Shooting Under Water?

[WrongHanded]

I've seen some handgun "torture test" YouTube videos here and there, which get into the realm of shooting pistols submerged. I've even seen a couple that were specifically about underwater shooting, with submerged camera work and all.

Some work. Some don't. Some kinda work, but maybe the slide doesn't cycle reliable. Then there's the special Glock spring cups to avoid water hindering the striker's movement. Etc, etc.

It seems highly unlikely most of us will ever shoot underwater in a defensive situation. The only time I can imagine doing so would be if a gator tipped my canoe whilst I was paddling down a lazy blackwater river on vacation in Florida. So it's pretty unlikely I'm ever going to need to do anything of the sort.

However, has anyone tried shooting a revolver submerged? I would assume (there's that word) it would operate just fine. I would consider trying it myself, but I doubt my wife would be happy if I put a hole in the bath tub.

 

[badkarmamib]

If you watch some YouTube videos of shooting handguns underwater, the distance traveled by the bullet is very underwhelming. I would seriously doubt that it could go through a gator's hide at those speeds.

 

[WrongHanded]

If you watch some YouTube videos of shooting handguns underwater, the distance traveled by the bullet is very underwhelming. I would seriously doubt that it could go through a gator's hide at those speeds.

Oh I know. And I'm not even interested in it from that perspective. I just threw that out there as the most likely of all the unlikely scenarios I could ever find myself in.

But I am curious as to whether a revolver would function reliably in this situation, where some autos seem unreliable.

 

[Varminterror]

While I consider this unlikely - probably as unlikely as you needing to shoot a gator underwater on your backwater family vacation - a revolver would be more prone to be able to have the bullet stall in the bore than a pistol. Pistols still fire because the bullet pushes the water out of the bore in front of it, and there's no where else for the expanding gases to be. I would believe the BC vent of a revolver could relieve enough pressure, and the mass of water in front of the bullet provide enough resistance to stall the bullet in the bore. I think it's highly unlikely, but we know somewhere around 1.5% per thousandths is lost through the BC gap when the bore is unobstructed, I would venture the extra resistance in front of the bullet will be significantly greater than the extra resistance around the BC gap, especially considering how much more quickly the gases will be cooled at the gap, so I'd expect even more than 1.5% per thousandths loss under water.

I don't believe it would happen, I'd expect it would at least be a contributor to lost power and potential for the revolver under water.

You could also potentially lose some hammer striking force underwater - the transfer bar will be buffered by a layer of water, and the hammer itself - all of that will have plenty of room to leave through the top of the hammer relief, but it's still a buffer. Of course, the firing pin would have the same hydraulic resistance as it's pressed forward, so you'd have at least 3 "layers" of water which will have to be voided during the hammer fall.

I've also heard firing under water increases peak pressure in the case (which makes sense), so I might be prone to believe case thrust lock-up is more possible under water, even for a revolver which functions flawlessly out of water.

Any and all of this speculation and conjecture is probably just that, as largely, I trust any of them are going to go bang, and if you're talking about muzzle contact distances, the recipient will easily be mortally wounded, however, I don't think a revolver underwater gets away scott free from any of the above. A partial loss isn't the same as a complete loss, so that's what I'd be counting on.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

Yeah water in the chamber of a gun can lead to serious over pressure. Probably not as dangerous has a big rifle like a .308 or bigger, but still, if its a cheaply made gun it has a small risk. Think water acting like a little tiny water charge in the chamber, it cant be compressed.

 

[WrongHanded]

While I consider this unlikely - probably as unlikely as you needing to shoot a gator underwater on your backwater family vacation - a revolver would be more prone to be able to have the bullet stall in the bore than a pistol. Pistols still fire because the bullet pushes the water out of the bore in front of it, and there's no where else for the expanding gases to be. I would believe the BC vent of a revolver could relieve enough pressure, and the mass of water in front of the bullet provide enough resistance to stall the bullet in the bore. I think it's highly unlikely, but we know somewhere around 1.5% per thousandths is lost through the BC gap when the bore is unobstructed, I would venture the extra resistance in front of the bullet will be significantly greater than the extra resistance around the BC gap, especially considering how much more quickly the gases will be cooled at the gap, so I'd expect even more than 1.5% per thousandths loss under water.

I don't believe it would happen, I'd expect it would at least be a contributor to lost power and potential for the revolver under water.

You could also potentially lose some hammer striking force underwater - the transfer bar will be buffered by a layer of water, and the hammer itself - all of that will have plenty of room to leave through the top of the hammer relief, but it's still a buffer. Of course, the firing pin would have the same hydraulic resistance as it's pressed forward, so you'd have at least 3 "layers" of water which will have to be voided during the hammer fall.

I've also heard firing under water increases peak pressure in the case (which makes sense), so I might be prone to believe case thrust lock-up is more possible under water, even for a revolver which functions flawlessly out of water.

Any and all of this speculation and conjecture is probably just that, as largely, I trust any of them are going to go bang, and if you're talking about muzzle contact distances, the recipient will easily be mortally wounded, however, I don't think a revolver underwater gets away scott free from any of the above. A partial loss isn't the same as a complete loss, so that's what I'd be counting on.

A very insightful and well reasoned reply. Thank you!

 

[BSA1]

"However, has anyone tried shooting a revolver submerged?"

I have.That is one of the perks of living in the country. We have stock tanks for the livestock.

Shot a 38 revolver underwater. Results were very underwhelming to say the least. Bullet didn't even make it to the other side of tank. No expansion.

I have also shot bullets into the water in stock tanks instead of using milk jugs. The bullets made their way all of the way to the bottom of the tank.

 

[WrongHanded]

BSA1 - Yeah, I didn't expect the projectile would perform any better from a revolver than from an auto. They seem to start slow and slow down very rapidly, from what I've seen. But I was wondering if mechanically, a revolver would have less issues than an auto does. Did you shoot it multiple times, or just once?

Klint - The higher pressure is something I expected. Which makes me wonder about one of the things Varminterror mentioned.

If the cylinder to bore gap could potentially release enough pressure to allow the projectile to stall in the barrel, would a longer barrel be more likely to cause this effect than a shorter one? If more water has to be moved down a longer barrel before the projectile exits and the remaining pressure can escape, it seems likely that gases would have more time to escape the C-B gap instead.

And would a longer barrel (whatever the gun type) cause greater pressure behind the projectile? Or would that depend on other factors, such as how fast or slow burning the powder is? Perhaps this is also true in air, and I just never learned it.

 

[Varminterror]

Longer barrels, in the absence of water mass in the barrel, do not increase pressure in the cartridge. Underwater, as I stated in my first post, the chamber pressure will be higher because the inertia of the mass in front of the powder charge is greater.

Longer barrels will hold a longer water column, so that inertial mass is greater for longer barrels.

Out of the water, the peak pressure of the shot is attained within the first ~2" of bullet travel, even with slow burning powders, for most revolver cartridges, and I assume, and have no reason NOT to assume, that will remain true when firing under water. So the peak pressure will be achieved at the same position, early in the bore, however, it will be a greater peak than when firing out of water. Yes, longer barrel revolvers are more prone to stall than shorter ones, as the bullet is exposed to in-bore-friction longer, meaning more deceleration force. Such is true in and out of the water.

Too many folks get themselves confused with powder burn rate and barrel length. Smokeless powder is gasifying almost instantly in the scale of the pressure curve, then the propellant gases burn as the projectile travels down the barrel. The pressure curve looks like the big drop in a roller coaster - except backwards. The pressure spikes very quickly, as I mentioned above, typically within the first ~2" of bullet travel, then tags off as the bullet moves down the bore, expanding the in-bore volume (which reduces the in bore pressure). The bullet remains to be exposed to accelerating force as long as the propellant gas pressure remains above the net resisting force of the atmosphere in front of it, and the drag of the bullet against the bore. I'm not sure off of the cuff what the typical handgun cartridge pressure might be at the muzzle, but for a rifle, typically the pressure is in excess of 5,000psi - there's a LOT of force involved even after the powder charge is completely gasified and burned.

 

[Jim Watson]

TV show Hollywood Weapons shot handguns underwater to see if they could replicate a drama scene.
A Glock fired three fast rounds like the actor did with no malfunction. Energy remaining at the scene's range was small, too little to penetrate a windshield.
A .357 revolver would not fire DA, too much drag on the shorter hammer throw, apparently. It would shoot SA, but energy retention was poor.
A .454 Casull would not fire DA, would shoot SA, penetrate windshield and target, but one shot was all the tester could stand.

 

[WrongHanded]

TV show Hollywood Weapons shot handguns underwater to see if they could replicate a drama scene.
A Glock fired three fast rounds like the actor did with no malfunction. Energy remaining at the scene's range was small, too little to penetrate a windshield.
A .357 revolver would not fire DA, too much drag on the shorter hammer throw, apparently. It would shoot SA, but energy retention was poor.
A .454 Casull would not fire DA, would shoot SA, penetrate windshield and target, but one shot was all the tester could stand.

I'll have to look that up on YouTube. Thanks!

 

[jmorris]

How about just getting a bang stick. They are made for water use.

 

[Zerodefect]

Knife, spear, hawaiian sling.

 

[Tirod]

The whole "shooting underwater" schtick was purportedly a requirement for special operators who might need to operate operationally underwater. As consistently noted, it's not worth the effort.

On the other hand there's the underwater knife fight scene from a 007 movie which is the other extreme. Kinda goes back to the thread on TV entertainment, scriptwriters push excess into movies for entertainment. How many actual cops, detectives, and agents fire their gun daily during investigations? On TV it's every case. In real life he's out on administrative leave for ten days writing it all up.

If anything its us with no badge who can indulge in shooting any time we please out back - trying to clear all the turtles and muskrats in the stock pond. I don't think snorkeling between the milk cows sniping varmints gets much recommendation outside the writings of Patrick McManus.

 

[kBob]

Tirod,

I am sorry but the image of milk cows sniping at varmints while you snorkel amongst them was so bizarre I had to comment........and stop to clean off my screen.

While I was working on an AA in Law Enforcement I asked a fellow student that was a local patrol officer if he would like to meet me Saturday for some shooting. His response "I carry a gun every day. Why would I want to waste my weekend shooting one." Now I also knew LEOs that participated seriously in the old PPC game, but it seemed most sworn gun toters had little to no interest in shooting outside when they were paid to do so. This was also very much the attitude I ran into in the Service. "If I need to shoot the Army will send me to a range and give me ammo," I actually heard said at one point.

We here on the electronic boards forget that we are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to actually using firearms.

As to shooting underwater, I can not imagine doing so other than muzzle contact.

I was once shocked while shooting through water though. I decided I "needed" some fired bullets for a class that were clean and neat and maybe expanded. I filled a big black plastic trash can with water then stood on a step ladder and fired into it for a water trap. After the first shot I took a brief break to find a towel. On my return I could see a nice 230 grain FMJ .45 slug laying on the bottom. I shot four more rounds of various types from my .45. The black talon expanded perfectly like in their ads of the time. My last round was a hand load of one of the old Norma 230 grain JHPs that was supposed to be "over 850fps". Once through shooting I went to put away and dry off the gun and on my return found the trash can almost empty. I poured out the water and recovered all but one bullet and then repositioned the trash can where it had been to help me find the missing bullet which had punched a fairly neat hole in the thick plastic bottom. That Norma reload had penetrated almost three feet of water, punched a hole in the thick plastic of the can bottom and pushed its way into the grass and dirt about an inch! Magic? Fluke? I did show only the smallest amount of expansion so maybe Truncated coe ins the best shape for subsonic pistol shots in the water.

I will say none of the cows across the fence that day seemed interested in pistol shooting.......must have all been varmint shooters.

-kBob

 

[Jim Watson]

I produced a leaky garbage can with a .380 JHP that did not expand in water.

I had some of those old Norma exposed lead, small hollow .45s, followed by Super Vels.
Neither would feed in my AA rework, so I went around with one or the other HP in the chamber and ball in the magazine.

 

[420Stainless]

It doesn't do anything to answer the revolver under water question, but go to YouTube and search "shooting lionfish" for some interesting videos of using a Glock under water.

 

[kBob]

Jim,

Back when Dr. Fackler was actively in the press he was bemoaning the lack of a 230 grain .45ACP HP at one of our club meetings. The following weekend at the range I handed him a magazine full of the Norma bullets I had hand loaded and he was thrilled.

I had my old Mark IV Series 70 cleaned up ramp wise by a real artist of that sort of thing specifically to make it reliable with the Speer Flying Ashtrays and it tended to feed most anything. Once in a while when the stars and moon lined up right it would feed an empty case from the slide lock as it were

A guy I knew local actually could polish things up to the point that his worked over guns could usually feed an empty. Once when in his shop he was showing me one of a pair of a customer's guns and bragging that he had over 40 loaded .45ACP empties in a row with it. I expressed disbelief and he promptly snatch up a magazine and spent case and proceeded to show me.....a crunched up case somewhat like a flattened beer can. This he found up setting and so after three more such "can crusher" excercises his wife looked up boredly from her counter and asked "Is that one of Mr. "X" matched pair?"

"Yes, Linda it is."

She rolled her eyes, "Is it the .45 or the .38 Super?" Apparently no amount of ramp polishing will allow one to reliably stuff .45 ACP empties into a .38 Super chamber!

-kBob

 

[PabloJ]

I've seen some handgun "torture test" YouTube videos here and there, which get into the realm of shooting pistols submerged. I've even seen a couple that were specifically about underwater shooting, with submerged camera work and all.

Some work. Some don't. Some kinda work, but maybe the slide doesn't cycle reliable. Then there's the special Glock spring cups to avoid water hindering the striker's movement. Etc, etc.

It seems highly unlikely most of us will ever shoot underwater in a defensive situation. The only time I can imagine doing so would be if a gator tipped my canoe whilst I was paddling down a lazy blackwater river on vacation in Florida. So it's pretty unlikely I'm ever going to need to do anything of the sort.

However, has anyone tried shooting a revolver submerged? I would assume (there's that word) it would operate just fine. I would consider trying it myself, but I doubt my wife would be happy if I put a hole in the bath tub.

Heckler & Koch made special multi-barrel handgun designed for use under water. Shooting regular handgun under water is refreshingly stupid idea showing us that some people should not be allowed to own firearms.

 

[Bwana John]

It doesn't do anything to answer the revolver under water question, but go to YouTube and search "shooting lionfish" for some interesting videos of using a Glock under water.

He also has some very good videos explaining the Glock set up.

 

[Sunray]

YouTube videos rarely have anything to do with reality. A revolver submerged has an obstructed barrel.
"...His response..." Decidedly typical of most cops. Most only shoot their service piece for their annual qualification shoot.

 

[JohnKSa]

However, has anyone tried shooting a revolver submerged?

Here's a youtube video of someone shooting a cap & ball revolver underwater.

Then there's the special Glock spring cups to avoid water hindering the striker's movement.

Those are to prevent water lock from restricting firing pin movement immediately AFTER coming out of the water, not specifically to allow the gun to fire while still in the water.

 

[hdwhit]

Varmintterror wrote:
I would believe the BC vent of a revolver could relieve enough pressure, and the mass of water in front of the bullet provide enough resistance to stall the bullet in the bore.

The bullet will be moving more slowly as it has to push the water in front of it out of its way so there's more time for gas to dissipate through the cylinder gap and so depending on the caliber and load, I think your belief is probably well-founded.

 

[Catpop]

"However, has anyone tried shooting a revolver submerged?"Shot a 38 revolver underwater. Results were very underwhelming to say the least. Bullet didn't even make it to the other side of tank.

Good thing or you'd have a hole in the tank!

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

Here's a youtube video of someone shooting a cap & ball revolver underwater.

Those are to prevent water lock from restricting firing pin movement immediately AFTER coming out of the water, not specifically to allow the gun to fire while still in the water.

Smooooooke on the waterrrrrrr.....

I only LIKED this because, dammit...it's just one of those things "you don't see everyday".