For the 1.2 mil aiming error, the probability is 0.69 at 175 feet; 0.74 at 240 feet; 0.39 at 270 feet.
Using the——
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you characterize those, or explain them in lay terms?
Mr. Simmons. Well, against a shorter target, the probability is still almost 0.7, which is a relatively high value. The effective-range increase is beginning to show, however, because at 270 feet the value of 0.4 tends to be small.
Mr. Eisenberg. Does 0.4 mean you have 4 chances in 10 of hitting?
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Now, our assumption throughout all of this is that the actual target was probably not either a small—the small area, but tending to be a larger area, as indicated by the crosshairs in these targets which we placed at this point.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you have given us probabilities of hit with three variations of aiming error. You have selected these three variations in what manner, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. These were actually the three values which were demonstrated in the experiment.
Mr. Eisenberg. But each of those values is associated with one target?
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. However, you have applied them to all three targets?
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you have a special reason for doing that?
Mr. Simmons. No. We are victims of habit, and we tend to provide such information in parametric form.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Simmons, of course the assassin's aiming error must be unknown. But do you have any opinion concerning the probable aiming error of an assassin using this weapon against the aiming error displayed by the three riflemen you employed?
Mr. Simmons. Well, it looks like to achieve hits as indicated, the accuracy, overall accuracy of the three rounds would have to be of the order of 1.2 mils. And this is really not a small number as far as marksmanship goes. There have been many exercises in which we have been involved where the aiming error turns out to be much smaller, smaller than this. And in match competition, of course, the numbers actually turn out to be—the total aiming error turns out to be about equal to the round-to-round dispersion.
Mr. Eisenberg. When you make the reference to many exercises, are you referring to exercises solely with skilled riflemen?
Mr. Simmons. If we have skilled riflemen, the values for aiming error tend to be of the order of 1 mil. As a matter of fact, to qualify as expert on Army rifle courses, about a 1 mil aiming error is required—a standard deviation of 1 mil.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is that with a rest or without a rest?
Mr. Simmons. This would be without a rest. This would be the actual aiming error from the fixed position, firing range.
Mr. Eisenberg. And is this with open or telescopic sights?
Mr. Simmons. This would be with the peepsight on the conventional rifle.
Mr. Eisenberg. Have you exercises which you feel would be applicable to the assassination—that is, exercises conducted with—under noncombat conditions, with a telescopic sight and a rest?
Mr. Simmons. The only experience that we have with the telescopic sight with which I am familiar is the exercise using this weapon. There have been experiments made using telescopic sights, but these are of limited interest militarily.
Mr. Eisenberg. In your opinion, what effect does the introduction of a rest and telescopic sight have on probable aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. From a position where the movement of the weapon is not great, and where the target is slowly moving, the fixed position on the telescope should enhance the probability of a hit.
Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, has data been compiled showing the effect of the time taken between shots on the accuracy of the shots?
Mr. Simmons. There have been experiments run where aiming error has been measured as a function of the time one has to aim.
Mr. Eisenberg. Do those experiments show that aiming error is directly proportionate to the length of time one has to aim?
Mr. Simmons. Not directly proportionate, but aiming error decreases as time increases. But once you get to the area of about 4 seconds in time, then there is very small decrease in aiming error for increase in time.
Mr. Eisenberg. Translating that to this weapon, does that mean that taking more than 8 seconds between three shots should not appreciably affect the degree of accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. The 8 seconds I was referring to is between shots.
Mr. Eisenberg. You said 4 seconds, I thought.
Mr. Simmons. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Eisenberg. And I was saying, if you took 4 seconds between the first and second, and 4 seconds between the second and third, for a total of 8 seconds, on the basis of this data would that mean after 8 seconds you would not be substantially increasing your accuracy by taking more time?
Mr. Simmons. That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg. Approximately how many bullets did you fire in the course of your tests?
Mr. Simmons. We fired 47 bullets.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you have any misfires?
Mr. Simmons. None.
Mr. Eisenberg. Were you aware when you performed your tests of the conclusions of any other body concerning the accuracy of this weapon?
Mr. Simmons. No; we were not.
Mr. Eisenberg. Are you aware of such conclusions at this point?
Mr. Simmons. No; I am not.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCloy. You said that these riflemen, or one or two of them at least, had the rank of master. What is that?
Mr. Simmons. I again fall back on my comment earlier that I am not a shooter myself. A master is one of the ratings given to highly qualified riflemen by the National Rifle Association. These men have all participated in national match competitions in the National Rifle Association.
Mr. McCloy. Is that a higher grade than sharpshooter in the Army?
Mr. Simmons. There is really no comparison between the rating of master in the NRA and the rating of sharpshooter in the Army.
Mr. Eisenberg. I am not sure whether or not you answered this question, but do you feel that if the target was moving, rather than having the rifleman move, there would have been a difference in aiming error, increased or decreased aiming error—if the target was moving 5 to 10 miles an hour?
Mr. Simmons. I think the movement of the target in this case would have practically no effect on the accuracy of fire, because from the map we are led to believe that the movement was primarily away from the firer, so that the back of the President was fully exposed to the rifleman at all times.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you explain your reference to a map? You have made several references to that.
Mr. Simmons. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963.
Mr. Eisenberg. And how were you supplied with that?
Mr. Simmons. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth of the measurements which are shown in here.
Mr. McCloy. It may be received.
Mr. Eisenberg. That would be Commission 585.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. I have no further questions.
Mr. McCloy. I have no further questions.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony?
Mr. Simmons. I think not.
Mr. Eisenberg. I wonder whether we could have a copy of your table?
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Mr. McCloy. From your experience, Mr. Simmons, do you feel that with a man who had been in the Marine Corps, with the rifle instruction he had there, using this rifle, and what you know of the shots that killed the President—do you think he was an extraordinarily good shot, do you think he was just shooting in accordance with what might be taken to be the skill that service in the Marine Corps would give him?
Mr. Simmons. Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes. But I think with the opportunity to use the weapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by more than one firer.
Mr. McCloy. I think that is all.
Mr. Eisenberg. One thing, Mr. Chairman. May I have this admitted as 586, this table which Mr. Simmons prepared, from which he was giving testimony earlier? This is "Table I, Hit Probability as a Function of Range and Aiming Error."
Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.
(The table referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 586 and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean—do you mean, accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?
Mr. Simmons. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. Simmons. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger would best be achieved with some firing.
Mr. Eisenberg. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. Simmons. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil of the weapon.
Mr. Eisenberg. One further question.
Looking at the figures for aiming error, as discounted by round-to-round dispersion, how would you characterize the actual performance of men with this rifle—that is, not the accuracy of the weapon, but the accuracy of man and weapon.
Mr. Simmons. I am not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Eisenberg. Do you feel on the basis of the aiming error, discounted for round-to-round dispersion or including it, that this weapon is an easy one with which to be accurate, or a difficult one?
Mr. Simmons. It appears to be relatively conventional in that regard, I assume. The telescope helps in the accuracy against a target which is well displayed, as was the case here. And the weapon is reasonably conventional. So that I think it would not be significantly different from any other weapon.
Mr. McCloy. If you were having a dry run with this, you could certainly make yourself used to the drag in the trigger without discharging the rifle, could you not?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull. When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCloy. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. Simmons. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired, and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into the weapon.
Mr. McCloy. I have no further questions.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is all.
Mr. McCloy. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful.
We shall recess now until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on April 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington. D.C.
Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Mr. Allen W. Dulles, members.
Also present were Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers.
The Chairman. The Commission will be in order.
Mr. Cunningham, the purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of yourself and Mr. Joseph Nicol. We understand that you are a firearms expert with the FBI, and Mr. Nicol is a firearms expert with the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Illinois.
You have both been asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in its work.
Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Cunningham. I do.
The Chairman. Will you be seated, please.
You may proceed with the examination.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, would you state your name and position?
Mr. Cunningham. Cortlandt Cunningham. I am a Special Agent of the FBI.
Mr. Eisenberg. And in what branch of the FBI do you work?
Mr. Cunningham. I am assigned to the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory, here in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Eisenberg. What is your education?
Mr. Cunningham. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Northwestern University, and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Miami.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you briefly state your qualifications in the field of firearms identification?
Mr. Cunningham. Upon entering the FBI Laboratory, I underwent an extensive training course under the supervision of experienced examiners in the field of firearms identification, which consisted of making thousands of examinations and comparisons of bullets, cartridge cases, and weapons.
I have also done reading in the subject. I have done some research and conducted many experiments in the field. And, of course, I have made thousands of examinations on my own and testified numerous times in State and Federal courts.
Mr. Eisenberg. How many years have you been in the Laboratory, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. Cunningham. Over 5 years, and I have been in the Bureau over 10 years.
The Chairman. The witness is qualified.
Mr. Eisenberg. To begin with, Mr. Cunningham, we had some testimony yesterday on the bullet which is thought to have been fired at General Walker. That is Commission Exhibit No. 573. Are you familiar with this bullet, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. Cunningham. I am.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you supply the weight of that bullet, which was going to be supplied to us?
Mr. Cunningham. I can. This bullet weighed 148.25 grains.
Mr. Eisenberg. Does that show some weight loss, if the bullet was from a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge?
Mr. Cunningham. It does. Those bullets weigh 161 grains, but there is a great deal of mutilation on this bullet.
Mr. Eisenberg. And could you tell us when you received this bullet in your laboratory, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. It was received from the Dallas office of the FBI on December 4, 1963.
Mr. Eisenberg. And when was it examined?
Mr. Cunningham. It was examined that date.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 143, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this exhibit, which, for the record, is a revolver.
Mr. Cunningham. If you will excuse me, I won't open the cylinder. I have checked the cylinder, and there are expended or fired cartridge cases in the cylinder.
Mr. Eisenberg. Which you have placed in it for a special demonstration?
Mr. Cunningham. I fired it, yes, prior to my testimony here today. I have seen this weapon before.
Mr. Eisenberg. Again for the record, this is the weapon which is believed to have been used in the murder of Officer Tippit. Can you describe this weapon in terms of name, caliber and so forth?
Mr. Cunningham. Do you want me to describe it as it is today?
Mr. Eisenberg. As it is today.
Mr. Cunningham. As it is today, it is a .38 Special Smith and Wesson, Victory Model revolver.
Mr. Eisenberg. And was it always a .38 Special?
Mr. Cunningham. No, it was not. Originally this weapon was known as a .38-200 British Service revolver. In this country the weapon would be known as a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, Victory Model. However, the British gave the designation .38-200 to it.
Mr. Eisenberg. Was this revolver made in the United States?
Mr. Cunningham. It was.
Mr. Eisenberg. And has it been in England subsequent to that?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. And how can you tell that, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. Cunningham. Well, first of all, all weapons going into England have to be proofed. They are proofed at, usually, the Birmingham proofhouse.
Representative Ford. What does that mean?
Mr. Cunningham. They are tested for whether they will withstand a certain charge. They place in the cylinders overloaded cartridges, and they are fired, in the cylinder, as this one has been. It has been proofed to 3½ tons. Each chamber in the cylinder has been proofed.
You can tell that, because each chamber has been stamped with the Birmingham proofmark, indicating that each chamber in the cylinder has been proofed.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain to us the difference between a .38 S&W and a .38 Special?
Mr. Cunningham. They are completely different cartridges. One cartridge is a .38 Special, and the other cartridge is a .38 S&W, or actually written out it would be Smith and Wesson. It was developed for their weapons, and it 1s quite an old cartridge, and it is known—usually as appears on a box of ammunition—as merely a .38 S&W. However, there are many differences in the cartridges.
Mr. Eisenberg. Have you brought two—an example of each type of cartridge with you?
Mr. Cunningham. I have. First of all, this is actually a Western .38 S&W cartridge. You will see the head stamping on the base of this cartridge signifies it to be a .38 S&W.
Mr. Eisenberg. Before you go any further—Mr. Chairman, may I have this marked as an exhibit—this specimen?
I am holding a cartridge marked Western .38 S&W, and it is submitted as Commission Exhibit 587.
The Chairman. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 587, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Cunningham. If you would care to see one broken down, I have one with me. That is the same cartridge where the bullet has been pulled and the powder has been dumped out.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is also a .38 S&W cartridge, but it has been disassembled into a bullet and a cartridge case?
Mr. Cunningham. That is correct. The bullet has been pulled out of the cartridge case and the powder removed.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as an exhibit?
The Chairman. It may be. What is the number?
Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 588.
The Chairman. It will be admitted as Commission Exhibit 588.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 588, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Cunningham. This particular cartridge, which is one complete cartridge, is a Remington-Peters .38 S&W. These two components actually are of the same cartridge. All I have done is pull the bullet, and it is also a Remington-Peters .38 S&W.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is the same cartridge as Exhibits 588 and 587?
Mr. Cunningham. That is correct. The only difference is that they are different brands. They were made by two different manufacturers.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you show that to the Chairman for his examination?
The Chairman. These appear to be lead bullets.
Mr. Cunningham. They are, sir.
The Chairman. The others appeared to be jacketed.
Mr. Cunningham. They are not, sir. It is known as gilding metal. They are copper-coated lead bullets. Actually, it is an alloy—it is not pure copper. They have been flash coated, for sales appeal, more than anything else.
Mr. Eisenberg. Does that coating serve to prevent distortion to any measurable extent when the bullet has penetrated a body?
Mr. Cunningham. No, it would not, to any appreciable amount. It is such a thin coat, as you can see. Later on I will show you the ones that have been fired, and also the bullets removed from Officer Tippit's body. You can see the coating comes off—it flakes off—it is very thin.
Mr. Eisenberg. So that Exhibits 587 and 588 are substantially similar to the R-P cartridge you have just been discussing?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. They are both loaded to the same specifications, even though there are two manufacturers. All commercially made ammunition in this country is loaded to a specific muzzle velocity.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this R-P cartridge which Mr. Cunningham has been discussing admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 589?
The Chairman. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 589, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. You have been showing us a .38 S&W, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have an example of a .38 Special?
Mr. Cunningham. I do. The first one is a Western .38 Special copper-coated lead bullet of Western manufacture, a .38 Special. The other components I have here are components of the same cartridge from which the bullet has been pulled.
Mr. Eisenberg. May I have the cartridge case, bullet, and cartridge admitted into evidence as 590?
The Chairman. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 590, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could you describe to us briefly the difference——
Mr. Cunningham. Do you want the Remington-Peters?
Mr. Eisenberg. You are holding in your hand a Remington-Peters disassembled and assembled .38 Special?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would you hand that to the Chief Justice? May this be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 591?
The Chairman. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 591, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. This consists of an assembled R-P .38 Special and a disassembled R-P .38 Special.
Again, I notice, Mr. Cunningham, that the R-P bullet has a lead-colored look, whereas Exhibit 590 had a copper-colored look.
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir. The Western coating is known by the trade name "Lubaloy." It is a trade name of the Western Cartridge Co., and it is nothing more than a gilding metal—actually, it is just a flash coating on the outside of the bullet. There is some advantage, a very small advantage, as to leading. But it is mostly for sales appeal, because with Winchester bullets, some do and some don't have the coating. Most of Winchesters which is the same bullet, have not been copper coated—that they are selling today.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, can you explain the difference in terms of dimensions and contour, weight, and so forth, between the .38 Special bullets which you have just shown us and the .38 S&W bullets which you have shown to us?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir. The complete .38 Special cartridges, both brands, they are approximately the same—they are made to specifications, and they are within—just 1/1000th difference between the two of them. They are very close. In some cases, there is a slight difference, but generally they are the same size.
The .38 Special cartridges are a little over 1½ inches in length. The .38 S&W cartridges are approximately 1.2 inches in length. In other words, there is about 4/10ths of an inch difference in their length.
The bullets of the .38 Special weigh 158 grains—both brands. The bullets in the .38 S&W cartridges—there is one grain difference—Western Lubaloy bullets weigh 145 grains, and Remington's bullets weigh 146 grains, which is very close, when you figure there are 7,000 grains to the pound.
The length of the bullets themselves—the .38 Special bullets are approximately .72 plus inch. The .38 S&W bullets are approximately .6 plus inch. The lengths of the cartridge cases are also different. A .38 Special is approximately 1.15 inches for both brands. The .38 S&W cartridge cases are approximately .77 inch. And there you have approximately a quarter of an inch difference between the lengths of the cartridge cases.
The diameters of the bullets—the .38 Special bullets, at the portion of the bullet where the case is crimped into the bullet are approximately .357".
Mr. Eisenberg. That is the groove around the base of the bullet, also known as the cannelure?
Mr. Cunningham. No, it is just above the two grooves, which are known as cannelures, where the bullet is crimped. It is known as the crimp ring. It is nothing more than where the case has been crimped in.
Mr. Eisenberg. I have pulled out the bullet from Exhibit 591, and there is a little groove running above the second groove from the top—from the bottom, the base, of the bullet.
Mr. Cunningham. That would be your crimping groove. Up at approximately that area, both .38 Specials are approximately .357". However, the bases of the .38 Specials, both brands, are about .350".
In other words, there is about 7/1000ths difference between the base and where they are crimped, and both brands of .38 Specials seem to run—slightly undersized at the base.
On the .38 Special the diameter of the bullets where they are crimped is .357". The .38 S&W Remington-Peters bullets run about .360", or just slightly less, which is about 3/1000ths larger. Their bases, both brands, run about .356". In other words, they run about 6/1000ths larger at the base—even though the bullets are shorter overall in the .38 S&W.
Mr. Eisenberg. To summarize that, in terms of the diameter, do I understand that the .38 Special and the .38 S&W have a similar diameter as you approach the nose of the bullet, but that the .38 has a somewhat larger diameter at the base than the .38 Special?
Mr. Cunningham. .38 S&W.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, why would the gun be rechambered from the original chamber, which was designed for the .38 S&W, to the chamber as it stands now, which you tell us is designed for the .38 Special?
Mr. Cunningham. In this country, the .38 S&W is not a popular cartridge at the present time. In years gone by, many, many, many weapons have been made for that particular cartridge. But they are usually the top-break, the cheaper type of weapon. The .38 Special cartridge is a better cartridge. There is a higher velocity and everything about the cartridge is better than the .38 S&W, ballistically.
The .38 Special has become popular in this country for revolvers. And the reason it was chambered in .38 S&W originally is because in England and on the Continent it is a popular cartridge. The .38 S&W in England is the .38-200. They loaded a 200-grain bullet into the same cartridge case, and it was the standard British Army load for this particular weapon and others. Why they took that particular cartridge, I do not know.
Mr. Eisenberg. Was the gun rebarreled as well as rechambered?
Mr. Cunningham. No, it was not. The barrel of this weapon has been cut off approximately 2¾ inches. The original barrel was 5 inches for this model.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would the failure to rebarrel affect the accuracy of the weapon?
Mr. Cunningham. It should slightly, if you are firing .38 Special bullets, because they are slightly undersized in a .38 S&W barrel. On the average, .38 S&W barrels are approximately 4/1000ths larger than the normal .38 Special barrel. In this particular weapon, that holds true.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would it affect accuracy at close range?
Mr. Cunningham. None whatsoever. And there, again, the shortening of the barrel would affect the accuracy more than the use of .38 Special, due to the fact that your sight radius has been cut down.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is to say, when you shorten the barrel, the length between the front and the back sights is shorter, therefore giving more room for error?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir. In other words, the movement of the front sight will cause more of a discrepancy at the target at longer ranges, due to the shorter sight radius.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is there any functional reason for cutting the barrel down to its present short size?
Mr. Cunningham. Sales appeal, I would say, is the main reason. Also, concealment.
Mr. Eisenberg. In your experience, is a short barrel, cut-down barrel weapon like this usually purchased for legitimate purposes by other than police officers?
Mr. Cunningham. Possibly a collector. Among target shooters, it is not a popular weapon, due to the short sight radius. Revolvers with 6-inch barrels are very accurate weapons. A target shooter would not use a weapon of the short barrel type. Therefore, it is not a very popular weapon for sportsmen.
Mr. Eisenberg. Does the cutting off of the barrel increase the possibility of concealment?
Mr. Cunningham. It does, because it makes it handier. I carried, when I was in the field 5 years—I carried my personally owned firearm, which had a 2-inch barrel, due to the fact that for concealment you could not see it when I wore a suit, and it was more discreet in the type of work I was doing.
The Chairman. Can both kinds of cartridges be used interchangeably in this gun?
Mr. Cunningham. In this particular gun, yes sir. It makes no difference.
The Chairman. Either an S&W or S&W Special?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; the chambers of this particular cylinder have been bored out, it appears from the very rough marks, to accommodate the forward portion of a .38 Special cartridge. Also, when this barrel was made—or the cylinder was made—the chambers had a shoulder or lip that the .38 S&W cartridge case would fit up against. The bullet would go forward farther, but the cartridge case would fit up against this shoulder at the neck.
And in order to chamber a .38 Special, that forward portion had to be bored out slightly, several thousandths to accommodate the longer cartridge, which, by the way, is a very common thing on these surplus weapons. Practically all of them are being rechambered, due to the popularity of the .38 Special cartridge.
The Chairman. I see.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, this weapon—was this weapon sold into the United States after it had been used in England?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. How much sign of use does it show?
Mr. Cunningham. It has definitely been used, there is no doubt. However, the cylinder is quite tight, and I would say that this weapon is in good operating condition.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, since it was sold used, are you unable to attribute any amount of use to the last user?
Mr. Cunningham. That is right, you would not be able to tell.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain briefly the manner in which this revolver is operated, paying particular attention to extraction and loading and reloading?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir. First of all, the weapon has a frame into which a barrel has been screwed and a cylinder which is hinged on a crane is also fitted into the frame. There is a cylinder release on the left-hand side of this weapon which enables one to push the cylinder to the left.
The cylinder has six chambers—in other words, it is a six-shot weapon. There is an extractor rod and an extractor in the rear portion of the cylinder. When you press on the extractor rod, either loaded cartridges or fired cartridge cases may be extracted from the cylinder so that it may be reloaded again.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cunningham, in the operation of this weapon, the cylinder takes six bullets—is that correct?
Mr. Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg. In the operation of this weapon, when six bullets have been loaded into the cylinder, is any action needed for firing except six consecutive trigger pulls?
Mr. Cunningham. That is correct. You can fire this weapon either single or double action.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, can you explain the meaning of that?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. Double action is accomplished by pulling the trigger. In other words, you just pull the trigger each time and you can fire this weapon six times before reloading. This weapon can also be cocked, which puts the sear on the step of the hammer and reduces the trigger pull, and may be fired that way. This is known as single action.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, if a person using the gun and having it fully loaded with six bullets fired less than six bullets, can he use this ejector-extraction mechanism without losing his unfired bullets as well as the empty cartridge cases?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir—by merely tipping the weapon. The unfired cartridge is heavier, and will fall out of the cylinder into his hand. Then he can extract the cartridge cases and load in more.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you demonstrate that?
Mr. Cunningham. If I may have a cartridge, please.
Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have any fired cartridges in the cylinder?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; I do. Prior to my appearance here today, this morning, I fired five cartridges in this weapon, and they are still in the cylinder.
Mr. Eisenberg. You are now placing an unfired——
Mr. Cunningham. An unfired cartridge in the sixth chamber of the cylinder. Now, in a normal way, you would hit the cylinder release, push in your hand like this, and tip it up. The unfired cartridge will fall right out into your hand, due to the fact that the chambers of the cylinder are naturally larger than the cartridge you are loading in there—for ease of putting them in. When you fire a cartridge in a revolver, the case expands as wide as the cylinder. In other words, when the firing pin hits the primer, there is an explosion in the primer, the powder is ignited in the cartridge, and the terrific pressure will expand the cartridge case to tightly fit the chamber.
Mr. Eisenberg. I would like the record to show that when Mr. Cunningham tipped the revolver, the unfired bullet tipped out, but the five expended shells remained in.
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
Mr. Eisenberg. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge cases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
Mr. Cunningham. You won't be able to see it again, but when you eject a cartridge case—later on for the powder pattern test, I will show that you can have residues of unburned powder. That is what would happen if you ejected these cartridge cases in your hand. You would pick up unburned powder, residues, and partially burned powder.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham had ejected five cartridge cases from the revolver into his hand, and his right hand is now filled with small black particles, whose composition I am unable to determine.
Representative Ford. That would happen any time that you did it?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; every time you eject them, these particles will come out from the cylinder into your hand—unburned powder, partially burned powder, and gunpowder residues.
Representative Ford. Had you fired this morning these particular bullets?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; at 8:15.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, these cartridge cases which you ejected were .38 Special cartridge cases?
Mr. Cunningham. They were.
Mr. Eisenberg. What time did you fire those bullets, those .38 Special bullets in this revolver?
Mr. Cunningham. At approximately 8:15 this morning.
Mr. Eisenberg. Let the record show that it is now 9:45. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could this revolver be loaded on the run, or while walking?
Mr. Cunningham. It could.
Mr. Eisenberg. Have you personally loaded a revolver like this while walking?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. And running.
Mr. Eisenberg. Does this revolver have a serial number on it?
Mr. Cunningham. It does.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you read that number to us, please?
Mr. Cunningham. V-510210.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is this serial number unique to this particular type of weapon?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. Smith and Wesson does not duplicate numbers. You may have a similar number, but not with the prefix "V."
Mr. Eisenberg. So this is the only such weapon with this serial number that is in existence?
Mr. Cunningham. That is correct. As far as I know. I have never found one in my experience, and Smith and Wesson does not duplicate serial numbers in a particular series of weapons.
Mr. Eisenberg. Smith and Wesson claims not to duplicate?
Mr. Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, how fast could one get off shots from this weapon, shooting rapid fire, and without sighting?
Mr. Cunningham. In a combat stance, that is crouched, with a gun at belt level, and your wrist locked, you would have no trouble at all getting off five shots in from 3 to 4 seconds.
Mr. Eisenberg. With what degree of accuracy at close range?
Mr. Cunningham. Excellent. All FBI agents, for instance, practice at 7 yards, which is 21 feet, and we are hitting in the "kill zone" without any problem.
Mr. Eisenberg. How much training would one have to have with this weapon to get four hits in four or five shots at close range into a human body?
Mr. Cunningham. None whatsoever—if you can pull the trigger and point directly at a person, at 8 feet you would not likely miss—with one exception. If you did not lock your wrist, there is a possibility you could shoot too low, or you could pull to the side. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge and with—and really grabbing hold of the weapon, would have little difficulty at all at that distance.
Mr. Eisenberg. When you say "lock your wrist," do you mean just pointing the wrist so that it is in a straight line with your lower forearm?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. In other words, to tighten it, and not be in a relaxed position. By merely tightening the wrist, you would have no trouble at all hitting a person, approximately the same distance as Mr. Eisenberg and myself.
The Chairman. I suppose a person who had the normal small-arms training that he gets in the Marine Corps would have the ability to do what you have just spoken of?
Mr. Cunningham. Definitely, sir. As a matter of fact, with any training at all with a revolver, I would say that he would hit 90 percent of the time.
Representative Ford. Is there a recoil action at all from this kind of weapon?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; you get recoil. But if you have had any training with a weapon of this sort, the recoil is not even noticed. The first time you ever fired this weapon the recoil or the noise, might bother you. But if you have ever fired a handgun, you don't even think about recoil. You automatically adjust.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, you mentioned distance between you and me earlier, a few sentences ago. Could you estimate that distance?
Mr. Cunningham. Approximately 8 feet.
Mr. Eisenberg. If there are no further questions on the revolver, I propose to move on to identification of bullets and cartridge cases associated with the Tippit murder.
The Chairman. I have none.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, I hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 145 and 518, which, for the record, consist of bullets, unfired bullets which were found in the revolver and the pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald following his arrest on November 22. I ask you whether you are familiar with the bullets in these exhibits.
You are now looking at which exhibit, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. Cunningham. Commission Exhibit 518.
I have seen them before.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe these bullets very briefly?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir. They are cartridges. There are four cartridges. Two are Western .38 Special with copper-coated lead bullets loaded into these cartridges. The other two are Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridges, which are loaded with lead bullets.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you describe the bullets in the other exhibit?
Mr. Cunningham. Commission Exhibit 145 consists of one Western .38 Special cartridge, which is also loaded with a copper-coated lead bullet, and the other cartridge is a Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge, which is loaded with a lead bullet.
Mr. Eisenberg. I now hand you another group of bullets, marked Q-82 through Q-86.
The Chairman. Mr. Eisenberg, would you state for the record at this time what those two bullets are? They are introduced another time.
Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; all the bullets which Mr. Cunningham examined were found either in the pocket or the—pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald—or the cylinder of his revolver at the time of his arrest on November 22.
I now hand you another group of bullets marked Q-82 through Q-86, and with certain other markings on them.
Are you familiar with these bullets? And may I state for the record that the bullets I have just handed Mr. Cunningham derive from the same source.
Mr. Cunningham. I am familiar with these bullets.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you describe these briefly?
Before I do that—Mr. Chairman, may I have these bullets admitted into evidence as a group, as Exhibit 592?
The Chairman. They may be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 592, and received in evidence.)
The Chairman. At this time, I shall have to leave to attend a session of the Supreme Court.
Commissioner Ford, would you preside?
And, during the morning, Commissioner Dulles will be here, I am told, and if you leave, leave him in charge, will you, please?
Representative Ford. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cunningham, thank you for your assistance. Glad to have seen you.
(At this point, Mr. Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you describe the bullets in Exhibit 592, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; all five of them are Western .38 Special cartridges, which are loaded with copper-coated lead bullets.
Mr. Eisenberg. So that of a total of—you have examined a total of 11 bullets, and three are Remington-Peter—well, at any rate, of the 11 they are divided 3 and 8 into Remington-Peter and Western .38 Special bullets?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four cartridge cases in an envelope marked Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77. And I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.
Mr. Cunningham, before going on to the cartridge cases I just handed you, could you explain when you received the bullets which are comprised in the last three exhibits, and who you received them from, and how they were presented to you?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir. Commission Exhibit 145 consists of the two cartridges that we received—the FBI received from the U.S. Secret Service. We received them on December 3, 1963.
That is correct. They were personally delivered to the laboratory by Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI, who is a liaison agent with the Secret Service. And he delivered them to us on December 3, 1963.
Mr. Eisenberg. And did he identify them in any way to you when he delivered them? Did he describe their origin to you?
Mr. Cunningham. No, sir; he did not describe them to us.
Mr. Eisenberg. All right. Could you go on to the next group of five cartridges?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. I don't know the exhibit number.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is Exhibit 592.
Mr. Cunningham. Commission Exhibit 592 was received in the FBI Laboratory from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you tell us who you received them from?
Mr. Cunningham. The Dallas office of the FBI. I have no first-hand knowledge. I know that they were received from the Dallas Police Department—but that was due to what I have read in an FBI investigative report. The laboratory received them from the Dallas office on November 30.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you go on to the last group of four bullets?
Mr. Cunningham. Commission Exhibit 518 was also received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, for the record, I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge the group of two and the group of four bullets, which together total six, were taken by the Dallas Police from the chamber of the revolver which is Exhibit 143, after the apprehension of Lee Harvey Oswald. They were then split into two groups of two and four as we have them now, two bullets being given to the Secret Service and eventually, as Mr. Cunningham relates, to the FBI, and four bullets going to the Dallas office of the FBI.
The group of five bullets was taken from a pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald, following his apprehension on November 22 and was kept separated from the remaining bullets, I believe, merely because they had been taken from a different source—that is, the pocket rather than the chamber of the revolver.
Mr. Cunningham, returning to Exhibit 145, do either of the two cartridges in Exhibit 145 bear any signs of having suffered an impact from the firing pin in the revolver, Exhibit 143?
Mr. Cunningham. An examination of these two cartridges, the primers of these two cartridges, reveals no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143, or any other weapon.
Mr. Eisenberg. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
Mr. Cunningham. There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin.
First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you microscopically examine the bases of both cartridge cases?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, turning to Exhibit 518, consisting of four bullets, which, as I mentioned earlier, were, like the two bullets in Exhibit 145, taken from the chamber of the revolver, did you find any nicks in any of these bullets, the bases of any of these bullets?
Mr. Cunningham. Just by handling, there are bound to be small microscopic scratches of one kind or other. But there was no indication that any of the primers in these four cartridges had been struck by a firing pin.
Mr. Eisenberg. Were these also examined microscopically?
Mr. Cunningham. They were, individually.
Mr. Eisenberg. When you say there was no indication that they were struck by a firing pin, in your opinion, based on the construction of this weapon, if the firing pin had been drawn back to any extent and then released, would it have left a mark on one of the cartridges?
Mr. Cunningham. That is—yes and no. It depends on how far it is drawn back. As soon as the hammer internally clears the rebound block, the hammer is then able to go forward and it probably would have fired. But up to that point, the hammer is held back from striking, it cannot—under normal conditions—be made to fire a cartridge.
However, it has been found with this particular weapon, a drop of approximately 3 feet on the hammer would fire a cartridge in the chamber.
Representative Ford. How far back does the hammer have to be drawn in order to fire?
Mr. Cunningham. That can be shown very easily by holding the cylinder. By holding the cylinder, that distance can be seen, which is approximately 3/8 to 1/2 inch.
Mr. Eisenberg. The witness is demonstrating.
The hammer, as he says, is going back about 3/8 of an inch.
Mr. Cunningham. Once you allow the cylinder to rotate, then the rebound block is pushed out of the way, as you can see. Then you can cock the weapon.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you demonstrate for us the sound which would be heard if you held the cylinder, pulled back, and then released the trigger?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. A snapping sound can definitely be heard.
Mr. Eisenberg. There is a very audible snapping sound. Would that snap—that amount of snap—leave a mark on the base of the cartridge case against which the firing pin——
Mr. Cunningham. Under these conditions it could not leave a mark, because the rebound block is in the way.
Mr. Eisenberg. When you say rebound block, this is a block between the firing pin and the base of the cartridge case?
Mr. Cunningham. No, sir; it is the block that is forcing the trigger to go forward after it is pulled back. You see, your trigger will snap back. It is done by a spring in the block.
Mr. Eisenberg. To put it differently, this block would prevent the firing pin from emerging from its hole?
Mr. Cunningham. That is correct. That is exactly it.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, could the firing pin emerge from its hole without having traveled a considerable distance back? That is, to say, at what point does the rebound block release the hammer?
Mr. Cunningham. At approximately—well, right there you can hear it. That is a good half inch.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you pull it back and then release that half an inch to disengage the rebound block?
(The witness did so.)
Mr. Eisenberg. If the firing pin hit the cartridge with that amount of force, do you believe the cartridge would be fired?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is there any possibility it would not be fired? Any substantial possibility?
Mr. Cunningham. It would still make a mark.
Mr. Eisenberg. It would make a mark, at any rate?
Mr. Cunningham. Let me clarify it. It still will not fire because the block will go forward.
Mr. Eisenberg. What will go forward?
Mr. Cunningham. In other words, the trigger has to be pulled through the whole cycle in a Smith——
Mr. Eisenberg. In order to disengage——
Mr. Cunningham. Either that, or cocked before the block will be out of the way. When you pull the trigger and you don't release it or if it is in the cocked position and the trigger is pulled and not released, the hammer will stay forward. The firing pin will stay forward, so you can see it out through the breech face, as long as the trigger is pulled. Then when you release the trigger, the rebound block throws your trigger forward, so the weapon can be fired again.
Mr. Eisenberg. You are modifying what you had said previously?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. And you do that upon closer examination of the weapon?
Mr. Cunningham. No; it is on the basis of trying to describe an internal part without seeing it. If you would care to, I can show you what it looks like. I have a photograph of the National Rifle Association breakdown. It would be easier to explain if I could show you what I am referring to.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you, please?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. Before you refer to this diagram, could I take a look at it?
Congressman Ford, could I have that diagram admitted into evidence?
Representative Ford. It will be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 593.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 593, and received in evidence.)
Representative Ford. Mr. Eisenberg, do you want the whole article?
Mr. Eisenberg. I think we might as well put the whole article in, yes.
(To Mr. Cunningham.) Perhaps it would be easiest if you came around here, since the diagram is a small one.
Now, the diagram which you are referring to is on page 61, the second page of this Exhibit 593?
Mr. Cunningham. Right.
As you can see, it is a diagram with the sideplate removed, which is this portion right here. It is the right-hand side of the weapon. (Witness pointing to revolver.) We are looking down on it with the sideplate on. These four screws hold on the sideplate.
When you pull the trigger of——
Mr. Eisenberg. The sideplate is marked 20 over here?