http://soldiersystems.net/2012/08/26/pnw-arms-introduces-supercavitating-underwater-bullets/
vid at link
If that could be fired out of a modern 7.62 (SCAR), with no modification, that would be fucking sick. The only problem you’d have would be protection from the blast underwater. I don’t know what state-of-the-art for OTB is these days, but I bet you’d need a full helmet of some kind if the muzzle pressure is the same as standard 7.62. Or maybe just a full-face with some serious ear protection, but then you’d have bone conductivity to worry about.
not made to shoot underwater, made to shoot into water…
It’s designed for use in maritime environments where you might want to engage submerged or partially submerged targets.
So freakin sharks with laser beams is a credible threat now…fml
Don’ be silly. Remember is the movie Quigley Down Under when Quigley waited until two badguys were lined up and killed them both with one bullet? I bet with these suckers, you could get six or eight at a time! You just have to wait until they are lined at the cafeteria. You do not even have to worry if some of them are carrying milk jugs of water!
Think, however how boring the underwater battle in the old James Bond movie would have been. Old 007 would have been able to shoot all of the badguy divers without leaving the yacht.
Not for threats but for recreational fishing.
Very impressive… take a look:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday14038morgan.pdf
Read the PDF.
eta: damn. Hard to believe, but damn.: •
Submerge sniper positions (12.7mm up to 5m depth is effective up to 1000m in air)
On a more serious note (no Quigley or 007 references) it appears that they have solved one of the previous problems with cavitiating projectiles.
It has been known for a long time that many cavitating projectiles tended to turn (generally upward) after entering water. I recently saw some super-slow motion that showed that the tail of the projectile dropped until it touched the water on the bottom of the cavitation bubble, steering it upward.
There does seem to be a bit of hype in the referenced presentation, though. In order for the projectile to travel very far underwater, the energy expended creating the cavitation bubble, which is pretty much the same as a temporary cavity, must be kept to a minimum. This runs counter to the claims of damage caused by the infamous “hydrostatic shock.”
In other words, it appears that there would be a small temporary cavity and little of the blunt force trauma seen in “rifle - like” terminal effects.
This is very impressive if their claims are true. Most people have no idea how limited conventional bullets are fired into water. I laugh at the movies when they show bullets “flying” through the water. Like in the beach assault scene in Saving Private Ryan that showed the guys under water being shot. Bullets typically glance off water if the angle is too shallow. If the angle is wide enough and the bullet makes it into water, it typically breaks apart. Sub-sonic rounds work better assuming FMJ but still very limited.
Yeah…I don’t know if I believe you can shoot a .50 round from a meter underwater and hit something smaller than a tank at 1000 meters. I’m always willing to be proven wrong, but this sounds like Stan Bulmer.
Firing out of water I think your biggest problem will be how the refraction angle changes your line of sight between water and air.
Fortunately I rememeber enough of my MCATs that n1sintheta1 = n2sintheta2. I can just do it in my head. Take that, laser-sharks!
Can you imagine the range cards for that? Oh my freakin’ head!