i see you watched that tonight too. Its an old episode, but a good one none the less. ::rofl::
Like some other times, I think they left some things out they could have tested on some myths... but that's just me. ;)
The civil war rocket one, "gun cotton" is what they referred to gunpowder as... they didn't make real gunpowder for the myth. Was incomplete research IMO...
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: undatc on December 21, 2006, 08:22:22 AM
i see you watched that tonight too. Its an old episode, but a good one none the less. ::rofl::
Like some other times, I think they left some things out they could have tested on some myths... but that's just me. ;)
The civil war rocket one, "gun cotton" is what they referred to gunpowder as... they didn't make real gunpowder for the myth. Was incomplete research IMO...
Something I think a lot of people miss abbout todays media is that they arent there necessarly for the truth. Nor the whole story. They are there to sell advertaising, and they will do whatever is entertaining and will get people to watch, so if the research is long and boring, people wont watch, they sell less stuff, they make less money, and leads to them being canceled. But yea, there are some instances, like the water sucker thing, that is incomplete. What about the amphibious planes that "scoupe" water outta lakes. Im sure they could suck someone up.
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: Baradium on December 21, 2006, 10:38:17 AM
What about the amphibious planes that "scoupe" water outta lakes. Im sure they could suck someone up.
Bad example, they said the biggest one's intake is only 6" and not big enough to scoop a person.
I thought I'd seen solid buckets, but I don't remember them showing one, just these canvas type ones...
That myth is so impossible (and stupid) --In order to get 'scooped" you would need to be less than 6 inches in size and you would have to be a fast and powerful swimmer to be able to get into a bucket under a helicopter (plus the helicopter pilot would have to be blind)----how do these ridiculous get started?? ::banghead::
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: tundra_flier on December 21, 2006, 07:18:02 PM
Actually I felt the scuba diver myth was busted before they started. They stated that there wasn't any equipment in use that I diver could get into before they really started. So they just had some entertaining fun with the dummy.
I always felt that the "diving under water will protect you from bullets" myth was one of their better ones. Very interesting results too.
Phil
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: chuckar101 on December 21, 2006, 07:46:12 PM
Don't take it to hard fireflyr, people will believe anything these days. I also like the water on, didn't the results show that the bullet tore itself apart before it went very far at all. Can't remember.
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: Baradium on December 21, 2006, 08:32:33 PM
Don't take it to hard fireflyr, people will believe anything these days. I also like the water on, didn't the results show that the bullet tore itself apart before it went very far at all. Can't remember.
Even a .50 cal round disentegrated before getting too far. Vertically they could get farther, but it's hard to stay directly over someone to fire vertically down (and even then it wasn't extremely far).
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: tundra_flier on December 21, 2006, 09:33:09 PM
All of the modern high velocity rifles had the bullets fall apart very close to the surface even though there were using full jacketed military ammo. The Civil war musket still penetrated 3" of ballistic gel at 12' deep. The 12Ga slug also penetrated well.
Phil
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: spacer on December 21, 2006, 09:48:27 PM
Yep. In a lot of cases, a slower moving bullet will penetrate much farther than a really fast one. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot19_4.htm
Here, the trusty ol' .45-70 blows away the faster, high-zoot modern rifle rounds in penetration. Of course, in combat that's not always a good thing... ya want the thing to stop inside the target.
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: Baradium on December 21, 2006, 09:51:17 PM
All of the modern high velocity rifles had the bullets fall apart very close to the surface even though there were using full jacketed military ammo. The Civil war musket still penetrated 3" of ballistic gel at 12' deep. The 12Ga slug also penetrated well.
Phil
I actually think they should have tried using some solid lead hard cast as well as the full metal jacketed ammo. I was wondering if maybe the jacketing of the bullet (different materials) contributed to them coming apart.
The 12' was slant range IIRC.... so it only actually got to about 3-4' maybe at the angles they were shooting....
As far as the .45-70... that isn't exactly a lightweight round. A lot of powder and a lot of mass in that slug!
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: tundra_flier on December 22, 2006, 01:18:13 AM
All of the modern high velocity rifles had the bullets fall apart very close to the surface even though there were using full jacketed military ammo. The Civil war musket still penetrated 3" of ballistic gel at 12' deep. The 12Ga slug also penetrated well.
Phil
I actually think they should have tried using some solid lead hard cast as well as the full metal jacketed ammo. I was wondering if maybe the jacketing of the bullet (different materials) contributed to them coming apart.
The 12' was slant range IIRC.... so it only actually got to about 3-4' maybe at the angles they were shooting....
As far as the .45-70... that isn't exactly a lightweight round. A lot of powder and a lot of mass in that slug!
Good question, I know I've recovered both ball and hard cast pistol rounds from a soft dirt bank before, and the ball ammo always showed less deformation. But water could be different, might just deform the lead, where the jacketed bullet falls apart. Maybe we need our own myth busters trial!
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: Baradium on December 23, 2006, 08:50:42 AM
Good question, I know I've recovered both ball and hard cast pistol rounds from a soft dirt bank before, and the ball ammo always showed less deformation. But water could be different, might just deform the lead, where the jacketed bullet falls apart. Maybe we need our own myth busters trial!
I have hard cast rounds for my .44 mag revolver (350 gr)... need to shoot it some anyway, name a time. ;)
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: TWEEK on December 29, 2006, 07:35:12 PM
Simple physics explains why the lower velocity rounds hold together better than the "modern" fast movers, and not because of bullet composition. F=MA, correct? A heavier slug moving at a slower rate of speed has the same angular momentum as a lighter round with a faster velocity. When the heavier, slower moving slug encounters the water, its deceleration relative to its mass results in less force to destroy the bullet, while its greater mass contributes to enhanced cohesion.
So, how do you explain the .50? Once again, a fast mover, even though it is very large. Think of it this way...after firing, the bullet tip encounters the medium of the water and is slowed by the water's surface tension. It immediately slows down. Meanwhile, the tail of the bullet is still traveling at close to muzzle velocity. If you have the tip of something traveling at, say, 400fps (just a guess, so don't get too uptight) and the tail of the same object still traveling at 2000fps, that object will disintegrate. ::rambo::
So, that is my simplified physics lecture for the day, and you can all shoot holes in it if you want to.
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: TWEEK on December 29, 2006, 07:37:31 PM
One other thing:
I have been on fires where pilots have alerted us to the presence of 10" brook trout swimming in their buckets, which were subsequently found and eaten post drop. If a pilot can see a trout, he shouldn't miss a scuba diver.
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on January 08, 2007, 06:26:46 PM
Water is also not compressible. Velocity will change the effect on the object hitting the water. Think belly flop from a 1m diving board compared to a belly flop from the 10m platform. ::knockedout::
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: Firegirl on January 11, 2007, 12:11:36 PM
We should get together, put on some scuba gear, and then walk out of the woods right next to a helibase on a fire and go "what the f***?" HA HA HA ::rofl:: Imagine their faces ??!! ::unbelieveable:: ::eek::
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: fireflyr on January 11, 2007, 12:30:07 PM
We should get together, put on some scuba gear, and then walk out of the woods right next to a helibase on a fire and go "what the f***?" HA HA HA ::rofl:: Imagine their faces ??!! ::unbelieveable:: ::eek::
HAHAAAHAHAAAA THAT'S funny---you should do exactly that sometime! ::rofl:: I'm sure there would be some dumbass office geek get all excited about a scuba diver getting scooped in a bucket ::eek::
Title: Re: Mythbusters: water bombers
Post by: Frank N. O. on January 11, 2007, 12:31:48 PM
We should get together, put on some scuba gear, and then walk out of the woods right next to a helibase on a fire and go "what the f***?" HA HA HA ::rofl:: Imagine their faces ??!! ::unbelieveable:: ::eek::
HAHAHAHAHAAHA That's an awesome idea! Bring the camera and then post it online!!! ::rofl:: ::rofl:: |:)\ ::bow::
