Mythbusters movie myths
- Thread starter Flyboy73
- Start date
- Status
Zach S
Member
The dark-haired dude asked an FBI agent if there was a mythbusters file at the FBI. IIRC he didnt asnwer, but hinted that they do.
I think it was the exploding pants eposide.
Manedwolf
member
That probably makes the FBI's day a bit more surreal when they organize files.
"Let's see, e.coli contamination, environmental attacks, evacuation panics, exploding pants..."
"...what?"
It seems to me like they get pretty goot law enforcment cooperation.
These guys do like to show off their skills and toys in the right circumstances. IMO, I think they also like helping Mythbusters because it kind of defuses the "CSI Effect" bit, the unrealistic expectations that some of the public expects from the police, crime labs, and criminal prosecutions.
The one thing they didn't mention was the purpose made powdered lead shotgun door breaching rounds. However, I can forgive it, since they were debunking movie myths, and you very rarely see a breaching shotgun employed properly.
I can probably count the instances on one hand…
I can't remember the innuendo the SFPD firearms instructor shot at Kari about "helping her" with something in the future, anyone know what it was?
These guys do like to show off their skills and toys in the right circumstances. IMO, I think they also like helping Mythbusters because it kind of defuses the "CSI Effect" bit, the unrealistic expectations that some of the public expects from the police, crime labs, and criminal prosecutions.
The one thing they didn't mention was the purpose made powdered lead shotgun door breaching rounds. However, I can forgive it, since they were debunking movie myths, and you very rarely see a breaching shotgun employed properly.
I can probably count the instances on one hand…
I can't remember the innuendo the SFPD firearms instructor shot at Kari about "helping her" with something in the future, anyone know what it was?
Handgun Midas
Member
Fighting crime in stilletto heels.AJ Dual said:
"It looks cool, though. Give me a call when you bust that one."
This was my favorite episode since they were on a boat busting the movie Jaws and Kari wasn't wearing pants.
knuckles
Member
Axman
Member
One problem I had was with the sword cutting another sword. If you slowed the "Count of Monte Cristo" footage that they used down a little further you'll notice that the "cut" sword separates a bit to the right of the cutting sword's impact. Therefore a break could be considered as a cut in those circumstances.
Now back to the padlocks. If one just used a tire iron or a small crowbar, it would be more effective than a pistol in removing a lock. The whole shooting a lock off is just movie theatrics.
In the locker room at my job, the boss replaced the old metal lockers with new ones. Employees were notified of the date of removal 2 weeks in advance. Any locks left would be cut off with bolt cutters. There were several brand locks including several Master locks and one Brinks lock. The Brinks lock actually damaged the blade on the bolt cutters while attempting to cut it off. However, a repositioning of the cutters and the Brinks lock eventually came off. Took some time but the Brinks lock was way stronger than the Masters.
Now back to the padlocks. If one just used a tire iron or a small crowbar, it would be more effective than a pistol in removing a lock. The whole shooting a lock off is just movie theatrics.
In the locker room at my job, the boss replaced the old metal lockers with new ones. Employees were notified of the date of removal 2 weeks in advance. Any locks left would be cut off with bolt cutters. There were several brand locks including several Master locks and one Brinks lock. The Brinks lock actually damaged the blade on the bolt cutters while attempting to cut it off. However, a repositioning of the cutters and the Brinks lock eventually came off. Took some time but the Brinks lock was way stronger than the Masters.
most of the sword education/collecting/etc sites were not all that happy with the sword segment. Particularly the choice of makers/types of swords and how they were tested.
swordforum.com and netword tend to be good sites for that line of study.
swordforum.com and netword tend to be good sites for that line of study.
The thing that occurred to me about the sword breaking is that there's no way to gauge the quality of the metal work in historical swords, as they said, the "real ones" are all antiques ranging from expensive to priceless. Destructive testing isn't an option.
If you could find 1000 antique swords, especially from the pre-industrial era, and X-ray or magnaflux them, I bet you'd find a certain percentage with pockets of pure iron in them, carbon, micro-cracks, uneven heat-treating, or bad crystalline structures, and those swords would indeed break. .
Now granted there were "masters" like the famed Japanese Katana makers who turned out products that are probably stronger and more resilient than any industrial sword. However those weapons were available to an elite few. The armed masses (when they had swords, instead of pikes, spears axes & bows) would have gotten the swords that multiple blacksmiths would have turned out by the thousands. Flaws would have turned up, and perhaps only in the heat of battle.
There are also specific weapons that are purpose-built "sword breakers", heavy sword-like metal clubs, hooked weapons on poles that could trap a blade and provided the leverage to break it, and jointed flails (think large nunchuks) that were purpose made to defeat a swordsman.
The Japanese police-equivalents in feudal Japan were often armed with such weapons, should they encounter a rouge swordsman...
Granted, Mythbusters was testing the "myth" that swords could be broken by other swords in a determined attack in the movies, but in history, I bet it did happen enough that everyone was aware of an instance in their particular military within someone's lifetime. And it's probably where the movie idea came from.
If you could find 1000 antique swords, especially from the pre-industrial era, and X-ray or magnaflux them, I bet you'd find a certain percentage with pockets of pure iron in them, carbon, micro-cracks, uneven heat-treating, or bad crystalline structures, and those swords would indeed break. .
Now granted there were "masters" like the famed Japanese Katana makers who turned out products that are probably stronger and more resilient than any industrial sword. However those weapons were available to an elite few. The armed masses (when they had swords, instead of pikes, spears axes & bows) would have gotten the swords that multiple blacksmiths would have turned out by the thousands. Flaws would have turned up, and perhaps only in the heat of battle.
There are also specific weapons that are purpose-built "sword breakers", heavy sword-like metal clubs, hooked weapons on poles that could trap a blade and provided the leverage to break it, and jointed flails (think large nunchuks) that were purpose made to defeat a swordsman.
The Japanese police-equivalents in feudal Japan were often armed with such weapons, should they encounter a rouge swordsman...
Granted, Mythbusters was testing the "myth" that swords could be broken by other swords in a determined attack in the movies, but in history, I bet it did happen enough that everyone was aware of an instance in their particular military within someone's lifetime. And it's probably where the movie idea came from.
I thought it was funny they talked about cutting the swords, I seriously doubt if any swords got cut in half by other swords, but swords can break, a fault in the metal, previous damage etc. They also said their "good" swords had cast blades, sword blades were forged, not cast.
I want you to imagine a padlock that is actualy being used to keep something locked closed, like a door or fence, how would you manage to shoot that lock from a downward angle in the first place? Assuming the lock is low enough to even get that angle your going to end up shooting downwards into the lock with it about 5 inches from your body, you go ahead and try that. Thats one of those suggestions that would seem to make sense when you write it, only if you havent actually given it any amount of thought.
Its true, in movies they often show pistols blowing locks apart with ease- which is a myth.
However, I've seen a master lock shot at point blank range with a Glock 30 (.45). The round obviously didn't destroy the lock, in fact it barely scratched it, but the force of the impact caused the spring to pop open and thus the lock itself opened. I have no idea where the round went- if it ricocheted or what.
So, while I do not recommend it, a pad lock can be opened with a .45 round.
Jeff Timm
Member
TMM posted: "
Quote:
Mmmm, Kari.
I was wondering how long that wound take... apparently, only 5 posts. and may i also add a "+1".
~tmm"
Ease off guys, she got married right after the HM photo spread.
Geoff
Who hopes they buy her a stylist, and keep her hands off her own hair!
Quote:
Mmmm, Kari.
I was wondering how long that wound take... apparently, only 5 posts. and may i also add a "+1".
~tmm"
Ease off guys, she got married right after the HM photo spread.
Geoff
Who hopes they buy her a stylist, and keep her hands off her own hair!
SaintGeorges
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2
It's a fun show to watch for sure although I kept thinking I'd just shoot out the door hinges.
With a deadbolt lock in a wood door like they used, you don't shoot the lock itself. You shoot into the wood between the lock and the door frame. The shots weaken the wood. Then you kick the door and it splinters away from the lock. Of course, Hollywood makes it look more dramatic. Just like the hero picking a 5 or 6 tumbler lock in three seconds flat with a pocket knife. Sure!
Jim
Jim
cracked junior
Member
the firearms episodes are close to getting things right. but the car jumping one wasnt on with the dukes of hazzard scene. in the orignal series way back when. they used 500 to 1000lbs in the trunk of the car to even out the front heavyness of the car. in mythbusters they didnt say anything about weight in the trunk. so it landed on its nose.
but i do have to say. having thier jobs would be sweet. all you do is goof around all day making cool stuff. like remote control cars, bombs, robotic sword slicers, playing with balistics gel.
but i do have to say. having thier jobs would be sweet. all you do is goof around all day making cool stuff. like remote control cars, bombs, robotic sword slicers, playing with balistics gel.
leadcounsel
member
I have actually done the padlock test myself with many different weapons on a wide sampling of padlocks such as aluminum gym locker style padlocks, keyed locks, and hardened steel locks.
Handgun rounds will penetrate the aluminum padlocks. One or a few well placed shots will defeat these.
Handgun rounds generally dent the steel, layered, and armored locks. I'm not a good enough shot to purposely hit the actual linkage portion, but I suspect that would be your best one shot bet. In multiple shots I suspect that most commercial padlocks could be defeated with full sized handgun rounds, but the one shot blow-it-to-pieces is indeed a Hollywood fantasy.
As an aside, it's funny how Hollywood is.... In one scene a handgun wielding person can shoot out tires on moving cars, hit human targets at hundreds of yards, blow padlocks of hardened chains, and defeat body armor, yet hiding behind a sheetrock wall in an apartment or the door of a car will defeat a bullet every time!
Now, on to rifles. In my testing of the .223 it generally blows about 25-30% of the lock off or completely severs the link. The 7.62x39 and 12 gauge slugs blows aluminum locks into bits and generally blows about 50% or more of the hardened steel locks off. Interestingly, if struck at the very bottom even the hardened steel locks can survive these heavy calibers and retain their locking power enough to require a second rifle shot.
www.theboxotruth.com is a great and fun resource.
Handgun rounds will penetrate the aluminum padlocks. One or a few well placed shots will defeat these.
Handgun rounds generally dent the steel, layered, and armored locks. I'm not a good enough shot to purposely hit the actual linkage portion, but I suspect that would be your best one shot bet. In multiple shots I suspect that most commercial padlocks could be defeated with full sized handgun rounds, but the one shot blow-it-to-pieces is indeed a Hollywood fantasy.
As an aside, it's funny how Hollywood is.... In one scene a handgun wielding person can shoot out tires on moving cars, hit human targets at hundreds of yards, blow padlocks of hardened chains, and defeat body armor, yet hiding behind a sheetrock wall in an apartment or the door of a car will defeat a bullet every time!
Now, on to rifles. In my testing of the .223 it generally blows about 25-30% of the lock off or completely severs the link. The 7.62x39 and 12 gauge slugs blows aluminum locks into bits and generally blows about 50% or more of the hardened steel locks off. Interestingly, if struck at the very bottom even the hardened steel locks can survive these heavy calibers and retain their locking power enough to require a second rifle shot.
www.theboxotruth.com is a great and fun resource.
Hands of blue
Member
They were not testing how they did the stunt but if it was plausible to jump a car like is shown in the movie. And even if you do land more level the car and you are still subjected to a lot of force.
Tommygunn
Member
The show Knight Rider did similar stunts. The vehicle they used was actually a light weight sorta "gocart" with a small engine, like a VW beetle, and a hollow fiberglass shell mimicking a Trans Am. There was a seat and roll bar for the driver inside. The actual Trans Ams they used were not used for that type of stunt. Also, in a few scenes, small scale models were used.
I don't know how Dukes of Hazzard did the car jumps. If you watch the film, the car jumps, and just as it reaches earth, it cuts to a shot of the actors inside a car acting like they just "jumped." If you really do that to a car, it'll smash up the nose and undercarriage pretty darn well.
Metapotent
Member
I think that the Staff at Mythbusters need to consult experts in the future before they come to their conclusions of "busted", "probably" or "confirmed"
First of all, in the "blowing locks off with a gun" part of the show, they only shot the main body of the lock and didn't hit it from "top-down" like they train police to do, using this technique, police/swat/FBI (any law enforcement) can shoot off a lock with a pistol being a 9mm, .40, or .45.
In this segment they came to the conclusion that nobody could actually shoot off the lock from a door because they would be injured by fragments of the metal lock. But they didn't do the research required to find out that there are many loads designed for the soal purpose of destroying locks, without breaking the lock up into dangerous fragments. The Marine Corps issues breeching loads for their shotguns in Iraq. Its a shotgun filled with a thick powder that is designed to blow the lock away with the force of the shot, rather than by penetrating and disintegrating the metal structure of the lock itself. Therefore their "busted" conclusion is WRONG.
Secondly, about the "cutting swords in half with other swords". I noticed that in the first part where they used "Battle-Ready" Samurai swords that are made out of quality high-carbon steel that the blades were not sharpened and the swords did not have the "swirly" finish that sharpened and smoothed swords have. When they made the cutting machine to duplicate the force of a professional swordsman to test it out, they continually ran their fingers along the blades of both the swinging sword, and the sword that they intended to cut in half. If they were to do this with a real Samurai sword, they would have sliced their fingers up really, really bad.
I own a japanese-made. battle-ready, high-carbon steel Katan (samurai sword) that was shipped to me and was/is RAZOR sharp. It is so sharp that if you just slightly touch your skin against the blade it will cause you to bleed.
Therefore their "busted" finding in the sword cleaving segment means nothing and is probably completely wrong. They need to redo it, and do more research and consult more experts before they come to conclusions in the future.
First of all, in the "blowing locks off with a gun" part of the show, they only shot the main body of the lock and didn't hit it from "top-down" like they train police to do, using this technique, police/swat/FBI (any law enforcement) can shoot off a lock with a pistol being a 9mm, .40, or .45.
In this segment they came to the conclusion that nobody could actually shoot off the lock from a door because they would be injured by fragments of the metal lock. But they didn't do the research required to find out that there are many loads designed for the soal purpose of destroying locks, without breaking the lock up into dangerous fragments. The Marine Corps issues breeching loads for their shotguns in Iraq. Its a shotgun filled with a thick powder that is designed to blow the lock away with the force of the shot, rather than by penetrating and disintegrating the metal structure of the lock itself. Therefore their "busted" conclusion is WRONG.
Secondly, about the "cutting swords in half with other swords". I noticed that in the first part where they used "Battle-Ready" Samurai swords that are made out of quality high-carbon steel that the blades were not sharpened and the swords did not have the "swirly" finish that sharpened and smoothed swords have. When they made the cutting machine to duplicate the force of a professional swordsman to test it out, they continually ran their fingers along the blades of both the swinging sword, and the sword that they intended to cut in half. If they were to do this with a real Samurai sword, they would have sliced their fingers up really, really bad.
I own a japanese-made. battle-ready, high-carbon steel Katan (samurai sword) that was shipped to me and was/is RAZOR sharp. It is so sharp that if you just slightly touch your skin against the blade it will cause you to bleed.
Therefore their "busted" finding in the sword cleaving segment means nothing and is probably completely wrong. They need to redo it, and do more research and consult more experts before they come to conclusions in the future.
CleverName
Member
Metapotent, I have virtually no experience with live swords other than "oooh, pretty", so I'm gonna have to trust you there. But the thing is, they're testing if you can shoot a lock like they do in the movies and break it.
Yes, a shotgun filled with breeching ammo and shooting the lock downward would pop the lock right off. But that's not what they're testing. In movies, you see guys take pistols (usually 9mm) and shoot locks in the body, breaking them in half. All Mythbusters proves is that's not the proper method to open a lock with a gun in real life. Heck, maybe they actually did the proper method, but it got edited out for whatever reason.
Yes, a shotgun filled with breeching ammo and shooting the lock downward would pop the lock right off. But that's not what they're testing. In movies, you see guys take pistols (usually 9mm) and shoot locks in the body, breaking them in half. All Mythbusters proves is that's not the proper method to open a lock with a gun in real life. Heck, maybe they actually did the proper method, but it got edited out for whatever reason.
10 Ring Tao
Member
One I've always wanted them to do is address the myth of taking down a plane with a 50 cal, they could test the feasibility. It would be similar to that of shooting a car and making it blow up.
A few things have bugged me about the mythbusters gun episodes:
-In the 'shoot straight up falling bullet' episode, they called a Garand an assault rifle. A garand! An 8 shot internal magazine rifle!
-Always calling mags clips.
-In the 'will shooting cars make them explode?' episode, they said something to the effect that using a car as cover is totally worthless. This would be correct if under fire from the .308 rifles they were shooting, but they completely forgot that rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols.
A few things have bugged me about the mythbusters gun episodes:
-In the 'shoot straight up falling bullet' episode, they called a Garand an assault rifle. A garand! An 8 shot internal magazine rifle!
-Always calling mags clips.
-In the 'will shooting cars make them explode?' episode, they said something to the effect that using a car as cover is totally worthless. This would be correct if under fire from the .308 rifles they were shooting, but they completely forgot that rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
