases, the bullet, and the two bullet fragments which you have testified as to today?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, all of the actual firearms comparisons were also made by Charles Killion and Cortlandt Cunningham. These examinations were made separately, that is, they made their examination individually and separately from mine, and there was no association between their examination and mine until both were finished.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did the three of you come to the conclusions which you have given us today as your own conclusions?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did anyone in the FBI laboratory who examined the evidence come to a different conclusion as to any of the evidence you have discussed today?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Not with reference to this material, no.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you thinking of----

Mr. FRAZIER. I am thinking of other examinations which I made, but which probably will come up at another time.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to examinations such as the clothing, holes in the clothing, and the fracture in the automobile windshield?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. There will be testimony elicited at another time on those examinations, Mr. Frazier.

Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Frazier will be a witness in those, too?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. Specter will probably elicit that testimony.

Mr. Chairman, or gentlemen, are there any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier.

Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. I have one photograph here that might be useful in this regard, and that is of a clip showing the six cartridges loaded into it.

Mr. McCLOY. I think that might be a good idea. You might identify that, to show what we mean by clips.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have shown us photographs of a clip--the clip from the Exhibit 139 rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. One photograph loaded, and one unloaded?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. In one instance I put six cartridges in the clip and photographed it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take those photographs?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Frazier, you testified that if you didn't use the clip you would only be able to shoot one shell at a time, is that right?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this weapon does not have the box magazine commonly found in most military weapons which holds the cartridges and can be reloaded one at a time, but they must remain in the clip, or they will malfunction. The follower in the weapon will throw the cartridges right back out of the gun.

Mr. McCLOY. That explains it to my mind, because I know I have fired rifles with clips and fired them without clips. But they were much more convenient in loading.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this one is designed----

Mr. McCLOY. For example, the Springfield you could load with clip or load without a clip.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. But this one has to have a clip in order not to malfunction?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Those will be 574 and 575.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 574 and 575, and received in evidence.)

Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier. You have been very helpful.

TESTIMONY OF RONALD SIMMONS

Mr. EISENBERG. Our next witness will be Mr. Simmons.

Mr. McCLOY. Would you hold up your right hand?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SIMMONS. I do.

Mr. McCLOY. Please be seated.

This, as you know--the constitution of the Commission and its purpose--we want to ask you something about the firearm aspect of our hearings, and certain characteristics of this rifle that we would like to hear from you about, and if there is anything else you have that can throw light on our problems.

If you can state for the record, first, your name, and where you live.

Mr. SIMMONS. My name is Ronald Simmons. I live near Havre de Grace, Md.

Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Eisenberg?

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you held this position?

Mr. SIMMONS. This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories.

Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you been working, Mr. Simmons, in the area of evaluation of weapons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Since 1951, in various classes of weapons.

Since 1957, however, I have had the responsibility for the laboratories on small arms.

Mr. EISENBERG. Has part of it--of these--have part of these evaluations been conducted with military rifles, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Most of our evaluations have been associated with military rifles.

Mr. EISENBERG. How long altogether have you spent in this area?

Mr. SIMMONS. In the area of rifles?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. SIMMONS. Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been continuously concerned with this since 1957.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give a rough estimate of how many weapons you have evaluated as to accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. No. We have been concerned with almost all of the weapons which the Army has tested, either in preliminary stages or as developmental weapons.

Mr. EISENBERG. But your specialty is the evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since 1953 as to----

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. McCLOY. In the course of that you have examined hundreds of rifles, though, have you not?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, our examination of rifles is not the detailed engineering, design experiment which a gunsmith or a rifle expert as such would concern himself with. We are more concerned with establishing a framework by which we can put numbers to the performance of military rifles in tactical employment. And this means that for a specific--specific classes of weapons, we have had to establish, for example, round-to-round dispersion, the accuracy with which they can be employed, and the wounding power of the projectiles.

Mr. McCLOY. In the course of this you have fired a great many rifles yourself?

Mr. SIMMONS. No, sir; I don't fire them.

Mr. McCLOY. Somebody else fires them?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. But you make the studies in relation to the accuracy of the weapons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct. The firing is accomplished by employees of the development and proof services, which is the weapons testing facility at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Mr. McCLOY. Your task is primarily evaluation----

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Of the characteristics of the rifle, particularly in terms of its accuracy and its wounding power, killing power?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be admitted as an expert to testify in this area?

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to-round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?

Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?

Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.

I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.

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.

Mr. EISENBERG. You tested this with what type of ammunition, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. The ammunition was labeled Type Ball, and it was made by the Western Cartridge Co., Division of Olin Industries.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a 6.5 mm.?

Mr. SIMMONS. 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the course of this test from a machine rest, Mr. Simmons, did you also attempt to determine the muzzle velocity?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we also measured muzzle velocities for approximately 10 rounds of the ammunition. We gather from these measurements that the nominal velocity, the nominal muzzle velocity is of the order of 2,200 feet per second, and the velocity at about 200 feet from the muzzle is approximately 2,000 feet per second. And there is some variation in velocity from round to round as there is with all small-arms ammunition. But the variation is relatively small, and within the same order of magnitude as for conventional ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you test the bullets for yaw?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we measured yaw also, and all measurements of yaw were also small. We had no values in excess of 2 degrees, and many values were less than 1 degree in yaw, indicating that the round is quite stable.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you test for yaw?

Mr. SIMMONS. We took spark shadowgraph pictures at various stations down range from the muzzle, so that we actually have pictures of the position of the bullet relative to the top and bottom of our range.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring those pictures with you?

Mr. SIMMONS. No; I do not have them with me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you furnish those to the Commission at a later date?

Mr. SIMMONS. They could be made available later. I would like to point out these are not pictures, however. They are on large pieces of glass, and they are not photos.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can they be read by a layman?

Mr. SIMMONS. That I do not know. I do not read them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, I wonder whether you can send them up, and we could take a look at them.

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we can have them forwarded.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon in?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.

Mr. EISENBERG. By azimuth, do you refer to the crosshair which is sometimes referred to as the windage crosshair?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you recognize these shims that I display to you, Mr. Simmons, as being the shims that were placed in the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. I saw the shims only when they were in the weapon, but those look very much like what was evident from the external view, after they were in place.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, Mr. Chairman, these shims were given to me by the FBI who told me that they had removed them from the weapon after they had been placed there by Mr. Simmons' laboratory.

May I have these introduced as evidence?

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.