|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jul 11, 2014 2:29:54 GMT
Shooting at a Grenade: Will shooting at a grenade...
a) ...make it explode and save you from peril?
b) ...split the grenade and render it harmless?
c) ...send the grenade back to the sender?
*12-gauge shotgun/round: (b)
*.306 shotgun/buckshot: (b)
*.45 caliber handgun/bullet: (b)
*.308 sniper rifle/FMJ round: (a)
**Final result: The most common result was that the grenade was split and rendered harmless. Plausible.
BONUS: This was the premiere of Jamie's "Bomb Baby" (remember Caption This last month...)
Seconds from Disaster: You find yourself in possession of a bomb with only seconds left on the timer, where is the best place to stash it?
*Filing Cabinet: Survive shock at 12', but badly injured by shrapnel. Busted.
*Under the Mattress of Bed: Survive shock at 12' & minimal shrapnel damage. Plausible.
*Fish Tank: Survive shock at 12' & minimal shrapnel damage. Plausible.
*Garbage Truck: Off to side of truck survivable, but directly behind truck is lethal. Plausible.
**Final result: There are ways to survive a bomb around your home, assuming you can act quick enough. Plausible.
BONUS: If you have access to enough AMPHO, you can disintegrate a garbage truck (just like the cement mixer)
EXTRA BONUS: High speed footage from several angles (unlike the cement mixer)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2014 4:38:02 GMT
I listened to a talk from a guy who had a phosphorus grenade shot out of his hand in Vietnam (with a rifle, presumably by accident, since the more reliable option is to shoot the guy throwing the grenade), but I didn't know if that result was a characteristic of the phosphorus grenade, or common to grenades - now I know. I would have liked to see them shoot the grenade with birdshot as well, though buckshot is much more common for grenade rich environments.
seconds from disaster, actually, it looked like they were about 40 pounds short... on the actual myth, I was surprised at how effectively the household objects directed the blast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jul 11, 2014 13:13:12 GMT
(The planned RiffTrax group trip was put on hold until the replay next week, so I got to watch this episode last night.)
I would have liked some more information on just why the bed was so effective at channeling the blast. I would have expected the "weak point" to be the gap between the mattress and the box springs, but it didn't look like any of the blast went out that way.
J&A did all their grenade shooting at point-blank range -- would they have gotten the same results at distance?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2014 13:36:01 GMT
(The planned RiffTrax group trip was put on hold until the replay next week, so I got to watch this episode last night.) I would have liked some more information on just why the bed was so effective at channeling the blast. I would have expected the "weak point" to be the gap between the mattress and the box springs, but it didn't look like any of the blast went out that way. J&A did all their grenade shooting at point-blank range -- would they have gotten the same results at distance? a mattress is much softer on the surface than pushing out through the edges. I'm sure there was a tiny bit of flash out between the layers, but most of it took the path of least resistance. remember, to blow out the sides, it has to push the framework of the mattress in two directions at once. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jul 11, 2014 13:46:56 GMT
J&A did all their grenade shooting at point-blank range -- would they have gotten the same results at distance? Interesting question. Thinking of it a different way: Allowing for loss of kinetic energy as the bullet travels, what would the maximum distance at which the same results would be achieved? Is there a distance at which the bullet would be rendered ineffective? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2014 14:05:20 GMT
they may have benefitted from taking a moment to explain the difference between birdshot and buckshot, too. I had to explain 00 buck to Mrs TLW, and I'd hazard a guess that even some people who are accustomed to the terms don't know what they mean. - and my memory seems to be off - I was thinking 0000 buck was about .38 caliber.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 11, 2014 14:18:36 GMT
J&A did all their grenade shooting at point-blank range -- would they have gotten the same results at distance? Interesting question. Thinking of it a different way: Allowing for loss of kinetic energy as the bullet travels, what would the maximum distance at which the same results would be achieved? Is there a distance at which the bullet would be rendered ineffective? In theory yes. In practice at the range someone could throw a grenade at you would make no real difference to the speed and energy in a bullet. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jul 11, 2014 14:22:53 GMT
Interesting question. Thinking of it a different way: Allowing for loss of kinetic energy as the bullet travels, what would the maximum distance at which the same results would be achieved? Is there a distance at which the bullet would be rendered ineffective? In theory yes. In practice at the range someone could throw a grenade at you would make no real difference to the speed and energy in a bullet. Because the bomb range is a relatively short distance. What if the grenade were launched from the opposite end of an airport runway? (I know it's not realistic because you would need one heck of a scope to spot it, but...) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2014 14:24:41 GMT
Interesting question. Thinking of it a different way: Allowing for loss of kinetic energy as the bullet travels, what would the maximum distance at which the same results would be achieved? Is there a distance at which the bullet would be rendered ineffective? In theory yes. In practice at the range someone could throw a grenade at you would make no real difference to the speed and energy in a bullet. the distance would have made a difference with the shotgun. at "powder burn" range, the shot column is essentially a frangible slug, while at sufficient range for the shot to begin dispersing, it acts as individual slugs. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2014 14:29:09 GMT
In theory yes. In practice at the range someone could throw a grenade at you would make no real difference to the speed and energy in a bullet. Because the bomb range is a relatively short distance. What if the grenade were launched from the opposite end of an airport runway? (I know it's not realistic because you would need one heck of a scope to spot it, but...) not to mention one heck of an arm to throw it... my grandfather had a dummy (practice model) grenade he used as a door stop. there's a reason why you see the soldiers doing the overarm lob. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 12, 2014 20:14:52 GMT
In theory yes. In practice at the range someone could throw a grenade at you would make no real difference to the speed and energy in a bullet. the distance would have made a difference with the shotgun. at "powder burn" range, the shot column is essentially a frangible slug, while at sufficient range for the shot to begin dispersing, it acts as individual slugs. That was my thought too and there's actually an additional variable to the 00 buck shot (which isn't .38 cal but .33 - Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_shot#Buckshot). A single .32 caliber bullet fired from a pistol or revolver will be affected by the rifling of the barrel, maintaining the aerodynamic properties of the projectile, making its flight stable and retaining a larger portion of its kinetic energy over a longer distance. A 00 buck holds 8 pellets, IIRC. These pellets aren't aerodynamically shaped in any way and the barrel of the shotgun is not rifled to impart spin on them (there are rifled shotguns, but these are intended for slugs rather than shot, as the rifling tends to disperse the pellets of a shot in an O-pattern, rather than fire them in a relatively straight line). First off, because of the large bore of the barrel, the pellets will spread out shortly after having left the muzzle. Secondly, because the pellets are not aerodynamically shaped and no spin is imparted on them, they tend to lose their kinetic energy faster than a pistol or rifle round. At point blank range, all 8 pellets will hit the grenade at roughly the same time and place, imparting a huge amount of kinetic energy to a relatively small surface area. At longer ranges, not only will fewer pellets actually hit the grenade, they'll also hit it with a lower amount of kinetic energy, making it quite possible that they'll do significantly less damage to it at a distance of 30-50 yards than at a distance of 1-3 feet. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 12, 2014 20:24:45 GMT
the distance would have made a difference with the shotgun. at "powder burn" range, the shot column is essentially a frangible slug, while at sufficient range for the shot to begin dispersing, it acts as individual slugs. That was my thought too and there's actually an additional variable to the 00 buck shot (which isn't .38 cal but .33 - Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_shot#Buckshot). A single .32 caliber bullet fired from a pistol or revolver will be affected by the rifling of the barrel, maintaining the aerodynamic properties of the projectile, making its flight stable and retaining a larger portion of its kinetic energy over a longer distance. A 00 buck holds 8 pellets, IIRC. These pellets aren't aerodynamically shaped in any way and the barrel of the shotgun is not rifled to impart spin on them (there are rifled shotguns, but these are intended for slugs rather than shot, as the rifling tends to disperse the pellets of a shot in an O-pattern, rather than fire them in a relatively straight line). First off, because of the large bore of the barrel, the pellets will spread out shortly after having left the muzzle. Secondly, because the pellets are not aerodynamically shaped and no spin is imparted on them, they tend to lose their kinetic energy faster than a pistol or rifle round. At point blank range, all 8 pellets will hit the grenade at roughly the same time and place, imparting a huge amount of kinetic energy to a relatively small surface area. At longer ranges, not only will fewer pellets actually hit the grenade, they'll also hit it with a lower amount of kinetic energy, making it quite possible that they'll do significantly less damage to it at a distance of 30-50 yards than at a distance of 1-3 feet. I think I calculated the muzzle energy of my #10 gauge firing a maximum load of 0000 buck as being about the same as Clint Eastwood unloading his entire .44 magnum in one shot. (the number of buckshot is load dependent, and I only have data for my 10 gauge.) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 12, 2014 20:30:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 12, 2014 20:57:40 GMT
*SNIP* Typical spread appears to be roughly the size of a human hand, or slightly larger than a grenade  Notice that on this one, while each shot certainly has a spread about the size of a human hand, two of the three shots (top and bottom in the picture) left a hole in the middle that seems more than large enough for a grenade to go straight through. The one shot that does have grouping which won't allow a grenade to slip through would have hit it with 3 out of 9 pellets at the most. *SNIP* with the 'better' quality shells effectively hitting as a single mass at 10 yards. While 10 yards is more than enough if the grenade is rendered completely harmless, we only saw them take one shot at the grenade with the shotgun. There's no guarantee that'll be the outcome every time, so 10 yards might be cutting it a little close. Besides, if you thought shooting the thing in mid air was your only chance, wouldn't you start trying to hit it as soon as possible, rather than waiting until it was within 10 yards of you? After all, the grenade is moving toward you, so if you miss it on the first shot, it'll be even closer by the time you get your second one off, assuming there's even time to get a second shot off. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 13, 2014 0:06:07 GMT
mostly the choke, rather than the shotshell, and chokes vary depending on the purpose of the shotgun. skeet guns are designed to maximize the spread of birdshot, while goose guns are designed to maintain a tight pattern over a longer range. however, skeet specific shells can include a "spreader" wad designed to begin the expansion of the shot column. |
|
|
|
Post by breesfan on Jul 14, 2014 0:16:21 GMT
I liked the house hold myths a bit more but thought the grenade one was interesting. I know they said plausible but I kinda think it's busted. Tory needs to bring back his beard.  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 17, 2014 8:06:49 GMT
Shooting a Grenade.
This came up in some discussion I had many many many years ago... I cant recall all the details, just some....
However.
The common census of opinion was if you see someone holding grenades about to throw, shoot HIM....
If the grenade drops on him, anything else he is supposed to be holding, will "Sympathetic detonate".....
That is the force of the first grenade will cause the rest of them to go off as well.
I have always presumed this to be true.
So on that score, now I am set to thinking about it...
If there is a pile of grenades, if one goes off, will the rest of them.
Second question, how far apart would grenades have to be that one doesnt detonate the next.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jul 17, 2014 12:39:19 GMT
Shooting a Grenade. This came up in some discussion I had many many many years ago... I cant recall all the details, just some.... However. The common census of opinion was if you see someone holding grenades about to throw, shoot HIM.... If the grenade drops on him, anything else he is supposed to be holding, will "Sympathetic detonate"..... That is the force of the first grenade will cause the rest of them to go off as well. I have always presumed this to be true. So on that score, now I am set to thinking about it... If there is a pile of grenades, if one goes off, will the rest of them. Second question, how far apart would grenades have to be that one doesnt detonate the next. I'd call that a valid idea for a myth. A full-on Mythbusters' "Grenade Special"?? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 17, 2014 13:38:53 GMT
Too dangerous. They were nervous enough about a single grenade, and I seriously doubt that they would want to put a bunch of them in one place where the resulting blast could send active grenades flying in all directions. Even if they did this in an enclosed space they would have no way of telling if any of the grenades thrown out from the explosion were still active. They would have to send in a robot to check and disable each and every grenade that even looked intact before they could reset, which would make this time consuming and expensive as well as dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 17, 2014 14:10:26 GMT
Too dangerous. They were nervous enough about a single grenade, and I seriously doubt that they would want to put a bunch of them in one place where the resulting blast could send active grenades flying in all directions. Even if they did this in an enclosed space they would have no way of telling if any of the grenades thrown out from the explosion were still active. They would have to send in a robot to check and disable each and every grenade that even looked intact before they could reset, which would make this time consuming and expensive as well as dangerous. two grenades would be sufficient for the test, and I would think they could get a camera that could track the likely trajectory of the second grenade. for that matter, they could even tether the second grenade with a lightweight cable to make it easier to track. then simply arm Jamie Jr. with a shotgun. the tests could be done in the quarry, giving them plenty of safety margin. by projection would be that the shotgun would not be necessary, though. |
|
