http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arh7K5vKSWQ&NR=1
Most interesting what the 50 cal. does in a swimming pool........r in s.

I watched the episode, and as much as I like Mythbusters, they tend to "stack the deck" so to speak to make the outcome what they want it to be.
An example was they said it was impossible for someone to fire 6 rounds (I think it was six) from a Colt SA and hit targets in a set time.
The person they had do it was Lightning Larry. He failed, so they concluded it was a myth. They didn't check that Bob Munden, and several others, had done it, on camera, for the record books. They also "proved" that Marine Sniper Carlos Hathcock could not have made a shot that went through the enemy sniper's scope and killed him. I met him and have talked to people who knew him well....no one I talked to thinks he would have made up such a story...but our intrepid mythbusters couldn't do it, so therefore no one else could.
I guess the final question is this...would you want someone shooting at you with a M2 Browning if you were under just 3 ft of water?

I know the community of the mythubster tv sensation, one of that gang actually worked for me years ago.

That show is what it is. Tv entertainment.
They approach these issues within the perspective of what experience they might have, or might be able to source - which tends to show up as microcosmic more times than not.

Did you notice that they were using soft point expanding hunting bullets for the scope shot?
Would their results have been different with fmj or ap solids?

I don't know the range at which this supposed tube shot had taken place, but I have a sense that if the tv show took all of the real information and specifics into account the results would have been different.

Again, it's just a tv show.
(and I would have attempted the shot with ap solids)


--Tinker

They realy need to try this with AP ammo.

I am guessing they are trying this with something like a match round.


As far as the sniper shot going through the scope, I think it is posible, but it would also be hard to repeat. Deflection is gong to be wicked. I have a leapers scope that has been close to useless. Anyone have a suggested setup to make this work.

The Myth Buster Boys claimed they used AP ammo for that test.

AP ammo has an open tail.
AP ammo is a spitzer that is very unstable in water, or flesh, just like a round nose solid.

Soon after entry of water the AP bullet flips and tumbles. The one that they showed recovered fragments of had been ripped open from its base, the open tail of the bullet.
The AP nose portion, whether steel or depleted uranium, will never get a chance to do its duty in a swimming pool: the bullet goes sideways or backwards until it rips itself apart.

Had they used a brass or copper FN solid in the 50 BMG, the depth of water for safety would be more like 8 feet.

I still wouldn't want to be under water to find out how deep it goes.

As for the scope. Wasn't is a Mosin with a PU scope that he made the shot on?

Those are built different than todays scopes as well.

I would prefer to be on the bottom of a 12-foot deep pool if someone was shooting into me with a 50BMG from topside.
However, Alf would probably slip the shooter some ammo loaded with supercavitating superpenetrator darts with rocket assist if he knew I was lying on the bottom of the pool.

quote:

supercavitating superpenetrator darts with rocket assist

Steerable...

In fact in both Hatcher's Noytebook and the British Textbook of Smallarms the penetration of the then service bullet 30-06 and 303 through various materiels is noted. It had to be! Senior NCOs and officers had to know what made a safe and unsafe protected bunker, sandbag filling, etc. etc.

The British book gives not only sand but wet and dry sand, coal dust, soil, shingle, oak board, etc., etc., and somewhere penetration through water at an angle of attack likely from an airplane diving on a target in the sea.

So the "Mythbusters" may not have taken into accout that three feet down may in fact be, at a typical angle of attack of a diving airplane of 27 degrees a lot more actual distance of water that the bullet is travelling through.

Re the 'scope I don't know BUT there exists in the British Army weapons collection at Shrivenham in the UK an SMLE recovered in WWI with a German Mauser bullet that has lodged in the muzzle and started to go all the way down the barrel. That IS fact!

quote:

Originally posted by missing_something:
I still wouldn't want to be under water to find out how deep it goes.

As for the scope. Wasn't is a Mosin with a PU scope that he made the shot on?

Those are built different than todays scopes as well.

I think you're right about being mounted on a Moisin but having just watched that episode today, they bought what I took to be four commercially available variable power scopes by the look of it, as much as their budget would stand(they said). Their first 3 scopes were trashed at 100 yds, the last one they shot at virtually point blank range to remove the variable of trajectory. I wasn't aware of what type of ammo they were using, it could well have been different if it was GI type ammo with FMJ bullets.
Steve

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
In fact in both Hatcher's Noytebook and the British Textbook of Smallarms the penetration of the then service bullet 30-06 and 303 through various materiels is noted. It had to be! Senior NCOs and officers had to know what made a safe and unsafe protected bunker, sandbag filling, etc. etc.

The British book gives not only sand but wet and dry sand, coal dust, soil, shingle, oak board, etc., etc., and somewhere penetration through water at an angle of attack likely from an airplane diving on a target in the sea.

So the "Mythbusters" may not have taken into accout that three feet down may in fact be, at a typical angle of attack of a diving airplane of 27 degrees a lot more actual distance of water that the bullet is travelling through.

Re the 'scope I don't know BUT there exists in the British Army weapons collection at Shrivenham in the UK an SMLE recovered in WWI with a German Mauser bullet that has lodged in the muzzle and started to go all the way down the barrel. That IS fact!

the idea that a bullet could strike the muzzle of another rifle is far from "unbelievable"

Do you know how many bullets have been recovered from various civil war battlefields mashed nose-to-nose with another bullet fired by the opposing side?

Hundreds, it has been proposed that there are tens of thousands of identical fused bullets that lie unrecovered, along with even more "normal" fired projectiles and both
are typically outnumbered by battlefield "drops"

the PU scope on the NVA sniper "allegedly" killed by Hathcock had a small fraction of the glass that would be found in a modern cheap variable power hunting scope, thus less to deflect the bullet.

add to that theat the PU has a fairly substancial steel tube aht would tend to contain the bullet if it actuallygot inside the tube.

the aluminum tube on the cheap scopes they shot up wouldn't contain a 22LR bullet.

AD

I can say that..
Military 50 AP, will not shoot through a 50gal barrel full of sand.

I have shot a lot of "stuff" [cars, engines, diesel included,] and the BIG 50 will not penetrate as much/far as most people would think.

They couldn't even get propane tanks to blow up when shooting them with tracer. The "Mythbusters" are useless.
You need to use a nearly empty tank, a full one won't go off, I thought everybody knew that.
And some of their rubbish is stupid and dangerous, like when they failed to light up Gasoline with a Cell phone.
I went to fill up my car the other day, the guy at the next pump was not only using a phone, but holding it in the same hand as the nozzle while dialing it.
When I told him to stop doing it,
he said "F off it's just a stupid myth. You can't start a fire with a phone."

A 7.62mm nato (m80 ball which is FMJ BT), will go through 3 feet of water if the shot is parallel to the ground into three 11 - 12 inch thick 5 gallon buckets of water (steel or plastic).

I have shot 50 BMG through a 30 gallon farm chemical can laid on end, and they exit. I forget the length but closer to 4 feet each.

Somewhere I have photos of many blown up 55 gallon drums filled with water I shot w this 50 caliber Gatling gun out to about 700 yards.



I think most WWII fifty ammo for aircraft was 500 grain AP-I flat base, optimized for air to air encounters. It would probably stop sooner.

But some truth to being safe diving underwater provided you could get back to the surface with all your gear on!

Andy

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I can say that..
Military 50 AP, will not shoot through a 50gal barrel full of sand.

I have shot a lot of "stuff" [cars, engines, diesel included,] and the BIG 50 will not penetrate as much/far as most people would think.

Our buddy Rich here has put one of our .505" FN's through 60" of WET sand...

Yeah, but did you see MythBusters when they fired off 350 lbs. of non-dairy coffee creamer in a "cannon" fabricated from an oil drum?

-- to prove that fine particulate stuff like grain elevator dust and sawdust do indeed burst into massive fireballs.

Fireball from the creamer was about the size of medium corporate jet.

I really don't much care about the "myth." They have a bunch of perverse geeks, a seemingly unlimited budget, "connections," and a babe who likes to blow shit up.

How can you lose with a formula like that?

Those guys are morons

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:

Do you know how many bullets have been recovered from various civil war battlefields mashed nose-to-nose with another bullet fired by the opposing side?

Hundreds, it has been proposed that there are tens of thousands of identical fused bullets that lie unrecovered, along with even more "normal" fired projectiles and both
are typically outnumbered by battlefield "drops"


AD

Hmmm, my understanding of those finds were a substantial number of soldiers never fire their rifles. Everyone would volley and reload. Some were afraid, others would swear they fired a shot and others had a misfire and thought they had fired a round. I read that one rifle had 9 bullets and powder charges lodged in the barrel.

I think when Carlos took that shot, it was a dam sight further than 100 yards. Either way If the Gunny said it happened it happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:

Do you know how many bullets have been recovered from various civil war battlefields mashed nose-to-nose with another bullet fired by the opposing side?

Hundreds, it has been proposed that there are tens of thousands of identical fused bullets that lie unrecovered, along with even more "normal" fired projectiles and both
are typically outnumbered by battlefield "drops"


AD

Hmmm, my understanding of those finds were a substantial number of soldiers never fire their rifles. Everyone would volley and reload. Some were afraid, others would swear they fired a shot and others had a misfire and thought they had fired a round. I read that one rifle had 9 bullets and powder charges lodged in the barrel.

Which finds? I'm talking about bullets bearing rifling marks that were smashed flat into "two coins" from an obvious "nose to nose" impacts
and often minie's of obviously different caliber and rifling characteristics.

When you have 10,000 guys on the left, and 10,000 guys on the right all doing volley fire
at 100-200yds (often MUCH closer)
a stastically significant number of projectiles
are going to collide, and a significant proportion will make near perfect nose to nose examples.

as for guys loading, loading, loading and never firing? that was usually because in the heat of the momment they'd forget to cap the rifle
and never notice the lack of a shot or recoil.

If someone DID remember to cap that weapon it'd probably explode, because several ball and powder charges ahead of the first ball would make a fearsome obstruction...

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
They couldn't even get propane tanks to blow up when shooting them with tracer. The "Mythbusters" are useless.
You need to use a nearly empty tank, a full one won't go off, I thought everybody knew that.
And some of their rubbish is stupid and dangerous, like when they failed to light up Gasoline with a Cell phone.
I went to fill up my car the other day, the guy at the next pump was not only using a phone, but holding it in the same hand as the nozzle while dialing it.
When I told him to stop doing it,
he said "F off it's just a stupid myth. You can't start a fire with a phone."

The truth is that Propane tanks DO NOT "explode" when shot with tracer.

Especially FULL propane tanks.

If you were ever a boy scout or a fire fighter you would understand that three things are required for fire, Fuel, an ignition source and Air.

as a tracer bullet flies into a propane tank at the various points of the penetration event you frequently have TWO of the required three ingredients, but never all three.

First off Tracer compound simply doesn't burn hot enough to reliably ignite some materials.

Propane won't burn unless it is mixed with air

Shooting a propane can with AP ammo often has far different results, API otoh...
And those old TV cop shows from the 70's where the bad guy shoots a car in the gas tank with a 38snubbie and explodes the gas tank? PLEASE!!!

I've shot hundreds if not thousands of rounds into junk cars and I KNOw how to make a car "explode" and frankly you ain't gonna do it RELIABLY with tracers unless you load up your BAR with 20rounds of tracer ammo.

API works every damned time, AP works almost as well.

But shooting ball through and substantial steel where the bullet and HOT secondary fragments penetrate the fuel tank work almost as well

Now another factor, propane at "normal" temperatures is a "gas over liquid" at ~140psi.
Shooting a hole in the can releases the gas which immediatly "boils" on contact with the lower atmpospheric pressure, basically it comes blasting out of the can as a cryogenic liqued that'll flash freeze anything it touches....

what you need to understand about propane it it has nearly identical physical properties to R-12 Freon referigerant.. and that is NOT a coincidence, as R-12 was created to mimic propane... Yes, you can fill an AC system designed to run on R12 with pure propane and it will function PERFECTLY....

So comming blasting out of that can it's a suddenly COLD liquid.

If you WANT the can to explode you need to shoot a nearly EMPTY can

It helps to superchill the can and pressurize with either Air (good) or Oxygen (better but REALLY dangerous if the can warms up naturally before you shoot it :O

(When we tried this (yes, several times) the propane can was at the end of 50feet of hose on the OTHER side of a backstop berm)

If you have say... 1lb of propane in a 20# can that you superchilled by putting the can into a liquid nitrogen bath, then pressureized the can to say... 50-60psi with pure oxygen, then got your tender ass somewhere else before the liquid nitrogen finished boiling away and simply left the can in the sun it'd explode all by itself...

Shooting it with your trusty Daisy red ryder bb gun might serve to set it off at any point after the nitrogen was gone....

DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!

If Mythbusters wanted to explode a propane can I could have done it for them...

But I'd cheat... I'd take a shiny new can and pump it down to a hard vacuum, purge it with helium, pump it down again, the pressurize with 25psi of acetylene, THEN have them shoot it

And before I started running acetylene into it
I'd be hiding behind a thick earthen berm.

Acetylene can be made to auto-detonate WIHOUT any air at all...

AD

quote:

Originally posted by George Semel:
I think when Carlos took that shot, it was a dam sight further than 100 yards. Either way If the Gunny said it happened it happened.

Evidently the Mythbusters guys got a lot of mail about the story on Carlos Hathcock's shot through the NVA sniper's scope. They went back and tried the shot with FMJ military ammo and a period Russian issue scope. The ballistic gelatin dummy ended up with a bullet in it's skull as well as a buch of glass and scope pieces. As I remember the first test was done with hunting bullets and a modern variable power sporting scope.

After the second test they declared Hathcock's shot plausable.