Underwater Shooting
 

A year or two ago I asked if anybody had any info. on this topic. Nobody did but I recently fornd this reference. If interested take a look:
http://www.dlsports.com/underwater_h..._shooting.html

In this test both glocks and 1911s were tested with .45 and the Glock with .40. Nothing blew up and the 1911s worked well with ball ammo. The range was very restricted, I guess you have to shoot sea monsters at contact distance. Now who wants to try a Luger? Just kidding of course.

Al,

Thats a very interesting article, thanks for the link.

As much as I was informed about underwater shooting, I was intrigued by a comment early on about tested reliability; the authors noted that the two Glocks tested were dry-land reilable 86% and 92% of the test. In practice the Lugers I shoot are more reliable than that!

--Dwight

I am still fustrated because my luger misfeed about 8 to 10 out of 100 rounds. Now that I see the Glock numbers I feel better.:roflmao:

hk worked on an underwater gun some years ago, as I recall. It was a total failure. not that they couldn't get the gun to function, they just couldn't get a round to maintain sufficient velocity in water for any distance. I've read that Pogo Sticks with 12 ga. shells remain the best solotion at this time.

The russians also have some underwater guns..
like these two http://world.guns.ru/assault/as69-e.htm http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg140-e.htm

I only own one glock and a buddy owns one. Mine is 100 per cent reliable for years and I think his has been too.

A number of years ago the American Rifleman had something about shooting underwater, the first thing I'd ever seen about it. They noted it was feasible, but the conclusion as I recall was that it was pretty ineffective.

Well done, tac.

The Navy SEALS were testing underwater shooting at Coronado when I was stationed at 32nd St. Naval Station in SD. The only pistol that would reliably funtion in the tests was the 1911. This was pre-Glock ,and possibly pre-Flintlock, for all that matter.

Water Tanks for Forensic recovery
 

Folks,
It just seems to me that we have a Catch 22 situation in Underwater Ballistics Testing.
The very objectives of underwater shooting are self defeating. That is to say: Every time the projectile displaces its own mass of fluid the velocity is reduced by approximatly 50%.
So we have the high velocity slug reduced to practically NIL in a very few feet.
That is why a Ballistic recovery tank of 6 feet in length will stop all but the very heavy high secional density projectiles such as the 50 cal machine gun.
And even that will travel less than eight feet under water.
The best sucess would probably be attained with a very high sectional density projectile such as is now being used for underwater spear guns, something on the order of stainless steel 5/16" dia X 30" to 36" in length. That would have a sectional density capable of displacing a 15 ' to 20' column length of water. still not as effective as a good 9' long Hawain Sling
An effective barrel length of less than 1.5" would probably be quite effective as a launcher if a very slow burning propellant were used.
Just my thoughts on ths subject .
ViggoG

There is a TV show (I can't remember the name) where the hosts set up to prove or disprove various theories, "old wives tales" and "urban legends". Several months ago they did a show on how far bullets would penetrate in water. They fired at a distance of 4' from the surface of a swimming pool at a plywood backstop submerged in the pool. All of the high velocity bullets used were full metal jacket; 223, 30-06 & 50 cal. All bullets recovered only traveled a few feet and broke up, none was recovered whole.

They also tested a couple of muzzle loaders with round and conical lead balls. The round balls actually made it to the back stop and dented it, the conical balls almost made it to the backstop.

Their conclusion was that if you are submerged more than 12 inches underwater, you are safe unless you are being shot at with a muzzle loader!:roflmao:

A rather odd and short lived firearm called the Gyrojet fired a projectile that was actually a small rocket. The propellant was in the projectile and, when ignited, the gases were vented through several holes in the base which were slanted and imparted rotation to the "bullet". This round was somewhat effective under water, and in fact the company developed a speargun version of the arm.

Ron...

Check this out: http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Gyrojettest.PDF

:)

Hey guys,
Very interesting thread.

The show Hugh is referring to is called Mythbusters and is usually quite interesting. Tonight the show ran a kind of update on various shows from the past only utilizing some more methods submitted by viewers to dispell their findings.

The results, in this case, were not questioned by the viewers, but instead the audience wanted additional imformation to wit: The original tests were taken shooting INTO water, but the new questions concerned the ability to shoot the firearms UNDERWATER and compare the results.

It is replaying again right now (10:00 P-yem) on the Discovery channel on my Dish network. Very interesting!.

Jack Hiles
Mesa AZ

Yup,

And the original episode was called "bulletproff water"
for those with digital recorders. I had saved it to review on mine.
I believe discovery has re-run it a few times.

Their best results were with the 9mm fjm.
Rifle bullets at high velocity fragmented in each of their tests including 30-06 and .50 BMG

It was interesting pseudo-science, and entertaining.

Fritz.