Shoot a Scuba Tank?

[amcarlson4]

Well, ever since the Myth Busters when they shot that tank...

ok ok.... I'm just going to say it... WHY? :huh:


Please tell me... where are they shooting scuba tanks and I'll dive somewhere else!
... call me shy! :hideing_b

 

[lairdb]

The Glock 17 was originally the one designed to be fired underwater, under certain conditions. It has been rumored that the other models will, but I wouldn't do it.

This can only be done with the maritime spring cups installed, special, waterproofed, non-expanding ammunition (we don't want hollowpoints expanding in the barrel, do we?)

The range of the rounds fired is severely limited. Probably (I'm guessing) would be limited to 5 feet or so, with the energy of the round fired dropping FAST.

As ereediver mentioned, the most important aspect of this is your eardrums. Upon firing the first round, both of your ear drums would explode, REALLY wrecking your day. Earplugs? Not much help for a diver, can't wear them underwater anyway.

Actually, IIRC the training materials are quite clear; firing underwater is last preference. The maritime spring cups are primarily intended to drain captured water from the striker channel so the weapon is workable soon after being removed from water.

The materials also make clear that the preferred use is to raise both weapon and operator's ears above the water before firing. Circumstances requiring it, the weapon may be fired while still submerged, as long as the operator's ears are above water and the bullet travels only a few inches before exiting the water; even then, accuracy is adversely affected.

Firing underwater even once is likely to result in hearing damage, probably permanent, and operator effectiveness will be consequently impaired.

(YMMV, don't try this at home, don't rely on my years-out-of-date-memory for ANYTHING, etc.)

Advise? Don't do it.

What he said.

 

[Floridawannabe]

I can not believe you guys did not try a 50 CAL. :bigun2: Now that is a gun to take down a mad tank

 

[TyTy]

As a USMC Vietnam veteran I can assure you that no combat Marine is shooting to
wound. The use of the full metal jacket bullet is perscribed by the Geneva convention.

Hmm, Im sure youre right but Im also sure I read about wounding is better, maybe I combined the two in my head after reading seperatly but I could have sworn I read about full metal jackets being used for the purpose of wounding.

Either way, thank you for serving and Semper Fi!!!

 

[Doc]

The first gun 007 used was a Beretta .25 autoloader; As Major Boothroyd called it, "... a lady's gun."

The PPK that he recommended was, I believe 7.65mm, or about .32. He also recommended a S&W lightweight framed revolver as a "heavy" weapon.

Movies (and novels) are escapist entertainment, as are some of the threads on this forum.

BTW, the Walther PPK does come in 9mm corto as well, but not anything smaller than .32. I just checked the Walther website.

Skip the website, go to the bible. Blue Book of Gun Values

In this case, it is technicaly known as the "corto" (short) which is also known as a 9mm Kurz (German for "short"), known here in the US as a .380 ACP. They're all the same. The 7.65mm Browning (.32 ACP) was suggested (assumably) because of it's surprisingly superior ballistics.

The Walthers, including the PPK, was always offered in .22LR. Apparently no longer. Trot on over to GunBroker and check there for .22's. Getcher wallet out!

And no, sorry, the old, old movie poster with 00Connery was absolutely pictured with a long, pencil barreled BB gun. Muy dramatico!

I did my time on Rec.SCUBA usenet group. They were blowing up SCUBA tanks long before these dramatacists on Mythbusters ever invented a moving coke machine.

And yes, sometimes these threads are a hoot!

 

[Easy Rider]

OK, I know NOTHING about guns, but I'm not sure you gave the 9 MM a fair shake. Looks like you hit the shoulder of the tank, which has thicker metal than the sides, I believe. Also, the angle of the shoulder seems to make it more likely to deflect the round, rather than allow for penetration.

Or have I turned from ignorant to complete idiot? :06:

That's actually a good point. There's more to this problem than just terminal ballistics.

 

[Easy Rider]

Hmm, Im sure youre right but Im also sure I read about wounding is better, maybe I combined the two in my head after reading seperatly but I could have sworn I read about full metal jackets being used for the purpose of wounding.

Either way, thank you for serving and Semper Fi!!!

I think the "wounding is better than killing" theory was developed as justification of McNamara's forcing the militrary to adopt a crow rifle (otherwise known as the M-16).

 

[pants!]

From a purely military perspective, wounding is better than killing because it consumes more of the enemy's resources, right?

 

[HowardE]

ok ok.... I'm just going to say it... WHY? :huh:


Please tell me... where are they shooting scuba tanks and I'll dive somewhere else!
... call me shy! :hideing_b

Did you ever see JAWS? the movie? There was one.

 

[Wayward Son]

ok ok.... I'm just going to say it... WHY? :huh:


Please tell me... where are they shooting scuba tanks and I'll dive somewhere else!
... call me shy! :hideing_b

Because in the 1st Jaws movie, Chief Wiggum, er, Roy Scneider, killed the beast by using a 30-6 to shoot an AL80 in the beasts mouth, which resulted in a huge explosion that blew the critters head right off. People got curious and wanted to see if that would really happen if you shot a full tank.

The answer is "no, it won't".

Then Larry got curious about just how much gun it would take to penetrate a tank so he did some shooting of his own.