Mythbusters - Best show on TV

[matrixman]

I think dANdeLION's post is confusing me now.

That's the one problem with Mythbusters - they tend to ignore some variables. Evidence: see the story about the sinking ship sucking people down. They say ships don't, but documents state that they do.

Well, the Mythbusters do their experiments because they want to test the truth of such documents. The old cliche "seeing is believing" rings true here, and I accept the results of their experiments for the most part. I'll agree that they sometimes fumble on the science and forget variables, but they fully admit they're not scientists (which is why you sometimes see them seeking a professional opinion on matters); and I give them credit for listening to viewer feedback and going back to tests they've done in previous episodes to see what they did right and what they did wrong.

Avatar, you seem almost worked up over the whole bullet-knocking-over-people myth. Why not write to the show and give 'em a piece of your mind?

I will definitely have to watch that episode again and see if I can spot the big flaw in their test setup. I'm not sure that I will, though, because I don't quite know what I'm looking for. That they failed to use a bazooka to shoot the dummy with, perhaps? No wonder it didn't get knocked over!

[matrixman]

This is for Avatar (and anyone else who is still interested in the whole bullet-blowing-away-a-person thing):

Okay, I finally caught that episode again and furiously scribbled down notes as I was watching.

First, I was wrong about the dummy used. Initially, they actually used a 180 lb. pig carcass. They built a rack and suspended the pig in it, but in such a way that the pig was finely balanced on its perch, so that any jostling movement would make the pig drop.

They shot the pig carcass at a range of 22 feet, which apparently is a distance that accounts for 70% of fatal shootings.

The weapons used were overseen by the chief firearms instructor of the San Francisco Police Dept. According to him, these are firearms found in most police arsenals.

First he fired an M4 using 9mm hollow point bullets: no movement from the pig. Then a Thomson submachine gun using .45 calibre bullets: still no movement. Then he went to a .44 Magnum with 240-grain bullets (the same calibre Dirty Harry uses) travelling at 1300 ft. per second: no movement. Then he went to an M16 (the one Rambo uses): no movement. Then they had three people fire their M16's continuously at the target: the pig still did not drop.

After a couple more different weapons (whose makes weren't specified), the police officer resorted to a massive deer slug fired from a shotgun. The pig finally dropped, but upon looking at the high speed footage of the shot, the Mythbusters did not think it was the bullet that directly caused the fall; rather, the bullet struck the hipbone of the pig, which caused the legs to splay, making the pig sufficiently unstable that it fell. But it was not blown backward.

Upon inspecting the pig carcass, they saw that a number of the bullets had passed through and had expended most of their energy in the hillside behind the target.

At this point, they took away the pig and put in their test dummy Buster and had him outfitted with a bullet-proof vest. This would force any bullets hitting him to expend all their energy on him instead of passing through.

The officer fired a 12-gauge shotgun at Buster. Buster fell, but he simply dropped down, like the pig, and was not blown backward. The Mythbusters felt that Buster moved maybe a couple of inches at best.

The officer agreed that the myth was busted, and indeed invoked Newton's Law that any action must have an equal and opposite reaction. If you could truly blow a person backward ten feet, then you yourself would be blown backward ten feet. And that would require one truly massive gun in the first place, far bigger than anything even Rambo could carry, heh.

[Avatar]

Thanks for the extra info MM. I'm certainly not disputing the "movie" myth of people being blown many feet backward when shot. Simply that slow heavy projectiles can knock animals over, a distinction that perhaps I did not make clear.

As I said though, it's merely a possibility, not a certainty. Perhaps what happens is similar to the single case of the slug knocking down the carcass, a combination of force, motion, equlibrium etc.

Would have been interesting if they'd tried other calibres on the dummy with the vest as well, or alternatively, ones that wouldn't fully penetrate the carcass.

Anyway, thanks again for the details, the effort is appreciated. (I wasn't that worked up BTW. )

--A

[kevinswatch]

Hey, this is an update to the "bullet blowing someone away" myth. They did their "myth update" episode today, where they re-do myths based on how much people complain about their methods online (hehe).

And the first one they re-did was the bullet myth. This time, they centered the weight of the dummy around the waist (instead of at the top of the head) and did it again (with bullet proof vest) and still the dummy didn't get blown away. They even tried it with a HUGE rifle. And I mean huge. I don't remember the calibre, but just take my word on it, the bullet this thing fired was huge. And when they fired this bullet at the dummy, it only flew backwards an inch or two. And the bullet did not penetrate the dummy and steel plate they put in front of it. So all of the energy of the bullet went into the dummy.-jay

[Half Hand]

Poor Poor Buster-although a kleenex box will not kill you in a car crash,my wife got a nasty knot on her head from a Blues Clues talking Mailbox toy when she T-boned a Saturn at 50mph-it knocked her out for a moment!Luckily a slight concusion,a dislocated thumb from the airbag exploding out of the steering wheel and a seatbelt burn were her only injuries.In a Ford Taurus v.s. Saturn collision you are far better off in the Taurus,it bent the saturn in half and put both occupants in the hospital for several days with cuts,bruises,a broken arm,and neck trauma-my wife was treated and released.(luckily it was not my wifes fault).

[Usivius]

Firstly I have to state that I have never seen Mythbusters, but it sounds interesting. My one comment to reading all these postings about the "bullets knocking people back" topic, is that there is one very necessary factor not taken in to account: a living organism. When we get hit by something, regardless of how hard, our body reacts to it because of sensitivities our living bodies have (touch, nerves, etc.). When a body gets shot, the whole system of our body screams out, and reacts violently as the brain overloads with various impulses.
Teller (of Penn & Teller fame) has a similar show I think, and they did something on the Kennedy assassination about his head blowing backwards... They tested it on a watermelon... gads! A watermelon! This cannot properly reflect the reactions of a living human body assaulted in such a violent manner! Just look at all thee documentary footage you have ever seen of execusions (Nazi's, Vietnam, etc.) and you will notice the body reacts in very weird ways. The head flies around in awkward ways and the body collapses...
I don't have all the proper scientific or medical terminology, but hopefully you catch my drift ...
My only point is that these experiments take away one of the most important elements: living tissue and nerve reaction to such violence...

[Avatar]

...flew backwards an inch or two.

Thanks for the update. Interesting choice of words High Lord.

I think that Usivius has a point there, and I'd just like to mention that calibre has little to do with bullet weight.

Bullets range from "light for calibre" to "heavy for calibre". for example, a .30-06's bullet weight can range from 110 grains to 220 grains, all in the same calibre.

To show the difference this can make, a 165gr bullet delivers around 50 foot-lbs per square inch more energy at the muzzel than a 150gr one does. (2,872 ft-lbs. (This is calibre is close to standard military rifle round BTW, although I have no idea what their bullet weight is. Or the load of their cartridges, which also makes a difference.)

All that said, I want to reiterate that I'm not talking about blowing anything back, not 10 feet, not even five feet. I'm talking about knocking over.

--A

[kevinswatch]

I'm talking about knocking over.

Heh, ok, I know what you guys are saying, but I just want to be clear that this isn't what the Mythbusters were trying to prove or disprove. They were simply trying to show if the whole movie style concept of "blowing someone away" with a gun is realistic. And from what I've seen from their tests, it isn't. They weren't trying to actively prove anything besides that.

And yeah, of course, it's hard to test something like this "perfectly". But give these guys a break, heh. That's what science and engineering is all about: devloping the best models that we can develop in order to understand how something works.-jay

[matrixman]

Thanks for the update, Jay! Obviously I missed that "myth update" episode. All I've been seeing so far are reruns. Harumph! Surely the new season has started already?

I acknowledge Usivius's points, and good points they are. But, as Jay says, that's getting away from the particular Hollywood myth that was being put to the test.

The Mythbusters don't seem to be winning much respect with this experiment. Does this mean that otherwise sensible people do believe quite truly that if they were to be shot, they'd go flying backwards ten or twenty feet? Hey, with that kind of real world physics, who needs the Matrix?

Anyway, I continue to be a faithful Mythbusters viewer (as much for the antics of the two hosts as for their experiments). Now if only there were some new episodes to watch...

[Avatar]

[They were simply trying to show if the whole movie style concept of "blowing someone away" with a gun is realistic. And from what I've seen from their tests, it isn't.

That, I'll certainly not dispute.

--A

[Usivius]

nor will I...