shotgun shell death device in SAWIII movie?

[.cheese.]

I just watched Saw III and couldn't help but wonder about the shotgun shell based death device that was central to the film.

Here's a photo for those of you who haven't seen the film:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0489270/Ss/0489270/9_300dpi.jpg.html?path=gallery&path_key=0489270

Basically it's a bunch of shotgun shells mounted onto some sort of intentionally rusty/gory looking neck-collar thing-a-majig with a bunch of hammers behind them to set them off simultaneously.

While I don't typically give much thought to these kinds of things, I couldn't help but ask myself if something like that would even work. Shotgun shells are either plastic or in some cases cardboard-tube with the only metal surrounding the primer and base. Without some type of pressure containment system like a barrel would provide, I'd imagine if set off, the pressure from the powder discharge would simply blow apart the shell hull and vent all pressure to the sides through whatever breach develops. The energy is going to use the easiest exit channel, and through the front, shooting the lead shot doesn't seem that would be it. The device in the movie has a small metal tube surrounding maybe half of the shell, and certainly nothing to hold the shell in place, so my guess is that either the shell would blow apart, or blow backwards, before it would actually discharge to the front.

Anyways, I know I'm caring way too much about a detail of a horror film, and perhaps this is why I rarely bother watching them (because I find most to be mildy silly and bordering on completely stupid) - but this just got me thinking.

Did anyone else think the same thing when they saw this flick?

 

[jeff-10]

TheEconomist

Your analysis may be correct but i sure wouldn't want that thing going off on me...

 

[.cheese.]

decent and valid point I have to admit

 

[alucard0822]

Looks like there is no mechanism to lock the shells from the back, the shot has enough mass that the primer and shell would fly backwards with most of the force of the powder, but if the hammers lock then the shell might be able to hold enough pressure to make that poor girl look like she had been duck hunting with Dick Cheney.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

You would have to suppose that the shell couldn't be propelled backward as the devices to hit the primers looked rather heavy, holding back any recoil. The "perforations" on the front of the shells would then be the weakest point of the shell, followed by the rest of the unprotected plastic. Seems like there would probably be a heavy concentration of shot doing what was intended, or at worst, for the designer that is, damage similar to a hand-grenade. Even then, I certainly wouldn't want it around my neck.

 

[.cheese.]

except wouldn't the lead shot plug the front and not make the perfs the weakest point?

 

[CNYCacher]

Maybe that's why when the thing went off at the end of the movie, she still had her head.

 

[strat81]

Your analysis may be correct but i sure wouldn't want that thing going off on me...

Agreed. Anyone ever smack a loose, solitary primer with a hammer? Now, imagine that primer igniting shotgun powder with a wad, shot, etc around it. Would you want your face a few inches from it?

 

[yhtomit]

Not that this represents a change of mind ...

But now I *really* don't want to see this movie

I do believe I could sit through When Harry Met Sally 15 times in a row before I'd even be tempted, based on the linked photo and the others on the same IMDB page. Yoiks.

Besides which, if the hammers could set off those primers at all, the anticipation of deafness would be pretty devilish even if you were thinking "Hey, I doubt these shells around my neck will actually kill me ..."

timothy

 

[.cheese.]

CNYCacher - that was the other thing that was dumb.
*spoiler next line*
That she didn't have her head. They presented it as if a couple shotgun shells was the equivalent of a plastic-explosives head wrap.

This is why I like comedy movies better and rarely watch horror films.

 

[Phaetos]

Looks like a good toy for the Mythbusters

 

[JWarren]

TheEconomist,

When I saw the movie, I went through the same mental excercise as you have.

I can accept that the semi-shroud of metal around the shells would allow for SOME forward motion of the load. I can accept that the hammers may be able to keep the shell from moving rearward in the sleeve.

Where I run into problems is this:

1. The shells would have most likely split above the metal sleeve and released practically all kinetic energy.

2. Considering the above statement and compounded by the fact the the shell is holding over an ounce of load-- most above the sleeve-- it would breech below the load. Most likely, the shot would hardly move at all.

3. To gain the full benefit of a shotgun shell going off, it requires approximately 18" of barrel (it is a coincidence that this is the legal length). A barrel short enough that it doesn't cover the shell would cause too much lost power.

4. Considering the above statements, there is NO way that the damage showed to her head would have occured. Frankly, if I were a betting man, I would say that she had a good chance of survival with minimal injuries beyond a few random hits at low velocity and some powder burns.

5. I've been peppered with shot while duck hunting in the past. (No, it wasn't with Cheney.) At low velocity, shot stings but has very little penetrating ability. I never had the skin broken. And I don't hunt anywhere near those idiots anymore.


John

 

[jlbraun]

Yegads. I really don't want to see this movie.

 

[EvisceratorSrB]

I'm a firm believer that it would do some damage. I'll tell ya how I know.

My friends and I when we were blowing stuff up in the desert years ago, thought of a device like this, just not intended to kill someone. What we would do is cut a hole in a mouse trap, big enough for the body of the shell to go through but too small for the metal part to fit. We'd place the shell in so the primer would face the metal part slamming against what should be just the wood. It would work most of the time but we'd have to do it a few times to get a good result on a teddy bear placed almost point blank. Fluff would fly out every time, and I'm just going to say I wouldn't want to have any part of my body in front of that thing.

Well there you have it.

 

[skypirate7]

Are you comparing cotton to skin, muscle, and bones? I think she'll get a bloody surface wound, maybe with some shot embedded just below the skin, but that's about it.

 

[BigBlock]

But now I *really* don't want to see this movie

The shotgun thing is nothing compared to the rest of the movie. As soon as I saw that I was thinking the same thing...would that really work? Maybe it wouldn't blow a giant hole in her head, but yeah, I would think she'd be done living after that.

I still think the first Saw was a lot better though...