Mythbusters 7/13 show

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really, really want to like the show more, and would- if they got their methodological act together
Click to expand...
I would say that they do not do a very good job at the one thing I pride myself in and thats research before they even start the myth busting process
Click to expand...
I don't mean safety- I mean poor pseudoscientific method!
Click to expand...
I've had issues with that show ever sinse I saw the episode where they tried to mess up police radar.
Click to expand...

Hey guys, it's a TELEVISION SHOW, not a university class on physics or engineering (and they don't claim otherwise). It's brain candy, that's it.
BTW: Most televisions come with an adjustment called "brightness", but it don't work...you might want to try the one labeled "Off", and crack a book instead. ;)
 
Hey guys, it's a TELEVISION SHOW, not a university class on physics or engineering (and they don't claim otherwise). It's brain candy, that's it.
BTW: Most televisions come with an adjustment called "brightness", but it don't work...you might want to try the one labeled "Off", and crack a book instead.
Click to expand...

Ha- you're lecturing a "book cracker" here. :)

My beef is, they could still do it properly even if it is a (gasp) television program. :rolleyes:

Remember that TV doesn't have to be stupid all of the time.
Mythbusters is fun, but with a bit more effort to do things properly it could be much better.

.
 
Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't chaff have to be between the radar and target to be effective.
Click to expand...
Yeah but they aren't REALLY gonna show you something that works in that case, specially not when they rely on SFPD for all those .50cal tests.

I don't think their methodology is perfect, but they are merely trying to show how implausible most of these myths are.

The one that bothered me was the SUVs with the windows down vs AC for mpg test. 50mph? Are you kidding me? I know Expiditions are overweight turds, but still, I bet they could have gone faster than that. The flow of traffic on the freeway close to me is 80, (Granted in a more or less straight line,) so their data was semi irrelevant. Still, it was nice to see them put it to the test.
 
I like the show (still digusted by the whole pig in the car thing). It may not be the most scientific show in the world, but it's far more stimulating entertainment than the vast majority of TV shows. I won't even bring up that overdramatic crap my sisters watch on the WB. :barf:
 
You know what I like about it?

I can tell people that a bullet going through the skin of an airliner at cruising altitude won't cause explosive decompression of the airliner, and they don't particularly believe me.

I can sit the same people down in front of the Mythbusters episode where they shot an airliner full of holes with to no effect and those same people will now take it as Gospel that no explosive decompression will take place.

Yes, the Scientific Method is sorely lacking in Mythbusters. I don't care. Those two are in Hollywood and they work hard to take the really scary myths out of guns, in a format that the Soccer Mommies understand.

Bless their little hearts and pass the TiVo.

LawDog
 
From what I've seen, they hit about 50-50 in their mythbusting. It's pretty good entertainment for a "science" show--that's the emphasis. I certainly wouldn't stake my life on most of their conclusions. But it's all good fun.

I had a real problem with their "cellphones can't start gasoline fume fires" episode. They ignored a very obvious phenomenon, which is that flip-type cellphones generate a small static charge when opened. (I've seen the sparks from my own StarTac.) On Mythbusters they used a non-flip-type phone and just let it ring and ring. No fire, so they concluded that it "can't happen."
 
I also liked the one where they showed a bullet won't knock you down--a favorite gun forum discussion. It took a 12 ga. slug to finally move a pig a fraction of an inch backwards.
 
So did the show air yet? What happened? How far will the different round penetrate when shot into water?
 
So did the show air yet? What happened? How far will the different round penetrate when shot into water?
Click to expand...

The 9mm was slowed down enough to only go about half an inch into the gel at 8 ft. underwater. When they tried the 3 in. shotgun slug, they busted their tank so they're going to a pool. And they still have a .30 Carbine and a .50 BMG to test.
 
Wow, .30-06 barely nicked the gel at 2 feet!

So if I was transported back in time to WWII and being chased by angry GIs, I'd jump into the Rhine! And, uh, hope I don't freeze to death!
:D
 
Hmm, they just mentioned that ther were using AP rounds in that .50, but I doubt that.

I mean don't AP rounds have like a hardened tungsten/DU/steel/whatever core so that when the jacket does shed, the penetrator continues on through?

Methinks they were using regular 'ol FMJ.
 
I know the gun expert lady on that episode. I don't think she's personally familiar with the AR-50 because, well, her shop doesn't move many, especially post-ban. Pretty sure it's not her personal firearm.

But yeah, she's gonna get ribbed about that for a good while.

And was I the only one wondering why they didn't try to break up the surface of the water to try to reduce the chance of ricochet?

AP (as in hardened penetrators) is banned in CA.
 
So if you are trying to hit something in water, slower is better? Or was it just the difference in the type of bullets between the handgun and the all the rifles?

Of course, I've always been told that the ricochet when shooting at water can be a nasty thing so I try not to shoot at it.
 
AP (as in hardened penetrators) is banned in CA.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that applied only to handgun ammunition:

It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, or knowingly possess or transport handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor. (Penal Code §§ 12320, 12321.) Handgun ammunition means ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of section 12001, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles. (Penal Code § 12323(a).) Handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor means any ammunition, except a shotgun shell or ammunition primarily designed for use in rifles, that is designed primarily to penetrate a body vest or body shield. (Penal Code § 12323(b).) Body vest or shield means any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the wearer or holder. (Penal Code § 12323(c).)

Are there new laws in effect now?
 
Hmmm a few oopses there.
".9mm", ".12ga" .9mm might wound a housefly.
.12 ga is something along the lines of naval big gun
The "." was on every caliber description
When they unpacked the 50 cal one of the hosts was
standing uncomfortably close to the business end.
Oh yes, the owner told them that it was unloaded so that's Ok.
Yes, that safety question came after Jamie pounded on the
bolt as he was loading the beast.
They loaded the 50 cal with "Bullets".
And, as someone else mentioned, armor piercing!
looked like FMJ
What precautions did they take in case that little
Irishman Rick O'Shea had decided to visit.

I've shot at the Chabot Range they used on other
shows ... they are extremely safety oriented.
 
Kevlarman -

I just glanced at the law quickly, and saw the list of dense metals. So yeah, I guess that AP rifle ammo is OK. I remember hearing that APIT ammo was banned a while back, so I think I got confused.
 
I just finished watching the same night repeat showing, and it was impressive. I too wondered why they didn't use something to break surface tension where the bullet would be penetrating, nor did they seem to use anything to catch a round possibly richocheting off the water! :what:

The first pool-shot gun, a muzzleloader with a minnieball load, IIRC they couldn't find the slug for either of two shots. As stated, using FMJ, both .223/5.56 and 30-06/7.62 from an M1 broke up shortly upon entering the water. Then, so did the .50 BMG which appeared to be FMJ, but it took about 3'ish feet of travel in the water.

I'd go with the idea that it was the bullet difference, AND how they are meant to function. Pistol ball ammo IMO is meant to just penetrate, whereas ball rifle ammo tumbles, and in doing so is also designed to break and fragment. Plus, being shot at the much higher velocities doesn't seem like it would fragment a 9mm slug.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
New Mythbusters
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
k-frame
K
Back
Top