Seems films showing firearms being fired underwater or with bores full of water are becomming more frequent. e.g. Rambo, SEALs, etc. immediately rising out of the water shooting full auto OR underwater combat scenes where the fight ends with a handgun being fired underwater etc. Have always been taught NEVER to shoot a firearm with a bore obstruction. What do you other shooters think? Anyone actually try this?

NO WAY! and I ain't ever gonna find out.

RJ

I have heard of spearfishermen using a glock (the story is always glock) to dispatch, underwater, big fish they have speared. I have no personal knowledge about whether it is true or not but I tend to think it is.

Some of these guys are crazy, compared to being hooked to a 500 pound fish underwater, shooting a pistol underwater seems mundane.

I certainly would not do any of the above myself.

I have heard of spearfishermen using a glock (the story is always glock) to dispatch, underwater, big fish they have speared. I have no personal knowledge about whether it is true or not but I tend to think it is.

Some of these guys are crazy, compared to being hooked to a 500 pound fish underwater, shooting a pistol underwater seems mundane.

I certainly would not do any of the above myself.

The only guy i ever knew who was totally happy with his COP (that 4 barrled pepper-box .357 derringer) was a diver. He'd load short sections of fiberglass rod with borad heads attached like a muzzle loader, so they'd stick out the barrel in a cluster, on top of waterproof wads and a charge of BP.

But then again, he'd come up a bit too fast a few times, and wasn't known for his decision making skills.

It's going to be a case of some guns and loads can take it and some can't. Shark killing sticks are usually a rifle round, like a .308, in a short barrelled chamber that fires like an automatic centerpunch when you push it against the shark. No reason you can't make the steel tough enough.

Mythbusters did a show trying to blow up shotguns and rifles with bore obstructions, in the process proving the old cartoon business of sticking a finger in the muzzle wouldn't work. I can't recall the rifle they picked, by remember it wouldn't blow until they actually welded a plug in the muzzle. Everything else blew out threw the bore, though they were able to bulge the barrel with an obstruction.

Hey, if the shark is going to eat you, and you have a .45, shoot it!

Nick,

If I remember correctly it was an Italian Carcano. Seems Jamie likes to screw up as many Carcanos as possible. One of the barrels had a ridge on top that curled up when they used some obstruction but I don't remember if it was mud or what.

Read an article about this about 20 years ago. Guy shot a 1911 in a swimming pool.

The important thing was to make sure all the air was out of the barrel. Bullet didn't go very far and slide didn't have enough travel to chamber another round.

Even though the water slowed the bullet down, I wouldn't want to be right in front of the muzzle.

Nick,

If I remember correctly it was an Italian Carcano. . .

I think you are right. It would be interesting to see that one again!

Leverite,

Why would they care if the air is out of the barrel? That just makes it easier on the gun, not having to shove water mass down the tube. Or maybe you mean they were making sure it was out so they were testing worst case? I can't imagine the air would stay in very well, anyway.

Mythbusters did an episode on firing guns underwater as well, thier findings were consistant with what leverite mentioned

I've heard about this...shooting into water, a pistol bullet can travel up to 19 feet I think.
Depending on caliber but a rifle round hardly pentrates at all. Cant remember the reason why behind it though and I dont know about shooting while underwater, lol...crazy talk.

It occurs to me that shooting a firearm WELL underwater might be safer than shooting it with a plugged barrel high and dry. We know a bullet doesn't go very far through water, I don't guess shrapnel from a blown up gun would either.

Obviously this theory would not do you much good if only the barrel was underwater.

My concern would be my eardrums. Water would propagate the shock wave better than air. I would sacrifice my hearing rater than being eaten by a "sea beast" though!

I am not known to carry under water. I wonder what the SEAL's use for gun cleaning/maintainence?

Cheezywan

Another Mythbusters involved firing rifle bullets into water to see if diving down a few feet saves you? It does. They fired at and angle, maybe 30°? Even their Barrett couldn't hurt the target. The high speed rifle bullets just can't handle a belly flop, and come apart.

Nick,

If I remember correctly it was an Italian Carcano. Seems Jamie likes to screw up as many Carcanos as possible...
Blowin' up is about all a Carcano is good for, anyway!

.

Scenario, not to be a dork but it's spelled scenario.

if you think about it, especially in terms of a muzzeloader, all a bullet is is a bore obstruction, I think the problem occurs when there is a gap between the bore obstruction and the powder charge. I know if a ball isn't seated tight on the powder, you can bulge the barrel (at least that is what I have always been told), so as long as the bore is full of water, It makes sense that it can be fired underwater

I think you are right. It would be interesting to see that one again!

Leverite,

Why would they care if the air is out of the barrel? That just makes it easier on the gun, not having to shove water mass down the tube. Or maybe you mean they were making sure it was out so they were testing worst case? I can't imagine the air would stay in very well, anyway.

water and air don't mix well under pressure...all sorts of transient pressure stuff happens.

Lost one reply,,,hope this doesn't double.

Evidently people have spent long nights on this problem...never though much about it myself... and there are specialized systems.
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg140-e.htm

Another Mythbusters involved firing rifle bullets into water to see if diving down a few feet saves you? It does. They fired at and angle, maybe 30°? Even their Barrett couldn't hurt the target. The high speed rifle bullets just can't handle a belly flop, and come apart.

Ah, so thats the reason rifle bullets dont penetrate deep into water. I knew it was something like that.
But pistol rounds can wound anything above 18 feet, I believe. I still dont know about firing the gun while completely submerged though...interesting concept though!

here (http://www.video.glath.com/view/mythbusters.Sea-sickness_-_Kill_or_Cure) is the barrel obstruction show

and a few others

bullets fired up (http://www.video.glath.com/view/mythbusters.Bullets_Fired_Up)

bullet proof water (http://www.video.glath.com/view/mythbusters.Bulletproof_Water)

1) Let's say you have 20" of .30" bore in front of the bullet ( a rifle barrel ) that's full of water. That water will weigh 355 gr. So, that would be the equivalent of using a load with a bullet that's 355 gr overweight. We know we have to reduce powder charge going from a 150 gr to a 220 gr bullet, and that's only a change of 70 gr. Sounds like a likely overpressure condition to me.

2) Let's say you have that barrel pointed down, so it only half fills with water, and there's a big bubble immediately in front of the bullet. The bullet is going to get a good deal of momentum up before the water can be pushed from the barrel, and the bullet is going to compress that air to tremendous pressure. I could envision the bullet exceeding the speed of sound in the bubble, which would cause a shock wave that could exceed chamber pressure.

Both of these scenarios would be less in a pistol length barrel.

Water will support the chamber, so pressures should equal out. Not the same as shooting with an obstructed bore.

JMO,

Mark

Water will support the chamber, so pressures should equal out. Not the same as shooting with an obstructed bore.
Let's say you're shooting 34' under water. The pressure outside the chamber will be 15 psi. That won't be much support against the tens of thousands of psi inside the chamber.

The pressure rise in the barrel is not from the pressure of the water inside the barrel just before shooting, but from the pressure required to accelerate the water out of the barrel.

Let's say you're shooting 34' under water. The pressure outside the chamber will be 15 psi. That won't be much support against the tens of thousands of psi inside the chamber.

The pressure rise in the barrel is not from the pressure of the water inside the barrel just before shooting, but from the pressure required to accelerate the water out of the barrel.

Ok. Let's consider a .452" bore running 5 inches long. This column of water is (.452 * pi * 5), or 7.1 cubic inches. Let's say this water weighs 8 lbs per gallon. One gallon occupies 231 cubic inches. So 7.1/231 is 0.031 of a gallon. Converting to mass...(8*7000)*0.031 is 1736 grains.

The bullet weighs 230 + 1736 grains, but is shedding weight very quickly (as the bullet moves down the barrel). Even though the peak pressure is not coincident with peak "bullet" weight, you're probably closer to the truth than I am. I stand corrected.

Regards,

Mark

Here is a link about underwater shooting. http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/May02.htm

Well that was interesting...so a pistol is a better choice of weapon for underwater shootin.
Gotcha, lol. I suppose a 9mm might be able to rechamber a new round...?

Ok. Let's consider a .452" bore running 5 inches long. This column of water is (.452 * pi * 5), or 7.1 cubic inches. Let's say this water weighs 8 lbs per gallon. One gallon occupies 231 cubic inches. So 7.1/231 is 0.031 of a gallon. Converting to mass...(8*7000)*0.031 is 1736 grains.

The bullet weighs 230 + 1736 grains, but is shedding weight very quickly (as the bullet moves down the barrel). Even though the peak pressure is not coincident with peak "bullet" weight, you're probably closer to the truth than I am. I stand corrected.

Regards,

Mark

Oops. I used circumference instead of area. Returning to the .45ACP example:

...This column of water is (.226 ^2 * pi * 5), or 0.802 cubic inches. Let's say this water weighs 8 lbs per gallon. One gallon occupies 231 cubic inches. So 0.802/231 is 0.003 of a gallon. Converting to mass...(8*7000)*0.003 is 194.5 grains. So the "bullet" weighs 230 + 195 grains, but is shedding....

Sorry for the error.

I think the 45/70 would fare well, as would most other lower pressure straight wall cases.

Mark

A tweak to the problem is complicated by the fact the water in the barrel muzt be pushed out of the muzzle into still more water that, being of low compressability, must be displaced. Since a 5" 1911 barrel is measured from the breechface, like a rifle, you need to start by subtracting from its volume the .898" case length and the volume of the bullet nose. I think you will have about 0.6 in³ or about 152 grains of water. If you were shooting this into the air, you could treat it as a 382 grain bullet to determine start pressure. The pressure should peak with such a heavy bullet about 0.2" down the barrel, so we can add half that volume for average weight of water plus displacement resistance during that time. Not a lot of effect. Equivalent to another 3.5 grains.

Net effect in QuickLOAD is to drive the peak pressure to 22,600 PSI. A little above the 21,000 PSI +P SAMMI limit. Most guns would probably handle it without a problem.

Ugly from "Good, Bad and Ugly did it.

Ugly from "Good, Bad and Ugly did it.
That was Tuco, or however his name was spelled... :p

Mythbusters did an episode on firing guns underwater as well, thier findings were consistant with what leverite mentioned


I saw that also, JB are you turning into a techno geek! Next, you'll be using rangefinders. BTW, Do you have an iron sight rifle? I wonder :rolleyes: Just kidding. JP

I am 25, of course I am a techno geek! :D I would already have a rangfinder, but my wife won't let me spring for it. :( And I do own 1 iron sighted rifle. I just like being able to see what I am aiming at, even when I play computer games, I always take the sniper rifle :D :D :D

Water will support the chamber, so pressures should equal out. Not the same as shooting with an obstructed bore.

JMO,

Mark


Thats what I learned in the Navy. I've shoot coming out of the water in training, does no damage to the gun, however it does effect accuracy. :)

I am 25, of course I am a techno geek! :D I would already have a rangfinder, but my wife won't let me spring for it. :( And I do own 1 iron sighted rifle. I just like being able to see what I am aiming at, even when I play computer games, I always take the sniper rifle :D :D :D

Little Brother, you need to make a road trip up here! The 9.3x57's should be set in a few weeks. I have 3 scope dedicated rifles, that is all. They represent less than 1%. If you want to shoot distance, bring a rifle, or borrow one.
You can't shoot any under water, but you can shoot in the rain.

Scoped: .22 mag (It does have iron), 7mm Rem mag, .308


;) Jim

Thanks to everyone who contributed comments! I'm just happy that I don't have to wade up on the beach shooting my soaking wet M60 LMG full auto at insurgents.

That was Tuco, or however his name was spelled... :p

Tuco Ramirez and if I remember right, it was just from under the soap bubbles. He was taking a bubble bath.

"When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."

I read, maybe 20 years ago, about similar tests. The conclusions were, that guns could be fired, while immersed, with no damage, as the pressure inside and outside the gun tended to equalize. The danger was to hold the gun in the air, with the muzzle in the water. The bullet is thus up-to-speed when it hits the water, which acts like a barrel plug. Things break.

Darrel

The earlier comment is correct that extra external pressure underwater is trivial compared with chamber pressure unless you go very, very deep; over 2 miles deep just to equal .45 ACP hardball pressure. And then that same pressure would be applied against the nose of the bullet (which, in the real world, would be crushed into the case long before you got that deep). At more reasonable depth, there would be some advantage from the mass of the relatively incompressible water surrounding the chamber. It would have to be accelerated away from an expanding chamber, making that a little harder for the chamber pressure to do. That would increase the pressure needed to arrive at the chamber's elastic limit a little bit, but the magnitude isn't adequate to affect it much. Just as the Mythbusters had trouble getting a Carcano barrel to actually blow up, short of welding a rod into the muzzle, the abiltiy of a water "plug" to destroy a gun is greatly exaggerated, and would require the gun to be loaded to near its absolute maximum.

[QUOTE=unclenick]It's going to be a case of some guns and loads can take it and some can't. Shark killing sticks are usually a rifle round, like a .308, in a short barrelled chamber that fires like an automatic centerpunch when you push it against the shark. No reason you can't make the steel tough enough. "


Shark killing sticks are NOT usually rifle rounds. In fact I have never heard of one that was. The original bangsticks were 12 gauge shotshells. The most popular rounds today are probably the .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum.

The bullets or shot used are relatively unimportant. The initial damage is done by the high pressure water jet and the coup de grace is by the expanding high pressure gas that exploded the shark from the inside out.

I once saw a video of a 14 foot long tiger shark popped by a .357 powerhead. It was incredible. A hit in the area of the gills severed the head from the spine down and then bent the attached part of the head back until it lay against the back. Don't need any more power than that.

Water will support the chamber, so pressures should equal out. Not the same as shooting with an obstructed bore.

JMO,

Mark


Water pressure will NOT support the chamber. Water pressure is only equal to .4 pounds for foot of depth. At a depth of ten feet that is 4 psi. There is more round to round variation than that.

I've heard about this...shooting into water, a pistol bullet can travel up to 19 feet I think.
Depending on caliber but a rifle round hardly pentrates at all. Cant remember the reason why behind it though and I dont know about shooting while underwater, lol...crazy talk.

I could take my liitle .22 LR snubby revolver out to the Marianas Trench, 30,000 +/- feet deep and the bullet would penetrate 10,000 yards, straight down. There isn't any handgun bullet that is going to penetrate 19 feet of water. If there was every police lab in the country would have shot the bottom out of its bullet capture tank.

Thats what I learned in the Navy. I've shoot coming out of the water in training, does no damage to the gun, however it does effect accuracy. :)


Don't believe everything you learn in the Navy. I know someone who claims that the Navy taught him that a nuclear aircraft carrier's reactor can generate more power than all the civilian power plants in the US.

Somebody just take a .308 and a .45 into a lake and fire! Please enough fuss, do this and hurry. lol.

I once saw a video of a 14 foot long tiger shark popped by a .357 powerhead. It was incredible. A hit in the area of the gills severed the head from the spine down and then bent the attached part of the head back until it lay against the back. Don't need any more power than that.

youtube?! Please tell me youtube! lol...

I've heard about this...shooting into water, a pistol bullet can travel up to 19 feet I think.
Depending on caliber but a rifle round hardly pentrates at all. Cant remember the reason why behind it though and I dont know about shooting while underwater, lol...crazy talk.

Myth Busters just covered this a few weeks ago. A .50 BMG didnt even make it 3 feet before it completely fragmented.

Edit: Found it

Episode 34: Bulletproof Water, 360 Swing
Water stops bullets: confirmed
You can do a full 360 on a swingset: mythbusted
The surprising thing about the bulletproof water was how poorly the high-powered rifles did. The full metal jacket bullets for the high-powered rifles came apart upon hitting the water. Even the dreaded .50 caliber rifle was only able to penetrate about 3 ft of water.

I didn't think the 360 swing set myth was that interesting, but if you were patient through the whole episode you got to see them strap rockets on to a dummy in a swing set -- rockets are always good fun on the show. According to host Adam Savage, "Well hopefully that's our job, to strap rockets onto everything"

Bulletproof Water
Myth: Water will protect you from being shot by bullets

They know that water will eventually stop a bullet, so they want to test to see how deep you have to dive to avoid being shot.

Gun selection
The various guns they tested during the myth were:

9mm pistol
M1 Garand
Replica Civil War black powder rifle
Shotgun
.50 cal rifle
Regarding the .50 cal ammunition:

Adam: "That's what this thing fires?"
Jamie: "It's smaller than my head, it's alright"

Water tank tests
They built a 'ballistic tank' out of 1" thick acrylic and iron girders. They stuck a block of ballistics gel into the tank that could be raised up and down to different depths.

9mm @ 6ft: the bullet went straight through the ballistic gel -- fatal
9mm @ 7ft: the bullet went straight through again -- fatal
9mm @ 8ft: the bullet only went 1/2" into the gel -- non-fatal
3" deer slug + Shotgun @ 6ft: As one might have expected, firing a shotgun into a narrow tank of water shattered the tank and sent everyone running to turn off all the lights to prevent short circuits. The slug shot went through the ballistics gel -- fatal
The shotgun test was the end of that particular test setup.

Pool tests
A vertical rig was a worst-case scenario. In order to make it easier to test and also to make it correspond better with a real-world scenario, they decided to make their new rig be at a 30 degree angle. At a 30 degree angle with an 8 ft penetrating bullet, you would only have to be 4ft underwater.

Someone strangely agreed to allowing Adam and Jamie to shoot off guns in their pool. Adam made a new 20 ft railway for the ballistics gel target and they mounted it at a 23 degree angle.

For the first test they used a replica Civil War black powder rifle shooting Jamie's homemade bullets at 1000 ft/s.

Replica Civil War rifle @ 15 ft: The bullet veered way off target.
Replica Civil War rifle@ 5 ft: they couldn't find the bullet and the ballistics gel was still intact -- nonfatal
Replica Civil War rifle @ 3 ft: The bullet went through the gel -- fatal. At this distance, though, the gel was only 2 ft underwater because of the angle.
They switched to a .223 rifle, which shoots at 2500 ft/s

.223 rifle @ 10 ft: the full metal jacket bullet shattered into tiny bits upon hitting the water -- nonfatal
223 rifle@ 3 ft: once again the bullet broke up. The tip of the bullet was resting on the ballistics gel -- nonfatal (myth confirmed)
The next gun up was the M1, which shoots at 2800 ft/s. In their Bulletproof Glass mythbusting, the M1 was capable of penetrating 2.5" of bulletproof glass.

M1@ 10 ft: tiny bullet fragments once again
M1@ 2 ft: the bullet only pierced the gel 4", which would be enough to just pierce the skin.
They finally broke out the big gun, the .50 cal with armor-piercing rounds, which are shot at 3000 ft/s.

Adam: "Hopefully we'll be gone before the pool fully drains"

.50 cal @ 10 ft: even though the water exploded, the ballistics gel was intact. Water made it all the way up to the ceiling. As it was with the previous guns, the bullet round came apart on impact. It lost all of it's energy within the first 3 ft. You would be safe 14" underwater at a 23 angle from a .50 cal.
confirmed: you can protect yourself from a bullet by diving underwater. If the shooter were directly overhead, you would probably be safe from most guns at 8 ft. At a 30 degree angle, you would only have to be 3 ft underwater to be safe.

Somebody just take a .308 and a .45 into a lake and fire! Please enough fuss, do this and hurry. lol.



youtube?! Please tell me youtube! lol...


Sorry. It wasn't youtube. It was a TV show several years ago about research into shark protection systems. They showed the dye, the 'bags', experiments with poison syringes, CO2 syringes and the bang stick. The bang stick was far away superior.

I have often wondered why someone doesn't make a multi-chamber bang stick, like a revolver cylinder mounted on the end of a pole. for quick follow up shots.

Thanks. Thats great info...
This is a random question.
Has nothin to do with the topic but have any of you seen "Future Weapons"?
Its pretty interesting too. If you like mythbusters then I recommend you go watch Future Weapons.
And theres another show on the history channel that replicates famous assassinations.
I recommend that one too.
But anyways, thanks for the info guys. :) Later!

. . .Shark killing sticks are NOT usually rifle rounds. In fact I have never heard of one that was. . .

I've only seen three. All .308. I was told the reason was not because of the cartridge power (the barrels were just a few inches—way too short to burn much of the powder in the .308), but because the mil spec ball ammo they were using had primer sealant and pitch sealed bullets. The idea, therefore, was to have something more reliably waterproof than normal. These were probably all made by the same shop, which would account for the chambering being the same. They looked like they'd been made one-off; not mass produced. A couple of retired SEALs doing commercial technical diving had them. This was about 15 years ago, and I have no idea how old they were then?

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia's piece on these devices says:
Powerheads are available that chamber a variety of handgun, rifle, and shotgun cartridges, from .22 WMR to 12 gauge. .357 Magnum is probably the most common, as it is fairly powerful yet still compact enough to be used in a spear gun. 12 gauge is generally only used on a handheld spear.

It also mentions, the water column shock being the source of the damage, that blank cartridges work well, and that commercial ammunition now used is often coated in varnish for waterproofing. So, I was out of date on what is "most" common, and stand corrected.

Don't believe everything you learn in the Navy. I know someone who claims that the Navy taught him that a nuclear aircraft carrier's reactor can generate more power than all the civilian power plants in the US.

If you reread his post, greg29651 was relating personal experience, not a second-hand tale. And it makes perfect sense that the first round out of a wet tube would have a displaced point of impact. I would also expect the recoil to be a bit different from the water-saturated bolt and other moving parts being slow to get out of battery. I've certainly seen oil saturated bolts do this until they had blown clear.

I would ordinarily let someone defend their own statements, but I was looking for an excuse to demonstrate that you can edit multiple responses into a single post. Takes up less server space than multiple posts, though that may only be something the moderators worry about. ;)

Ok to counter Mybusters-

When working on a longliner, we would shoot some of the sharks with a 12 gauge single shot. My Dad ruined 2 guns while fishing. Both were instances of shooting on rough days. The boat would rock and the barrel would dip underwater. One Elmer Fudded, splitting into 3 slivers about 4 inches up from the muzzle. The other had a bulge out just in front of the end of the forend. These were both with #8 2 3/4" shells.

Shotguns, having the thinnest tubes relative to their chamber pressure, are by far the most vulnerable to barrel bulging or bursting with an obstruction. Occassionly you hear of someone force-chambering a .308 into a 7 mm "06, or some such error, and the rifle shoots the bullet (inaccurately) and survives the experience, though I would not count on being able to get away with that. Thick metal verses thin is the difference.

The first bang sticks I saw were 12 ga. Later other rounds were used and the 223 was popular, said to produce more damage than the 12ga. Blanks probably would work better as the powder is more powerful.

…The bullets or shot used are relatively unimportant. The initial damage is done by the high pressure water jet and the coup de grace is by the expanding high pressure gas that exploded the shark from the inside out.…
I can believe this, and, if true, a blank ought to be able to kill the shark almost as well as a bulleted cartridge!

OK, now to really gum up the works - If we've agreed that we can shoot the gun full of water, can I clean cosmoline out of a barrel by shooting it out? :eek:

:rolleyes:

Hmmm. Water, Cosmolene; Cosmolene, Water. I know one of them is more viscous, but just can't remember which? ;)

Actually, some European shooters still grease their bullets. I don't recall in which chamberings? Hatcher reported a Springfield blown up on the line at Camp Perry when someone applied grease to a modern load of the .30-06. No mention of what serial number it had? My guess is that if you run a couble of dry patches through, what's left (thin film) probably won't damage you. On the other hand, a blast of Bore Scrubber or a couple of patches wetted with penetrating oil are awfully cheap insurance.