What is Digg?83 Comments
- z00k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+69http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEyimoozVbk
Episode on Mythbusters. =) - inotocracy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+64Wow, you didn't read the article did you? :P
- jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39As far as the frickin' shark will carry it...
- Guitarsenal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39How far can bullets travel when fired into water?
I'd assume all the way to the bottom... - xister, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33Idiots want to post irrelevant comments on Digg; Kill the idiots.
Idiot=You - infimprob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Yes Mythbusters discovered that the velocity of the bullet was directly proportional to the depth that it achieved.
The lower the bullets velocity the deeper it went.
The fastest bullets disintegrated on impact.
All due to water's extreme cohesiveness. - sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24What did I learn from this article? In order to kill Aquaman I need to be within six feet with a shotgun loaded with a 3” deer slug instead of buckshot. I'd like to see that stupid Justus League stop me now.
- dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22? ? ? Please hold all stereotypes, largely irrelevant comments, and death threats until after dinner, dude.
- slimc9999, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Wow. Try reading the damn thing.
- Danryan1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The real question is how far do LASERS travel in water.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I DEMAND that they revisit this myth. We need Kari down in that pool in a nice little 2-piece collecting those samples. Adam just wasn't doing a good enough job.
- gregdigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@corecirculator
"the question is interesting but the way the article is written is SOO boring..."
You mean through the use of descriptive words? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8lol. they are still bullets. and by the huge projectory and speed.... prolly explode upon contact.
- esotericguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The REAL question is how long will a grenade sink before it explodes
or
the REAL question is
How long that can person can hold thier breath compared to the time you can patiently wait on the surface with a gun to shoot him as he surfaces - BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@xarc13
Umm... What? - greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Dynamite works much better in water...
- Bobalobabingbon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No, everyone should see the comments so they can digg the person down and make fun of them for being an idiot!
- TheAkolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I find water works pretty well by it self.
- inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4An H&K P-11 Underwater Pistol is lethal out to ranges beyond 15 meters underwater, but only about 50 meters or so above water (it shoots a small, electrically initiated and fin-stabilized dart) limiting its practicality as an offensive weapon. It was carried for the purpose of suppressing enemy scuba divers by SEALs, SBS, and the Kampfschwimmers, but i have never heard of a documented case of it being used in combat.
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0900/940.htm - Bobalobabingbon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not just cal.
Velocity too - airshowfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's the complete Mythbusters episode on the issue:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xm8lw_mythbusters-3x10
And if you want to download the FLV video file:
http://www.dailymotion.com/get/12/320x240/flv/1037588.flv?key=43331c91aea3535684af476c286924b41297d3a - Madh2orat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I believe the proper response to this comment is, RTFA!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The SPP-1 (Spetsialnyj Podvodnyj Pistolet = Special Underwater Pistol) was developed in the late 1960s upon request from the Soviet Navy. The SPP-1 was intended for Soviet combat divers ("frogmen").
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg140-e.htm -- with photo - Barryke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm european. You insulted me by connecting me to USA politics.
If i'd be American, i'd sue you.
But for now i'll only laugh because your politics are all about making other people look bad. Hahahahah. Go USA politicians, for its election time! - RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Straight dope should stick to which anal cream works best and leave real science to someone else.
- teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3duh. did you read the article. Um. no. the article talks about what MB did then tells us how the soviets developed a gun that overcomes the obstacles. I'd say more, but I doubt you'd even bother to read this far.
- sedo1800, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The mythbusters tank exploded because the energy of the slug was absorbed instantly by the water. Think about the mass of a slug compared to a 9mm, it is many times bigger. All that energy had nowhere to go, since the tank the mythbusters were firing in was reinforced the plexiglass had no flex and it shattered like an egg.
- samuraitiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it would have been nice to see but, the chances that anyone is going to fire straight down into water are unlikely.
- teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ummm. no. this gun can fire while under water *and* from outside the water into the water. granted that is implied not directly stated. it is, however, clearly stated and explained here
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2100/2153.htm - teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ummm. no. this gun can fire while under water *and* from outside the water into the water. granted that is implied not directly stated. it is, however, clearly stated and explained here
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2100/2153.htm - david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@infimprob
That would be inversely proportional, not directly proportional. - uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I knew Russian frogmen were behind this.
- matrixbandit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ACTUALLY, when a rail gun "penetrates" most objects, it usually never even makes contact with it from what I understand, the extremely compressed shock wave ahead of the projectile tears the object apart forcing the compressed air into it. I'd assume a similar phenomenon occurs with water as well. So in essence, there would be a hole torn in the water ahead of the rail allowing it to pass through fairly unobstructed. Of course the torrent of air / water current in the aftermath would likely throw the water out in all directions.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Opps, forgot to add that you'd actually have to shoot a little "under" where you want to hit them as the refraction of water would cause you to miss.
- yourbrokenoven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you guys should watch mythbusters. they discovered that low muzzle velocity bullets travel a good bit, however high powered rifle bullets disintegrate literally inches into the water.
- ldjarmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am I the only one who literally just saw this Mythbusters episode on TV the other day? Kinda spooky, if you ask me...
- S1ngular1ty1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually no.
Railguns are kinetic energy (KE) weapons. They rely on a very fast moving, dense, projectile to punch though armor and other obstacles. This is how the APFSDS KE rounds work on Abrams tanks. Both a rain gun and the Abrams tank APFSDS shells fire a long, slender, very dense, fin stabilized dart. Both weapons fire the dart at supersonic velocities and the momentum of the dart allows it to puncture armor.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html
The weapon you are thinking of that doesn't actually touch the target is a HEAT round from a tank. These rounds produce a very hot stream of super plastic copper when they explode a few feet from the target. This copper stream is what penetrates the target since it is at temperatures that are well in excess of the melting temperature of the armor on vehicles and the stream is moving at up to 25 times the speed of sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank#Armor_developments_in_response_to_HEAT_rounds - BullTaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>I demand a revisit from the MB.
Post your demand here and MB will consider it:
http://community.discovery.com/1/OpenTopic?a=frm&cdra=Y&s=6941912904&f=9701967776 - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or, alternatively... submerge yourself and the gun in the water and then fire. You'll get much greater distance as the bullet doesn't traverse the air water barrier. Fluid is a fluid.
I remember my grandfather talking about UDT training. He said their CO would stand on the deck of a ship, fire his sidearm into the water and tell the UDT people to go get it before it hit the bottom. They also liked to wrestle sharks. Since if you can beach a shark, you're at least on equal footing with some of the most effective predators in the world. - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is. See that circle with the line through it? Click it next to the offender and you won't have to read any more comments of theirs.
- chrism1128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, the moral of the story is...
If you have to shoot someone in the water, get right over their ass and fire straight down. - Sethwm2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this was a very interesting article. I remember watching something like this on the myth busters they proved that the bullets do slow down very quickly and that it is not just a movie fake thing. Yeah and now that I look up I see the other comments about MythBusters.
- macaddct1984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Didn't James Bond always have one of those dart-like guns whenever he was underwater that shot something that looked like a grappling hook?
Always thinking ahead... - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@teamgwho
You're trying to hype it up as something more than it is, buddy. All but two short paragraphs is about what the Mythbusters figured out. - nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4correction: not very.
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I did read that far. Out of the entire page, one paragraph is devoted to the Russians and their gun, which is designed to shoot UNDERWATER, not into the water as the title says.
Again, this isn't anything all that new, since the majority of this "article" is just re-hashing what the Mythbusters did. - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The problem that the Mythbusters faced was mostly due to the shape of the bullets"
Wrong. They came to the conclusion that the super-sonic speed led to the fragmentation of all of the rounds except for the rifle musket, though, like the article said, was only effective to a short distance. An easy way to grasp the forces acting on the bullets is to slap the water really hard or, if youre ballsy, do a belly flop. The rapid decceleration makes the water feel much harder than it is so naturally the more force you apply to an object the greater the rate of decceleration will be once it hits the water. Just thought I'd clear that up for those who didn't watch the show cause the article did a poor job of explaining what the Mythbusters concluded. - rmad1949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who cares how deep the intended victim can swim if I have a semi-automatic pistol with 14 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. They can only wish they had grabbed the frogman tank before jumping in the water.
- PuppadogServant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ummm, i haat two brake it to u, butt ewe kan hav ur teevee, eye wil taak mi pursunal nolage uv whut eyem talkn bout.
- Barryke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@docdoak
Everything TV is either very old news, funny, anti-nominal, a bloat lie or twisted at least.
In this case, it was old news. Except not everybody knew all along.
I find most TV anti-nominal: People don't want to watch everyday (and thus normal) things, thats boring.
"If it's been on TV, its wasn't normal." ~ Barryke -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is