What Really Happens When You Fire a Gun Underwater?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Get 50% OFF your first 6-bottle box at brightcellars.c... for a total of only $55 including shipping! Bright Cellars is the monthly wine club that matches you with wine that you'll love. Get started by taking the taste palate quiz to see your personalized matches.
This video is #sponsored by Bright Cellars.
Love content? Check out Simon's other CZcams Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
www.youtube.co...
Get 50% OFF your first 6-bottle box at brightcellars.com/tifojuly for a total of only $55 including shipping! Bright Cellars is the monthly wine club that matches you with wine that you'll love. Get started by taking the taste palate quiz to see your personalized matches.
Thise underwater bullets would work better if they were a different shape. I think it's a tear drop? Maybe like a hourglass? I can't remember, but there is an optimal shape that takes advantage of the way the water moves out of the way. It creates a small vacuum behind the bullet.
Also, it helps to fire downward rather than horizontally.
James Bond movies loved scuba diving spear gun scenes.
Video starts at 1:33
Ah, Myth Busters and guns - a classic combination; the PB&J of barely controlled mayhem. I never laughed so hard as when the normally stoic Jaime broke into a smile across his walrus-mustachioed face and exclaimed: "Jaime wants Big Boom."🤣
Remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down!
Yeah that 50 cal didn't stand a chance against the pool.
Suuuch a great episode, I rewatch Mythbusters every now n then. Never disappoints
Yeesh!
Yep!! Even goin' way back to the Cement-Truck's total annihilation, I think Jaime was in total shock and may have quietly mumbled, "tsar bomba". 🤣
@ 15:06 LOL!! That AK has gone full "Mall-Warrior Sword". 🤣
I love it when Simon cites Mythbusters.
I was wondering why this video was necessary, then I realized there's almost an entire generation out there who have never seen Mythbusters.
I feel old
@@mesiagamer5217, welcome to my world......
Yeah, myth busters was the first thing I thought of when I saw this video. It's funny to imagine that a TV show with these 2 weird guys got so much science correct.
@@chrispeck1325, it didn't take long before viewers would expect anything less than a platinum standard out of them! Even Barack Obama asked them to revisit the "Mirror of Archimedes".
it should be required viewing. I learned more from Mythbusters than any of my HS science classes.
As someone who had the misfortune to own a house with a swimming pool, I would have to say that using the pool as a bullet trap would have probably been the best use of my pool...
Swimming pools are even more costly than buying large amounts of ammo. Better off doing the latter.
"For sale: large house with swimming pool. Swimming pool may contain lead. $300,000."
@@NefariousKoel -- Yeah, I could have bought a lot of ammo each month with the amount of money that I spent on the pool service plus the electricity to run the pump and the other periodic equipment repairs...
@@seanseoltoir Not only all the cost and care, but also it takes up most of the yard, and I wouldn’t get into a chlorine bath. So it’s a no thx from me.
That sounds like a personal problem not a swimming pool problem if you didn't choose to use the pool enough to make it worth it you could have just drained it. You also chose to buy the house with the pool in the first place.
A little warning about Bright Cellars: apparently several people in the past have complained about being overcharged for a purchase, being charged twice for a single purchase, as well as being charged continuously despite unsubscribing. In addition, some have complained about having some pretty subpar wine.
Isn't this just gossip?
@@eadweard. no, it’s informing people so they can spend their money better.
You can go to any liquor store and buy decent wine for under $10. I bought a 2019 Rose from provance for under 10 and it was delicious! Barefoot wines has an entire variety for cheap, and, unless you live out in the sticks, you don't need to mail order wine anyway, and risk these delivery drivers tossing your boxes around like rag dolls despite the fragile lables! i see that happen all the time!
@@eadweard. hey if you can’t try Wyatt from Wyatt Castle wineries who can you trust ?
Just kidding subscription services are usually garbage .
@@wyattcastle7225 Repeating rumours uncritically more like.
Performing some of my own water tests with a 22, it took me forever to figure out why the bullet always veered to the right. In one of those "Doh!" moments I finally realized...the rifling spin!
I'd say it's influenced more by the angle it contacts the water ! Doh.
@@newman653 I thought about that, and should have experimented shooting at different angles, but always tried shooting straight in.
@@johnstevenson9956 the rifling causes a centrifugal balance which increases accuracy.
@@newman653 I thought about that too but I wondered if drag in the water might have changed the effect.
@@johnstevenson9956 aerodynamics & hydrodynamics share very similar characteristics just water is more viscose , but enjoy nutting it out ! Cheers.
Yet another case where the mythbusters are the most scientific test to date lol
same with a person who fell into water at high speeds, the water suddenly became hard as concrete.
It's not that far up in the air before a free fall into water starts breaking bones, but I wonder how high you'd have to fall to splat like on concrete 🤔
Apparently it's not too bad if you have something break the water tension. Like a waterfall. Or a gun.
@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 not true. Breaking the water tension does nothing to ease the impact of the fall. Mythbusters tested that one as well.
its not .306 its .30-06 (pronounced thirty ought six) which was a .30 caliber round developed in 1906.
I thought him saying “306” was wrong, glad I’m not crazy
I'd like to come to his defense, he's a brit living in Prague I believe. Guns and gun knowledge isn't that well known over there. I know right. Oof
I believe Simon meant to say 3.08... not 30-06.
30-06 was the predecessor to the less powerful 3.08 (released by Winchester in 1952), which was followed by the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge in 1957.
The 7.62x51mm and the 3.08 dimensions are indistinguishable to the naked eye.
Some rifles are capable of shooting both safely. (mostly modern guns, and this should be engraved on the barrel)
No shit. He misspoke. No one that matters cares. I'm surprised you all aren't going on about the fact that he said 223 and not .223
Sad this video doesn't mention the Florida Man who modified a glock (iirc) so he could shoot invasive lion fish
Setting up the glock to work underwater was the easy part, the guy also invented an underwater silencer so he doesn't blow eardrums out
Pow pow underwater! Speedo and Glock is not something I ever thought I'd hear in the same sentence
5:01 - Well, the drag force increases non-linearly, if that’s what you mean by “exponentially.” It increases with the square of the velocity, not exponentially.
I mean, I believe water stops bullets, but I don't feel the need to prove it by shooting at myself underwater.
Soviet engineers were so strange. They pioneered rocket design, mathematical theory, and aeronautic innovations. They also equipped their Special Forces with suppressors packed full of iron wool which would explode after a few hundred rounds, a knife gun which was a bad knife and a worse gun, and an assault rifle for underwater use in an area with average underwater visibility of 10 meters or less.
They didn't pioneer rocket design lol
They reverse engineered it from what they took from the germans
While usa took the actual scientists who pioneered it
And mathematical theory another lol so much what you said was incorrect
thats probably because math/physics/engineering research isn't the same as military production. the military couldn't give less of a shit so long as it shoots.
Except all of things they developed actually worked for what they were intended for and you are just trying to find a way to bad mouth some pretty awesome engineering.
I was hoping this would have gone over whether or not there's ever been a single moment in recorded history of two or more frogmen actually engaging in a underwater gunfight because this is one area where cold war paranoia didn't go away despite the silliness of the low odds anyone would ever have for getting in a gun fight underwarter......unless coming across laser mounted sharks.
What about angry Seabass?
@@levitschetter5288 unless those are hyper evolved Seabass with fingers and underwater Glocks, that's not what I'm curious about. Defense against undersea predators makes sense but these were initially created with the express intent of engaging underwater gun battle with other soldiers, regardless how silly that sounds.
Basically when shooting into water, the change in density of air to water slows the projectile SO FAST that the front part of the bullet is like "yo! gotta slow down!" and the back part of the bullet is like "nope!" and the bullet compresses and explodes.
The reply above is from a fake account. You probably caught that, but just in case ...
@@dash_rabbit Yeah I get those all the time. Bad grammar, non-specific. *I'm* supposed to reply? No thanks.
As soon as I saw the topic, I remembered that mythbusters episode. And so yes water works very very good.
too bad they never tested crossbows... especially against ballistic vests... the cops probably didn't want them showing how effective they are.
Experienced a strange level of my own culture shock watching this. He speaks of the 223 cartridge and its ballistic characteristics in contrast to the 9x19 cartridge in it's relation to its ballistic performance in water. Only to realize that I have each in separate rooms of my house as I watch this video. I happened to have a hand full of 9mm casings on the desk I was in front of upon hearing this. I love being an American.
Same here but we do live in Biden's America, he would love to disarm us all!
On the topic of weird ballistics something I always found interesting is that arrows and crossbow bolts are more effective at penetrating sand bags than a lot of bullets.
Im loving that you keep using glock as your reference gun (Grab your Glock/Will your Glock still function). Just got one of my own and it makes me chuckle.
Hey Simon, Crockett called. He needs his shirt and jacket back :P
An interesting thing is that a lot of police investigation offices have a room with basically a big tank full of water. They fire guns into this to collect and compare shell casings to what have been found during a crime.
@ 15:06 LOL!! That AK has def gone full "Mall-Warrior Sword". 😅🤣🤪
Simon, please do "Mall Warrior Weapons" on BB!!
If I'd have seen this video a month ago, I could have saved myself a lot of difficulty. I can attest to the accuracy of Simon's suggestion that firing underwater can damage your firearm🤦🏼♂️.
When I was about 7 years old, I went shooting with my grandfather. While we were walking through the woods, I dropped the 410 shotgun I was carrying and it got a little mud in the end of the barrel. (My grandfather didn't notice.) Before we got in the truck to leave, he had me fire the gun at a target and it blew a hole in the side of the barrel. I'm probably lucky it didn't hurt me. I'm guessing it wasn't a slug but rather several bullets much smaller than the barrel, and I imagine it would be more destructive from a rifle which has a bullet that squeezes out of the barrel even if it's clean.
Also, I would think if both you and the gun are underwater and you get it to fire, it would be really hard on your eardrums.
@@chitlitlah yeah believe it or not it was extremely quiet, even with my head under water...but there was likely air in my ears that maybe prevented the travel of sound idk.
@@Jezus42 it is quite a high quality weapon and it didn't explode, but it seems to have warped or expanded the barrel just the slightest amount where u can't visually identify the damage but the mechanism doesn't cycle properly. At least it's my assumption that it was the barrel which got damaged I actually don't know for sure, I'll have to take it to a gunsmith to know for sure
I'd also like to appreciate no one calling me an idiot for doing such a moronic thing, although you'd have plenty of room to do so lol. What can I say, it was 4th of July, I was in the pool; I put 2 & 2 together and idiocy ensued.
@@jackiec498 I'm pretty sure I've done dumber shit. Did you fire it underwater just to see what would happen or was there another goal in mind?
I am disappointed that these underwater specific weapons were not demonstrated. ;'(
There's probably a Demolition Ranch video doing that.
Firing higher powered guns into the water is like jumping out of a speedboat at full thottle. The water acts like concrete, hence the shattering of rounds.
It would be cool if Simon could take a little sip or two of Bright Cellars wine on camera.
He gets to chow down on cereal and enjoy a sip of supplement beverage.
Should be part of the contract for sure! He's done the cocktail 🍸 vids at home, so a glass of vino 🍷 in the ad read would be good 👍
If think being in the UK would probably impact that.
Not sure about now, but in years past drinking alcohol on "British" tv (especially in commercials) was regulated to be an implied act, and not a visible one.
🤷♂️
@@Mazorzarch Simon lives in the Czech Republic. Ironically, many of his sponsors don't operate there.
Great video, I'm most impressed you used the correct terms when referring to the magazine not the "clip" like many people get wrong.
Good call, I have grown accustom to the incorrect terms people tend to use
@Robert Sears a clip is what was used in the M1 Garrard. It's a device which holds bullets to be inserted into a magazine.
A magazine is what holds bullets to cycle and fire them.
Due to popular usage the 2 terms are interchangeable.
It's like the word gun. The proper term would be firearm, rifle, pistol.
Gun has an actual meaning. It's a rifled cannon with a caliber greater than 50 (caliber for cannons is caliber time bore for barrel length).
Anyone who gets hung up on clip vs magazine should edit the rest of their word usage.
🙂
@@duanesamuelson2256 no one cares it doesn't matter language evolves over time. Magazine and clip are interchangeable now. If you're that bothered by definitions what you should be worried about is that the Oxford English Dictionary recognizes that one of the definitions of the word "literally" is now figuratively.
You can “reliably” cycle a Glock under water by using something called “marine cups.” These are slotted striker spring retainer cups that allow water to flow through the striker pin’s chamber.
There are two other modifications required that I won’t publish to prevent ‘mercan incels going on mass aquarium shooting sprees shouting “fish will not replace us!”
The striker malfunction after round 1 is caused by water’s inability to compress, which means the increased pressure within the striker cylinder causes the inability to reset the striker with the blowback recoil loading design.
You should NEVER use +P ammunition for the aforementioned chamber grenade situation and only engage within 3-5 feet. Not great, but more range than a knife.
I do love watching your videos, thanks for making these.
If they heated up the projectile hot enough before acceleration it would gain the Leidenfrost effect allowing the projectile to move through the water with little to no resistance…..but I’m just a fish.
Velocity in the drag equation is quadratic, not exponential. x^2 is quadratic; 2^x would be exponential.
@Robert Sears
They’re absolutely not. An exponential is when the variable IS the exponent, not when a variable is raised to a power; in general 2^x ≠ x^2 except at two values, when x=4 and x≈-0.767…those graphs intersect at exactly two points, therefore the two functions are not equivalent. If the two functions were equivalent, they would overlap (like how y=x+1 and y=(2x+2)/2 do; those functions are equivalent…the relate X and y identically for all points…the same is not true of x^2 and 2^x…they’re not equivalent).
@@thefourshowflip same thing.
@@davidmcguire6043 well, you’re also entitled to your objectively wrong opinion…
I like that the mention of the six shooter shows a revolver with a 5-bullet cartridge.
Every time I watch a 'today I found out' video.. I get suggestions for another 10 videos I HAVE to watch. Such an amazing channel, along with Top Tenz. It's a very good problem to have.
I know for a fact that my carry pistol will fire underwater. For about three feet. Cycling is another thing. The friction of the water won't let it cycle fully. You'd have to get near point blank to shoot a person though.
The Slow-Mo Guys had, in my opinion, the best example.
When in doubt, if there's water, dive.
Fun fact: Tridents are not superior to simple spears underwater. Due to the massively increased drag.
They were invented to catch fish but from outside of the water. The multiple points points increased your chance to actually hit the fish without calculating the refraction on the water surface.
Any idea why 3 tips became the number? In theory wouldn't more tips mean more chances? I suppose at some point the difficulty to manufacture and the weight would outweigh the benefits of more tips bur id think something like 5 tips with a square and 1 in the middle might be closer to the sweet spot. 3 justs feels oddly arbitrary to me.
306? You either mean 30-06 or. 308 caliber (7.62X51 mm NATO). There is also the Russian 7.62X39 used in AK's.
A 306 does exist, but it's not a common cartridge. I suggest you review your information. It pays to know a little something about firearms.
I'll go see if I can find this episode of Mythbusters to see what firearm chambered for which cartridge they used, but at the moment I doubt very much that they experimented with a "306".
Oh, and .223 and 5.56 mm NATO are capable of being fired in a lot of firearms, since they appear almost identical, but there are differences in case thickness, pressure, powder weight, and sometimes bullet profile, with 5.56 having a higher pressure than .223, and so on. Along the same lines, .308 Winchester and 5.56X51 mm NATO are externally identical, but the. 308 is a hotter round with a thinner casing and usually more propellant and higher pressures, and sometimes a corresponding higher muzzle velocity, than 7.62.
A firearm designed for 7.62 may not always be able to handle .308, and a firearm designed for .308 may not cycle properly with 7.62 ammunition. Some rifles like the M14/M1A can handle both.
7.62 for .308 ..and case dimensions for .223 and 5.56 are identical, case pressures are very close to the same. It's the chamber which causes excessive pressures firing (some) 5.56 nato rounds in a .223 longer OAL .
Not taking exception to what you're saying..the 7.62 is an edit, the pressure/chamber design is just something I'm a bit of a need about and find interesting.
@@duanesamuelson2256 Okey dokey, thanks.
Did you really write a whole fucking novel just because the man misspoke slightly? Get a life because it's obvious that you do not have one.
"An just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water" lol excellent Simon, just excellent 👌
I saw a CZcams video of a guy shooting a pistol in a bucket. The gun came apart, the bucket broke, and he screamed like his hand had been hurt, but unfortunately I didn’t see it.
I made a note not to shoot with a barrel full of water.
I thought they used Glocks to eradicate lion fish in Florida on the reefs.
I wonder where Simon's mind was wondering while not paying attention to the script he was reading during the making of this video?
I hunt and sport shoot traditional Muzzleloading arms. I do recall from this that the best performance was with a civil war style rifled musket
They sell parts kits that allow you to modify a Glock to function underwater, though I don't know why anyone would buy something like that, since the overwhelming majority of situations I could imagine anyone needing a Glock for would not occur underwater. Maybe a scuba diver who's concerned about sharks would carry one?
Mark "Billy" Billingham who spent 27 years in the military calls bollocks on water making you bullet proof. To quote Mark "I've seen people shoot in the fucking water".
Cavitation doesn't vaporize water. It just creates vacuum pockets.
3:41 what's a 306? Is it some crazy new cartridge made for the space force lol
Circa 3:40 I assume you mean 3.08 which is a popular caliber.... vs the stated 3.06... which doesn't exist.
He misspoke. No one that matters cares.
I loved the Mythbusters episode where they fired a gun into ice and got spinning bullets❤️❤️And thought about Mythbusters before even starting this episode😂
Contraindication: do not choose to shelter from HE rounds or mortar/M203 grenades in a swimming pool or lake. These AOE weapons form compression waves when they detonate-just like a depth charge. Air is compressible. Water is not. That makes a huge difference in effects radius* and subjective intensity** within the appropriate area of effect.
*Less
**Far More
You have another option with rifles. You can use a brass solid bullet so it doesn't break up. They would still be highly inaccurate though.
Also the revolver would still be tour best choice since both ends are open when you fire. Less chance to blow up your barrel
@@hebrewhooligan5462 no. In a revolver the bullet has to jump a gap through a forcing cone before it gets to the barrel while expanding gasses vent out the sides. In an automatic it's a sealed system where it just has to push the water out of the way. There is also a firing pin and Hammer in a revolver and ignition may be compromised due to the drag of the water.
@@davidmcguire6043 that's very true. The hammer would fall much slower. At least with a semi auto you could grease the firing pin enough to where water wouldn't effect it much, but then maybe the grease would be to much and slow it down
Makes me imagine the two sides having a war in a paddling pool, would actually be quite hilarious to watch... :P
Worked in ballistics research for many years and this was one of the things we investigated.
The answer to the question "can a bullet be dangerous underwater" is, as with most questions, a resounding "that depends."
I've personally fired a .40 Glock underwater and it felt a bit like getting punched in the chest.
The Soviets had the right idea; semi-automatic mini-harpoon/dart guns for underwater ops. Lethal range only on the order of 15m or so, but better than nothing.
I always thought a fin stabilized little rocket would be the best solution. Water is dense enough that unless you could design a projectile to super cavitate upon firing and maintaining that speed for at least a short while the range will be very short. Supplying it's own energy keeps it moving longer.
Of course since it's not an issue I have to deal with I've never seriously looked into it, let alone dump tons of money into R&D.
@@duanesamuelson2256
To be honest, penetrative antipersonnel weapons under water are not a very good idea. The terminal effects are going to be so inefficient compared to the energy it takes to actually cause a wound.
Self-propelled munitions would help a little with maintaining kinetic energy, I guess, but if you're designing a microrocket for use underwater, it'll be more effective with an explosive warhead... and everything you do like that increases the size of the weapon and reduces the effectiveness to the point where you'd probably be vulnerable to opponents using quicker to use and deploy semi-automatic mini-harpoon/dart guns.
So yeah, basically, you're right; water is too dense to effectively fight in.
Thank you for making this video
fullmag on CZcams has fantastic slow motion footage of shooting different firearms under water.
5:00 Simon simon simon, that's not what exponential means, if the drag increases with the "square" of the velocity, it increases "quadratically", exponentially increasing would mean that if drag increases with 5^V then if the velocity doubled the drag would increase by a factor of 25 but if it increased quadratically then drag would increase by a factor of 4
You mean exponentially? It's multiplication using an exponent he didn't say what that exponent was.
Good to know! This knowledge might come in handy one day.
Oh wait. I don’t know how to swim.
That's great because the deeper you sink the less chance you'll have a being hit by the bullets.
@@davidmcguire6043 that’s really great to know.
good video just notice the miss speak 306 was said not 308. But easy mistake to make when your not a big gun person.
Another win for friction!
Video Starts @1:33
16:49 I'm sharked that you would sa that.
Simon, I’ve just watched this and SideProjects. I need more, Simoooooon I need MORE!!!!
Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Hollywood Weapons Fact Or Fiction ep 1 tested multiple types of weapons to shoot a target through a windshield
Nice show
Can you make one about how funds are moved on banks ?, how direct deposit work ?, Is Cash actually moved from bank to bank ?,
5:15 This is on of those cases where using both systems leads to more confusion than not. .223 and 5.56 are actually different. While you can fire 223 out of a rifle designed for 5.56, the two are different standards, with 5.56 having higher muzzle velocities and chamber pressures than .223 in the same rifle.
The projectile is exactly the same.
Yeah. If you want to be pedantic, he didn't say .223 "Remington" he was just using the imperial equivalent of 5.56mm (which is .223 inches). I wasn't confused 😊
@@StONEDiLESO Yeah but the muzzle velocity is different. But like I said, he didn't say .223 "Remington" he was just using the imperial equivalent of 5.56mm.
@@philb2085 As long as we are being pedantic, the .223 REM projectile is actually .224 cal.
@@gaberoth584 Well while we're being pedantic, I didn't say it was or it wasn't. I said the presenter was using both 5.56mm and its Imperial equivalent... .223". He wasn't talking about specific types of ammunition (NATO SS109, U.S. M855 or Remington .223) he was stating that a hole 5.56mm across can also be described as .223" across.
Yooo remember in John Wick 3 when he and that armored up soldier get thrown in the pool and John almost gets shot then he swims over puts the gun to the shooters face and finishes him
i miss them so much. I wish they made new episodes every day for the rest of lets say....the rest of the time our star shines. Yea. So get to it
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. Gotta think that more than 1/2 of your subscribers are two young to get the reference.
What, you mean Hollywood might have consulted ballistics experts, lol?
The Simon AI controls so many channels, he's become so powerful that he can now throw grenades into my dreams.
Simon.....says.....stop
mostly missing the reason faster or more powerful rounds go through less water, trying to explain with math misses the main problem
practically the one that is faster "aka aerodynamic rifle shaped projectile that is very rear heavy" will turn sideways usually in 4-12 inches and encounter a huge increase in drag if not outright break apart. this is why something slower like 9mm can do better since its blunter more forward heavy shape doesn't feel as much need to tumble
so its just a chain where faster and more powerful, usually correlates with more aerodynamic
which correlates with rear heavy and hard to be stable
which correlates with turning sideways in water more easily
which leads to fast and powerful going through less water.
My brain heard him say bridezillas the first couple of times lmao
I wonder how a round from the Canon on a warthog a-10 would behave underwater?
Badguys watching this video: Lets keep a harpoon gun or crossbow nearby
What really happens when you turn the seam on that lampshade to the back so it doesn"t show? You get a more high calibre look for your target audience....
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.
9:58 "Unshielded body"? He still got his shorts on.
Hi velocity rounds lose most of their kinetic energy when hitting water beyond three feet.
I think some boys that stormed the beaches Normandy would disagree.
Best underwater killing device. Spear gun. Kim Bassinger Never Say Never Again.
Just got my wine from them today as a matter of fact.
9mm has been around for over 100 years. Theres a reason for that. It works.
If they tried firing an old SA80 A1 at water the round would be fine but the rifle would have disintegrated 😅
Don't ask Biden about the 9mm, apparently it's way more deadly than the .50BMG lol
For firing guns underwater, the mythbusters tested this as well with a handgun, revolver, a shotgun and a rifle. They concluded that you shouldn't shoot a shotgun (as theirs exploded when attempted) and that it was only lethal at a range of a few feet during the test.
Did you even watch this video? Simon literally covered the Mythbusters episode first thing after his advertisement.
@@Jay-ate-a-bug He covered them shooting into the water but neglected to mention their experiments shooting guns while submerged.
@@mrtommypickles8635 Another person who apparently didn't watch Simon's video. He covered submerged weapons as well.
@@Jay-ate-a-bug Then please provide a timestamp where he covers The Mythbusters experiments on submerged weapons. I don't hear Simon mention them again after switching topics from shooting INTO water to shooting UNDER water. You realize these are separate experiments the Mythbusters conducted and Simon only covered the first set of experiments.
@@Jay-ate-a-bug There are two different episodes in which the mythbusters tested this. "Bullet proof water" is the episode which Simon referenced at the start where they shot INTO the water. "Myths reopened", the one I was referring to was the one where they fired UNDER water
Sometimes I think you should give up coffee...and/or the antidepressants you're on.
Nothing like some explosives to kill submerged stuff. The shockwave will do the trick.
So what happens when something goes supersonic under water? Underwater shockwaves/sonic booms? Now that I would like to see. Someone hurry up and build a sub or torpedo that can move at a mile per second and test that.
If you remember when Beirut had that massive explosion in 2020, there's a video that you can find here on CZcams and elsewhere of a guy on a jet ski nearby. I don't know if it was intentional or just incredible luck, but if you watch the video closely you can see the shockwave from the explosion pass under him in the water before the shockwave in the air gets to him, and he jumps into the water in between the two. It's pretty amazing.
So the question becomes, how long can you hold you breath for?
Awesome now I know what kind of gun to get to take out Aquaman.
The easiest way to remove a shotgun choke is to stick the barrel of the shotgun into 6 inches of water in a bucket and send a shell through it.
I'm not saying you use the shotgun afterwards, but that choke's coming out. There won't be much of a barrel left.
Just because drag increases with the square of velocity does not mean that the bullet will not travel as far.
"Why a less powerful round travel farther through water than a more powerful one?" 4:18
The distance something travels when drag is the primary force is proportional to the squareroot of velocity. Suppose two bullets are fired, one at speed "s" and one at a faster speed "S". The slower bullet will travel some distance "d". The faster bullet will travel some distance "D" before decreasing to the speed "s" where it will travel the distance "d".
D+d>d so therefore the distance travelled by the bullet at speed "S" is greater than "s"
gun that shoots a spike :)
Destin (from Smarter Every Day) did an experiment with underwater shooting too.
bro, I've seen wine at the store where the label is fucked... should I be asking for a discount?
Interesting video, but I could feel my eyes glaze over with all the numbers
I wish CZcamsrs would make their videos more concise. I’m interested in the topic, but I can’t believe there’s 17 minutes worth of material here.
Rather interesting, I watched that episode of Mythbusters and I don't remember them using any automatic firearms, let alone an automatic 9mm.
Is this more disinfirmation or just the typical ignorance of firearms being shown by the small brains that wrote the script and Simon having his small brain installed?
What do you think the "A" in .45 ACP or .32 ACP stands for?
Before the widespread use of assault rifles and submachineguns, any semi-auto firearm that wasn't a revolver could be called an automatic, as it automatically rechambered a round.
I appreciate your zeal, but I wonder it's wasted on insults and conspiracy theories, when you could just as easily point out that calling a semi-auto an automatic is a somewhat dated term and leave it at that.
Not a bubble, it's a void