Myth Busted: Sniper Scope Shot Not Lethal

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scope
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the portrayal of a sniper scope shot in the show MythBusters, specifically addressing the claim that a bullet can travel through a sniper's scope and kill the opposing sniper. Participants explore the accuracy of the show's experiments, the scientific method employed, and the implications of the findings presented in the show.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that MythBusters demonstrated the plausibility of a bullet penetrating a sniper scope, while others express skepticism about the accuracy of their experiments.
  • There are mixed opinions on the show's adherence to the scientific method, with some praising its entertainment value and others criticizing its occasional lack of thoroughness in testing theories.
  • A participant recalls that an armor-piercing round was required to achieve the penetration of the scope, indicating that the initial tests may not have used appropriate materials.
  • Concerns are raised about the show's tendency to oversimplify complex scientific concepts, with some participants feeling that certain episodes insult viewers' intelligence.
  • Several participants highlight the educational value of the show, noting its role in promoting critical thinking and scientific inquiry, despite its flaws.
  • There is a discussion about the impact of the show on public understanding of scientific principles, with some arguing that it can inspire interest in STEM fields among younger audiences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the accuracy of MythBusters' portrayal of the sniper scope shot. While some appreciate the show's contributions to public understanding of science, others criticize its methods and conclusions.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention specific episodes and experiments, indicating that some discussions may depend on individual interpretations of the show's content and the scientific principles involved. There are references to ongoing debates about certain myths tested on the show, suggesting that some issues remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in the intersection of entertainment and science, fans of MythBusters, and those engaged in discussions about scientific methodology and public understanding of science may find this discussion relevant.

wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
551
A sniper kills an opposition sniper by hiting his scope the bullet traveled through the scope and killed him.
No way according to myth busters, even at point blank range the bullet does not make it all the way through the scope.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They made it work, if I remember right. I don't see why they get a bad rap on this forum (I've seen it a few times), they stick to the scientific method and do things well, plus its entertainment and not meant to be absolute.
 
They don't always think things through. Sometimes they miss obvious pitfall in their theories when they decide to test something out, and other times they decide something is plausible, without getting positive results, simply because they can't figure out why it wouldn't work.

I'd still take that show over 90% of other "sciency" shows. Definitely take it over anything on the History channel. I can't believe how much it's fallen.
 
They seem to take great pains to get things right, on the same show they proved it plausable for a bullet from one gun to lodge in an empty chamber of another.
I guess most people would think the lenses in a scope to fragile to stop a bullet but they sure did on this show.
 
Yeah, it's been a while since there was a really good episode. Have you seen the new show "Smash Lab" its far, far worse, IMO.
 
I only watch TV at my folks place so i am not up to date with shows.
 
That's probably for the best.
 
Yes. If I recall correctly, they had to use an armor piercing round to get through it (that was on the revisit because they used the wrong materials on the first try).

I enjoy watching mythbusters even though they are sometimes inaccurate.
 
The show jumped the shark after they hired the "cool kids". They are even worse about this than the 2 guys.
 
  • #10
It is an excellent show if for no other reason than that it strongly promotes and popularizes the disciplines of critical thinking, experimentation and the principles of the Scientific Method. What other show does this?

Criticisms such as 'they got this wrong or that wrong' don't reflect poorly on the show at all, they encourage debate, re-evaluation, retesting and modification. To cast aspersions upon the show based on getting things wrong is like casting aspersions upon Newton for getting his theory of gravity wrong.

How could any of us on PF consider anything less than throwing our full support behind - and giving a rousing "hear hear!" for - this show?
 
  • #11
They could replace it with a more modern version where Simon Cowel + sharon Osbourne laugh at the ideas and then the viewers phone in on a premium rate number to vote on if the idea works or not.
 
  • #12
At my work, we had an incident that resulted in changing the safety policy - we had to wear steel-toed boots. Several guys on the floor really resisted, because they believed that if you were wearing them and you dropped a heavy object on your foot, the steel cap would collapse and cut off all your toes.

We tried to explain that if you drop happened to drop an object on your foot that would collapse a steel toe, you would probably loose your toes anyway - but they just wouldn't change their minds.

Mythbusters did a show on it, showing that it is highly unlikely that toes would be amputated in that manner. That sealed the deal for them!
 
  • #13
I love that show, and not just because they blow stuff up. It's extremely entertaining and educational. The best aspect, though, is the extent to which they emphasize taking all possible safety precautions when mucking about with stuff. I'd still be alive today if someone had pointed that out before I started experimenting with bombs. :rolleyes:
 
  • #14
Some of the shows are a bit insulting to our intelligence, however. I still am in disbelief that Mythbusters had to do a show on the airplane on a treadmill situation.
 
  • #15
jhicks said:
Some of the shows are a bit insulting to our intelligence, however. I still am in disbelief that Mythbusters had to do a show on the airplane on a treadmill situation.

You wouldn't believe the fierce debates that have been held about that situation, though. There are lots of people who do need their intelligence insulted apparently. I'm glad they put that issue to bed so I don't have to keep seeing people argue it. You could tell they both knew the plane would still take off.
 
  • #16
Meatbot said:
they put that issue to bed so I don't have to keep seeing people argue it

You're an optimistic little bugger, aren't you? That argument will never stop no matter what happens. Stupid people will continue to argue their point, and intelligent people are too proud to let it go unchallenged.
As for the 'insulting our intelligence' bit, I disagree. If the show were intended for the likes of us, then it would indeed seem condescending. Then again, if everyone was like us there'd be no market for the show in the first place. I'm probably the least-educated member of PF, and have no trouble not only following what they're doing but frequently anticipating the outcome. Keep in mind, though, that there are a couple of hundred million people not in PF who have access to the show. If a junior high student who can't read or write develops an appreciation for physics and engineering from watching them, and then strives to become educated because of it, then the show is worth its bandwidth in gold.
 
  • #17
Meatbot said:
You wouldn't believe the fierce debates that have been held about that situation, though. There are lots of people who do need their intelligence insulted apparently. I'm glad they put that issue to bed so I don't have to keep seeing people argue it. You could tell they both knew the plane would still take off.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2417" . 604 pages and still going. I tried to put some logic in there for a couple of pages, then gave up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
As the saying goes, "I used to be disgusted; now I'm just amused."
 
  • #19
DaveC426913 said:
How could any of us on PF consider anything less than throwing our full support behind - and giving a rousing "hear hear!" for - this show?

Hear, hear! And a hip, hip!

I agree, I think that many of the things that look like carelessness are more from budget and time and film production constraints. They have to arrive at some sort of firm conclusion on each Myth (pretend that they at least covered their bases) and pretend like they've done something interesting, even if they simply wasted a ton of money and time. Once they've done all of their experiments they can't just throw all of the footage out.

The guys on Top Gear waste considerably more money and do significantly stupider things and they're still interesting to watch.
⚛​
 
  • #20
I'm sometimes astonished at the durations of some of their experiments. Some appear to require weeks of prep and construction, and some of the experiments last for several months.
 
  • #21
I love the show. It's a great combination of entertainment and education. They're not careless with their experiments, and, as stated before, when the do miss something, they take notice and re-think the experiment and do it again. ... obviously they don't go into deep discussions of the science involved, but they do touch on the basics of what's going on, which is usually more than the non-scientist would know.

Besides... how can anyone not like a show that conducts THIS experiment:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eTQh7D-nDNM"

:bugeye: that's ridonculous!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
NeoDevin said:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2417" . 604 pages and still going. I tried to put some logic in there for a couple of pages, then gave up.

The plane WOULDN'T take off! Are you guys THAT stupid??

...

Only joking...;D Hehe. Funny link btw
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
moe darklight said:
Besides... how can anyone not like a show that conducts THIS experiment:
Yeah that one was awesome! I couldn't believe what it did to the paneling on those vehicles. Peeled em like bananas!


But my fave is the cement mixer. They closed the highway a mile away for that one.
 
  • #24
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

High School Does this thought experiment show that Space must be curved?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Reality check on superhero power
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
What Are Realistic Mid-Journey Disasters in Interstellar Travel?
  • · Replies 118 ·
4
Replies
118
Views
13K
Mickey 17
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Complementarity in Physics and Biology
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
What are some interesting revelations about Rasputin in this new biography?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
Can you watch a gamma-ray burst from the side?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
High School Calculating the perfect tennis shot using vectors
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad What is the secret behind Shi Yan Ming's extraordinary punching power?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
What is Absurdism and how does Albert Camus approach it?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K