blocked rifle vid

lee70

http://www.break.com/index/blocked-rifle-barrel-explodes-after-shot.html
you got a see this

Sparks

That seems terribly neat and tidy for an exploding barrel...

lee70

looks like he tried to send a 7.62 down a 5.56

juice1304

anyone care for a banana split. lol

Tackleberrywho

lee70 wrote: »

http://www.break.com/index/blocked-rifle-barrel-explodes-after-shot.html
you got a see this

Saw it before "the claimed reason is the barrel was full with water"
The guys were supposed to be hunting in a downpour for hours.

murph226

lee70 wrote: »

looks like he tried to send a 7.62 down a 5.56

If you can get a 5.56 rifle to chamber a 7.62 round you are truly talented!

meathstevie

murph226 wrote: »

If you can get a 5.56 rifle to chamber a 7.62 round you are truly talented!

Or stronger than Popeye and the Hulk together;)

lee70

murph226 wrote: »

If you can get a 5.56 rifle to chamber a 7.62 round you are truly talented!

i know it can't be done

pedroeibar1

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Saw it before "the claimed reason is the barrel was full with water"
The guys were supposed to be hunting in a downpour for hours.

:rolleyes:.
Water flows downhill. Look at the way the rifle was being carried before the shot.
p.

rrpc

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:.
Water flows downhill. Look at the way the rifle was being carried before the shot.
p.

The bolt appeared to be closed before the shot, so a vacuum could have prevented the water leaving the barrel.

pedroeibar1

rrpc wrote: »

The bolt appeared to be closed before the shot, so a vacuum could have prevented the water leaving the barrel.

You know more about rifles than I do, but when a round was chambered (at about 0.5 -0.6) the barrells were above horizontal - would that not have been sufficient to allow water egress?
Rs,
P.

rrpc

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You know more about rifles than I do, but when a round was chambered (at about 0.5 -0.6) the barrells were above horizontal - would that not have been sufficient to allow water egress?
Rs,
P.

Depends on how much water was in the barrel and he cycled the bolt very quickly. It's certainly the most likely explanation for the burst barrel, but not the only one.

Half-cocked

The barrel wouldn't have to be full of water, a few large drops inside the bore could be enough. Especialy if he was already pushing things close to the limit with homeloads....

tac foley

Half-cocked wrote: »

The barrel wouldn't have to be full of water, a few large drops inside the bore could be enough. Especialy if he was already pushing things close to the limit with homeloads....

Why do you assume that the shooter 'was pushing things close to the limit with homeloads'?

You can't be basing this throwaway line on anything except ill-informed hearsay.

In over forty years of homeloading I've never been tempted to exceed the recommended loads in any of the fourteen calibres for which I used to reload my own ammunition. I still reload eight here in UK, BTW.

After all, it's MY hands that are holding the gun, and MY face that's down on the stock.

Misunderstanding the theory and practice of home-loading like this and assuming that a person you cannot ever have met is a Wily Coyote-style boomer-loonie does you no credit at all.

The general consensus over in the USA, inlcuding that of the manufacturer, all having examined the footage very carefully, is that the split propagated forward from a point about five inches down the barrel from the breech, and was due to water blockage, not any fault of the ammunition.

tac

Sparks

I'm curious to know how a water blockage could cause that kind of malfunction when mythbusters welded a four-inch spike into a barrel to block it and later a laser boresighter (trying to replicate that other banana-peel photo on the 'net) and couldn't get anything more than a minor crack the first time and a small split the second time. They thought maybe if it was a very old rifle, you might possibly get a 'banana-peel' effect, but that rifle above doesn't look that old to me. It's just ever so neat and tidy...

pedroeibar1

rrpc wrote: »

Depends on how much water was in the barrel and he cycled the bolt very quickly. It's certainly the most likely explanation for the burst barrel, but not the only one.

Not being difficult, but I don't really go with the water reason. If the bolt was in position and created a vacuum, the corollary is that the water could not get in. Wasn't there a problem with the fluted barrels on some Sako/Tikka rifles a few years ago?? Is this one of them? As Sparks says, it is a very clean break.
Curious.
Rs
P.

Tackleberrywho

I have only seen one rifle barrel swell due to muck being in the barrel (user fell before the shot) in many years, and teh dealer who had it had never seen it before, even though he had sold thousands of rifles.

As sparks has stated, Mythbusters went to exhaustive lengths to split a barrel, the got the best results with an old damascus barrel shotty.

They fired a garand undre water, now split, in fact the round only ejected a a few metres when fired under water. (dispelling the Sheamus Bond Myth)

I'm sure if you youtube you should find the episodes.

rrpc

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not being difficult, but I don't really go with the water reason. If the bolt was in position and created a vacuum, the corollary is that the water could not get in. Wasn't there a problem with the fluted barrels on some Sako/Tikka rifles a few years ago?? Is this one of them? As Sparks says, it is a very clean break.
Curious.
Rs
P.

So long as the water going in is small enough to allow air to escape (which would be the case with raindrops) the corollary wouldn't be true. Once there's enough in there then it's much more difficult to get out.

As for the clean break, tubing (rifle barrel) is not extruded but rolled and seam welded along its length. It's probable that this will be the weakest point and start a split. Fluting could also cause such an inherent weakness.

The mythbusters episode where they submerged the rifle and fired it, wouldn't be the same because the barrel wouldn't fill with a closed bolt and the vacuum (or diving bell) effect would occur.

Sparks

Mythbusters didn't submerge the rifle - Tack's mixing that up with a different episode where they fired from air into water to test whether or not the rounds were rendered less lethal by the water.

The episodes (#43 and #75) where they tried to split the barrel were all done in open air. In one, they welded a 4" spike in the barrel and also simulated a squib load accident; in the other, they stuck a laser boresight into the rifle. They weren't able to reproduce the banana split effect in any experiment, but they were able to (eventually) produce a small split in the barrel; in one place, not the three or four in the video, and only three or four inches long, not almost the entire length of the barrel as shown in the video above.

I don't want to say it's faked, because neat and tidy things do happen in nature where you'd least expect them (like the hexagonal convection cells in a boiling pan of water), but it does seem terribly improbable that it would be unreproducable.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Mythbusters didn't submerge the rifle - Tack's mixing that up with a different episode where they fired from air into water to test whether or not the rounds were rendered less lethal by the water.

The episodes (#43 and #75) where they tried to split the barrel were all done in open air. In one, they welded a 4" spike in the barrel and also simulated a squib load accident; in the other, they stuck a laser boresight into the rifle. They weren't able to reproduce the banana split effect in any experiment, but they were able to (eventually) produce a small split in the barrel; in one place, not the three or four in the video, and only three or four inches long, not almost the entire length of the barrel as shown in the video above.

I don't want to say it's faked, because neat and tidy things do happen in nature where you'd least expect them (like the hexagonal convection cells in a boiling pan of water), but it does seem terribly improbable that it would be unreproducable.

I'm not mixing them up sparks, However I was amalgamating them two episodes (infact I think there was three)
The myths were different, the references to the Thread were the same.

I don't watch daytime TV or regular stuff, It's discoveries all the way for me!

Sparks

Tack, they never, ever, fired the garand underwater. They fired it at a body of water, but never submerged it (or any firearm I can recall).

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Tack, they never, ever, fired the garand underwater. They fired it at a body of water, but never submerged it (or any firearm I can recall).

They fired a shot from air to water, and from underwater to prove that the James bond films were bullshine.
From memory the round went ~40 feet in a trough constructed to test, yet was very devasting if fired from air to water

Sparks

It wasn't devestating when fired from air to water, it was devestated - it virtually disintegrated on impact.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/mythbusters_bulletproof_water.html

Bulletproof Water

Myth: Water will protect you from being shot by bullets

They know that water will eventually stop a bullet, so they want to test to see how deep you have to dive to avoid being shot.

Gun selection

The various guns they tested during the myth were:

• 9mm pistol
• M1 Garand/.30-06
• Replica Civil War black powder rifle
• Shotgun
• .50 cal rifle

Regarding the .50 cal ammunition:

Adam: "That's what this thing fires?"
Jamie: "It's smaller than my head, it's alright"

Water tank tests

They built a 'ballistic tank' out of 1" thick acrylic and iron girders. They stuck a block of ballistics gel into the tank that could be raised up and down to different depths.

• 9mm @ 6ft: the bullet went straight through the ballistic gel -- fatal
• 9mm @ 7ft: the bullet went straight through again -- fatal
• 9mm @ 8ft: the bullet only went 1/2" into the gel -- non-fatal
• 3" deer slug + Shotgun @ 6ft: As one might have expected, firing a shotgun into a narrow tank of water shattered the tank and sent everyone running to turn off all the lights to prevent short circuits. The slug shot went through the ballistics gel -- fatal

The shotgun test was the end of that particular test setup.

Pool tests

A vertical rig was a worst-case scenario. In order to make it easier to test and also to make it correspond better with a real-world scenario, they decided to make their new rig be at a 30 degree angle. At a 30 degree angle with an 8 ft penetrating bullet, you would only have to be 4ft underwater.

Someone strangely agreed to allowing Adam and Jamie to shoot off guns in their pool. Adam made a new 20 ft railway for the ballistics gel target and they mounted it at a 23 degree angle.

For the first test they used a replica Civil War black powder rifle shooting Jamie's homemade bullets at 1000 ft/s.

1. Replica Civil War rifle @ 15 ft: The bullet veered way off target.
2. Replica Civil War rifle@ 5 ft: they couldn't find the bullet and the ballistics gel was still intact -- nonfatal
3. Replica Civil War rifle @ 3 ft: The bullet went through the gel -- fatal. At this distance, though, the gel was only 2 ft underwater because of the angle.

They switched to a .223 rifle, which shoots at 2500 ft/s

• .223 rifle @ 10 ft: the full metal jacket bullet shattered into tiny bits upon hitting the water -- nonfatal
• 223 rifle@ 3 ft: once again the bullet broke up. The tip of the bullet was resting on the ballistics gel -- nonfatal (myth confirmed)

The next gun up was the M1, which shoots at 2800 ft/s. In their Bulletproof Glass mythbusting, the M1 was capable of penetrating 2.5" of bulletproof glass.

• M1@ 10 ft: tiny bullet fragments once again
• M1@ 2 ft: the bullet only pierced the gel 4", which would be enough to just pierce the skin.

They finally broke out the big gun, the .50 cal with armor-piercing rounds, which are shot at 3000 ft/s.

Adam: "Hopefully we'll be gone before the pool fully drains"

• .50 cal @ 10 ft: even though the water exploded, the ballistics gel was intact. Water made it all the way up to the ceiling. As it was with the previous guns, the bullet round came apart on impact. It lost all of it's energy within the first 3 ft. You would be safe 14" underwater at a 23 angle from a .50 cal.

confirmed: you can protect yourself from a bullet by diving underwater. If the shooter were directly overhead, you would probably be safe from most guns at 8 ft. At a 30 degree angle, you would only have to be 3 ft underwater to be safe.

patsat

Der is a separate episode where they submerge a rifle and handgun underwater to prove that they can be fired underwater.

Mr.Flibble

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Wasn't there a problem with the fluted barrels on some Sako/Tikka rifles a few years ago?? Is this one of them?

Hard to tell - the picture's pretty fuzzy - but it looks like an A-Bolt to me.

Mr.Flibble

rrpc wrote: »

As for the clean break, tubing (rifle barrel) is not extruded but rolled and seam welded along its length.

:eek::eek::eek: Surely you jest. Aren't virtually all (modern, decent) rifle barrels made from steel bar stock, deep drilled?

Cass

Here is the link for the youtube video of the guns underwater.

Here is the link to the 1st part of the "Bulletproof Water" episode on youtube and the following parts are down the right side. Watch and see.

rrpc

Mr.Flibble wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek: Surely you jest. Aren't virtually all (modern, decent) rifle barrels made from steel bar stock, deep drilled?

The operative word is decent. Standard gunbarrel stock is supplied as tubing.

Sparks

And decent gun barrels will start off as bar stock, get deep drilled and then either get hammer forged around a mandril with the rifling on it in relief, or get button rifled or whatever. But hammer forging is by far and away the more common method as I understand it.

Mr.Flibble

rrpc wrote: »

The operative word is decent. Standard gunbarrel stock is supplied as tubing.

What difference are we talking about for "decent" vs "standard"?

What's the best reasonably well-known rifle you know that uses a barrel made out of seam-welded tubing?

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Tack, they never, ever, fired the garand underwater. They fired it at a body of water, but never submerged it (or any firearm I can recall).

I said 40ft being generous, it was only 6feet. But it was a Garand