TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER beginning at 3H390...

    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Frazier, the purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of yourself and Mr. Ronald Simmons.
    You are, we understand, a firearms expert with the FBI, and Mr. Simmons is a firearms expert with the Weapons System Division at Fort Meade, Md.
    You are asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in this work.
    Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?
    You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I do.
    The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, please.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, will you give your name and position?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Robert A. Frazier, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

                    390

Page 391

    Mr. EISENBERG. And your education?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I have a science degree which I received from the University of Idaho.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly state your training and experience in the fields of firearms, firearms identification, and ballistics?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Beginning in 1937, I was on the University of Idaho Rifle Team, and the following year, 1938. In 1939 I enlisted in the National Guard and for 2 years was on the National Guard Rifle Team firing both small bore, or .22 caliber weapons, and the large bore, .30 caliber weapons, both being of the bolt- action type weapons.
    In 1939 and 1940 I instructed in firearms in the Army of the United States, and acquired additional experience in firing of weapons, training in firing at moving targets, additional training in firing the .45 caliber automatic and machine-guns. And to further my firearms, practical firearms training, I received in 1942 a training course offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after entering on duty with that organization in--on June 9, 1941. That firearms training course consisted of a basic training in handguns-- that is, revolvers and automatic pistols, training in autoloading rifles, training in submachine guns, shotguns, and various other types of firearms.
    One year later, approximately 1943, I received a specialized administrative firearms course which qualified me for training other agents in the field of law-enforcement type firearms.
    Over the past 23 years, I have received the regular FBI firearms training, which is a monthly retraining in firearms, and a periodic, or every 4 years, de tailed retraining in the basic FBI firearms--the firearms training with the rifle, submachine gun, shotgun, revolver.
    In the FBI, training includes firing both at stationary targets and moving targets with beth revolver and rifle and shotgun, and includes firing at slow-fire targets--that is aimed fire for accuracy and rapid fire to increase speed of firing.
    Generally in the field of firearms identification, where I have been assigned for 23 years, I received specialized training given in the FBI Laboratory to train me for the position of firearms identification specialist. In that field, we make examinations of bullets and cartridge cases, firearms of various types, for the purpose of identifying weapons as to their caliber, what they are, their manufacturer, their physical characteristics, and determining the type of ammunition which they shoot.
    We examine ammunition of various types to identify it as to its caliber, its specific designation, and the type or types of weapons in which it can be fired, and we make comparisons of bullets to determine whether or not •they were fired from a particular weapon and make comparisons of cartridge cases for the purpose of determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon, or for determining whether or not they had been loaded into or extracted from a particular weapon.
    That training course lasted for approximately 1 year. However, of course, the experience in firearms is actually part of the training and continues for the entire time in which you are engaged in examining firearms.
    Briefly, that is the summary of the firearms training I have had.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate the number of examinations you have made of firearms to identify the firearms?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands, I would say--firearms comparisons--I have made in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000.
    Mr. McCLOY. Have you written any articles on this subject?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I have predated an article for the "FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin" on firearms identification, which is published as a reprint and provided to any organization or person interested in the general field of firearms identification.
    Mr. McCLOY. Have you read most of the literature on the subject?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
    Mr. McCLOY. Is there any classical book on this subject?
    Mr. FRAZIER. There are a number of fairly good texts.
    The basic one, originally published in 1936, is by Maj. Julian S. Hatcher, who

                    391

Page 392

later, as a general, rewrote his book "Firearms Investigation, Identification, and Evidence."
    There are many other books published on the subject.
    Mr. EISENBERG. May I ask that this person be accepted as a qualified witness on firearms?
    The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a rifle marked Commission Exhibit 139.
    Are you familiar with this weapon?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And do you recognize it by serial number or by your mark?
    Mr. FRAZIER. By serial number on the barrel, and by my initials which appear on various parts of the weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this is the rifle which was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22. Can you describe this rifle by name and caliber?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It is a caliber 6.5 Italian military rifle, commonly referred to in the United States as a 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. It is a bolt-action clip-fed military rifle.
Do you wish a general physical description of the, weapon at this time?
    Mr. EISENBERG. Well, no; not at this time.
    Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?
    Mr. FRAZIER. That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And can you explain what the caliber is a measure--
    Mr. FRAZIER. The caliber is the measure of the distance across the raised portions or the lands in the barrel. The groove diameter, or the spirals cut in the barrel to form the rifling, will be slightly larger--in this case between 7/1000ths and 8/1000ths of an inch larger than the actual bore diameter.     The caliber is normally determined by the bore diameter.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you made the identification of this rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. identified it pictorially by comparing it with pictures in reference books. And the actual identification was of the manufacturer's name appearing on the barrel and serial number, which indicated it was an Italian military rifle.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Did you independently determine the caliber of the rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you did that?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The caliber and the caliber type may be confusing here.
    The caliber, being the diameter of the barrel, is determined in two ways--one, by comparing the barrel with 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, which we also chambered in the weapon and determined that it actually fit the weapon. And, secondly, we measured the width of the barrel with a micrometer. And in that connection, I would like to point out that we made a sulphur cast of the muzzle of the weapon which permitted us to use a micrometer to determine the land width and the groove width in the barrel.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have that sulphur cast?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I do.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And that was made by you or under your supervision?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it was made by--
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 540.
    The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.
    (The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 540, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any reason that you can think of why this Exhibit 139 might be thought to be a 7.35- or 7.65-caliber rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35-mm. rifle, because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has been rebarreled with a

                    392

Page 393

6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.
    Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian Government barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since they had a quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would be the most logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger caliber.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And is the 6.5 caliber weapon distinguished from the 7.35-caliber weapon by name?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is; it is by the model number. The model 91/38 designates the 6.5 mm. rifle, whereas the model 38 designates the 7.35.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you taken photographs of the various markings on the rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have those with you?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Actually, I think we forwarded those photographs to the Commission.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Are these the photographs that you took, or had taken?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Has the Federal Bureau of Investigation been supplied with information concerning the meanings and significances of these various markings?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we have.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state the source of that information?
    Mr. FRAZIER. This information came to us by mail as a result of an inquiry of the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service, abbreviated SIFAR, by letter dated March 26, 1964, through the FBI representative in Rome, Italy.
    This information is classified as secret by the Italian Government, who have advised that the material may be released to the Commission. However, they desire the retention of the information in a secret category.
    The CHAIRMAN. Is this essential to the proof?
    If it is not, I think we would rather not have it, because the fewer things We have to keep in secret, the better the situation is for us.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
    (Discussion off the record.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.
    Based on your experience with firearms, is the placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined to one weapon of a given type?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign weapons particularly?
    The serial number consists of a series of numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number, consisting of a letter.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
    Mr. EISENBERG. All. right.
Now, without reference to any classified information, could you briefly describe the markings shown on these photographs?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The first photograph is an overall photograph of the rifle.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me.
    These photographs--when you say "first photograph"--these photographs are marked No. 1, No. 2, et cetera, on the back.
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they are.
    Photograph No. 1 is an overall photograph of the rifle.
    Photograph No. 2 is made of the top of the barrel, showing the serial number C2766.
    Photograph No. 3 is also of the top of the rifle, showing a portion of the inscription on the telescopic sight, and the figures 1940, which is the manufacturer's date, the words "Made Italy" and a figure in the form of a crown, under that the letters "R-E," and then a portion of the word "Terni."
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the significance of "Terni?"

                    393
    731-219 O--64--vol.III---26

Page 394
    Mr. FRAZIER. Terni is the location for an Italian ordnance plant in Italy where
rifles are made, and it is apparent that this weapon was made in Terni, because it is stamped with that name.     Mr. EISENBERG. And the significance of that crown?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I think that would be just an Italian identification mark or proof mark.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And are the words "Made Italy" likely to have been put on the weapon at the time of manufacture or subsequently?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the words "Made Italy" would be stamped on the weapon by a purchaser or an individual desiring to send the weapon to another country, to establish actually its origin
    Photograph No. 4 is again of the top of the weapon showing the same information--1940, "Made Italy,'' the crown, the place it was made, and the inscription "Caliber 6.5" across the top of the rear sight.
    Photograph No. 5 shows a small circle which appears on the forward end of the receiver, or that portion into which the barrel is screwed, with the words "TNI" in the circle, and over these letters is again a small crown. This could be a proof mark or an inspector's stamp.
    Photograph No. 6 is of an inscription on the side of the rear sight which has the appearance of the letter "l," or the letter "1," followed by a capital letter "A," and the capital letter "G," with the numbers "47," and "2," stamped raider-neath them. I do not know what the significance of that is. It could be, again, an inspector's stamp or a proof mark of some type.
    Photograph No. 7 is made of the cocking piece on the end of the bolt, which gives the word "Rocca." This apparently would be the name of the manufacturer of that part of the rifle.
    Photograph No. 8 is an inscription "PC" on the top of the bolt of the weapon. This inscription--I do not know of my own knowledge what that is-but it. could be the mark of a manufacturer or a proof mark or an inspector's mark made at the time the-handle was made to be welded to the bolt.
    Photograph No. 9 was taken of the bottom of the receiver of the weapon, with the stock removed. It shows the Number "40," which could refer again to the year of manufacture, 1940, on the receiver, and at the rear of the photograph a small lettered inscription referring again to an inspector stamp, a proof stamp, of some nature. The identity of this, I do not know.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these photographs be admitted as a group under the number 541.
    The CHAIRMAN. You are going to put all of them in under one number?
    Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. They have the subnumbers on the back, which will differentiate them.
    The CHAIRMAN. They will be admitted.
    (The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 541, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the basic bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since this uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as a Mauser for that reason.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is this weapon--
    The CHAIRMAN. I didn't get that last.
    Mr. FRAZIER. It showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is this weapon used when it is sold into the United States?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a surplus type of weapon.

                    394

Page 395

    Mr. EISENBERG. So that it is impossible to attribute any given amount of wear to the last user?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is impossible.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us that information?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.
    Mr. McCLOY. With the scope?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, with the scope.
    The CHAIRMAN. And the sling?
    Mr. FRAZIER. That is with the sling, yes, sir. The sling weighs 4 3/4 ounces. The stock length is 34.8 inches, which is the wooden portion from end to end with the butt plate attached. The barrel and action from the muzzle to the rear of the tang, which is this portion at the rearmost portion of the metal, is 28.9 inches. The barrel only is 21.18 inches.
    Mr. EISENBERG. When you say, "this portion," Mr. Frazier, I don't think that is coming down clear in the record. I wonder whether you could rephrase that so as to describe the part of the barrel or part of the stock to which you are pointing when you say "tang."
    Mr. FRAZIER. The tang is the rear of the receiver of the weapon into which the rear mounting screw is screwed to hold the rearmost part of the metal action of the weapon. into the wooden stock. From the end of that portion to the muzzle of the weapon is 28.9 inches.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And the length of the longest component when the rifle is dissembled, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. 34.8 inches, which is the length of the stock, the wooden portion.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us the telescopic sight on the rifle in terms of--
    Mr. McCLOY. Before you get to the sight, can I ask a question?
    Mr. EISENBERG. Surely.
    Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.
    Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?
    Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.
    It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since then.
    Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
    Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
    Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.
    Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the telescopic sight on the rifle? Magnification, country of origin?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It is a four-power telescopic sight employing crosshairs in it as a sighting device, in the interior of the scope.
    It is stamped "Optics Ordnance Incorporated, Hollywood California," and

                    395

Page 396

under that is the inscription "Made in Japan." It is a very inexpensive Japanese telescopic sight.
    The mount attached to it was also made in Japan.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you removed the mount?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How many holes did you find drilled into the receiver?
    Mr. FRAZIER. There are two holes in the receiver.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you form an opinion as to whether these were original holes or whether new holes--new and larger holes had been formed over the original holes?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Normally, the receiver would have no holes at all, and would have to be drilled and tapped for the screws. In the sight itself there normally are three holes, two of which have been enlarged to accommodate the two mounting screws presently holding the mount to the rifle.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think, based on your experience with types of screws
used in mounts, that these were the original screws and the original holes for the screws?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I could not say--I could not answer that specifically. However, they appear to be the same type of screw as is present on the rest of the mount--although they are somewhat larger in size than the remaining hole which is present in the lower portion of the mount.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I now hand you a rifle which is marked C-250. Are you familiar with this rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe it briefly?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It is an identical rifle physically to the rifle Commission's Exhibit 139, in that it is the same caliber, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Italian Military rifle Model 91/38.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine by use of this rifle whether the scope was mounted on Exhibit 139 by the firm which is thought to have sold Exhibit 139?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Would you repeat that, please?
    Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
    Did you make an attempt to determine, by use of this C-250, whether the firm which had sold Exhibit 139 had mounted the scope on Exhibit 139?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe how you made that attempt?
    Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.
    In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you--
    Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.
    Mr. EISENBERG. On the----
    Mr. FRAZIER. On the C-250 rifle.
    When we received the rifle C-250, we examined the mount and found that two of the holes had been enlarged, and that screws had been placed through them and threaded into the receiver of the C-250 rifle.
    The third hole in the mount had not been used.
    We also found that an identical scope to the one on the Commission's rifle 139 was present on the C-250 rifle.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Were the screws used in mounting the C-250 rifle in mounting the scope on the C-250 rifle type of screws as those used in mounting the scope on Exhibit 139?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And the holes were the same dimensions?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they are. And the threads in the holes are the same.

                    396

Page 397

Mr EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like C-250 admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 542.
    The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
    (The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 542, and received in evidence.)
    The CHAIRMAN. At this time I will interrupt to say I must now leave to attend a session of the Supreme Court, and I will return at the conclusion of the session.
    In the meantime, Mr. McCloy will preside at the Commission hearing, and in the event he should be required to leave, Mr. McCloy, whatever Commissioner is here will conduct the examination in his absence.
    (At this point, Chairman Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you examined the sling on Commission Exhibit 139?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel that this is--that this sling was originally manufactured as a rifle sling?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; it is not in any way similar to a normal sling for a rifle. It appears to be a sling from some carrying case, camera bag, musical instrument strap, or something of that nature.
    We have made attempts to identify it, with no success.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from the addition of this sling and mounting of the telescopic sight, have any modifications been made in the C-139 rifle--- in the Commission Exhibit 139 rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. You would suggest, I gather, Mr. Frazier, that this is a home made sling?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it appears to have been cut to length by inserting this strap, or this sling, on the rifle, and then trimming off the excess ends of the two straps to fit.
    Mr. McCLOY. How would that broad patch on the sling--how would that be used, in your judgment, in firing the rifle? Would it be wrapped around the base of your---
    Mr. FRAZIER. I find it very difficult to use the rifle with a sling at all. The sling is too short, actually, to do more than put your arm through it.
    Mr. McCLOY. You get quite a leverage with that?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir, you do, in one direction. But it is rather awkward to wrap the forward hand into the sling in the normal fashion.
    Mr. McCLOY. This gives a pretty tight----
    Mr. FRAZIER. It can be used. But I don't feel that actually the position of this broad piece is of too much significance as far as use of the sling goes.
    Mr. McCLOY. But certainly the sling would tend to steady the aim, even in this crude form?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
    Mr. McCLOY. It would make more easy an offhand shot than if you didn't have a sling? It would make it more accurate?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It would assist more in offhand than any other type of shooting, yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the scope for a moment, on the basis of the experiment, so to speak, which you had Klein's conduct, would you form an opinion as to whether the telescopic sight was mounted on Exhibit 139--was likely to have been mounted--by Klein's, or likely to have been mounted subsequently?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I could not deduce from that--from the way the scope is mounted--who mounted it. I can only say that the two are mounted in identical fashion. And it is possible that the same person or persons mounted the two scopes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly explain the operation of this rifle, the bolt action and the clip-feed mechanism?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the weapon is loaded by turning up the bolt handle, drawing the bolt to the rear, and inserting the clip from the top of the weapon, after the clip has been loaded with the number of rounds you desire to load.

                    397

Page 398

    The maximum number of rounds the clip holds is six. However, the weapon can be loaded with a clip holding 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 round.
    This is done by inserting the clip in the rear portion of the ejection port, and pushing it downwards until it clean the bottom of the bolt. The weapon then is loaded by moving the belt forward. It picks up one cartridge out of the clip, carries it into the chamber of the weapon, and the bolt is then locked by turning down.
    To fire the weapon, it is merely necessary to pull the trigger, since the closing of the bolt has cocked the cocking piece on the weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you proceed to show the extraction and ejection mechanism?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The extraction is merely by raising the belt and drawing it to the rear. When the cartridge is first loaded, the rim on the base of the cartridge is caught under the extractor in the face of the bolt, so that drawing the belt to the rear draws the fired cartridge or a loaded cartridge if it has not been fired, out of the chamber to the rear, where the opposite side of the cartridge strikes a projection in the ejection port called the ejector. The ejector strikes on the opposite side of the case from the extractor, causing the shell to be thrown out of the weapon on the right-hand side.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, to fire the next shot, is any further action necessary, apart from closing the bolt and pulling the trigger, if remaining cartridges are in the clip?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you pull out the clip and explain any markings you find on it?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The only markings are the manufacturer's markings, "SMI," on the base of the clip, and a number, 952 The significance of that number I am not aware of. It could be a part number or a manufacturer's cede number.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any reason that you can think of why someone might call that a five-shot clip?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir, unless they were unfamiliar with it. There is an area of confusion in that a different type of rifle shooting larger ammunition, such as a .30-06 or a German Mauser rifle, uses five-shot clips, and the five-shot clip is the common style or size of clip, whereas this one actually holds six.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to purchase ammunition for this rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Does the ammunition come in the clip?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Normally it does not. The ammunition that we have purchased for this rifle comes in 20-shot boxes. It is possible and I say this as a result of reading advertisements--to buy ammunition for this rifle, and to receive a clip or clips at the same time, but not necessarily part of the same shipment.
    Mr. EISENBERG. When you ordered C-250, which is now Commission Exhibit 542, did you receive a clip with that rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Would you deduce, therefore, that the clip--that someone wishing to shoot that rifle and use a clip in the rifle would have purchased the clip later?
    Mr. FRAZIER. They would have to acquire it from some source, yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is it commonly available?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. Can you use that rifle without the clip?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you can.
    Mr. McCLOY. What is the advantage of the clip?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one shot at a time.
    Mr. McCLOY. The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
    Mr. McCLOY. When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired with the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. The same as the .30-06?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven.

                    398

Page 399

    Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a cartridge in an envelope, marked Commission Exhibit 141. Are you familiar with this cartridge?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am. I received this cartridge for examination in the FBI laboratory, submitted to me as a cartridge removed from the rifle at the time it was recovered.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe that cartridge in terms of name, manufacturer, and country of origin?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It is a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co, at East Alto, Ill.
    It is loaded with a full metal-jacketed bullet of the military type. Cartridges of this type which I have examined, having this type of bullet, have bullets weighing 160 to 161 grains.
    Mr. McCLOY. When you mentioned that cartridge as being a Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that be fired, for example, in a Mannlicher 6.5 Schoenauer?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I am not familiar with that.
    Mr. McCLOY. That is the normal sporting rifle that Mannlicher Schoenauer is the normal 6.5 Austrian sporting rifle that you buy. I just wondered if it was the same cartridge.
    Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry. I don't know whether there is a distinction between these two or not.
    Mr. McCLOY. I happen to have one of those. And I was just wondering if it is the same cartridge.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a series of three cartridge cases. I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am. I received these cartridge cases on two different occasions for examination in the laboratory, and comparison with the rifle.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do these cases have your mark on them?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they do. Each is marked with my initials and the inscription for identification purposes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce these cartridge cases into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545.
    Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
    (The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibits No. 543, 544, and 545 and received in evidence.)
    Mr. McCLOY. Will you introduce evidence to show where they came from?
    Mr. EISENBERG. Well, sir, the record will show at the conclusion of the hearings where they came from. This witness is able to identify them only as to his examination.
    Mr. McCLOY. I understand that. I understand that witness cannot identify them. But I simply asked for the record whether you have evidence to show where they did come from.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; for the record, these cartridges were found on the sixth. floor of the School Book Depository Building. They were found near the south east corner window--that is, the easternmost window on the southern face of the sixth floor of that building.
Mr. Frazier, are these cartridge cases which have just been admitted into evidence the same type of cartridge-- from the same type of cartridge as you just examined, Commission Exhibit No. 141?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are.
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. You gave the weight of the bullet which is found in this type of cartridge. Could you give us a description of the contour of the bullet, and its length?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length--possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters The diameter is .267 inches, and a length of 1.185, or approximately 1.2 inches.
    Mr. McCLOY. You say that the diameter is 6.65. Did you mean 6.65 or 6.5 millimeters?

                    399

Page 400

    Mr. FRAZIER. I was looking for that figure on that. It is about 6.6--6.65 millimeters.
    The bullet, of course, will be a larger diameter than the bore of the weapon to accommodate the depths of the grooves in the barrel.
    On the base of the bullet is a crimp ring, or a cannelure, which is located two-tenths of an inch from the base up the bullet and which is 6/100ths of an inch in width--that is, it is a band around the bullet 6/l00ths of an inch wide.
    I believe that is a description of the bullet.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 with the type of ammunition you have been looking at to determine the muzzle velocity of that type of ammunition in this weapon?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two different lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003.
I might point out that there were four lots of ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., only two of which are available.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give the results?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Possibly I can give the results shot by shot, so the record will show each one, and then give an average for them.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Fine.
    Mr. FRAZIER. The first shot, Lot 6,000, the velocity was 2199.7 feet per second.
    Shot No. 2, Lot 6,000, velocity 2,180.3 feet per second.
    The third shot, velocity--same lot--velocity 2,178.9 feet per second.
    The third shot, velocity--and this is Lot No. 6,003--velocity was 2,184.8 feet per second.
    The fourth shot, Lot No. 6,003, was 2,137.6 feet per second.
    Fifth shot, Lot No. 6,000, 2,162.7 feet per second.
    The sixth shot, Lot 6,003, 2,134.8 feet per second.
    An average of all shots of 2,165 feet per second.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the differences between the muzzle velocities of the various rounds in terms of whether that difference was a large or small difference?
    Mr. FRAZIER. This is a difference well within the manufacturer's accepted standards of velocity variations. They permit in their standard ammunition manual, which is a guide to the entire industry in the United States, a 40-foot-per-second, plus or minus, variation shot to shot in the same ammunition.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you calculated the muzzle energy of this 6.5 millimeter ammunition in this weapon?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It was furnished by letter to the Commission. Yes, sir--the muzzle energy was calculated on the basis of the average velocity of 2,165 feet per second as 1,676 foot-pounds.
    Mr. EISENBERG. This is a calculation rather than a measurement?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Necessarily a calculation, because it is merely a term used to compare one bullet against another rather than for any practical purposes because--because of the bullet's extremely light weight. The bullet's velocity and weight, and gravity enter into the determination of its energy in foot-pounds.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano with which we are dealing an accurate type of ammunition as opposed to other types of military ammunition--as compared, I should say, with other types of military ammunition?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it is also accurate. As other types of ammunition the 6.5 millimeter cartridge or bullet is a very accurate bullet, and ammunition of this type as manufactured in the United States would give fairly reasonable accuracy. Other military cartridges may or may not give accurate results. But the cartridge inherently is an accurate cartridge.
    Mr. EISENBERG. I this type of cartridge readily available for purchase?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. Information we have indicates that 2 million rounds of this ammunition was reimported into this country and placed on sale.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Commission Exhibit No. 141, the cartridge found in the chamber--I should say, was found in the chamber. Do you draw any inference

                    400

Page 401

from the fact that the cartridge was found in the chamber? In your experience, does one automatically reload whether or not one intends to fire, or is there a special significance in the fact that the cartridge had been chambered?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I would say no, there would be no inference which I could, draw based on human behavior as to why someone would or would not reload a cartridge. Normally, if you were in my experience shooting at some object, and it was no longer necessary to shoot, you would not reload.
    You may or may not reload. It would be a normal thing to automatically reload. But not necessarily in every instance.
    Mr. McCLOY. Do you have any information of your own knowledge as to whether this cartridge was in the chamber or not at the time the rifle was found?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Only as furnished to me it was submitted as having been removed from the rifle by the Dallas Police Department.
    Mr. McCLOY. As having been removed from the chamber?
    Mr. FRAZIER. From the chamber of the rifle.
    Mr. McCLOY. But you did not remove it yourself?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test to determine the pattern of the cartridge-case ejection of Commission Exhibit 139
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I made two studies in connection with the ejection pattern--one to determine distance and one to determine the angle at which the cartridge cases leave the ejection port.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And did you summarize your examination by diagrams?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us those diagrams?
    Mr. FRAZIER. In this diagram.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me just a second, Mr. Frazier. Were these diagrams prepared by you?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were not the actual physical diagrams, but the figures on the diagrams were furnished by me to the draftsman.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these diagrams as Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547?
    Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
    (The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547, and were received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of your tests by using these diagrams, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    In this test, Commission Exhibit 546, the diagram illustrates the positions on the floor at which cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139. In the top portion of Exhibit 546, the barrel was held depressed at a 45-degree angle, and in the lower half of the exhibit it shows the pattern with the barrel held in a horizontal position. Each spot marked with a figure on the diagram shows where one cartridge case landed in both instances, and each one is marked with the distance and the angle to which the cartridge case was ejected.
    With the barrel held in the depressed condition, all of the cartridge cases landed within an 85-inch circle located 80 degrees to the right front of the rifle. That may be confusing. It was 80 degrees to the right from the line of sight of the rifle and at a distance of 86 inches from the ejection port.
    Now, this circle will not necessarily encompass all cartridge cases ejected from the rifle, since the ejection is determined, not only by the angle of the weapon, but more by the force with which the bolt is operated. A very light force on the bolt can cause the cartridge case to tip gently out and fall at your feet. However, under normal conditions of reloading in a fairly rapid manner, we found the cartridge cases to land in this circle.
    The same situation is true of the test made with the muzzle in the horizontal condition.
    All of the cartridge cases landed within a 47-inch circle, which was located at right angles to the ejection port, or 90 degrees from the line of sight, and at a distance 80 inches from the ejection port.

                    401

Page 402

    In both of these tests, the ejection port of the weapon was held 32 inches above the floor.
    In the second test performed, Commission Exhibit 547, the test was made to ascertain how high above the ejection port a cartridge case would fly as it was being ejected.
    After ejecting numerous cartridge cases from the weapon with the barrel held in a depressed condition, it was found that the cartridge cases did not exceed two inches above the level of the ejection port. And with the muzzle held horizontally, it did not exceed 12 inches above the level of the ejection port.
    Mr. EISENBERG. In making these tests, was the bolt pulled with a normal degree of rifle pull?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It was pulled with various pulls, to determine what the effect would be with different speeds of the bolt.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How did you select the distance above the floor at which the rifle was fired?
    Mr. FRAZIER. We selected a distance which we thought might be typical of a condition which would give an overall picture of the ejection pattern, and not from any basis of previous information as to possibly how the weapon had been fired previously. Thirty-two inches happened to be approximately table height, so that we could control the height of the weapon readily.
    Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you three Commission Exhibits, 510, 511, and 512, which are photographs which have been identified as giving the location of the cartridges--cartridge cases--Nos. 543, 544, and 545, on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building. I ask you to examine these pictures, and to determine whether if the rifle had been fired from the window shown in these pictures, the location of the cartridge cases is consistent with the results of the tests you ran to determine the ejection patterns.
    Mr. FRAZIER. I would say yes; it is consistent--although the cartridge cases are two of them-- against the wail. There is a stack of boxes fairly near the wall, and the position of the cartridge cases could very well have been affected by the boxer That is, they could strike the box and bounce for several feet, and they could have bounced back and forth in this small area here and come to rest in the areas shown in the photographs.
    Mr. EISENBERG. In making your tests, did you notice much ricochet?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; considerable. Each time a cartridge case hit the floor, it would bounce anywhere from 8 inches to 10 to 15 feet.
    Mr. McCLOY. Make a lot of noise?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; a clatter.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 to determine its accuracy under rapid- fire conditions?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe these tests?
    Mr. FRAZIER. A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time.
    The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target.
    Mr. EISENBERG. A silhouette of a man?
    Mr. FRAZIER. A paper silhouette target of a man; yes.
    Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them.
    Mr. EISENBERG. These targets were made by you or in your presence?
    Mr. FRAZIER. These are actually copies of the actual targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do on the actual targets.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I request permission to introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits 548 and 549.
    Mr. McCLOY. You have made these copies, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I had them made. They are actual xerox copies of the original targets, which are black, and do not show the markings placed around the holes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

                    402

Page 403

    (Discussion off the record.)
    Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.
Mr. Frazier, you have the original targets that were used in this experiment.
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. Were you one of the three that fired?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. Can you identify your target as distinguished from the other--
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. Do you have the target that you fired?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I fired--yes, I do. However, another examiner also fired at this same target.
    Mr. McCLOY. Have you made a copy of that--or did you cause a copy of that target to be made?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. And you have that with you?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I do.
    Mr. McCLOY. Have you marked it yet?
    Mr. EISENBERG. No. That would be 548.
    Mr. McCLOY. Suppose you identify that copy.
    Mr. EISENBERG. This copy that you are presenting to us has initials at the bottom "CC-R-CK"?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And the numbers and letters D-2 on the right-hand margin?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And that has been copied under your supervision?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. McCLOY. That can be admitted as Commission Exhibit 548.
    (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 548, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. McCLOY. Now, is Commission Exhibit 548 an accurate copy of the target which you have-that you fired, and which you presented?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you also have a copy here which has the name on it Killion, and similar initials, letters, and numbers to the other target. Is this an accurate copy which you had prepared?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. That was the target fired by Charles Killion in my presence.
    Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 549?
    Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
    (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 549, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And the date?
    Mr. FRAZIER. November 27, 1963.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How many shots did each agent fire?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
    Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.

                    403

Page 404

    Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And your time, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
    Mr. FRAZIER.- The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
    On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the second series of tests?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
    We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.
    This is the actual target which I fired.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And that target has all six holes in it?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked No. 2.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.
    Mr. McCLOY. That will be admitted.
    (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
    That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the date?
    Mr. FRAZIER. That also was on the 27th of November.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Same date as the first tests?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And you performed one more test, I believe?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have the four targets we fired here.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.
    Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
    (The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551 through 554, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I fired them.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

                    404

Page 405

    On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds.
    The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point.
    Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.
    These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.
    And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle.
    Mr. McCLOY. The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. Have you prepared a diagram of the telescopic sight?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could show us that now to help illustrate the point you are making.
    Let me mark that.
    This diagram was prepared by you?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it was.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And illustrates
    Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. The actual diagram was copied by me from a textbook, showing a diagrammatic view of how a telescopic crosshair ring is mounted in a telescope.
    Mr. EISENBERG. This is a generalized diagram, rather than a diagram of the specific scope on Exhibit 139?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. However, I have checked the scope on Exhibit 139 and found it to be substantially the same as this diagram.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 555?
    Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
    (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 555, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit No. 555 is a diagrammatic drawing of the manner in which the crosshair ring is mounted in Exhibit 139, showing on the right-hand side of the diagram a circular drawing indicating the outer part of the tube, with an inner circle with a crossed line in it representing the crosshairs in the telescope.
    There is an elevation-adjusting screw at the top, which pushes the crosshair ring down against a spring located in the lower left-hand portion of the circle, or which allows the crosshair ring to come up, being pushed by the spring on the opposite side of the ring. There is a windage screw on the right-hand side

                    405

Page 406

of the scope tube circle which adjusts the crosshair ring laterally for windage adjustments.
    The diagram at the left side of Commission's Exhibit 555 shows diagrammatically the blade spring mounted in the telescope tube which causes the ring to be pressed against the adjusting screws.
    We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube 80 that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon inasfar as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.
    And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized and fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to the right.
    Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And because of the difficulty you had stabilizing the crosshair, you did not wish to pursue it to a further refinement, is that correct?
    Mr. FRAZIER. We sighted the scope in relatively close, fired it, and decided rather than fire more ammunition through the weapon, we would use these targets which we had fired.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you find that they stayed, remained stabilized?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they did.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How long do you think the crosshairs would remain stabilized in Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?
    Mr. FRAZIER. They should remain stabilized continuously.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?
    Mr. FRAZIER. When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.
    Mr. EISENBERG. But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?
    Mr. FRAZIER. As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.

                    406

Page 407

    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could you have compensated for this defect?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have the shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no different from taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the center of the bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you would have--- an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the high right corner.
    Mr. EISENBERG. If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a bulls-eye pattern, what would you have what action, if any, would you have taken, to improve your score?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding how high the bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low left, or adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would cause the hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had you had with the rifle before the last series of four targets were shot by you?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in addition had operated the bolt repeatedly.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with this weapon--materially shorten the time in which three shots could be accurately fired?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; very definitely.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Would practice without actually firing the weapon be helpful--that is, a dry-run practice?
    Mr. FRAZIER. That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action weapon, where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area to the bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing the bolt.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think three shots could be fired accurately within 5 1/2 seconds if no rest was utilized?
    Mr. FRAZIER. That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary or needed-or which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in that length of time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or 4-inch circle without either resting or possibly using the sling as a support--I doubt that you could accomplish that.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100 yards--how do you think your time would have been affected by use of a moving target?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give an amount?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards you or at right angles.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think you could shorten your time with further practice with the weapon?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate on that?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice with the weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the 4.6-second time?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
    Mr. EISENBERG. I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions concerning the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin on November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building,

                    407

Page 408

which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired.
    Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet.
    And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and third shots was 5 1/2 seconds.
    Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope.
    Mr. FRAZIER. I would say he would have to lead approximately 2 feet under both such situations. The lead would, of course, be dependent upon the direction in which the object was moving primarily. If it is moving away from you, then, of course, the actual lead of, say, 2 feet which he would have to lead would be interpreted as a considerably less lead in elevation above the target, because the target will move the 2 feet in a direction away from the shooter, and the apparent lead then would be cut to one foot or 12 inches or 8 inches or something of that nature, due to the movement of the individual.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made calculations to achieve the figures you gave?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I made the calculations, but I don't have them with me.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply these to us, either in further testimony or by letter, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I have one object here, a diagram which will illustrate that lead, if you would like to use that. This is drawn to scale from these figures which you quoted as building height, and distances of 175 feet and 265 feet.
    Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these figures are approximations of the figures believed to be involved in the assassination. Will you supply the data at a later date?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I can furnish that.
    Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to introduce this as 556?
    Mr. McCLOY. That will he admitted.
    (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 556, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the lead in that diagram, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. In Commission Exhibit 556, it shows a triangular diagram with the vertical line on the left-hand side illustrating the height of the building. The figures of a 60-foot building height plus--
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is height of the muzzle above the ground?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No--window sill--60-foot window sill height above the ground, with an assumed 2- foot height in addition to accommodate the height of the rifle above the possible. the possible height of the rifle above the window sill.
The horizontal line extends outward from the building to a small rectangular block, and then a sloping line illustrates a 5-foot slope from the 175-foot point to the 265-foot point.
    (At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
    Mr. FRAZIER. The time of flight of the bullet of approximately 8/100ths of a second and, again, it was necessary to assume the time of flight of the bullet from the window to this first location of 175 feet is approximately 8/100ths of a second, which means a 2-foot lead on the target. That is, the target would move 2 feet in that interval of time, thereby necessitating shooting slightly ahead of the target to hit your aiming point. That has been diagrammatically illustrated by a 2-foot distance laid off on this rectangular block here, and two lines. very fine lines, drawn back towards the window area.
    The right-hand side of Commission's 556 shows the same rectangular block, again with two lines drawn to it, one illustrating the point of aim and the other the amount of lead which would be necessary to strike an object aimed at which was moving, according to the time of flight of the projectile.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And you calculated the speed of the car by translating the figures on total time elapsed between first and third shots?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The time the speed of the moving object was calculated on the basis of an assumed 5.5-second interval for a distance of 90 feet, which figures out mathematically to be 11.3 miles per hour.

                    408

Page 409

    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said before that in order to give this 2-foot lead, you would have to aim 2 inches--for a target going away from you, you would have to aim 2 inches above the target, or in front of the target.
    Mr. FRAZIER. 2 feet in front of the target, which would interpolate into a much lower actual elevation change.
    Mr. EISENBERG. The elevation change would be 2 inches, is that it?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, no. It would be on the order of 6 to 8 inches.
    Mr. EISENBERG. 6 to 8 inches?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. What was your 2-inch figure?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I don't recall.
    Mr. EISENBERG. But it is 6 to 8 inches in elevation?
    Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
    Using that telescopic lens, how would you aim that rifle to achieve that distinction?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well it would be necessary to hold the crosshairs an estimated distance off the target, of say, 6 inches over the intended, target, so what when the shot was fired the crosshairs should be located about 6 inches over your target, and in the length of time that the bullet was in the air and the length of time the object was moving, the object would move into actually, the path of the bullet in approximately 1/10th to 13/100ths of a second.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the target of the assassin was the center of the President's head, and he wanted to give a correct lead, where would he have aimed, if we eliminate the possibility of errors introduced by other factors?
    Mr. FRAZIER. He would aim from 4 to 6 inches--approximately 2 inches, I would say, above the President's head, which would be actually 6 inches above his aiming point at the center of the head.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How difficult is it to give this--a lead of this size to this type of target?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It would not be difficult at all with a telescopic sight, because your target is enlarged four times, and you can estimate very quickly in a telescopic sight, inches or feet or lead of any desired amount.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Would it be substantially easier than it would be with an open or peep sight?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It would be much more difficult to do with the open iron sights, the notched rear sight and the blade front sight, which is on Exhibit 139.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have been able to calculate the precise amount of lead which should be given, because you have been given figures. If you had been in the assassin's position, and were attempting to give a correct lead, what lead do you think you would have estimated as being the necessary lead?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It would have been a very small amount, in the neighborhood of a 3-inch lead.
    Mr. EISENBERG. As opposed to the 6 or 8 inches?
    Mr. FRAZIER. As opposed to about 6 inches, yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. What would the consequence of the mistake in assumption as to lead be that is, if you gave a 3-inch lead rather than the correct lead?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It would be a difference of a 3-inch variation in the point of impact on the target.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if you had aimed at the center of the President's head, and given a 3-inch lead, again eliminating other errors, where would you have hit, if you hit accurately?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It would be 3 inches below the center of his head--from the top--it would be not the actual Center from the back, but the center would be located high. The bullet would strike at possibly the base of the skull.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, suppose you had given no lead at all and aimed at that target and aimed accurately. Where would the bullet have hit?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It would hit the base of the neck--approximately 6 inches below the center of the heart.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, would you have tried to give a lead at all, if you had been in that position?
    Mr. FRAZIER. At that range, at that distance, 175 to 265 feet, with this rifle

                    409

Page 410

and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead--I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size.
    Mr. McCLOY. May I ask a question?
    In your experimentation, in your firing of those shots that you have testified to a little while back, when you fired the first shot, was the shot in the chamber, or did you have to push it into the chamber by use of the bolt?
    Mr. FRAZIER. This was fired with a loaded chamber, and timed from the time of this first shot until the last shot.
    Mr. McCLOY. Did you shoot offhand or did you shoot with a rest?
    Mr. FRAZIER. We shot with a rest, both the other individuals and myself, on each occasion, with one arm resting on a bench or a table.
    Mr. McCLOY. Were you prone, or were you standing up?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, we were sitting, actually, sitting or kneeling, in order to bring the arm down to the rest we were using.
    Mr. McCLOY. One other question.
    You keep referring to, and the questions kept referring to, "lead." By "lead," in this instance, you would mean height above the aiming point rather--
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. To the right, let's say, of the aiming point?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that is correct.
    Mr. McCLOY. Because it was a going away shot?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. That is all.
    Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
    Where did you conduct these tests?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The targets were fired-both on the indoor range in the FBI range here in Washington and the 10-yard tests were fired at the Quantico, Va., FBI ranges.
    Representative BOGGS. Have any tests--have there been any simulated tests in the building in Texas?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I don't know, sir.
    Representative BOGGS. But the FBI has not conducted any?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Not to my knowledge. There may have been measurements and things of that nature taken, but I don't know.
    Representative BOGGS. Now, in these tests, was there any difficulty about firing this rifle three times within the space or period of time that has been given to the Commission--5 seconds, I think.
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, let me say this, I fired the rifle three times, in accordance with that system of timing it from the first shot with the chamber loaded until the last shot occurred--three times in 4.6 seconds, 4.8 seconds, 5.6 seconds, 5.8, 5.9, and another one a little over 6, or in that neighborhood. The tenth of a second variation could very easily be as a result of the timing procedure used. A reflex of just not stopping the stopwatch in a tenth of a second.
    Representative BOGGS. You were firing at a simulated target?
    Mr. FRAZIER. These targets previously introduced, or copies of the targets, are those which we actually fired.
    Representative BOGGS. My questions are really a followup of the Chairman's question.
    These practices--were you just practicing for time, or were you practicing under conditions similar to those existing in Dallas at the time of the assassination?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The tests we ran were for the purposes of determining whether we could fire this gun accurately in a limited amount of time, and specifically to determine whether it could be fired accurately in 6 seconds.
    Now, we assumed the 6 seconds empirically--that is, we had not been furnished with any particular time interval. Later we were furnished with a time interval of 5.5 seconds. However, I have no independent knowledge--had no independent knowledge of the time interval or the accuracy. But we merely fired it to demonstrate the results from rapidly firing the weapon, reloading the gun and so on, in a limited time.

                    410

Page 411

    Representative BOGGS. Were there other tests conducted to determine the accuracy of the weapon and so on?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir--only the rapid-fire accuracy tests were fired by the FBI.
    Representative BOGGS. There is no reason to believe that this weapon is not accurate, is there?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that.
Representative BOGGS. That was the point I was trying to establish.
    Mr. FRAZIER. This Exhibit 549 is a target fired, showing that the weapon will, even under rapid- fire conditions, group closely--that is, one shot with the next.
    Representative BOGGS. How many shots in the weapon? Five?
    Mr. McCLOY. The clip takes six itself. You can put a seventh in the chamber. It could hold seven, in other words. But the clip is only a six-shot clip.
    Representative BOGGS. Was the weapon fully loaded at the time of the assassination?
    Mr. McCLOY. I don't know how many shells three shells were picked up.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
    (Discussion off the record.)
    Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right.
    If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance.
    The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.
    I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, on that last question, did you attempt to center the windage crosshair to sight-in the windage crosshair?
    Mr. FRAZIER. We attempted to, and found that it was changing--the elevation was changing the windage. So we merely left the windage as it was.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you say conclusively that the windage crosshair could not be centered in, sighted-in?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. I would say that the windage could have been centered in the telescope to bring the windage to the aiming line.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So that--and if that had been done, then you would not have this problem of dispersion to the right?
    Mr. FRAZIER. That's true.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to--
    Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion

                    411

Page 412

that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.
    Representative BOGGS. One other question, then. "
    It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.
    Representative BOGGS. So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
    Mr. FRAZIER. If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.
    Representative BOGGS. But they were not there when you received it originally?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
    Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.
    Now, turning to another possible source of error in aim, Mr. Frazier, if a rifle such as Exhibit 139 is sighted- in with the use of a target at a given distance, and it is aimed at a target which is further away or closer than the target which was used for sighting-in purposes, will any error be introduced by reason of the fact that the target is further or closer away than the sighting-in target?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it will, because the bullet in leaving the muzzle follows a curved path rather than a straight path, and in order to hit a specific target at a specific range, it is necessary for the bullet to travel up and drop down to the target, rather than have the bore pointed right at the target at the time of discharge.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you calculate the amount of error which would be introduced by a specific projectile?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made such calculations?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I have taken calculations for similar weight and velocity bullets from ballistics tables, which bullets approximate the velocity of the 6.5 mm. bullet and the weight of that bullet as fired from 139.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Are these results affected by the rifle which is employed, or do they depend upon the missile?
    Mr. FRAZIER. They depend upon the weight and shape of the missile and the velocity, but not upon the weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of these calculations?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.
    If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.
    It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high.

                    412

Page 413

    Representative BOGGS. Is this a stationary target?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, this is shooting from a rest at a stationary target.
    Representative BOGGS. This is just a normal--
    Mr. FRAZIER. This is just the trajectory of the bullet.
    Representative BOGGS. I understand.
    Mr. FRAZIER. As calculated
    Mr. McCLOY. Putting it another way, what would be the drop of the bullet at a hundred yards if you aim point-blank straight at that target?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Assuming no sighting or anything, the bullet would drop about 1.2 inches from the line of the bore at 100 yards.
    Representative BOGGS. 1.2 inches?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Representative BOGGS. But now the telescopic sight at a hundred yards would correct that?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Actually, you would sight so that the muzzle is tipped up slightly with reference to the sight.
    Mr. EISENBERG. The error would be introduced if you shot at a target which is closer or further away than the sighting-in target; is that correct?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, that's right.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Would you characterize these errors as material?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I would not--unless you began shooting at distances well beyond your sighting-in point--then the amount of variation increases very rapidly.
    Mr. EISENBERG. What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit. 139?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the shots involved in the assassination were fired at 175 feet and 265 feet respectively, they would be shorter than the sighting-in distance and therefore not materially affected by the trajectory characteristics, is that correct?
    Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct, yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139, and the ammunition it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the assassination?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if it would shoot accurately.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And did you find this shot accurately?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Representative BOGGS. Would you consider the shots difficult shots--talking about the shots from the sixth-floor window to the head of the President and to Governor Connally?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I would not under the circumstances--a relatively slow-moving target, and very short distance, and a telescopic sight.
    Representative BOGGS. You are not answering that as an expert.
    Mr. FRAZIER. From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than a hundred yards, with, a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target.
    Representative BOGGS. Putting my question another way, you would not have to be an expert marksman to accomplish this objective?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I would say no, you certainly would not.
    Representative BOGGS. And a. man is a relatively large target, is he not?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say you would have to be very familiar with the weapon to fire it rapidly, and do this--hit this target at those ranges. But the marksmanship is accomplished by the telescopic sight. I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.

                    413

Page 414

    Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Would that trend to improve the shooter's marksmanship?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Under rapid-fire conditions, yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Would that make it a better choice than a more powerfully recoiling weapon for the type of crime which was committed?
    Mr. FRAZIER. For shooting rapidly, this would be a much better choice, be cause the recoil does not throw the muzzle nearly so far off the target, it does not jar the shooter nearly so much, as a higher-powered rifle, such as a or a .270 Winchester, or a German 8 mm. Mauser, for instance, or one of the other military-type weapons available.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a military--it is an established military weapon.
    Representative BOGGS. This is a military weapon, is it not?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. That is designed to kill a human being.
    Representative BOGGS. Exactly.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Unless there are further questions on the weapon, I am going to move into the area of the identification of the cartridge cases and the bullets.
    Mr. McCLOY. I may say I have to leave at twelve o'clock for a twelve-fifteen appointment. I will be back this afternoon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.
    And the other one I received on November 27(, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.
    Mr. EISENBERG. After receiving these cartridge cases, did you clean them up or in any way prepare them for examination?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The bases were cleaned of a paint which was placed on them by the manufacturer. In spots this red lacquer on the base of the case was overlapping the head of the case where some of the microscopic marks were located, and some of that color was taken off.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that lacquer put on the cartridge cases?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It seals the primer area against moisture.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other changes made in the preparation of the cartridge cases?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. You have examined the cartridge cases previously. Are they in the same condition now that they were when you received them in the laboratory except for the cleaning of the lacquer?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; they are.
    Mr. EISENBERG. After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. When did you make the examinations?
    Mr. FRAZIER. On the dates I mentioned, that is, November 23, 1963, and November 27, 1963.

                    414

Page 415

    Mr. EISENBERG. And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the examination which you conducted to reach these conclusions?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The first step was to fire test cartridge cases in this rifle to pick up the microscopic marks which are left on all cartridge cases fired in this weapon by the face of the bolt. Then those, test cartridge cases were mounted on a comparison microscope, on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the comparison microscope was mounted one of the three submitted cartridge cases, so that you could magnify the surfaces of the test and the evidence and compare the marks left on the cartridge cases by the belt face and the firing pin of the rifle.
    (At this point, Mr. McCloy left the hearing room.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you can identify these cartridge cases?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these are the two cartridge cases we fired for test purposes in Exhibit 139.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Commissioner Boggs, may I introduce these as 557?
    Representative BOGGS. They may be admitted.
    (The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 557 for identification and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. These were the only two cartridge cases fired as tests in Exhibit 139--as tests for the purpose of identification of the cartridge cases which you examined before, 543, 544, and 545?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these two were used in those tests. There were many other cartridge cases fired, but not for that purpose.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you are able to come to a conclusion that a cartridge case was fired in a particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; during the manufacture of a weapon, there are certain things done to the mechanism of it, which are by machine or by filing, by grinding, which form the parts of the weapon into their final shape. These machining and grinding and filing operations will mark the metal with very fine scratches or turning marks and grinding marks in such a way that there will be developed on the surface of the metal a characteristic pattern. This pattern, because it is made by these accidental machine-type-operations, will be characteristic of that particular weapon, and will not be, reproduced on separate weapons. It may be a combination of marks that--the face of the bolt may be milled, then it may be in part filed to smooth off the comers, and then, as a final operation, it may be polished, or otherwise adjusted during the hand fitting operation, so that it does have its particular pattern of microscopic marks.
    The bolt face of the 139 rifle I have photographed and enlarged in this photo graph to show the types of marks I was referring to.
    Mr. EISENBERG. You took this photograph yourself, and it is a photograph of the belt face of the 139 rifle?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this introduced as 558?
    Representative BOGGS. It may be admitted.
    (The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 558, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of this belt-face photograph?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 11 diameters,
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you slip out the bolt of the rifle so we could see how it compares, and show us the part of the bolt which is photographed?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Orienting the photograph with the writing at the bottom, orients the belt also, as it comes out of the rifle with the slot shown as a groove on the

                    415

Page 416

bottom of the bolt. Then the extractor on the bolt, is the area shown at the left side of the photograph, as you view it--the actual bolt face itself is inset into the bolt below the surface of the extractor, and a supporting shoulder around it, and in the center, of course, is the firing-pin hole and the firing pin.
    The marks produced during manufacture are the marks seen on the bolt face; filing marks, machining marks of the various types, even forging marks or casting marks if the bolt happens to be forged or cast. And then variations which occur in these marks during the life of the weapon are very important in identification, because many of the machining marks can be flattened out, can be changed, by merely a grain of sand between the face of the cartridge case and the bolt at the time a shot is fired, which will itself scratch and dent the bolt face. So the bolt face will pick up a characteristic pattern of marks which are peculiar to it.
    The same is true of extractors and ejectors. They are in turn machined and will have a pattern of marks or scratches on their surfaces which will mark cartridge cases in the same manner each time.
    The comparison we made was of the marks appearing in this photograph, 558, in fairly close proximity to the firing pinhole, since that is the area that the primer in the head of the cartridge case comes in contact with.
    The primer in a cartridge case normally takes marks more readily than the surrounding brass portion of the cartridge case, which is a considerably harder metal and is not impressed with these marks as readily.
    The three cartridge cases, 553, 554, and 555, were compared--
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is that 543, 544, and 545?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.
    Representative BOGGS. Who manufactured these cartridges?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Western Cartridge Co., East Alton, Ill.
    Representative BOGGS. They manufacture cartridges and bullets for all manner of rifles?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.
    Representative BOGGS. This is not--this rifle is not common in the United States, is it?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It is fairly common now, but at the time it was manufactured or used primarily it was not. It was imported into this country as surplus military equipment, and has been advertised quite widely.
    Representative BOGGS. These three cartridges--these three shells that you had were the same as the live ones that were found there, were they not?
    Mr. FRAZIER. There was one live cartridge found. They are identical.
    Representative BOGGS. And the live one was manufactured also by----
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, the Western Cartridge Co. It bears the head stamp "WCC" and "6.5 mm. "
    Representative BOGGS. These are not difficult to obtain? You can buy them anywhere?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, you can buy them from mail-order houses primarily, or a few gun shops that have accumulated a supply by ordering them. The information we have is that two million rounds were imported into the United States in one lot, one shipment--and they have been transmitted over the country and are for sale by several different surplus gun shops--used guns--mail-order houses and places of that nature and gunsmiths, and firearms shops sell this ammunition.
    Representative BOGGS. Go ahead.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what is the basis of the statement you made earlier that no two bolt faces would be the same?

                    416

Page 417

    Mr. FRAZIER. Because the marks which are placed on any belt face are accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there intentionally in the first place. They are residual to some machining operation, such as a milling ma chine, in which each cutter of the milling tool cuts away a portion of the metal; then the next tooth comes along and cuts away a little more, and so on, until the final surface bears the combination of the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following that operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched-- until you have numerous--we call them microscopic characteristics, a characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain place on the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a certain size, it has a certain contour, it may be just a little dimple in the metal, or a spot of rust at one time on the face of the bolt, or have occurred from some accidental means such as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having flattened or smoothed off the surface of the metal.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Why doesn't a series of the same machines, or repeated use of the same machines, cause the same results, apart from future accidental markings?
    Mr. FRAZIER. In some instances a certain type of cutter will duplicate a certain pattern of marks. In general you will find for a milling cutter a circular mark. And you may find the same pattern of circles. But that milling cutter does not actually cut the steel; it tears it out, it chips it out, and the surface of the metal then is rough even though the circle is there, the circle is not a smooth circle, but it is a result of tearing out the metal, and you will have a very rough surface. When magnified sufficiently, you can detect the difference even between two similarly milled surfaces because of the minor variations in the cutting operation.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine such similarly-milled surfaces?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; many times.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go into detail on that?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, part of my work in the laboratory is dealing with tool-marks of all types, from drills, mills, files, cutting instruments, and so on. And when you are dealing with filing marks or milling marks and so on, it is some times possible to identify a particular mill as having made a certain mark on the basis of the grinding marks on that particular mill. But such as a case like this, where the cutting marks have now been altered through use of the weapon and corrosion, or in wear or in filing, some of the original marks are removed, and other marks are in their place, until eventually you reach a condition where that bolt face will be entirely different from any other bolt face. It is a matter actually--when you get down to the basis of it, it is a matter of a mathematical impossibility in the realm of human experience for any two things to ever be exactly alike.
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is because the original markings will not be exactly alike, and then you have added accidental markings on top of the original ones?
    Mr. FRAZIER. That is right; yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Returning for a moment to the original markings, as I under stand it, you have worked with the tools themselves and the impressions the tools themselves leave, as opposed to a tooled surface, such as this.
    Mr. FRAZIER. I have worked with beth. In other words, in comparing tool-marks, you examine not only the tool, but the marks they produce.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And in working with these tools, as I understand your testimony, you have found that the markings which a tool leaves, which the same tool leaves, will be distinctive.
    Mr. FRAZIER. That is true, yes. When it is a scrape or an impression from its surface, or something of that nature, it can be very readily identified. But if it is a drill or something of that nature, where you have a tearing operation, then it is not readily identified, but it occasionally can be identified.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Well, how many such examinations do you think you have made?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands of them.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you noticed whether the marks left by a given tool--that you have examined--change over the course of the use of the tool?

                    417

Page 418

    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they change very rapidly when a tool is used to cut a hard object.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "very rapidly"?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, when using a pry bar, for example, one insertion of a pry bar into the hard insulation of a safe, with pressure applied to it can change the entire blade of the tool to the extent that you could not identify a succession of marks, because of the abrasion by the insulation. But that same tool, used to mark a soft steel or brass or copper, could make mark after mark without changing, or only a small portion of it may change with each impression. Or it may gradually change over a period of time.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the metal in the bolt face a hard metal or a soft metal?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was hard metal----
    Mr. EISENBERG. Well---
    Mr. FRAZIER. With reference to copper or other softer metals---it is a steel. I could not say how hard it actually is.
    Mr. EISENBERG. What will the effect of the metal used in the bolt face be upon the tool which is used to finish it off, cut it and finish it off?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The tool will gradually wear out.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Well, will the tool leave different marks on the end of the bolt face from one bolt to the very next bolt face?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; that very often happens. The tool is worn out or the small cuttings get underneath the edge, between the tool, and nick the edge of the tool, so that the tool will gradually change over a period of time. The cutting edge the amount of change depends upon the amount of wear, the heat involved, and the hardness of the metal--the relative hardness of the metal.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Will that particular change be noticed invariably in two consecutive bolt faces?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So what is the genesis of the difference in the two consecutive bolt faces as they come from the manufacturer?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The change, as I said, depends on the bolt you are using. It does not always take place, because some bolts are made of a very soft metal, and they will not necessarily change a machining tool to that extent.
    Mr. EISENBERG. But the markings, you said, would be different on two consecutive bolt faces?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And if the tool is not changed, what is the origin of the difference between the markings?
    Mr. FRAZIER. There are other accidental markings placed there during the machining operation.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe that?
    Mr. FRAZIER. For instance, as the blade of a milling machine travels around a surface, it takes off actually a dust--it is not actually a piece of metal--it scrapes a little steel off in the form of a duster a very fine powder or chip-that tooth leaves a certain pattern of marks-that edge. That milling cutter may have a dozen of these edges on its surface, and each one takes a little more. Gradually you wear the metal down, you tear it out actually until you are at the proper depth. Those little pieces of metal, as they are traveling around, can also scratch the face of the bolt-unless they are washed away. So that you may have accidental marks from that source, just in the machining operation.
    Now, there are two types of marks produced in a cutting operation. One, from the nicks along the cutting edge of the tool, which are produced by a circular operating tool--which produce very fine scratches in a circular pattern. Each time the tool goes around, it erases those marks that were there before. And when the tool is finally lifted out, you have a series of marks which go around the surface which has been machined, and you will find that that pattern of marks, as this tool goes around, will change. In one area, it will be one set of marks--and as you visually examine the surface of the metal, these very

                    418

Page 419

fine marks will extend for a short distance, then disappear, and a new mark of a new type will begin and extend for a short distance. The entire surface, then, will have a--be composed of a series of circles, but the individual marks seen in the microscope will not be circular, will not form complete circles around the face of the bolt.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine two consecutive bolt faces from a factory?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find on that examination?
    Mr. FRAZIER. There would be no similarity in the individual microscopic characteristics between the two bolt faces.
    Mr. EISENBERG. There actually was none?
    Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was none.
    Mr. EISENBERG. In the bolt face with which we are dealing, Exhibit 139, can you say from inspection whether the markings on that bolt face are predominantly the accidental markings introduced subsequent to manufacture, or the markings of the manufacture?
    Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that these were filing marks for the most part which were made during manufacture, some of which have been obliterated and changed through use possibly corrosion.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, taking Exhibit 543, did you prepare a photograph of this exhibit?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Compared with the test cartridge case?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this is the photograph, showing the test cartridge case from Exhibit 557 on the right and the cartridge case 543 on the left.
    Mr. EISENBERG. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?
    Representative BOGGS. It may be admitted.
    (The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 559 and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, that is marked on the left C-14, and on the right, C-6.
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And the left-hand photograph is a photograph of what?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Of the cartridge case 543.
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is the actual fired case?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it shows just a portion of the primer, and a very small portion of the firing- pin impression.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And the right-hand side of that photograph, marked C-6?
    Mr. FRAZIER. It is a test cartridge case, fired in the rifle Exhibit 139.
    Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification, Mr. Frazier?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 100 diameters.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And is that magnification equal on both sides of the picture?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make your identification of Exhibit 543, that is the identification of that exhibit as having been fired in the rifle 139, on the basis of your examination under the microscope, or on the basis of the photograph?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Under the microscope. The photograph has no relationship whatsoever to the examination.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?
    Mr. FRAZIER. The examination is made microscopically through the use of your eyes, and your eyes will record depths and shapes to a much greater extent than can be shown in a photograph. So that the examination and comparison is made of these irregular surfaces mentally, rather than mechanically by any means. The photograph is taken primarily to illustrate the types of marks found and their location, relatively, on the specimen.
    Representative BOGGS. We will have to adjourn and come back at 2.
    (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

                    419