Myth Busters had an episode on tonight where they shot a 50 into a pool to see if it would keep enough power to kill someone a few feet under water. The bullet completely fragmented within 14 inches of the surface.

I also watched this. Kinda interesting how the bullet can fragment from water while it still can shoot through steel.

I was supprised too, though, of course I saw the .223 fragmentation coming from a mile away.

I also couldn't belive they shot the 12 gauge into that stupid box they made, you'd think they'd know better!

It blew my mind how far the 9mm went through water!  Went something like 9 feet and then a foot through the balistic gelatin!

Just don't visit their forums.

There are the biggest pile of idiots over there you ever saw.

"they weren't using military ammo, they should use FMJ ammo..."


That's just some of the extreme nonsense.     Even after identifying the ammo used, such as the Barrett/IMI M33 they were handling in the 10 round black egg carton boxes, the idiots skim right over it and continue with their nonsense about "they should use armor piercing ammo".    When I had already previously stated the specs for M33 ball and that it is actually steel core to begin with.

Worst forums ever with multiple idiots making duplicate threads and refusing to shut the fuck up.



Favorite part of the episode where they fire the 50 into the pool.    The supposed "expert" there with them when Jamie asks, "so the safety is off now?"    And the woman responds, "yeah, it should be."    WTF kind of answer is that?


Later in another episode where they shoot at a gas tank of a car, they bring some brilliant asshat that is a supposed retired FBI officer on who tries to explain that it is the painted on coating of tracer rounds that make them glow as they go down range.

Me thinks the producers don't go too far out of their way to find true experts(with the exception of pulling in the FBI for when they blew up the cement truck).

Quoted: Just don't visit their forums. There are the biggest pile of idiots over there you ever saw. "they weren't using military ammo, they should use FMJ ammo..." That's just some of the extreme nonsense.     Even after identifying the ammo used, such as the Barrett/IMI M33 they were handling in the 10 round black egg carton boxes, the idiots skim right over it and continue with their nonsense about "they should use armor piercing ammo".    When I had already previously stated the specs for M33 ball and that it is actually steel core to begin with. Worst forums ever with multiple idiots making duplicate threads and refusing to shut the fuck up. Favorite part of the episode where they fire the 50 into the pool.    The supposed "expert" there with them when Jamie asks, "so the safety is off now?"    And the woman responds, "yeah, it should be."    WTF kind of answer is that? Later in another episode where they shoot at a gas tank of a car, they bring some brilliant asshat that is a supposed retired FBI officer on who tries to explain that it is the painted on coating of tracer rounds that make them glow as they go down range. Me thinks the producers don't go too far out of their way to find true experts(with the exception of pulling in the FBI for when they blew up the cement truck).

agreed. They are really poorly served by the "experts" they bring on the show. I cruised the forums for a while when they first started, it's like hello. Mod_ivy doesn't use the rod enough.

Is it just me or does Jamie and Adam get the really cool myths and the rest of the crew get the lame ones, well guess it pays to be the boss!

Quoted: Is it just me or does Jamie and Adam get the really cool myths and the rest of the crew get the lame ones, well guess it pays to be the boss!

I watch out of morbid curiosity only, now.

They did another one about the myth of buggs bunny sticking his finger..or paw or whatever into Elmer Fud's shot gun and having it blow up in his face.heat least they dont bash guns or there owners.

Quoted:at least they dont bash guns or there owners.

They know better! lol

No matter how goofy some of their "experts" are - they like to blow stuff up every chance they get.
Cant argue with that.

+1. blowing stuff up is blowing stuff up. hell ya.

Quoted: I also watched this. Kinda interesting how the bullet can fragment from water while it still can shoot through steel.

no it didnt.. the jacket came off, but the steel core was 100% intact, he just didnt find in at first in the pool..

I saw this too.  Idiots.  They've left viewers mistakenly thinking water provides good protection against gunfire.

What happened was in both cases (.50 and .223), they were shooting too close to the water.  The bullets had just exited the barrel and were still VERY hot and VERY soft because of it.  When they hit a liquid medium like water at that range, they couldn't stay together with such rapid decceleration in the state they were in.  Rifle bullets coming out of conventional-length barrels like we saw here are extremely delicate at the muzzle because the pressure and friction of moving down the barrel has almost, but not quite melted them. They are held together by their jackets until they have had sufficient time to cool in-flight and become dense enough to do the things were used to seeing them do, like punch through hard objects with relatively little fragmentation or deformation. This is why unjacketed lead bullets leave heavy lead deposits in barrels, the lead melts with the friction and sheds itself in the barrel, so what exits is the cooler area beneath the surface that hasn't had much friction acting on it.

The lead projectile from the muzzle-loader had the advantage because it wasn't jacketed and the lead bullet cooled itself by smearing the melted lead inside the barrel.  It also didn't have the pressures inherent in modern firearms due to the loose gas seal of the projectile in the barrel, gasses pass the projo in the barrel and reduce the velocity and pressure resulting in less friction. They also don't have the velocity of a modern rifle, they're more like handguns rounds, so hitting the water is not as catastrophic.

Handgun bullets do not exhibit this behavior as much because they are under less pressure than rifle bullets, they come out of shorter barrels so there is less friction to act on them and they have much larger diameters than rifle bullets so they would take a bit more heat to effect its state.

All in all, all they showed was you are somewhat safer being fired at from point blank range while immersed in water. Like anyone will ever be shot at by a .50 BMG while immersed in a couple feet of water. But now I know! Pull those rifles back to 10 yards or more, give the bullets a bit of head wind to cool them back to a totally solid state and you would have seen them penetrate with far more immpressive results.

this weeks episode is another gun related myth "can you start a fire with a gun?"
This should get intersting, Survivorman started a fire with a gun

Quoted: this weeks episode is another gun related myth "can you start a fire with a gun?" This should get intersting, Survivorman started a fire with a gun

Uhhh....can you say incendiary??

Heat hasn't got a thing to do with it, if it did then 5.56x45mm wouldn't be fragmenting at 100-150+ yards.

It's sheer velocity that is the culprit and nothing else.


Unless you are copying some bullheaded post from the mythbusters forum.

Quoted: Quoted: this weeks episode is another gun related myth "can you start a fire with a gun?" This should get intersting, Survivorman started a fire with a gun Uhhh....can you say incendiary??

starting a fire without a incendiary round

Quoted: I saw this too.  Idiots.  They've left viewers mistakenly thinking water provides good protection against gunfire. What happened was in both cases (.50 and .223), they were shooting too close to the water.  The bullets had just exited the barrel and were still VERY hot and VERY soft because of it.  When they hit a liquid medium like water at that range, they couldn't stay together with such rapid decceleration in the state they were in.  Rifle bullets coming out of conventional-length barrels like we saw here are extremely delicate at the muzzle because the pressure and friction of moving down the barrel has almost, but not quite melted them. They are held together by their jackets until they have had sufficient time to cool in-flight and become dense enough to do the things were used to seeing them do, like punch through hard objects with relatively little fragmentation or deformation. This is why unjacketed lead bullets leave heavy lead deposits in barrels, the lead melts with the friction and sheds itself in the barrel, so what exits is the cooler area beneath the surface that hasn't had much friction acting on it. The lead projectile from the muzzle-loader had the advantage because it wasn't jacketed and the lead bullet cooled itself by smearing the melted lead inside the barrel.  It also didn't have the pressures inherent in modern firearms due to the loose gas seal of the projectile in the barrel, gasses pass the projo in the barrel and reduce the velocity and pressure resulting in less friction. They also don't have the velocity of a modern rifle, they're more like handguns rounds, so hitting the water is not as catastrophic. Handgun bullets do not exhibit this behavior as much because they are under less pressure than rifle bullets, they come out of shorter barrels so there is less friction to act on them and they have much larger diameters than rifle bullets so they would take a bit more heat to effect its state. All in all, all they showed was you are somewhat safer being fired at from point blank range while immersed in water. Like anyone will ever be shot at by a .50 BMG while immersed in a couple feet of water. But now I know! Pull those rifles back to 10 yards or more, give the bullets a bit of head wind to cool them back to a totally solid state and you would have seen them penetrate with far more immpressive results.

dude.. you are wrong on SOOO many levels...

Quoted: dude.. you are wrong on SOOO many levels...

Offer something else then. I love reading fiction.

This is exactly, precisely why both the .50 BMG and .223 rounds came apart point blank in a little water.  Study ballistics, design some bullets and rifling patterns for 20 years, then we can talk.

The bullshit lay with the "hot bullet/cold water" argument.

Explain how the 5.56x45mm is still fragmenting at 100-150 yards down range where it should have had plenty of time to cool down.

Velocity is the culprit, nothing more.    Bullet yaw/tumbles upon impact violently due to the center of gravity being rearwards towards the base of the bullet, as it yaws the surface area increases to the point that pressure acting on it dramatically climbs beyond that which the bullet can handle.


Want to kill the heat/friction argument.      Take a 55grn FMJ M193 projectile and load it into a sabot to fire from a 308Winchester.



As for one more shooting related myth that is now busted.

Was shooting my ALS 50BMG upper today and bagged my first kill.    Poor little feathered tweety bird never knew what hit him.     Though the first round was a complete miss with the bullet going about 2 inches high.    

What was busted here?     The stupid assinine myth that a 50BMG can kill a person if you miss them by a couple inches/feet due to the supersonic shock wave.      If it were remotely possible, poor little feathered friend would have been atleast been knocked off his branch if the shock wave was worth two shits.      Instead, he just sat there and patiently waited for the next round to come along and pummel him.

Quoted: this weeks episode is another gun related myth "can you start a fire with a gun?" This should get intersting, Survivorman started a fire with a gun

They ended up doing it.

Quoted: The bullshit lay with the "hot bullet/cold water" argument. Explain how the 5.56x45mm is still fragmenting at 100-150 yards down range where it should have had plenty of time to cool down. Velocity is the culprit, nothing more.    Bullet yaw/tumbles upon impact violently due to the center of gravity being rearwards towards the base of the bullet, as it yaws the surface area increases to the point that pressure acting on it dramatically climbs beyond that which the bullet can handle. Want to kill the heat/friction argument.      Take a 55grn FMJ M193 projectile and load it into a sabot to fire from a 308Winchester. As for one more shooting related myth that is now busted. Was shooting my ALS 50BMG upper today and bagged my first kill.    Poor little feathered tweety bird never knew what hit him.     Though the first round was a complete miss with the bullet going about 2 inches high.     What was busted here?     The stupid assinine myth that a 50BMG can kill a person if you miss them by a couple inches/feet due to the supersonic shock wave.      If it were remotely possible, poor little feathered friend would have been atleast been knocked off his branch if the shock wave was worth two shits.      Instead, he just sat there and patiently waited for the next round to come along and pummel him.

Why did you need to shoot a tweety bird with a .50? I understand trying to bust myths, but whats the point of killing somthing that isnt a pest?

Quoted: Quoted: this weeks episode is another gun related myth "can you start a fire with a gun?" This should get intersting, Survivorman started a fire with a gun They ended up doing it.

I thought the soda can, flashlight and ice magnifying was pretty cool

Quoted: Why did you need to shoot a tweety bird with a .50? I understand trying to bust myths, but whats the point of killing somthing that isnt a pest?

I'm sorry, I was too busy not giving a crap about why you care.

Quoted: Quoted: dude.. you are wrong on SOOO many levels... Offer something else then. I love reading fiction. This is exactly, precisely why both the .50 BMG and .223 rounds came apart point blank in a little water.  Study ballistics, design some bullets and rifling patterns for 20 years, then we can talk.

i have... go read my posts on the subject in there forums..

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this weeks episode is another gun related myth "can you start a fire with a gun?" This should get intersting, Survivorman started a fire with a gun They ended up doing it. I thought the soda can, flashlight and ice magnifying was pretty cool

What was funny was that they were using parts of shirts or fingers to rub the choclate. your supposed to used the inside of the wrapper! They said it took hours but you can do it in about 15 minutes with the wrapper on the choclate.

Quoted: Quoted: Why did you need to shoot a tweety bird with a .50? I understand trying to bust myths, but whats the point of killing somthing that isnt a pest? I'm sorry, I was too busy not giving a crap about why you care.

Well, I care because everytime I hear an anti gunner wanting to ban somthing they always try to find people who do things like shooting a tweety bird with a .50 and then brand all of us shooters as backwoods killers. I guess im tired of people giving them ammunition. That behavior just makes us all look bad.

Quoted: I saw this too.  Idiots.  They've left viewers mistakenly thinking water provides good protection against gunfire. What happened was in both cases (.50 and .223), they were shooting too close to the water.  The bullets had just exited the barrel and were still VERY hot and VERY soft because of it.  When they hit a liquid medium like water at that range, they couldn't stay together with such rapid decceleration in the state they were in.  Rifle bullets coming out of conventional-length barrels like we saw here are extremely delicate at the muzzle because the pressure and friction of moving down the barrel has almost, but not quite melted them. They are held together by their jackets until they have had sufficient time to cool in-flight and become dense enough to do the things were used to seeing them do, like punch through hard objects with relatively little fragmentation or deformation. This is why unjacketed lead bullets leave heavy lead deposits in barrels, the lead melts with the friction and sheds itself in the barrel, so what exits is the cooler area beneath the surface that hasn't had much friction acting on it. The lead projectile from the muzzle-loader had the advantage because it wasn't jacketed and the lead bullet cooled itself by smearing the melted lead inside the barrel.  It also didn't have the pressures inherent in modern firearms due to the loose gas seal of the projectile in the barrel, gasses pass the projo in the barrel and reduce the velocity and pressure resulting in less friction. They also don't have the velocity of a modern rifle, they're more like handguns rounds, so hitting the water is not as catastrophic. Handgun bullets do not exhibit this behavior as much because they are under less pressure than rifle bullets, they come out of shorter barrels so there is less friction to act on them and they have much larger diameters than rifle bullets so they would take a bit more heat to effect its state. All in all, all they showed was you are somewhat safer being fired at from point blank range while immersed in water. Like anyone will ever be shot at by a .50 BMG while immersed in a couple feet of water. But now I know! Pull those rifles back to 10 yards or more, give the bullets a bit of head wind to cool them back to a totally solid state and you would have seen them penetrate with far more immpressive results.

This includes some interesting theories.  You seem to assume nearly instantaneous heat transfer from the bullet skin into its center for the entire bullet to be near liquid state at the muzzle, and when an already hot projectiles is being heated due to aerodynamic friction as it goes downrange, how is it being cooled?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why did you need to shoot a tweety bird with a .50? I understand trying to bust myths, but whats the point of killing somthing that isnt a pest? I'm sorry, I was too busy not giving a crap about why you care. Well, I care because everytime I hear an anti gunner wanting to ban somthing they always try to find people who do things like shooting a tweety bird with a .50 and then brand all of us shooters as backwoods killers. I guess im tired of people giving them ammunition. That behavior just makes us all look bad.

And what the hell does this stem from?    Some perceived notion of guns being for sporting use or hunting?     Oh, using a 50BMG to kill some stupid bird is unsporting or unethical so therefore the actions of the shooter should be associated with the rifle/chambering itself being evil?

That sort of flawed logic is right in line with the typical thinking of the antigunners.

I'm not accusing you of that kind of thinking, I can understand if that is what you are trying to illustrate as the eventual outcome should people read my accounts of shooting the bird.

HOWEVER,


I'm tired of people trying to argue that gun ownership stems from supposed "legitimate" sporting uses like target shooting or hunting.     So I killed some dumb bird, you'd likely be just as pissed if it had been some other section of the forum and it was a 223Remington instead of a 50BMG.

So what, I'm a varmint hunter and have blown away countless other helpless little vermin.   Do you shed a tear for all the poor helpless squirrels as well?   But my being a varmint shooter isn't what drives me to own guns for what I may or may not consider "sport".

I understand why you might object to me killing the bird.    Myself and those I shoot with do not object to the occasional bird getting plastered.    It's not like we go out on a bird killing jihad, squirrels are another matter, but of those who were with me when the bird got pummeled yesterday there is another myth that was shed before their eyes.

They figured there would be nothing left of the bird and it would explode in a marvelous puff of feathers.   Much to their dismay there was much more left of that bird than if I had used my favored 223Remington varmint chambering which would have made a good 12-24 inch puff of feathers.

Why'd we shoot it, idle curiosity.

No it wasn't sporting.     But then I do NOT buy into the notions of owning firearms for "sport", of what other people believe what should and shouldn't be legal based upon "sporting" purposes.    The entire argument is invalid in my opinion with respect to what the 2nd Amendment protects.

Back the 2nd Amendment for what it is, giving the citizens of this country the teeth to defend itself against enemies that would do them harm.

The argument of the 50BMG being a "sporting" arm and therefore should not be banned is not something I agree with.    Lots of people own them for those reasons but primarily my beliefs lay else where.

Anyone wanting to ban guns based upon the death of a bird by the hands of a shooter is likely trying to ban all guns anyhow and doesn't view hunting as a legitimate purpose for owning guns in the first place.

So you feel that my actions in shooting the little bird paints 50BMG owners(or any firearm owner) in a bad light.

My views are that anyone who feels that guns are for sporting purposes is painting the 2nd Amendment in a bad light.

Damn.....how did my fun post about Myth Busters turn into this rhetorical backlash over shooting a tweedy bird with a fifty.

Looks like time for one of the Mods to hit the 'delete' button.

A supersonic bullet is very hot, it fragments not from impact but from going hot to cold too quickly.  Take a glass run hot water into it for a few minutes then put it in moderately cold water IT BREAKS!  Ever seen a bunker buster hit a target submerged beneath water?  Didn't think so either.  Metal does the same thing glass does with the exception of higher tolerances.  Compound temprature change with impact force and a bullet will break quicker.  

Quoted: A supersonic bullet is very hot, it fragments not from impact but from going hot to cold too quickly.  Take a glass run hot water into it for a few minutes then put it in moderately cold water IT BREAKS!  Ever seen a bunker buster hit a target submerged beneath water?  Didn't think so either.  Metal does the same thing glass does with the exception of higher tolerances.  Compound temprature change with impact force and a bullet will break quicker.

lay off the crack, pick up a book..