Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 2:01:03 PM EDT
[#1]
I recall reading somewhere (in Tactical Sniper or Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement) that Hathcock didn't approve of "Marine Sniper." That it, according to him, was inaccurate and didn't represent what he stood for. The article also mentioned that the author never actually interviewed Hathcock for the book, but assembled material from other sources.

Seeing that Hathcock was a very modest man, I can see how he might not have been too willing to sit down and do a tell-all for a book about him. Also I can understand how all this adoration and hero-worshipping wasn't his thing.

So I wouldn't quote Marine Sniper too heavily if the man himself said it was inaccurate.

But on the subject of Hathcock I must say that I'd recommend you picking up any of Stephen Hunter's books. His main character, Bob Lee Swagger, is a fairly obvious tribute to Hatcock.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 2:07:00 PM EDT
[#2]
Another sniper also got more confirmed kills but he was a part of a patrol and racked up kills from there, Adelbert Waldron.

Carlos did it the old fashioned way, alone in the bush, on his own. RIP where ever you may roam Gunny.

PS. THE sniper with the most confirmed kills is Simo Häyhä, Finland. As with other snipers he has gobs of probable kills also. He used a M28-30 7.62x53R rifle without a scope, since in his opinion it made him raise his head just too high. Longest shot was 450m against a Russian sniper sent to that particular area to finish off the Finnish sniper.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 4:55:46 PM EDT
[#3]
A few points of clarification, as I sit here with "Marine Sniper" open in front of me:

As shadowjack1 said, the M2 shot on the courier was from 2000 yards, not 2500.

Chuck Mawhinney did in fact have more confirmed kills than Gunny Hathcock, according to the records.

The 2500 yard shot took place on page 10 of the paperback edition.

He shot a VC who was kneeling in a treeline, hitting him "just below his chin," killing him with one shot. If a one shot kill from a mile and a half isn't good shooting, what is?

The book only mentions sniping with the M2 from the firebase for the first 11 pages, then "the weapons platoon retook possession of their M2 .50 machinegun that had served as Carlos' sniper weapon during his stay on the Duc Pho hilltop." Then he caught a bird to his sniper platoon hooch at Hill 55 and went back to the bush.

Only three other kills with the M2 are mentioned, and all in the first 11 pages: the courier at 2000 yards and two VC running across a rice paddy. If you read on past that, the third chapter starts on page 33 and details his and his spotter's amazing feat of bottling up and decimating a company of NVA in Elephant Valley.

The sniping with the M2 may not be as dramatic as crawling out into a cleared field and dumping a Chinese general from 800 yards, but it's the longest shot Gunny Hathcock ever connected with, according to the book (page 10), and I would venture to guess that if his record no longer stands, it was broken by a man with a precision weapon, firing off sandbags and a shooting bench.

Gunny Hathcock wasn't some slacker who would rather sit in the firebase. His company commander nearly had to have him arrested to keep him in the rear to get some rest.

The folks at Camp Perry don't give the Wimbledon Cup out to slackers.

Jarhead out.

Link Posted: 8/3/2001 5:26:16 PM EDT
[#4]
Go to Camp Perry next week Monday and break something on your service rifle.  Last year Carlos Hathcock III(?) was a small arms repairer on the Viale range. my $.02

Doug
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 5:36:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Damn, where'd I read about the latrine kill then?

It went something like, Hathcock and his spotter saw a VC dropping his pj's to take a crap, and the spotter said "That shot's x yards if it's a mile" to which Hathcock said, "No it's exactly 2500 yards"  "How you know that?"  "Because that's exactly where I sighted in yesterday" POP.

If you have the book in front of you, then I defer.  But I remembered stories like the one above went for pages, and when the local VC got wise to his MO, Hathcock moved his setup to other bases.  I started to wonder why Hathcock was so revered.  Seemed like something mere mortals could achieve to me.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 5:43:07 PM EDT
[#6]
I've never done any serious long range shooting (no more than 300-400 yards), so I'm no expert, but Hathcock did thingsthat were freakin amazing.  I can't even fathom how he identified targets at 2000+ meters with an 8 power scope, much less hit them.  How any shooter with even marginal rifle time can fail to see the inherent difficulty of this kind of shot escapes me.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 5:58:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I recall reading somewhere (in Tactical Sniper or Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement) that Hathcock didn't approve of "Marine Sniper." That it, according to him, was inaccurate and didn't represent what he stood for. The article also mentioned that the author never actually interviewed Hathcock for the book, but assembled material from other sources.

Seeing that Hathcock was a very modest man, I can see how he might not have been too willing to sit down and do a tell-all for a book about him. Also I can understand how all this adoration and hero-worshipping wasn't his thing.

So I wouldn't quote Marine Sniper too heavily if the man himself said it was inaccurate.
View Quote


I haven't heard about Hathcock being crititcal of [i]Marine Sniper[/i]. Based on the way it was written, it very much appeared that it was based on interviews with Carlos. In fact, I believe it contained pictures that belonged to Hathcock. If this book wasn't approved by him, he had an excellent basis for a lawsuit.

Further, Hathcock wasn't all that private. He made a sniper video.

In short, I tend to believe that Carlos had input into [i]Marine Sniper[/i]. It is certainly possible that it didn't turn out like he wanted--that's a seperate issue. I can see why he might not like it--I didn't care that much for the whay it was written. I l;iked the story, not the style.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 6:37:51 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I haven't heard about Hathcock being crititcal of [i]Marine Sniper[/i]. Based on the way it was written, it very much appeared that it was based on interviews with Carlos. In fact, I believe it contained pictures that belonged to Hathcock. If this book wasn't approved by him, he had an excellent basis for a lawsuit.
View Quote

I haven't read the book so I can't say, I was just referring to an article that said so. When I said other sources I meant that the author himself didn't conduct the interviews, but rather that he tied together several interviews done by other people.
As in regard to a possible lawsuit, I believe Hathcock was already gaining fame before the book came out, and that he therefore would be regarded as a public figure. And public figures are open season for anyone who wants to write a book, as long as there's no slander in the book it's hard to file a lawsuit. The lawyer could argue that the book only added to Hathcock's fame, and didn't cause him or his name any harm.
Of course, that's my layman's look at it. For all we know the author of the article I read just wanted to stir up some shit. [;)]

Further, Hathcock wasn't all that private. He made a sniper video.
View Quote
Yeah, but was that video about him and his experiences, or about snipercraft?

In short, I tend to believe that Carlos had input into [i]Marine Sniper[/i]. It is certainly possible that it didn't turn out like he wanted--that's a seperate issue. I can see why he might not like it--I didn't care that much for the whay it was written. I liked the story, not the style.
View Quote
And that might have been the basis for the article I read.

I'm still going to take [i]Marine Sniper[/i] with a grain of salt or two.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 6:50:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 7:07:51 PM EDT
[#10]
Snipers are trained in the craft of Artillery fire as well as marksmanship. If Gunny Hathcock went to the bush, with his spotter and killed 15 men with artillery fire, then hes still a bad ass. All of you armchair snipers (I.E Hathcock critics) need to respect this American hero. You head to the bush by yourself for a week...no a day and see how bad you are. I dont care if he had the most kills or not. He is still a great American. No flame intended, just a sore subject with me.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 7:48:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Whitefeathers rig was a Winchester Model 70 in .300 Winchester Magnum,  with Redfield 3-9x40mm scope.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 8:00:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Snipers are trained in the craft of Artillery fire as well as marksmanship. If Gunny Hathcock went to the bush, with his spotter and killed 15 men with artillery fire, then hes still a bad ass. All of you armchair snipers (I.E Hathcock critics) need to respect this American hero. You head to the bush by yourself for a week...no a day and see how bad you are. I dont care if he had the most kills or not. He is still a great American. No flame intended, just a sore subject with me.
View Quote


Ditto 100%  with the addition of a couple quotes aimed at the guys that dont a clue to how lucky we are that people like that did what they did... there is so much more that a guy could say...

No man who refuses to bear arms in defense of his nation can give a sound reason why he should be allowed to live in a free country"  T. Roosevelt

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men are willing to do violence on their behalf. (George Orwell)
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 8:18:47 PM EDT
[#13]
It's funny.
I read the book when I first came across it in paperback, over 10 years ago.
I bought it because I wanted to read about some guy making all these really cool long range shots.
I wanted to soak up all the intricate technical detail of making 600 yard shots on unsuspecting enemy personell.
There was plenty of that to be sure.
But, what I ultimately come to realize was the sniper part was just one facet of a truly extraordinary MAN.
Carlos Hathcock was much, much, more than just the "high score holder"(even if that assertation later turned out to be incorrect.)
Any one of the many acts that he performed, easily made him a hero, by anyone's standard.
To me, the fact that a single man performed so well and made so many sacrifices while simply "driving on", in his quiet and unassuming manner is a subtle quality often missed today.
I can only hope that, if the occasion demands, I too could meet the measure set by men like the good Gunny.
I think THAT is the real story of Carlos Hathcock.


Regards,
Sharps
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 8:38:52 PM EDT
[#14]
As I recall (I could be wrong since it has been years since I read anything on him) Carlos Hathcock used 2 different Sniping Rifles during the Vietnam War. During his first tour of duty he used a Winchester Model 70 chambered in 30-06 fitted with an 8X Unertl Scope.

During his 2nd Tour he used a Remington Model 700 chambered in 7.62 NATO fitted with a Redfield scope.

He received a lot of his advanced Marksmanship training when he shot competively for the USMC.

According to Jim Land "Carlos was NOT the BEST shot" however what made him unusually good as a SNIPER was his total concentration, ability to pay attention to the most minute details and his extraordinary fieldcraft.

The Fieldcraft was something he developed at a very young age when he hunted for food.

Other notes: Chuck Mawhinny surpassed Carlos Hathcock in the number of Confirmed Kills.
And had the highest number of confirmed kills for the USMC during the Vietnam War.

HOWEVER, the man who got the MOST confirmed kills for ALL US Service Personnel, was none other than Army Sgt. Adelbert F. Waldroon. Who used a M21 and did most of his work during the night.

The most IMPORTANT thing in sniping isn't the Marksmanship (though it really helps!!!) but it is your own self discipline, your ability to put in your full concentration, your ability to remain concealed, and your entire plan (and backup plans).

To me the most interesting shot that Carlos made was against the NVA General. He had no spotter, no artillary or airstrike backup.


Link Posted: 8/3/2001 8:57:53 PM EDT
[#15]
There is a lot more involved to become a good long range shooter than people realize.

First of all very good eyesight is a very big plus. And yes, some people have more acute eyesight at longer distances than other people.
I am one of those lucky people.

Anyone can shoot at any given distance which the majority of your competition rifle shooting consists of. I also consider varmint hunters that use range finding optics and spotting scopes anybodies also.

What separates the real long range shooters from the others is the ability to identify your target and estimate the distance your target is away from you in any type of terrain situation and then being able to holdover the bullet drop for that distance and caliber and load that you are shooting and then also allow for any kind of windage conditions. Then you have to situate yourself in the most optimum shooting position and get control of and regulate your breath and heart beat to be able to squeeze the trigger and hit your target. And yes, you can learn to control your heart rate and bring it down if the circumstances permit some time. Controlling your heart rate is typically the hardest thing to learn to do as a long range shooter. At least for me it has been. It may sound impossible but it can be done.

So what is this last paragraph telling you. Not just anyone can be a long range shooter overnight if ever. It takes a lot of practice to learn all of the above and being able to combine them all together to hit the target.

I myself believe the only way you can become a true and naturally gifted long range shooter is by hunting. Its the only way you really can learn how to estimate distances, and read the type of terrain and the wind drift for that particular shot to be made.

Also on another note. The pre 64 model 70's and 700's through the Vietnam era were very accurate rifles out of the box. They had  better quality and workmanship. Much better adjustable factory triggers than the garbage they put in them today.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 9:16:52 PM EDT
[#16]
He had to have an incredible mix of talent, courage, skill, and luck to do what he did.
[sniper]
My jaw drops imagining the shots he made.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 9:34:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 10:58:34 PM EDT
[#18]
my own tidbit here -- there are Confirmed Kills and Probable Kills
i believe (correct me if im wrong) confirmed kills is when at least 2 NCOs witness the kill or 1 Officer ?
and a probable kill is un-witnessed

so hathcock and mawhinney (along with other US Snipers) have there confirmed kills, but they Also have HUNDREDS of Probable kills.

meaning hathcock has whacked far more people than his confirmed kills would lead people to believe, and mawhinney greased more than 103.
i would guess both men have killed in the range of over 300 enemy personal each, if not more.

i know of the Finnish snipers that have kills of around 400-500, but are these CONFIRMED totals by US standards (which i doubt) or are they Total kills (confirmed and probable by US standards). i think the european snipers dont make the distinction between confirmed and probable, and just go with total Assumed kills.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:31:42 AM EDT
[#19]
As I understand it, and Tuukka will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Finn snipers saw longer periods of uninterrupted service than their U.S. counterparts. This would also give them some astronomical kill numbers even under the U.S.' stringent confirmation standards.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 4:55:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Several posts have mentioned the lack of precicision rifles and their use back then.

Lets think about a print competition between a professional photographer and a Sears fast-food photographer.

Give the Pro a manual Nikon with manual lenses and flash. Give the Sears shooter a Nikon F5, the latest SB series flash and great ED-IF Nikkors.

With that combination, I'll put my money on the Pro.

Why, because the Pro has a working knowledge of his/her tools and knows how to apply their experiences to make things happen outside of a static lighting set-up in a small cubicle.

And if anyone's offended because they worked at Sears, then too bad. [:D]

When Carlos went back for his 2nd tour, he teamed up with a match-grade armorer (McAbee). together they built different rifles that Carlos was able to select for the type of shooting situation he would be in. Much like a golfer chooses a club.

I recall in the book that Carlos developed a unique mount for his scope that bolted onto the M2.
Carlos showed initiative in many ways.

From what I have read about his personal character, he is a fine example of what I should strive to be. He was honest (thats the biggie), hardworking, and compassionate.

Not saying that I'm not honest, but it sure seems to be lacking these days.

Just wish I could get more field time.



Link Posted: 8/4/2001 5:29:21 AM EDT
[#21]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 5:30:57 AM EDT
[#22]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 5:31:35 AM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 5:37:14 AM EDT
[#24]
Jim Dandy, i do not know about our other snipers histories but on Mr.Häyhä´s case he fought in the Winter War which only lasted 105 days and he was severely wounded in the face by an explosive bullet a week before the war ended.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:54:13 AM EDT
[#25]
Field craft and knowledge of shooting will make a good sniper.  Carlos IMO like many others was "addicted to the hunting of armed men."(Hemingway).  I'm not going to slice hairs on who did what and where, or who was the best or greatest.  It all seems subjective to the situation at hand.  Stories sometime are trumped up or buried do to humility.  

You can run into Maj. Plaster ret. at the National Matches at Camp Perry also.
$1.02
Doug    

 

 (grammar)  
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:55:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
If you have the book in front of you, then I defer.  But I remembered stories like the one above went for pages, and when the local VC got wise to his MO, Hathcock moved his setup to other bases.  I started to wonder why Hathcock was so revered.  Seemed like something mere mortals could achieve to me.
View Quote


When you have done so, please fill us in on the details. Until then, please take the word of many here that he was an extraordinary man who accomplished phenominal things. If you take issue with the details, kindly walk a mile in his jungle boots before you dump on a man who so deserves every bit of this Nation's respect.

Jarhead out.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:29:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Look I don't know all that much about Mr. Hathcock, but I do know he did his duty and did it well.

I don't have any idea how you even zero a scope on a .50 cal for a 2500 yd shot, or how he kept it on the gun for that matter.

If what he did was so simple why didn't the other 500,000 or so guys we sent over there kill a hundred or so Viet-Cong/NVA, each? I'll tell you why because it was a WAR those other guys knew a little something about killing too. Nothing messes up your aim like getting shot.

I think some of you need to tone it down you are talking about a American Hero.
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 8:22:37 AM EDT
[#28]
I never had the priveledge of meeting Carlos.

I believe that books are written to sell copies,  without regard for the truth.

I do know that a lot of men that actually went to VietNam respected the man, and the US Government decorated him.  He did bear the scars of serious burns, and the story suggests that he did re-enter a burning vehicle to save his brother Marines.

Hell, the story suggest that EVERYTHING he did was to protect his brothers in arms and the country he loved..

I don't know about you, but I believe it is enought to say the man was a hero, true to the spirit of the Marines and the brotherhood of man...

He is dead now and there is nothing we can do to thank him for his sacrifice, except to follow his example and live our lives as he did, with honor and integrity...

Why would anyone care to speculate about HOW he earned the respect of his peers... he did it, men are alive today that knew and respected him,  end of story.

This seems remarkably appropriate at this moment...

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat; who strives valiantly; who errs and may fail again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who does know the great enthusiasm, the great devotion; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

           - Theodore Roosevelt
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 8:27:39 AM EDT
[#29]
Hey I posted that quote like 2 wk ago somewhere around here............

True
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 9:23:02 AM EDT
[#30]
imitation is the highest form of flattery...
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 9:43:04 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
As I understand it, and Tuukka will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Finn snipers saw longer periods of uninterrupted service than their U.S. counterparts. This would also give them some astronomical kill numbers even under the U.S.' stringent confirmation standards.
View Quote


As Tuukka said, the Winter War only lasted a bit over 100 days. However, the Finns fought against the Russians during WW2 as well, so no doubt some of their snipers racked up a large number of kills during that war.

During the Winter War, the Soviets often employed poor infantry tactics. No doubt they were 'easy' victims for a skilled rifleman and hunter. I put 'easy' in quotes, because although I tend to think that the Soviets would present an enterprising enemy with the oppertunity for many kills, they were still capable of being very dangerous.

I'm not sure of the sniper, but there was one instance I read of where a Finnish sniper shot a huge number of Russians in the legs in one day. The Russians were using those steel "rifle shields" that were sometimes issued to infantry. They were out in the open, and the Finnish sniper got on their flanks and nailed one after another.

The Russians often sent in huge numbers of infantry who were poorly trained for that sort of war, and who were poorly lead by an officier corp who's main concearn was not upseting Stalin or the political commissioners. The Finns, by contrast had a system that allowed individual initive, and they had much more in the way of individual fighting skills. They were also defending their homeland.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top