Mythbusters Sniper Scope Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1U8YVWyMYY
YouTube Video
Printable View
Mythbusters Sniper Scope Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1U8YVWyMYY
YouTube Video
As far as i know the opponent of "White Feather" had an old russian WWII scope which was shorter in build. Maybe thats the reason and it depends on the rounds are used to. But very interesting to see. I very much doubt if a aspirin is enough when you´re at the recieving end...?;-)
Regards
Gunner
They redid the test in a later episode, using a PU scope. Bullet went through, somewhat.
Biggest error, though, is they did not duplicate the terminal velocity of the 173gr bullet at roughly 800yds. (They were using a 150gr M2 at about 50-100yds). Perversely enough, as velocity gets lower, often penetration goes up! They proved that on the show several times, but ignored it in this test...
I have seen old (post WW1) .30-06 ball penetration test data in which white pine boards were used. The testing was initially done at 25 or 50 yards (?) and the penetration was unexpectedly low with the bullets veering off course. The test was repeated at 200 yds and the penetration went up and the bullets traveled straight throught the boards. I vaguely recall this was in one of Hatcher's published works.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
It was concluded that the bullet required a certain amount of time/distance to fully stabilize. And that at short range the bullet tip is rotating in a circle around the long axis of the bullet causing the bullet to veer off course when striking a hard target.
Regards
Jim
Hi jmoore,Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
you´re right, i forgot about the "shooting-in-the-water-test". Where they found out that the old and slow .38Special went much deeper into the water than the much faster modern bullets!
Regards
Gunner
It was more like 50 feet!Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Bullets yaw about their axis as they leave the muzzle much like a top does when you first release it. This is called 'going to sleep" and it takes a .30-06 about a 100 yds to fully stabilize. The .30-40 Krag with a 220 gr bullets was able to penetrate 24" of oak at 200 yds! I suspect the id the MB crew were to set up a test at 3 or 400 yds, the bullet would penetrate any scope they test. That would make hitting a 1" dia scope a bit of a problem and I imagine that is why they do it at 50 feet. They still could use a reduced velocity load to simulate 400 yd velocity.
FWIW according to the book SGT Hathcock was only about 200yards from the enemy sniper when he made the shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Regards,
Jim
I must have mis-remembered that bit. Still, that would put the terminal velocity at, um, roughly 2200-2300 fps?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGaynor
No argument. Even at 200 yards the flight would have probably stabilized compared to the short range mythbusters used.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Regards,
Jim
Hathcock made that shot just north of Hill 55, and both the body and the rifle were recovered with numerous witnesses. Hathcock kept the rifle and scope as a war prize, but it was stolen from storage. Since the rifle serial number is known, anyone trying to sell that rifle/scope had better have a good attorney on hand. It was never a matter of just Hathcock's word, which would still have been good enough for me, but the verification by many witnesses. I for one, nor the Corps, could care less what the goofy Mythbusters do, since it was never a myth.
Jim
So is the estimated distance recorded in any of the readily available sources? Checked two books so far, but no range is noted. I don't disbelieve the story, just curious!
See One Shot-One Kill, Charles Sasser & Craig Roberts, Pocket Books, 1990 Pp. 15. "Next to me [Hathcock], I felt Burke give an involuntary start as the end of the gully two hundred yards from us exploded. There was no mistaking where the .30-06 slug caught the sniper: [headshot].
Elsewhere in the account Sgt. Hathcock describes the lengthy stalk then finally sighting a glint of light "like someone flashing a mirror or something".
Regards,
Jim
Ach! Thanks! Dang, how did I skim over that???
I may be wrong here but I believe that Carlos would have been using FMJ bullets, in accordance with the Geneva Convention(s). The MBs were, I believe, using commercial loads with 'hunting' bullets and in at least one of the shots using an HP bullet. Soft-point and certainly HP bullets would be expected to "blow up" on the lenses. I have no reason to doubt Carlos' shot.
I may be wrong here but I believe that Carlos would have been using FMJ bullets, in accordance with the Geneva Convention(s). The MBs were, I believe, using commercial loads with 'hunting' bullets and in at least one of the shots using an HP bullet. Soft-point and certainly HP bullets would be expected to "blow up" on the lenses. I have no reason to doubt Carlos' shot.
Nobody who has ever done any serious shooting with REAL rifles would doubt Hathcock's shot.
The problems only come in along with a generation which knows nothing, questions everything and believes implicitly anything they see on television.
There really ought to be a televison series questioning the current news. Call it "Truth or Propaganda?".
.
I'm not sure doubt of the shot itself prompted the Mythbuster's test. Rather it was a question of terminal ballistics. Considering they had no clue as to the type of scope used, apparently, I can see where questions would arise. I.e., did the bullet itself cause the wounding or was it secondary projectiles? Did the bullet exit the scope tube before piercing the ocular glass or did it break out of the side of the tube? Did the bullet exit intact or in fragments, and, if so, were the fragments capable of a fatal wound? Minutiea, but interesting in a grisly (or forensics) sort of way.
BTW, now that the distance is known, who's going to volunteer to round up a bunch of Soviet scopes and try again? This time get all the parameters correct and see what the likely outcomes were. No doubt the sniper had a bad day, but just HOW did his day end? I reckon there could be several end results that vary on very small differences in the impact. Too bad there's no real practical value to the experiment.