I am completely aware of who and what Oswald was. I spent considerable time studying this topic as a young man. Oswald was a former Marine but he was not an Expert Shot or a sniper. In 63, the weapons systems available were not nearly as proficient as the designs available today. In short, even a good shot would have to be very lucky to get off those rounds, in that time, with any accuracy using a Carcano. That weapons system is horribly bad, in terms of bolt action. Also, the Carcano uses an en-bloc clip, which is loaded into the receiver and is designed to allow for very easy, very fast reloading. Very similar to the type of clip that was used in an M1 Garand. Unfortunately, unlike the Garand, the Carcano had problems reloading, to the point where it was dangerous. This means that it's very unlikely that anymore then 6 rounds were fired, if Oswald was the only shooter. In fact, only three shots were reported.
Another fact about the rifle the FBI took into evidence is that the scope mounted on the Carcano was a very cheap, 4x18 optic scope. If you know anything about scopes, then you know that the number 4 basically identifies magnification and the 18 identifies field of view or width of the area you can effectively view through a scope. That scope was designed to be used on air rifles or .22s. It was completely inadequate for a shot on a moving target at a range of 175 to 200. Keep in mind, the Carcano is a bolt action rifle, and the action on that Carcano sucked. Oswald would have had to have reacquired his target after every shot, using a very poor scope with a very small field of view. That is not easy, it's next to impossible at 5.6 to 8.3 seconds from first to third shot. That mean that the scope Oswald would have had would essentially be useless. A little known fact about the Carcano in question is that the scope was not sighted in accurately. What does all that mean? Oswald would have had to use iron sights. Now, that might be OK and even make sense if you look at his background in the Marines. Maybe he would have preferred to do that but still in all, iron sights at that distance are not easy shots to acquire targets with accuracy and they are not designed for snap shots with that same accuracy, we are talking head shots here.
You mentioned that Oswald was a Marine and a decent shot but not an expert shot. He was an experienced shooter but, when interviewed, his Wife testified that she never remembered seeing Oswald practice shooting. In order to even have a chance to make those shots, practice would have had to be critical because you don't just walk out with open iron sights and make kills shots from that distance. You would have to shoot to account for all kinds of variables under specific weather conditions. The ballistics of the rounds used, trajectory of projectile from target distance, while firing on a moving target. That's a lot to ask, even for a world class shooter.
If Oswald was so experience, why didn't he use a better rifle, that he was much more familiar with and was superior in every way? I.E., the M1 Garand? I mean, they were everywhere at the time and they were cheap. Why use the Carcano POS? Why make the shot more difficult by keeping a useless scope on the Carcano at all? Why not just remove the scope entirely to make the shot much easier on yourself?
I don't doubt that with a superior weapons system and more time to get the shots off, with sufficient practice, you might be able to make those shots but under those conditions, no. I doubt you or I could make those shots. Some of the best marksman in the world couldn't duplicate those shots at the time of investigation and shortly there after. I just don't buy it but that's just my opinion.
I see a padded room in your future. If you look really close you can see the kool aid man in the bushes holding a gun in the Nix film.
,,,
