I'd like to think this was tested without a human target before he tried it on himself.... Thoughts?

Like it says at the end of the article... myth busters already did it (without people in the water but what would you expect)

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

We used to check bullet expansion by firing into a pool with the skimming net just a few feet below the surface of the water to catch the bullets.  From a pistol the bullets completely lost energy by 3 feet.

I've always thought that would be the case, not specifically 3 feet, but no energy after just a bit.  Interesting video though, kind of kills all those movie scenes that have people firing into water.  

I've always thought that would be the case, not specifically 3 feet, but no energy after just a bit.  Interesting video though, kind of kills all those movie scenes that have people firing into water.  

 

Years ago we use to use powerheads for big fish hunting underwater. Basically stainless steel smooth bore cylinders that screw on to a shell holder with a spring recessed firing pin. Screwed on to the end of a spear, the round would be fired when the barrel hits the fish, pushing it against the spring into the firing pin. Most fish it works great with just blanks.

 

Normal rounds are easier to come by though. Have used .38, .357 and .223 (here is one source http://www.billsbangsticks.com/ ).

 

Hitting even the the biggest of blackfish with the .357, the bullet would go through the fish and then practically just fall to the bottom, never going more then 1-3 feet.

 

Don't recall ever trying the .223. The noise from the 357 was more then enough to tolerate underwater.

 

The noise from the 357 was more then enough to tolerate underwater.

 

 

I'm not clear, are you saying it was too loud to tolerate? Did you wear hearing protection?