Talk:Carlos Hathcock/Archive 1

Mythbusters reference

Just watched an episode of Mythbusters titled "Firearms Folklore", which tested the myth of Hathcock's scope-shot. Simply put, it was discovered that the shapes of lenses makes it pretty impossible to do that.. they did note that it could probably happen, but labeled the myth "Busted". No intention on putting it on the article, just it's worth knowing. --Uber-Reindeer 02:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mythbusters story is already in the main article. Note that the program's "recreation" did not exactly recreate the conditions. — ERcheck (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While the Mythbusters recreation might not be up to spec, so to speak, it DOES raise the question, is there any actual PROOF of Sgt Hathcocks famous shot? Or is it, indeed, just a myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyBoy2k (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mythbusters re-visited the myth, and using a period scope, period ammo and a period rifle, effectively recreating the exact circumstances, they "killed" a geletine dummy. The Mythbusters re-labled this myth "plausible" because they proved that under the circumstances, a kill shot is entirely possible with a period scope and ammo, fired from a period rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.114.216 (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC) The syndicated television entertainment "mythbusters" is to science as anaerobic mud is to chocolate - it looks the same to the uninformed, perhaps, but it's sad when people think the show is worth citing as a reference point.--Charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.252 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters used modern day scopes with more lenses in them where Vietnam era scopes didn't have near as many lenses in their scopes. The Outdoor Channel proved this a few months ago on one of their shooting shows.

Drug Smuggling?

I THINK it was in his book where I read it through and at the end it came up with a little 'after Vietnam' story and it was revealed that he was caught smuggling marijuana around 1983 (?) and went to prison for a few years for it. I could be confusing him with someone else but I thought it'd be worth mentioning in case it was real. Certainly worth adding to the article if it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.42.92 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just finished reading the book, and there is no mention of anything like this in the book. 71.227.160.250 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Units of Measurement

In the legacy section of the article, there are an over-abundance of units. Yards, miles, meters, (and even a furlong!). It would be clearer and easier to grok if the units were of the same type. I don't know which it would be best to standardize on, but 2500 yards being bested by 2430 meters across two paragraphs takes some brain power to comprehend.

M25 Tactical Rifle Image

File:M25.jpeg

A Carlos Hathcock M25 tactical rifle, manufactured by Springfield Arms

I've cut and pasted the wiki code for the m25.jpg image which is missing from the server. Can we find a good image to put this back and have it displayed? --Paul Laudanski 03:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Check out http://www.free-definition.com/Carlos-Hathcock.html They have an image. Also google images has three, all about the same.

I heard he shot an enemy sniper through his scope and into his eye. It's said to be the inspiration for similar scenes seen in Robocop, Eraser and Saving Private Ryan. Can anyone tell me if this is true?

This is true, though it wasn't his famous long shot. He was in vietnam, and he shot an enemy sniper who was hunting him through the scope, after seeing the glint reflected in the sunlight. The story is recounted in his book, Marine Sniper.Swatjester 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the book also. To add more cool details (best I remember them..), Hathcock and the enemy sniper were stalking each other over a long period. One day Hathcock notices a strange glint far off so he shoots it and takes off. He sneaks back later to see what it was and discovers the body, and realized what had happened. I seem to recall thinking the movie "Sniper" also took a lot from that book but don't remember precisely if it was this event or what.

Just watched an episode of Mythbusters titled "Firearms Folklore", which tested the myth of Hathcock's scope-shot. Simply put, it was discovered that the shapes of lenses makes it pretty impossible to do that.. they did note that it could probably happen, but labeled the myth "Busted". No intention on putting it on the article, just it's worth knowing. --Uber-Reindeer 02:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mythbusters story is already in the main article. Note that the program's "recreation" did not exactly recreate the conditions. — ERcheck (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While the Mythbusters recreation might not be up to spec, so to speak, it DOES raise the question, is there any actual PROOF of Sgt Hathcocks famous shot? Or is it, indeed, just a myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyBoy2k (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mythbusters re-visited the myth, and using a period scope, period ammo and a period rifle, effectively recreating the exact circumstances, they "killed" a geletine dummy. The Mythbusters re-labled this myth "plausible" because they proved that under the circumstances, a kill shot is entirely possible with a period scope and ammo, fired from a period rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.114.216 (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read the account in One Shot, One Kill, of Hathcock shooting a Vietnamese sniper through the latter's scope, and according to that, Hathcock and his partner kept the scope as proof of the incident. Thus, all we need to be sure that it truly occurred is a picture of the scope, and if Hathcock's family doesn't have the scope, some military installation, probably a sniper range, is sure to have it as memorabilia. Can't someone find a picture of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.16.180 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Mad respect to Gunny, but this article is shitty and needs some serious cleanup. There is all kinds of talk about his feelings and eventual resolution, but no citation. Surely, we can do better than that.

Fair use rationale for Image:Carlos N. Hatcock II.jpg

Image:Carlos N. Hatcock II.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious statements

The stories about "One of Hathcock's most famous accomplishments was shooting an enemy sniper through his scope, hitting him in the eye and killing him" and "As the general was stretching in the morning, Carlos fired a single shot thru the heart,instantly killed him. He had to crawl back instead of run when soldiers started searching" needs dire references and are subject to dispute until then. WinterSpw (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Marine Sniper by Charles Henderson 152.2.62.5 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference the biography of him previously cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.235.217 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

His autobiography (Marine Sniper) does indeed contain both claims. I went ahead and added the appropriate citations. Since he was alone during at least one of those events, and the only other credible source would be the report on the event that HE wrote and filed, we can only accept his word (and there is no reason not to) that the events happened as described. The citations are provided and besides skepticism there is no contradictory evidence, this should end any dispute, the tags should now be removed. F-451 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the fact/dubious tags. Not sure why you'd question Hathcock's integrity without evidence to the contrary. This is especially since the 'claims' were officially documented by the US Marine Corps as a confirmed kill and well referenced in the book. This level of disrespect for this Marine should make you ashamed. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is stupidity of the highest degree. You don't trust anyone, and I mean ANYONE without evidence, I thought this was also Wikipedia's policy? And there is no evidence here. Especially the claim about the general, may I know the general's name? If there was indeed such NVA general. There is NO recorded NVA general died in the field both during the Vietnam war as well as the subsequent war with the Khmer Rouge & the Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.92.217 (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nickname

Can we get the Vietnamese nickname right? "Lông Trắng" translates as White Feather, so that part is correct. I have no idea where the "du K'ich" comes from - the word for sniper is "bắn tỉa", and this Hathcock page doesn't mention it at all.
--Tphcm (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List of historically important U.S. Marines... Billy Sing and Simo Hayha were never U.S. Marines...

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock

"See also United States Marine Corps Portal

   * List of historically important U.S. Marines
         o Jack Coughlin, a retired Marine sniper with over 60 confirmed kills whose service includes Iraq and Somalia
         o M40 sniper rifle, the Marine Corps sniper rifle used by Hathcock
         o Chuck Mawhinney holds the highest number of confirmed kills (103) for any USMC sniper in history
         o Billy Sing, an Australian World War I sniper who had an unconfirmed 201 kills
         o Simo Häyhä, a Finnish World War II sniper holds the world record of 505 confirmed kills
         o Adelbert Waldron, who holds the record for the most confirmed kills in U.S. military history, with 109 kills in Vietnam"

Billy sing and Simo Hayha were never U.S. Marines... why are they under the toggle as U.S. Marines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.103.133 (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate link in the references section

I don't know how to edit the References section of this article, but the first reference is to a page at impactguns.com that offers the Springfield Armory White Feather rifle for sale. Is that really a reference? Sure looks like spam to me.

If anyone else agrees with me, and knows how to remove that link, my thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1S90 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Record Shot

In the article, it says that Carlos Hathcock set the record for the kill at the longest range with a .50 caliber MACHINE GUN with a scope on it. The article then says that the record was broken by a Canadian with a .50 caliber SNIPER RIFLE. See my point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.144.46 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In fictional works section

Why does this page contain a list of every movie where a sniper killed another sniper by shooting through their scope? Is this really necessary? --Kaven (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant to note that it was in the movie Shooter, since the character is based on Hathcock. Zchris87v 09:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt the movie about the shot through the scope Sniper staring Tom Berringer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.87.205 (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Disability versus Retirement

Retirement at 20 years would have been nice, but 100% disability is better because it's tax free [[1]] while regular retired pay is not.

131.191.48.224 (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but you'd have to be a Marine to understand why the other is better.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What almost stepped on him?

"In Hathcock's words, almost stepped on him as he lay camouflaged with grass and vegetation in a meadow shortly after sunset."

There is a subject missing from that sentence.

Cows? Soldiers? Peasants? Water buffaloes?

Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed info about Canadian Snipers

I didn't think it was really necessary except to take away from Sgt. Hathcock. The previous paragraph only states that he has the longest kill in the 20th century and the now removed paragraph about Furlong etc were all 2002 and beyond. It was a large amount of info copied and pasted from another article and was overbearing within the section which is intended to be about Carlos Hathcock. I should also mention I am from Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleRT (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Killing the NVA General!

"As the general was stretching in the morning, Carlos fired a single shot thru the heart,instantly killed him. He had to crawl back instead of run when soldiers started searching" needs dire references and are subject to dispute until then. WinterSpw (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the appropriate citations. Since he was alone during at least one of those events, and the only other credible source would be the report on the event that HE wrote and filed, we can only accept his word (and there is no reason not to) that the events happened as described. The citations are provided and besides skepticism there is no contradictory evidence, this should end any dispute, the tags should now be removed. F-451 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is stupidity of the highest degree. You don't trust anyone, and I mean ANYONE without evidence, I thought this was also Wikipedia's policy? And there is no evidence here. Especially the claim about the general, may I know the general's name? If there was indeed such NVA general. There is NO recorded NVA general died in the field both during the Vietnam war as well as the subsequent war with the Khmer Rouge & the Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.92.217 (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

dubious/unclear claim about the sniping of the PAVN general

What is the name of the general that Hathcock has killed ? Because as far as I know those are PAVN generals who died during the Vietnam War.

General Nguyễn Chí Thanh (1967 in Hanoi), General Hoàng Sâm (1968), General Nguyễn Sơn (1956), General Phạm Kiệt (1975) and General Lê Chưởng (1973). Mgz (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are the PAVN generals who died during the war. Only Nguyễn Chí Thanh died at the end of Hatchcock's first tour of duty in Vietnam for the whole of 1967 he was in Hanoi and died there in July the same year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.92.217 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1. It was a classified mission at the time and I am sure is still under classification.
2. Even to the day he died Hathcock, as far as I can assertain, never knew where he was dropped for that mission. He could have been in Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam. His map only showed terrain and he was not given ajoining maps.
3. I don't think the PAVN would admit that one of their Generals was killed by Hathcock. They had a bounty on his head to begin with, why add to the legend and drop morale?76.177.132.252 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit request: Marine Corps career

According to this article, the attack on the amtrack patrol Hathcock rode with was near Khe Sanh. This is not true. Charles Henderson writes on p. 248 of Marine Sniper that the patrol was near the Que Son area. Although the pronunciation is similar, it is not the same. 71.188.59.166 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: this was placed here by me. I forgot that I had accidentally logged out. Lordhood117 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Source: Popular Books vs Official Documents

The Wiki page is an excellent example of the difference between questionable second or third hand sources and reliable original sources.

For example, one passage, quoted from 'Marine Sniper' states: "This weapon had a Traversing and Elevating (T&E) mount that enabled precise aiming: it was accurate to 2500 yards when fired one round at a time." This sounds impressive but is totally without valid sourcing. Quite the contrary, FM 23-65 states the weapon is only effective against point targets out to about 1500 meters in the single shot mode. (Even for area fire (i.e., fully automatic mode) the weapon is only effective to about 1830 meters.) Further, the T&E adjusts the aim of the weapon in 1 mil increments - nothing more precise; hence, each click on the T&E moves the point of aim 2 meters horizontally at 2000 meters range - the range at which the shot on the bicycle courier supposedly took place. These important facts, taken from the weapon's Field Manual, call the details of this incident into question. The likelihood that anyone can hit a 1 inch wide moving target (the fork of the bicycle) at a range far beyond the weapon's max effective *area* target range, when tracking using a T&E that causes the point of aim to lurch in 2-meter jumps is, well, it's absurd. You can imagine how fast he bicycle must have been moving to cause the rider to "somersault' forward over the handlebars. Worse, the book also states (though it is left out of this Wiki page) that Hathcock's hands were gripping the two wooden handles (the spade grips) - which meant he could not haven possible been adjusting his aim to follow the moving target. The shot, as described, simply could not have happened.

Unfortunately, this is not the only passage in the article so flawed. Most of this Wiki page is just as bad. By citing only the romanticized popular books, without also citing the original sources on the technical details, this Wiki article merely propogates myth. This reads more like blindered hero-worship than a factual Wiki treatment. Why have Wiki's normal standards not been aplied here? 173.8.254.141 (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Find a source that says it didn't happen, easy day!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Prove a negative. That'll work. Of course, what is truly relevant here - or should be - is proving the event did haappen, yet all sources ultimately trace back to the eye witness accounts of just one man - Hathcock himself. The witnesses are either dead (leaving no record of the events) or left unnamed in the story-telling. I don't belive that fits with Wiki's verification standards.

And there's plenty more just plain bad info in this article, such as: "He was told he would be recommended for the Medal of Honor, but he stated that he had only done what anyone there would have done if they were awake, so he rejected any commendation for his bravery. Nearly 30 years later, he was awarded the Silver Star, due to the statute of limitations on classified missions being 20 years. The medal had to be approved by Congress, which downgraded it to the third most prestigious award in U.S. military." What's wrong with this passage? Plenty: 1) Contrary to the nickname "Congressional" Medal of Honor, Congress neither approves, disapproves nor downgrades these awards. The sole approval authority is the President of the US, who awards it in the name of Congress. (See SECNAV Inst 1650.1H) 2) There is no statute of limitations on awarding the Medal for any reason relating to classified missions. None. 3) Besides, the operation he was on when the track was hit and he saved the fellow Marines was not classified, so the entire "statue of limitations on classified missions" line is simple nonsense. 4) Navy Medals of Honor normally must be *submitted* within three years of the event (for Army and AF it is 2 years). Beyond that cut-off date, submissions may still be made . . . if Congress passes a statutory waiver. This requires a Member of Congress to introduce legislation. If Congress had a hand in denying Hathcock such a Medal, the refusal to grant this waiver would be their only possible role. If that happened, it would be a matter of public record, and a source for that in the Congressional archives should be cited. 5) Regulations and instructions specificaly forbid informing the potential awardee that he has been recommended for the Medal of Honor. All actions regarding such nominations are labeled "For Official Use Only."

So clearly the passage cited from the book are not grounded at all in fact. Why rely on obviously erronious info, when original sources are so easy to cite? 173.8.254.141 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that passage is not in the books, looks like it was inserted by a troll type nin-reg user.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. It was changed back in July. I also see your revisions. Thanks. When you get a chance, you might also look the the following assertion in the Career section: "The enemy rifle was recovered and the incident is documented by a photograph.[2]" That footnote refers to page 29 in the 2001 edition of "Marine Sniper." In my 1986 edition, that page deals with Elephant Valley, not the shot through the scope (which is not covered until more than 100 pages further on). There's no reference to a photo of the incident (or damaged scope?) in Marine Sniper. Hathcock merely says he tagged the weapon and turned it in, hoping to be able to keep it, but never saw it again. The photo section of the book contains two photos of Mosin-Nagants, but neither claims to be the one from the incident; they are merely presented as examples of the type weapon used by NVA/VC snipers. Might want to check the 2001 edition to see if it's really in there. Thanks again. 173.8.254.141 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I will, the rest of the cites are a mess. I'll go through them and fix them when I get some time. Thanks for pointing these out. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Apache and The Cobra

Shouldn't these 2 NVA snipers itleast be mentioned among his kills after all they were quite known The Apache had her own Sniper Unit and The Cobra before gettin shot in his eyeball came closes to killin him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. By killing the Apache, Hathcock made his first major contribution to the war by taking out the one person the Marines on Hill 55 feared most at the time of the inception of 1st Marine Division's sniper school. For more info, read chapters 7-9 of Marine Sniper. However, I still need info that the sniper that Hathcock killed by shooting him through the scope was, in fact, the Cobra. Marine Sniper does not mention his name at all, just the info on the engagement. Lordhood117 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The stub Apache (Viet Cong soldier) has been created.--Ønography (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How to reference this interview about "Apache"?

If I want to reference what is said at this link,[2] (at 4 minutes and 20 seconds) then what would should I write? What is the "name of this interview"?--Ønography (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Many Wiki editors stay away from YouTube for reasons outlined here (yes, there's even a policy for this). If I were to cite an interview like this, I might say something like, "As Mr. X said in an interview on [date]" and add a ref., but be prepared to have it challenged. Maybe. --Seduisant (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The video is an excerpt from John Plaster's interviews with him. The interviews were in both the Ultimate Sniper video as well as Marine Sniper:Carlos Hathcock.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Exact distance of record shot

There's a continuity problem in the article regarding the distance of Carlos' record shot: the "Marine Corps career" section places the distance of the shot at 2,286 yards, while the "Legacy" section (and almost every other reference to the shot) reads 2,286 meters. However, both figures seem to be sourced, so I theorize that someone simply typed the wrong unit. Having no access to any of these sources, I humbly request that someone who does please determine the appropriate unit and edit the page accordingly. jfoldmei (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources:Sasser, Henderson(both books), and Leatherneck magazine state 2500 yards Here's a link to one[3]. 2286 would be accurate for meters. My suggestion would be to list as 2500 yards with the conversion to meters following, just reverse the template.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Hathcock

(moved from Berean Hunter's talk page)

Carlos Hathcock CLAIMED he shot through a scope, where is the actual evidence? The references are just his word!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.147.4 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

He had 93 confirmed kills - referenced. It isn't up to you to criticize based on your opinion. You need reliable sources...and more importantly, you should be using the talk page to form a consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

He might have had 93 confirmed kills, but that does not change that the facts of this kill are in question. It was his CLAIM with no other evidence!!! Prove me wrong, please where is the evidence that he shot down a scope (not just his or his spotters word). physics theory shows it is imposible and practical experiemnts (at closer range) have shown that is it probably impossible. So excuse me for trusting evedience over somebodies word. You know a CLAIM!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.147.4 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Mythbusters episode? That is just a claim. Why are you willing to accept that as gospel? How many ballistics charts have you analyzed? As I have asked you, what are the reliable sources that you cite? Mythbusters said that his shot was possible.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about Mythbusters first of all and even if I was, that does not change the fact physics does not support his claim when comparing angle of barrel and scope. If we say that a bullet can go straight down a scope given perfect angle to the scope, then it would mean that the enemies scope would not have been zeroed on him and his other claim that he is only alive becuase his reflexes were faster at that moment. Both claims cannot be true. Still you have not given any evidence that it is more than a just a claim. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.147.4 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is you who will need the sources to support your claim. The article should reflect what is published in reliable sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But the published "reliable" sources are his claim, not fact!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.147.4 (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On this particular kill where he shot through the scope, he and his spotter Lance Corporal John Burke recovered the weapon. It was properly tagged and cataloged and eventually found its way into the Marine Corp. Museum at Quantico Virginia and is in the exact condition it was in when recovered by Hathcock and Burke. Also in the museum is the actual rifle Hathcock used on his first tour during 1967. The shot did take place and happened exactly as Hathcock and Burke described it in their after action reports. The reports are on record in the National Archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.151.42 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to disparage Hathcock, I don't know, and in all honesty, don't CARE wether he took that shot or not...but, the text of the article ALSO states that that rifle was later stolen...which means that there is, still, no evidence, however nebolous, that he did what is claimed. There is no proof beyond his, and his spotters, word.85.230.47.111 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is far better than the rant of some random no-account IP. If you have sources which state your criticisms then bring them forth...otherwise, there is no reason to accept your babbling.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The division in which he served while at Hill 55: more info?

The following quote indicates that he served in "first division". In what article on wikipedia, would I likely be able to find the most information about the division in which he served while at Hill 55?

"She" ... "had her own sniper platoon down there, and I think they were out to get all my snipers — everybody. And she had been there, 'cause we took over from third division, and she had been there when the first division took over, and she just continued to march — she had been torturing a lot of people prior to us getting there. --Ønography (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

First Marine Division, but that really doesn't tell you much. 1st MARDIV at that time was close to 20,000 men strong and included a number of Brigades, Regiments, etc. Do you actually have any copies of these books? It's all laid out in there, including the regiment, etc. The same area is referenced in Sasser's The Walking Dead about my "Alma Mater" 1st Battalion 9th Marines.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hathcock & Kennedy Assassination?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: People, this discussion page is NOT a forum... so please stay focused~! Note this article page is about Carlos Hathcock, not some cuckoo conspiracy theory that makes people chase shadows in circle(s).

In the JFK assassination conspiracy world there's a tale that persists in which Hathcock supposedly recreated the shooting of President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963, with Hathcock saying: "Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did".

The story apparently got its start in a 1994 book titled KILL ZONE by a conspiracy theorist named Craig Roberts, who claimed to be a Marine sniper and a buddy of Hathcock's. I can trace down no other sources for it, no other details -- and while the shots taken at Dealey Plaza might have been troublesome for Oswald, I find it very hard to believe that they would have been troublesome for Hathcock. Anybody have further confirm-deny information on this matter? MrG 184.99.194.221 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to add that I contacted the USMC historical branch at Quantico and got the response that they had no record of any such test. None of the biographical materials I have seen of Hathcock online mention such a test. It would be interesting to know from those who read the various books on Hathcock if they are similarly silent on the matter. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Roberts was indeed a Marine sniper in Vietnam and knew Hathcock. He co-wrote One Shot, One Kill with Sasser. I don't know about Hathcock & JFK assassination simulations, however.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any source for Roberts being a Marine sniper other than his own book? Not that it matters much; the bogus "test" is all that's important. Duplicating the Dealey Plaza shooting would not have been trivial, CBS NEWS did it in 1967 and it was a lot of work; the USMC had no brief to investigate the assassination and would have stepped on a lot of toes of those who did if the Corps had. Certainly, if the Marines had done it, they would have documented it. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Roberts was not a school-trained Scout Sniper. He was an automatic rifleman and fulfilled a role similar to today's Designated Marksman at the platoon level in a rifle company. He used an M-14 with an ANPVS-2(?) or whatever was then issued.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

While unrelated to Gunny Hathcock, Massad Ayoob wrote an article almost 20 years ago in which he detailed a group of shooters reenacting the JFK shooting. There were people who made the shots in the time limit(Ayoob made the shots on target but not in the time limit)...the ones who were successful were left-handed shooters who shot the rifle left-handed, rested the forearm, and worked the bolt with their right. He said its possible Oswald might have been left-eye dominant and shot the rifle this way bracing it on the window sill. That would account for lack of powder residue on his right hand, too.see Ayoob, Massad, "The Ayoob Files - The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View," American Handgunner, March/April 1993.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range discrepancy

"Legacy" and "Weapons" contradict each other on the units of Hathcock's longest shot.

" telescopic sight at a range of 2,500 yd (2,286 m), taking down a single Vietcong guerilla." vs "record for the longest confirmed kill at 2,286 yards".

Can anyone find the correct number and update appropriately?

MAGZine (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it's 2,500 yd (2,286 m), as on the Longest recorded sniper kills, after all I think they confused meters (2,286 m) for yards. I'll modify it, but it's just conjectures. --Amendola90 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotation

“It was a one in a million shot. I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."

The above quotation (text box on this Wiki page) is word-for-word identical to that used by Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1506760/Sniper-shot-that-took-out-an-insurgent-killer-from-three-quarters-of-a-mile.html

Coincidence? Using same words? Reference? 74.198.164.143 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled this for the present and haven't seen attribution to Hathcock anywhere yet.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

his son is C.H. III, but he's not a Jr?

His name is Carlos Hathcock (no middle name given), but his son's name is given as Carlos Norman Hathcock III. Is this a mistake; should one of them be named Junior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.180.109 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

His Father deliberately named him Carlos Hathcock the Second, not Junior. A parent can chose to make that distinction on a birth certificate. He probably intended not just to have a son named for himself, but to instill a sense of lineage and establish it as a family tradition, which many cultures cherish more than Americans. Also, being named third does not necessarily mean your father was second. A grandchild or much later child can be named 'the second' or 'the third.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.66.198 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it that Hathcock has so caught the interest of people? He isn't the sniper out there with the highest tally, by far. He doesn't even have the highest tally among US snipers in VIETNAM...but still, he is the one everyone talk about or refer to. 85.230.45.221 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably because he was mentioned first and was known as the Top Sniper for so long. I remember reading Henderson's book about him 25 years ago, he was the Guest of Honor at my first Marine Corps Ball, and when Ward's book came out listing Chuck with more confirmed kills, I (and many others) thought it was a typo. That and his legacy to the USMC Sniper community with establishing the first non-wartime Scout/Sniper school gave him his fame.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned first by who? I can see him aiding in the Scout/Sniper school being relevant...but, everyone always refer to those 93 confirmed kills...Simo Häyhä had over 500. In less than 100 days, in temperatures rainging from -20 to -40 C, using a rifle without a scope. And for some reason, this man is barely even talked about. I'm not disparaging Hathcock, but by comparison, Häyhä should be a GOD to snipers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.47.111 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles Henderson's book in 1986, for one. Yes, there have been other stories of other Snipers, but for whatever reason, Hathcock's was the most compelling and for lack of a better term, complete. From the "record of 93" (which we now know was bested while he was still active) to his injuries saving the other Marines, to using the .50 BMG and the book coming out at a time when there was an audience for it. Hathcock was a legend in the Corps and there was and has been more coverage of Hathcock than just about any other Sniper in the US press/media ever since. Not only were the books about his career, but about his early life and even his legacy. It's a bit like the controversy over the radio, Tesla may have come up with it first, but Marconi gets the credit. I can look at other articles on wiki and make similar arguments, often the difference between coverage of two topics in the same vein is the amount of significant and reliable sources of one over another.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about confirmed kills! Thousands of kills were not confirmed in the war, since confirmation required the witness of an officer. The greatest snipers often worked far out in the boonies, alone or with only their enlisted spotter. The true greatest were those who took the most difficult shots and faced the most harrowing risks to get the shot - not the most prolific that could be witnessed by officers. The only reason Carlos's four day crawl-in to kill an NVA general got confirmed was because a US officer was put on a hidden observation hill, by helicopter, specifically to watch for and hopefully witness the general's death; because it was so important. They picked CH for the kill, because the NVA/VC were terrified of him; they had a better idea of how many he actually killed than the Americans did. Also, according to the information in Henderson's first book about CH, the interest and respect CH received from so many people has even more to do with the more personal factors: First, CH's extreme courage and determination were displayed when he continued in the Corps after being horrifically burned while saving others in Nam. Thereafter, when he would shoot at the range he would end with bleeding hands, arms and sometimes torso due to the delicate skin/scar tissue that covered most of his body. He collapsed more than once. He was ill with MS, but pushed on. Second, he was considered not just a great sniper, but a truly exceptional instructor, which when it comes to building a true and lasting legacy, is more important. Thus he became the first Senior Sniper of the Marine Corp when the Corps-wide sniper program was established. (previously, snipers were taught at independent sniper schools.) It was as an exceptional man, not just a sniper, that CH was so admirable. I'm not positive how to cite sources, I hope I got it right. Info came from the book: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.66.198 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why, indeed? The more this fable is examined, the less there is to it. At the time Hathcock was just starting his sniping career, the Army had a sniper with over a hundred kills in Vietnam (per Henderson's own book) so Hathcock's place as top sniper is unjustified. The legend becomes even more questionable when one actually examines the contemporary official documents. In his first month of sniping (covering parts of Oct and Nov '66) Hathcock claimed more than 30 confirmed kills, not to mention 'probables' (pg 101 in Henderson's book). The fact is that the entire 1st MarDiv's reports (which included the scout-sniper school Hathcock was assigned to) for both Oct and Nov contradict this claim. The daily SITREPs for those months include descriptions of every action, down to and including suspected sympathizers detained and even stray incoming rifle fire that caused no casualties. There was even a section of the SITREPs dedicated to the activities of the division's scout-sniper teams. For the entire two months covering the 30 days of Hathcock's supposed tally, the 1st MarDiv employed sniper teams 390 times yet claimed just 4 confirmed enemy KIA for all of the scout-snipers, and 1 probable WIA. [There were two additional entries - a '1' and a '2' - but the SITREP failed to note if they were KIA, WIA, confirmed or probable. The accompanying narratives failed to elaborate on the circumstances of these two; the two entries appear to be typos duplicated from the previous column indicating the number of teams employed that day for that unit.] So, if the entire Division's sniping effort - including Hathcock - accounted for just 4 confirmed KIA over a 60 day period, it becomes clear Hathcock's claim of "more than 30" KIA for a 30 day portion of those two months is flat out false. Which should call the rest of the legend into question as well. Keep in mind, those two months covered fully one third of Hathcock's six month tour as a sniper in 66-67. Remove those 30 unsubstantiated 'confirmed' kills he claimed for that period, and his supposed kill tally falls into the 60s - a far less impressive total hardly worth a book, much less two. And since the Division claimed just one probable during this period (and just a WIA at that), that would cause a critical thinker to discount the absurdly high estimates of Hathcock's 'probables', as well. Worse, if one were to take this gross exaggeration and extrapolate it across Hathcock's other 4 months as a sniper on his first tour, even a total in the 60s appears vastly over-stated.

The fact is that no record can be found in the 1st MarDiv's Command Chronologies of any of Hathcock's stupendous feats, not even the action in Elephant valley - an action which would have the been largest combat action of the division for that month. Yet there is no mention of it at all.

The closest the official record comes to confirming any of Hathcock's stories involves the alleged Chinese colonel. Hathcock/Henderson have this taking place 1 Jan 67, while the official report places it on 29 Dec 66; one is tempted to accept this as the same incident. Except . . . that the incident took place over 70 kilometers from Hathcock's position, the oddly dressed enemy's uniform did not match the color Hathcock described, the oddly dressed occupant was not judged to be Chinese or a colonel, and per the Div's report, the sniper ended up killing a VC in the boat, NOT the oddly dressed occupant. There are no other incidents resembling the book's tale in this period. It is impossible to believe the classified SITREPs and INTSUMs would include an incident in which a possible Chinese officer was missed, yet exclude reports for one actually being killed. It appears this incident was conveniently lifted from another sniper's exploits, moved to Hathcock's location and sexed up for better reading.

What is more stupefying are the many technical errors in the book. The book claims Hathcock "pioneered" the use of the M2 in the sniping role, which could not be farther from the truth. It was used in this role in the Korean War, some 15 years previously. In fact, there are a couple pictures of Army troops in the middle of a Korea War winter employing an M2 - complete with Unertl scope - in the sniping role. Also, the Dec 1955 Field Manual 23-65 on the M2 has an entire appendix (APP III) dedicated to the topic of using scopes on M2s for sniping. Yet Henderson claims Hathcock "pioneered" the employment of the weapon in this role 11 years later? Far from it, he was, at best, merely reading his manual and following its directions. Another leg of the legend destroyed. In yet another astounding error, Henderson notes that the gunner could squeeze off single shots because the weapon's cyclic rate was so slow. Since the M2 actually has a single shot mode, controlled by the bolt latch release lock, Hathcock and Henderson (who was himself a Marine) certainly ought to have been aware of this fundamental feature of the weapon, but curiously seem oblivious. The feature is discussed at multiple points in the FM, so it is no secret. It's an astounding error for someone who "pioneered" the use of the weapon in that role. The sad thing is that these are just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many obvious technical and tactical mistakes in the telling of the tale that it boggles the mind.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Yet Hathcock/Henderson's tales have no proof at all. A vast literature on the subject is based on nothing but circular citations, all of which eventually trace back to Hathcock/Henderson's own tales. It is a shaky basis for a legend, and well worth questioning. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Killing of an NVA general

Which general did he assassinate? Wouldn't the fact that a general had been assassinated be recorded in Vietnamese or American history? The fact that this guy's name is known but the so-called "general"'s name is not known makes me suspect that this story is a load of crock. DHN (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of works of fiction as sources

It's very telling about the questionable nature of the claims in this article that it makes extensive use of the Henderson books, which are published by a publisher specializing in erotica and romance. There is no fact-checking at all, and the entire book is a romanticized retelling of Carlos Hathcock's supposed feats. The book itself has a disclaimer "this is a work of fiction". DHN (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That was that publishing company when it was founded. It evolved and was an imprint of Penguin Books and after the 70s specialized in military titles, read more than just the first sentence of an article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the source. It has a disclaimer right in the beginning that it's a work of fiction!

I read it before the best part of you ran down your mother's leg.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Age is not an indication of wisdom. If you bothered to read it, you'd notice the disclaimer right at the copyright page.

Well, i took it out; why are you still running your cryhole?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)