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