I was watching the episode of mythbusters tonight where they look at 3 gun myths, the backwards bullet, the Carlos Hathcock bullet through scope and the fused cival war bullets. The two things that made me groan where 1.) they go to the gun shop to find the most authentic sniper rifle for the hathcock "myth" and the guy tells them that, this is a brand new copy of the vietnam sniper rifle, he holds up a M700 and they rave about how great it is that they can use the original:rolleyes: Hathcock used a M70 with sierra matchkings. The other one was on the civil war myth, they were casting bullets and they had a little teaspoon dumping melted shot into a lee mould a little at a time, then dunked the mould in a bowl of water, crack open the mould (didn't see em cut the sprue) and he pulled one sorry looking bullet out and proclaimed it was "perfect", sheesh

jb:

How do Jamie and Adam get hold of a .50 caliber Barrett, M1 Garands for their show if it's produced in the Democratic Republic of Kalifornia???

Its ok to have dangerous assault weapons if its for T.V. and film.

They always have some kind of expert that does all the fun stuff

They always have some kind of expert that does all the fun stuff

At least for some the "expert" designation deserves quotation marks.

Some of their "tests" are interesting, but they also have (or show) very little knowledge of rigorous experimental design. One example is their comparison of gas mileage with windows open without air conditioning verses windows closed with air conditioning. Although they claimed they used "identical" cars, they used different cars and did not test for the differences between the 2 cars (and drivers) under the same conditions.

If you and I were given "identical" make and model vehicles and the same amount of gas and drove under identical conditions on the same route, what is the liklihood that we would both run out of gas at the same place?

At least for some the "expert" designation deserves quotation marks.

Some of their "tests" are interesting, but they also have (or show) very little knowledge of rigorous experimental design. One example is their comparison of gas mileage with windows open without air conditioning verses windows closed with air conditioning. Although they claimed they used "identical" cars, they used different cars and did not test for the differences between the 2 cars (and drivers) under the same conditions.

If you and I were given "identical" make and model vehicles and the same amount of gas and drove under identical conditions on the same route, what is the liklihood that we would both run out of gas at the same place?

Lighten up. It's entertainment. :)

I just watch it because right now it's too cold to blow things up here. :D

They make mistakes, but I got a real laugh out of the expanding-foam sabots for firing chickens at plane windshields from their giant compresses-air cannon.

Mistakes and all, it's better than a great deal of other crap on the tube....

I like their giant compressed air cannons!
I really liked it when they played with the black powder cannon during the Pirate Mythbusters episode. :D
I told my wife I WANT ONE! :D

the guys on mythbusters may not be as smart as all of us here but they are being paid to do what i wanna do when i get growed up
BOOM BANG POP & WHIZ

I believe Hathcock started out with a standard Rem M700 with a Redfield 3x9 scope. Also WII rifles have some kind of antique status in CA so you can have them.

I love the show. It is still one million times better than "American Idol" or a ton of other BS crap on TV.

Cheers,
Mad

I find the show to be agony to watch live, due to all the commercial interruptions. Like it a lot better on the computer, commercial-free.

.

I'm pretty sure Hathcock had a Winchester model 70 in Vietnam. I read a biography of him so long ago, but I can't recall.

They make mistakes, but I got a real laugh out of the expanding-foam sabots for firing chickens at plane windshields from their giant compresses-air cannon.

Mistakes and all, it's better than a great deal of other crap on the tube....

I love the show,Its a break from most of the rubbish on telly.

I love the show. Some of their experiments are off a little, but it is still fun to watch. I especially like The redhead Carrie Byron she's purdy!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said I didn't enjoy the show, it just makes me laugh when they attempt to be all scientific and make statements that leave me thinking "what the heck?!"

When they take a concrete mixer and blow it to kingdom come, I tend to forgive them their (many) shortcomings.

They make mistakes, but I got a real laugh out of the expanding-foam sabots for firing chickens at plane windshields from their giant compresses-air cannon. . .

I'll mention that I've seen these gadgets close up. I got a tour of the gun room at the University of Dayton Research Institute. They did indeed have a 14" air cannon for testing aircraft canopies with chickens. Went over to some kind of ballistic gelatin chicken, I think they said. Less by way of sanitary clean-up trouble.

They also had a 40 foot long, one foot wide two-piece barrel on air bearings that used a pound of powder in a 40 mm casing to fire a 20 mm plastic piston. Half way down the barrel, the bore (smooth) narrows to .50 caliber, where a nylon sabot holds a 1/4" aluminum ball projectile. They put a 60,000 PSI burst diaphragm behind the sabot. After loading and before firing, they evacucate the barrel between the unfired piston and the burst diaphragm and fill it with helium. On firing, the piston compresses the helium to 60,000 PSI and blows the diaphram. The piston (several inches of machined plastic rod) is slowed by compressing this, but the plastic still squirts half way into the .50 caliber portion. (The barrel comes apart there so they can remove the piston and replace the sabot and diaphragm to reload it.)

The compressed helium escapes the burst diaphragm to propel the sabot to 17,000 fps. That is faster than heavy propellant gasses can go, which is the reason for the helium intermediary. At the muzzle is an inch of armor plate with a hole in it to stop the sabot the aluminum ball goes through the hole. The plate was deeply pitted by the nylon sabots at that velocity.

The whole purpose of the gun is to simulate meteorites hiting satelites and space ships in orbit. They used it to test protective armoring strategies. Pretty neat toys.

Think it's entertaining...but lets not mistake that for hard science or "proof" of anything. Enjoy it for what it is...a group of people with WAY too much time on their hands who found a way to get paid for doing the things that usually start (in the South) with "Hay ya'll...lookie here."

Certainly aren't "gun people" so I cringe a bit when they do gun-myths (and i'm sure physics majors cringe a bit when they try another set of myths...and chemist roll they eyes at others).

But the truth is, I've not tried to shoot through a scope...yet. Di have a couple of total junkers (still have blass, but that's about all that can be said for them) that I intend to c-clamp to a 2X4 and try. Think it's going to be like other hard-object'deflection tests (the old "brush bucker tests).

Preoably will give most of the gun myths they've tested a try sooner or later.

Anybody see them blow up the safe full of water??

Anybody see them blow up the safe full of water??
yup, part of the "heist episode" I believe

A lot of the Mythbusters stuff is poor science. They once dropped bullets from a balloon to try to prove you couldn't be killed by a falling bullet. This was after they'd failed to get their "straight" up fired M1 Garand's bullets to fall where they could find them and measure their impact. They went to a lot of trouble to demonstrate the bullet's terminal velocity in an air tube, where, of course, it tumbled. No rifle—no gyroscopic spin. The balloon-dropped bullets weren't spinning either, so, they tumbled and didn't penetrate the ground very hard. Myth Busted, according to them, but none of it was equivalent or valid. Not to mention, countries where people shoot guns into the air during celebrations report fatalities every year.

Still, if they give kids some vague idea what scientific testing tries to accomplish, they probably do a public service promoting the notion it is fun. We are getting fewer and fewer inspired science students out of the public schools these days.

I don't get to see the show much, occasionally a re-run here or there if it's on when I stop for chow. I did like the one with the muzzleloader where they spend a lot of time with lazer sights and so forth trying to get the POI right then had to call in an old smokepole shooter to put the ball on target!

I don't recall where I found it but there was extensive testing done by the US military shooting strait up. Tests were done on some lake in south FL, rifles were fixtured in mounts on a floating platform to ensure pure vertical allignment. Report I read was very long, gave all the details of the testing including all the failures prior to them even recovering a returning bullet.

The time it taked for the bullet to slow to a stop on the vertical climb then fall via gravity, moved the return point some distance to the west of the firing point (rotation of the earth).

.30 cal spitzers returned to earth base first and were "not likely to cause major injury to humans". .50 cal spitzers also returned base first and "are likely to cause serious to fatal injury on humans".

On the high arc tests (think these were done in AZ or NM desert), they obtained the maximum range distance at something like 33° or 37° angle (something like 8 miles ... working from memory here so don't hold me to the numbers) Here they found that .30 bullets were capable of inflicting serious to fatal human injuries as well.

{side note to the arc shooting, last year there was a lady from central FL that got hit in the eye with either a .45 or 9mm handgun bullet that was fired into the air across a large lake. Dang near killed her, definitely blind in one eye and sustained some brain damage as well. I think they estimated the range at 1.5 ► 2 miles. If you're interested in looking, should find something on http://www.myfoxorlando.com }

As for Mythbusters, not one of my favorite shows. I like science fact and don't care for them just blowing stuff for no reason. If it lets loose performing an actual test, that fine but purposely loading things up just to make a big bang, not my thing.

I don't recall where I found it but there was extensive testing done by the US military shooting strait up.

Hatcher's Notebook, wasn't it, Mark? What a fascinating guy he would have been to talk with around a campfire. . .

The Old Guy

Hatcher's Notebook, wasn't it, Mark? What a fascinating guy he would have been to talk with around a campfire. . .

The Old Guy


I honestly can't recall, I know it was quite long though, took me a few days to read the whole thing.

Flawed from the get-go. No one can shoot dead stright up; notice they couldn't. Even if you take the recoil out of the equation by bolting the gun down pointed at a measured 90.00 degrees, barrels still flex and vibrate, releasing the bullet at some point other than the one mechanically set.

So if they aren't launched stright up, they don't come straight down....which is really what happens as drunk people celebrating by shooting "up" certainly aren't going to shoot dead striaght up.

Spinning...the bullet's rotational spin decays very slowly...so a spinning bullet will tend to keep right on spinnning. Most of them will nose over at their peak (becasue they aren't truely vertical) and be nose forward on the trip down...higher BC than a tumbling non-spinning bullet so much more vel. and energy on impact.

----

But it's television...same people that bring you silenced revolvers, the never ending magazine, giant balls of flame, expoding gas tanks, sparks off wood walls, etc.

But it's television...same people that bring you silenced revolvers, the never ending magazine, giant balls of flame, expoding gas tanks, sparks off wood walls, etc.

Silenced revolvers - Nagant, cartridge case seals the cylinder gap - myth busted!

Never ending magazine - reloading time is boring, just edited out for audience appeal - myth busted

Giant balls of flame - ever try a heavy load of IMR-4227 in a .45 colt with a 4.625" bbl? - myth busted

Expoding gas tanks - hyped for shock value on the big screen but totally plausible - myth busted

Sparks off wood walls - wood walls are built with nails, very possible the bullets all happened to hit the nail heads... cheap steel jacketed ammo ... - myth busted.

Sorry RS, just couldn't resist the temptation! LOL

On the serious side:
Most of them will nose over at their peak (becasue they aren't truely vertical) and be nose forward on the trip down

I'll disagree with this because if you run the bullet vertical far enough to let it come to a stop on it's own, the heavy end will lead on the way down no matter if it's a bullet or anything else. Toss a spitzer or Foster slug up in the air as high as you can and see what end hits first. (I do suggest trying this in a manner so as it doesn't come back down and smack you the noggin)

OK...I stand corrected..Mythbusters is 100% accurate and televisoion never gets anything worng.


I can't figure out hot to get a bullete spinning at 180,000 rpm while I'm tossing it...but the foster slug is a "rock-in-a-sock" and should land heavy end first.

The time it taked for the bullet to slow to a stop on the vertical climb then fall via gravity, moved the return point some distance to the west of the firing point (rotation of the earth).


Rotation of the earth?? I don't think so......... the gun is "rotating" with the earth when it fires. The old, "Why can I throw a ball in the air and catch it in an airplane?" question.

Rotation of the Earth? It does affect the bullet. Do a Google search for Coriolis +effect +bullets. You'll find enough to make your head swim. :confused: :D

Bye
Jack

A bullet may be moving with the earth as it turns, but once it leaves the gun, its keeps that velocity independent of where it flies over the earth. If fired toward a pole, the rotational speed of the earth's surface isn't the same at the firing point as it is at the target. That's what lets the earth seem move out from under the bullet. Firing straight along a longitudinal line, you have none of this. Artillary fired at targets miles away has to take coriolis effect into consideration, as it adds up over distance. As a practical matter, for target shooters, even at 1000 yards, wind gusting swamps out coriolis effect. Besides, if you zero your sights at the range you are using, coriolis effect is zeroed out.

I saw an estimate for the 155 grain Palma bullets that coriolis effect would amount to about 1/4 M.O.A. in the worst case for 1000 yards. At the Long Range Firing School at Camp Perry, Middleton Thompkins told us he didn't think there was any point in having sights with finer than 1/2 M.O.A. adjustments at 1000 yards. The air just isn't that steady. He does last second 1/4 M.O.A. adjustments entirely by holding off slightly.

MarkW is correct that a reversed bullet is more inherently stable than point forward. Much higher drag, too, of course. Lots of people shooting heavy bullets subsonically at short ranges will shoot boattails backward because, at low muzzle velocity, the slower spin alone may not be adequate stabilize them point-forward. Getting the center of mass ahead of the center of pressure makes something turn into the wind like a weather vane does, so, heavy end forward is inherently most stable.

That said, for a given velocity, the pointy end of a bullet will break bone and penetrate most. If you are to be hit by a falling bullet, let it be base-first. Experimentally, unless you launch balloons to check, you usually find wind blowing high up in the air, even when it is calm at the surface. It is therefore perfectly possible to see bullets turned enough to take on an arcing trajectory even if launched straight up. When I was a kid, I saw it happen to model rockets lots of times. They would start out vertical and end up flying horizontally way up in the air. Just not every day. Vertical firing and falling of bullets is one of those experiments that will work as planned on some days and not on others.

Rotation of the earth?? I don't think so......... the gun is "rotating" with the earth when it fires. The old, "Why can I throw a ball in the air and catch it in an airplane?" question.

Because there is not enough time for the ball to slow down enough in the direction of the plane. If you through the ball 1 mile in the air while on the airplane then I bet you'd be far away from the ball when it arrives to the same height.

Cheers,
Mad

Some of their shows are good and some are badly fawed. I think the "bullet fired up" episode was one of the best. The telling point was that terminal velocity just was not high enough for a 30 cal. bullet to do any serious damage. They did make the point that serious consiquences can result when the gun is not fired nearly straight up. The round must slow to the point it's stability is thouroughly compromised. Once that takes place it is limmited to it's terminal velosity.

As far as the "shoot through the scope" show. They didn't have a clue. They kept thinking that the problem was that they could not hit the exact center of the scope. The problem was that they were using a high speed round and the bullet blew up on contact. If they had loaded a FMJ bullet round so that it was traviling at the speed it would have at 300 yards or so they might have gotten an entirely different result. Also they used scopes with more lenses than the one Hathcock hit.

The bullet doesn't have to go clear through the scope. If a piece of glass goes through your eye, it could kill you.

plus, if you watch the high-speed, you can see the occular bell smacking into the dummy pretty hard, guess they figured that wouldn't do much damage

I still enjoy the one where they tested shooting into the water. Anyone here argue that a 12 guage is going to displace the water pretty heavily? Les

OK...I stand corrected..Mythbusters is 100% accurate and televisoion never gets anything worng.


I can't figure out hot to get a bullete spinning at 180,000 rpm while I'm tossing it...but the foster slug is a "rock-in-a-sock" and should land heavy end first.


I was just poking fun RS, didn't mean to get you PO'ed. :D

Rotation of the earth?? I don't think so......... the gun is "rotating" with the earth when it fires. The old, "Why can I throw a ball in the air and catch it in an airplane?" question.


On the strait up vertical shot, the Coriolis effect is not really a factor, this is more when shooting either north or south toward the poles. The vertical testing showed that when the bullet lost sideways velocity applied by the rotation of the earth and is why they dropped to the west of the test platform. The bullet slowed, the earth's surface speed did not change.

The bullet is going to loose stability when it slows from supersonic to subsonic speeds and this takes a big chunk off the rotational momentum as well. The spitzer is a poorly designed bullet to handle the transition from supersonic to subsonic speed, once it becomes unstable, it usually will not recover because too much of the weight is lagging in the rear rather than leading. The closer you keep the C-balance to the C-bullet, the better it will handle the transition and the less rotational momentum it will loose. This is why the extremely long but light for caliber S-8 style bullets are not used without sufficient muzzle velocity to reach the target without even aproaching the subsonic range let alone going into it. Once they drop below a certain forward velocity, the rotational momentum is not enough to keep them stable, they go into corkscrew then right to a tumble. Once they get past the transitional point, the'll tend to hit base first every time even if they are still moving at several hundred fps.

. . . I think the "bullet fired up" episode was one of the best. The telling point was that terminal velocity just was not high enough for a 30 cal. bullet to do any serious damage. . .

No, they screwed that up. Terminal velocity, as they measured it in their air tube, depended on tumbling. If they had given the bullet the gyroscopically stabilizing spin it gets from rifling (which slows much more gradually than trajectory velocity), there would be no sub-sonic tumbling and the terminal velocity would have been higher.


On the strait up vertical shot, the Coriolis effect is not really a factor, this is more when shooting either north or south toward the poles. . . The vertical testing showed that when the bullet lost sideways velocity applied by the rotation of the earth. . .

Yes! Exactly! The “Coriolis force” is defined as the “apparent force” (actually just momentum tangent to the earth’s surface) that veers wind or projectiles away from latitude lines as they vector toward a pole. The rotating surface speed of the earth is about 1036 miles per hour at the equator at average surface level. That surface speed drops toward zero as you approach a pole. When you fire a projectile from the equator, it has lateral momentum tangent to the surface imparted by that 1036 mph. If any part of its trajectory is toward a pole, the eastward speed of the earth’s surface under it is decreasing as it travels, and the surface falls behind, longitudinally.

People can be forgiven for making the error in applying the Coriolis effect terminology to vertical firing, because what moves a vertically fired bullet west results from the same momentum that causes Coriolis effect. However, unlike a horizontally fired projectile, the momentum of a vertically fired bullet always moves it westward. A horizontally fired projectile moves east when traveling toward the nearest pole, and west when traveling toward the farthest pole. That is true Coriolis effect. If the projectile crosses the equator on the way to the far pole, it starts heading east again, because the far pole becomes the nearest pole when you cross the equator. Firing across the equator at the right range would, therefore, neutralize Coriolis effect.

Clarification is needed as to what moves a vertically fired bullet west, because two kinds of velocity are involved: lateral velocity and angular velocity. Lateral momentum imparted to the bullet by the earth's surface speed is not lost as a bullet goes up (Newton's conservation of momentum). The velocity that is lost is angular velocity. This is the number of degrees per second that the earth rotates (about 0.0042°/s). Because angular velocity is constant for anything attached to the earth's surface, if you climb a radio tower anywhere but at a pole, your eastward speed increases as you climb up. You are increasing your radial distance from the earth’s axis as you climb, so you go faster for the same reason the outer edge of a spinning wheel goes faster than points on its hub: a point on a greater radius covers more distance in the same period of time. A bullet fired upward has momentum imparted by the angular velocity of the earth’s surface at the firing point, but, unlike climbing an object fixed to the earth, it does not keep up constant rotational velocity. Gravity keeps it from moving off into space, tangentially, but doesn’t pull in the direction of the earth’s rotating surface to give it the greater eastward speed needed to keep constant rotational velocity. So, the firing point on the earth gets ahead of the bullet in degrees of rotation while the bullet is coasting above the surface. The bullet has gotten behind in degrees eastward rotation by the time it returns, falling to the west of the firing point.

unclenick,
I've read your post several times now and have only the foggiest idea of what your are saying. No wonder I didn't seem to do well in physics.

Hmmm. Got too long-winded, eh? I do that. Let me see if I can simplify.

You build a tower at the equator as high as a bullet might go. Let’s say, 2 miles, for the sake of argument. As you climb this tower you go faster and faster toward the east. Why? Because, the farther you go up away from the center of the earth while still connected to it, the bigger the circle your path around the earth is. Despite the bigger path, you still travel all the way around it in the same time it takes the earth’s surface to go around once. 24 hours. Covering that greater distance in the same time period requires greater speed. Where do you get that extra speed? Through the white knuckles holding you on to the tower. Where does the taller end of the tower get the extra speed? From being attached to the earth.

Now, suppose you carried a bullet up the tower in your pocket. The higher you got, the greater the bullet’s speed would be. Why? Because it is attached to you, you are attached to the tower (by white knuckles), and tower is attached to the earth.

Now, suppose a friend stands at the base of the tower on its west side and fires a bullet up parallel to the side of the tower an arm’s length away, and further suppose it just slows to a stop right at your height. Would you then be able to reach out and grab it? Well, considering how fast it is spinning, that would give you a terrible friction burn, but even ignoring that, the answer is still “no”. Why? You won’t be able to reach it. Even though the fired bullet starts out parallel to the west side of the tower, it is not attached to you, nor through you to the tower, nor through the tower to the earth, as the bullet in your pocket is. It has nothing to increase its speed toward the east as it ascends, the way you and the pocketed bullet do. So, it still has the same eastward speed the earth gave it at the surface before it left the gun, but no more. That is not as fast as you are going up at the top of the tower, so, as the bullet goes up, it falls behind the position of the tower, appearing to pull away from it toward the west. When it falls back to earth, it will have lost even more ground, landing to the west of the tower. Its eastward speed will still match the earth’s at the surface again, so no skid marks. Just a hole.

Good explanation, Nick

I am sure what you say is true in the abstract but will not most bullets that transition from going up verticly to falling back loose stability, begin to wobble, and be subject to a terminal velocity lower than if they were headed down point first and spin stabilized? How would you shape a bullet to accomplish that transition and maximise terminal velocity? A ball comes to mind but that dosen't have a great terminal velocity. An arrow maby, I know from personal experience they will do a job on you comming down, or is that just the sharp point?

Only a bullet that acquired an arcing trajectory would stand much of a chance of coming down point first. My point was just that a bullet that remains stable through the transonic range and comes to a stop point up, will fall to earth base-first in an inherently stable configuration, and that such bullets will have more velocity than a tumbling bullet.

Some percentage of all bullets make it through the transonic range without tumbling, or their extreme range would never be figured much beyond their drop to transonic velocities. This became a problem between the World Wars. The 174.5 grain boattail M1 ball ammunition had an extreme range of 5,500 yards, despite dropping into the transonic range at around 1000 yards. This was too great for safe use on a lot of National Guard practice ranges, so the Guard requested and got the flat base 152 grain M2 ball made for safer practice. Even this ammunition, which enters the transonic range at around 800 yards, is given a listed extreme range of 3500 yards, so not all of these tumble, either.

Making it through the transonic range without tumbling is more common for boattails, with their further foward center of mass, though it doesn't always work out. The 168 grains SMK tumbles frequently beyond 700 yards, while the 175 seems to keep it together beyond 1200 yards (these ranges assume firing at .308 velocities). If such a bullet comes to a halt vertically with the point up and still spinning, then starts to fall backward, its shape is inherently aerodynamically stable moving backward and it will not tend to tumble again, even as the spin slows (though a side wind may tilt it a bit). It won't come down base-first with a high ballistic coefficient, though a boattail will do rather better than a flat base at this.

My point is just that a stable bullet will come down faster than a tumbling bullet will. How much faster, I don't know? This could be figured out by firing backward boattails at subsonic velocities over two chronometer screens to learn the rate of deceleration and figure out where that would reach equilibrium with the weight of the bullet (terminal falling velocity).

Just saw that they did a revisit of the sniper scope myth and found that it is plausible

Yeah. M2 AP. 168 grains with hardened steel core (not tungsten carbide, as they reported in the show). It was standard issue ammo in WW II, and Hatcher has some information on it for target shooting.

They don't seem to get very good information at Mythbusters. They claimed a Garand was a period appropriate weapon for Hathcock. Hathcock was in service in Vietnam from 1966, the year the Army started bringing M16's in to replace the M14. My recollection from a biography of Hathcock I read is that he was carrying a Model 70 for sniping. I forget whether it was chambered in '06 or .308? Either way, he would have have been firing match ammunition with the Lake City 173 grain FMJ BT. A thing not considered in the show, due, perhaps, to Jamie's limited marksmanship skills, is that impact would have been from a greater range. So, the bullet likely would not have come apart quite so early in its penetration. There are examples of penetration maxing out at less than maximum velocity with .458" diameter bullets in wet newspaper, but I don't know how that might or might not translate to glass and boattail bullets?

The Wikipedia already has been edited to mention of the new Mythbusters' conclusion, but I am not convinced they've yet replicated conditions well-enough to know for sure what happened? The Wikepedia claims the Hathcock incident was confirmed by the military. If true, I am not sure how they decided there was a myth to bust in the first place?

Nick:

You are surely an asset to this Forum. You have a grasp on how to explain complex subjects.

IIRC, hathcock used an '06 M70 with loaded with Matchkings but I could be wrong

What did Hatchcock die of, anybody know? I know that he was still fairly young.

Jean,

Thanks. I get too long-winded, though.

Hathcock died of Multiple Sclerosis in early 1999. Born in early 40's, I think? I had the privilege of having his son, Gunny Sergeant Carlos Hathcock III, as my line coach at the CMP's Long Range Firing school at Camp Perry one year. Good guy.


JB12String,

Not MatchKings. In the 1960's and 1970's they were still considered hollow points not allowed in combat under the Hague Convention of 1899. The 7.62 NATO compatible M852 match ammunition was loaded with 168 grain SMK's, but I’ve been issued them at matches and they were clearly marked as not for combat. The Adjutant General's office issued an opinion (in 1985 or '86 - have to look the date up) that the small hollow points in these bullets, which are an artifact of the way most match bullets are now made, and not intended for expansion, could be classified as non-expanding hollow points and allowed in combat under the Hague Convention. That opened them up to the use of the more accurate Match Kings. However, the 168 grain SMK, a tangent ogive design from the late 1950’s for 300 meter international matches, gets unstable in the transonic range. Launched at .308 and .30-06 velocities, it starts to tumble and keyhole at just about 700 yards. So, after the AG’s decision, Sierra worked with the military to develop the secant ogive 175 grain Match King design, which doesn’t do that. It is what is in M118 LR issued to snipers now. It replaced the 173 grain FMJ BT that was in the old M118 match, preceding the LR type.

As far as I know, the military never loaded any 168 grain SMK's in .30-06. The last M72 I had issued at a match was 1972, and it was still that old 173 grain FMJ BT, which is basically copied from the M1 ball bullet developed after WW I.