Underwater Shooting

AGE · 04-26-2006, 03:32 PM

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.

Dwight Gruber · 04-26-2006, 03:46 PM

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

shadow · 04-26-2006, 06:15 PM

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.

trigger643 · 04-27-2006, 05:40 AM

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.

Steinar · 04-27-2006, 06:13 AM

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

Rod WMG · 04-27-2006, 05:35 PM

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.

Ron Smith · 04-27-2006, 05:52 PM

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.

ViggoG · 04-27-2006, 11:40 PM

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

Hugh · 04-28-2006, 02:34 AM

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!

Ron Wood · 04-28-2006, 11:27 AM

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.

stymie · 04-28-2006, 12:59 PM

Ron...

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

Brickie · 04-30-2006, 12:31 PM

Hey guys,
Very interesting thread.

hqbmw · 05-01-2006, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugh
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!

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

Fritzer · 05-01-2006, 03:39 PM

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.

04-26-2006, 03:32 PM	#1
AGE User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 597 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	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 Eggers (AGE) NRA Life Member

04-27-2006, 05:40 AM	#4
trigger643 User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Murfreesboro Posts: 502 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	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. __________________ "There are three reasons to own a gun: To protect yourself and your family, to hunt dangerous and delicious animals, and to keep the King of England out of your face." Ã¢?? Krusty the Clown

04-27-2006, 06:13 AM	#5
Steinar User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,538 Thanks: 18 Thanked 36 Times in 21 Posts	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 __________________ Previously known as Morgan Kane

04-27-2006, 05:52 PM	#7
Ron Smith User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Orygun Posts: 4,243 Thanks: 118 Thanked 245 Times in 150 Posts	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. __________________ I Still Need DWM side plate #49... if anyone runs across a nice one. What ~Rudyard Kipling~ said...

04-27-2006, 11:40 PM	#8
ViggoG RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: South Side Virginia Posts: 534 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	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

04-26-2006, 03:46 PM	#2
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,902 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,317 Times in 431 Posts	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

04-26-2006, 06:15 PM	#3
shadow User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down The Shore Posts: 245 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	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.

04-27-2006, 05:35 PM	#6
Rod WMG User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Edge of Texas Posts: 514 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	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.

04-28-2006, 02:34 AM	#9
Hugh RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Southeast Texas Swamp Posts: 2,460 Thanks: 2 Thanked 165 Times in 64 Posts	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! __________________ *TRUMP FOR PREZ IN '20!*

04-28-2006, 11:27 AM	#10
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 7,022 Thanks: 1,090 Thanked 5,178 Times in 1,703 Posts	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. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

04-28-2006, 12:59 PM	#11
stymie User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: KC,MO USA Posts: 114 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Ron... Check this out: http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Gyrojettest.PDF __________________ "Irony can be pretty ironic!"

04-30-2006, 12:31 PM	#12
Brickie User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: PA, USA Posts: 20 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hey guys, Very interesting thread.

05-01-2006, 03:39 PM	#14
Fritzer User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 134 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	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.