# bullets underwater

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullets-underwater/245067>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [May 14, 2004, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullets-underwater/245067 "2004-05-14T03:57:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\
**Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullets-underwater/245067/21 "2004-05-15T02:10:22Z")

</div>

> [@peculiar hailstone](#):
>
> I’ve seen those cop shows and movies where they fire into water to get a new slug for ballistics, so I’m assuming water slows it right down to nothing pretty quick.

I’ve been in the RCMP crime lab and saw a demonstration of one of those water tanks. It was about 4.5 ft deep and about 8-10 ft long. The technician fired the gun into the water at an angle and retrieved the bullet with tongs, pretty much intact (except I would agree with **duffer** about hollow-points - I would think they would expand due to the density of the water). The only markings on the bullet would be from the gun barrel. They didn’t have a separate tank for long guns, so I assume that the 8-10 ft length was enough to slow down a bullet fired from any gun.

> [@GilaB](#):
>
> The New York Times had this article earlier this week about the sport of fish-shooting in Vermont

The Teeming Millions are also discussing this sport: [Okay, Vermonters, get your asses in here and explain](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=255667&highlight=vermonters)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![peculiar\_hailstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/46a35a/32.png) [@peculiar\_hailstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peculiar_hailstone)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullets-underwater/245067/22 "2004-05-16T07:44:08Z")

</div>

Yeah, Graham Greene is pretty convincing on cable access channels about forensic science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullets-underwater/245067/23 "2004-05-16T15:44:09Z")

</div>

> [@Crafter\_Man](#):
>
> FYI, [this](http://www.amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html#sound) page says sound doesn’t travel better through liquid when compared to air.

It is true that the cite you mention says that. But that is a misleading statement when applied to the whole article. It also says that sound travels faster and louder through water but not better. It explains how the sound waves are more compact in a solid media as opposed to air…and most importantly from your cite.

> [@](#):
>
> It is true that their transparency is not exactly the same, but this only is important when sound travels a relatively great distance through each material.

No offense intended **C/M** but I had to know. I can hear a quiet tap on the bottom or side of a swimming pool from a long way. 🙂

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullets-underwater/245067.md?page=1)