Mythbusters - 29 November - Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
They never said it didn't happen and they certainly didn't call anyone a liar. They even admitted they weren't using the same equipment and that a modern scope probably behaves differently than scopes from that era. They also admitted they had been shooting for 4 hours and were far from expert shots.

Jamie said he would take that shot if he was in a situation where it was necessary because if you missed the scope you might hit the head and even if the bullet didn't penetrate all the way through you'd disable their weapon and cause them not to be there anymore. Adam said it was possible it happened, he did say it was busted because they were unable to reproduce it.

It looked like they had a good time shooting and the episode will probably cause others to try shooting.

They have a limited budget and they did as much as they could do. Myth busters is a pretty good show, they apply a fair amount of science with a good amount of entertainment and that encourages people to think which is what the show is meant to do. No matter how they set their tests up someone would complain that it wasn't done the right way.
 
My questions are: What type of bullet did Carlos use? Given the Treaty of Versailes, I think he'd have been using FMJ bullets. What kind of bullets were MythBusters using? My guess is whatever hunting ammo the local gun shop had for sale. Do you think they considered that?
Click to expand...
The Treaty of Versailles was one of a number of treaties used to secure an (unstable) peace in Europe, ending the First World War. The anti expanding bullet rule comes from the Hague Convention.
 
I was miffed that no one realized that in the backwards bullet segment, a SPENT CASING would have remained in the cylinder! The picture clearly showed it. Why did they have empty chambers?

I also figured that the scope would have been different from the modern ones they were using. But overall, I thought it was pretty a good episode.
 
I just watched the sniper v sniper segment. They sighted in the rifle with (from the ammo box on the table) a Federal .308 Gold Medal match load. That load is made with both a 168 and 175 grain hollow point boat tail. According to Sniper Central, the velocity on the Federal loads is a little under that of the M118 7.62x51 sniping round, and even further behind the M118LR (Long Range) 7.62x51 round. Also, being a hollow point, I bet the bullet would have behaved a little diffirent than an FMJ. I wonder what an FMJ or an AP Ball round would have done? I bet the AP ball would have penetrated better.
 
Ok so you can't shoot through a modern 10 lens variable power scope.

1. the guy at the gunshop showed a model 70, not a model 700. They used a Rem. 700 with a synthetic stock for the test, probably a police issue rifle. Likely the budget didn't call for buying the M70 repro.

Hathcock used a modified model 70 Winchester in 30-06 with a Unertl scope.

No matter HOW you slice it it was a hell of a shot.

2. Target scope was modern. In his book, I'm pretty sure I recall the VC was armed with a Moisin Nagant and a PU scope. There are a number of inexpensive scopes that could mimic the construction of the PU. They said 'they didn't know' what kind of scope the enemy had. Thought that was a matter of record. The PU has fewer lenses, and is half as long. One of those test shots blew through six inches of scope and glass.

3. Hathcock was using match grade ammo, not 'fmj'... match ammo has a slight hp but is not designed to expand.

4. This same shot was attributed to Vassli Zaitsev, using a Moisin against a Mauser 20 some years before Hathcock's shot. Most people now think that's just Soviet propoganda.

5. I don't recall the range either shot was said to have taken place. I think I recall Zaitsev's to be around 200 meters.

Sounds like another "revisited" episode to follow.

The miniball vs. miniball... I've seen recovered miniballs mashed together like that in a number of collections. That should be confirmed not plausible. (Unless the 'originals' were made the same way the Mythbusters did it.)

The Bullet down the cylinder? Many old school cops still carried on an empty chamber. SAD to see a respectable old Colt (didn't it look nice?) abused by a Glock... or any firearm. I think they left it empty for the ease of SEEING the result. The Colt didn't look that much worse for wear afterwards though. I wondered why they didn't use a lead bullet, rather than an FMJ. Again. likely for ease of seeing the result.

I still very much enjoy the show.
 
If it was a .30'06 ball vs. a PU, I'm sure they'd get different results. Have you looked at a PU and held it? It's a solid steel tube, quite heavier than most modern scopes and very primitive in design. It uses a few simple glass lenses. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it channeled a bullet right into someone's eye.
 
Welcome to THR HKMP5S. I think your therory is right. No doubt that is why the "tactical" scopes have such complex reticles, it makes them bullet proof!:D

As far as the show goes, it seems contridictory to say the through the scope shot is busted and not deny it happened. Maybe they need a new catagory, not enough data to speculate?
 
Perfect or not, I love the show. I watch it, and I make sure my kids watch it.

You guys need to lighten up and realize that there are more important things in life than whether or not someone uses the perfect scope or the perfect ammunition. Try climbing down from the 'gun expert' high horse every once in awhile and just enjoying it for what it is. I have no doubt that whatever myth they're looking at on any given episode, there's some obscure expert in that subject out there that could nitpick what they do.

The real value behind Mythbusters is that it teaches people to be skeptical, and to think about things critically and logically. They don't take anything at face value on that show. They test, verify, and test again. They're creative with their methods, and come up with some genuinely innovative ways to do things. In case you haven't noticed, those qualities (critical thinking and creativity) are getting pretty damned rare in our society. They're not afraid to make fools of themselves, they aren't afraid to slay any sacred cows, and they're having a great time doing something they love.

They also really enjoy blowing things up - which is something else our society could use more of. :cool:
 
My problem with last night's show was their "expert." Either intentionally or unintentionally, he flat out lied. He said that we had been using designated marksmen (snipers) since WW2. We were using them in the Revolutionary war.
 
I keep hearing about "low budget" These people get paid and do you think that warehouse full of every piece of materiel, tool and gadget known to man was donated. Also, I'm sure it take more than a one hour show to build all of those contraptions, Like American Chopper, I really don't think they build those bike in a 2 hour segment.
About the backward round, in real life, wouldn't that revolver be loaded with empty casings, or loaded rounds? And wouldn't the empty chamber be under th hammer and not be visable?
 
I keep hearing about "low budget" These people get paid and do you think that warehouse full of every piece of materiel, tool and gadget known to man was donated.
Click to expand...

It's a very low budget show. Their budget for an entire season is probably less than the budget for one or two episodes on most successful broadcast network shows (NBC, ABC, etc.).

The warehouse you referred to is M5 Industries, Jamie Hyneman's visual effects company. They create many of the visual and robotic effects you see in TV and movies. M5i existed long before Discovery Channel dreamed up a TV show to test myths and urban legends and it will still be going strong when the MB TV show is nothing but a distant memory.

Many of the gizmos and gadgets they use on Myth Busters are things left over from TV and movie effects. They never throw anything away and are masters at reusing/recycling things to meet their current needs.

Yes, you are correct that it takes a great deal of time and effort to film each episode. This is a major catch-22 for Jamie Hyneman as it takes up a lot of time he could be using to run his company and manage his people. The trade-off is all the free publicity (and hopefully additional business) that M5i gets from the TV show.

Finally, none of these people are getting rich from being on a Discovery Channel TV show. All of the cast members are employees of M5i and work for Jamie Hyneman. I'm sure thier M5i salaries are a lot bigger than whatever Discovery is paying them. If you want to get rich in TV you've got to work for one of the broadcast networks. There isn't much money to be made working for a cable network.
 
Last edited:
HTML: 
I heard Carlos said that was an accident and he didn't intend to do that, now that several movies have done similar shots (Saving Private Ryan and Sniper come to mind). One thing I don't like about that show is they act as if they can't recreate it, it can't be done. I still enjoy the show though.
HTML]

In Afghanistan a couple of years ago, there was a Sniper team from the Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry who were assigned to provide "long arms" for a US Army Unit during a campaign against Taliban Insurgents. THey had a 2400+ yd. single shot kill and were decorated by the US Gov't with the Bronze Star for Bravery during the Operation.
Yes it is possible!!!!!!!!
 
It is in a controlled environment.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, experimentation within a controlled environment was a basic requirement of any sort of scientific test.

Science is about testing a hypothesis through consistently repeatable experimentation.
 
My biggest problem is how they say, "Well our team of bean heads can't do it so it must be impossible." Just because you can't recreate it dosent mean it is not true or possible.
 
I saw most of the Mythbuster’s last night so let me throw in my 2c¢.

For the fused bullets, I think that they called it plausible because they did not have an actual “fused bullet incident” they could pinpoint. They were working against the myth or rumor that it could happened. Let’s say that a collector presented them with a fused bullet that was found after the battle of Bull Run. The collector goes to Mythbusters and says “hey, this was found and I think it was caused by two guys shooting at each other”. Could it have been caused by a backward squib followed by a full charge? Maybe, but the story is that it happened while the bullets were in flight in battle. Let’s see what caused this; oh, you can fuse two bullets shot at each other. Myth confirmed.

As for the bullet through the scope, I remember Jaime saying something like “we will never know what kind of scope”. True, you will never know the EXACT scope in the sense that the one the VC used could have been painted black or brown, or it could have been chipped, or was it made in 1942 or was it 1962, etc. But you can definitely find an approximation of the scope that was generally used by the opposition. A little research could have told them that the VC GENERALLY used a PU. I’m sure that some member here would gladly donate a PU, even a reproduction, for a revisit.

I had to show the wife why they were wrong so I broke out my autographed copy of Carlo’s biography and showed her. As a side note, the book said it was a 7.62x55 Mosin.

I hate when people try to reproduce an “unintentional chain of events”. There was a mythbuster type show on the other day that tried to reproduce a famous event that caused 7 wounds with 1 bullet, a magic bullet if you will. For all seven wounds to occur, very precise events had to line up. The people had to be sitting a certain way, the bullet had to just graze certain tissues and then hit arm bones exactly right. I wish people would just accept end results. Oh, the show was able to duplicate the path of the bullet without using magic.
 
Despite their sometime flawed approach, experiments, or results, The Mythbusters remains an entertaining show that I believe provides an all too rare antidote to the anti-gun hysteria in the larger media.

The most beneficial thing that the MB'ers do for the firearms community is to demystify firearms. I seriously believe that the average Joe or Jane on the street does think that pistol bullets can depressurize aircraft cabins, that a machine gun could cut a hole in a floor (or anything else one might imagine), and that a bullet from any gun will "knock back" the target.

On at least those topics, one no longer really needs to enter a debate with the ill informed, just a pop in a DVD on the home entertainment system and play the more or less definitive myth busting of those misconceptions born of Hollywood.

Thanks go to you Jamie and Adam. You guys aren't perfect, but you are about the only positive firearms influence not found on an outdoors channel.
 
I gotta say that when I found out the dumb bunch (B-Team) was testing hammers, I was much more relaxed about watching the show. Side note - some of the conclusions they made were, I HOPE, edited down, like Grant's statement to the effect of "Okay, we've banged a couple hammers together, and didn't see explosions or chips, so we're going to do it without protection." I just thought, man, with only one data point, he's pretty ballsy to be generalizing like that.

Okay, on to the firearms myths. The bullet backwards in the chamber was pretty much a waste of time, in my book. Not very interesting, either, to me. BUT it was filmed at my favorite indoor range around the corner from my house! Yay Reed's!

The gunshop where they "bought" the "reproduction" of the Hathcock rifle, and they guy who was showing them said rifle, is also in the South SF Bay Area, and I have bought a gun from them, as have friends of mine. It was too bad they didn't go to Reed's Sport Shop (the owners of the range they used for the pistol test) because the guy they used has been very rude to me and many others for many years. It was too bad to see him get the business. But he's smaller than Reed's, so I guess it helps to keep competition active. The whole idea of using a variable-power scope (with more lenses in between the objective and the occular lenses than a fixed-power) kinda had me scratching my head. Also, the fact that they couldn't just do ten minutes of research and come up with the right type of scope. But the QA guy in me loved seeing the scopes explode glass all over the place. I was definitely entertained.

Overall, it was a good episode, but again, their methods disturb me.
 
My problem with last night's show was their "expert." Either intentionally or unintentionally, he flat out lied. He said that we had been using designated marksmen (snipers) since WW2. We were using them in the Revolutionary war.
Click to expand...

I think he meant that WWII was the first time we used dedicated "counter-snipers", since he said that they were trained to aim at the glint from the scopes.

I have no idea when they were first used either, so he still might be wrong.

As far as their experiment goes, it almost seems they wanted to get to do a guarenteed revisit with this one. I mean how hard would it of been to do the research and acquire the correct rifle and scope? :confused:
 
If I remember right, Sgt. Hathcock was using a Model 700, .30-06, match ammo with a 172 grain Sierra bullet.

Yeah, tell me the lens in a scope will stop that...
 
Not to nit-pick, but counter-sniper roles grew out of the trench warfare of WWI. There were all kinds of crazy contraptions and sniper blinds built to help snipers take out other snipers across no-man's-land.

As for Mythbusters, they do pretty good with the resources that they have available. Sure we can find errors in their experiments, but we have a team of thousands of researchers and a few qualified experts at our disposal. To their credit, I have rarely seen them make a major error (like the rifle scope) without a disclaimer stating the fact.
 
Not to get nitpicky as well but an atlatl is a throwing stick not a leather thong. And while I'm here I've read of 3 incidents of snipers getting it right through the scope. The one in WWII where the best German went against the best American and lost, in Joseph Ward's book "Dear Mom" he claims to have made such a shot and of course Gunny Hathcock's shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top