Smarter Every Day [Sic]: Shooting a Gun Underwater


  1. avatar Ralph says:

    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.

      1. avatar I_Like_Pie says:

        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.

  2. avatar Ben Eli says:

    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.

  3. avatar outwardhound says:

    Would have been nice if the tank was larger (longer) to see more of the bullet travel. But still very cool!

  4. avatar Margaret says:

    Cool video. I was half expecting the semi auto not to cycle.

    Another cool example of a toroidal vortex:

  5. avatar A. Lee says:

    +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!

  6. avatar Chris Dumm says:

    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.

  7. avatar Bob H says:

    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.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Marshall Dillon didn’t carry a pistol.

      1. avatar Bob H says:

        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.

    2. avatar Frank says:

      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.

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        “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.

        1. avatar Frank says:

          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.

  8. avatar Jimulacrum says:

    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.

  9. avatar Van says:

    Sure, but will it blend?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email