Mythbusters Sniper Scope Test

[jmoore]

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!

[JGaynor]

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

[jmoore]

Ach! Thanks! Dang, how did I skim over that???

[old crow]

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.

[old crow]

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.

[smellie]

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?".
.

[jmoore]

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.