Movie Myths or Reality?

[Buddy Christ]

I was wondering about several things as of late, mostly about stuff from movies or TV shows. 

And while I was pondering, I asked myself: "Which of these things are only myths and which are real?"

There are probably more people like me, I can't be the only one

 

Here are some examples:

 

In many movies and cop shows you hear about the "poor man's silencer", meaning a pillow to silence a gunshot.

Would that work in reality? Or is it just a movie myth?

 

Would a silencer actually work on a revolver? Wouldn't the open design around the drum negate the effect of a silencer?

 

Does a silencer actually reduce the sound to a tiny "phew" instead of a less loud bang?

(Well, I saw a movie once where they really overdid the silencer thing with the only audible sound being the clicking of the working mechanisms in the gun  )

 

So, if you can shed some light on how the stuff really works, please share and ask your own questions about stuff in movies/shows that you are not sure about being real or myths.

 

PS: Yes, I know that you have to use sub-sonic ammo with a silencer because of the sonic boom, so let us assume that this kind of ammo is used in all above cases

[Nightmyste]

the pillow Works as for the normal silencers try searching for the info,

question remains though: why do you want to know?

[DoctaSax]

another one is magically determining whether the white powder is coke or smack by licking it

no way a real pro is gonna risk ingesting a substance that could be anything, or failing a random mandatory drug test as a result of it

[markdf]

Apparently even the best silencers can only reduce the sound of gunfire to something like slamming the door of a truck.

 

I'm interested in movie/tv myths too -- and honestly, I'd say that one of the most enjoyable sources of answers is Mythbusters. They examine an enormous number of hollywood myths -- and while not always completely scientific, the results are invariably entertaining. :-D

[Buddy Christ]

the pillow Works as for the normal silencers try searching for the info,

question remains though: why do you want to know?

 

Interesting to know that a pillow works as a silencer, is there any video or some other source about it? 

Oh and I was only asking about the silencer stuff because it just came up in an episode of Castle I was watching, which gave me the idea.

In no way was I asking because I was considerate about my neighbours

 

another one is magically determining whether the white powder is coke or smack by licking it

no way a real pro is gonna risk ingesting a substance that could be anything, or failing a random mandatory drug test as a result of it

 

Cop #1: Is this Cocaine or something else?

Cop #2: *licks, shakes and drops to the floor*

Cop #1: Nope, not Cocaine but Cynanide, as this pocket test shows.....

Cop #2: *writhing on the floor and dies*

 

Apparently even the best silencers can only reduce the sound of gunfire to something like slamming the door of a truck.

 

I'm interested in movie/tv myths too -- and honestly, I'd say that one of the most enjoyable sources of answers is Mythbusters. They examine an enormous number of hollywood myths -- and while not always completely scientific, the results are invariably entertaining. :-D

 

Well, I did watch Mythbusters up to Season 10 and while I like the whole "the Myth is busted, now let us re-create it" thing and all the huge explody stuff, I wanted to see if other people are like me and wonder, while sharing their answers and asking questions as well

[Chaos63]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU

[AKM]

Re: Silencers, I can't say from personal experience, but it makes sense to me some of the things I've been told.  Chief among these is:

 

You can quiet the round by making it subsonic (it's passing of the sound barrier of a supersonic bullet that makes the loud "CRACK!" that you associate with most gunfire) and filtering the escaping gasses through baffles in the silencer mechanism (usually looks like a big barrel on the end of the rifle/handgun), but you'll still have the much louder sound coming from the cycling of the bolt mechanism which loads the next round into the chamber.  During Vietnam, the US Navy developed the Mk 22 "Hush puppy" specifically to silence guard dogs.  Despite the fact that the SEALs ran far more often into guard geese, they did have the capability to lock the slide on the Mk 22 making it very quiet indeed, yet in effect a single shot weapon until you unlocked and cycled the slide.

 

The Hush puppy had "wipes" which were the baffle "walls" inside the silencer.  Think disk with a hole in the middle for the bullet to pass through.  They didn't last to terribly long, and had to be replaced after not to many shots as the heat of the passing bullets tended to break down the compound they were made of, thus allowing more gasses to escape faster and make the weapon louder.

 

http://www.guns.com/2013/02/04/mk-22-hush-puppy-pistol/

[Buddy Christ]

I read about people crafting silencers with a metal tube and steel wool, leaving a gap in the middle for the bullet. I am not sure if that would work, though.

In one movie Steven Segal (sorry, his movies are a guilty pleasure ) used a plastic soda bottle as a silencer. It only worked for one shot though and it was unrealistic

because he didn't have subsonic ammo. But it was fun, nontheless ^^

 

 

 

[FetishSergal]

Do silencers require to be changed every now and then? Do they experience wear and tear? What would happen if you burn an ak47 with a silencer?

[Redflyingmonkey]

I'm always asking myself if cars really explode once they barrel around enough. Does the gasoline in the tank even explode to begin with ? I'd understand flames, but explosions ? 

 

[NewIdol]

To produce an explosion a specific amount of oxygen, fuel and spark (or fire) is needed, gas tanks of cars have almost completely filled with gas gasoline and reduced space, so really in a tank of gasoline is extremely difficult to get the ideal conditions for an explosion.

 

In movies always some explosive is used to generate the explosion and small containers with gasoline to obtain the effect of huge flames and not only destruction.

 

https://youtu.be/jFXw0cDC-A4 2 explosions in the same car.

 

I can´t find the experiment the gas tank that set fire to see if it explodes 

[Guest Comrade DR. MAHUJ DIK]

It can, but only in certain conditions, if the gasoline is under high pressure inside the tank its easy to ignite it and the pressure will make it go boom.

gasoline under high pressure: extremely flamable and explosive (shockwave explosion)

Gasoline after started to become a gas (yes gasoline can become a gas in contact with oxigen): highly flamable

A shitload of gasoline stored togeter: giant fireball of death,fun and happiness(not if youre caught in the fire),it nmakes a burningmushroom but not a explosion.

Im a bit of a pyromaniac and play with firecrackers, fireworks, explosives and flamable stuff since I was a kid, so I know this stuff and safetgy measurements.

The big boom in old movies were chemical explosives, behind or under whats blowing,sadly nowadays most of it is fake,made in a computer (yes I can tell the difference)

[Redflyingmonkey]

Well I do know directors use devices to make their cars go boom in their movies, I mean it's pretty obvious, what I was wondering about was whether a real car in real life would explode under the same circumstances. I see it's an unlikely scenario though from what you guys are telling me. I saw an accident once when I was a kid, pretty gruesome, on the highway and all that. The car in front of ours went sideways and caught the slope on the border, and literally flew over another car, rolled around and glided for a hundred meters upside down. My dad parked to phone to the police/ambulance whatever, and other people tried to get close to the car. Then flames started spawning from the rear, like huge red flames, no one went near and I'm assuming they were afraid that the car would explode. Of course the guy died, even though my dad kept telling me the contrary, since I was a kid and all that. I keep thinking now that I'm older if people around watching the dude burn weren't under the assumption that cars irrevocably explode when flames appear, because precisely of movies. Maybe the dude could've been easily rescued before the fire spread to the whole car... 

 

[Buddy Christ]

Regarding exploding cars, I still remember reading about the Ford Pinto and that it easily burst into flames or exploded, when rear ended.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0J0rcJTLo

 

But normally, cars do not just explode when they catch fire. The gas tank or gas lines have to rupture and fuel has to leak out. And even then, if the air/gas mix is not right, it will not explode. As I understood it, it is not the fuel itself burning, but the fumes above it. If the fuel tank is still closed in a burning car, the fuel will vaporize inside the tank, building up pressure. Normally this pressure will be released trough the cap if it gets to high, because the seal in the cap can't hold it anymore. (Not sure if newer cars now have some kind of failsafe to release the pressure in another way.) So normally you would see flames spewing from the cap, but due to the pressure, they won't enter the tank.

 

And you can even through a lit cigarette into a puddle of fuel and it will go out instead of starting a fire.

 

[Guest Comrade DR. MAHUJ DIK]

Regarding exploding cars, I still remember reading about the Ford Pinto and that it easily burst into flames or exploded, when rear ended.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0J0rcJTLo

 

But normally, cars do not just explode when they catch fire. The gas tank or gas lines have to rupture and fuel has to leak out. And even then, if the air/gas mix is not right, it will not explode. As I understood it, it is not the fuel itself burning, but the fumes above it. If the fuel tank is still closed in a burning car, the fuel will vaporize inside the tank, building up pressure. Normally this pressure will be released trough the cap if it gets to high, because the seal in the cap can't hold it anymore. (Not sure if newer cars now have some kind of failsafe to release the pressure in another way.) So normally you would see flames spewing from the cap, but due to the pressure, they won't enter the tank.

 

And you can even through a lit cigarette into a puddle of fuel and it will go out instead of starting a fire.

 

Yes youre right, the famous hollywood explosions arecaused because by high air presure that create a shockwave.

And no, cars dont explode unless you had something that explode inside, gasoline is highly flamable but not explosive, unless you force the pressure to get high.

[AKM]

 

Re: cars and flames

 

The idea that the bystanders were afraid of what might happen and thought of movies as a probability, not just a possibility, is entirely likely.  Another factor to consider is that fear of fire is one of the most basic fears of most humans, a bit like fear of water.  No telling what might have happened had someone or several someones done something, anything.  It all depends on the individual situation.  Break a window to get to the guy and provide oxygen to the fire that it didn't have: POOF! Instant inferno (this would require an airtight, or mostly so, vehicle to begin with; highly unlikely).  Or, break the glass and nothing happens, or not break the glass and the guy can't get out and dies anyway.  Unfortunately, in the end, most people go for self preservation over helping others in obvious need of said help.  Of course, do the wrong thing for the right reasons through ignorance and end up causing harm... in today's world that would likely lead to a lawsuit.  Just another reason not to get involved.  Piss poor situation all around.

[Buddy Christ]

 

The idea that the bystanders were afraid of what might happen and thought of movies as a probability, not just a possibility, is entirely likely.  Another factor to consider is that fear of fire is one of the most basic fears of most humans, a bit like fear of water.  No telling what might have happened had someone or several someones done something, anything.  It all depends on the individual situation.  Break a window to get to the guy and provide oxygen to the fire that it didn't have: POOF! Instant inferno (this would require an airtight, or mostly so, vehicle to begin with; highly unlikely).  Or, break the glass and nothing happens, or not break the glass and the guy can't get out and dies anyway.  Unfortunately, in the end, most people go for self preservation over helping others in obvious need of said help.  Of course, do the wrong thing for the right reasons through ignorance and end up causing harm... in today's world that would likely lead to a lawsuit.  Just another reason not to get involved.  Piss poor situation all around.

 

 

Luckily, in Germany you are protected from being sued by law, if you try to help as a first responder, emergency helper or giving first aid.

You can not get sued if you break someone's ribs while giving CPR (which is a pretty common thing to happen)

Taking off someone's helmet after a motorcycle accident and paralyzing him? No way you can get sued, because without trying to help, he could have died and you tried your best to render assistance.

This includes doing the wrong thing for the right reason, meaning, if you tried to help, but did the wrong thing and caused harm, you are covered by the law (except when you cause harm by (gross) negligence)

I am trained in first aid at my workplace as a first responder and I feel comfortable that I can administer help without having to fear a lawsuit.

 

On the other hand: Not helping someone in dire need can get you prosecuted. ("unterlassene Hilfeleistung" = "denial of assistance" or "failure to render assistance in an emergency")

[AKM]

I understand where you're going, and have heard of such German law, but I take issue with your example.  When I was a medic (of sorts, EMT-B for the Americans, no drugs), one of the things they covered was the trend toward explicitly NOT removing helmets from a patient.  The reasoning had to do with maintaining cervical spine alignment.  For those not medically inclined, the basic concept was the same as: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".  As long as the patient has an airway, is breathing, and has good circulation (isn't bleeding, heart is pumping effectively), don't mess with the situation.  We were reminded time and again that we on the street do not have x-ray vision and thus have no idea what's going on inside other than what we could ascertain from signs and symptoms.  It may look bad, but so long as the ABCs are okay and you can transport with the helmet in place, don't remove it, as that's just making changes that might make the situation worse, for no defined gain.

 

Disclaimer:  That training was at least five years ago, protocols may have changed yet again, and probably have.  Take the above with a salt lick.

[Buddy Christ]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I probably should have explained it better:

Only remove a helmet when someone is unconcious and/or not breathing. As long as the person can tell you he/she wants to keep the helmet on, leave it alone.

Because if a person is unconcious he/she might choke on vomit and if the person is not breathing... well... that doesn't need an explanation, right?

But if you do not remove the helmet then, the person most probably will die because you can't do the proper procedures. So, the reasoning is, if the perso probably will

die with the helmet on, you have to take the risk of damage and remove it.