Mr.Eisenberg. Now this portion of the fragment was an even smaller portion of the bullet, the entire bullet, is that correct?
Mr.Frazier. Yes; it was.
Mr.Eisenberg. So when you say one-fifth and one-sixth, are you referring now to the proportion of marks on the fragment, as opposed to the proportion of marks you would want from an entire bullet?
Mr.Frazier. No; I am referring to the proportion of marks on the fragment which were used in the examination as compared to the total bullet circumference which would have existed on an unmutilated bullet.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, do you feel that the amount of markings here were sufficient to make positive identification?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Have you made identifications in the past with as few or less markings as are present on this bullet fragment?
Mr.Frazier. Oh, yes; and on less, much less of an area. The character of the marks is more important than the number of the marks.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, here you were of course unable to see all of the lines which were present on the bullet before mutilation. Have you ever had an occasion where you examined a bullet and saw one portion of it which was an apparent match and then found out that the balance of the bullet was not an apparent match?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir; and if I understand your words "apparent match," there is no such thing as an apparent match. It either is an identification or it isn't, and until you have made up your mind, you don't have an apparent match. We don't actually use that term in the FBI. Unless you have sufficient marks for an identification, you cannot say one way or the other as to whether or not two bullets were fired from a particular barrel.
In other words, you cannot nonidentify on the absence of similarities any more than you can identify when you have no similarities present.
Mr.Eisenberg. In other words, you won't make an identification unless you feel enough marks are present to constitute a basis for a positive identification?
Mr.Frazier. That is right, and I would not report any type of similarities unless they were sufficient for an identification, because unless you can say one bullet was fired from the same barrel as a second bullet, then there is room for error, and in this field of firearms identification, we try to avoid any possible chance of error creeping in.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you avoid the category of "probable" identification?
Mr.Frazier. Oh, yes; we never use it, never.
Mr.Eisenberg. And why is that?
Mr.Frazier. There is no such thing as a probable identification. It either is or isn't as far as we are concerned.
Mr.Eisenberg. And in this case it is?
Mr.Frazier. It is, yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Any further questions on this bullet fragment, Mr. Chairman?
Mr.McCloy. Do we have any proof in the record thus far as to where the fragment referred to a moment ago came from?
Mr.Eisenberg. Honestly, I am not sure. I know it will be in the record eventually, but I have not taken that up as part of this testimony.
Mr.McCloy. That will be subject to further proof.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes.
Mr.McCloy. If it is not in the record. As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were identified by you were fired from that rifle?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.McCloy. And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.McCloy. And the fragment567——
Mr.Frazier. 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr.McCloy. Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.McCloy. You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr.Frazier. None whatsoever.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.
Mr.Eisenberg. Your mark is on that fragment?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, it is.
Mr.Eisenberg. When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr.Frazier. At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?
Mr.Frazier. It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?
Mr.McCloy. It may be admitted.
(The item, identified as Commission Exhibit No. 569, was received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. What was your conclusion?
Mr.Frazier. This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr.Eisenberg. Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you weigh this fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, I did. It weighs 21.0 grains.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you describe the fragment?
Mr.Frazier. Yes. It consists of the base or most rearward portion of the jacket of a metal-jacketed bullet, from which the lead core is missing.
Mr.Eisenberg. How can you tell that it is the most rearward portion?
Mr.Frazier. It has the shape which bases of bullets have. It has the cannelure which is located at the rear, on the portion of bullets of this type.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567, and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. You cannot?
Mr.Frazier. There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now 569 is without the core; is that correct?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you estimate how much weight you would add if you had the core?
Mr.Frazier. No, I cannot.
Mr.Eisenberg. Not at all?
Mr.Frazier. No. I do not have the figure on the core weight.
Mr.Eisenberg. In your opinion, is it possible that if you did make such an estimate, the weight, the projected weight of 569 plus the actual weight of 567 would exceed the bullet weight of the 6.5 mm. bullet?
Mr.Frazier. Oh, no; it would not.
Mr.Eisenberg. It would not?
Mr.Frazier. It would not come even close to it, because the amount of core is only—one-quarter inch of the bullet is all that remains at the base, and that much core would not weigh more than 40 grains at the most.
Mr.Eisenberg. No cannelure shows on 567, is that correct?
Mr.Frazier. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, did you make a comparison photograph of 569 with a test bullet?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. This photograph is marked C-14 on the left and C-3 on the right; is that correct?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, it is.
Mr.Eisenberg. C-14 being the test?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, from the rifle 139, and C-3 is Exhibit 569.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the magnification on this photograph is what, Mr. Frazier?
Mr.Frazier. 70 diameters.
Mr.Eisenberg. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?
Mr.McCloy. It may be admitted.
Mr.Eisenberg. 570.
(The item was identified as Commission Exhibit No. 570 and was received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you discuss this picture?
Mr.Frazier. Commission Exhibit 570 shows a portion of the test bullet from Exhibit 139 on the left side of the photograph, and a portion of the bullet 569 on the right side, divided by a hairline.
The photograph was taken of the microscopic marks, examined through the comparison microscope, consisting of very fine and very coarse grooves, or scratches, or ridges, on the surface of each of the bullets as compared with those on the other bullet.
The photograph did not, of course, enter into the conclusion reached in the examination, but was merely taken to demonstrate, to illustrate the types of marks present insofar as a photograph can show them.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, what portion of the Exhibit 569 was unmutilated enough to allow you to make a comparison of its markings?
Mr.Frazier. Approximately one-third. Actually, the entire base section of the bullet was present, but approximately one-half of that base was mutilated. On the mutilated area, either marks were destroyed completely by striking some object, or being compressed or stretched, or they were thrown out of relationship with each other by stretching or compressing to the extent that they were of no value.
So I would estimate approximately one-third of the area was present.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, when you say one-third, is this total area or circumference?
Mr.Frazier. Circumference—one-third of the circumference.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you have any further pictures of any of the bullets, Mr. Frazier?
Mr.Frazier. No, I do not.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, I hand you two bullets and ask whether you are familiar with them.
Mr.Frazier. Yes, I am. These are the two test bullets which I fired from this rifle, Exhibit 139.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do they have your mark on them?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, they do.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as Exhibit 572?
Mr.McCloy. They may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 572, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that true on both fragments?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr.Frazier. No, there was no test made of the materials.
Mr.Eisenberg. As you examined the bullet and the two bullet fragments, are they in the same condition now as they were when they entered your hands?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. One other question on the cartridge cases.
Did you examine the cartridge cases for chambering marks, extraction marks, or ejection marks?
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, ona 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 thinkingof——
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 isdesigned——
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.
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 asto——
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 primarilyevaluation——
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 moreconvenient 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.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?
Mr.Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our machine shops—rather a machinist in one of our machine shops.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I wonder whether you could take these shims back after I have marked them to find out whether the three had been placed?
Mr.Simmons. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. I am marking these 576, 577, and 578. They consist of three shims in three small envelopes.
(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 576, 577, and 578, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid-fire conditions?
Mr.Simmons. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.
I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little awkward for this. But the distance—the angular distance from the first target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first and second impact than between the second and the third. The movement of the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the second to the third.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?
Mr.Simmons. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire—at the first target, being at 175 feet—to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you state where you derived these distances?
Mr.Simmons. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?
Mr.Simmons. I stand corrected. These are values—we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.
Mr.Eisenberg. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are.
Mr.Simmons. For our experiment, I do not see how a difference of a few feet would make any difference.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Simmons, did you take pictures or have pictures taken showing what that range looked like?
Mr.Simmons. Yes; I have copies of these pictures here. I show you three pictures—the first showing the window from which the weapon was fired in our experiments; the second showing the view of the three targets from the window; and the third showing a rifleman in position.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, did you take these pictures yourself?
Mr.Simmons. No; these pictures were taken by one of the cameramen from the development and proof services.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you see the scenes represented in these pictures?
Mr.Simmons. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are these pictures accurate reproductions of these scenes?
Mr.Simmons. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the first, second, and third pictures described by Mr. Simmons admitted as exhibits. That will be 579 for the first, 580 for the second, and 581 for the third.
Mr.McCloy. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 579, 580, and 581 and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, the targets were—well, can you describe the targets for us?
Mr.Simmons. The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.
Mr.Eisenberg. How many marksmen were involved?
Mr.Simmons. We used three riflemen.
Mr.Eisenberg. And can you tell us what their background was?
Mr.Simmons. Yes. All three riflemen are rated as Master by the National Rifle Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small Arms Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a rifleman, and also has a Master rating.
Mr.Eisenberg. Each fired one or more series of three rounds?
Mr.Simmons. Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated the exercise using the iron sight—because we had no indication whether the telescope had been used.
Mr.Eisenberg. So the total number of rounds fired was what?
Mr.Simmons. 21.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you bring with you targets or copies of the targets?
Mr.Simmons. I brought photos of the targets.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you take these photographs, Mr. Simmons, or have them taken under your supervision?
Mr.Simmons. These photographs were taken by the photographic laboratory in our Ballistic Measurements Laboratory, which is one of the complex of laboratories within the Ballistic Research Laboratory.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you verify these photographs as being accurate reproductions of the targets?
Mr.Simmons. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 582, 583 and 584?
Mr.McCloy. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 582, 583, and 584 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the results of the tests you ran, by using these photographs?
Mr.Simmons. Exhibit 582 is the target which was emplaced at 175 feet. All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target.
As you can see from the picture, the accuracy of the weapon is quite good.
Mr.McCloy. That first target is what distance?
Mr.Simmons. 175 feet. And we had to make an assumption here about the point of aim. It is quite likely that in fact each man was aiming at a different portion of the target—there were no markings on the target visible to the firer.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did I understand you just told the firers to aim at the target without referringto——
Mr.Simmons. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. There is an apparent crossline running darkly through that photograph.
Mr.Simmons. These lines were drawn in afterwards, in order for us to make some measurements from the actual impact point.
The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit 583—we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target. This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target. Of course, we made a rather, I guess, disadvantageous error in the test by pointing out that they had missed on the second target, and there was a conscious effort made on the additional rounds to hit the second target.
On the third target, the angle through which the weapon had to be moved to get to the third target from the second was relatively small, and there were only two rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet. One of these rounds, by the way, was used in the sequence where the iron sight was employed.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, when you said that the firers had to make a large shift relatively in their firing position, and were in a hurry, is this your interpretation or is this based on discussions with them subsequently?
Mr.Simmons. This is based on discussions with the firers after the experiment.
Mr.Eisenberg. After these tests were finished, did you make a determination of the amount of error—average amount of error in the aim of these riflemen?
Mr.Simmons. Yes. By assuming that all riflemen had aimed at the intersection of the lines that we have drawn on these pictures, we calculated the total aiming—the aiming error associated with the three riflemen—this is one number to describe the accuracy of all three riflemen. And against the first target the accuracy observed was about .7 mils, in standard deviation. Against the second target, the accuracy was 1.4 mils. And against the third target, it was 1.2 mils.
Mr.Eisenberg. Again, could you convert those at a hundred yards to inches?
Mr.Simmons. 0.7 of a mil at 100 yards is approximately 2 inches. 1.4 mils is approximately 4 inches. And 1.2 mils is approximately 3½ inches.
Mr.Eisenberg. In arriving at these figures, had you discounted the round-to-round dispersion as determined in the bench rest test?
Mr.Simmons. Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round dispersion.
Mr.Eisenberg. But the actual accuracy of the riflemen would have to include the round-to-round dispersion, would it not?
Mrs.Simmons. Yes; it would.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why did you then subtract the round-to-round dispersion figure, or discount it?
Mr.Simmons. We wanted to determine what the aiming error itself was associated with the rifle.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you give us the times in which the various riflemen used to fire the three shots in each sequence?
Mr.Simmons. Yes. And the numbers which I will give you will be the average of two readings on stop watches.
Mr.Eisenberg. For each rifleman?
Mr.Simmons. For each exercise.
Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.
Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6¾ seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.
Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr.Eisenberg. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr.Simmons. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr.Simmons. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
Mr.Eisenberg. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr.Simmons. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller—Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
Mr.Eisenberg. What position did the rifleman fire from, Mr. Simmons?
Mr.Simmons. The firers braced an elbow on the window sill and used pretty much a standard sitting position, using a stool.
Mr.Eisenberg. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
Mr.Simmons. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr.Simmons. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr.Simmons. Yes; there were several comments made—particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull, which is different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage operation where the first—in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, did you prepare a table showing the probability of hit at a given target at given ranges by riflemen with given degrees of accuracy?
Mr.Simmons. Well, we prepared a table which showed what the probability of a hit would be on specific sizes of target as a function of aiming error, and using the appropriate round-to-round dispersion also in these calculations.
Mr.Eisenberg. What were the targets that you used in your calculations?
Mr.Simmons. We used two circular targets, one of 4 inches in radius and one of 9 inches in radius, to approximate the area of the head and the area of the shoulders, or the thorax, actually. And a significant point to these calculations to us is that against the larger target, if you fire with the 0.7 mil aiming error which was observed against the first target, the probability of hitting that target is 1, and it is 1 at all three ranges, out to 270 feet.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you explain the meaning of the probability being 1?
Mr.Simmons. Well, the probability is effectively one. Actually the number is 0.99 and several more digits afterwards. It is rounded off to 1. Simply implying that the probability of a hit is very high with the small aiming errors and short range.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now of course this aiming error is derived from the three riflemen who you employed in the tests, is that correct?
Mr.Simmons. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you proceed to the other two?
Mr.Simmons. Using the 1.2 mil aiming error, again at the larger targets, the probability of hitting the target at 175 feet is 1; at 240 feet it is 0.96; and at 270 feet it is 0.92.
Mr.Eisenberg. How would you characterize the second two figures in terms of probability?
Mr.Simmons. These also are very high values.
Mr.Eisenberg. The mil figure was 1.2, was it?
Mr.Simmons. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Does that include, did you say, both aiming error and round-to-round dispersion?
Mr.Simmons. The 1.2 is the aiming error. When we include the round-to-round dispersion, it becomes only 1.24 mils.
Mr.Eisenberg. Does the probability reflect the 1.2 or the 1.24 figure?
Mr.Simmons. It reflects the total error, which is 1.24.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the same on the first series of calculations you gave us?
Mr.Simmons. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would you go on to the third?
Mr.Simmons. Using the 1.4 mil aiming error, and the round-to-round dispersion, giving a total error of 1.43 mils, the probability of hit at the 175 foot target is 0.99; at 240 feet it is 0.91; at 270 feet it is 0.85.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you give us the figures for the smaller target?
Mr.Simmons. Using the 0.7 mil aiming error, the probability of a hit at 175 feet is 0.96; at 240 feet, 0.81; at 270 feet, 0.73.