Smarter Every Day [Sic]: Shooting a Gun Underwater by Destin S | Aug 11, 2011 | 16 comments facebook twitter linkedin email comments Ralph says: August 11, 2011 at 13:34 This was a very well done experiment. I would have suggested using a Sigma instead of a Ruger, because if a Sigma blew up, nobody would give a rat’s hat. Reply Ben Eli says: August 11, 2011 at 13:36 +1 Reply I_Like_Pie says: August 11, 2011 at 14:26 There were some experiments that Ruger did with their P8X series where they sealed a plug at the end of the barrel to prove it’s robust design. They shot it with a plugged barrel….drilled out the plug and resumed the rest of the mag with no malfunctions. These guns are designed 200% more robust than that caliber needs….that is likely why they chose it for the test. Knowing that water isn’t going to blow it up. Reply Ben Eli says: August 11, 2011 at 13:39 Cool fact about toroidal rings aka vortex rings (the cut up bagel part). It is a toroidal vortex that forms the heads of mushroom clouds caused by large explosions such as nuclear weapons or MOABs. Reply outwardhound says: August 11, 2011 at 14:17 Would have been nice if the tank was larger (longer) to see more of the bullet travel. But still very cool! Reply Margaret says: August 11, 2011 at 14:19 Cool video. I was half expecting the semi auto not to cycle. Another cool example of a toroidal vortex: http://youtu.be/wNUgBsuIMwc Reply A. Lee says: August 11, 2011 at 16:22 +1 to TTAG for putting up this great video. I’m seriously impressed with that Ruger. I was expecting failure from the fully-flooded barrel and slide. Not only did it not blow-up, it even managed to eject the case! Reply Chris Dumm says: August 11, 2011 at 17:04 Ruger P95s are stupendously overbuilt. Mine got a bullet stuck in the barrel (from a squib load) and it simply fired and ejected as normal. It even fed the next round, but couldn’t chamber it fully because of the barrel obstruction. Despite the extreme pressure spike in the barrel and the super-violent cycling of the action, it suffered no damage at all. I hammered the slug out of the barrel with a wooden dowel, inspected the gun, and resumed firing. Reply Bob H says: August 11, 2011 at 17:40 An excellent demonstration, and it shows me another reason not to like revolvers. Someday someone who really loves them will have to explain their utility to me. Reply Ralph says: August 11, 2011 at 18:17 Marshall Dillon didn’t carry a pistol. Reply Bob H says: August 12, 2011 at 00:11 I don’t think autoloaders had been invented yet. I’ll bet he would have dumped his wretched-triggered, debris-sheddding revolver for a 1911 in a hot minute. I notice he didn’t use a muzzleloader either. Reply Frank says: August 12, 2011 at 09:33 Revolvers work well for simple minded folks like me. I’m a lousy shot with a any handgun and doubt any amount of practice would result in significant improvement. My Charter Arms .44 Special goes “bang” when I pull the trigger. Should allow me to get to one of several rifles that I am proficient with in a self defense situation. Reply Robert Farago says: August 12, 2011 at 10:01 “Revolvers work well for simple minded folks like me. I’m a lousy shot with a any handgun and doubt any amount of practice would result in significant improvement.” Debatable. Most people are far more accurate with a semi than a revolver, due to the latter’s safety minded long heavy pull. Reply Frank says: August 12, 2011 at 11:15 Have a .380 semi. Shot my son’s Makarov many times. Not much better with them than the Bulldog (which has a lot of gunsmith time spent on the trigger). Mainly, nothing to fumble with on the Bulldog, clips, safeties, rack slide, etc. Works for me. At twenty feet can put five out of five into a paper plate. My mindset, for defense, is a rifle. A handgun is for those situations I can’t openly carry a rifle. Jimulacrum says: August 11, 2011 at 18:39 Well done! I want to know more about how the bullet’s trajectory is affected. I’d like to also see different lengths of tanks, and perhaps even a target lined up in front of the gun. Reply Van says: August 11, 2011 at 19:27 Sure, but will it blend? Reply Write a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.