1944 PU Sniper

[Ramjo]

I did it again...bought another on my bucket list.
This came from classicfirearms.com





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited December 27, 2014 by Ramjo

[gregintenn]

That'll prove to be a good investment.

[MrBrian]

You can't hide money!   lol

[Garufa]

If you can find some Yugo heavy ball ammo you'll see what that rifle can really do.  Congrats!

[Ramjo]

You can't hide money!   lol

It's what happens when you still live at home and aren't dating haha.

[NRA]

very nice,  :up:

[peejman]

It's what happens when you still live at home and aren't dating haha.

You are wise beyond your years....

[Ramjo]

You are wise beyond your years....

Just very lucky.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrBrian]

did you figure out the scope?

[MrBrian]

It's what happens when you still live at home and aren't dating haha.

girls take all the money 

[bersaguy]

That is a pretty cool rifle for sure!!

[bersaguy]

I have always been interested in sniper rifles old and new and did a little research on a couple of the more famous ones that used to older sniper rifles and a little bit of history on them. Here is a little about what I found interesting.

 

The real name of the person that was the real Private Ryan was   Fritz Niland and the youngest of four brothers, three of which had died on Omaha Beach.

 

Niland Brothers Veteran Harley Reynolds was one of the first men to make it off Omaha Beach on D-Day and gives us his powerful eyewitness testimony. Pete Niland tells why his family story is thought by many to be the inspiration for the film, and why his uncle is the real Private Ryan. We take to the seas in one of the last surviving landing boats, see the real effects of an exploding mortar shell on the human body and test whether a sniper really can shoot an enemy straight their scope as shown in the film.
 

The sniper in the real life rescue was Pvt. Daniel Jackson and his rifle was an M1903A4 Springfield Rifle. he was actual left handed and he developed a special rhythm for using the right handed with a smooth accuracy.

 

In the movie they show him shooting a sniper directly into the enemy snipers scope lenses. Didn't happen

 

That was only done one time in recorded history by one sniper. In American history and that snipers name is and was Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam.

 

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock

 

Just some interesting reading for those interested.......................jmho
 

[Ramjo]

If i'm not mistaken, I believe there was an account of a sniper vs sniper encounter in Vietnam, in which the enemy was using a Mosin Nagant with the PU scope.

[Garufa]

If i'm not mistaken, I believe there was an account of a sniper vs sniper encounter in Vietnam, in which the enemy was using a Mosin Nagant with the PU scope.

 

That was Carlos Hathcock's infamous through the scope kill. 

[bersaguy]

If i'm not mistaken, I believe there was an account of a sniper vs sniper encounter in Vietnam, in which the enemy was using a Mosin Nagant with the PU scope.

Yep and this is a link to it.

 

http://www.en.wikipe...Carlos_Hathcock

[Ramjo]

Thought I wasn't too far off haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[E4 No More]

I believe that Mythbusters proved that shooting someone through a scope as they peered through it at you was impossible. The trajectory of the bullet's flight path and the convex surface of the thick lenses makes it impossible.

[monkeylizard]

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/shoot-sniper-scope-or-gun-barrel/

 

The original Mythbusters test was later shown to be inaccurate because they used modern scopes (ie more/harder/thicker/coated glass). Upon retesting with Vietnam-period optics, it was changed from "Busted" to "Plausible". I suspect that the PU scope is even less sophisticated than a 1960's era scope, but I'm no glass expert. If they tested with a PU scope they may have to revise it to "Confirmed".

[E4 No More]

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/shoot-sniper-scope-or-gun-barrel/

 

The original Mythbusters test was later shown to be inaccurate because they used modern scopes (ie more/harder/thicker/coated glass). Upon retesting with Vietnam-period optics, it was changed from "Busted" to "Plausible". I suspect that the PU scope is even less sophisticated than a 1960's era scope, but I'm no glass expert. If they tested with a PU scope they may have to revise it to "Confirmed".

There's still that little trajectory problem. I read Carlos' book and do not remember the distance, but I believe that it was more than 100 yards.

[bersaguy]

There's still that little trajectory problem. I read Carlos' book and do not remember the distance, but I believe that it was more than 100 yards.

 

I have little to no faith at all in Myth Busters because they cannot recreate anything to the exact time, place, lighting, reflections, angles or anything else. At the very best all they are is speculations by them and to me they are a joke.............jmho

[E4 No More]

I have little to no faith at all in Myth Busters because they cannot recreate anything to the exact time, place, lighting, reflections, angles or anything else. At the very best all they are is speculations by them and to me they are a joke.............jmho

I didn't need Mythbusters to have my BS detector going off when I read Carlos' book. IIRC, Carlos stated the he saw a glint of light from the sun reflecting off of the other sniper's scope lens, and that he just aimed at where the reflection was and fired. That does imply that the sniper's weapon was pointed upwards enough to catch the light, but that would also mean that the light traveled a straight line to Carlos' eye. In order for the scope to match the trajectory of the bullet the sniper would have had to raise his rifle further meaning that he had no idea where Carlos was which is contrary to Carlos' statement that the sniper was about to fire and that Carlos beat him to it. Since there's no evidence to support his account of the events then it stays in my BS folder. Don't get me wrong, I think Carlos was a great sniper, but a lot of his stories just smelled of embellishment to me.

[TrickyNicky]

I have little to no faith at all in Myth Busters because they cannot recreate anything to the exact time, place, lighting, reflections, angles or anything else. At the very best all they are is speculations by them and to me they are a joke.............jmho

I like the mythbusters and think they did a good job most of the time but where they got caught with their pants down so to speak is in their underestimation of the human element. Just about anytime they'd build a robot in place of a human and base their opinion on how their machine performed I'd die a little inside.

Now with that in mind I've had my doubts on the Hancock shot and given the matter a small amount of though. I'm inclined to believe that it happened, but I agree with SWTN in that I wouldn't be surprised if accounts were a bit embellished. Mainly I have my doubts that it was a blind shot with only the memory of a flash to guild it, but then again who knows anyway.

[R_Bert]

wait.  Mythbusters is not reliable?  Next y'all will be saying Snopes is not accurate!  :squint:

[10-Ring]

It's what happens when you still live at home and aren't dating haha.

 

The other day I was going somewhere with my wife and that Lee Brice song "Woman like You" came on the radio.  It got to the line "I'd keep my cash in a coffee can," I looked over at my wife and asked her if she knew why he kept his cash in a coffee can, she replied "no, why?"  So I answered her "Because he's single and has cash."  I think she's still mad, and I'm still broke.

[E4 No More]

The other day I was going somewhere with my wife and that Lee Brice song "Woman like You" came on the radio.  It got to the line "I'd keep my cash in a coffee can," I looked over at my wife and asked her if she knew why he kept his cash in a coffee can, she replied "no, why?"  So I answered her "Because he's single and has cash."  I think she's still mad, and I'm still broke.

You just HAD to poke the bear, huh? :)