Man Shoots At Himself Underwater

I am not really sure what the point of this was. Mythbusters debunked this a while ago and proved that bullets fired into water and fired under water do not have the energy to cause damage.

However it is still interesting to watch. Andreas Wahl uses what appears to be a Sig Sauer 551 under water and stands in front of it as he pulls a string to fire the weapon at himself.


For a more interesting and educational video, check out Dustin of SmarterEveryDay. He fires an AK47  underwater and then explains what is happening. Very cool and much more scientific than standing in front of a gun and shooting yourself.

Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at


  • AK47 pistol? No such thing

    • Grijnwaald

      “Pistol” a rather loose term nowadays

    • kyphe

      Gun Control Act Definitions


      18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11

      The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally
      designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or
      more barrels when held in one hand, and having:

      a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);

      and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).


      Where it says originally intended this means it has to fit the requirements of a pistol from the factory rather than an after market modification.

      Obviously there is a debate on if any AK type pistol could still genuinely be referred to as AK47 I guess that they answer could be yes if you can form 1 it to turn it back to a shoulder stock configuration SBR.

      • Paul Epstein

        In a very strict technical sense, i.e. nitpicking, no Avtomat Kalashnikov model of 1947 were ever manufactured as a pistol. Very few of that specific model of rifle actually exist in private hands at all, anywhere in the world. Even saying that a US legal term pistol based on the Kalashnikov action is an ‘AK’ is a bit off because it isn’t select fire like any AK model produced.

        What people who know guns *understand* you mean if you say AK47 Pistol or AK Pistol is that it is a short gun visually reminiscent and has an action based on the AK 47 or AK. If you were to say AK 47 Style Pistol, or AK Style Pistol, that’s both technically correct, as they are in that style and are a pistol, and also commonly understood. Or you could call it a Krinkov, since that doesn’t actually mean anything in particular and so can’t be wrong.

        • Zugunder

          I would agree with you. Anithing with word “avtomat” in its name, is not a pistol by definition.

          • LCON

            * Emperors voice * Yes,,, Yes,,, Let the Hate Flow through you….

          • Zugunder

            Why? No hate, just stating facts.

        • iksnilol

          Sweet Buttery Jesus, just because it doesn´t have the full auto parts doesn´t make it an “AK that isn´t really an AK”.

          • ostiariusalpha

            I can’t help it, every time you trot out Sweet Buttery Jesus (عليه البازلاء – peas be upon him) I just do a snort laugh.

          • iksnilol

            It started out as a joke and now has become a part of my vocabulary.

            I like it 😛

          • Paul Epstein

            What is an “AK”? Because most of the world, the vast majority, has in mind a Russian military designation for a series of select fire rifles, and probably assume that any gun which looks like one has the ability to fire on fully automatic. They’d mostly be right. Every weapon which is LITERALLY an AK is select fire, the rest are imitations.

            What the small segment of gun owners familiar with the US AK style guns *understand* you mean is not what is meant either literally or in the understanding of most of the world. Sweet buttery Jesus cannot save you from the cold hard facts of very carefully worded technically correct truth.

            Although in my defense, I did say I was just nitpicking for it’s own sake at the very beginning. I’m not actually insisting anyone stop using the term.

          • iksnilol

            It uses the same mechanism, same furniture, same magazines, same ammo, same trigger, only difference is the supplied trigger is not full auto. So, yes, it is an AK in spite of your nitpicking.

          • Paul Epstein

            AK is a model designation for Russian rifles- AK 47, AKM, AK 74, etc.

            Your semiautomatic trigger- and more importantly, the receiver which lacks the pinholes for full auto fire as made necessary to by the BATF, were not issued as part of any AK model in existence. You literally cannot find a weapon which is an AK-whatever which matches yours, they’ve never made one. Someone inspired by Kalashnikov made yours based on a different set of plans, and yours is not Avtomat either. It’s not Avtomat, it’s not Kalashnikov’s design, it does not have the official model name AK-something.

            Again, it is understood what you mean when you say it. But what you mean is NOT that you have a model of rifle designation AK of any kind, what you mean is that you have a rifle, or pistol, which is a DERIVATIVE of those designs and has NEVER been issued in that state as an official model.

            M4 carbine is a similar official military designation. No one with two brain cells rattling around pretends that an AR-15 without the giggle switch *actually is* an M4, it just *looks* like one. Your ‘AK’ is exactly the same situation. You would call anyone who thought it was an *actual* AK, as issued, a moron because yours IS different in a way that is important to keeping your ass out of jail.

          • iksnilol

            Eh, my AK is an actual AKM. Giggle switch and all (also some sweet purple DDR furniture). Still, a semi auto AK is still an AK.

            Now if it used a different operating system (IE tilting bolt, or DI gas system) or was in any other way incompatible with AK parts I’d see your argument.

          • buzzman1

            They also havent made AK-47s since around 1953. Its a AKM style pistol.

          • guest

            Technically and “per factory designations” you are dead wrong. The AK abbreviation stands for Avtomat Kalashnikova, which roughly translates to Kalasnikov Assault rifle (though “avtomat” is a separate, unique term that does not translate to english directly).

            Hence every the entire AK series assault rifles is named AK-XX, or other variations with more or less digits. Civilian products from Koncern Kalasnikova are named otherwise like Saiga or from competitors like Vepr etc.
            There exists NO rifle, shotgun etc from Kalashnikov/Izhevsk that is civilian and has “AK” in the name, because obviously they produce no “civilian” select fire assault rifles.

            That the name “AK” is universally used as a default reference to an actual AK, an AK clone or a civilian weapon based on some or other real AK does not make them assault rifles, or actual Kalashnikov products.

            I know I am splitting hairs here, but this is the truth.

      • I am going by the British and European definition which is a firearm of with a barrel of less than 30 cm or an overall length of 60cm

      • guest

        A pistol is a pistol. Not a chopped rifle.
        Also a “pistol brace” is in most cases a legal loophole buttstock.

        There exist two worlds: the world of firearms technical terminology which is accepted worldwide with minor variations, then there is the snakey lawyery terminology that is almost completely bogus and varies so much country to country as much as traditional dishes do.

  • Major Tom

    Good thing he didn’t use a Russian APS/ADS rifle…

  • iksnilol

    >TFW you can’t even shoot yourself properly.

  • SP mclaughlin

    I believe that is an SG551. Which makes me extremely jelly of not being Swiss.

  • GhostTrain81

    Just a PSA that Darwin awards can be issued, even when said act or experiment is done in the name of science.

    • nova3930

      Physics is not just a suggestion, it’s the law, but this is still #$(*&#$ stupid….

    • Bill

      Hey, they used a scale, so it’s gotta be legitimate science.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Swiss YMCA’s have very liberal pool rules.

    • G0rdon_Fr33man

      That is a Norwegian program and thus, a pool in Norway 😛 I did hear that the Swiss does in fact swim in Sigs though…

    • Bill

      I’m guessing if shooting a gun in the pool is fine, peeing is no big deal and probably expected.

      • LarryNC

        I’d probably do worse than that if someone fired a rifle at me while I was in the pool!

  • Paul J

    Sig 551 not 556.

  • Bill

    The title is misleading: it should read “man tries to shoot himself underwater and misses,” or just “Man Shoots Water”

    • Nicholas Chen

      You assume he was successful. He technically did shoot himself.

      • JamesRPatrick

        With a camera.

    • Mikial

      “Man Shoots Water” might give people the wrong impression . . I mean, don’t all men shoot water. ‘Ba-dum dum . . Shssss!’

  • Frank_in_Spokane

    “Man Shoots At Himself Underwater”


    • Nicholas Chen

      Semantics. You assume he was successful at “shooting himself”

      • Frank_in_Spokane

        On the contrary: I know that he wasn’t successful.

        Words mean things. And he manifestly did not “shoot himself.” 😉

  • smartacus

    i dislike the whole “observe how i’m unafraid” undertone which is common in that part of Europe.

    It reminds me of the “look at how I don’t fear immigrants” social norm that has also won out in that part of Europe.

    • iksnilol

      Well, the show is called “med livet som innsats” could translate to “with life at stake”.

      They do “dangerous” stuff 😛

      • smartacus

        reminds me of that movie back in the 90’s portraying young men lying down in traffic right on the yellow line just to show how they can handle pressure.

  • Tassiebush

    You wouldn’t try this if Moses was hanging around

  • Sarig

    “I am not really sure what the point of this was. Mythbusters debunked
    this a while ago and proved that bullets fired into water and fired
    under water do not have the energy to cause damage.”

    Contrary to popular belief, Mythbusters is not freely available to all globally, so god forbid similar things happens in the name of science and education twice.

  • guest

    I hope stupid Hollywood and everyone else who is in the entertainment industry finally gets a reality check, so we don’t have to watch those idiotis scenes where people under water are shot at and bullets (regular, non-cavitating ones) whizz by as if they are in the air.

    • Core

      If the bullet is already traveling through the air when it impacts the water it can still travel a short distance at a high speed. Making it lethal to I think approx 7 feet depending on the caliber.

      • guest

        true, but most likely shorter than 7 feet and most definitely “all the way”, which is my whole point

  • RICH

    If that was a community pool would that be considered a …. mass shooting ? ? ?

  • Kivaari

    The AK underwater is great video. I don’t think I can do this at the county pool.

  • billinfl

    Since water is 800 times denser than air, it is no surprise the water stops the bullet after only a few feet of travel.

    • W Weeber

      You are on the right track, but well short of the actual situation. Even the superficial sophistication of the second vid fails to mention that water (like most fluids) is not compressible. A projectile must move the water aside, mandating a relatively slow, very high SD bullet. Even more scary, a back-of-the-envelope calculation shows the weight of the water in, say, a .223 or 7.62 16″ barrel is more than twice the weight of a typical bullet. WHOA! Any competent reloader can tell you what happens when there is a mass like that ahead of a powder charge intended for a standard bullet. Also unmentioned is that the very low bullet damage is due to the very low exit velocity. All-in-all, the danger is for anyone beside or behind such a test. It is a credit to these particular weapons that they survived.

      Personally, I’d be more interested in a critical examination of the fired cases…Any guess how much pressure they show? Another interesting, and complicated, phenomenon is that not only is there “bubble bounce”, but the water is very rapidly condensing the exhaust gases. Fun! Fun! Fun!

  • buzzman1

    This is a non story. Its well known that bullets dont travel very far in water and thats why bang sticks ere invented. How many test shots did he fire to see how far he had to be to be in ZERO danger.

  • gregge

    Mythbusters did not have the guns they tested under water. They fired bullets into water from above the surface. Quite a large difference.

    Their first test involved building a 10 foot tall, clear plastic tank with a block of ballistic gel at the bottom. A jacketed round nose 9mm penetrated the full depth of the water and the gel.

    The second test was with (IIRC) a shotgun slug. That test failed due to the shockwave in the narrow tank splitting its corners.

    So to get more length of water to shoot into, they used a swimming pool, and tested various ammunition up to .50 BMG.

    The results were that subsonic, non-expanding bullets could cause injury or death up to several feet, but any supersonic round they tested would break up in 2 feet or less.

    They didn’t test oddball rounds like solid brass or bronze ‘monolithic’ big game bullets.

    Starting with the gun under water with the barrel full of water gives the bullets no chance to accelerate.

  • James Kelly

    Barrel full of water. doesn’t that stress it a lot? I.e., how come it did not burst?
    Like mud or snow in end of shotgun bbl.

    • iksnilol

      Works if the barrel is completely submerged or completely dry. The problems arise when it is partially full with water.

  • Fool_Killer

    They leave out one “minor” point.
    The force lost by the bullet to the water is proportional to HOW MUCH water it passes through…

    • Just my .02

      …so you’re saying, the bigger the pool, the slower the bullet?

  • Jeremy Nettles

    The man’s name is Destin, not Dustin!

    That is all.

  • Cattoo

    Try that six feet closer and then I’d be apprehensive. For him any way because no thanks. I ain’t doin it. I don’t need help doing dumb things. I’ve had enough practice in that department.

  • bobfairlane

    It would suck if he pulled the string, and the rifle shot a hole in the bottom of the pool, or out of the water into the ceiling.

  • bobfairlane

    Did the barrel hold up? That looks like it might stress the barrel out so it blows up later.