Mythbusters: bullet proof water

Status
Not open for further replies.
I finally got to see it 2 or 3 months ago - once again - the movies have it wrong it seems. Get to 4 feet and U are pretty much not gonna get hit by people shooting at ya.
 
But what of the 9mm test they did initially? They didn't re-test it at an angle, granted, but it seemed to do pretty well on the initial vertical tests. I would guess that the angle of entry causes uneven application of torque to the round (specifically the jacket) tears the bullet appart. Thus, they'd likely have the same experience with the 9mm while shooting at an angle.

Or maybe not - I guess the lower velocity + smaller surface area of a 9mm might do better than a much larger solid lead bullet, but maybe not.
 
I happen to have been at the shop they went to for the guns (Imbert & Smithers in San Carlos, California) and chatted with the folks there. They have a good selection of used gun, and are nice (if busy).

I highly recommend visiting there if one is in the SF Bay Area, but be absolutely sure to visit City Arms in Pacifica. Best gun shop in California, in my experience. Run by two very pleasant Russian guys (uncle and nephew), the older of whom also volunteers as a RSO at the Coyote Point Rifle and Pistol Club. Good selection of various guns, very reasonable prices.
 
I believe the reason a handgun bullet will survive hitting the water and the rifle bullet won't is velocity. The rifle round shatters when it hits the surface of the water.

I don't think the angle would matter as the water they were shooting into was all stired up and would have been at all kinds of angles as the waves went by.
 
Yeah, I wish they would have tested the pistol rounds in the pool - but the impression I got from watching it was that the slower pistol rounds didn't 'shatter' upon entering the water, so they would penetrate deeper.
 
Something else to consider...

Rifle rounds obviously loose velocity at a distance, therefore they will penetrate more water at some signifigant distaces away from the barrel than they will at the muzzle.

For instance, firing down from the cliffs of Normandy into the water would certainly penetrate more water than if you were to simply shoot at water from close range.
 
In all likelihood the rounds would still be supersonic in that situation, but it is a good point. I think you would have to look at velocity charts for rounds to figure what that distance would have to be.

Box'OTruth saw a similar circumstance with their sand box. It stopped pistol rounds, but they stayed in one piece and penetrated further while the rifle rounds shattered in the sand very quickly.
 
Just watched the 50 cal vs water segment and it is SO full of it....I can't believe they can be THAT stupid.

They called it an armor piercing round when, in fact, it was nothing more than a lead cored FMJ. After the shot, the dude brings up a handful of jacket.....where is the penetrator?

At the end, the beret wearing one was holding a projo but it was an unfired one. If the round fired into the water had, in fact, been a 700grn Black Tip, I promise you it would have left a mark on the jell.

The pic enclosed is an AR-50 shooting an AP into over 5ft of water. At the angle it is hitting, the bottom is probably 8ft or more away. The cloud of debris that came up from the impact tells me that the bullet did NOT give up all its' energy in the 3 feet as shown in the Mythbuster episode.

Those guys are unbelievable when it comes to firearms....
 

Attachments

  • Water Shot.JPG
    Water Shot.JPG
    67.2 KB · Views: 177
I find their results more reliable than a picture of some guy's backside and some water splashing up from what appears to be a little stream and about 5" of water--not 5'.

But it's true they didn't use AP .50 with the penetrator. Although they called it "armor penetrating," I took them to mean the .50 in general will blast through light cover--not that they were using AP rounds. How well would the core hold up? Who knows. It wasn't designed to penetrate water per se.

As Elmer Keith's observations showed decades ago, you get your best results shooting underwater things with big heavy slugs. He used to bullseye patroling sharks with his .44. The tests on the show pretty much confirmed this.
 
Write them a letter requesting that they do the test over again and point out their error. They are very responsive to coherent criticism and often do a test over with different bullets, conditions, etc.

If you have a copy of Hatcher's NoteBook around look to the chapter on the penetration tests. Long story short...30-06 FMJ rounds penetrated more than twice as deep in solid oak planks at 200 yards than they did at 50. Hatcher concluded the reason was the bullet was more stable in flight at the longer distance despite the loss in velocity.

tipoc
 
Cosmoline...

That little stream has a pretty deep little hole in it...right where I put the shot. If you venture into it, you will find it up to your shoulders or above at that spot. And, that wasn't the only one fired into the hole. Later inspection showed pretty impressive damage to the backside.

We played a little game with a golf ball thrown into the hole. At the bottom, it was difficult to see but the AP rounds moved it around pretty well. In the shallower section to the left (about knee deep) AK and M1 Garand were just barely able to move it around. These were not steel cored rounds...just like the 'Busters used and I believe that they won't stay together for more than a few feet through water at close range.

Oh, the AP penetrator is VERY tough...so tough that it makes a great centerpunch if you sharpen the end. Water wouldn't bother it at all, although I would imagine the gilding metal jacket would probably be sheared off on contact with the surface.

I doubt the 'Buster fellows would re-do the test with actual AP...as it would be hard to hit any small target deep underwater and stopping the thing might also be difficult.

It would be great to wager with some MythBuster fans about this episode and actually prove the 'safety' of 3 feet of water. Hah!!
 
Up to my shoulders? I can see the rocks right below the surface, and the creek looks about wide enough to step across. With the mythbusters I could at least see the pool, see how deep it was, see the angle, see the projectiles. All I've got from you is a picture of some creek water splashing and a claim that there's a five foot hole there and the bullet made it to the bottom. You criticize the mythbusters for failing to follow a reliable method, but your own method is complete hearsay.

What is it you find questionable about the mythbusters? Do you think standard .50 and .30'06 really didn't fragment on impact? Or are you just upset over the reference to ball ammo as AP?
 
Rob, I am agreeing with Cosmoline on this one. That either isn't 5 feet of water or there are some enormous boulders in that stream. Moreover, if the bullet went 8 feet deep, there isn't going to be a "cloud of debris", because a splash is basically just a result of you breaking the surface tension of the water. Want proof of this? Watch a diver. The biggest part of the splash they make is when they initially hit the water. Yes, there is a little "bloop" of water that comes up as the water rushes to fill the "hole" that the diver created, but it is certainly much smaller and far less inconsequential than the original splash. There would not be enough time for a signifigant (if in fact any) amount of debris from the bottom to basically flow straight up and erupt into the air. Certainly, particulates located near the surface could create that illusion, but there isn't a chance that it's coming from 8 feet down, especially when you factor in that there is no possible way for the bullet to be retaining that much energy that deep into the water, if in fact it could even reach that deep. Sorry buddy, but I am going to call your claim of 5-8 feet a myth in and of itself.
 
I am disputing the claim that they used AP ammo. They did not. They did not even use Military Ball ammo....which is steel cored. Either would have significantly altered the outcome of the test.

They used a lead core, gilding metal jacketed FMJ round....exactly the same construction as the .223 and 30.06's at about the same velocity. Hmmmm...wonder why it performed the same??? Any steel cored ammo would have gone a LOT deeper. But, being in California...maybe they can't get any? Or, they are just movie making types with no gun experience?

My little stream IS just that....a little stream. Where the bullet hit was dug out with a backhoe several years ago to form a deep pool. Walk down the little stream and you will get a 'oh crap' moment when you plunge into the hole.

The water splashing up is just water. After it all came back down, the mud roiling up several seconds later came from the bottom....where the bullet had impacted.

You guys are sounding like the people who say the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner by one fuzzy picture! I posted it because I have actually shot a BMG into water with actual AP rounds and have SEEN what they can and actually do. Unlike the Mythbusters....

If people wish to believe the 'Busters instead of one of your fellow THR members....fine. Just don't be surprised if you...someday....dive down a few feet under water when someone is shooting at you with steel cored ammo and you get nailed.

As you sink....remember that I 'Told you so'!
 
It's easy enough to get bronze-based ammo for African-caliber rifles no? I think we should try some of that!
 
I am disputing the claim that they used AP ammo. They did not. They did not even use Military Ball ammo....which is steel cored. Either would have significantly altered the outcome of the test.
Click to expand...

Since when is military ammo steel core? Sure, they've used steel cores before, but only as a lead substitute, never because mild steel was any better performing than lead.

Every military .223, .308, and .50 BMG round I've tested has had a lead core and nonmagnetic jacket. Some .30-06 has been attracted to a magnet, but weakly.

What caused you to believe that military ball ammo is routinely steel cored?
 
Heypete...

I was mainly referring to 50 BMG rounds which have steel cores. The pic shows M33 Ball, M2 AP and M8 API....all of which have steel cores with the AP rounds hardened. At least the ones I have do. Wondering what kind of Military 50 ammo you have tested that was lacking a steel core?

The Ball will stick about half-way into my 5/8 armor plate targets at 100yds, while the AP's will go cleanly through two of them set a foot apart like they were made of balsa.

Spotter Tracer and Blue Tip incindiary rounds don't have steel cores but they haven't been issued for many a moon. Most MILITARY 50 BMG ammo is steel cored.

The smaller calibers...5.56, 30.06 and 7.62 Nato don't normally have the steel cores, unless they are AP.

50's use steel cores because it keeps the weight down to a reasonable amount (619-705!) whilst enabling a longer OAL which translates into better BC.

Oh, I just remembered the A-Max target bullets which are lead core. It is the long one on the right with silver tip. The tip is actually aluminum and, even with the much more slender forward ogive section the weight is right at 750grns.

A lead cored 630grn would be a stubby little fellow and not fly nearly as well as the longer steel cored rounds.
 

Attachments

  • 50bmg.JPG
    50bmg.JPG
    65.7 KB · Views: 11
  • 50bullets.JPG
    50bullets.JPG
    66.3 KB · Views: 11
Most MILITARY 50 BMG ammo is steel cored.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that all .50 BMG M2 Ball ammo was lead cored, and I'm desperately trying to remember the exact loadout we used on the M2 on the M1A1 tank...something like 4 ball and 1 tracer, but I don't recall the exact markings.

If I am incorrect, then I humbly stand corrected.
 
Pete,
We are all friends here and just trying to get to the truth. As a BMG owner and enthusiast, I have researched the ammo a bit more deeply than most who are not really into the jenre. My active Service time did NOT include any info on just how my ammo was made as they felt that it was immaterial. Just do what we tell you!

It finally hit me that a picture is worth a thousand magnets and words so I broke out the tubing cutter and cut away on the M33 Ball.

Tough little critter it is too! But, finally got through the jacket to reveal the innards. Steel core with powdered lead between it and the outer jacket. The AP rounds are normally more accurate because they have molten lead and the core is better centered.

AP core looks just the same except it is a VERY hard and toughened steel. Not tungsten as I have read but some hard and slightly heavier alloy of steel.

If the Mythbusters had used one of these, or an actual AP round....in 50 BMG....they would have found the core/penetrator in the pool. DEEP in the pool. They did not....

Friends do NOT let friends think they are safe from Military 50's under 3feet of water!
 

Attachments

  • sectioned 50.JPG
    sectioned 50.JPG
    67 KB · Views: 28
Any steel cored ammo would have gone a LOT deeper.
Click to expand...

Maybe, and I'd love to see it tested in the pool. But then again that bullet steel tends to be quite soft and might not hold up much better than the lead.

Also, I don't remember Jamie saying he was using AP, only that the .50 in general could pierce some undefined "armor," which is certainly true if you define armor very broadly.

Your creekbed test, though. It ain't gonna pass Daubert if you know what I mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Tales of the gun: Guns of Israel
Replies
8
Views
831
Sam Adams
S
S
  • Locked
Brigitte Gabriel
Replies
8
Views
859
hso
hso
E
  • Locked
Who said the M60 GPMG was unreliable?
Replies
20
Views
2K
U.S.SFC_RET
U
L
  • Locked
Brassfetcher needs a slo-mo camera!
Replies
6
Views
450
Owen
O
M
  • Locked
Rubber Band Bump Firing
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
MisterPX
M
Back
Top