Rob Furlong WOW

[hypurone]

I still think Hathcock is the superior shot

given the explanation of air density in that article

the rifle used



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! 

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.

[Kopfjäger]

YUP! 

Also, considering that if he missed the first shot, he most likely would have been shot by the opposing sniper.

What?

[hypurone]

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...

[derby]

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.

[hypurone]

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....

[Kopfjäger]

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".

[Popeye the Sailor]

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.

[Kopfjäger]

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.

[Popeye the Sailor]

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?

[CowboyBeebop]

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.

[Kopfjäger]

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.

[He Man]

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?

[DucHead]

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.

[He Man]

i can pee into a toliet 6 feet away with the intial stream hitting dead center....... b itch  (no offense just sounded funny)

[Capo]

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