Skip to comments.Mythbusters: Shooting Holes in a Floor
Posted on 10/21/2012 8:27:56 PM PDT by Altariel
The Mythbusters test the myth from the movie Underworld where Kate Beckinsale shoots her way through the floor. Enjoy.
I will watch the video at home, but I assume the floor would probably give way in a messy way, with a 50% chance of you hanging by the floorboards long before you had a chance to complete a nice and neat circle.
This episode was brought to you by the American Plywood Association
Dang it! I will have to devise another way to escape approaching werewolves.
The boys had better be careful about trash-talking Kate Beckinsale...
Next they’ll tell us there are no vampires or Lycans.
I see one problem being that she is on a concrete floor, considerably more brittle than plywood, which has a lot of flexibility.
She was shooting two Walther P99’s, most likely with .40 S&W rounds, and if you look carefully at the floor she was standing on, it was a dual layered, not reinforced concrete, about 3/4” with a gap between the layers.
Her real problem, however, is that she was supposedly using silver nitrate bullets against the werewolves. Hardened steel bullets would be much better against concrete.
I wouldn’t trust that bunch with a loaded bee-bee gun. I’ve seen too many glaring errors concerning history in general and guns in particular. They spend a great deal of money fumbling to the wrong conclusions. I’m just happy it’s media money.
And you know they know nothing about guns by calling magazines “clips”.
Then they don’t realize how many bullets are coming out per second and slowly move the weapon, using more bullets than necessary.
Still, it was a Hollywood effect in the movie and realistically you aren’t going to be able to perform as well as Kate Beckingsale who is unbelievably hittable in that outfit.
Anyone who looks THAT nice in a shiny rubber body suit is going to have a lot of defenders...
That’s crazy talk.
Total ignorance for knowing what is beyond your target. yeah, yeah, Hollywierd, still bullsqueeze..........
Case in point: The experiment they did where they tried to replicate the 'bullet through the scope' shot that Marine Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock did in Viet Nam. The Myth Busters guys 'busted' it. Why? Because in every single experiment they did, the bullet would hit the scope dead-on but would get deflected by the multiple layers of lenses inside the scope. Not a single bullet made it through a scope. Thus - busted! The problem is that they were using modern scopes. The scope the Cobra (the enemy sniper Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock shot through the scope) was using a simple Soviet made scope made in the 50s/60s that had between 2-3 lenses. Not the modern day multi-lens scopes. I watched a Nat Geo documentary called 'Sniper' in which they went through the list of some of the more accomplished Western snipers, and tried to replicate the shots. They used actual military snipers (a couple of Marine Corps snipers and one Navy SEAL ...not two Myth Busters geeks), and went through the various scenarios that were experienced by the snipers shown in the show. These snipers included Marine Corps Sergeant Chuck Mawhinny (highest kill record of an American sniper at 103 confirmed and 216 probable in Viet Nam), several Marine Corps snipers who distinguished themselves in the Iraq War, a Canadian sniper who to date has the longest ever kill shot (at 1.5 miles in Afghanistan), and, of course, Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock. They managed to replicate the Hathcock shot using a scope similar to that used by the NVA over 40 years ago in Viet Nam.
The Myth Busters guys, on the other hand, simply stuck a modern WalMart scope, and when it wouldn't work they called it a busted myth.
Now, it may seem I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, but the way it looks like to me is that they called Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock a liar. Just because they were unable to replicate the shot doesn't mean it did not happen, and the fact that they tried to replicate it by using a modern scope as the target (rather than the far simpler scopes of the era that had few lenses) means they did not use proper scientific method.
I love the show, but there are several experiments they have done that have simply been set up wrong. However, there is only one episode that got me angry, and it was that one. Calling the accomplishments of a distinguished military man who risked his life on many occasions, and for that matter, calling a confirmed kill a myth, is not proper.
Rant off (and sorry for diverging from the main topic).
I quit watching them guys years ago anyway when it became a show with more than just the pair of them mythbusting.
After much viewer mail registering complaints, the MBs replicated the test (using scopes from the Vietnam era) in a later episode and called the possibility plausible thus rejecting their first assessment of the myth as busted.
Thanks D2. I haven’t watched the re-test episode yet. Just the original episode. I’ll look for it on YouTube. Thanks.
I remember reading my dad's American Rifleman magazines, in the 50's, and a constant were the monthly warnings about using modern nitro powder shot shells in grand dad's Damascus barreled side-by-side. Somehow the "Damascus barrel" fact slipped right by them, didn't ruffle their missing hair.
Another was the Robin Hood split an arrow with an arrow one. You don't suppose that splitting a modern machine turned dowel with the wood grain running at a random angle to the arrow shaft might be different than a shaft that was fashioned by pulling a seasoned straight split through a beveled hole in an iron plate? (A standard pre-Machine Age method of dowel making. Tree nails, wooden dowels used to build wooden hulled ships, were mass produced the same way.)
That's the problem with these Libs. they aren't nearly as bright as they think, or brag, they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.