Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

It has been suggested that the back bullet, instead of being an ice bullet, was a sabot bullet, which is a bullet of smaller caliber than the bore diameter. So, there has to be something to fill the space known as the windage, and that something is the sabot casing. 

"When the sabot reaches the end of the barrel, the shock of hitting still air pulls the parts of the sabot away from the projectile, allowing the projectile to continue in flight."

Supposedly, the purpose of shooting JFK with a sabot bullet was to establish that he was shot from the rear, to leave evidence of that. 

However, I find it hard to accept. They wanted to establish that Oswald made the shots with his 6.5 mm Carcano, so what would be the point of shooting JFK with a smaller caliber bullet and leaving evidence of that? And if they were going to shoot him for that purpose, why not shoot him with an effective bullet? If they had made the shot with a 6.5 FMJ bullet, it would have established a rear origin just as well, and it presumably could have or would have killed him, which is what they wanted. So, why not just do it? Why bother with a sabot?  

Officaldom has it that a single bullet traversed Kennedy's body and still had enough energy to traverse Connally's body smashing a bone, and still had enough energy to blast through Connally's wrist, and still had enough energy to penetrate his thigh. That is one powerful bullet. So presumably, if they shot him with that it would have entered his back establishing rear entry and would also likely have killed him. So, why mess around with a weak, ineffective bullet just to establish a rear shot? 

OIC Senior Member Dennis Cimino, who is ex-military, points out that the bullet had to have enough power to make the trip from the barrel to the target, and it was quite a distance. But, if it was a deliberately weakened bullet, then it would have had a more than negligible "drop rate" which means the shooter would have had to estimate that drop rate and aim higher in order to keep it from striking the limo trunk or the street. But, that would have been guess work, and it is preposterous to think they would have relied on that and taken a chance with it. 

Morever, Humes measured the bullet hole as 7 mm diameter.

  
So, I appreciate the suggestion, but to my mind, at this juncture, the sabot idea is not a likely possibility at all. But, I'm open to hearing more about it. 

What we know for sure is that bullet- whatever it was- did NOT traverse Kennedy's body. It certainly didn't come out his throat, but it didn't come out anywhere else either. Remember that JFK was lying on an operating table under bright lights at Parkland Hospital with 25 medical personnel (doctors and nurses) peering at him. How could he have had an anterior exit wound without them noticing it? How could they have missed seeing it? And remember how big and messy exit wounds tend to be. 

So, JFK was shot in the back, and for some reason it didn't penetrate very far, and the bullet was never found, and that needs to be explained. (Some have said that the bullet was dug out at the pre-autopsy.) 

But, are there any other hypothetical ways to explain this other than an ice bullet or a sabot bullet? Of the two, I like the ice bullet better, but I'm open.