Anybody know where i can learn more about these ? how many were made ? were they any good ? etc their doesnt seem to be much info on them ?on sniper websites

Didn't JFK get shot with a carcano?

Yes JFK did get shot with a carcano, but what does that have to do with his question?

Tankhunter,
I honestly don't know if there are any carcano sniper rifles, or at least they must be rare for I have never seen one. But I am no expert.

Now is when I wish American Rifleman had a searchable Index disc for years gone by. They had an article in the late 50's or early to mid-'60's which referred to a Carcano Sniper version, but I can't remember which year, let alone which issue. I read it again within the last month, but am not gonna go searching through 10 years of Rifleman in the next few days to find it. If you are an NRA member, perhaps an inquiry to that august body would get you a more detailed response? Or, have you tried "Googling" the term 'Carcano Sniper Rifle'?


EDITED TO ADD: A search shows that Guns Magazine had an article by Craig Boddington in the April, 2004 issue which also speaks about the Carcano Sniper rifle.

The question is addressed on the Carcano website. A very few sniper rifles were made and used in World War I.

In World War II, Italian marksmen and snipers used normal iron-sighted rifles with accuracy marks; all "sniper" rifles of that time are mere prototypes and museum pieces.

Carcano

On the'' military rifle homepage ''on the net their is a 7.35 carcano with a Beretta made scope ! maybe that is one of the only true Carcano sniper rifles ,and only a handful were ever made

quote:

Originally posted by C.Wathen:
Yes JFK did get shot with a carcano, but what does that have to do with his question?

quote:

tankhunter: were they any good?

I guess I answered that part of his question then, didn't I?

From a pure collector stand point, I suppose a legit Carcano "sniper" would be interesting. Certainly not very many were ever produced compared to the other better known military sniper rifles of the first half of the 20th Century, (German, Russian, U.S., British, Jap, etc.) Such true sniper rifles command serious prices.

That said, I can't think of a worse 20th Century military rifle to base a sniper rifle on. I currently own 25+ mil-surps of many different flavors from a '89 Belgium Mauser to an M-1 Garand, every one of which I shoot on a fairly regular basis. I once had a WWII Carcano. It was in particularly good condition with a mint bore. I shot it once at the range (it was a 7.35 and ammo is scarce); bad trigger, bad sights, and would not hit paper at 50 yards from sandbags. It was shooting about 2 foot high. I have $80 Turk Mausers that will shoot 2" groups in the black at 50 yards as is.

The Kennedy rifle was indeed a Carcano (6.5) with a ten dollar 4x scope and mount on it. The whole set-up cost less than $30 delivered. In 2006 dollars the scope/mount would be a $40 dollar optics set-up. The sling was a lash-up shoulder holster thing.

I'm not a conspiracy buff but Mr. Oswald was a former Marine that at least could shoot good enough with an M-1 Garand to make it through a couple years of the Marine Corp. Why he would chose such a Carcano as his weapon of choice to do a Presidential assasination makes me wonder.

i tried the Carcano in a gunstore a little while ago, and i had to try to get 3 good triggerpulls with it after i run the bolt , well i didnt , it was impossible to get 3 off in 6 seconds, it was nearly impossible to get it repeated.

Piece of junk, i think it was some matchrifle that was used like another brand, but not carcano, that rifle is the fallguys rifle.

If you look at other good brands that was out so a Remington in .222 could have been used for one of the shots, or more likely a .30-06 rifle, anything but that Carcano.

I had a carcano carbine about 27 years ago , a schoolfriend owned it and he gave it to me ,after the military ammo he was shooting spat soot back into his face and eyes ,after that he refused to use it, and gave it to me.I later swapped it for a FN military action and $10 [which thankfully i still own].How someone could achieve the shooting oswald was supposed to have done ,is something i always found hard to believe ,its awkward to operate the bolt and a tiny cheap shit scope like that hmmmmmm !!! a small moving target a long way away !!! A '' fall guys'' rifle ,just about somes it up ! evidently the ''Conspirators'' were low on budget funding that year

The Carcano has been run down pretty much, but in reality when it was first being made, it was made from the best of steel and the metal work was subperb. For the intended cartridge the action was plenty strong enough. Just like any military rifle made during the stress of war time, the workmanship went down hill. Another part of the problem was that alot of them had gain twist rifling and to make matters worse some of the gain twist rifling rifles had their barrels chopped to turn them into carbines thus further screwing up the rifling twist. Let's take the 6.5 caliber. In any other nationality, the Swede and the Japanese, just to name two, the rifles and caliber was very accurate. Why couldn't it be with the Carcano? I hardly doubt that it was because of the cartridge, or the action...I believe the rifling was culprit. Can't say the Mannlicher type of action was the reason either, look how decent Steyrs shoot.

From what I've read and seen on TV documentarys, Oswald shot that Carcano at the gunrange with some pretty good groups, no not praire dog good groups, but none the less decent for what it was. I agree too he was sent up and being a Marine he sure had knowledge of good rifles and I believe he trained with the M14, not the M1 Garand in the Marines

I have a few buddies that shoot cast out of various Carcano's and they do so very well.

The Italians also made some rifles for the Japanese during WWII.

Good post, Max.

I think it fair to say that no industrialized nation, which certainly includes Italy, ever chose to arm their military with junk.

They may have opted for items that individuals conversant with today's armaments would not select, or do not understand, or are not really familiar with other than by hearsay, but they never issued their young men junk except possibly in the last few desperate months of a losing conflict.

Not that it matters much whether he trained with an M-1 Garand or a M-14, this sure looks like a Garand to me. (photo taken 1957).

I've only owned one Carcano. I bought it as it was such a nice (pre-war) example; the bore was perfect. The metal finish was excellent. It was a vet bringback with a dufflecut that I had professionally restored. Mine happened to be the pre-war 7.35 caliber. The workmanship was very good through-out. I was impressed with the front bedding block set-up that the rifle incorporated.

Once again I say that it was a poor set up at best. How often do you see the Carcano action built up into any kind of a custom sporter? Have you ever seen one show up at a shooting competition? I've seen dozens of sporters built around an Arisaka and Krag action, but not one based on a Carcano. Can it be done? Sure,but one must ask why?

The 6.5x55 cartridge is head and shoulders above the 6.5 Carcano. More case capacity, more pressure, better ballistics.

I've never owned/experienced any of the French rifles of that era. That said, I can't think of an overall worse WWII issued rifle than the Carcano.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
I've only owned one Carcano. I bought it as it was such a nice (pre-war) example; the bore was perfect. The metal finish was excellent. It was a vet bringback with a dufflecut that I had professionally restored. Mine happened to be the pre-war 7.35 caliber. The workmanship was very good through-out. I was impressed with the front bedding block set-up that the rifle incorporated.

Once again I say that it was a poor set up at best. How often do you see the Carcano action built up into any kind of a custom sporter? Have you ever seen one show up at a shooting competition? I've seen dozens of sporters built around an Arisaka and Krag action, but not one based on a Carcano. Can it be done? Sure,but one must ask why?

The 6.5x55 cartridge is head and shoulders above the 6.5 Carcano. More case capacity, more pressure, better ballistics.

I've never owned/experienced any of the French rifles of that era. That said, I can't think of an overall worse WWII issued rifle than the Carcano.

Actually, I have seen a customized sporter Carcano....several, as a matter of fact. The last was in a gun shop some years back in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. It had double set triggers, a very well done stock, and was a nice handly little rig...very light & pleasant to swing up to the shoulder. They were customized often enough in the 1950's that the American NRA even had an article on the feasibility of and approaches to doing so.

I'm not sure that whether they are often customized is a central consideration in assessing the rifle's merit anyway. It was never intended for such enhancement.

Even if the Carcano was not the most modern (in fact it was one of the oldest) designs still regular military issue among the industrialized nations at the start of WW II, it was a sound battle rifle. That is, it seldom failed in combat, it was adequately accurate, and fired cartridges of sufficent power to do the job....certainly more powerful than the U.S. calibre .30 M-1 Carbine of WW II.

Back in WW I, when it was also the main Italian battle rifle, it apparently did quite well against the Austrians in the Italian Alps. It held them out of Italy and the Austrians, I believe, were armed with both Mausers and straight-pull Steyrs (mainly the latter?).

At any rate, I would not pick a Carcano for either customization OR fighting these days, but this is now and that is a rifle from back then...1891 (115 years ago). And, I don't know of many military rifles of ANY make from 1891 that are being used as the basis for custom sporters these days....

There are certainly rifles that North Americans (in particular) prefer, but the Carcanos served long and honourably and they weren't "junk".

Quality of the Carcano
There have been various disparaging remarks made about the Carcano which - over the time - have tainted its reputation. Most of these remarks are hearsay rumors which one firearms writer has copied from the other, as so frequently happens. The most damaging is probably the story about a WW II Allied soldier getting killed when firing a Carcano, thus giving the Carcano the reputation of being unsafe. The story goes that the firing pin ruptured the primer causing the expanding gases to propel the firing pin backwards, breaking the safety retaining pin and into the face of the unfortunate soldier. The only problem about this story is that no one seems to know the name of the soldier, the nearer circumstances of the incident, or any other provable fact. Since then, there have been no other reports of injuries even remotely similar to this incident, thus either suggesting the incident was a fluke or, more likely, false wartime rumor.

The second is the "humanitarian rifle" moniker used a couple of times in the Warren Commission Report. This rumor apparently has it roots in the false belief that the Carcano is so poorly made that it will either not fire, or is so inaccurate that when actually fired, you'll probably miss the target (the opposing soldier that is), or that the terminal performance if its 6,5 mm bullet is so insufficient. Thus it would be cosidered "humane" to the enemy. Actually, this quotation seems to go back to an (in)famous Mussolini speech of early 1943 date in which he tried (with his usual flamboyant rhetorics) to veil the complete failure of Italian military leadership - notably his own - by blaming e.g. equipment.

Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate:
According to Bloomgarden, on the sporting (competitive) use of the Model 91:

"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta, displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)

"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old minimum.'" (p. 133)

According to Hobbs:

"Several years ago the Editor of Banzai called me about the Type I, it seems at the annual Alabama Shoot Out they had shot the Type I for the first time and were surprised to find it was more accurate than the Arisakas."

Acording to a kind notice from John Stovall:

From: John.A.Stovall@cdc.com (John A. Stovall)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Kennedy Assassination Rifle
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Date: 5 Jul 1998 19:03:28 -0400
Message-ID: <6np0o0$mhp@xring.cs.umd.edu>
References: <6nlfoh$fa5@xring.cs.umd.edu> <6nop19$l7e@xring.cs.umd.edu>


...
You haven't read much about the M91 Carcano then. I suggest you read, "Testing the Weapons of War" by Timothy J. Mullin. Mullin fired over a hundred different military weapons of this century and a few of the last. And guess what, it ended up in the five best rifles he tested.

"The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"

quote:

much better than any other bolt action rifle used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield"

I think I will pass on reading Mr. Mullin's book. While I agree that the Carcano carbines could be called "light" and "handy", ranking it in the top five and apparently #2 is a bit of a stretch. Wonder where he rated the 98 Mausers, SMLE's, Springfields, Finn M-39

Carcano's must be a real sleeper. Is there a mil-surp out there that on average commands a lower price? (Type 38 School Trainers?)

Seriously, let's get back on the original topic. I've never seen a genuine Carcano Sniper. Did the Italian Army ever field one? And if so, what type of optics and mount did it have?

Matt,

I agree with you. I knew they were made of good steel in the beginning. In fact the barrels were made of Bofors steel, same stuff Sako used in their rifles for years up till not too long ago. Then of course the war makes quality go to hell. I always heard that the SMLE was the best battle rifle. One time one of the gunrags ran a fair test between a 98 Mauser and the Nagant Mosin. In there opinion the Mosin beat it. They even went as far as dropping loaded stripper clips on the ground and the Mauser one would almost always lose a few cartridges, the Mosin clip didn't. I never even thought of stuff like that. Each countries rifle had some good features along with some bad ones.

Speaking of clips, that's one of the "sometimes" advantages of the Carcano rifle, amongst military bolt actions. It is also one of the weaknesses of the '98 Mausers & '03 Springfields.

It is both faster and easier to shove an "en-bloc" clip, such as the Carcano uses, into a rifle than to position a stripper clip into the rear receiver bridge and then thumb the cartridges out of the clip into the rifle magazine. Of course, the balance to that is that it is easy to top up a Mauser or Springfield magazine with single rounds, while very difficult (if not impossible) to do in real time with a Carcano. Of course the Carcano held 6 rounds in its enbloc clip, while the Mauser and Springfield held 5 rounds, so the
Mausers and Springields needed topping up a bit more often.

Still, in fast and furious fire-fights, I'd rather have any "en-bloc" rifle than just about any "stripper-clip" one except a SMLE. Probably why the U.S. went to the en-bloc system in the Garand, about 40+ years after the Carcano had one........

AC:

I remember the last time I took a close look at a Carcano, was at the Roseburg Gun Shop, and they wanted $50.00 for it..

I thought long and hard about buying it.. but passed it by...

the reason I wanted it, is after looking closely at it, I still can't believe that Lee Oswald shot ANYONE with that rifle.. especially a moving target at 400 yds, with a head shot...

and got off 3 rounds in 6 seconds or so., with that rifle!

So for all of these people who tell me that Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy.. I wanted to pull out that $50.00 rifle.... and show it to them, and ask them if they thought ANYONE could do a head shot at 400 yds with one of those, on a moving target... much less get 3 shots off in 6 seconds...

Looking at the rifle alone,,says BS to me....

When I first picked it up, I was wondering where it said Daisy on the side somewhere...

To me the description of Carcano Sniper Rifle makes about as much sense as Yugo, Luxury Edition ( with the addition of upgraded KMart Plastic Racy Hubcaps).. it is an oxymoron...

of course looking at a French MAS never impressed me a whole heck of a lot either...

Hey Seafire -

I can understand why you didn't buy the Carcano.
For most Americans, who are used to the style of rifles represented best by American sporters of the last 75 years, they are not desirable pieces. But the Carcano was already 34 years old by 1925 when Americans started to really buy bolt action sporters.

Having said that, one must remember that to fire 3 aimed shots in 6 seconds is really not that difficult....the clock doesn't start to run until the first shot is already fired.

Next, one has to look at the size of the target, and the distance it is (was) from the shooter. At 50 yards, the average human head is about what...maybe 15 MOA or slightly larger? I have been to the Deeley Plaza shooting site several times and I doubt the shot was a full 50 yards....and only one struck the President in the head...one was a miss and the other a body shot. A person could likely do that with no sights at all.

And, yes, the target was moving...barely. But as any old shotgunner can tell you , it is as easy (and often easier) to hit a slowly moving target than a stationary one, providing you don't stop your swing.

That is not to say the Warren Commission told or even tried to find the whole truth. I have always believed there was a LOT of cover-up that will never be overcome and a lot of truth which will never be known. For instance, why was the rifle identified at first as a 7.65 Argentine M91 Mauser? When they showed it first on TV, right after it was found, that is what they said it was....and there were live shots of it as it was removed from the building. I remember well, because I was watching the TV the whole time, and had a M91 hanging on the wall immediately over the TV. and yes, it sure looked like a M91 Mauser to me. But a little later, it had magically become a 6.5 Carcano, just about the same time the "Magic bullet" was found on the gurney at the hospital.

Still and all, one must remember the M91 Carcano came out only two years after the German 88 commission Rifle was developed, and a full 2 years before the U.S. even started using the Krag, let alone the '03 Springfield.

Design-wise, the Carcano basically IS an 88 Commission rifle with a Mannlicher magazine instead of the Mauser mag, and without the barrel cover.. The Commission rifle fathered a lot of different rifles, including the M98 Mauser, the Dutch & Rumanian Mannlichers, and the M1900 Greek Mannlicher-Schoenauers.

Even the Carcano itself was bought by the
Germans (in the 8x57 chambering) for use by other than front line troops during WW II. And they handled that cartridge with no reports of failure.

For a nice short history of all this, I suggest those interested start by reading the military rifles section at the front of the latest edition of "Bolt Action Rifles", starting with the chapter on the M88 Commission rifle.

...and for that matter the French MAS, although ugly, is a well made rifle with some very good features. They also are one of the easiest rifles to convert to 45-70. Don't knock the French, they too had some inovative designs. Weren't they the first to come up with the hydraulic shock absorber system on artillery?

Anyone who believes Oswald killed Kennedy was mifted by the cover up. It's true that when the rifle was first showen and described that it was sort of Mauser model.

Funny, the History Channel just ran a few shows on the Kennedy Assassination. They did the one where that team of Aussies recreated the shooting with the same model Carcano and the actaul same Winchester ammo from the same lot. They used special anatomical dummies and got damn near the same exact results as the Oswald bullet that hit Kennedy right below the neck, come up his upper chest, then hit Connally in the back low and right under the right shoulder blade in the arm pit, exiting his chest, then penetrating his forearm, and finally loging in his thigh. Both the real bullet and test bullet keyholed from being disturbed going to Kennedy's body and the anatomical dummy, entering Connally's back. So it was no majic bullet creating two wounds. Both the real bullet and the test bullet were virtually undamaged. By the way the shot Oswald took was from 60 feet up and the distance to Kennedy was 180 feet which is 60 yards. For your information the test shooter in the scenario described above fired three shots at that distance into 1/2 inch and two were touching. So it was VERY possible Oswald could have hit Kennedy easily. Now as to the death blow head shot, they have no clues.

quote:

Originally posted by MaxPayne:
...and for that matter the French MAS, although ugly, is a well made rifle with some very good features. They also are one of the easiest rifles to convert to 45-70. Don't knock the French, they too had some inovative designs. Weren't they the first to come up with the hydraulic shock absorber system on artillery?

Yes, the world famous "French 75 (m/m)" for one, which our doughboys learned about and loved in WWI, and which led directly to similar mechanisms on our own artillery.

Even more, it is not too many folks who realize that the German G-3's chamber where the brass floats on a cushion of gas in longitudinal flutes was first used in shoulder fired rifles by the French, and until German engineers working in Spain applied it to the rifle (later called a CETME, then the G-3, then the H-K 91), it was failing to extract rather miserably.

But most important, the French developed both the first viable smokeless powder for small arms, AND the first "modern" military spitzer bullet (and boat-tailed bullet), the famous "Balle D".

The MAS is a splendid little battle rifle for a bolt action gun, though it could certainly use a 1-1/8" longer buttstock for almost everyone's best use. I have a scoped MAS 36, and it is definitely a MOA rifle or less just as issued (even with its 6 pound trigger pull). Also has fewer moving parts than just about any other repeating bolt rifle I have ever seen, and that means less stuff with a potential to break when the going gets tough. The parts it has are ALL super-heavy-duty, too.

As said before, no industrialized nation ever equipped its troops with junk, so long as they still had any options left at all.

quote:

Anyone who believes Oswald killed Kennedy was mifted by the cover up. It's true that when the rifle was first showen and described that it was sort of Mauser model.