I have never fired one either, but according to people who have, they were an accurate, albeit not to be confused with higher priced rifles that were built to take a lot of abuse such as the M1 Garand or Springfield. It's draw back was long term reliability under battlefield conditions, not accuracy.
My understanding is back then they were a perfectly fine deer rifle for people who wanted to shoot at deer a couple of days a year and not spend a lot of money to do it.
From the distances Oswald was shooting --- between 40 and 90 yards -- damn near any weapon would have worked just as well and the shot he took a few months earlier at Gen Walker from over 100 yards with the same rifle showed that it was more than accurate 'enough.' Walker was one damn lucky SOB that Oswald didn't take his head off when the round he fired grazed the window frame.
As I attempted to say before, people focus on the price these rifles were selling at then. The price had nothing to do with how accurate or serviceable they were. The price only reflects how saturated the market was with WWII military surplus equipment from all over the world.
For gun collecters, it was the golden age.
Understood on the price point. Way on up into the later 60s and even into the 70s, you could buy a lot of military surplus rifles dirt cheap. Heck, for many years you could buy a surplus SKS for $50-$60, until the market finally became aware of what a decent little semi-auto it was/is.
My own classification of the O-rifle as a clunker was based on the sloppiness of the action as compared to most bolt-action rifles I’ve shucked, and I’ve shucked a few. I can only say that my own memory of the rifle tends to corroborate the claim of these Italian chaps who claim you just can’t fire three shots that quickly with that rifle.
MM (in TX)