# How good of a shot was Lee Harvey Oswald? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 10, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094 "2014-09-10T17:41:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/81 "2014-09-12T01:39:31Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I am fond of saying that the world is broken up into two groups; those who have fired a rifle and those who have not, and everyone who thinks LHO did something amazing is in the group that has not. > > One of the more revealing experiences of my life was when I joined the Army and learned to use a rifle, and learned how easy it is to hit things. We started off on the FN-CA1, a big 7.62, and hitting targets at 100 and 200 metres seemed, to me, preposterously easy. We transitioned to the C7, which was the non-scoped version at the time, and it seemed easier still. I would have considered it a serious miss to not hit a target the size of a human head. The minimum standard in the Forces was a 6-inch grouping to get points in the annual qualification, and I always made it with ease, and while I was better than average, almost everyone qualified on the first go. > > Rifles are built and designed to make it easy to hit things far away with accuracy. That is true. It is very easy to hit targets with any half-way decent rifle and put it into a small grouping at 200 yards if you have something to rest it on. 6" is a low standard and most people can do it with some practice. Truly good amateur shooters go for 2" or less at those ranges and real experts with sniper quality rifles like my father can put bullets through essentially the same hole. We aren’t talking about 200 yards here though. The distance was 80 - 90 yards. Even rank amateurs can consistently hit targets the size of a human head or torso at those ranges because it is so short. I can do it easily under casual conditions but so can almost 100% of the hunters, target shooters and ex-soldiers out there. It is remarkably easy to do once you know how a rifle works at all. The only factor that would have caused him to miss the mark on the first two shots is nervousness. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/82 "2014-09-12T02:53:49Z")
BTW, I just watched an excellent documentary from Nova called ‘Cold Case - JFK’. It is mainly dedicated to debunking the theory of the multiple shooter theory but it also goes into great detail about the rifle used and the way the bullets perform under scientific tests. It destroys the magic bullet theory even though it is supposed to be more of a real documentary than a popular piece. They will show you how the rather odd bullets of the rifle in question let it fly straight through soft tissue and then hit another person barely damaged just like what really happened for the second shot with real shooting simulations. It is only a little over 50 minutes long and worth watching if you have Netflix or can find it online otherwise. [http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=80003182&trkid=13752289&tctx=0,0,cold%20case%20jfk:e57724f9-9aa6-4921-b70c-237ea4a926c3](http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=80003182&trkid=13752289&tctx=0,0,cold%20case%20jfk:e57724f9-9aa6-4921-b70c-237ea4a926c3) ---
**Author:** ![Chickenwrangler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chickenwrangler/32/91_2.png) [@Chickenwrangler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chickenwrangler)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/83 "2014-09-12T03:22:49Z")
I am just wondering about the open car that JFK was in. I have seen a couple of drama/documentaries that have JFK on the plane as he arrived asking what the weather was like and as it was fine requesting the top to be down. If the top had not been down then presumably Oswald could not have taken the shot. Seems a bit haphazard in the planning. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/84 "2014-09-12T03:38:50Z")
> [@Chickenwrangler](#): > > I am just wondering about the open car that JFK was in. > > I have seen a couple of drama/documentaries that have JFK on the plane as he arrived asking what the weather was like and as it was fine requesting the top to be down. > > If the top had not been down then presumably Oswald could not have taken the shot. > > Seems a bit haphazard in the planning. > > 😕 It was common practice back then. Even though the threat of assasination was known a short range shot from a pistol is what they would have been on the lookout for. Bulletproof bubbles for the presidential limo was a big news item after that. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/85 "2014-09-12T03:50:55Z")
> [@Chickenwrangler](#): > > I am just wondering about the open car that JFK was in. > > I have seen a couple of drama/documentaries that have JFK on the plane as he arrived asking what the weather was like and as it was fine requesting the top to be down. > > If the top had not been down then presumably Oswald could not have taken the shot. > > Seems a bit haphazard in the planning. > > 😕 The Secret Service got huge criticism for that even though some agents expressed security concerns. JFK wanted to be a populist president when it wasn’t wise to do so. The Secret Service doesn’t allow that type of thing anymore. The POTUS is technically their big boss because they fall under the Executive Branch of Government but they still routinely forbid anything they think is unnecessarily dangerous like that since then. They make their own security plans and the POTUS is expected to follow them to protect his safety within political reason. That isn’t an idle concern. There are always a surprisingly high numbers of assassination plans in the works. You won’t even hear about most of them because they are half-assed and get thwarted before they even begin. Even still, every president since LBJ :dubious: has had at least one very real assassination attempt on their lives. That doesn’t get advertised much either because the SS doesn’t like people to realize how many almost pulled it off. One of my friends grew up in a SS family that got relocated to protect ex-president Gerald Ford in California after the trauma of Reagan being shot was considered a personal and professional trauma. People were still trying to kill Ford well into the 1980’s and the death threats never stopped. > **[List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots)** > > Assassination attempts and plots on the president of the United States have been numerous, ranging from the early 19th century to the present day. This article lists assassinations and assassination attempts on incumbent and former presidents and presidents-elect, but not on those who had not yet been elected president. > Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgo... ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/86 "2014-09-12T05:25:21Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Besides the practical reasons mentioned, might he have been going for something spectacular? A shot to the head from a rifle certainly would be, in a horrible way. At least one other post in this thread suggests Oswald liked attention (although he obviously didn’t want attention on him personally in this case). “Hey boss, there’s a story coming in on the wire. It’s saying some guy in Texas shot the President. Do you want to make that the lead story?” “Head shot or chest shot?” “Says here it was a chest shot.” “Okay, we’ll stick with the house fire as lead. Put the President being shot in the chest after the break.” ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/87 "2014-09-12T13:26:34Z")
Maybe that explains all that “conspiracy theory” tampering with the body after the assassination. Someone made it look like Kennedy died from a head wound, to make sure it was the lead story everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/88 "2014-09-12T13:26:46Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > Wikipedia lists the rifle as having an effective range of about 600m. > … > ETA: Mediocre rifle. I think you have to take those sort of numbers with a pinch of salt. As far as I am aware the 6.5mm Carcano was a perfectly adequate military bolt-action with not much practical difference to its equivalents apart from having a bit less punch and a bit less recoil - something that would if anything make it a slightly better choice for short range than a 1903, 98K, moisin or similar. Personally I think if he’d shot Kennedy with something “all-american” like a .30-30 Marlin 336 nobody would have ever questioned the capabilities of the weapon, even though that’s less capable than the 6.5mm Carcano. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/89 "2014-09-12T13:46:02Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > I think you have to take those sort of numbers with a pinch of salt. As far as I am aware the 6.5mm Carcano was a perfectly adequate military bolt-action with not much practical difference to its equivalents apart from having a bit less punch and a bit less recoil - something that would if anything make it a slightly better choice for short range than a 1903, 98K, moisin or similar. > > Personally I think if he’d shot Kennedy with something “all-american” like a .30-30 Marlin 336 nobody would have ever questioned the capabilities of the weapon, even though that’s less capable than the 6.5mm Carcano. During the early years of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a fair amount of activity centering around coming up with a cartridge that would offer improved performance over the 5.56 while still having relatively mild recoil. Specifically, the desired improvements were in extended range and greater penetration. The [6.8mm Remington SPC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC) is the best known and most successful example. If you take a moment to compare its numbers to the [6.5 mm Carcano](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9752mm_Mannlicher-Carcano), you will see that they are pretty close in performance. The Carcano has a bit better velocity, but will pretty much always be found with less sophisticated bullets. Oswald essentially shot Kennedy with the equivalent of a whiz-bang 21st century cartridge used by Special Forces operatives. Whatever else may be in question, neither the rifle itself nor the cartridge were inadequate for the task. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/90 "2014-09-12T14:50:11Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Oswald’s goal was to kill JFK, was it not? Not necessarily. I’ve seen a good, albeit entirely circumstantial, case made that his intended target was Connally. JFK was a target of opportunity and one of the slim supporting threads is his bizarre behavior after the killing - he was as freaked out by his actions as anyone else. > [@Chickenwrangler](#): > > I am just wondering about the open car that JFK was in. > […] > If the top had not been down then presumably Oswald could not have taken the shot. > [@TriPolar](#): > > It was common practice back then. Even though the threat of assasination was known a short range shot from a pistol is what they would have been on the lookout for. Bulletproof bubbles for the presidential limo was a big news item after that. The car top was a [clear plexiglas weather cover](https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7013/6481321617_ce0f46138d_z.jpg) and not bulletproof. Kennedy insisted on not using it to foster a closer bond with the people on the sidewalks. Although it might have obscured Oswald’s targeting, it wouldn’t have prevented him from taking a shot and achieving exactly the same result. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/91 "2014-09-12T15:12:43Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > The car top was a [clear plexiglas weather cover](https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7013/6481321617_ce0f46138d_z.jpg) and not bulletproof. Kennedy insisted on not using it to foster a closer bond with the people on the sidewalks. Although it might have obscured Oswald’s targeting, it wouldn’t have prevented him from taking a shot and achieving exactly the same result. Certainly so according to the [source of all knowledge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_state_car_(United_States)#Age_of_automobiles_.281950.E2.80.931969.29). But it was still a news item at the time, after the assasination. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/92 "2014-09-12T15:36:36Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Certainly so according to the [source of all knowledge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_state_car_(United_States)#Age_of_automobiles_.281950.E2.80.931969.29). But it was still a news item at the time, after the assasination. And a CT staple, since “someone convinced him not to use the bulletproof top,” which everybody knows now. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/93 "2014-09-12T15:39:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Certainly so according to the [source of all knowledge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_state_car_(United_States)#Age_of_automobiles_.281950.E2.80.931969.29). But it was still a news item at the time, after the assasination. Wow, I always assumed the limo was black, no idea it was midnight blue. Thanks for the info. **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/94 "2014-09-12T15:47:06Z")
> [@Capt\_Kirk](#): > > Wow, I always assumed the limo was black, no idea it was midnight blue. The conspirators screwed up when they replaced the original with a lookalike. 😃 But yeah, it’s indicative of the sloppiness of most CT and anti-WR writers that it’s often described as a “long black limousine convertible”… three outta four is pretty good for that crowd. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/95 "2014-09-12T16:13:29Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > The car top was a [clear plexiglas weather cover](https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7013/6481321617_ce0f46138d_z.jpg) and not bulletproof. Kennedy insisted on not using it to foster a closer bond with the people on the sidewalks. Although it might have obscured Oswald’s targeting, it wouldn’t have prevented him from taking a shot and achieving exactly the same result. Out of all the things exhaustively researched, no one has tried taking the actual bubble top or a new replica (probably better to use the latter : plexiglass deteriorates with age) and fire a carcano at some ballistic gel targets inside it? A quarter inch of plexiglass isn’t much, but it might have affected the bullet. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/96 "2014-09-12T16:39:12Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Out of all the things exhaustively researched, no one has tried taking the actual bubble top or a new replica (probably better to use the latter : plexiglass deteriorates with age) and fire a carcano at some ballistic gel targets inside it? Well, to begin with, that piece was a tour de force of manufacturing at the time due to its size, clarity and lack of support framework. It would still be an expensive piece to replicate just to wreck, although you could simulate it for the purpose with a few curved pieces of 'glas. That said, > [@](#): > > A quarter inch of plexiglass isn’t much, but it might have affected the bullet. Since it wasn’t used and there’s no good argument to be made at this late date, it would be a highly debated exercise in nebulousness at best. I think a 2200fps, 60-grain jacketed round would have gone right through such a fragile barrier with very little deflection. But who knows. And given the outcome, it’s hard to work up much care except on a purely intellectual level. ---
**Author:** ![MostlyUseless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@MostlyUseless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MostlyUseless)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/97 "2014-09-12T16:48:43Z")
The Congressional report, circa 1986, I think, goes into great detail on the entire JFK shooting. In the movie, they raise several valid points that tend towards a conspiracy. Unfortunately, instead of leaving it there, the movie then includes over the top stupid theories. In the movie, they make the point that a woman claimed prior to the assassination that a group of Cubans were targeting the Prez. This did happen. The Congressional report also explains in exquisite detail how while such a plan actually existed and the woman reported what she thought to be so, NOT ONE of those people were in a position to actually be part of such a conspiracy. Thus, Joe and I plan to kill the Prez, but never actually go to Dallas. The report is available online and is great reading; it also destroys every single CT I have ever heard. LHO’s shot from a high bench rest with a reasonable rifle with a properly sighted scope? Easy every day and three on Sunday. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/98 "2014-09-12T16:54:39Z")
The later Congressional investigation is an embarrassment to the US people, JFK’s memory and the earnest, driven men of the Warren Commission. (Imagine a new 9/11 Commission that gave passing credence to truther nonsense.) Any embellishments Billy Stone put on it are just that - meaningless embellishments. Both the hearings and the movie were done for public entertainment, nothing more. Denigrating the Warren report is the sport of clueless idiots. (Oh, hell - I went past the 10k marker at post 92 above without noticing it. Meant to do something spectacular and obnoxious. Oh, well. See you at 20k.) ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/99 "2014-09-12T16:58:59Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Out of all the things exhaustively researched, no one has tried taking the actual bubble top or a new replica (probably better to use the latter : plexiglass deteriorates with age) and fire a carcano at some ballistic gel targets inside it? > > A quarter inch of plexiglass isn’t much, but it might have affected the bullet. You’re right. After all the conspiracy theorizing, I’m surprised someone didn’t use it to show that while it was still possible to kill someone through the plexiglass, it required a lot more luck, because it could change the course of the bullet, or slow it down, and therefore, whoever convinced the president not to use it was in on the conspiracy. Or, someone tried to convince the president _to_ use it, because Oswald’s rifle couldn’t pierce it, but the umbrella gun could. Or something. Blah, blah, dither dither dither. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094/100 "2014-09-12T17:04:44Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Not necessarily. I’ve seen a good, albeit entirely circumstantial, case made that his intended target was Connally. JFK was a target of opportunity and one of the slim supporting threads is his bizarre behavior after the killing - he was as freaked out by his actions as anyone else. LHO was a colossal fuckup of the first order, so shooting at Connally and killing JFK by accident would be about his speed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-good-of-a-shot-was-lee-harvey-oswald/698094.md?page=6)