Ice bullets

DavidF · Post by **DavidF** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:34 pm

Mythbusters is doing a segment on Ice bullets in the next couple of minutes. Might be interesting.

it is 10:35 Central.

JReed · Post by **JReed** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:39 pm

That is from a couple seasons ago. It was pretty cool.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:41 pm

But, sometimes ya just wanna strangle 'em!

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:50 am

I like them although they do make mistakes.

They have fun with firearms and don't make the oh so common to todays
television derogatory comments about guns and ownership.

Their producer must be pro-gun or someone in the hierarchy is.

With all the negative stereotyping of our hobby it's nice to see people on TV
enjoying them I guess is all I'm tryin' to say.

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:49 am

I would like someone here to explain this. On mythbusters the other night, they were shooting bullets in the water. (another old show) The bullets were breaking up in the water and only fragments were left. I can understand hollowpoints and even soft points breaking up but when they fired a FMJ 50 BMG in the water and the bullet fell apart, I could not and will not believe it.---Where's the BS here?-----------------Sixgun

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:11 am

I got a chuckle out of the meat bullet they tried.

MacEntyre · Post by **MacEntyre** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:18 am

A friend of mine made a 12 guage ice slug... blasted it through a piece of 3/4 inch plywood, and it left no trace of itself!

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:03 am

Sixgun,

It's all about impact velocity and bullet strength. If they would have backed off about 60 yards, they would have gotten different results, particularly on that 50 BMG.

Thunder50 · Post by **Thunder50** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:43 am

I agree with Jayhawker. Impact velocity was too high. If they would have reduced the loads to around 2400fps for the BMG round, then things would have been different.

Shoot a 405gr cast bullet out of a 45-70 (hypotheticially speaking only!!) at an Elk at 5 yds and it might disintigrate after minimal penetration due to stresses. Same slug at 1200 fps will probably shoot through the animal and keep going.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:05 pm

On the Military channel last night was a piece about machine guns, starting with gatlings.

When they got to the part about the Thompsons they flatly stated that the bigger bullet, even though it moved slower than the nines, was the better penetrator and man stopper. This was known that long ago.

A big heavy bullet can move slowly and do much more damage on the business end than some of the smaller bullets that are moving at high velocity. That's why I'm working on a 405g .44 handgun load. It's the cat's, uh, OW!

Interesting that was known then. It makes the military move away from .45s all the more perplexing.

They had a sheriff on the bit about Thompsons and he carries one in his patrol car as his duty gun. He flatly said that it's a much better gun than the .223s, and that's why he keeps the Thompson beside him.

Pretty interesting, eh?

Grizz

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:21 pm

The mythbusters episode a couple of weeks ago where they ignited the propane tank with a minigun firing incendiary rounds was awesome.

What a cool job to have.

donw · Post by **donw** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:59 pm

IMO...the military got away from the .45 ACP AND the '06 for NATO, $$$$$$$$, and the average grunt can carry more .223 & 9mm than '06/7.62; NOT because of their superior ballistics or the weapons being chambered in .223/5.56 more 'lightweight'; a fully "decked-out m-4 will weigh in nearly 10 pounds in many cases, a socom "decked-out" M-1A will nearly the same weigh

i know this will ignite a firestorm of controversy, but i, having used a .30 cal in combat, would NOT wish to use a .223/5.56 in combat. it (the .223/5.56) simply will not 'deliver the mail' like a .30 cal.

most of the guys i knew that were in 'nam ditched their m-16 in favor of ANY .30 cal.; the thompson, grease gun, ak, sks etc.

the very fact the military is returning to the .45 and has elected to go to the 6.8 SPC or 6.9 Grendel is evidence of that. many soldiers complain that "i want the bad guy to go down when i shoot him", especially at longer ranges."

i never understood why the .223/5.56 that is not acceptable to most fish and game depts for the taking of big game, is acceptable by the military for use in combat...

i think many that hearld the .223/5.56 as a great combat round have not wittnessed first hand what the .30 caliber class of combat weapons are capable of. and yes, i believe the .223/5.56 has a limited role in combat as a very close range (less than 100 yds) cartridge.

and yes, i own a .223/5.56 kel-tec carbine...a very fine, accurate SHORT range carbine.

go to snipercountry.com and read early reports of the .223/5.56 tests by the USMC; it's eye opening.

Retro · Post by **Retro** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:10 pm

donw wrote: i never understood why the .223/5.56 that is not acceptable to most fish and game depts for the taking of big game, is acceptable by the military for use in combat... :roll: :?

Eeeeeen my opinion (insert disclaimers, etc).

I've been reading Cooper's Commentaries again. And he does so harp on about the fact (which I agree with) that the 223 and 9mm are wimpy rounds. He also harps on about the (lack of) quality of the "grunts these days", basically.

He never made the connection.

If you have an army of wimps, you only need a flesh wound to terminate.

Colonel Cooper figured that you had to kill your enemy. Which was the truth, in his day. But I want to advance the opinion (and no more than that) that more ammo can mean more flesh wounds, which in this day and age may just be enough.

You wanna give the Colonel a flesh wound, you live (not for long) with the consequences. But, the Colonel is no more.

So... shoot me down :evil:

donw · Post by **donw** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:39 pm

i was trained to place a .30 cal bullet in the "center of mass, preferably at the third button down in the chest" to 'neutralize' the 'target'. if it terminated the target, be it so.

the concept was that it takes 2 healthy soldiers to care for one wounded.

we did not enter a fight/attack/ambush with the intentions of wounding our enemy. killing him was the only SURE way to stop him now and in the future. wounded soldiers do recover. many recover to fight again.

at least that's the way the army i was in trained me. (that's the army of the early 1960's)

Retro wrote:
donw wrote: i never understood why the .223/5.56 that is not acceptable to most fish and game depts for the taking of big game, is acceptable by the military for use in combat...
Eeeeeen my opinion (insert disclaimers, etc).

I've been reading Cooper's Commentaries again. And he does so harp on about the fact (which I agree with) that the 223 and 9mm are wimpy rounds. He also harps on about the (lack of) quality of the "grunts these days", basically.

He never made the connection.

If you have an army of wimps, you only need a flesh wound to terminate.

Colonel Cooper figured that you had to kill your enemy. Which was the truth, in his day. But I want to advance the opinion (and no more than that) that more ammo can mean more flesh wounds, which in this day and age may just be enough.

You wanna give the Colonel a flesh wound, you live (not for long) with the consequences. But, the Colonel is no more.

So... shoot me down

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:22 pm

around Christmas we were worrying about the lead ban, I was thinking about making bullets out of fruitcake.

Denser than lead, but too difficult to work with.

Hawkeye78 · Post by **Hawkeye78** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:59 pm

Talked with a few folks back from deployments

It is my understanding that most Marines units and more than a few Army units are requesting M-14's for issuance in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that the M-16 in its present configuration is not getting the job done. In close combat the high velocity the 223 is working fine, breaking up and tumbling after penetration. In a fire fight at distance of 100 yards plus, the 223 is letting them walk away after getting hit.
Marines don't like it.

I have not heard directly if the requests are being granted, but If I were over there, I would ask for a care package from home with the proper ammo and weapon.

The reason that we as a nation got away from the 06/45 rounds is NATO wanting to Standardize ammo. The 45 Colts were basically worn out after 50 + years of service so the Army figures that it was a good time to standardize since a massive purchase was about to be made.

This is the same mistake made in the early 1900's. The old Colt 45's were about worn out. The Army made a large order of 38's because they wanted to standardize with the Police revolver the civilian police forces were using.

The Army found out in the Phillipines that a charging Moro tribesman could kill you with a bolo after you had inflicted a fatal wound on him. They sent for the old Colt 45's which were practically worn out. They would stop them in their tracks.

The result was the development of the 1911 Colt ACP. A New effective pistol for a New Century. Worked out okay.

BTW, I think most European forces are going back to the .30 Nato round, Which is of course the .308 in US civilian terms. The 223 is going out of favor.

I don't think that the grunts are the problem but an old mistake that is finally recognized as a mistake. Maybe we will see a return to a time proven weapon, in a new frame.

Crazy Horse · Post by **Crazy Horse** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:54 pm

I have a friend who couldn't wait to tell be about the show that had the 50 BMG shooting into water. He said the 50 bmg bullet desintegrated in 18" of water. I told him I thought that was BS and offered to shoot mine into his pool from his rooftop to see if it was true. For some reason he never wanted to take me up on that! Ha! I guess he didn't trust myth busters that much! :>0

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:56 am

When I was a Boy Scout the shooting instructor told us that a 50 cal bullet would be stopped by 18" of water.

Mokwaw · Post by **Mokwaw** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:03 am

The last myth buster I saw, they were trying to re-create the late Gunnery Sgt. Hathcocks bullet thru the scope shot on an adversary. They were not using the same kind of scope that the Sgt. shot thru. They were using modern scope. They couldn't re-create the Sgt.s shot, and so much as called him a liar. I don't plan on watching any of their stuff again.

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:05 pm

[quotethe very fact the military is returning to the .45 and has elected to go to the 6.8 SPC or 6.9 Grendel is evidence of that. .[/quote]

The problem is that the military is NOT going to the 6.8 or the .45. There is a small cult of people who think they know better than DoD and most of the world's military agencies what is the best compromise (all choices are compromises) for military weapons. They get everyone all worked up while they try to convert others to their way of thinking. Fortunately, they are not the ones making the final decision.

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:22 pm

Hawkeye78 wrote: In close combat the high velocity the 223 is working fine, breaking up and tumbling after penetration. In a fire fight at distance of 100 yards plus, the 223 is letting them walk away after getting hit. Marines don't like it..

Of course if one shoots at an enemy and he walks away it is always more convenient to blame it on the equipment than to concede that one didn't score a good hiot to begin with.

.[/quote]The reason that we as a nation got away from the 06/45 rounds is NATO wanting to Standardize ammo..[/quote]

Hogwash. Wed adopted the the 5.56 first over the objections of NATO nations whic then had to change their equipment in order to be compatible with us.

.[/quote]This is the same mistake made in the early 1900's. The old Colt 45's were about worn out. The Army made a large order of 38's because they wanted to standardize with the Police revolver the civilian police forces were using..[/quote]

More Hogwash. The army did not drop the .45 Colts because they were 'worn out'. These were the same weapons reissued when the Army changed from the .38. Furthermore in those days many police were still armed with .32 revolvers, not .38's.

The old .45's did not stop them in their tracks. It was conceded at the time that the .45 was used because it was better than the .38 Colt and because it was the largest handgun caliber available at the time. The board responsible for conducting tests also conceded that NO handgun had reliable 'stopping power'. Even the .30 Army rifle caliber could not reliably stop suicidal fanatics launcing attacks from arm's length distances.

Where do you get the idea that most European forces are going back to the .30 calibers? It will be BIG news to them.

The solution is not necessarily new weapons, it is new tactics. Relatively few of the casualties/fatalities in Irag would be affected by any change of weapons because they are not the result of firefights. They are the victims of explosives. A .30 caliber rifle will not deter an IED any better than will a 5.56 and for practical purposes all military handguns are useless aginst vehicles, heavy cover, or protective vests.

The future lies with longer ranged and more accurate heavy weapons and the political freedom to use them.

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:02 pm

I just can't find it in me to sit through an entire hour of those characters! That show is about as lame as they come.

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:09 am

Grizz wrote:On the Military channel last night was a piece about machine guns, starting with gatlings.

When they got to the part about the Thompsons they flatly stated that the bigger bullet, even though it moved slower than the nines, was the better penetrator and man stopper. This was known that long ago.

A big heavy bullet can move slowly and do much more damage on the business end than some of the smaller bullets that are moving at high velocity. That's why I'm working on a 405g .44 handgun load. It's the cat's, uh, OW!

Interesting that was known then. It makes the military move away from .45s all the more perplexing.

They had a sheriff on the bit about Thompsons and he carries one in his patrol car as his duty gun. He flatly said that it's a much better gun than the .223s, and that's why he keeps the Thompson beside him.

Pretty interesting, eh?

Grizz

Pretty interesting except the part about the penetration is not correct.

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:17 am

The original military water penetration tests of the .30-06 and .50 BMG were done firing at 60-75 degree angles from the vertical. The objective was to se how far underwater a man in the water would need to dive to be reasonably safe from strafing.

IIRC it was about 3 feet for the .30-06 and 5-6 feet for the Browning BMG.

All spitzer bullets will yaw wildly in water, often causing the breakup of even the FMJ[/u]

k8bor · Post by **k8bor** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:18 am

DonW,

The Marine Corps of the early 60's taught me the same way. Thank goodness they only got the 16's about two weeks before I left the Nam. I can't see any good for a combat rifle that won't shoot through a decent wall or a 4" log.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:35 am

Mokwaw wrote:The last myth buster I saw, they were trying to re-create the late Gunnery Sgt. Hathcocks bullet thru the scope shot on an adversary. They were not using the same kind of scope that the Sgt. shot thru. They were using modern scope. They couldn't re-create the Sgt.s shot, and so much as called him a liar. I don't plan on watching any of their stuff again.

They had a secondary show on the subject, where they went over some of the letters they received on the subject and basically recanted their "de-bunked" finding to "plausible". Apparently they couldn't find a suitable scope or didn't feel the re-recreating was necessary.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:44 pm

Sixgun wrote:I would like someone here to explain this. On mythbusters the other night, they were shooting bullets in the water. (another old show) The bullets were breaking up in the water and only fragments were left. I can understand hollowpoints and even soft points breaking up but when they fired a FMJ 50 BMG in the water and the bullet fell apart, I could not and will not believe it.---Where's the BS here?-----------------Sixgun

Wasn't there a thread a ways back on "Guess how many jugs of water a .50 BMG will penetrate?" and a .45-70 penetrated ten or twelve, but the BMG stopped in number five (again at very close range)...

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:13 pm

Mythbusters is ony "pro gun" inasmuch as they are "Pro Big Bang" guys with no firearms experience/practical knowledge.

They like their loud noises, so thye like Guns.

Simple as that.

Much of what they do to "bust" varoious weapons-based lore is faultuy (see cutting a sword with a sword...)

Ice bullets

Ice bullets

30 cal vs. 223

Re: 30 cal vs. 223