|
SIMMONS
Volume III TESTIMONY
OF RONALD SIMMONS
Mr. EISENBERG. Our next witness will be Mr. Simmons.
Mr. McCLOY. Would you hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this
hearing will he the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God? Mr.
SIMMONS. I do.
Mr. McCLOY. Please be seated.
This, as you know--the constitution of the Commission and its
purpose--we want to ask you something about the firearm aspect of our
hearings, and certain characteristics of this rifle that we would like to
hear from you about, and if there is anything else you have that can throw
light on our problems. If you can state for the record, first, your name,
and where you live.
Mr. SIMMONS. My name is Ronald Simmons. I live near Havre de
Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Eisenberg?
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons? Mr.
SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the
Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you held this position?
Mr. SIMMONS. This position, about four years, and previous
employment has been in these laboratories.
441 Page
442
Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you been working, Mr. Simmons, in the
area of evaluation of weapons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Since 1951, in various classes of weapons.
Since 1957, however, I have had the responsibility for the
laboratories on small arms.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has part of it---of these---have part of these
evaluations been conducted with military rifles, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Most of our evaluations have been associated with
military rifles.
Mr. EISENBERG. How long altogether have you spent in this area?
Mr. SIMMONS. In the area of rifles?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. SIMMONS. Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been
continuously concerned with this since 1957.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give a rough estimate of how many weapons
you have evaluated as to accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. No. We have been concerned with almost all of the
weapons which the Army has tested, either in preliminary stages or as
developmental weapons.
Mr. EISENBERG. But your specialty is the
evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have
been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since
1953 as to--
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. In the course of that you have examined hundreds of
rifles, though, have you not?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, our examination of rifles is not the detailed
engineering, design experiment which a gunsmith or a rifle expert as such
would concern himself with. We are more concerned with establishing a
framework by which we can put numbers to the performance of military
rifles in tactical employment. And this means that for a
specific--specific classes of weapons, we have had to establish, for
example, round-to-round dispersion, the accuracy with which they can be
employed, and the wounding power of the projectiles.
Mr. McCLOY. In the course of this you have fired a great many
rifles yourself?
Mr. SIMMONS. No, sir; I don't fire them.
Mr. McCLOY. Somebody else fires them?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. But you make the studies in relation to the accuracy of
the weapons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct. The firing is accomplished by
employees of the development and proof services, which is the weapons
testing facility at the
Mr. McCLOY. Your task is primarily evaluation--
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Of the characteristics of the rifle, particularly in
terms of its accuracy and its wounding power, killing power?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be admitted as an
expert to testify in this area?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you
conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to- round dispersion
of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?
Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this
weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for
round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and
the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the
same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard
deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils
to a degree.
442 Page
443
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle
is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest
firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of
accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small
arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of
three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which
give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except
in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will
you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14
in its accuracy and the 1906
Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is
the dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one
mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.
(8.7
feet-tjr)
Mr. EISENBERG. You tested this with what type of ammunition, Mr.
Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. The ammunition was labeled Type Ball, and it was made
by the Western Cartridge Co., Division of Olin Industries.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a 6.5 mm.?
Mr. SIMMONS. 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano.
Mr. EISENBERG. In the course of this test from a machine rest, Mr.
Simmons, did you also attempt to determine the muzzle velocity?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we also measured muzzle velocities for
approximately 10 rounds of the ammunition. We gather from these
measurements that the nominal velocity, the nominal muzzle velocity is of
the order of 2,200 feet per second, and the velocity at about 200 feet
from the muzzle is approximately 2,000 feet per second. And there is some
variation in velocity from round to round as there is with all small-arms
ammunition. But the variation is relatively small, and within the same
order of magnitude as for conventional ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you test the bullets for yaw?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we measured yaw also, and all measurements of yaw
were also small. We had no values in excess of 2 degrees, and many values
were less than 1 degree in yaw, indicating that the round is quite stable.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did you test for yaw?
Mr. SIMMONS. We took spark shadowgraph pictures at various stations
down range from the muzzle, so that we actually have pictures of the
position of the bullet relative to the top and bottom of our range.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring those pictures with you?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; I do not have them with me.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you furnish those to the Commission at a later
date?
Mr. SIMMONS. They could be made available later. I would like to
point out these are not pictures, however. They are on large pieces of
glass, and they are not photos.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can they be read by a layman?
Mr. SIMMONS. That I do not know. I do not read them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, I wonder whether you can send them up, and we
could take a look at them.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we can have them forwarded.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by
the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any
difficulties with sighting the weapon
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We
did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which
tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The
azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim,
but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment
possible, and the shim was a more
443 Page
444 convenient
means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.
Mr. EISENBERG. By azimuth, do you refer to the crosshair which is
sometimes referred to as the windage crosshair?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you recognize these shims that I display to
you, Mr. Simmons, as being the shims that were placed in the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I saw the shims only when they were in the weapon, but
those look very much like what was evident from the external view, after
they were in place.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, Mr. Chairman, these shims were given
to me by the FBI who told me that they had removed them from the weapon
after they had been placed there by Mr. Simmons' laboratory. May I have
these introduced as evidence?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, I find there
are three shims here. You mentioned two. Would three be consistent with
what you were told?
Mr. SIMMONS. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one
of our machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, I wonder whether you could take these
shims back after I have marked them to find out whether the three had been
placed?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am marking these 576, 577, and 578. They consist
of three shims in three small envelopes.
(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 576,
577, and 578, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have
a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon,
Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire
conditions?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head
and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265
feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a
tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to
obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as
possible.
I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement
of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map
which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little
awkward for this. But the distance--the angular distance from the first
target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which
would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first
and second impact than between the second and the third. The movement of
the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the
second to the third.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, were your
marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?
Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as
they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target,
being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and
then at the one at 265 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?
Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey
map which were given to us.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you
myself?
Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed
that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances
are very close, however.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons
are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive
determination of what those distances are.
Mr. SIMMONS. For our experiment, I do not see how a difference of a
few feet would make any difference.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Simmons, did you take pictures or have
pictures taken showing what that range looked like?
444 Page
445
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; I have copies of these pictures here. I show you
three pictures--the first showing the window from which the weapon was
fired in our experiments; the second showing the view of the three targets
from the window; and the third showing a rifleman in position.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you take these pictures yourself?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; these pictures were taken by one of the cameramen
from the development and proof services.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see the scenes represented in these
pictures?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are these pictures accurate reproductions of these
scenes
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the first,
second, and third pictures described by Mr. Simmons admitted as exhibits.
That will be 579 for the first, 580 for the second, and 581 for the third.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos.
579, 580, and 581 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, the targets
were well, can you describe the targets for--
Mr. SIMMONS. The targets are standard head-and-shoulders
silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many marksmen were involved?
Mr. SIMMONS. We used three riflemen.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you tell us what their background was?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. All three riflemen are rated as Master by the
National Rifle Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small
Arms Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is
presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a rifleman,
and also has a Master rating.
Mr. EISENBERG. Each fired one or more series of three rounds?
Mr. SIMMONS. Each fired two series of three rounds, using the
telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated the exercise using the
iron sight--because we had no indication whether the telescope had been
used.
Mr. EISENBERG. So the total number of rounds fired was what?
Mr. SIMMONS. 21.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring with you targets or copies of the
targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. I brought photos of the targets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take these photographs Mr. Simmons, or have
them taken under your supervision?
Mr. SIMMONS. These photographs were taken by the photographic
laboratory in our Ballistic Measurements Laboratory, which is one of the
complex of laboratories within the Ballistic Research Laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you verify these photographs as being accurate
reproductions of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 582, 583
and 584?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos.
582, 583, and 584 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the results of the
tests you ran, by using these photographs?
Mr. SIMMONS. Exhibit 582 is the target which was emplaced at 175
feet. All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected,
because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target.
As you can see from the picture, the accuracy of the weapon is
quite good.
Mr. McCLOY. That first target is what distance?
Mr. SIMMONS. 175 feet. And we had to make an assumption here about
the point of aim. It is quite likely that in fact each man was aiming at a
different portion of the target--there were no markings on the target
visible to the river.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did I understand you just told the rivers to aim at
the target without referring to---
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
445 Page
446
Mr. EISENBERG. There is an apparent crossline running darkly
through that photograph.
Mr. SIMMONS. These lines were drawn in afterwards, in order for us
to make some measurements from the actual impact point.
The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit
583--we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target.
This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that
the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they
knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for
the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target. Of course,
we made a rather, I guess, disadvantageous error in the test by pointing
out that they had missed on the second target, and there was a conscious
effort made on the additional rounds to hit the second target
On the third target, the angle through which the weapon had to be
moved to get to the third target from the second was relatively small, and
there were only two rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet. One
of these rounds, by the way, was used in the sequence where the iron sight
was employed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, when you said that the firers had to
make a large shift relatively in their firing position, and were in a
hurry, is this your interpretation or is this based on discussions with
them subsequently?
Mr. SIMMONS. This is based on discussions with the firers after the
experiment.
Mr. EISENBERG. After these tests were finished, did you make a
determination of the amount of error--average amount of error in the aim
of these riflemen?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. By assuming that all riflemen had aimed at the
inter section of the lines that we have drawn on these pictures, we
calculated the total aiming--the aiming error associated with the three
riflemen--this is one number to describe the accuracy of all three
riflemen. And against the first target the accuracy observed was about .7
mils, in standard deviation. Against the second target, the accuracy was
1.4 mils. And against the third target, it was 1.2 mils.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again, could you convert
those at a hundred yards to inches?
Mr. SIMMONS. 0.7 of a mil at 100 yards is approximately 2 inches.
1.4 mils is approximately 4 inches. And 1.2 mils is approximately 3 1/2
inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. In arriving at these figures, had you discounted the
round-to-round dispersion as determined in the bench rest test?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round
dispersion.
Mr. EISENBERG. But the actual accuracy of the riflemen would have
to include the round-to-round dispersion, would it not?
Mrs. SIMMONS. Yes; it would.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why did you then subtract the round-to-round
dispersion figure, or discount it?
Mr. SIMMONS. We wanted to determine what the aiming error itself
was associated with the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the times in which the various
riflemen used to fire the three shots in each sequence? Mr.
SIMMONS Yes. And the numbers which I will give you will be the average of
two readings on stop watches.
Mr. EISENBERG. For each rifleman?
Mr. SIMMONS. For each exercise. Mr.
Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the
time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds. Mr.
Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt
he used 6.45 seconds.
Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his
first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his
exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of
Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation. Mr.
Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the
telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the
telescope,
446 Page
447 but
he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three
rounds on the target, the first target.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third
target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the
third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this
out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist
Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on
the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target
we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which
extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
Mr. EISENBERG. What position did the rifleman fire from, Mr.
Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. The firers braced an elbow on the window sill and used
pretty much a standard sitting position, using a stool.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon,
Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use
of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a
little concerned about breaking the firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an
estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly
with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a
matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his
first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is
different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a
two-stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire
the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you prepare a table showing the
probability of hit at a given target at given ranges by riflemen with
given degrees of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, we prepared a table which showed what the
probability of a hit would be on specific sizes of target as a function of
aiming error, and using the appropriate round-to-round dispersion also in
these calculations.
Mr. EISENBERG. What were the targets that
you used in your calculations?
Mr. SIMMONS. We used two circular targets, one of 4 inches in
radius and one of 9 inches in radius, to approximate the area of the head
and the area of the shoulders, or the thorax, actually. And a significant
point to these calculations to us is that against the larger target, if
you fire with the 0.7 mil aiming error which was observed against the
first target, the probability of hitting that target is 1, and it is 1 at
all three ranges, out to 270 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the meaning of the probability being
1?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, the probability is effectively one. Actually the
number is 0.99 and several more digits afterwards. It is rounded off to 1.
Simply implying that the probability of a hit is very high with the small
aiming errors and short range.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now of course this aiming error is derived from the
three riflemen who you employed in the tests, is that correct?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed to the other two?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.2 mil aiming error, again at the larger
targets, the probability of hitting the target at 175 feet is 1; at 240
feet it is 0.96; and at 270 feet it is 0.92.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the second two figures in
terms of probability?
Mr. SIMMONS. These also are very high values.
Mr. EISENBERG. The mil figure was 1.2, was it?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
447 Page
448
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include, did you say, both aiming error
and round; to-round dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. The 1.2 is the aiming error. When we include the
round-to round dispersion, it becomes only 1.24 mils.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the probability reflect the 1.2 or the 1.24
figure?
Mr. SIMMONS. It reflects the total error, which is 1.24.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the same on the first series of calculations you
gave us?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go on to the third?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.4 mil aiming error, and the round-to-round
dispersion, giving a total error of 1.43 mils, the probability of hit at
the 175 foot target is 0.99; at 240 feet it is 0.91; at 270 feet it is
0.85.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the figures for the smaller
target?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 0.7 mil aiming error, the probability of a
hit at 175 feet is 0.96; at 240 feet, 0.81; at 270 feet, 0.73.
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
term?
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. Those 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
448 Page
449 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 belt.
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
449 Page
450 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 rifle man 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
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.
450 Page
451
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.) Contact Information tomnln@cox.net |