Representative Boggs.

Were there other tests conducted to determine the accuracy of the weapon and so on?

Mr. Frazier.

No, sir--only the rapid-fire accuracy tests were fired by the FBI.

Representative Boggs.

There is no reason to believe that this weapon is not accurate, is there?

Mr. Frazier.

It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that.
Representative BOGGS. That was the point I was trying to establish.

Mr. Frazier.

This Exhibit 549 is a target fired, showing that the weapon will, even under rapid- fire conditions, group closely--that is, one shot with the next.

Representative Boggs.

How many shots in the weapon? Five?

Mr. Mccloy.

The clip takes six itself. You can put a seventh in the chamber. It could hold seven, in other words. But the clip is only a six-shot clip.

Representative Boggs.

Was the weapon fully loaded at the time of the assassination?

Mr. Mccloy.

I don't know how many shells three shells were picked up.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Mccloy.

Back on the record.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?

Mr. Frazier.

Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right.
If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance.
The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.
I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, on that last question, did you attempt to center the windage crosshair to sight-in the windage crosshair?

Mr. Frazier.

We attempted to, and found that it was changing--the elevation was changing the windage. So we merely left the windage as it was.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Can you say conclusively that the windage crosshair could not be centered in, sighted-in?

Mr. Frazier.

No, sir. I would say that the windage could have been centered in the telescope to bring the windage to the aiming line.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that--and if that had been done, then you would not have this problem of dispersion to the right?

Mr. Frazier.

That's true.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, turning to--

Representative Boggs.

Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. Frazier.

No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion