Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination rifle

message: The scope had to be remounted (not adjusted) so that the target could be seen in it. This is in the FBIs (the testers) report to the Warren Commission. Its usual practice to be able to see the target in the scope even when not doing some thing so critical.--Apemonkey1 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope had to be remounted before testing so the target could actually be seen. 

message: "with a target moving away from the shooter, no lead correction would have been necessary to follow the target."
The target was moving basically directly away, so need for movement adjust apart from the down hill lowering the target meaning the shooter would have to adjust. 
Also during a .1 second flight the target would move 50 cms forward.
It would not have helped.--Apemonkey1 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor:  

message: It's an unusual pistol, a Victory model made in .38/200 and shipped to the UK, but later sent back as surplus after the war and modified by having the cylinder bored out to .38 special, and the barrel shortened. But the remaining barrel was left intact and is slightly larger than the .357 standard. This caused .38 special bullets to wobble down it, not making contact and giving them an odd set of marks that could be linked with a converted Victory pistol but not a particular one. Two types of .38 special ammo cases were found at the J.D. Tippit murder scene, and these had been fired by Oswald's pistol (they also matched the two types Oswald had on capture). Oswald did murder Officer Tippit, an odd thing to do unless he was guilty of murdering JFK.
If there is interest in a pistol article, I'll put one together with references. I'm not about to do it and try to swim upstream against people who want to colapse it (and the Tippit murder) and keep them as is. You can't fight determined editors who want things kept the same length. I've done that, and I'm not wasting my time doing it again. Could I have some people pledging to support an effort in this direction? SBHarris 06:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your research.  I am interested in seeing such an article and would back it up assuming reliable sources.  I also understand the frustration of swimming upstream and know how these arguments can go.  Do you have a couple of wp:rs that would prove it is significant enough for a stand alone article?  If so, you could stand it up as a stand alone article.  I'm sure you know the drill after that. Some editors argue it should be merged, then argue it is insignificant within the context of the merged article, and then off oblivion. You can count on me to be unbiased in this.  My experience is you may need more then one unbiased editor.  -- Work permit (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am wondering if there is interest in an article about the pistol? 

message: As written, it says "Upon the publication of the Attorney General's determination, "all rights, title, and interest in and to" the weapons "vested in the United States"."
These words need a verb, like were.  (TerryKave (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ungrammatical words need revision