Mythbusters: snipe through scope
- Thread starter The Deer Hunter
- Start date
- Status
Detritus
Member
two errors there, one by the dealer and one the result of the show not being clear on a certain point.
{dealer error} what the dealer showed Jamie in that clip was the Remington "Vietnam Era M40" which is a M700 in 308. this is NOT the rifle used by hathcock in this particular instance (a modified winchester M70 in 30-06, most likely from a rifle team armory), the M40 was still being developed and finalized at that time and was not in wide use if at all.
second error, and the show should have been clearer on this the rifle(s) used in the actual "test" were not M40 replicas, but were in fact modern mod;le 700s in sythetic stocks and with more modern optics, in fact these guns were likely either property of teh SFPD SWAT team or the personal property of the Mythbusers' buddy Sgt Normandy.
as for WHY they didn't use the M40 replica, well do YOU think a TV production company is going to fork out $1,400-1,500 for a single rifle that does not inclide the appropriate scope?? esp when they can get as close as they really need to the "rifle-used variable" by asking a favor of the SFPD?
course now that my wife has seen that show she wants one of those M40 replics!
cracked butt
Member
That was my conclusion after seeing the episode too.
I remember seeing an article several months back about a marine in Iraq who's scope on his AR stopped an Iraqi sniper bullet. The Marine took a nasty wound to the head and kept on fighting and survived the encounter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269790/posts
R.W.Dale
Member
Forget what the original myth to be busted was, Am I the only one who is amazed at the amount of abuse a cheap-O 3x9x40 Simmons can take and still resemble a rifle scope or how tough scope rings are.
cracked butt
Member
At least they found somethign a Simmons scope is useful for.
ribbonstone
Member
Am tempted.
Have three dead cheap scopes that were given to me. I've stripped some extenal parts off some (turret caps...occular locking ring)...all have dead reticles, one has a seperation in the objective and a crakced AO ring...the thrid a cracked occular. Aren't ever going to be functional scopes again. Al. tubed for two, stel tube for the 3rd, and would make resonable test subjects.
Probably still won't make itthrough...but I'll to dupicate 300yard velcoity, may use pulled mil.surp ball ammo (would AP rounds be cheating?)...and strap them to a 2X4.
Have three dead cheap scopes that were given to me. I've stripped some extenal parts off some (turret caps...occular locking ring)...all have dead reticles, one has a seperation in the objective and a crakced AO ring...the thrid a cracked occular. Aren't ever going to be functional scopes again. Al. tubed for two, stel tube for the 3rd, and would make resonable test subjects.
Probably still won't make itthrough...but I'll to dupicate 300yard velcoity, may use pulled mil.surp ball ammo (would AP rounds be cheating?)...and strap them to a 2X4.
To be fair, I think the focus of that segment of the episode was to determine if the terminal balistics of the .30 caliber bullet would penetrate a scope to dispatch the enemy shooter. Actual platform the bullet comes from not being critical.
It was mentioned at the end, however, that they, for whatever reason, did not know what exact type of scope would have been used by the NVA shooter. (Their disclaimer but, none-the-less, a poor excuse in supporting their theoru that the shot would have been nearly impossible.)
The gunshop clerk didn't help matters with, "shoot flies at 500yds".
The scopes used looked, to me, as a Tasco (1st), a Barska or 2, and not sure what the last one was.
My main problem with the episode was that neither the Hathcock shot nor the Seattle (?) PD revolver shot were myths. They were documented. They happened.
All Mythbusters proved was that they cannot replicate documented reality via their semi-scientific methods.
Don't get me wrong, I love the show (Especially Kari. So hot.), but it is just a show. Their methodology leaves a lot to be desired.
Mike
All Mythbusters proved was that they cannot replicate documented reality via their semi-scientific methods.
Don't get me wrong, I love the show (Especially Kari. So hot.), but it is just a show. Their methodology leaves a lot to be desired.
Mike
mljdeckard
Member
I'm way into Kari too.
I've made this comment before:
Everytime Myth Busters takes on a topic where I have some knowledge of the technology under question, they don't come across so bright and clever to me. When they tackle a subject of which I am largely ignorant, I usually enjoy the show. It is an entertainment show featuring two highly talented SFX guys without any kind of laboratory and/or test&validation background. I think they do a very good job compared to most people in TV-land.
I recall that the book "Marine Sniper" had a picture of the enemy sniper's rifle with the shattered glass. I believe that it was a PU type scope and mount. I think CNH tried to ship it home but someone stole it from the mail.
I also recall that CNH started with commerical rifles in 30-06, then later got into specially built rifles in .308. The bullets were Sierra Match King HP's which I believe are 168 grain. Sorry if this is nitpicky.
I'd like to see the "Box of Truth" guys take this one on.
Everytime Myth Busters takes on a topic where I have some knowledge of the technology under question, they don't come across so bright and clever to me. When they tackle a subject of which I am largely ignorant, I usually enjoy the show. It is an entertainment show featuring two highly talented SFX guys without any kind of laboratory and/or test&validation background. I think they do a very good job compared to most people in TV-land.
I recall that the book "Marine Sniper" had a picture of the enemy sniper's rifle with the shattered glass. I believe that it was a PU type scope and mount. I think CNH tried to ship it home but someone stole it from the mail.
I also recall that CNH started with commerical rifles in 30-06, then later got into specially built rifles in .308. The bullets were Sierra Match King HP's which I believe are 168 grain. Sorry if this is nitpicky.
I'd like to see the "Box of Truth" guys take this one on.
bogie
Member
Campers, I can reliably shoot flies at 200 yards...
And the type of rifle used doesn't really matter. The caliber was approximate, which given weather conditions, etc., was likely close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades... and man-portable nuclear weapons.
Bullets deflect easily. MAYBE a heavier tube could contain it, and force it down the a "bore," or maybe not. MAYBE a perfect shot would not deflect and go straight (and that can happen...). At any rate, I didn't really see that much wrong with their testing.
Just had a weird idea... Would the shock wave from a .30-06 or .308 break glass in close proximity? Could Hathcock have hit the sniper, but missed the scope?
And the type of rifle used doesn't really matter. The caliber was approximate, which given weather conditions, etc., was likely close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades... and man-portable nuclear weapons.
Bullets deflect easily. MAYBE a heavier tube could contain it, and force it down the a "bore," or maybe not. MAYBE a perfect shot would not deflect and go straight (and that can happen...). At any rate, I didn't really see that much wrong with their testing.
Just had a weird idea... Would the shock wave from a .30-06 or .308 break glass in close proximity? Could Hathcock have hit the sniper, but missed the scope?
mljdeckard
Member
As far as I'm concerned, in this case, the main thing wrong with their testing was not using a comparable scope.
MachIVshooter
Member
Just because Adam and Jamie couldn't duplicate something does not mean it hasn't happened. There is absolutely no reason a .30 caliber rifle bullet could not travel through a scope and strike the enemy in the eye, and when one considers the likely position of a sniper, the objective lens of their scope may represent a large portion of the available target. And a tube does not have to be terrribly strong to contain a bullet that is traveling very near parallel to it's internal walls. The sides of a galvanied steel trash can are no stronger than most scope tubes, and many of us have seen rifle bullets hit them at such a slight angle that the bullet followed the curve of the can briefly. So even if the obj. lens did slightly deflect Hatchcock'c bullet, the tube could very well have corrected the trajectory.
The most unlikely part of shooting an enemy sniper throuigh the scope is living long enough to do so.
The most unlikely part of shooting an enemy sniper throuigh the scope is living long enough to do so.
This, in a nutshell, explains why I cannot watch any TV police show, but I love House; I know zilch about medicine. It also explains why I find the most recent season pretty tedious...a lot of very bad cop-drama. Can we just get back to the sarcasm? Please?
And yes, Mythbusters' biggest screwup in that episode was not using a comparable scope. And, having too small of a sample size (but that is always a problem...they're on a budget).
Mike
Innova
Member
It looked like they were using barska scopes for some of the shots, and the durability of a cheap scope suprised me. Also, could the thickness of the glass and the complex of the lense have something to do with it? The variable power lenses can have a pretty large complex in the glass, and this could have caused more of a deflection than a vintage fixed power scope. My .02
rockstar.esq
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,475
Conarch I completely agree about Mythbusters and House!
I also enjoy the CSIs provided they DON'T declare the Ruger GP100 a "rare" gun, or show dessicated Horatio Caine slapping the trigger on a PTR-91 to make a 300yd+ shot on a moving vehicle!
I also enjoy the CSIs provided they DON'T declare the Ruger GP100 a "rare" gun, or show dessicated Horatio Caine slapping the trigger on a PTR-91 to make a 300yd+ shot on a moving vehicle!
Innova
Member
Lol, that is awesome. She really seems like a crazy leftist, and gets on my nerves. Tori and Grant seem cool though.
OK now you guys are getting a bit snobby and insulting Kari aint cool.
They should have said what their bullet was and they needed to use a heavy FMJ but nevertheless.
Virtually everyone on this site has a high power rifle and can get a hold of an old scope. One of you guys can step up and prove them wrong. I say you can't do it with a high velocity rifle spitzer bullet. A long FMJ round nose maybe or a heavy, slow pistol or black powder style blunt bullet maybe, but not a high velocity spitzer. I am so confident in this I say even a 338 Win Mag spitzer bullet will deflect and not go through and through.
They should have said what their bullet was and they needed to use a heavy FMJ but nevertheless.
Virtually everyone on this site has a high power rifle and can get a hold of an old scope. One of you guys can step up and prove them wrong. I say you can't do it with a high velocity rifle spitzer bullet. A long FMJ round nose maybe or a heavy, slow pistol or black powder style blunt bullet maybe, but not a high velocity spitzer. I am so confident in this I say even a 338 Win Mag spitzer bullet will deflect and not go through and through.
iiibdsiil
Member
I felt that they did a pretty good disclaimer there at the end that admitted they didn't use the correct scope, and that could have changed everything.
Master Blaster
Member
I didn't see that episode yet but I seem to recall reading at one time that each caliber has its maximum penetration distance. In other words a 150 grain .308 bullet is capable of acheiving maximum penetration of a hard object at something like 150 yards from the muzzle. The reason has to do with the stability of the projectile, and its velocity, max velocity does not equal max penetration. If they fired into the other scope at 10 yards the bullet would penetrate less than it would at 150 yards because it has not stabilized in its flight, and the higher velocity would cause it to penetrate less. So if they had fired into the other scope at 150 yards it would have gone all the way through, where as at 10 yards it would disintigrate.
I seem to recall a chart put out by the army where they tested different calibers against helmets, and the best penetration was not at point blank range but instead at 150-200 yards.
I seem to recall a chart put out by the army where they tested different calibers against helmets, and the best penetration was not at point blank range but instead at 150-200 yards.
Zen21Tao
Member
That is absolutely correct.
In Science, today most follow a standard of falsification rather than verification when it comes to proving and disproving theories. That is, instead of simply constructing an experiment designed to verify a hypothesis made by a theory to prove the theory true, scientists attempts to disprove a hypothesis to assert the theory is false. If, as another said, there is a 1 in a million chance chance that this outcome could occur, no less than 1 million attempts have to be made to attempt to disprove the theory.
Also consider the probability if there really was a 1 in 1 million chance of this happening. Over the course of history, given every sniper that has ever existed, how many single bullets have been fired at a scope? If enough rounds have been fired to equal a million or two, then it’s really easy to conceive of the possibility of this happening one or twice throughout history. Statistically, it would be much more bizarre for extremely rare occurances to never happen than for them to happen on those extremely rare occasions.
It's made pretty clear by the show that 'busted' just means they can't duplicate the feat (unless it's something absurd, like mail-order anti-gravity machines). They're having fun, not claiming to be hard science. I think they even used 'truth is stranger than fiction' in the firearms episode.
One really annoying mistake they made was in the cat burglar episode - cutting glass and putting a vacuum cup on it to make a perfect hole. I don't know if that's possible or not, but they cut a hole smaller than the vacuum they were using, and then couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work. Bigger hole, smaller vacuum, fellas.
One really annoying mistake they made was in the cat burglar episode - cutting glass and putting a vacuum cup on it to make a perfect hole. I don't know if that's possible or not, but they cut a hole smaller than the vacuum they were using, and then couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work. Bigger hole, smaller vacuum, fellas.
- Status
