Shotmaster
Contributor
This shows a the 7.62x39, it makes a more gas. Plus this guy explains a few things well.
Seaway Aqua Craft Bangstick and Ammo
- Thread starter wrkdvrjim
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Rred
Contributor
Guns underwater: This is why Capt. Nemo used electric guns instead.(G)
The AK47 is similar to the AR15 (M16) in that the 223 cartridge was actually designed to wound, not kill. Army logic was that if you kill one enemy, you have removed one enemy from combat. But if you WOUND him, it takes two more soldiers to rescue him & carry him off to an aide station, so you've taken out three combatants instead of just one. (That's one reason why the .308 was chosen in so much else of the world, to outright kill.) And both, as the last video showed, use gas recoil and vent systems, so they are not putting 100% of the gas out the barrel. Then there's all the rocket science happening within the barrel...I wouldn't place any bets.
The other videos frankly are upsetting. What type of alleged bangstick was that POS? I wonder what the maker would have to say about the ah, lackluster results?
I feel like Marvin the Martian, saying "It was supposed to go BOOM!"
The AK47 is similar to the AR15 (M16) in that the 223 cartridge was actually designed to wound, not kill. Army logic was that if you kill one enemy, you have removed one enemy from combat. But if you WOUND him, it takes two more soldiers to rescue him & carry him off to an aide station, so you've taken out three combatants instead of just one. (That's one reason why the .308 was chosen in so much else of the world, to outright kill.) And both, as the last video showed, use gas recoil and vent systems, so they are not putting 100% of the gas out the barrel. Then there's all the rocket science happening within the barrel...I wouldn't place any bets.
The other videos frankly are upsetting. What type of alleged bangstick was that POS? I wonder what the maker would have to say about the ah, lackluster results?
I feel like Marvin the Martian, saying "It was supposed to go BOOM!"
Shotmaster
Contributor
It's not the Bangstick it's the fact that projectile has no drag on it and is not contained in a breech/barrel long enough to burn the gunpowder and create a larger volume of gas. Also everyone is under the misconception that a powerful rifle cartridge (by conventional hunting/defense standards) should perform underwater in breech/barrel system that is at best a couple of inches long. Like I pointed out, even when fired from a rifle underwater the effective gas volume is dismal. You can see the volume of gas for the 7.62x39 is slightly larger than for the 5.56x45 when fired from standard rifles. This volume of gas is much larger and at higher pressure than from a powerhead. When a cartridge is detonated in a powerhead, once the initial pressure builds high enough to push the bullet from the brass case, the only resistance is from the water and the powder will burn at a slower rate and at greatly reduced pressure and generate less volume. You see this in the Bangstick videos, it just looks like a bunch of bubbles. In my opinion, the only people who actually properly analyzed this and then engineered a solution to meet the challenge was Seaway. The use of existing cartridges and powerheads were logical solutions by people who used misplaced logic. I saw a video that fired a .223 from a piece of pipe. It fired and it only penetrated one side of a gallon jug of water from a foot away. There was also unburned powder in the jug. The unburned powder is a clear indication that insufficient pressure is being generated.
People have been using powerheads for taking large fish for a long time. They generally make headshots and there is sufficient concussion and gas expansion for that purpose. However, Mr. Grey is a different beast. I don't trust that they will dispatch a shark reliably.
People have been using powerheads for taking large fish for a long time. They generally make headshots and there is sufficient concussion and gas expansion for that purpose. However, Mr. Grey is a different beast. I don't trust that they will dispatch a shark reliably.
Shotmaster
Contributor
I will leave this video here . It is a diver shooting large fish with a .357 powerhead.
Rred
Contributor
I think part of Seaway's design was the use of fast-burning "pistol" powder, not conventional rifle powder. For exactly those reasons, they need 100% burn "immediately if not sooner".
Ask IMR about their special bangstick powder.(G)
Ask IMR about their special bangstick powder.(G)
Do you still have this?
CuzzA
Wetwork for Hire
I think he uses two powerheads... one unloaded as he'd rather not kill a shark or lose a shaft. IIRC the third pass got a live round and it did not return again.
That's a lot of would be gas inside the head/gills of a fish.
Last edited:
Shotmaster
Contributor
You are right about that, except that powerheads don't produce the same amount of gas as a full length rifle barrel.
Take a look at the .357 fail video. The fish was still alive 3 weeks later. The .357 Magnum is considered a very powerful handgun cartridge and its ballistic performance is makes it a highly reliable man stopper. However, when fired from a powerhead, it does not develop the projectile velocity or high pressure gas that it does in standard length revolver barrels and neither do the rifle caliber cartridges. What I am saying is everyone is assuming that the powerhead should deliver similar performance and outcome as we get from actual firearms chambered for the same caliber cartridges, and I am saying that the physics are different, in both the actual way powerheads function and the needed performance to destroy a large predator reliably.
Here in Florida Great Whites are showing up on a regular basis. I don't have confidence that current powerheads deliver enough performance for small sharks, and definitely not the largest of them.
CuzzA
Wetwork for Hire
I think shot placement is equally if not more important than caliber. A well placed shot to the gills will send just about any shark packing. There's some other videos on YouTube showing how effective a 223 is on a shark, but they're too graphic for me to comfortably post on this board. I could PM you the link if you'd like.
As for a hell bent full size adult GW and given their hunting technique, I imagine you would already have been bit before you could load a PH. Caliber needed.... 50 BMG?
Shotmaster
Contributor
LOL! The .50 would do a far better job as far a PHs go, but the Seaway is the solution. I would agree that shot placement is important with current PHs, but In my case I was lucky to just hit the shark, you don't have time to carefully aim! I have looked for other videos without much luck, please PM me the links you found I would like to see them.
