Mythbusters - 29 November - Guns

[CDignition]

Well, the 30-06 does have a bit more power than a 308, but the diffrence would be negligible. 300 Win Mag, maybe diffrent story...


As to the hammers....ugh.. they totally softened up the dang things heating them up like they did... they know absolutley nothing about heat treating tool steels,lol.

 

[mordrid52]

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.

Most likely, they actually had dozens of tests that you just didn't see. They talk about this in the "Outtakes" special. Some people complain because it often appears like they do an experiment once or twice and call it good. In reality there might be dozens or hundreds of tests and only a couple of the more entertaining ones make it into the show.

 

[Correia]

I bet some of you guys don't get invited to very many parties...

I agree with Card.

 

[torpid]

The real value behind Mythbusters is that it teaches people to be skeptical, and to think about things critically and logically.

Kudos to them. Now, if they just stopped doing it sloppily and declaring concrete conclusions based on the results!

They don't take anything at face value on that show. They test, verify, and test again.

Yes, but testing in a sloppy manner just repeats possibly flawed results.

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.

I am entertained, just not thrilled when they go about "disproving" something in a manner that is so half-arsed, and then say "MYTH BUSTED".


I's a fun and engaging popular show, and I actually do like the crew and their funny/creative/harebrained antics.

But I too often hear, "aww, they debunked that on Mythbusters".
I think too many folks actually think it's a science show.

 

[nplant]

Guys, I love the show (wouldn't waste my time on it if I didn't). It's mostly just the stuff I know about that sometimes irks me. Being that I know about it, and I'm no expert by any stretch, I wonder how many other things I've seen and NOT known about that I go off to 'explain' to someone later on as a fact. That's all.

Oh, and I know an atlatl is a stick-throwing system, but there is some sort of mechanical advantage that makes it powerful, not just a javelin thrown by hand, and I thought it was a strip of leather. I got the picture now, though, I think - the mechanical advantage is another actual stick, right?

mordrid52 - Yeah, that's what I said I hoped they were doing. I truly, really hope that, in the interest of time in their show's time slot, they just edited down the boring parts to Grant's statement. Just, sometimes, I don't know, I get the feeling that maybe they DIDn't do their due diligence, like when they were standing so close to Tory when he accidentally let go of the hammer and it smacked Grant's foot... not too bright for a bright guy.

 

[Mark_from_Iowa]

Backwards Bullet

I just glanced through some responses here, and someone was wondering about using a jacketed versus lead bullet for the backwards bullet test.

The reason they didn't use lead bullets is because Glock barrels are polygonal and prone to rapid lead buildup. This causes spikes in pressure that can ruin barrels. There are replacement barrels that solve this problem, but the Mythbusters were likely using a standard Glock 17 in 9 mm.

 

[slabsides]

Several blatent mistakes in the show: The rifle shown by the guy in the store as a true reproduction of the military sniper weapon, was not the rifle they shot in the tests. Different make, bolt handle and stock was a dead giveaway. And it wasn't the rifle Gunny Hathcock used in VietNam. I still vote for Hathcock!
They misidentified their Colt revolver as a .38 Police Positive. I thought when I first saw it: 'Hell, that's a New Service! But other views made me think it was an Official Police model. Hard to tell, but DEFinitely not the smaller D-frame Police Positve model! I bet the 'empty chamber' of the gun should have had an empty cartridge case in it, to reproduce the myth. The 9mm bullet may well have been a FMJ, not the Federal Hollowpoint used in the test. And a 9mm, at .355, is of course SMALLER than a .38 Special at .357-.358". The miné ball bullet fusion was credible.
The hammer thing was bogus. You don't introduce carbon into steel by heating it in a barbeque and quenching it in old engine oil. I am surprised that they didn't embrittle the steel more by the quench...probably didn't get it hot enough. It acted annealed.
Hammers do chip. I've got two in my tool box in the garage that show where small hunks have spalled off in normal, non-abusive use.
The hammers with wooden handles broke, and the steel handles bent, because they were solidly fastened near the heads and couldn't flex with the blow.
All in all a disappointing episode, with too many more minor errors to mention.

 

[Cosmoline]

What do you guys think science is, anyway? Even if the guys are stern and in lab coats, the methodology can be weak as water and their conclusions rife with error. Science is a process of subjecting hypotheses to experiments and coming to conclusions which are then reviewed, criticized and frequently replaced by better ones. That's what the Mythbusters do. Indeed, unlike "real" science we get to see their methodology for ourselves and judge it. "Real" science from institutions is handed down in conclusion form only, and we are told to accept it as the conclusions of our betters. But I've deposed enough of these clowns and subjected them to Daubert and Khumo enough to know there's often nothing behind the edicts of science but rank speculation and poor reasoning.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Mark they previously used a Sig 9mm for their tests... aware of the Glock and leading... just pointing out in a later test two soft lead bullets fused... a soft lead bullet may have given a better result than the jacketed bullet.

And I'm a lot of fun at parties.

 

[Hands of blue]

Sgt. Alan Normandy posted this on the Mythbusters forum

First of all, thanks to all of you for your kindness. I was expecting MUCH more vitriol from every one of Gunny Hathcock's fans.

I for one, was rather disturbed about the outcome. It certainly was NOT my intention to upset every precision marksman on the planet. I don't know that I would have signed on to assist had I realized how many pages this issue would generate just an hour after airing!

Still, I, too, am a real FAN -- of the Gunny, as well -- so I share this with you with the utmost of respect.

For the record, Gunny Hathcock is a personal hero of mine, and this myth was NEVER intended to discredit his account. In fact, as conducted, I don't believe it disputes his account at all.

So you know, as the experiment developed, it originaly had nothing to do with the Hathcock incident. The experiment was originally spawned from the movies: Sniper, Sniper II and Sniper III -- and that nearly impossibly-angled scene from Saving Private Ryan.

I didn't even realize Hathcock's incident was being investigated until the day of the shoot, since I DON'T work with MB full-time. After all, I am a REAL police officer -- I don't just play one on TV.

They didn't hire me for the research -- they have researchers for that -- and the production often evolves/mutates faster than we can manage it. Still, I brought the guns, and did the best to adapt, improvise and overcome the variables we confronted the day of the event.

Prior to the event, a good friend of mine, a retired (and confirmed) Commander from SeAL Team One, assured me that this experiment was a "no-brainer." HE told me that WWII snipers were trained to detect scope glint as a general area target indicator. You can imagine my dismay, when things didn't work out the way we expected.

Gunny Hathcock spent the latter portion of his life training Police Snipers, for whom he had the utmost respect. Gunny Hathcock is quoted as stating, "A military sniper is an area shooter, and there are 36 inches from a man's collar to his belt buckle. Police snipers must be nearly surgical to accomplish their mission."

As for me, I am of the belief that if Gunny Hathcock said it happened -- I believe his account, regardless. The odds may have been outlandish, but someone also wins the Lotto, too. I'm just not one of them.

Men who win the Silver Star and sustain burns all over their bodies to rescue their brothers are not inclined to embellish their acts. They don't need to.

So you know, per Charles Henderson's book, Marine Sniper, AKA Gunny Hathcock's biography, Gunny Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70 with a 10x Unertl scope, firing 173 grain Lake City Match FMJ ammunition chambered in .30-06 Springfield. See page three of the pictures, located between pages 254 and 255 of Henderson's book as a reference. I have better things to do than blow smoke up someone's backside.

The rifle used in tonight's show was a Remington 700 Lightweight Tactical Rifle chambered in .308 Winchester. The scope is a Leupold 4.5-14 x 50 with Mil-Dot reticle. We fired 168 grain Boat Tail Hollow Point Match bullets, mostly because they are the most accurate load we had on hand. They consistently print sub MOA groups. It's what I had in the safe. If I had been told to acquire a pre-64 Model 70 Winchester -- I have plenty of friends who have them -- I WOULD HAVE -- but I confess that I was confident this was a "no brainer," since I trust my friends. After all, if the Gunny said that happened, why would I not have faith in a man with 93 confirmed?

Prior to the event, I also tested and evaluated some .308 168 grain ballistic tips and 165-grain glass breaker soft points, but they consistently performed just above 1 MOA prior to the event. As such, it was my choice to use the 168 BTHP match.

Since the shot was taken from 100 yards (simple math for MOA, etc.), accuracy was more critical to us that day. We didn't have more than a day to evaluate the myth, and I didn't expect a controversy.

As mentioned, I was overconfident, since a vetted SeAL friend assured me we could accomplish this without much difficulty, given his 20+ years of anecdotal experience.

For those of us who HAVE read Henderson's book, the enemy's rifle was a Mosin Nagant 7.62 x 54 with a Russian PU 91/30 fixed 3.5 x 22 scope.


***********************


So here's my question to all of you: Why do you think I know this? My friend Bryan (AKA Uglygun) will hear this question loud and clear. Copy?



************************



Do as you will, but sometimes we make mistakes. That's why the MythBusters (and I, too) cop out to them, and revisit all manner of myths.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Of course, one has to watch to see what happens next...

Be safe, have fun, and shoot straight!
Sgt. Alan Normandy

 

[torpid]

Science is a process of subjecting hypotheses to experiments and coming to conclusions which are then reviewed, criticized and frequently replaced by better ones. That's what the Mythbusters do. Indeed, unlike "real" science we get to see their methodology for ourselves and judge it.

...and I judge it in need of stricter discipline.

.

 

[pedaldude]

I guess Moshe Dayan poked his own eye out to get attention,

it's actualy more common than you'd think, that's why they have those new honeycomb lens covers to kill glare. I didn't know a modern multi element lense will stop a bullet but snipers are often taken out by arty too.

Simo Haya got shot in the face too with a incendiary round, he didn't use a scope though so it prolly bounced off his rifle, I think he said he shot the guy afterwards too, can't remember. A sniper prone or in a hole gives very little to hit but the head and face, sometimes you get the bullseye.

and as mentioned in WW1 they had special trench rifles which was a rifle in a rig with a periscope and a remote trigger, kinda like the bubba version of that corner shot thing.

too bad carlos hathcock isn't around still,

 

[flatdog]

Hands of blue,

Thanks for the post by Sgt Normandy it was spot on.

flatdog

 

[Joe456]

I know I can't hit a thing, but ...

I suggest running the experiment yourself. With a video camera, or still camera to document the results. It certainly seem plausible that a older model scope might make it work by having less glass, and/or a sturdier case. But until you try you won't really know.