Link for thise missed mythbusters on sniper scope

what caliber was he using? Based on the show clip there it appears .223, however what would have been Hathcock's? 30cal? if so that bullet has A LOT more weight behind it and the expansion would have not been so severe as the round fired seem to just explode inside the scope.....make you think about that..also how far away was Carlos when he shot the guy..100..200+ yards?
 
I call for a revisit to that myth! Calibre is one thing, but what type of bullet was that? I would bet steel core 30cal would rip right through that scope.
 
Did you notice that the targeted scope was quite large and long.The scope that Hathcock would have shot at would have been much shorter.And Hathcock most likely was shooting a 30/06.
 
You can indeed put a bullet through the centre of a riflescope. I watched first hand as PGW Steve did it to a defective scope last summer. :)
 
The scope that Hathcock shot through was a fixed 3.5 power scope that was a lot shorter in length, and wouldn't have as many lens assemblies inside.

Also Hathcock was shooting a Win. M70 in 30.06 Springfield with Lake City Match ammo using a 173gr FMJBT match bullet.

To properly bust this myth, you would have to use the same items.They make no mention of the type of ammo used or Caliber used.:confused:

This is the type of scope that Hathcock shot through:


IIRC, the Hathcock shot was maybe 400 yards......

He recovered the rifle and had it tagged for him to take home as a war trophy.Sadly the rifle disappeared and he never saw it again.

I see no reason to doubt the Gunny. He was a man of integrity.

From the Mythbuster forum;
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/9371955558/p/7

SKBY.
 
I got an e-mail from Kalinka optics. They said well before the "busters" proceeded to do the testing, that they were contacted to provide the material for the test. The scope being one of them...the mount the other...

They had a poll for a long time on their site about it. They specified that they were not to use AP rounds, as those are seldom in use with snipers, but they had to go down with the steel core as well.

A variable power scope - like those pictured - are of course harder to break, not to mention the length - already mentioned in the above posts....

I found that most of the swows contain a huge dose of empirism, and the substitutions are endless. I personally find that more tha half of the tests they perform are flawed by default.

A bunch of guys that make money by entertaining the faint of heart.
 
prairieguy said:
You can indeed put a bullet through the centre of a riflescope. I watched first hand as PGW Steve did it to a defective scope last summer. :)
Click to expand...

I have that video somewhere... I'll try to fish it up and host it... :D
 
The whole episode #67 also had another myth of 2 bullets meeting together in the mid-air, I still can't find the whole episode

as for my thoughts on the scope myth, I think that they should've used an older version fied-power scope (with less glass in it, and bigger/straighter tube), plus a bigger caliber :cool:
 
I have to wonder if it wouldn't do better from FARTHER away.

A slower, heavier bullet might have a better chance than one impacting at hight speed.
 
Foxer said:
I have to wonder if it wouldn't do better from FARTHER away.

A slower, heavier bullet might have a better chance than one impacting at hight speed.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it would make busting the myth near impossible using the same equipment they used back then (caliber, rifle , bullet, scopes, etc.) The scopes were smaller then, more like 32mm I'd guess. Plus how many lens did they have in them back then and what make was the un-lucky snipers scope and how many did it have?

I still think he did it myself, he is a legend after all, even without this shot. My hat is off to him.
 
Last edited:
I don't doubt Carlos in the least. Because they disproved a part of the myth with completely different equipment under completely different conditions doesn't disprove what Carlos actually did.

-Rohann
 
Couldn't be a .233, you can see the rifle recoil much more than would be the case with a .233. The only myth they busted was that modern, variable power scopes can take a bullet. The tight space of the middle of the scope, combined with the crushed glass looks to me like an excellent place to trap a bullet.

A straight-walled, fixed power scope would perform differently.
 
i agree with the scope vintage argument. i've got a 60's weaver scope on a cooey .22. it has a 3/4" tube and no bell oblective. from what i understand not too many lenses in it. and built with a good steel tube.

it deffinetly wouldn't be out of the question for a 178gr '06 bullet to go through it.

what kind of scope did the NVA use during vietnam? thats the scope the bullet went through, not Hathcocks.

i,ve got "Silent Warrior" in front of me now. Carlos Hathcocks Rifle was a M70 in 30-06 with a 10X Unertl scope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom