Saving Private Ryan - this has been bugging me

They "busted" it on their show, but then recanted later on to make it "plausible".

Damn near impossible, and I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

And here's a video:

Took many attempts, and armor piercing rounds to do it.

I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

Ahem... I'm thinking you mean (Carlos) Hathcock...

BTW, look at the "Jackson vs Kraut sniper-scene" again... It ain't a bullet hole in his eye, it's a piece of the scope... If ya wanna get technical, it didn't need to be a lethal shot and we were never shown that they went up there (or at least, someone did) to make sure the Kraut was dead...  The shock from the bullet hitting the scope and the scope hitting the sniper, it's quite plausible that he was knocked silly by it, rather than killed... At any rate, and speaking as a Professional Soldier, I would NEVER take it for granted that a sniper was dead... I'd go up there and guaran-damn-tee it... Repeatedly...

I HATE snipers...

Also, I think the Kraut was "Medic-Hunting"... 

"Medic Hunting' like the sniper in Full Metal Jacket?

Ever see any one get a black eye from not properly holding their scope equipped rifle? The recoil leaves a nasty shiner. Our squadron safety officer sported one for about six weeks after open day of hunting season, when asked...Don't Go There! LOL

Though the bullet may not penetrate the multiple lenses inside the scope tube, the kinetic energy of the bullet, especially a 170 grain or better 30 cal would cause the scope to fragment and even drive the scope backwards into the skull of the shooter enough to cause significant blunt force trauma to kill. The brain is a well insulated and resilient organ, but a well placed sharp blow can have fatal consequences.

Lets not also rule out the bullet itself. It could fragment upon impact with the front lens and spray bits and pieces into the face and head of the opposing shooter too. Render him blind, you remove the threat. There are some vital places on the skull and neck that if punctured by a bullet's jacket could cause enough blood loss to kill quickly.

Remember in the Civil War, snipers were accurate, but the weapons they used to kill were less effect than those of today. Most times the sniper just seriously injured the person he was shooting at. Blood loss and infection usually are what did the actual killing.

Just because it can't be replicated doesn't mean it didn't happen. Many things in our lives happen but can't be repeated. I once saw the after effects of a tornado that hit a drive in restaurant. The plastic drinking straws were driven into a telephone pole!!! They looked like porcupine quills sticking out of it and when you tugged on them, you couldn't easily pull them out. Try replicating that!

Hans von Hammer

 

I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

 

Ahem... I'm thinking you mean (Carlos) Hathcock...

Ooooops! That's the guy!

I was eleven the first time I fired a scoped rifle. .308's have a LOT of kick! Learned REAL fast how to hold the rifle properly.

stikpusher

"Medic Hunting' like the sniper in Full Metal Jacket?

      Yeah, that's as close as I've seen it in any other movie... Taking out the Doc was illegal in WW2 (it's not anymore, the Doc is a combatant now, has been for about 25 years since they started carying rifles) and actually was observed that way by both sides pretty much (except for the Waffen-SS types) all the time... During the Hurtgen Forrest battle, several cease-fires were called to allow the Docs from both sides out there to treat and remove casualties...  In other places, and if the Krauts were feeling generous that day , they'd actually lift their fire if they saw the Red Crosses out there... Neither German Sanistatzen nor American Medics generaly carried weapons (they could, but then only pistols & knives, which were classed as defensive weapons). Rifles & grenades are offensive weapons and a Doc with a rifle made him a combatant, both legally and tactically speaking...  

     Anyway, the theory was that if you took out the Doc, you could take out several other guys as well, even if you didn't shoot 'em... They were out of the fight transporting the casualty to the BAS... That's a minimum of four men (or as many as six) outta the fight with two rounds (the initial casualty, the Doc, and two guys to carry the first casualty outta harm's way)...

      At any rate, Miller (or SGT Horvath for that matter) must have figured it out (or seen it before; they'd both been in the sh*t since Operation Torch, remember) since they pretty much left Caparzo to bleed out.   Getting the sniper or skirting him was a higher priority than saving Carparzo's life... 

Or I could be all ate up and just typing... But that's my theory...

Bgrigg

They "busted" it on their show, but then recanted later on to make it "plausible".

Damn near impossible, and I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

And here's a video:

'); // -->

Took many attempts, and armor piercing rounds to do it.

if you have a national match rifle that is zeroed accurately (usually around 250 to 300 yards back then) the bullets is going to be very close to what you aim at. Secondly you also have to remember that you talking 30 caliber ball amunition. It could care less if it's glass or bone; it's comming. The shots with all probability were less than 200 yards. Best way to prove this out is to take a piece 1/8" thick glass, and glue it to something to act as a spacer that's about two inches thick. Now glue the spacer to a piece of cardboard (paper or whatever). Then shoot it at 100 yards. If Mythbusters has a clue, then the bullet will either go thru the cardboard sideways or blow up. But if you see a round hole in the cardboard you know it can be done (be sure to use ball ammo). Going thru the scope tube, the bullet will always take the path of least resistence, and that's physics 101.

     These same guys proved that you couldn't shoot an arrow inside another, and that gave me a good laugh. I sent them several photos of arrows inside other arrows that my brother inlaw has shot thru the years (hundreds). If anything's a myth with these guys it's Mythbusters themselves

gary

Hans von Hammer

      At any rate, Miller (or SGT Horvath for that matter) must have figured it out (or seen it before; they'd both been in the sh*t since Operation Torch, remember) since they pretty much left Caparzo to bleed out.   Getting the sniper or skirting him was a higher priority than saving Carparzo's life... 

Or I could be all ate up and just typing... But that's my theory...

 

Nope HvH, I agree with you.  I spent 6 years in the infantry, and bith the theory of 1 casualty taking 4 guys out of the fight, and the intent of leadership to not allow a sniper to produce additional casualties to save 1 man are very sound tactical doctrine.

As for the earlier arguements about a bullet going through the scope, well look at all the amazing tricks the round that killed JFK did!

I'm not sayin' it did. but it could have.  Either way, it was a damn fine movie!

Chris

HawkeyeHobbies

Ever see any one get a black eye from not properly holding their scope equipped rifle? The recoil leaves a nasty shiner. Our squadron safety officer sported one for about six weeks after open day of hunting season, when asked...Don't Go There! LOL

Though the bullet may not penetrate the multiple lenses inside the scope tube, the kinetic energy of the bullet, especially a 170 grain or better 30 cal would cause the scope to fragment and even drive the scope backwards into the skull of the shooter enough to cause significant blunt force trauma to kill. The brain is a well insulated and resilient organ, but a well placed sharp blow can have fatal consequences.

**although the bullet is 30 caliber you have to remember it's a full metal jacketed bullet. They don't usually blow up at the velocities shot out of a 30-06 or a .308. Tobe exact they don't deform much either.

Lets not also rule out the bullet itself. It could fragment upon impact with the front lens and spray bits and pieces into the face and head of the opposing shooter too. Render him blind, you remove the threat. There are some vital places on the skull and neck that if punctured by a bullet's jacket could cause enough blood loss to kill quickly.

**rifle bullets used by the military snipers are fairly heavy jacketed, and have a C/G error in the .00025" range. As long as the bullet is stablized in flight; they know just about exactly where it's going as they squeeze the trigger.

Remember in the Civil War, snipers were accurate, but the weapons they used to kill were less effect than those of today. Most times the sniper just seriously injured the person he was shooting at. Blood loss and infection usually are what did the actual killing.

**CSA used a lot of Whitworth target rifles for sniper's weapons. They were good for at least 700 yards, and many one shot kills were recorded at 850+ yards. (Gen. Sedgwick took a head shot at 850 yard during the Battle of The Wilderness)

Just because it can't be replicated doesn't mean it didn't happen. Many things in our lives happen but can't be repeated. I once saw the after effects of a tornado that hit a drive in restaurant. The plastic drinking straws were driven into a telephone pole!!! They looked like porcupine quills sticking out of it and when you tugged on them, you couldn't easily pull them out. Try replicating that!

gary

squeakie

 

Bgrigg:

 

They "busted" it on their show, but then recanted later on to make it "plausible".

Damn near impossible, and I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

And here's a video:

 

'); // -->

 

Took many attempts, and armor piercing rounds to do it.

 

 

if you have a national match rifle that is zeroed accurately (usually around 250 to 300 yards back then) the bullets is going to be very close to what you aim at. Secondly you also have to remember that you talking 30 caliber ball amunition. It could care less if it's glass or bone; it's comming. The shots with all probability were less than 200 yards. Best way to prove this out is to take a piece 1/8" thick glass, and glue it to something to act as a spacer that's about two inches thick. Now glue the spacer to a piece of cardboard (paper or whatever). Then shoot it at 100 yards. If Mythbusters has a clue, then the bullet will either go thru the cardboard sideways or blow up. But if you see a round hole in the cardboard you know it can be done (be sure to use ball ammo). Going thru the scope tube, the bullet will always take the path of least resistence, and that's physics 101.

     These same guys proved that you couldn't shoot an arrow inside another, and that gave me a good laugh. I sent them several photos of arrows inside other arrows that my brother inlaw has shot thru the years (hundreds). If anything's a myth with these guys it's Mythbusters themselves

gary

Gary, did you watch the video to the end? They finally managed to duplicate the event, but it wasn't easy.

Bullets can take some pretty wild rides after they hit something. They tumble and bounce around, and lose their kinetic energy very quickly once they do.

There was a State Trooper in Washington State, that was patrolling on a motorcycle. He pulled over a car whose tags came up on the tip sheet and when the cop walked up to the window the perp shot the cop point blank in the face with a .38 revolver. The bullet hit his jawbone, traveled around his skull just under the skin (helped in part by the helmet) and exited his face and ended up lodging in the perp's shoulder. So you could say the perp shot himself. The cop, barely injured by these events other than a sore jaw and some bleeding, took the "suspect" into custody. Bet that surprised the heck out of the perp! It would sure be difficult to reproduce. Especially by Mythbusters.

O Iooh yes!

My Dad's a head Gamekeeper (pheasants & Partridge) on a big shoot here in the UK. We also do a lot of vermin control. Apart from shotguns we use(d) rifles ranging from .22 rimfire right up to .243 centrefire. He then decided to buy a 7mm Remington for use deer stalking.

The first time we took it out to zero I made the classic mistake and didn't give the scope enough eye clearance-I had a black eye for a week. I'd been used to shooting a moderated .22-250 which with the Reflex Moderator fitted had barely any recoil. This 7mm is an animal!

A year or so down the clay shooting ground the local gunsmith Norman Clark bought down a Monstrous .500/.465 Nitro Express custom side-by-side BIG game gun which he'd built for a wealthy customer. He wanted to test fire it. One shot with open sights gave hime a nose bleed from both nostrils, two black eyes and minor concussion - impressive

Ben  

This thread is turning into a myth---everything from re-visiting the "magic bullet theory" to the Waffen SS all being war criminals...

Bgrigg

squeakie:

 

Bgrigg:

 

They "busted" it on their show, but then recanted later on to make it "plausible".

Damn near impossible, and I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

And here's a video:

 

'); // -->

 

Took many attempts, and armor piercing rounds to do it.

 

 

if you have a national match rifle that is zeroed accurately (usually around 250 to 300 yards back then) the bullets is going to be very close to what you aim at. Secondly you also have to remember that you talking 30 caliber ball amunition. It could care less if it's glass or bone; it's comming. The shots with all probability were less than 200 yards. Best way to prove this out is to take a piece 1/8" thick glass, and glue it to something to act as a spacer that's about two inches thick. Now glue the spacer to a piece of cardboard (paper or whatever). Then shoot it at 100 yards. If Mythbusters has a clue, then the bullet will either go thru the cardboard sideways or blow up. But if you see a round hole in the cardboard you know it can be done (be sure to use ball ammo). Going thru the scope tube, the bullet will always take the path of least resistence, and that's physics 101.

     These same guys proved that you couldn't shoot an arrow inside another, and that gave me a good laugh. I sent them several photos of arrows inside other arrows that my brother inlaw has shot thru the years (hundreds). If anything's a myth with these guys it's Mythbusters themselves

gary

 

Gary, did you watch the video to the end? They finally managed to duplicate the event, but it wasn't easy.

Bullets can take some pretty wild rides after they hit something. They tumble and bounce around, and lose their kinetic energy very quickly once they do.

There was a State Trooper in Washington State, that was patrolling on a motorcycle. He pulled over a car whose tags came up on the tip sheet and when the cop walked up to the window the perp shot the cop point blank in the face with a .38 revolver. The bullet hit his jawbone, traveled around his skull just under the skin (helped in part by the helmet) and exited his face and ended up lodging in the perp's shoulder. So you could say the perp shot himself. The cop, barely injured by these events other than a sore jaw and some bleeding, took the "suspect" into custody. Bet that surprised the heck out of the perp! It would sure be difficult to reproduce. Especially by Mythbusters.

I agree with as much as I disagree with you. The flaw in your statement was that the bullet was probably a .357 dia. flat nosed bullet. Not exacting the most aerodynamic piece on the planet. Take into fact as well that the bullet was probably going at about 900 fps on impact. It took the path of least resistence, but had the bullet broken the bone with a direct impact the story would be different. Here it was the angle of the hit. Now we look at a 30-06 at 200 yards firing a 165 grain bullet (a national match quality boat tail bullet). The bullet will have a little over 1800 ftlb. of energy, so it ain't stopping for much of anything. With a typical 250 yard zero (for that era), the bullet is virtually dead on from 200 to 300 yards when looking at a 1" target diameter (diameter of the scope). Think of it this way; if a guy can make a head shot at 1000 yards (been done thousands of times) with a six inch kill zone, then divid the six inches by ten. That's six tenths of an inch diameter group, but there's more. You also must factor in wind and elevation (shooting uphill or down hill changes everything). So a six inch group at 1000 yards is probably a .45" group at 100 yards on a good day. If I had a junk scope; I'd go out an do it for you all to see

gary

Carlos Hathcock is a legend and I sure believe that he did what he said....Marines don't lie!   All kidding aside, though, I believe for a confirmed "kill" to be accepted by the higher ups it needs to be confirmed by a second party (usualy the spotter) so I would assume his claim was verified.

And one other note, this might not be possible with todays sniper craft only because back in Nam they used bullets more closer to ball (but with tighter tolerances than normal) whereas todays more modern bullets snipers use (or to say the Marines since I think the Army SPR uses ball .223 and I am not to up on what other specialty rifles they use for sniping) match bullets of a higher quality.  And said bullets have more of a "hollow point"...I put that in quotes because it is not actually a hollow point in traditional terms, rather there is a hollow cavity in the nose section which places the projectiles center of gravity slightly more to the rear.  Said cavity much cause the bullet to tumble to easily when striking hard glass, and I don't know if a tumbling bullet would hvae enough "oomph" to get through modern optics which usually have several lenses in them.  But this is all conjecture of course and an interesting discussion!

Brian

P.S.  Oh, just remembered there is also the Barret .50BMG's snipers use.  That, I am pretty sure, uses straight ball, but regardless that puppy has plenty of oomph to get through just about any glass, hollow cavity or not.  Of course they don't use them regularly on "soft" targets both because it is overkill, but also because in general the MOA on a .50 is a bit larger than the size of a human body.  Human body, small.  Engine block on vehicles, LARGE!

New Hampshire

Carlos Hathcock is a legend and I sure believe that he did what he said....Marines don't lie!   All kidding aside, though, I believe for a confirmed "kill" to be accepted by the higher ups it needs to be confirmed by a second party (usualy the spotter) so I would assume his claim was verified.

 

And one other note, this might not be possible with todays sniper craft only because back in Nam they used bullets more closer to ball (but with tighter tolerances than normal) whereas todays more modern bullets snipers use (or to say the Marines since I think the Army SPR uses ball .223 and I am not to up on what other specialty rifles they use for sniping) match bullets of a higher quality.  And said bullets have more of a "hollow point"...I put that in quotes because it is not actually a hollow point in traditional terms, rather there is a hollow cavity in the nose section which places the projectiles center of gravity slightly more to the rear.  Said cavity much cause the bullet to tumble to easily when striking hard glass, and I don't know if a tumbling bullet would hvae enough "oomph" to get through modern optics which usually have several lenses in them.  But this is all conjecture of course and an interesting discussion!

Brian

P.S.  Oh, just remembered there is also the Barret .50BMG's snipers use.  That, I am pretty sure, uses straight ball, but regardless that puppy has plenty of oomph to get through just about any glass, hollow cavity or not.  Of course they don't use them regularly on "soft" targets both because it is overkill, but also because in general the MOA on a .50 is a bit larger than the size of a human body.  Human body, small.  Engine block on vehicles, LARGE!

The word "Ball" means that the bullet is a full metal jacketed bullet. There is nobody using anykind if a hollow point or soft point bullet in the military. Some have used a steel tipped bullet in the past, but not for accuracey reasons. A typical national match 30 caliber round used by the U.S. military will have a ballistic co-efficent of around .46 to .48. That's pretty good by most any standard. What that refers to is how the bullet retains velocity in flight as well as how well it reacts to cross winds, etc. The higher the number the better it is. A 1.0 is considered perfect (some 50 cal. ammunition has this B/C factor as well as a couple .416 dia. bullets that will probably put all 50 cal. out of business). They can do 30 cal. bullets well into the .55 to low .60's, but they don't shoot well in a 7.62 Nato case. Thus quite a few folks are taking a real strong look at the various .300 mags. A .56 B/C in a .300 Weatherby case is a solid 1500 yard round in the right rifle and will the right shooter. The Europeans are starting to use a .338 caliber round that will probably replace 90% of the 50's over there. Mobility is the key factor here. Under 500 yards the good old M14 is still king; which means that an M1d or a Springfield will work just as well assuming the are built to the same quality.

     The hottest snipers rifle on the market right now is the Savage 110BAS. It will be sold in .308 or .338 Lapua as a system. They cost about half of what everything else sells for are are a little more sccurate right out of the box.

gary

Hey Gary,

Again, I use the term "hollow point" carefully.  As I said, it is not a Hollow Point as we traditionally think (in that a hollow point for hunting purposes are inteded to expand to a larger size than their bore diameter.)  In the match bullet world the "hollow point" is really more just a cavity of dead air.  Here you can see what I mean (and I may be mistaken, but I believe Sierra provide the military with their match bullets):

http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=rifle&brandID=1

In that image you can see the cavity.  It is NOT meant to expand, merely place the center of gravity slightly more to the rear of the projectile.  But being that it is a cavity none the less it will still deforme more than ball (which as we know does not have that cavity) that is meant to penetrate more on softened targets.  I am pretty sure that the snipers (again, I don't quite know as much about the Army in this respect) have a designated person that handloads all their ammo, though this may have changed lately (since we have seen an abundance in high tech manufacturing processes.)

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution).  It is hardly suprising though.  Every month the gun magazines are touting new collaborative offerings that are taking advantage of technological processes (much to the annoyance of the "old timers" )

Brian

New Hampshire

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution). 

Sorry to sound clueless, but what "silly California reg?"

Killjoy

 

 

Sorry to sound clueless, but what "silly California reg?"

All of 'em!!!!!!!!

Snort! Snicker!!

I believe he is referring to Bill AB50 AKA the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, which classifies all .50 cals as being 'assault weapons' in order to 'prevent their use as a terrorist weapon' and effectively outlaws their sale, except to California State Agency. Barrett has announced that they would no longer sell any weapons to California agencies, in retaliation (good for them!).

Interestingly, there are no reports of a .50 caliber weapon being used to murder anyone in the US, nor has it been used as a weapon during the committing of a criminal act. So, I guess the bill works, like my anti-Tiger talisman does. After all, it must work, as there ain't no tigers around me!

The .416 is a "necked down" .50 cartridge and sidesteps the bill's limits. It turns out the smaller size has a flatter trajectory, which is a decided benefit.

Killjoy

New Hampshire:

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution). 

 

Sorry to sound clueless, but what "silly California reg?"

The state of California banned any firearms with a bore diameter of .50 an inch (this included, I believe, even black powder rifles that the grand daddy's of our grand daddy's had been using since time immemorable.)  This of course applied ONLY to California residents and not the state's police agencies which owned a number of the .50BMG Barrett rifles.  Ronnie Barrett, in defiance, told the State'spolice agency he would no longer honor the warranty on their rifles, nor sell them parts for them.  He then helped design the .416 Barrett which uses the .50BMG as it's parent case but necked to .416 as a way to offer California citizens the ability to use his rifle platforms again.

Brian

Same principal behind the NATO 5.56 used in the M-16. A 30/06 casing necked to a .223 Higher velocities and flatter trajectories are the by products.

Actually the 5.56 NATO is a necked up .222 Remington.

                                                               Cheers, Mac

As long as this thread has the title it has... I may as well ask about the thing that has bothered me about SPR since the 1st time I saw it.

Why, is Ryan, brave Pvt Ryan that refuses to leave his comrades in arms, at one point sitting in a fetal position with his knees pulled to his chest, screaming/crying (not sure which)?  In the middle of a battle?  And completely out in the open exposed?  Did I miss something?  About 10 times so far?

wing_nut

Why, is Ryan, brave Pvt Ryan that refuses to leave his comrades in arms, at one point sitting in a fetal position with his knees pulled to his chest, screaming/crying (not sure which)?  In the middle of a battle?  And completely out in the open exposed?  Did I miss something?  About 10 times so far?

Marc,

Couple of things:

1) it is easy to be brave when noone is shooting at you, so to stand up and demonstrate resolve when the battle is not raging is an 'easier' thing to do than when it is actually happening.  Granted, to this point, Ryan and the boys had been in the few fights, so he 'knew' what to expect.

2) As to the scene of him in the fetal position - I took that as a scene that was trying to illustrate the intensity, furor, and horror of this particular fight.  At that point, just about everyone else has been shot up, the Germans seem to be ready to roll right over them, the situation seems hopeless, all seems lost.  I think the scene is trying to capture that sentiment.  I mean, up to that point, he had performed pretty well in the fight, so I don't think we can call him a coward.  However, every man has a breaking point, in life and, particularly in combat,

New Hampshire

Hey Gary,

Again, I use the term "hollow point" carefully.  As I said, it is not a Hollow Point as we traditionally think (in that a hollow point for hunting purposes are inteded to expand to a larger size than their bore diameter.)  In the match bullet world the "hollow point" is really more just a cavity of dead air.  Here you can see what I mean (and I may be mistaken, but I believe Sierra provide the military with their match bullets):

http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=rifle&brandID=1

In that image you can see the cavity.  It is NOT meant to expand, merely place the center of gravity slightly more to the rear of the projectile.  But being that it is a cavity none the less it will still deforme more than ball (which as we know does not have that cavity) that is meant to penetrate more on softened targets.  I am pretty sure that the snipers (again, I don't quite know as much about the Army in this respect) have a designated person that handloads all their ammo, though this may have changed lately (since we have seen an abundance in high tech manufacturing processes.)

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution).  It is hardly suprising though.  Every month the gun magazines are touting new collaborative offerings that are taking advantage of technological processes (much to the annoyance of the "old timers" )

Brian

If that bullet has anykind of an opening at the tip, it is in violation of the Geneva Convention. What they are now using is the 168 grain match bullet from several sources, but it's the solid nosed version. There is also a good bit of interest in the 190 grain and 200+ grain bullets from various 300 mags. The Navy has also been playing around with bullets in the 250+ grain area that are solid tungstin ($3 a piece). But the .338 Lapua does all this and much more for less dollars and cents (300 grain bullet with close to .7 B/C). There is a .416 caliber round built on the .404 Jeffery case that has about 97% of the 50 cal. ballistics in a fifteen pound rifle verses the 25+ lb. of the others. When the .338 Savages start shipping; they will take 65% of Barrett's business, and then the price will have to go up to keep them in business. Meaning you'll see less and less of them. We just took delivery of a 50 cal. Barrett about three months ago, and the price tag was $5675 bare. I asked them just what they planed on shooting at? (got no real answer!) The scope for that rifle is going to be close to $2K to be usfull with the range it has, and once again; what for? They donot use the 750 grain bullet from a 50 Cal. Browning, but use the 650 grain match bullet that has less than the magic 1.0 B/C. With that in mind they could have bought two .338 Lapua's with just about the same ballistics (I doubt there's anybody on the SWAT team that's capable f shooting 1500 yards let alone 2000+ yards). The reason they bought the Barrett was due to all the hype, and lack luster performance they are getting out of the Remingtons (so they say). I pointed out to them that they are about fifteen minutes from Ferris Pendel's shop, and he could easilly have fixed the problems for thousands of dollars less.

     Just a note of other rounds used in a sniper's rifle. I got to take a guided tour of the 7th SF compound a few years back, and I saw a lot of 30 caliber stuff. Everything from an M14 NM to a .300 Weatherby mag. They had two different 50 cal rifles. One was a Barrett and the other was a bolt gun of somekind(bet that was fun). Virtually all the 30 caliber stuff used a simple 10x scope that had the zero set at 600 yards. No dials to fool with once it's zero'd as all ranging was done internally. They had different scopes of the same model built for different bullets and different cases.

gary

Bgrigg

Snort! Snicker!!

I believe he is referring to Bill AB50 AKA the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, which classifies all .50 cals as being 'assault weapons' in order to 'prevent their use as a terrorist weapon' and effectively outlaws their sale, except to California State Agency. Barrett has announced that they would no longer sell any weapons to California agencies, in retaliation (good for them!).

Interestingly, there are no reports of a .50 caliber weapon being used to murder anyone in the US, nor has it been used as a weapon during the committing of a criminal act. So, I guess the bill works, like my anti-Tiger talisman does. After all, it must work, as there ain't no tigers around me!

The .416 is a "necked down" .50 cartridge and sidesteps the bill's limits. It turns out the smaller size has a flatter trajectory, which is a decided benefit.

Hey, what do you expect from a state where EVERYTHING causes cancer!

squeakie

New Hampshire:

Hey Gary,

Again, I use the term "hollow point" carefully.  As I said, it is not a Hollow Point as we traditionally think (in that a hollow point for hunting purposes are inteded to expand to a larger size than their bore diameter.)  In the match bullet world the "hollow point" is really more just a cavity of dead air.  Here you can see what I mean (and I may be mistaken, but I believe Sierra provide the military with their match bullets):

http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=rifle&brandID=1

In that image you can see the cavity.  It is NOT meant to expand, merely place the center of gravity slightly more to the rear of the projectile.  But being that it is a cavity none the less it will still deforme more than ball (which as we know does not have that cavity) that is meant to penetrate more on softened targets.  I am pretty sure that the snipers (again, I don't quite know as much about the Army in this respect) have a designated person that handloads all their ammo, though this may have changed lately (since we have seen an abundance in high tech manufacturing processes.)

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution).  It is hardly suprising though.  Every month the gun magazines are touting new collaborative offerings that are taking advantage of technological processes (much to the annoyance of the "old timers" )

Brian

 

If that bullet has anykind of an opening at the tip, it is in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Actually you are thinking of the Hauge Convention (which predates the Geneva Convention) of which the U.S. was never a signatory, but still abides to it regardless.  And no the Sierra Match bullets do not have an opening in them as they are, once again, not intended for use as an expanding bullet.

Brian

Going back more to the original topic, I thought the snipers location in the tower alongside the 30 cal mg was a rather amatuer location for a sniper. I mean this guy was supposed to be a great sniper and he picks a spot that a person with nothing more than an interest in military history recognizes as a poor choice (me).

A sniper at the window sill in an obvious point is a poor spot, bell towerrs are specifically given as a bad spot in everything I've ever read, because the enemy will immediately assume that is the snipers location and obliterate it.

Ideally the sniper is located back into the gloom of a building interior, to hide the sniper and muzzle flash, with enough elevation to offer a good view of the approaching enemy without being the highest thing around to draw random fire.

Of course its not just SPR, I can't think of one movie that hasn't placed the sniper 1/2 out the window of a tower or top floor of a building.

Aaronw

Of course its not just SPR, I can't think of one movie that hasn't placed the sniper 1/2 out the window of a tower or top floor of a building.

Which is why I love the sniper scenes from Enemy at the Gates!