I've seen that episode of Mythbusters. None of those weapons/ammo were used by the Germans, nor were they shot from a distance greater than 6 feet into a pool Also, the discussion whether or not an AK-47 can kill a martial arts master when fired fully submerged i.e. Lethal Weapon 4 is a discussion for another day.

Andcommande is the first person who gets it. If a 9mm bullet can travel further in the water due to its lower velocity (~8 feet), what about a rifle round moving at the same velocity when it enters the water and has a better bullet coefficient? Every single source I've seen or read about this has not tried shooting a rifle round into water from a distance that would allow the bullet to enter at a lower velocity. Given the superior bullet coefficient, wouldn't the rifle round travel more than 8 feet?

I watched the scene from Saving Private Ryan again. Less than 10 bullets in the entire sequence traveled underwater. Two men were killed kneeling on the sand bar trying to shed their gear. I'm unable to judge how deep they were because there's nothing to compare them to in relation to the surface of the water. It's safe to say that it's probably "Hollywood" but the original question wasn't if that scene was accurate (it was just a reference), it was could the weapons and ammo used by the Germans at that distance kill a soldier submerged no deeper than 6 feet. Please allow me to clarify: I picked 6 feet because at that depth most men would be able to touch bottom and are able to storm the beach vs. drowning because they couldn't touch bottom and make it to shore with the weight they were carrying. If the average height of a man ranges from 5'9 to 6'1 and was rushing to shore with just the tip of his helmet showing, any bullet that did make its way into the water would have to strike the vitals (head to sternum/waist) which is less than 3-4 feet from the surface. Knowing a 9mm bullet can travel 8 feet at a steep angle, it would lead me to believe a rifle round with a better BC entering the water at a narrower angle to perform the same if not better but the question remains: at what point does the bullet lose enough energy so that it is no longer lethal?

It wasn't easy to kill alligator garfish a few inches underwater with a .22 Marlin/Glenfield when standing over them on the shore.

I can't remember whether standard or high velocity .22's were more effective.

I hope this helps.

The reason I never liked Mythbusters. They'd go to amazing lengths to ALMOST do things right. Over complicate some things, yet miss easy things.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
The reason I never liked Mythbusters. They'd go to amazing lengths to ALMOST do things right. Over complicate some things, yet miss easy things.

It's your own mindset.

Mythbusters was entertainment. Not Science.

In that light, most episodes were kinda fun to watch.
Like Top Gear.

Entertainment shouldn't be so frustrating.

Mythbusters was "We're going to test what happens to apples when dropped from a great height. So we built a full scale replica of the tower of Pisa, now we're going to drop an orange off of it."

Haven't had a chance to read through all the posts but didn't Mythbusters do an episode on this?

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Haven't had a chance to read through all the posts but didn't Mythbusters do an episode on this?

Actually, Mythbusters did an episode on this a few years ago.

Apparently all ammo is non-lethal just past several feet.

I'd have read the thread before posting, but I'm just that devil-may-care kind of guy.

I recall in my youth shooting pistols downward from a bluff into the shallow edge of a river. At about six inches of depth, certainly no more than a foot, we would find the perfectly intact bullets lying on the sand/gravel bottom. This was from a distance of about 30 yards, with .38, .357 magnum, and maybe .44 magnum, as that's what we shot back then.

I'm not volunteering, but I think a pistol bullet would be wholly ineffective beyond a foot or so of water. Surely someone with a pool can shoot down into it to verify.

quote:

Originally posted by DoctorSolo:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Haven't had a chance to read through all the posts but didn't Mythbusters do an episode on this?

Actually, Mythbusters did an episode on this a few years ago.

Apparently all ammo is non-lethal just past several feet.

I'd have read the thread before posting, but I'm just that devil-may-care kind of guy.

No way!! Mythbusters did a ribbon on this???

I bet it came out probable depending on caliber and bullet speed. Of course one must ask, "did they use WWII German weapons to determine the results?

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by DoctorSolo:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Haven't had a chance to read through all the posts but didn't Mythbusters do an episode on this?

Actually, Mythbusters did an episode on this a few years ago.

Apparently all ammo is non-lethal just past several feet.

I'd have read the thread before posting, but I'm just that devil-may-care kind of guy.

No way!! Mythbusters did a ribbon on this???

I bet it came out probable depending on caliber and bullet speed. Of course one must ask, "did they use WWII German weapons to determine the results?

They used weapons up to and including a "Ma Deuce" .50BMG rifle. No bullets were found to be lethal beyond just a few feet through water--most of them just disintegrated into small pieces. I watched the episode several times and I can't fault their methodology.

flashguy

I watched a show over the weekend called The Real Story of Saving Private Ryan. They conducted the same test by firing a .308 round into a tank of water and also concluded penetration of only a few feet and decided that part of Saving Private Ryan was Hollywood.

I'm still unclear about this... did mythbusters do an episode about this? What about high velocity bullets shot into water at close distances? Do they in fact disintegrate?

quote:

I picked 6 feet because at that depth most men would be able to touch bottom and are able to storm the beach vs. drowning because they couldn't touch bottom and make it to shore with the weight they were carrying

...except the head and chest are less that 3 feet under water.

quote:

I watched the episode several times and I can't fault their methodology.

The velocity of the rounds hitting the water was too high. Their velocity would have been significantly lower after traveling 2-3000m.

quote:

did mythbusters do an episode about this

They did and it's bullshit.

If your head was far enough under water to be safe it was because you were drowning.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

I picked 6 feet because at that depth most men would be able to touch bottom and are able to storm the beach vs. drowning because they couldn't touch bottom and make it to shore with the weight they were carrying

...except the head and chest are less that 3 feet under water.

quote:

I watched the episode several times and I can't fault their methodology.

The velocity of the rounds hitting the water was too high. Their velocity would have been significantly lower after traveling 2-3000m.

quote:

did mythbusters do an episode about this

They did and it's bullshit.

If your head was far enough under water to be safe it was because you were drowning.

That is an unsupported generalization. There are a number of ways that all of a person could be far enough under water to put 3 feet of water between them and where a bullet entered the surface that would not involve drowning. Simple holding one's breath is one way, SCUBA diving is another, and even snorkeling might do it. FWIW, it is not necessary to be more than 3 feet DOWN in the water for the conditions to apply--it is the length of the bullet's path THROUGH the water that is critical. Bullets fired from a position off shore would probably enter the water at a fairly shallow angle and the path through the water would be quite long for even an object barely under the surface.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

That is an unsupported generalization. There are a number of ways that all of a person could be far enough under water to put 3 feet of water between them and where a bullet entered the surface that would not involve drowning. Simple holding one's breath is one way, SCUBA diving is another, and even snorkeling might do it. FWIW, it is not necessary to be more than 3 feet DOWN in the water for the conditions to apply--it is the length of the bullet's path THROUGH the water that is critical. Bullets fired from a position off shore would probably enter the water at a fairly shallow angle and the path through the water would be quite long for even an object barely under the surface.

flashguy

May I ask what is so special about 3 feet?

Nothing is special about 3 feet. It's just the typical distance within which the bullets all disintegrated or came to a stop.

flashguy

The 9mm bullet went much further than 3 feet before it disintegrated.

Other than quoting mythbusters or some irrelevant high velocity, close range test, does anyone know how far a rifle round will travel in water when it enters at 1000 fps? Or 1200 fps? Or 1500 fps? Based on what I've researched, one of those speeds or something in between is going to allow a rifle bullet to travel at least 8 feet when it enters the water. The next question is: how fast does it have to be traveling to be lethal underwater?

I'm genuinely curious so please don't regurgitate the mythbuster/close range water testing results because they're irrelevant here. I was hoping someone who served in the military or in wildlife/law enforcement would have encountered this situation or had some training with regard to how effective a bullet shot into water can be from numerous calibers and distances.

A company has developed a supercavitating bullet

this technology has been around for over 5 years

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...thal-underwater.html

DSG Technology is trying to get various militaries to test it to see if they want to buy some.

These new bullets have something known as supercavitation, which helps keep the bullet protected from the water's density.

By creating supercavitating ammunition, it helps form a bubble around the bullet, enveloping the object. With the bubble’s frictionless surface, it reduces that drag through the water and increases speed.

Taking the 5.56 mm NATO Cav-X as one example, the company says the typical effective range in the water is 35 feet. For sub-sonic, it is about 43 feet in the water.

Machine gun round 12.7mm NATO Cav-X has an effective range of nearly 200 feet underwater, according to the company.

The 7.62 NATO Cav-X has an effective range of approximately 72 feet and 5.56 NATO Cav-X about 46 feet.

http://www.dsgtec.com/products

https://kitup.military.com/201...rget-underwater.html