Part 64

Mr. McCLOY. From your experience, Mr. Simmons, do you feel that with a man who had been in the Marine Corps, with the rifle instruction he had there, using this rifle, and what you know of the shots that killed the President--do you think he was an extraordinarily good shot, do you think he was just shooting in accordance with what might be taken to be the skill that service in the Marine Corps would give him?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes. But I think with the opportunity to use the weapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by more than one firer.

Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all.

Mr. EISENBERG. One thing, Mr. Chairman. May I have this admitted as 586, this table which Mr. Simmons prepared, from which he was giving testimony earlier? This is "Table I, Hit Probability as a Function of Range and Aiming Error."

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The table referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 586 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean--do you mean, accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?

Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger would best be achieved with some firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil of the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. One further question.

Looking at the figures for aiming error, as discounted by round-to-round dispersion, how would you characterize the actual performance of men with this rifle--that is, not the accuracy of the weapon, but the accuracy of man and weapon.

Mr. SIMMONS. I am not sure I understand your question.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel on the basis of the aiming error, discounted for round-to-round dispersion or including it, that this weapon is an easy one with which to be accurate, or a difficult one?

Mr. SIMMONS. It appears to be relatively conventional in that regard, I assume. The telescope helps in the accuracy against a target which is well displayed, as was the case here. And the weapon is reasonably conventional. So that I think it would not be significantly different from any other weapon.

Mr. McCLOY. If you were having a dry run with this, you could certainly make yourself used to the drag in the trigger without discharging the rifle, could you not?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull. When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.

Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?

Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired, and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into the weapon.

Mr. McCLOY. I have no further questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is all.

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

We shall recess now until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

_Wednesday, April 1, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM AND JOSEPH D. NICOL

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on April 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington. D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Mr. Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers.

TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

Mr. Cunningham, the purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of yourself and Mr. Joseph Nicol. We understand that you are a firearms expert with the FBI, and Mr. Nicol is a firearms expert with the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Illinois.

You have both been asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in its work.

Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please.

You may proceed with the examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, would you state your name and position?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Cortlandt Cunningham. I am a Special Agent of the FBI.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in what branch of the FBI do you work?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am assigned to the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory, here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Northwestern University, and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Miami.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly state your qualifications in the field of firearms identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Upon entering the FBI Laboratory, I underwent an extensive training course under the supervision of experienced examiners in the field of firearms identification, which consisted of making thousands of examinations and comparisons of bullets, cartridge cases, and weapons.

I have also done reading in the subject. I have done some research and conducted many experiments in the field. And, of course, I have made thousands of examinations on my own and testified numerous times in State and Federal courts.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many years have you been in the Laboratory, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Over 5 years, and I have been in the Bureau over 10 years.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.

Mr. EISENBERG. To begin with, Mr. Cunningham, we had some testimony yesterday on the bullet which is thought to have been fired at General Walker. That is Commission Exhibit No. 573. Are you familiar with this bullet, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you supply the weight of that bullet, which was going to be supplied to us?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can. This bullet weighed 148.25 grains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that show some weight loss, if the bullet was from a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It does. Those bullets weigh 161 grains, but there is a great deal of mutilation on this bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. And could you tell us when you received this bullet in your laboratory, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. It was received from the Dallas office of the FBI on December 4, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when was it examined?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It was examined that date.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 143, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this exhibit, which, for the record, is a revolver.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you will excuse me, I won't open the cylinder. I have checked the cylinder, and there are expended or fired cartridge cases in the cylinder.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which you have placed in it for a special demonstration?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I fired it, yes, prior to my testimony here today. I have seen this weapon before.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again for the record, this is the weapon which is believed to have been used in the murder of Officer Tippit. Can you describe this weapon in terms of name, caliber and so forth?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you want me to describe it as it is today?

Mr. EISENBERG. As it is today.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As it is today, it is a .38 Special Smith and Wesson, Victory Model revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. And was it always a .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it was not. Originally this weapon was known as a .38-200 British Service revolver. In this country the weapon would be known as a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, Victory Model. However, the British gave the designation .38-200 to it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this revolver made in the United States?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It was.

Mr. EISENBERG. And has it been in England subsequent to that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how can you tell that, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, first of all, all weapons going into England have to be proofed. They are proofed at, usually, the Birmingham proofhouse.

Representative FORD. What does that mean?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are tested for whether they will withstand a certain charge. They place in the cylinders overloaded cartridges, and they are fired, in the cylinder, as this one has been. It has been proofed to 3-1/2 tons. Each chamber in the cylinder has been proofed.

You can tell that, because each chamber has been stamped with the Birmingham proofmark, indicating that each chamber in the cylinder has been proofed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain to us the difference between a .38 S&W and a .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are completely different cartridges. One cartridge is a .38 Special, and the other cartridge is a .38 S&W, or actually written out it would be Smith and Wesson. It was developed for their weapons, and it 1s quite an old cartridge, and it is known--usually as appears on a box of ammunition--as merely a .38 S&W. However, there are many differences in the cartridges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you brought two--an example of each type of cartridge with you?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have. First of all, this is actually a Western .38 S&W cartridge. You will see the head stamping on the base of this cartridge signifies it to be a .38 S&W.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before you go any further--Mr. Chairman, may I have this marked as an exhibit--this specimen?

I am holding a cartridge marked Western .38 S&W, and it is submitted as Commission Exhibit 587.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 587, and received in evidence.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you would care to see one broken down, I have one with me. That is the same cartridge where the bullet has been pulled and the powder has been dumped out.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is also a .38 S&W cartridge, but it has been disassembled into a bullet and a cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The bullet has been pulled out of the cartridge case and the powder removed.

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

The CHAIRMAN. It may be. What is the number?

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 588.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted as Commission Exhibit 588.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 588, and received in evidence.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular cartridge, which is one complete cartridge, is a Remington-Peters .38 S&W. These two components actually are of the same cartridge. All I have done is pull the bullet, and it is also a Remington-Peters .38 S&W.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the same cartridge as Exhibits 588 and 587?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The only difference is that they are different brands. They were made by two different manufacturers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show that to the Chairman for his examination?

The CHAIRMAN. These appear to be lead bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The others appeared to be jacketed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are not, sir. It is known as gilding metal. They are copper-coated lead bullets. Actually, it is an alloy--it is not pure copper. They have been flash coated, for sales appeal, more than anything else.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that coating serve to prevent distortion to any measurable extent when the bullet has penetrated a body?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it would not, to any appreciable amount. It is such a thin coat, as you can see. Later on I will show you the ones that have been fired, and also the bullets removed from Officer Tippit's body. You can see the coating comes off--it flakes off--it is very thin.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that Exhibits 587 and 588 are substantially similar to the R-P cartridge you have just been discussing?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. They are both loaded to the same specifications, even though there are two manufacturers. All commercially made ammunition in this country is loaded to a specific muzzle velocity.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this R-P cartridge which Mr. Cunningham has been discussing admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 589?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 589, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You have been showing us a .38 S&W, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an example of a .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do. The first one is a Western .38 Special copper-coated lead bullet of Western manufacture, a .38 Special. The other components I have here are components of the same cartridge from which the bullet has been pulled.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have the cartridge case, bullet, and cartridge admitted into evidence as 590?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 590, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could you describe to us briefly the difference----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you want the Remington-Peters?

Mr. EISENBERG. You are holding in your hand a Remington-Peters disassembled and assembled .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you hand that to the Chief Justice? May this be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 591?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 591, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. This consists of an assembled R-P .38 Special and a disassembled R-P .38 Special.

Again, I notice, Mr. Cunningham, that the R-P bullet has a lead-colored look, whereas Exhibit 590 had a copper-colored look.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The Western coating is known by the trade name "Lubaloy." It is a trade name of the Western Cartridge Co., and it is nothing more than a gilding metal--actually, it is just a flash coating on the outside of the bullet. There is some advantage, a very small advantage, as to leading. But it is mostly for sales appeal, because with Winchester bullets, some do and some don't have the coating. Most of Winchesters which is the same bullet, have not been copper coated--that they are selling today.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain the difference in terms of dimensions and contour, weight, and so forth, between the .38 Special bullets which you have just shown us and the .38 S&W bullets which you have shown to us?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The complete .38 Special cartridges, both brands, they are approximately the same--they are made to specifications, and they are within--just 1/1000th difference between the two of them. They are very close. In some cases, there is a slight difference, but generally they are the same size.

The .38 Special cartridges are a little over 1-1/2 inches in length. The .38 S&W cartridges are approximately 1.2 inches in length. In other words, there is about 4/10ths of an inch difference in their length.

The bullets of the .38 Special weigh 158 grains--both brands. The bullets in the .38 S&W cartridges--there is one grain difference--Western Lubaloy bullets weigh 145 grains, and Remington's bullets weigh 146 grains, which is very close, when you figure there are 7,000 grains to the pound.

The length of the bullets themselves--the .38 Special bullets are approximately .72 plus inch. The .38 S&W bullets are approximately .6 plus inch. The lengths of the cartridge cases are also different. A .38 Special is approximately 1.15 inches for both brands. The .38 S&W cartridge cases are approximately .77 inch. And there you have approximately a quarter of an inch difference between the lengths of the cartridge cases.

The diameters of the bullets--the .38 Special bullets, at the portion of the bullet where the case is crimped into the bullet are approximately .357".

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the groove around the base of the bullet, also known as the cannelure?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is just above the two grooves, which are known as cannelures, where the bullet is crimped. It is known as the crimp ring. It is nothing more than where the case has been crimped in.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have pulled out the bullet from Exhibit 591, and there is a little groove running above the second groove from the top--from the bottom, the base, of the bullet.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would be your crimping groove. Up at approximately that area, both .38 Specials are approximately .357". However, the bases of the .38 Specials, both brands, are about .350".

In other words, there is about 7/1000ths difference between the base and where they are crimped, and both brands of .38 Specials seem to run--slightly undersized at the base.

On the .38 Special the diameter of the bullets where they are crimped is .357". The .38 S&W Remington-Peters bullets run about .360", or just slightly less, which is about 3/1000ths larger. Their bases, both brands, run about .356". In other words, they run about 6/1000ths larger at the base--even though the bullets are shorter overall in the .38 S&W.

Mr. EISENBERG. To summarize that, in terms of the diameter, do I understand that the .38 Special and the .38 S&W have a similar diameter as you approach the nose of the bullet, but that the .38 has a somewhat larger diameter at the base than the .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. .38 S&W.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, why would the gun be rechambered from the original chamber, which was designed for the .38 S&W, to the chamber as it stands now, which you tell us is designed for the .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this country, the .38 S&W is not a popular cartridge at the present time. In years gone by, many, many, many weapons have been made for that particular cartridge. But they are usually the top-break, the cheaper type of weapon. The .38 Special cartridge is a better cartridge. There is a higher velocity and everything about the cartridge is better than the .38 S&W, ballistically.

The .38 Special has become popular in this country for revolvers. And the reason it was chambered in .38 S&W originally is because in England and on the Continent it is a popular cartridge. The .38 S&W in England is the .38-200. They loaded a 200-grain bullet into the same cartridge case, and it was the standard British Army load for this particular weapon and others. Why they took that particular cartridge, I do not know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was the gun rebarreled as well as rechambered?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it was not. The barrel of this weapon has been cut off approximately 2-3/4 inches. The original barrel was 5 inches for this model.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the failure to rebarrel affect the accuracy of the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It should slightly, if you are firing .38 Special bullets, because they are slightly undersized in a .38 S&W barrel. On the average, .38 S&W barrels are approximately 4/1000ths larger than the normal .38 Special barrel. In this particular weapon, that holds true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would it affect accuracy at close range?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None whatsoever. And there, again, the shortening of the barrel would affect the accuracy more than the use of .38 Special, due to the fact that your sight radius has been cut down.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say, when you shorten the barrel, the length between the front and the back sights is shorter, therefore giving more room for error?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. In other words, the movement of the front sight will cause more of a discrepancy at the target at longer ranges, due to the shorter sight radius.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any functional reason for cutting the barrel down to its present short size?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Sales appeal, I would say, is the main reason. Also, concealment.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your experience, is a short barrel, cut-down barrel weapon like this usually purchased for legitimate purposes by other than police officers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Possibly a collector. Among target shooters, it is not a popular weapon, due to the short sight radius. Revolvers with 6-inch barrels are very accurate weapons. A target shooter would not use a weapon of the short barrel type. Therefore, it is not a very popular weapon for sportsmen.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the cutting off of the barrel increase the possibility of concealment?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It does, because it makes it handier. I carried, when I was in the field 5 years--I carried my personally owned firearm, which had a 2-inch barrel, due to the fact that for concealment you could not see it when I wore a suit, and it was more discreet in the type of work I was doing.

The CHAIRMAN. Can both kinds of cartridges be used interchangeably in this gun?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this particular gun, yes sir. It makes no difference.

The CHAIRMAN. Either an S&W or S&W Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; the chambers of this particular cylinder have been bored out, it appears from the very rough marks, to accommodate the forward portion of a .38 Special cartridge. Also, when this barrel was made--or the cylinder was made--the chambers had a shoulder or lip that the .38 S&W cartridge case would fit up against. The bullet would go forward farther, but the cartridge case would fit up against this shoulder at the neck.

And in order to chamber a .38 Special, that forward portion had to be bored out slightly, several thousandths to accommodate the longer cartridge, which, by the way, is a very common thing on these surplus weapons. Practically all of them are being rechambered, due to the popularity of the .38 Special cartridge.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, this weapon--was this weapon sold into the United States after it had been used in England?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much sign of use does it show?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has definitely been used, there is no doubt. However, the cylinder is quite tight, and I would say that this weapon is in good operating condition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, since it was sold used, are you unable to attribute any amount of use to the last user?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is right, you would not be able to tell.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain briefly the manner in which this revolver is operated, paying particular attention to extraction and loading and reloading?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. First of all, the weapon has a frame into which a barrel has been screwed and a cylinder which is hinged on a crane is also fitted into the frame. There is a cylinder release on the left-hand side of this weapon which enables one to push the cylinder to the left.

The cylinder has six chambers--in other words, it is a six-shot weapon. There is an extractor rod and an extractor in the rear portion of the cylinder. When you press on the extractor rod, either loaded cartridges or fired cartridge cases may be extracted from the cylinder so that it may be reloaded again.