posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:44 PM
Guns don’t do jack underwater, even if they fire. I hate to quote this show, but Mythbusters did a whole thing on this. The bottom line was, the
higher the velocity the less effective it was in water. Even a .50 rifle (yes, .50 caliber) was non lethal after just 3 feet! The bullet just
They figured out that a typical shaped projectile would need to travel something like 900fps (or less) to remain even the least bit effective. The
loss of speed was so severe and fast for these ultra high velocity the bullets just couldn’t stay together. I wouldn’t be surprised if some guns
would run the risk of blowing up if fired underwater, as the bullet may not be able to leave the barrel fast enough.
Now I should note the guns weren’t fired underwater, they were fired about 6 feet from the water into the water. But it hardly matters.
I remember stories my grandfather used to tell me about the bullets hitting the water on Normandy beach (he wasn’t there, but had friends who were).
Some of his friends claimed they slowed down so much you could catch them. I’m certain there is some embellishment there, but taking the
Mythbusters “study” into consideration and these old WWII stories the truth is probably not far off.
So, my point? Traditional guns are meaningless underwater. That Russian “needler” gun looks like trouble though…
[edit on 3-3-2006 by skippytjc]