I'm sorry, but you're COMPLETELY wrong. Sound travels much better underwater since molecules are much closer together, making it travel faster (about 4 times faster in water) and farther. The reason why you can't hear things very well underwater is because our ears are not designed to work underwater, same way our eyes are not designed to see underwater, and similary, our vocal cords are NOT designed to produce sound underwater either. Some animals that have hearing/sound-wave producing organs that are meant to be used underwater communicate quite effectively underwater, and some whale-produced sound waves are known to travel as far as 2000 miles.
The only thing you forgot is that sound travels so fast underwater that you can't get a reliable sense of direction from it. That's why you learn never to surface if you hear a boat motor while you are diving: you have no idea where the boat is, or what direction it is traveling in.
Remember, water is 1200 times more dense than air. That is also why water below 75 degrees causes hypothermia if you aren't careful: it is more dense and pulls the heat away from your body faster.
The reason why you can't hear abovewater sound when you are underwater is because sound wave does not penetrate water well, and vice-versa since densities are so different between those two media.
Precisely. That's also the reason sounds carries so well above water, it bounces off rather than being absorbed like it would be on land.
Similarly, shock waves are transmitted much more efficiently underwater. Example of such would be a Tsunami that could transmit a very powerful force across thousands of miles, such as 1964 Alaskan Tsunami that damaged Pacific Coast as well as sending a 12 foot-wave to Hawaii and more recently a 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami that I probably don't need to elaborate on.
Absolutely, that's why depth charges were so effective against submarines in the second world war. The explosion didn't have to be dead on because the water would transfer the shock wave so effectively.
Having said that, I don't think that you would feel a significant shock wave from a fired pistol since the displaced water movement is not significant and there is not much of an expanding mass either....same way you don't feel much of a "shockwave" above water from a pistol.
Pistols don't make a whole lot of actual shock wave underwater. Remember, smokeless powder burns, it doesn't explode. You would feel more, though an explosion this small would still be negligible, if you could fire off an equal amount of black powder, which is a class A explosive
f course you would have a heck of a time keeping your powder dry.
Please don't be disappointed with us...some of us know our physics.
I'm never disappointed with people who understand basic physics.
Back to the question of whether or not all pistols would work under water, or just the GLOCK?
All smokeless powder pistols would work, at least for a time. The problem isn't the immediate effect of the water; that is pretty negligible. The problem occurs with repeated exposure, especially in salt water. Eventually, without a great deal of care, corrosion would take hold and the pistol would become useless. That is why the SEALS use the GLOCKs: they tend to be exposed to salt water more than most other soldiers, and GLOCKs are not subject to as much problems with corrosion. Before the polymers the SEALs used steel like everybody else.
PS Because of the density of the water accuracy over more than very short distances would make firearms ineffective. That's why they invented bang sticks spear guns. Oddly enough, when shooting from above the surface at a target underwater, subsonic muzzle loaders were more effective than modern high powered firearms that shot supersonic rounds in the tests I have witnessed. The muzzle loaders actually penetrated several feet and hit the target while the supersonic rounds nearly disintegrated and did little or no damage.
thing??? or better yet couldn't hear the people that were outside the water???
