Mythbusters
- Thread starter kennyboy
- Start date
- Status
Heard about it. There was discussion of it in another thread.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=182740
I think the conclusion was only subsonic ammo will travel through water with any kind of distance 12feet. Anything faster disintegrates when it hits/breaks the surface.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=182740
I think the conclusion was only subsonic ammo will travel through water with any kind of distance 12feet. Anything faster disintegrates when it hits/breaks the surface.
Did you guys notice that they refered to a 1903 Springfield as an M1 Garand?
I think they just confused the two because they both fire the same round, but I thought it was kinda sloppy.
I think they just confused the two because they both fire the same round, but I thought it was kinda sloppy.
Entertaining episode, and if you're like me, it perhaps made you think of "Saving Private Ryan" and the Bond film "You Only Live Twice". In the former film (arguably a notch higher in general firearms realism than your average 007 movie 
), MG42s are scoring lethal hits on submerged troops in the water off Omaha beach. In the latter, S.P.E.C.T.R.E. helicopters firing machine guns of unspecified caliber fail to hit Connery and his lady friend when they make a shallow dive (I don't recall if they are actually in the ideal path of the bullets when they dive.). Arguably realistic, in both cases, if Adam and Jamie's conclusions are correct.
If Blofeld's chopper henchmen were firing standard fmj rifle-caliber ammo at Bond from such a short range, the bullets may well have fragmented enough to spare 007 injury.
On the other hand, depending on the actual distance of the Wehrmacht machine gun bunkers from the beach, the 7.92x57mm Mauser rounds might have decelerated enough from drag by the time they hit the water to inflict serious damage. Or perhaps standard issue ammo for the MG42 was different, but I assume it was some sort of fmj.
I imagine there are many other considerations that haven't occurred to me.
), MG42s are scoring lethal hits on submerged troops in the water off Omaha beach. In the latter, S.P.E.C.T.R.E. helicopters firing machine guns of unspecified caliber fail to hit Connery and his lady friend when they make a shallow dive (I don't recall if they are actually in the ideal path of the bullets when they dive.). Arguably realistic, in both cases, if Adam and Jamie's conclusions are correct.If Blofeld's chopper henchmen were firing standard fmj rifle-caliber ammo at Bond from such a short range, the bullets may well have fragmented enough to spare 007 injury.
On the other hand, depending on the actual distance of the Wehrmacht machine gun bunkers from the beach, the 7.92x57mm Mauser rounds might have decelerated enough from drag by the time they hit the water to inflict serious damage. Or perhaps standard issue ammo for the MG42 was different, but I assume it was some sort of fmj.
I imagine there are many other considerations that haven't occurred to me.
In my experience doistance from muzzle to water is crucial.Further away better cghance of penetration in water.Angle plays a part also.
Yes, here is the copy I made for the internet. It is 37MB.
Mythbusters - Guns and Water
BTW, my PayPal is [email protected] if you want to donate for bandwith.
Mythbusters - Guns and Water
BTW, my PayPal is [email protected] if you want to donate for bandwith.
So I guess I get to call the WWII Frogmen liars when they seen bullets enter the water. They were close enough to experience it while the bullet was still supersonic. What was the enemy shooting 22s?. Mythbusters is what it is "entertainment" with junk science. It's fun to watch, fun to see the outcome but how many takes to they take to get it "right".
Get real, people Mythbusters is entertainment
Get real, people Mythbusters is entertainment
Crosshair said:Yes, here is the copy I made for the internet. It is 37MB.
Mythbusters - Guns and Water
BTW, my PayPal is [email protected] if you want to donate for bandwith.
Thats cool, mine is about 400 meg and hires.
Don't bust on the Mythbusters too much. They are actually good for guns by showing the deathray, kill everything, evil image Hollywood has ingrained in most people's head as false. They seem progun and we need more of that on TV. They may not be gun nuts like us but they still help us.
Isn't your average 9mm ammo supersonic, if only marginally? However, 30.06, .223, and .50BMG are all mach 2+ at the muzzle. Just for fun, I looked up some fairly random 8mm Mauser ballistics info at Winchester's web site, and if I'm reading the table right, the bullet has decelerated to 997 fps at 500 yards, down from 2360 at the muzzle.
If the Mythbusters have discovered a general truth - that conventional fmj ammo at high velocities (commercial 30.06, .223, and .50BMG muzzle velocities), shatters when striking water at a roughly 30-degree angle, it's still entirely possible that high-powered rifle bullets can be lethal for submerged targets if the range is great enough. Of course, there are probably issues of projectile temperature and density, angle, etc., that are not taken into account here, and velocity may not be the real issue after all.
In any case, I've decided that 9x18 Makarov is a better caliber than .338 Lapua for hunting Grizzly Bears in the swimming pool.
If the Mythbusters have discovered a general truth - that conventional fmj ammo at high velocities (commercial 30.06, .223, and .50BMG muzzle velocities), shatters when striking water at a roughly 30-degree angle, it's still entirely possible that high-powered rifle bullets can be lethal for submerged targets if the range is great enough. Of course, there are probably issues of projectile temperature and density, angle, etc., that are not taken into account here, and velocity may not be the real issue after all.
In any case, I've decided that 9x18 Makarov is a better caliber than .338 Lapua for hunting Grizzly Bears in the swimming pool.
default said:
Ever since I saw that episode, I've been wondering it the angle they hit that water at had anything to do with the bullets breaking up. Wouldn't the off-center hit cause the bullet to deform as it entered the water? I wish they had tried firing straight down into the pool and maybe at a few different angles. It also would have been nice if they had tried some sub-sonic hand-loads using the same bullets to confirm their theory.
I thought about trying it my self when I saw some sturdy plastic barrels at a liquidator that were about a two feet wide and four feet tall, but I’d be aiming a little bit too close to my own feet for my comfort.
U.S.SFC_RET said:
What the hell are you talking about? Did you even watch the episode?
The Mythbusters performed an experiment and reported on the results. They didn't just sit around and tell you what results they got; they actually showed you what went into the experiment and what kind of results they got. They showed how they arrived at their conclusions, and you're calling them liars? How the hell could they have lied about something they had just proven?
Your post was so outrageously silly. You're like a math teacher who asks one of his students to show his or her work, but instead of looking at the work you just look at the result of the work and say 'YOU'RE LYING!!!!'.
stevekl said:
stevekl IMHO Mythbusters is a great show and most of the time they are convincing. But it is controlled media TV. They will get the results that the producers want when they shoot the episode. They will take and retake shoots until they get it right. If you want to believe the networks that's fine, this is a free country.
What reason do they have to "fix" the results?
It's not great science but I don't see an agenda in that or any other episode, certainly not an anti-gun one.
I too have heard/read accounts from frogmen of rounds performing as shown in SPR, that they didn't on MB means there's a variable (probably distance or angle) they didn't account for, not that they cooked the books.
It's not great science but I don't see an agenda in that or any other episode, certainly not an anti-gun one.
I too have heard/read accounts from frogmen of rounds performing as shown in SPR, that they didn't on MB means there's a variable (probably distance or angle) they didn't account for, not that they cooked the books.
1. What possible reason could there be for the producers to want the results to show that rifle bullets often break up on impact with water?????
2. The results were as expected. It's not unusual for bullets to fragment in a fluid medium. The higher the impact velocity, the greater the chances of fragmentation. Had they shot the pool at much longer distances, or had they used different ammunition the results would have been different.
3. The anecdotes of bullets penetrating the water are NOT contradictory. It is not at all uncommon for militaries to use steel core or steel jacketed ammunition for the express purpose of increasing penetration and decreasing the liklihood of fragmentation.
4. I have not noted the Discovery Channel to be a hotbed of political opinion. I find it somewhat difficult to believe you have ever watched the Mythbusters show (or any shows on the Discovery Channel for that matter) based on your comments.
<nerd>
At 32F/0C the speed is 1085 feet per second. At 212F/100C the speed is 1268 feet per second. (I looked it up online for you all)
According to Winchester's website, 20-22" barrel, .223 is around 3240 ft/sec.
So we are doing about 3x speed of sound. That that speed, water won't spread fast enough and so it will shatter on impact.
9mm is margainally 1090 ft/sec.
30.06 is about 3020 ft/sec as well..
So the 9mm will probably not shatter, but everything else will.
At 32F/0C the speed is 1085 feet per second. At 212F/100C the speed is 1268 feet per second. (I looked it up online for you all)
According to Winchester's website, 20-22" barrel, .223 is around 3240 ft/sec.
So we are doing about 3x speed of sound. That that speed, water won't spread fast enough and so it will shatter on impact.
9mm is margainally 1090 ft/sec.
30.06 is about 3020 ft/sec as well..
So the 9mm will probably not shatter, but everything else will.
Johnska (quoted) The anecdotes of bullets penetrating the water are NOT contradictory. It is not at all uncommon for militaries to use steel core or steel jacketed ammunition for the express purpose of increasing penetration and decreasing the liklihood of fragmentation.
+1 to you Johnska
I didn't watch that particular episode but did they explain that about steel core or steel jacketed bullets?
I might of jumped the gun concerning the facts about it besides as a general rule modern ammo is faster. it is interesting to see that bullets do disentigrate when it hits water.
+1 to you Johnska
I didn't watch that particular episode but did they explain that about steel core or steel jacketed bullets?
I might of jumped the gun concerning the facts about it besides as a general rule modern ammo is faster. it is interesting to see that bullets do disentigrate when it hits water.
A little sloppy, yes. The 30-06 used in the "water" show was a Garand. The '03 was from a show about bulletproof stuff, where the 30-06 penetrated everything that stopped the pistol rounds.stevekl said:
Another statement that seemed "off" was when they referred to the .50BMG round as "armor-piercing". Somehow, I doubt that they were shooting AP rounds. Probably just some FMJ or HP target loads. Did someone record the episode? I don't remember black paint on the bullets.
Regards.
default said:Entertaining episode, and if you're like me, it perhaps made you think of "Saving Private Ryan" and the Bond film "You Only Live Twice". In the former film (arguably a notch higher in general firearms realism than your average 007 movie
If Blofeld's chopper henchmen were firing standard fmj rifle-caliber ammo at Bond from such a short range, the bullets may well have fragmented enough to spare 007 injury.
On the other hand, depending on the actual distance of the Wehrmacht machine gun bunkers from the beach, the 7.92x57mm Mauser rounds might have decelerated enough from drag by the time they hit the water to inflict serious damage. Or perhaps standard issue ammo for the MG42 was different, but I assume it was some sort of fmj.
I imagine there are many other considerations that haven't occurred to me.
If I recall, the MG42s were a good ways from the beach. Could the rounds have slowed enough to become subsonic (I doubt it)?
Hadn't seen the Bond movie.
U.S.SFC_RET said:
I dont really have a lot of respect for people that feel to the need to check their facts only *after* they have publically identified people as liars. Why dont you do your own research next time? Its amusing that you accuse the show of making baseless conclusions when you yourself seem to be such a fan of the same activity.
mbs357 said:
They were probably, in general, several hundred yards back. Putting an MG right on top of the obstacle you are covering with it is kinda wasteful. figure that most should have been shooting at an oblique across the beach to interlock their fields of fire and you get a little more range added as well.
There were lots of guns firing tens of thousands of rounds. I'm sure a good number made whatever the magic mix of velocity, angle and construction to penetrate the ocean.
i just watched it
that was very cool. I wish they would have shot the 9mm in the pool for comparison.
I have heard that a fishing arrow penetrates farther than a .410 slug. After seeing this I would believe it. I know I have missed fish in shallow water and the arrow was stuck in the bottom. Never have shot a fish over a couple of feet down to know if it would penetrate the scales or just push the fish back.
that was very cool. I wish they would have shot the 9mm in the pool for comparison.I have heard that a fishing arrow penetrates farther than a .410 slug. After seeing this I would believe it. I know I have missed fish in shallow water and the arrow was stuck in the bottom. Never have shot a fish over a couple of feet down to know if it would penetrate the scales or just push the fish back.
- Status
Similar threads
