Carlos Hathcock UPDATE
Was talking with a local expert today whos own a Barrett 50BMG and I was talking guns with him. He said he has to pay $1500 a year for a permit to own silencers and full auto guns. He did not explain to my satisfaction why he had to pay this fee. He said such guns and silencers had to be locked up and he had to check them out or something to that effect. He still hasn't explained it to my satisfaction so maybe next time I get up with him.
OK, about my subject. He also said that Carlos used a silencer on his rifle and loaded it to subsonic speed. I told him BS since a subsonic round would not go 1/2 mile, nust less kill someone but he insists he is right. I just don't think so but can find nothing much on the internet.
One thing I did find which I DO NOT believe is about him shooting thru an enemy sniper's scope. That is just too hard to swallow. How did he know he shot thru the scope of the other sniper?? Did he just jump up and run up there to confirm his kill?? I just don't think so. I believe a true sniper would have just snuck away to live another day. His record was something like 90+ confirmed and 300 or so "possibles". Like, why "possibles"? Didn't some run up and see where they were shot? Who went up to see the dead sniper shot thru his scope? Hard for me to believe. Tom
UPDATE: Our local paper is now available online at: yalobushanewsonline.com You can read about NECAISE by going to NEWS - ARCHIVES - NECAISE and click on the headline. I think that is how I reached it! You can also read about all the other news in our fair city. Tom
OK, about my subject. He also said that Carlos used a silencer on his rifle and loaded it to subsonic speed. I told him BS since a subsonic round would not go 1/2 mile, nust less kill someone but he insists he is right. I just don't think so but can find nothing much on the internet.
One thing I did find which I DO NOT believe is about him shooting thru an enemy sniper's scope. That is just too hard to swallow. How did he know he shot thru the scope of the other sniper?? Did he just jump up and run up there to confirm his kill?? I just don't think so. I believe a true sniper would have just snuck away to live another day. His record was something like 90+ confirmed and 300 or so "possibles". Like, why "possibles"? Didn't some run up and see where they were shot? Who went up to see the dead sniper shot thru his scope? Hard for me to believe. Tom
UPDATE: Our local paper is now available online at: yalobushanewsonline.com You can read about NECAISE by going to NEWS - ARCHIVES - NECAISE and click on the headline. I think that is how I reached it! You can also read about all the other news in our fair city. Tom
0
-
quote:Originally posted by rsr1950
please don't say anything derogatory about Gunny Hathcock or any other Marine,sniper or any Marine, soldier salior or airman who was in viet nam. haven't you people hated us long enough? Gunny Hathcock is no longer here to defend himself, you wern't there when the shot was taken,so you really don't know do you? why don't you just leave us alone.we arn't bothering you. you believe what you want, i could care less.
Amen, Brother. It is amazing how many arm-chair generals still think that we were/are some kind of demonic murderers. [:(!]
U S Navy Permanent Disability Retired List
Viet Nam
Panama
Desert Shield/Desert Storm
0 -
Personally, I do not see the shot through the scope as being far fetched at all. Taking a shot at and hitting what one might determine the center of a "glint" - (or a "red spot" that might be seen by opposing shooters using the old infrared technology at nigh) is not unbelieveable to me. Amazing shots are made literally everyday somewhere, by someone, boy, girl, man, or woman. I don't see Carlos' shot as a big deal, however, I do see it as something that other people might crow about.
Our military has a lot of highly proficient snipers, but Hathcock falls into a special category of them for more than one reason. One is due to his work with Jim Land in Hawaii. This work led to Major Archie VanWinkle, (MOH recipient), who was the OIC of Brigade Schools at K-Bay, HI, to crank up a Sniper School in 1962. One of the objectives of this school was to train Marines in sniper warfare so they could provide like functions for their Brigade units, and another was an attempt to get these students a secondary MOS which was held by Marksmanship Instructors - this so that they could teach sniping in addition to ordinary marksmanship. Although Jim Land and Carlos were not members of this class of Marine snipers, it is highly doubtful that it would have ever existed without their hard work and dedication.
The OIC of this class of students was 2ndLt. Dave Willis, his assistant OIC was 2ndLt. VanOrden. The efforts of Lt. Willis to get these newly trained snipers a special MOS failed at this point in time, however, his efforts specific to this goal was rewarded years later when he was at Quantico and Jim Land was at HQMC. Due to their efforts, with the likes of Carlos Hathcock, again, plus another Marine trained and highly skilled in sniper warfare was appointed to crank up the Marine Corps Scout Sniper School at Quantico. Carlos Hathcock's efforts toward advancing sniping skills among Marines extends into all U.S. military sniping programs.0 -
quote:Originally posted by phillip
Didnt Myth Busters bust the shot thru the scope story?
Yes and no. They tried it with a more modern scope (variable power IIRC) and couldn't do it. The internal construction of the older low single power PU soviet scope is much lighter (fewer thinner lenses).0 -
The disparity between the 93 confirmed and over 300 probables was that in order to be confirmed you had to have a witness which I beleive had to be an officer. Hathcock was known to go solo and any of these kills would not be confirmed. 0 -
With respect to snipers using a silencer, the reason to do isn't that it will silence the shot. . .you can't "silence" a supersonic round.
The reason is that by reducing the muzzle sound (as opposed to the supersonic "crack" of the passing bullet) you make it that much harder for an observer to pinpoint the source of the shot.0 -
Mission: to get the sniper leader. Hathcock did it. It wasn't a routine sniping patrol. He wasn't interested in the "kill count" when he brought the rifle back inside the wire (Yep, he did, broken lenses, brain tissue dried blood and all). Rifle was sent to "intel", and he didn't know the disposition after that.
He figured he needed solid evidence of the mission being sucessfully completed.
Also, the above story was related to me in the '60's while I was in Vietnam about some "sniper" (no name at the time) in country that accomplished a through-the-scope shot. Long before any publication about Hathcock was ever contemplated. Best, Joe0 -
As to the Gunny going solo! Horse hockey! Sorry but this is one thing that he definatly preached against. Marine Snipers don't work alone and they most definatly didn't during the Vietnam War. If a Sniper thought he was going out alone he wound up dead. Snipers to the viet-cong and NVA were a meal ticket, kill a sniper and it was $75 to $300 dollars in their pocket. And for snipers like Hathcock, Tom Casey, Chuck Mawhinney, it was more around $10,000 to $30,000 for their head. Most snipers worked in two man teams sometimes more and they were almost always attached to a fire team or ambush! 0 -
quote:As to the Gunny going solo! Horse hockey! Sorry but this is one thing that he definatly preached against. Marine Snipers don't work alone and they most definatly didn't during the Vietnam War. If a Sniper thought he was going out alone he wound up dead.
jtmarine0831,
He preached against it and he also preached for the two man team...but he also did some (now) high profile missions alone. Nuts if you were to ask me, but the general point that he got across and is successful today is that snipers are an incredibly effective weapon on the battlefield.0 -
sounds pretty much like the b.s. artist that tried to sell my neighbor a model 700 in 30-06 for 1,000 bucks, he claim he could hit a pie plate at a mile with it, and with iron sights, the rifle was that good
i offered to wager that grand that he couldn't hit a barn with it at a mile, haven't heard back yet0 -
"Here is my last take on the subject. I am not an expert on trajectories but unless the shot is point blank, the round is going up in an arc. The longer the shot, the greater the arc. Unless the shot at scope is pointed up at the same angle, the bullet CANNOT go thru the scope from end to end. That is my take on it anyway."
I don't think it went GLASS TO GLASS as in if it were all done point blank and in a vise or something0 -
quote:Originally posted by jabronij3
"Here is my last take on the subject. I am not an expert on trajectories but unless the shot is point blank, the round is going up in an arc. The longer the shot, the greater the arc. Unless the shot at scope is pointed up at the same angle, the bullet CANNOT go thru the scope from end to end. That is my take on it anyway."
I don't think it went GLASS TO GLASS as in if it were all done point blank and in a vise or something
I am sure if this account has the merrit that is acclaimed, that once the bullet hit the objective lense, that the scope tube pretty much acted like a funnel. So yes, it would have gone lens to lens.0 -
quote:I am sure if this account has the merrit that is acclaimed, that once the bullet hit the objective lense, that the scope tube pretty much acted like a funnel. So yes, it would have gone lens to lens.
Not necessarily. If the bullet hit the lens right it could easily deflect through the side of the scope rather than follow the tube. Which brings me to my second thought. Because of a lenses curvature it would be very difficuly to get a straight on, lense through lense shot. The bullet is gonna want to deflect in almost every instance. In my mind it would make more sense that the bullet did indeed deflect(with some luck) off the front lense through the back and that the scope was NOT pointed directly at Carlos.I think the chances of a lucky deflection are probably better than the chances of no deflection. This would also make more sense as the glare from glass generally occures when glass is at an angle to the viewer though that is somewhat dependent on the angle of the sun.0 -
I am no expert nor a sniper but here are some thoughts.
The bullet does travel in an arc to its target-no one is in dispute of that. However, the arc is VERY gradual over the course of the bullet's flight to it's target. It would not be dropping inches in an arc over the one foot or so that it would take to go lengthwise through the scope. It would be tiny increments, certainly less than 1/16 of an inch, which would certainly allow it to hit both lenses and go into it's target's eye.
If the scope was pointed in another direction other than at Sgt Hathcock, unless it was VERY nearly in his direction, the sides of the objective end of the scope tube would certainly be damaged if there was enough deflection (and energy) to redirect the bullet through the tube.
Our military snipers have shot thousands of rounds at enemies over the years. It is certainly possible that out of all those rounds fired, one was direct enough to go straight through a scope tube.
Finally, as noted before, Sgt Hathcock is no longer here to question and he was the closest thing to an eyewitness and was a true hero even though modest one, why don't we accept the facts from those that were closest to the incident. We should honor him rather than question him.
If not, wait until you die and hopefully, you can ask him yourself.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dakotashooter2
quote:I am sure if this account has the merrit that is acclaimed, that once the bullet hit the objective lense, that the scope tube pretty much acted like a funnel. So yes, it would have gone lens to lens.
Not necessarily. If the bullet hit the lens right it could easily deflect through the side of the scope rather than follow the tube. Which brings me to my second thought. Because of a lenses curvature it would be very difficuly to get a straight on, lense through lense shot. The bullet is gonna want to deflect in almost every instance. In my mind it would make more sense that the bullet did indeed deflect(with some luck) off the front lense through the back and that the scope was NOT pointed directly at Carlos.I think the chances of a lucky deflection are probably better than the chances of no deflection. This would also make more sense as the glare from glass generally occures when glass is at an angle to the viewer though that is somewhat dependent on the angle of the sun.
That is all good in theory for a ray of light, but we are talking about a bullet here, that has speed, mass, energy, and momentum on its side, and I am sure that the scope did not have tempered bullet proof glass in it. Have you ever seen how a twig, or small branch can deflect a bullet, untill it restabalizes? I am thinking the scope tube was enough to deflect the bullet at least once, if not several times with in its length, acting much like a funnel.0 -
GUNFUNCO, I like your reasoning on the gradual desent compared to forward travel of the bullet. You are right on to a point. This senario is right on at shorter distances or with your faster, flatter shooting calibers that are more popular today, but this is most likely a 168gr Match 30-06 round. At the 500yd distance this shot was taken the trajectory isn't very flat. Just say he was useing a 200yd zero, the bullet would have done fell over 4 feet below the line of sight. And back to shooting through the objective lense as mentioned before, Hathcock shot at the reflection of light that came from the other snipers scope which means that he most likely had not spotted Hathcock yet. The funny thing about shooting through glass is that even though it is a hard surface, it takes a shallow angle(45 degrees or less) to deflect a bullet even downrange. The FBI has done extensive research on shooting through glass due to sniper applications in terroist and hostage situations and it was found that a bullet ( unless deflected ofcourse) always takes the shortest distance through the glass. And in therory this would put the bullet on course to travel pretty much straight down the lense tube which then brings the idea of the tube acting like a funnel into play and right into the enemy sniper's face. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jtmarine0831
GUNFUNCO, I like your reasoning on the gradual desent compared to forward travel of the bullet. You are right on to a point. This senario is right on at shorter distances or with your faster, flatter shooting calibers that are more popular today, but this is most likely a 168gr Match 30-06 round. At the 500yd distance this shot was taken the trajectory isn't very flat. Just say he was useing a 200yd zero, the bullet would have done fell over 4 feet below the line of sight. And back to shooting through the objective lense as mentioned before, Hathcock shot at the reflection of light that came from the other snipers scope which means that he most likely had not spotted Hathcock yet. The funny thing about shooting through glass is that even though it is a hard surface, it takes a shallow angle(45 degrees or less) to deflect a bullet even downrange. The FBI has done extensive research on shooting through glass due to sniper applications in terroist and hostage situations and it was found that a bullet ( unless deflected ofcourse) always takes the shortest distance through the glass. And in therory this would put the bullet on course to travel pretty much straight down the lense tube which then brings the idea of the tube acting like a funnel into play and right into the enemy sniper's face.
OK, goes to show how much every one knows about military weapons...especially sniper rifles and cartriges for which they were chambered. The bulk of the model 24's were in 7.62NATO. One of the most inherently accurate round today. Back in the Gunnys day, I am not 100% sure, but I do believe the Mil-dot reticle was in use.
Further more I do know that the 7.62 was not the only round being use, but it's big brother was alos in action, though very limited use...the 300 Win Mag.
Your numbers are a little little decietful with a 200 yard zero, and a 500 yard range. These boys are trained to use the MOA adjustments with no hold over, after the range has been calculated. A 50 inch drop at 500 yards is only 10 MOA, or only about 8 clicks worth of elevation.
The only thing that one has left to question would be the accuracy of the weapon, and shooter combination. I believe they speak for themselves.
In stead of theorizing about it, why don't you fella's get a good rifle, and a mil-dot scope, and go find some extended ranges to shoot on, and see for yourself?0 -
Well, I do have one other tidbit. Why did he shoot at "a glimmer of light"? I thought snipers were supposed to be sure of their target. A glimmer of light does not sound very substantual for a target. Maybe snipers can start training on glimmers of light. Should be very interesting on how to verify hits on glimmers of light.
I know CH is a real hero but could it be that the story got embellished somewhere along the line and telling of the story? Could it be a Marine actully puffed up this story?? Naw, of course not.
I don't have time right now to look up trajectory of his round but how far above line of sight would his mid range trajectory be? Just curious. Tom0 -
quote:Originally posted by tccox
Well, I do have one other tidbit. Why did he shoot at "a glimmer of light"? I thought snipers were supposed to be sure of their target. A glimmer of light does not sound very substantual for a target. Maybe snipers can start training on glimmers of light. Should be very interesting on how to verify hits on glimmers of light.
I know CH is a real hero but could it be that the story got embellished somewhere along the line and telling of the story? Could it be a Marine actully puffed up this story?? Naw, of course not.
I don't have time right now to look up trajectory of his round but how far above line of sight would his mid range trajectory be? Just curious. Tom
tccox,
In the book the two men, Burke and Hathcock, had just been fired upon by the NVA sniper. Anything suspicious at that point was a target because they knew he was there and knew the general vicinity. I find no mention of the distance in the book so I'm not sure where the 500 yard info came from. Marine Sniper just indicates it was a downhill shot and that Burke immidiately saw the man was killed. The rifle, a Mosin Nagant, was presented to Capt. Land that night, so at least three people saw this mythical scope.0 -
Hathcock's equipment: 8pwr Unertl. No recoil spring (his preference). Used AP because the match ammo was unavailable. Win. M70.
Don't think vintage Unertl's came with any other reticle other than crosshairs. Joe0 -
quote:Originally posted by givette
Hathcock's equipment: 8pwr Unertl. No recoil spring (his preference). Used AP because the match ammo was unavailable. Win. M70.
Don't think vintage Unertl's came with any other reticle other than crosshairs. Joe
Marine Sniper says Land obtained a large quantity of Lake City Arsenal match grade ammo (page 79 of my paperback copy).0 -
quote:OK, goes to show how much every one knows about military weapons...especially sniper rifles and cartriges for which they were chambered. The bulk of the model 24's were in 7.62NATO. One of the most inherently accurate round today. Back in the Gunnys day, I am not 100% sure, but I do believe the Mil-dot reticle was in use.
Okay! I know that I am not a military weapons expert, but M24 is the designation of the US Army's Sniper Weapon System which is a long action version instead of a short action used on a M40. M24 being the model name assigned by the United States Army after adoption as their standard sniper rifle in 1988. The Rem. 700 based rifles didn't start hitting the picture until late 1966. The Marines sniper rifles before 1966 were M1C's, M1D's, and Target barreled Win. Mod. 70's utilizing Unertl's 8x rifle scopes. Hathcock used a Win. Mod. 70 chambered in 30-06 until his second tour when reluctantly he was issued an M40( marine designation for the Rem. 700 based rifles). When the M40's were issued they were equipped with a Redfield 3x-9x Accurange scope in which the reticle was more like an old telephoto lenses focual reticle. On the M24 systems they used an older version of todays Leatherwood M-1200 autoranging scope. None of these scopes used would be what I would consider a mil-dot.0 -
I would like to apologize! I just relized how arguementative my last post sounded. By no means was that my intentions. I am just here to learn and be enlightened and to state facts to what I am knowledgable about( little as it my be). So again I would like to apologize! 0 -
Well, by doing a little math here we could probably figure out an approximate amount the bullet would fall while it was going through the scope and into the enemy's eye.
Well even if the bullet dropped 5 feet over the 500 feet it took to get to the target if that is what the distance is, the bullet would only drop 1 foot on the average for every 100 feet it travelled, 6 inches for every 50 feet it travelled, 3 inches for every 25 feet it travelled, 1.5 inches for every 12.5 feet, 3/4 inch for every 6.25 feet, 3/8 inch for every 3.125 feet and 3/16ths of an inch for every 1.5625 feet.
So at over a foot and a half distance, which is probably longer tha the scope on the enemy weapon, the bullet would drop only 3/16th inch on the average which is certainly enough to go through a one inch scope without hitting either side if conditions were correct. And that is if I over-estimated the drop at 5 feet.
Just a few more thoughts.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GUNFUNCO
Well, by doing a little math here we could probably figure out an approximate amount the bullet would fall while it was going through the scope and into the enemy's eye.
Well even if the bullet dropped 5 feet over the 500 feet it took to get to the target if that is what the distance is, the bullet would only drop 1 foot on the average for every 100 feet it travelled, 6 inches for every 50 feet it travelled, 3 inches for every 25 feet it travelled, 1.5 inches for every 12.5 feet, 3/4 inch for every 6.25 feet, 3/8 inch for every 3.125 feet and 3/16ths of an inch for every 1.5625 feet.
So at over a foot and a half distance, which is probably longer tha the scope on the enemy weapon, the bullet would drop only 3/8 inch on the average which is certainly enough to go through a one inch scope without hitting either side if conditions were correct. ANd that is if I over-estimated the drop at 5 feet.
Just a few more thoughts.
Very well put! GUNFUNCO
Yeah the numbers and measurments don't jive but I know that wasn't your point. And again, very well put!0 -
quote:Originally posted by jtmarine0831
quote:Originally posted by GUNFUNCO
Well, by doing a little math here we could probably figure out an approximate amount the bullet would fall while it was going through the scope and into the enemy's eye.
Well even if the bullet dropped 5 feet over the 500 feet it took to get to the target if that is what the distance is, the bullet would only drop 1 foot on the average for every 100 feet it travelled, 6 inches for every 50 feet it travelled, 3 inches for every 25 feet it travelled, 1.5 inches for every 12.5 feet, 3/4 inch for every 6.25 feet, 3/8 inch for every 3.125 feet and 3/16ths of an inch for every 1.5625 feet.
So at over a foot and a half distance, which is probably longer tha the scope on the enemy weapon, the bullet would drop only 3/8 inch on the average which is certainly enough to go through a one inch scope without hitting either side if conditions were correct. ANd that is if I over-estimated the drop at 5 feet.
Just a few more thoughts.
Very well put! GUNFUNCO
Yeah the numbers and measurments don't jive but I know that wasn't your point. And again, very well put!
He was a great Soldier,Sniper,Stalker, and i would imagin a great man to know ...
If he says he did it, then,,, he did it... Nuff said..[^]0 -
Tom,
You have much more reason to doubt your local expert than Hathcock.
Your expert is lying about class three regualtions, and is dead wrong on Hathcock.
Hathcock is/was a hero, your expert is/was a lying fool.0 -
--
-I read the Hathcock biography and I've noticed a few minor points missing from all the posts I've read:
1. As I recall Hathcock related that this enemy sniper was the NVA's hotshot sniper sent especially to engage Hathcock and kill him. At the time they engaged one another, it was only Hathcock with his spotter and the NVA sniper alone, not with a platoon of other snipers. They had spotted one another and both kept moving for several hours in dense, mountainous jungle terrain, trying to get a shot off at one another that was within reasonable range. Evidently Hathcock and his spotter lost the NVA guy and were glassing for him. They knew he was out there looking for them. Hathcock caught the sun glinting off the NVA's scope and almost in a single motion drew down on the NVA and squeezed off a round (he didn't just fire at an anonymous glint; he knew the NVA was out there). There was no movement from the place he fired into, so H and his spotter made their way to the location. They found the NVA dead with a neat hole all the way through the NVA scope with no damage to the tube. As I recall, the book reads, "It didn't do his eye on that side any good either." Hathcock recovered the NVA's Mosin Nagant and carried it back to camp. He stated that he wanted to keep the weapon, but policy at the time was that they were not allowed to keep war souveniers and he never knew what happened to the rifle.
2. As far as the Myth Busters episode, which "busted" the "myth" of Hathcock's achievment, I say the MB tests were obviously flawed for several reasons including the one previously noted: The Mosin Nagant sniper scope is of a much simpler design than the ones the Myth Busters team tested with. Additionally, the the MB team fired at essentially point blank range into the test scopes and not at long range. Anyone that shoots that watched the MB episode can spot some other flaws in their tests.
3. Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70 in caliber .30-06, as I recall with a Unertl single power 10X scope with crosshair sights. I noted another member says H's Unertl was 8X. I remember 10X, but no big deal.0 -
In re-reading this post, I noted that I had indicated the bullet drop that happened over 500 feet and the earlier post said 500 YARDS.
My error, but that would only make the increment that the bullet would fall when going through the scope EVEN LESS (about 1/3 as much) making it even more possible to go through the scope without hitting the actual metal tube.
My bad but I think you guys knew what I meant.0 -
Wolf: givette here. It was I that indicated 8X. My primary Hathcock info/bio came from the book "Marine Sniper".
I don't have the book anymore. Was going on memory, and may very well be wrong. Can anyone confirm the scope atop Hathcock's M70 Winchester? If you can, please direct me to the reference. Thanks, Joe0 -
Cripe does anyone know the dia, and length of a mosin sniper scope? Who has a HB , same lenght barrel 06' to do a test thru a target at 500 yd.? Remember because of terrain ( elevation ) Hathcock could have been shooting down at his target. Trajectory could change. A .30 bullet traveling thru a 1" tube would leave approx. .7" error to completely go thru without touching. I read somewhere Hathcocks Unertl was a 8x with a 7/8 tube or .875". Assuming the NV scope was 1" of course. Maybe it was smaller too. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
82 comments