http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong)
Amazing shot.
FACK! :o
Check out the slo mo recoil on the 50.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q76G7F4dV8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q76G7F4dV8)
Damn. . .
That recoil is insane :o
And I thought my 270 WSM hurt after 15 rounds a few wks ago.
I still think Hathcock is the superior shot
given the explanation of air density in that article
the rifle used
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Tac50.jpg/300px-Tac50.jpg)
The specially designed ammo
and he only beat the shot by 144meters
not to mention he missed twice
Hathcock did it in seriously denser air
with crappier ammo in an old M2 with inferior Unertl scope than the Leupold on that Tac .50
Quote from: Mother on December 08, 2008, 10:22:51 PM
I still think Hathcock is the superior shot
given the explanation of air density in that article
the rifle used
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Tac50.jpg/300px-Tac50.jpg)
The specially designed ammo
and he only beat the shot by 144meters
not to mention he missed twice
Hathcock did it in seriously denser air
with crappier ammo in an old M2 with inferior Unertl scope than the Leupold on that Tac .50
100% agreement. While not to minimize Furlon's shot which in and of itself is staggering. The Hathcock record was the bettershot due to equipment used.
Reach out, reach out and touch someone...
[cheeky]
Another 3-4 hours of my life spent on Wikipedia. Again.
Fascinating. I don't really feel strongly about guns one way or another, so I kinda feel like this guy:
Peace Activist Has To Admit Barrett .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Is Pretty Cool (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28181)
The women snipers of WWII make for interesting reading too - Tanya Baramzina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Baramzina) was integrated vertically in the war.
"Born in the city of Glazov, Baramzina graduated from the Glazov State Pedagogical Institute and spent two years teaching a kindergarten class in a village school at Kachkashur. In 1940, she enrolled at University in Perm, and when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, she began to attend nursing courses in the evening, while training to become a sharpshooter."
The wind call on the shot in Afghanistan would be very difficult to say the least. With no foliage it is extremely hard to see the winds at that distance. Using mirage at that range is tuff as well, because you are looking through 2k of mirage. I have spent a good deal of time in that terrain. I am a former 8541 and presently a SOTIC level I instructor. I have alittle working knowledge on the subject.
Quote from: kopfjager on December 09, 2008, 03:02:59 PM
The wind call on the shot in Afghanistan would be very difficult to say the least. With no foliage it is extremely hard to see the winds at that distance. Using mirage at that range is tuff as well, because you are looking through 2k of mirage. I have spent a good deal of time in that terrain. I am a former 8541 and presently a SOTIC level I instructor. I have alittle working knowledge on the subject.
perfect
so you are the guy to ask
in that arena of a millionth of a percentile
who is the better shot? Furlong or Hathcock?
Iono, when you put it Mother's way and say the previous record was done with crappy equipment (relatively speaking) it sounds more like luck. ;D Not to say that the equipment was junk since I don't know anything about the subject. If the guy corrected twice and then hit, I can see how it's skill with maybe some luck. If the guy gets it on the first shot and never does it again (neither of them did, actually) it's hard to tell if it was a fluke. I guess that could be said about either, though. Until it is repeated by the same person it's hard to tell if it's a fluke.
Quote from: Mother on December 08, 2008, 10:22:51 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Tac50.jpg/300px-Tac50.jpg)
Tahts an actual sniper rifle vs this thing only a mad man can dream of
(http://www.bobtuley.com/50bmg914.jpg)
Quote from: erkishhorde on December 09, 2008, 08:02:40 PM
Iono, when you put it Mother's way and say the previous record was done with crappy equipment (relatively speaking) it sounds more like luck. ;D Not to say that the equipment was junk since I don't know anything about the subject. If the guy corrected twice and then hit, I can see how it's skill with maybe some luck. If the guy gets it on the first shot and never does it again (neither of them did, actually) it's hard to tell if it was a fluke. I guess that could be said about either, though. Until it is repeated by the same person it's hard to tell if it's a fluke.
Probably not much luck in either of those. 99% skill, 1% luck. Conditions vary but that's what they train for, not to make a 2400yrd. shot in dead calm with the exact same round every shot, no change at all. You could train a lot of upper level shooters to do that. Maybe. If anyone thinks different, just go to your local shooting range and put a couple of groups on paper at a few hundred yards. If they have that distance. 200 to 300 yds. looks like a mile when your shooting. 10X that is RIDICULOUS.
Then take into account the same type of conditions that those guys deal with (wind, light, air density, physical condition of shooter and the environment they are shooting from) at those distances, but at 200 to 300 yrds. and you begin to have an appreciation for the skill involved. Some guys can't print even at that shorter distance, no less put an actual group on target. Then go into the field and try putting a deer or elk on the ground at those distances and it goes up another level yet. Needless to say, that's a lot of skill for both of them.
Quote from: erkishhorde on December 09, 2008, 08:02:40 PM
Iono, when you put it Mother's way and say the previous record was done with crappy equipment (relatively speaking) it sounds more like luck.
He had 93 confirmed kills and over 300 probable kills. I don't see a whole a whole lot involving luck there.
Quote from: Mother on December 08, 2008, 10:22:51 PM
I still think Hathcock is the superior shot
given the explanation of air density in that article
the rifle used
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Tac50.jpg/300px-Tac50.jpg)
The specially designed ammo
and he only beat the shot by 144meters
not to mention he missed twice
Hathcock did it in seriously denser air
with crappier ammo in an old M2 with inferior Unertl scope than the Leupold on that Tac .50
YUP! [thumbsup]
Quote from: Timmy Tucker on December 10, 2008, 08:38:33 AM
He had 93 confirmed kills and over 300 probable kills. I don't see a whole a whole lot involving luck there.
Also, considering that if he missed the first shot, he most likely would have been shot by the opposing sniper. Which I see as even more proof of talent and not "luck". Not to mention the ability to handle some serious pressure in the "snap" shot scenario.
and if we are talking records then we need to bring Vasily Zaytsev into the conversation with 242 verified kills.
Quote from: hypurone on December 10, 2008, 10:15:56 AM
YUP! [thumbsup]
Also, considering that if he missed the first shot, he most likely would have been shot by the opposing sniper.
What?
Quote from: kopfjager on December 10, 2008, 05:39:03 PM
What?
I agree with the statement from Mother. And, I was referring to the incident where Hathcock was being "sniped" by another sniper and made his "infamous" shot thru the other snipers scope to elaborate my feeling on the guys' skill vs luck...
Quote from: hypurone on December 11, 2008, 08:33:20 AM
I agree with the statement from Mother. And, I was referring to the incident where Hathcock was being "sniped" by another sniper and made his "infamous" shot thru the other snipers scope to elaborate my feeling on the guys' skill vs luck...
i think mythbusters busted that myth.
Quote from: derby on December 11, 2008, 09:14:04 AM
i think mythbusters busted that myth.
Well, they revisited it because they did not duplicate conditions and use a similar scope. They WERE then able to pierce a similar scope and penetrate the dummy's skull by 2 inches. This was deemed deep enough to kill a man:
MythBusters reenactment
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008)
In an episode of the fourth season of the television show MythBusters (29 November 2006, Episode 67), hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman attempted to test the feasibility of shooting through the scope of another rifle, citing the confirmed Hathcock incident of shooting a North Vietnamese sniper through the sniper's scope. They were unable to replicate the results in the story using the modern equipment they had on hand, so they declared the myth "busted." However, they did not replicate the exact conditions of Hathcock's combat incident. The MythBusters did not take into consideration powder loads, bullet weight, muzzle velocity, angle, or variations in air pressure and density.[citation needed] On the show, they conceded that they were not shooting at the same scope that Hathcock shot at and stated that under the exactly ideal conditions and with extreme luck, the shot may have been possible. In the episode aired on March 21, 2007, the MythBusters revisited this myth and confirmed that it was possible; however, they had to use armor-piercing rounds to fully penetrate the scope. They used a vintage scope this time, which was smaller than modern scopes, and Hyneman successfully fired a bullet through the scope. The bullet penetrated the ballistic gel dummy's face to a depth of two inches, which would be lethal to a human. However, it should be noted that on the March 21, 2007 episode, Hyneman used an M1 Garand chambered in .30-06 Springfield, whereas Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70 chambered in .30-06 Springfield. Additionally, Hyneman was only able to complete the shot successfully when he fired an armor-piercing round, while Hathcock stated in interviews that he would normally use only standard military ball ammunition. Because of these caveats and the lack of solid evidence on this specific incident, the hosts of the television show declared that the retest showed the myth to only be "plausible" rather than "confirmed".
still not an "exact" duplication but I still fall on the "he did it" side....
Sorry. Unless the other shooter was (I'll be nice. 100yds or less) The bullet will not be traveling flat enough to go straight through a scope. It is a "Bullshit story".
Quote from: kopfjager on December 11, 2008, 12:07:10 PM
Sorry. Unless the other shooter was (I'll be nice. 100yds or less) The bullet will not be traveling flat enough to go straight through a scope. It is a "Bullshit story".
It could enter the front and rebound upwards enough and essentially be directed through the scope.
Quote from: MrIncredible on December 11, 2008, 12:37:39 PM
It could enter the front and rebound upwards enough and essentially be directed through the scope.
When that size round hit a scope, it would be like an explosion. It wouldn't riccochet.
Quote from: kopfjager on December 11, 2008, 12:49:54 PM
When that size round hit a scope, it would be like an explosion. It wouldn't riccochet.
Pfft-you have no way of knowing enough details to call bullshit. The sniper who got shot through the scope may have been aiming upwards, thus negating the "fall" of the bullet.
The bullet may have broken apart, with a large enough piece making it through the scope.
The shrapnel from the scope itself may have been enough to take out the shooter.
And who's to say it can't actually richochet?
Quote from: MrIncredible on December 11, 2008, 01:21:12 PM
Pfft-you have no way of knowing enough details to call bullshit. The sniper who got shot through the scope may have been aiming upwards, thus negating the "fall" of the bullet.
The bullet may have broken apart, with a large enough piece making it through the scope.
The shrapnel from the scope itself may have been enough to take out the shooter.
And who's to say it can't actually richochet?
A former 8541 (that's the USMC MOS for scout-snipers) and SF sniper instructor. The guy knows what he's talking about.
Quote from: MrIncredible on December 11, 2008, 01:21:12 PM
Pfft-you have no way of knowing enough details to call bullshit. The sniper who got shot through the scope may have been aiming upwards, thus negating the "fall" of the bullet.
The bullet may have broken apart, with a large enough piece making it through the scope.
The shrapnel from the scope itself may have been enough to take out the shooter.
And who's to say it can't actually richochet?
I guess anything is possible.
Quote from: MrIncredible on December 11, 2008, 01:21:12 PM
Pfft-you have no way of knowing enough details to call bullshit. The sniper who got shot through the scope may have been aiming upwards, thus negating the "fall" of the bullet.
The bullet may have broken apart, with a large enough piece making it through the scope.
The shrapnel from the scope itself may have been enough to take out the shooter.
And who's to say it can't actually richochet?
+1
Ive shot plenty of .308 at various things. Unless you know the conditions of the shot, material he was shooting at, his position relative to the enemy sniper and a whole slew of other things. Who is to say it cant ricochet?
aside from that, you have to re-read the story. It was a counter sniper situation. Why would he aim for the scope? easy, casue the scope was the only thing to aim at. At that point, the scope is just an extention of the enemys body. The enemy sniper was laying bullets down range already, what are you gonna do? shoot and hope some part of the bullet hits him, breaks his scope, fragments, etc. or wait?
Big make the beast with two backsin' deal.
I once hit an archery target TWICE at 20 paces while unloading an entire magazine of from my Grandfather's .45.
;D
i can pee into a toliet 6 feet away with the intial stream hitting dead center....... b itch [laugh] (no offense just sounded funny)
Quote from: Timmy Tucker on December 10, 2008, 08:38:33 AM
He had 93 confirmed kills and over 300 probable kills. I don't see a whole a whole lot involving luck there.
Indeed its the number of kills that determines a 'good' sniper
Snipers go to great lengths to conceal their position, a large amount of their training is dedicated to this.
In the case being discussed, it looks as tho both sides failed to do so.
Who spotted who first, how long did the first to be spotted take to spot the source of the incomming.
Quote from: kopfjager on December 11, 2008, 12:07:10 PM
Sorry. Unless the other shooter was (I'll be nice. 100yds or less) The bullet will not be traveling flat enough to go straight through a scope. It is a "Bullshit story".
It's not bullshit. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters.
Quote from: KEH on December 15, 2008, 02:10:29 PM
It's not bullshit. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters.
I don't think he's saying that you couldn't hit the scope, I think he's saying that the fall of the bullet would not allow it to exit out the other end cleanly.
^^^ [laugh] [laugh]
Everything can be said with Star Wars quotes lol.
I dont think either sniper failed, myabe its a mix of words...there are sharp shooters and snipers.
a Sniper's objective is not the same as sharpshooters. in this case, the enemy sniper was more of a sharpshooter. he wasnt aiming at anyone in particular. just wnated to take out the bad guys (us, in their eyes).
A snipers objective is usually high priority targets, and intelligence gathering. Could you use them as sharpshooters? sure, but why? You put to much training into them to just pick of targets. Everyone (knock knock Marine Corps) should be trained as a shooter first. Which is why a Sniper's skill should be utlize properly, aka their ability to get in deep, and observe without being detected.
Soooooo..
like a ninja?
[laugh]
Quote from: Monsterlover on December 15, 2008, 07:37:57 PM
Soooooo..
like a ninja?
[laugh]
[laugh] [laugh]
Exactly. Ninjas with guns.
**shudders at the thought**
Quote from: Timmy Tucker on December 15, 2008, 07:40:49 PM
[laugh] [laugh]
Exactly. Ninjas with guns.
**shudders at the thought**
HOLY CRAP. :o Gun + ninja = sniper.
Anyone ever stop and notice that this Furlong is one of the greatest aptronyms ever?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/furlong (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/furlong)
What if his name was Rob Miles?