Mythbusters: Garand vs Shark Lozenge SCUBA Tank


PDA






hso
July 18, 2005, 03:12 AM
Mythbusters has demonstrated that a 30.06 fired into a standard SCUBA tank at pressure will not result in an explosion. The bullet penetrated the tank. The tank jetted instead of exploded.

I think every time these guys show that firearms don't have the exagerated "hollywood" power people are brainwashed with the better it is for us.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mythbusters: Garand vs Shark Lozenge SCUBA Tank" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
chris in va
July 18, 2005, 03:16 AM
I did see a few years ago someone firing a 30.06 at a gas (hydrogen, oxygen?) tank that did erupt in a fireball. Probably hydrogen but still very impressive.

When I was a kid I shot a regular Bic lighter with a BB gun that somehow ignited and made a nice fireworks display. Tried it the other day and the butane simply puffed into a cloud.

TimboKhan
July 18, 2005, 03:43 AM
Mythbusters routinely do experiments using guns in one way or the other, and though I don't know what thier personal feelings on guns are, they seem to present guns and what they can do (or, maybe even better, what they CAN'T do0 in a reasonable manner. That is one of my favorite programs, actually.

KriegHund
July 18, 2005, 05:01 AM
Gotta love mythbusters for not being BS'ers...most of teh time. People complain that their tests arnet accurate- if the were accurate it wouldnt be funny/entertaining!

Firethorn
July 18, 2005, 06:17 AM
Chris, it was probably a methane/natural gas tank. Either that or an almost empty gasoline tank. Hydrogen burns with a blue flame, and rises so quickly you can't really get a fireball out of it.

slowworm
July 18, 2005, 08:20 AM
Steel or aluminum tank?

This makes a big difference. Aluminum tanks have been responsible for turning several bottle filling stations into so much scrap and have killed and maimed several people in the process.

Wedge
July 18, 2005, 08:49 AM
I am pretty sure Jamie is into guns...I think that the episode on how far you had to be underwater to be protected from a gunshot the blackpower rifle was his because they mentioned, "His homemade blackpowder bullet". They also seem to like to use firearms whenever they can.

mzmtg
July 18, 2005, 09:30 AM
This makes a big difference. Aluminum tanks have been responsible for turning several bottle filling stations into so much scrap and have killed and maimed several people in the process.

All 3 tanks they destroyed were aluminum. The only one that failed catastrophically was the one that was blown with C4.

bogie
July 18, 2005, 09:38 AM
Heck, I've seen propane tanks shot. With tracers.

They weren't really all that spectacular, but they do bounce around a lot.

I wanna see the Mythbusters guys get together with Penn and Teller...

Ian
July 18, 2005, 11:53 AM
I tried shooting some small (1 liter) propane tanks with incendiary ammo, and they would usually jet off in various directions but not explode. The ammo was definitely working (see pic), but the propane wouldn't ignite (my guess is that this was because the propane was in liquid form rather than vapor) :(

http://www.clairewolfe.com/wolfesblog/propane.jpg

hso
July 18, 2005, 12:39 PM
Tanks of flammable compressed gases should not explode from an incendiary bullet. The contents of the tank are pure product and there shouldn't be any air (oxygen) inside the tank to support combustion, therefore no explosion. Just another flashy hollywood special effect that has become more accepted as fact (But it has to be, I saw it on TV) than the boring facts. 50 bmgs blowing up above ground storage tank is such a myth not borne out by fact.

If you rupture a tank and put the combustible gases into the air you can get a fuel air explosion if you have a source of ignition.

Biker
July 18, 2005, 01:16 PM
I recall that in the new Dawn of The Dead movie, lit flares were duct taped to propane tanks then the propane tanks were shot which resulted in an explosion. I wonder if the flare would really make the difference?
Biker

english kanigit
July 18, 2005, 02:01 PM
Gee, that's an awfully thick bottom on the aluminum tank. Do you think the 30.06 will penetrate it? :scrutiny:

It was sorta cool to see the scuba tank jet around inside the shipping contatiner though... :rolleyes:

Ian
July 18, 2005, 02:11 PM
Biker - I didn't try that, but I did something similar. I lit a fire a few inches behind the propane tank, and then shot it. Unfortunately, the whoosh of propane exiting the tank blew out my fire. It would be interesting to try a road flare...

hso
July 18, 2005, 02:12 PM
You've got to split the tank to get enough gas released all at once to get an explosion so duct taping flares only gives a prompt ignition source for the gas jetting out of the tank.

50 Freak
July 18, 2005, 02:38 PM
The Myth Buster guys are definitely not Anti-gunners. Forgot which one, but he wears a "Jackson Arms" t-shirt quite regularly. Jackson Arms is the local indoor range in the SF Area.

I loved how they disproved that shooting a bullet through an pressurized airplane would not cause it to explode like the anti's say it will. Believe one of the guys even mentioned that on this episode.

Or the one where they shot a 180 pound pig carcass to see if it would fly back like in the movies. They used a 44, MP5 in auto and shotgun. Pig only moved back a inch or two with the shotgun and slugs. :rolleyes:

Far as I'm concerned they are dispelling myths created by Hollywood about how "deadly" guns are.

bogie
July 18, 2005, 02:55 PM
At Knob Creek, they use large drums of liquid, and have flares all over the place, generally on the ground.

Yeah, it's impressive.

jdkelly
July 18, 2005, 05:48 PM
All 3 tanks they destroyed were aluminum. The only one that failed catastrophically was the one that was blown with C4.---

Did they have aluminum tanks in 1973ish?

Would that matter?


Respectfully,


jdkelly

centac
July 18, 2005, 05:58 PM
I gotta wonder, wouldnt just shooting the shark in the head work too?

I've shot a lot of flares during night shoots and have always managed to put them out, but I keep trying to light them too, so far unsuccessfully. There is also an old propane tank on the range that just begs to be shot everytime I'm out there.

Cosmoline
July 18, 2005, 06:42 PM
It was an aluminum tank, not a steel one. The instances of aluminum tanks blowing up when refilled were the fault of a fault in the aluminum, not a hole. A tank in good working order is strong enough to turn into a rocket without blowing up. The same cannot be said of household propane tanks or the little ones Coleman makes. They have very thin walls and will detonate. Shoot one of those and BAM! They'd turn a great white into jelly.

They also confirmed that the tank used in the original film was aluminum.

Cosmoline
July 18, 2005, 06:46 PM
I recall that in the new Dawn of The Dead movie, lit flares were duct taped to propane tanks then the propane tanks were shot which resulted in an explosion. I wonder if the flare would really make the difference?

YES! Propane tanks are not at all the same as compressed air tanks. SCUBA tanks are very tough and have a lot more metal than a portable propane tank. Plus, propane and flame are a bad combination. I've shot the little propane tanks and they make an explosion like a flash bang grenade. If you're inside with one, it will knock you back. If you're smoking inside with one, you'd better hope the blast knocks the flame out! In liquid form the propane isn't a problem, but if there's still flame around when it's in gas form in the air--KABOOM! A flare's flame would likely survive the initial blast.

I know of cases in Alaska where detonations at propane refill stations have seriously burned and injured people. It's ironic that a gas as dangerous as propane gets put into crappy old containers that would never pass SCUBA muster for mere compressed air.

Sharks are mostly soft tissue, so if you could shoot a great white's head when it was out of the water you could kill it pretty easily. Elmer Keith used to kill sharks with his .44 revolvers. My bet is a bullet from a .30'06 at point blank into the shark's head would be lethal, esp. if it was SP ammo.

Bigjake
July 18, 2005, 06:52 PM
I can vouch for the flare/propane tanks.

I stocked up on the little lantern ones when they were 2 for a buck at tractor supply last year, and for targets its money well spent. I like to set em out at about 150-200 yds and zap em with my garand or 22-250. nothing catastropic, but its entertaining to watch the canisters do flaming cartwheels across the field. no shrapnel to speak of either. i'd like to try a bigger "grill" tank, but thems expensive.

Cosmoline
July 18, 2005, 06:55 PM
Trust me, you don't want to try a "grill" size tank unless you're behind sandbags :D One of those pups detonating in Seward a few years ago sent one man flying twenty feet and left another with third degree burns over most of his body.

Biker
July 18, 2005, 06:56 PM
The bigger BBQ "grill" tanks are the ones I was curious about. Be damned if I ain't paranoid about discussing this on the Net!
Biker

carebear
July 18, 2005, 07:03 PM
Course, proportionately a shark's brain is pretty small. I'm not sure much of a near miss would do good. The cartilidge it is encased in is pretty elastic.

iiibdsiil
July 18, 2005, 07:39 PM
Well, we all know a .45 will kill any shark, no matter where you hit it, and a .50 will kill it just by passing by within a 15 foot diameter, DUH! ;)

Cosmoline
July 18, 2005, 07:42 PM
The sharks just seem to be very vulnerable to ballistic wounds--much more so than more advanced predators. Look at what a bang stick does to even large sharks--it practically blows them in half, and that's just a shotgun shell with no barrel.

wally
July 18, 2005, 07:49 PM
Look at what a bang stick does to even large sharks--it practically blows them in half

A bang stick is contact wound and the expanding high presure gases do all the spectular work.

--wally.

M99M12
July 18, 2005, 08:18 PM
My Dad took me to see that movie when it first came out. We both lost popcorn when that head showed up at the hole in the boat. Dad liked that Garand doing some work. And if it weren't real, it should of been. ;)

Cosmoline
July 18, 2005, 08:30 PM
And if it weren't real, it should of been.

I think that sums up most people's reaction to the ending. And it's a sweet ending to be sure. Spielberg had the good sense to go with the big bang ending instead of following Benchley's advice.

chopinbloc
July 18, 2005, 10:09 PM
on propane tanks: during my "experiments" as a youth, i discovered that a small, camp stove size propane bottle shot by a .22 near an open flame will produce dramatic results. there was a massive fireball and a propane bottle rocketing out of the fireball, flames trailing behind. when i say massive, i'm guessing about 12ft diamater - way more than i expected to see from such a small bottle. i too am curious about the five gallon tanks. :evil:

on shooting sharks: my dad was a commercial fisherman for many years. he caught a small tiger shark once and wanted to keep it to cook it up. he tried smackin' it in the head with a gaff repeatedly and when that failed he held it up by the line and tail for his deckhand to shoot. emptied the 10/22 into the head and the thing was still going nuts. i'm not sure what effect a larger bullet would have, but i'm guessing the results would be widely disparate. any fish has a propensity to keep on going like an energizer bunny well after they're dead. the nervous system keeps sending signals for quite a while.

MechAg94
July 18, 2005, 10:46 PM
I would think the only way a pressure vessel would explode (assuming you didn't exceed its pressure rating) is if a crack opened up real quick or a seam let go when it was punctured. Most pressure vessels these days would do that.

Hawken50
July 18, 2005, 11:27 PM
Well, we all know a .45 will kill any shark, no matter where you hit it, and a .50 will kill it just by passing by within a 15 foot diameter, DUH!

It's for the CHILDREN, dammit!!!!!

Cosmoline
July 19, 2005, 12:56 AM
Yeah, shooting them when they're on a boat is a bad idea. That's an important safety lesson :D I remember how nasty a little dog fish could be after bringing it aboard. I think a better plan would be to shoot them before you land them and let them get their death spasms resolved.

10 Ring Tao
July 19, 2005, 01:27 AM
Biker - I didn't try that, but I did something similar. I lit a fire a few inches behind the propane tank, and then shot it. Unfortunately, the whoosh of propane exiting the tank blew out my fire. It would be interesting to try a road flare...

Ask, and ye shall receive...

http://s94994366.onlinehome.us/fireball2.mpg

Its a small green camping propane tank put inside a shot up microwave, to contain the tank when it burst. Attached is a lit road flare. The bursting of the tank provides the initial action, and then when the propane hits the flare a split second later.... FIREBALL

Fun stuff.

SkyDaver
July 19, 2005, 01:50 AM
jdkelley asked whether they had aluminum tanks back in 1973, or so.

As a scuba diver at the time, and a USN Deep Sea diver starting in 1979, I can fairly confidently say yes.

Additionally, they chose an aluminum tank since the prop folks for "Jaws" *had* the tanks they used in the film, and they were aluminum.

Finally, they weren't (in this test) trying to see if they could kill a shark by blowing up a tank ... they were trying to see whether a tank would blow up if hit by a bullet. They even went out and bought a Garand, as that was what it appeared to be in the movie.

The firearms episodes I've seen on Mythbusters have been pretty realistic, but I wish their narrator was a little less hysterical.

Brian Dale
July 19, 2005, 11:40 AM
Hey, hso,Tanks of flammable compressed gases should not explode from an incendiary bullet. The contents of the tank are pure product and there shouldn't be any air (oxygen) inside the tank to support combustion, therefore no explosion.Any flammable compressed gases? Remind me, please, of the UEL of oh, let's see ... acetylene. :evil:

OK; sorry for the cheap shot. I agree with you almost 100%. :p

I'm still with M99M12 and Cosmo; it should have been so. That was a good ending.

roo_ster
July 19, 2005, 12:48 PM
In days gone by, when I was younger and had more hair, me & my buds did some 5-gal propane tank experimentation. In the name of "science."

Experiment Methodology as Follows:
1. Plop a full closed 5-gal propane tank in a good-sized campfire.
2. Get back a ways and make sure you have hard cover.
3. Shoot propane tank with 12ga shotgun slug. .22LR will not work, nor will 9mm, and .45ACP out of an Officer's ACP is ineffective.
4. Duck for cover and admire the explosion and mushroom cloud.
5. Check undershorts (if wearing any) for unauthorized deposits.

hso
July 19, 2005, 02:05 PM
Ok, Pure acetylene gas is unstable and will explode with an intense enough shock without any oxidizer at pressures of 2 atm or more :scrutiny: ; however, that is a different reaction than its combustion.(otherwise the flammable range at STP in air is 2-85% :D ) It's the only flammable gas that can do it (leastwise until somone else points out one of the other dozen or more exotic flammable gases that can ignite by decompositon or electric shock or mechanical shock or ... :banghead: ) ;)

brickeyee
July 19, 2005, 04:38 PM
During WWI the use of tracers on zeppelins often did nothing more than punch holes in them. The gas cells did not contain enough oxygen for the hydrogen to even burn, and the bullet was gone long before enough leaked from the holes to create a flammable mixture.
There are a couple other gases that produce energy by decomposition (like acetylene) but the names are not on the tip of my tongue. Nitrocellulose (active on smokeless powder) is another item that decomposes to release energy. No oxygen required.
While a bursting tank can cause injuries, it is very different from a detonation.

Hollywood loves gasoline and the huge flames produced. Black powder is used in many forearms so there will be some visible indicator the weapon was fired. The flash from smokeless in a firearm is to brief in many cases for a film movie camera to catch. At 24 frames per second, and 1/1000 of a second exposure, each second of film only 'saw' 24/1000 of a second of the scene. That means the shutter was closed for 97.6% of the second. CCD (video) cameras operate slightly differently and can catch more of a brief flash, but even those are not 'looking' while the image is scanned out. A CMOS based camera has the same problem as a movie camera catching fleeting events.

And remember, every auto accident ends with the vehicle bursting into flames.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mythbusters: Garand vs Shark Lozenge SCUBA Tank" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!