I'm just wondering if bullets in the water have the ability to kill or wound like they show on Saving Pvt Ryan? I would think the water would decelerate the round rapidly like 3 to 5 feet.

Where is old painless

Plunging automatic fire from 600-800 meters out would actually INCREASE the depth of penetration.  Odd but true.  High velocity kills penetration.

Quoted: I'm just wondering if bullets in the water have the ability to kill or wound like they show on Saving Pvt Ryan? I would think the water would decelerate the round rapidly like 3 to 5 feet.

MythBuster did a show on this and that is exactly what they found, even when fired 15' away from the water.

But I was taught not to shoot at the water because water is a solid object.

Sgatr15

What if you're bumpfiring underwater?


How about the end scene in Lethal Weapon 4 where the AK (?) is fired undewater for a round or two?  Is that possible?

Quoted: Quoted: I'm just wondering if bullets in the water have the ability to kill or wound like they show on Saving Pvt Ryan? I would think the water would decelerate the round rapidly like 3 to 5 feet. MythBuster did a show on this and that is exactly what they found, even when fired 15' away from the water. But I was taught not to shoot at the water because water is a solid object. Sgatr15

But they didn't test the bullets at range where the lower velocity increases the depth of penetration.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm just wondering if bullets in the water have the ability to kill or wound like they show on Saving Pvt Ryan? I would think the water would decelerate the round rapidly like 3 to 5 feet. MythBuster did a show on this and that is exactly what they found, even when fired 15' away from the water. But I was taught not to shoot at the water because water is a solid object. Sgatr15 But they didn't test the bullets at range where the lower velocity increases the depth of penetration.

Yes...

The Mythbuster episode showed high velocity rounds disintegrated within a couple of feet after hitting the water. They tested .223, 30-06, and .50 cal. All 3 broke up. The test was done with the muzzle within a few of feet of the surface of the water at an angle of around 23 dregrees (I think).

I don’t really know how much meaning in relation to rounds fired from machine guns 500 yards away from the surface of the water. At 500 yards would the rounds sustain enough velocity to still break up? Also rifle rounds can ricochet when hitting water at a very low angle, like a skipping stone. My guess is the angles of fire on the D-day beaches would have been very low, less than 20 degrees, so would the rounds tend to bounce off the water?

The testing the Mythbuster did with lower velocity rounds like 9mm and a 12 gauge slug showed those rounds did not break up and would be deadly at depths exceeding 10 feet. This testing was done at a 90 degree firing angle and point blank range. So again would this result have any relation to rounds fired on the D-Day beaches… probably not.

+1 on the Mythbusters.

Couple of feet of water is all it takes to slow it.

The range of the MG in the Normandy Invasion was such that the fire would be PLUNGING fire, not grazing fire.  Trajectory of MG rounds, like most high power rifles, is initially flat to about 400 yards (within a meter) but at 600-1000 yards, the elevation required for that distance makes the fire PLUNGING, more like a mortar round than a rifle.  This trajectory along with the reduced velocity would make depth of penetration much greater than what those two assclowns on Discovery Channel "discovered".  Had they applied science, they would have associated the deeper penetration of the 9mm and 12 gauge slug with the lower velocity and less oblique angle of impact.

Good answers, I never considered the angle or velocity, but I'm sure it makes a huge difference. In the movie it looks like some of the bullets are traveling 10 to 15 feet, & the full penatration on the GI's, in battle gear.

Quoted: What if you're bumpfiring underwater? How about the end scene in Lethal Weapon 4 where the AK (?) is fired undewater for a round or two?  Is that possible?

That's an interesting question. Glocks are supposed to be capable of firing underwater (range is about 10' though, no JHP!), I'm not sure why they can be fired underwater and why some other firearms cannot... but seeing how the HK P11? pistol is a 7.62mm based pistol... My guess is the caliber size, bullet construction, and gas system play an important role.

The AR-15/M16 is .223 (smaller barrel) with a gas tube that can blow up with water inside. Plus you have a buffer in the stock that will probably blow up the stock when fired underwater. Assuming the bullet can even leave the bore of the AR-15 underwater (which i think it can do once), the rest of the rifle is kaput after the first shot.

Now on an AK that fires .311" bullets with a solid gas piston (not sealed very well, there's PLENTY of room for gas/water to escape) in a loose chamber, I'd say yes! You could probably fire at a very slow rate w/o blowing anything up assuming the rifle stands up to the pressure.

The Glock has a loose chamber (with a cut in there as well), I don't find it surprising to read it's about as reliable as the AK in the field.

Quoted: Quoted: What if you're bumpfiring underwater? How about the end scene in Lethal Weapon 4 where the AK (?) is fired undewater for a round or two?  Is that possible? That's an interesting question. Glocks are supposed to be capable of firing underwater (range is about 10' though, no JHP!), I'm not sure why they can be fired underwater and why some other firearms cannot...

The Glock requires special spring cups to fire underwater. And even then it does not cycle under water.

but seeing how the HK P11? pistol is a 7.62mm based pistol... My guess is the caliber size, bullet construction, and gas system play an important role. The AR-15/M16 is .223 (smaller barrel) with a gas tube that can blow up with water inside. Plus you have a buffer in the stock that will probably blow up the stock when fired underwater. Assuming the bullet can even leave the bore of the AR-15 underwater (which i think it can do once), the rest of the rifle is kaput after the first shot. Now on an AK that fires .311" bullets with a solid gas piston (not sealed very well, there's PLENTY of room for gas/water to escape) in a loose chamber, I'd say yes! You could probably fire at a very slow rate w/o blowing anything up assuming the rifle stands up to the pressure. The Glock has a loose chamber (with a cut in there as well), I don't find it surprising to read it's about as reliable as the AK in the field.

Uhhh....

I wouldn't reccomend firing any weapon under water. Ever.

AQUABUMP

Quoted: AQUABUMP

It only took 10 posts for someone to say it.

Quoted: Where is old painless

Present!

The other guys have basically answered the question.  I enjoyed the Mythbusters show, but they left a lot of questions un-answered.

Regarding shooting under water, most of you guys are too young to remember a television show called "Sea Hunt", starring Lloyd Bridges.  It was an adventure show about a diver.  I remember one show where the bad guy was going to force him to do something underwater by holding a .38 Special revolver on him.  They explained that a revolver would shoot underwater, but the bullets slowed down so quickly that they were only lethal within a few feet.  Can't remember exactly, but say 10 -12 feet.

In the story, Lloyd waited for a chance and swam off as fast as he could.  The bad guy shot several rounds at him, but he was 15 feet away or so and they did not penetrate.

Depth and time underwater would determine how long the ammo would hold up under water.



(Always have looked for an reason to use that thing. )

Quoted: Plunging automatic fire from 600-800 meters out would actually INCREASE the depth of penetration.  Odd but true.  High velocity kills penetration.

So what you're saying is it's kind of like a "dashpot". An example would be a screen door actuator. The harder and faster you puch against it the more the resistance. It closes faster when you push slow and soft.

Bomber

Quoted: Quoted: Plunging automatic fire from 600-800 meters out would actually INCREASE the depth of penetration.  Odd but true.  High velocity kills penetration. So what you're saying is it's kind of like a "dashpot". An example would be a screen door actuator. The harder and faster you puch against it the more the resistance. It closes faster when you push slow and soft. Bomber

High velocity rounds tear themselves apart when they hit the water because they decelerate too quickly. When slower bullets hit the water, however, they hold together and can remain lethal even though they are slowed down a bit by the resistance of the water.

Odds are that if the round is supersonic when it hits the water, it will destroy itself. If it is not, then odds are that it will hold together and hit whatever is in its path. (Though its path won't be straight)

blub blub blub

Quoted: The Glock requires special spring cups to fire underwater. And even then it does not cycle under water. Uhhh.... I wouldn't reccomend firing any weapon under water. Ever.

The Glock DOES NOT require the marine spring cups to be used underwater. The plastic Marine Spring Cups for the G17 are ONLY to prevent light primer strikes due to water providing backpressure causing light primer strikes (because the FP channel is filled with water). From what the folks that use G17s under water have said, it will fire and cycle underwater, but may have issues with light primer strikes w/o the marine spring cups. The key is to use water-proofed FMJ ammo (like Nato 124 gr FMJ with sealants) and use the marine spring cups to prevent light primer strikes. It will cycle fine underwater assuming you get all of the air out of the firearm. Keep your head out of the water or use special earplugs.

Firing weapons underwater is part of the training for special jobs. Even 1911s can be fired underwater and they cycled properly. There was a whole test done on this and they showed the penetration of wood underwater at 10ft.

I wouldn't recommend shooting underwater either, I was just trying to answer someone's question. It can cause severe hearing damage as well as other injuries (possibly death) w/o the proper training.

A long time ago, I did some expansion tests with various pistol hollow point ammo and shotgun slugs. I used a five gallon bucket of water. I would stand on a deck and shoot straight down into the water. A couple of .45 rounds would go all the way through the water and penetrate the bottom of the bucket. One FMJ 9mm penetrated the bottom of the bucket and a Brennke rifled slug busted out the bottom.

Never shoot a 22 into the water.   It will skip and send the round into your house where you will then half to fix the hole in the kitchen.

Quoted: The range of the MG in the Normandy Invasion was such that the fire would be PLUNGING fire, not grazing fire.  Trajectory of MG rounds, like most high power rifles, is initially flat to about 400 yards (within a meter) but at 600-1000 yards, the elevation required for that distance makes the fire PLUNGING, more like a mortar round than a rifle.  This trajectory along with the reduced velocity would make depth of penetration much greater than what those two assclowns on Discovery Channel "discovered".  Had they applied science, they would have associated the deeper penetration of the 9mm and 12 gauge slug with the lower velocity and less oblique angle of impact.

And how would you know?  It sounds to me like your saying that after the round reaches a certain point that it starts to decend, true, however I think the velocity would still be enough to cause a radical deceleration, and result in the round coming apart.