Here are the relevant mechanics (assuming the gun is an autoloader):

The trigger will release the hammer spring

The hammer spring will drive the hammer forward

The hammer will strike the firing pin (or transfer bar, in some cases, which then strikes the firing pin)

The firing pin strikes the primer cap (the little circle on the bottom of the bullet)

The primer explodes and ignites the powder (this happens inside the bullet)

The slug is propelled out of the barrel by expanding gas.

That same gas pushes the slide back, ejecting the empty bullet casing

The slide spring forces the slide to come back forward, dragging another round from the magazine into the chamber

There are two areas where you might have to worry about water impairing the function:

1)If the inside of the barrel is wet. This could mess with the bullet trajectory. Some guns have such tight barrel tolerances (e.g., target pistols) that a little water in the barrel could cause a harmful misfire

2) If the inside of the magazine / slide rails / slide spring are wet enough that their friction coefficient changes, then the gun could jam or "stovepipe" (empty casing gets stuck straight up in the ejection port).

The liklihood of these malfunctions depends on how dry the gun is and what kind of gun it is. The right gun, like a Colt military model or a Glock, should fire without malfunction dripping wet.

If your character cares about the gun as a possession, then they should strip it, clean it, and oil it immediately upon retrieval.

If it is a revolver it is far more likely to fire without malfunction than a semi-automatic.

So the weapon could fall in the water, the character could immediately retrieve it or retrieve it 6 hours later and it should function fine.

That said you could still have problems.

If the firearms is a revolver, unless the barrel is fouled (filled with debris) it should function fine, though moisture in the barrel could affect the accuracy of the round.

If the firearm is a semi-automatic (the ones that use clips/magazines and have a slide along the top) then it will probably fire fine the first time (though moisture may cause innacuracy), but it will likely jam, as the other poster indicated. Semi-automatics need lubricant to function properly and extended submersion in water will degrade the oil that is needed along the slide rail etc.

If the weapon were left in the water long enough for corrosion to begin you might have problems, but I would think that would take days, not hours.

If everyone unequivocally believed the world were flat, you would lose the majority of your audience with a passage about a ship sailing over the horizon, no?

Perhaps you should assess your target audience, and write to that level of education to achieve the WSOD, or be prepared to spell out why the gun will still fire, all without miring the reader down in an info-dump.

I've heard that there are guns that ceramic (or something other than metal) that will not set off metal detectors. I don't know how accurate that is, but I would be willing to buy it if I read about it or saw it in a movie.

That might make a cool story in itself.

And a lot depends on the weapon.

There are very few weapons that can be thrown into a muddy river for several hours, then retrieved and immediately fired without some loss of performance. Simple weapons with less original capability tend to do well here partly because they have less to lose and because they tend to be more robust. On the other hand, most weapons can survive being wet for a few hours if someone is willing to clean them soon afterwards. And it is almost impossible that the barrel of a weapon could be so damaged beyond all repair by such an event. The main points you need to consider are; dirt or fouling, lubrication, and remaining water. I'll assume that being thrown in water rather than smashed on rocks means that gross impact damage is off the table.

Now, the man can dry the gun off. But due to more sci-fi mojo, I doubt he can find something to oil the gun in the town (long story short, it only looks like the town he knew on the surface, but isn't). Maybe he can disassmble it, and dry it off.

Of course, the POV is the teen, so the man finding the gun happens behind the scenes.

Again stick to a revolver, once you've wiped the mud off and cleaned out the barrel it should function passably.

In the situation described, he would retrieve the revolver from the mud, shake and wipe the mud off, maybe take a rag and push it through the barrel to clear it of any major obstructions. The revolver would still be fine, but to insure long term viability for the weapon it would need to be cleaned and porperly oiled. If he wanders around with the weapon for a week without cleaning it properly, then the metal would more than likely begin to corrode. But given the short time frame, I think you are making too big a deal over this.

As to ceramic firearms...yes such a thing exists, they are in no way available to the general public, they typically are only good for 2-3 shots. The myth surrounding ceramic firearms stemms from Anti-Gun lobby proponents attacking weapons like the Glock that use a polymer stock and other high impact plastics in it's construction. The Glock still has a metal barrel and slide and would most definately set off a metal detector.

That will buy you time (quite a bit)to get some gun oil. The problem with WD40 is that it can drive the water into the threads around the screws and down into places you would rather be dry, which is not good.

quote:

---

<If everyone unequivocally believed the world were flat, you would lose the majority of your audience with a passage about a ship sailing over the horizon, no?>

That might make a cool story in itself.

---

And interesting space ride ensues as they weave there way through the celestial spheres to catch some fire from the sun.

It was originally a short story (which was good) and he later fleshed it out to a novel (which was better in someways, but lost some of the impact of short story).

The novel length version continues past the dark ending and shows where the cataclysmic events lead (which wasn't such a bad place after all) and consequently is not as disturbing. The novel length version is the one that really explores mass perception on reality.

In any case, assuming your ammo is still good after an immersion in water, the second thing you have to worry about is…BARREL OBSTRUCTION! When a gun is fired, the presence of even a few drops of water can and will cause the barrel to burst. Or, if you’re lucky, you’ll end up with a walnut—an abrupt bulge somewhere between the chamber and the muzzle.

With semi auto handguns, a barrel obstruction can cause a case rupture. In a Colt .45 ACP, for example, a large portion of the brass cartridge remains exposed after it has been chambered. That is, it remains unsupported by the walls of the chamber, and in the event of a barrel obstruction, this exposed portion can rupture. When that happens, the force of the expanding propellant gets vented straight down into the grip—the part you hold in your hand when you pull the trigger. It’s common to loose a couple fingers when this happens.

Short of something like that I just don't see a Colt in fireable condition malfunctioning that catastrophically.

As for the venerable Colt ACP, the fact that the chamber leaves a portion of the cartridge exposed, and thus unsupported, is one of the few shortcomings of an otherwise excellent design.

Specifically, the area of the chamber that fails to support the cartridge is the upper half of the feed ramp, which is milled directly into the chamber. The removal of material at this point exposes part of the cartridge. Take the barrel out of your Colt and insert a dummy round into the chamber and you’ll see what I mean. That’s why the brass at the head of a typical ACP cartridge is so thick. I don’t know whether the same is true for a Glock as I’ve never owned one—I buy Amuricin! In that same vein, I'm actually rather dissapointed that the Army's switching over to a German-designed rifle. Oh well...

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/groundwarrior/issues/Summer02/twom4s.htm

Also, if you're shooting hollow points, a small amount of water can prematurely spread open the projectile, increasing the bearing surface between it and the barrel. The result is a drastic increase in chamber pressure, and the potential for a ruptured case or a burst barrel.

The hazards of water obstruction may be counterintuitive, but they are real nonetheless. Please be safe!

I asked one of the ballistic engineers at work what the biggest problem was with the AR15/M16, and he answered, “The M16 poops where it eats.� In other words, it vents propellant gasses directly into the most crucial area of the action: the bolt carrier assembly.

Those were not necessarily his exact words.

Agree on hollow points. And if the barrel is filled with water it could be bad, depending mostly on the length of the barrel and whether it is gas-actuated.

The danger has little to do with the mass of the water in front of the bullet. Rather, it depends more on the friction coefficient of water as it transitions from a liquid to a superheated gas, while at the same time forming a bearing surface between the projectile and the barrel. There are a lot of variables at work here, and they are all in flux as the bullet travels down the barrel. In a gun, water behaves very differently from Hoppes No. 9 powder solvent.

Like I said, the danger is counterintuitive but very real. To assert otherwise (especially in a public forum) is to invite disaster.

I apologize for turning into a big drama queen over all of this, but this is serious stuff. Guns are necessary and valuable tools, but if you don't respect them they'll bite you and you’ll turn into gruesome story research material.

Anyway, enough preaching!

Most firearms exchange in a civilian setting take place at less than 15', and often result in noone getting hit.

If you are talking about Joe Schmo civilian who maybe shoots a pistol once every month or two, I'd be surprised if he could hit a man sized target at further than 20' in a heated exchange where adrenaline was flowing.

Someone who has been under fire and shoots regularly will do better, but I'd still peg the range at 30-35'.

I shoot periodically with a friend, who is a federal instructor at Quantico, when he isn't in the field working for the DEA. He can shoot consistently and accurately out to around 75-80'. I know he is accurate further out, but the civilian range we shoot at doesn't go any further. This is controlled shooting in a passive environment.

When you add elements like, being shot at etc. then the range is going to drop dramatically.

So under controlled situations, like a shooting range, a competent shooter should be able to fire consistently out to 30 yards/meters or so.

In real life combat the effective range drops to under 10 meters/yards.

Opinions on this are going to vary, but this is from personal experience and conversations with friends of mine that serve in law enforcement and the military.

1. The shooter, though a civilian, has been practicing at a shooting range five days a week for fifteen years. So I suppose one question would be how far can she shoot at the shooting range?

2. The target is unarmed and if all goes well, won't even know that the shooter is there, so she will not be under fire. The biggest concern for her is staying hidden, and so she will want to be as far away from the target as she can accurately shoot. I'm sure she won't trust her best distance under the controlled conditions of a shooting rang, but how much would she want to close that distance in to protect her anonymity and maintain her accurace?

If it were me, I'd screw annonymity and get as close as possible before shooting. Handguns tend to be less lethal than people think. Instant, one-shot kills are pretty rare, regardless of the caliber. If she wants to make sure her victim is dead, she'd have to put at least one good hole in his head.

If she wants to stay far away and do more damage to the target, a long arm would be better. Using a high power rifle equipped with a scope, a practiced shooter could inflict a lethal wound from at least two hundred yards. If she's good, she wouldn't even need a scope.

I'm going to stay a staunch fan of the G11 for the time being. There are things I don't like about it, like the silly little rotating tab to work the "bolt" arrangment. But it's still a very cool weapon. I think that it's too early to speak to whether there would be issues in a mass produced version. In absolute terms, the action is mechanically simpler than that of conventional automatic weapons.

During the Civil War, the 1st & 2nd Berdan Sharps shooters recorded kills at distances of over a mile. They were armed with a single shot breech loading weapon with iron sights. They fired a .56 caliber combustible case cartridge, which had a a trajectory like a rainbow, but which was also extremely consistent.

The Confederates, on the other hand, were partial to the British-manufactured Whitworth rifle, a muzzle-loader which was equipped with a primitive scope. The Whitworth had a hexagonal bore--like a modern Glock. The Whitworth was a hair more accurate than the Sharps, but took much longer to load.

Then, of course, during the Revolution, there are accounts of British officers being picked at ranges of 300+ yards by Americans with longrifles, firing patched roundball.

My point is that you can do almost anything with iron sights that you can do with a scope. The main advantage a scope offers is ease of use, which speeds up training and gets more long range shooters into the field sooner.

As for the G11, I could be wrong but I don't think it's ever gone through the extremely rigorous testing that the US Army puts its equipment through. For that matter, I think the XM8's been through more real-world testing than the G11 has. Down here at the Yuma Proving Ground where I work (though, at the moment, I'm up in Delta Junction, Alaska; -45 degrees Fahrenheit), Heckler & Koch routinely tests their products. I don't recall that the G11 has ever been down here, but many other H&K weapons have.

In my infinitely humble opinion, the G11 is a weapon whose time has not yet come. Other, more conventional rifles work almost as well as the G11 (assuming it performs as advertised). Therefore, there's no real need to equip soldiers with such a radical weapon.

The G11 is kind of like the story of the Gattling Gun during the Civil War--a group of cannoneers with a three inch ordnance rifle can put ALMOST as much lead into the air (shooting canister rounds) as a Gattling gun, per minute. The three inch ordnance rifle was much cheaper per unit, had a shorter logistical train, greater reliability, and it could also fire many different types of ammunition: air burst rounds, point detonation rounds, solid shot, canister, & etc. That's the real reason why the Gattling never really caught on.

As for the accuracy of "unaimed" combat firing ("point shooting") I would recommend the books "Kill or Get Killed" or "Shooting to Live"

I wholeheartedly agree that a longarm is a better choice if otherwise feasible. An average marksman can fire an incredibly devastating slug from a 12 gauge shotgun 60 yards with accuracy without a scope. A marksman with a scope and the time to sight it in can increase that range to 100-120 yards. Rifles like a 30.06 can shoot 100 yards open-sighted and several times that scoped.

As for the G11, until someone can show me a complaint more significant than "it makes sewing maching noises when I work the action using that twiddly little wind-up key", I'm remaining a staunch advocate. Twenty years ago it ahead of its time. Today it's getting to be an old maid.

The Gatling Gun didn't catch on before the end of the Civil War for the same reason that European officers in WWI still thought massed frontal assaults on entrenched enemies was a viable idea. It had nothing to do with the tactical facts and everything to do with the human fact that humans are idiots. That's the same reason that the Maxim was the first really significant machine gun. Browning had showed his invention to the Navy well over a decade before that, and the weapon had performed flawlessly, but in the end nobody thought it was more than a toy.

" . . Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.28

In fact, physiological factors may actually play a relatively minor role in achieving rapid incapacitation. Barring central nervous system hits, there is no physiological reason for an individual to be incapacitated by even a fatal wound, until blood loss is sufficient to drop blood pressure and/or the brain is deprived of oxygen. The effects of pain, which could contribute greatly to incapacitation, are commonly delayed in the aftermath of serious injury such as a gunshot wound. The body engages survival patterns, the well known "fight or flight" syndrome. Pain is irrelevant to survival and is commonly suppressed until some time later. In order to be a factor, pain must first be perceived, and second must cause an emotional response. In many individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived, or the response is anger and increased resistance, not surrender. . . ."

Full text of the article can be found
here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
or here:
http://www.seark.net/~jlove/handgun_wounding.htm

While they essentially proved that it is impossible to create an ice bullet, they talked to someone (an expert but I don't remember his name) about the idea and the basic concept of a bullet that would be lethal but also leave minimal forensics evidence. The expert talked about the use of a liquid-tipped bullet, which I think was created using a hollow point bullet and some sort of geletin or something.

The way I understand it, because the tip is a liquid, it retards the forward motion of the bullet and causes a violent "re-bound" effect (I know that isn't the jargon, but my brain isn't working properly this morning). Internally, the damage is extensive and the "re-bound" effect supposedly ejects the forensics evidence back out the way it came in.

The concept behind alternate munitions, like "ice" bullets, was to be able to supply munitions to soldiers by taking advantag of the available materials. It's application was solely for use in arctic environments. The idea being that the the rifle use an alternate method for firing the charge and that the slug be comprised of compressed ice.

I believe the test bed weapon used a caseless charge to fire an ice slug, which was created by scooping snow into a receptacle in the stock. They did build a functioning prototype, to the best of my knowledge, but it was considered non-cost effective and the program was scrapped.

Now to the woman behind the bush shooting the target. Just keep in mind that handguns have a very noticeable flash when fired (especially at night) and are also very loud. You could have the weapon equipped with a homemade silencer. Though it will only be good for maybe 4-6 shots before it is rendered useless and it will not be as silent as a commercial silencer (which is highly illegal to own in most states and difficult to obtain).

(Imitating Mr. Burns.) “Excellent!�

I love it when women talk about guns.

J is right. "Kill or Get Killed" and "Shoot to Live" are both excellent books. These are extremely valuable references for writers.

Ah, a topic dear to my heart...the hand-cranked Gattling Gun vs. the belt-fed Maxim.

"If you want to make a lot of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others throats with greater facility."--anonymous comment made to Hiram Maxim at the Paris exhibition. This sentiment led him to develop the Maxim machine gun. As brilliant as John Browning was, I believe Hiram Maxim was the first to actually build and market a belt-fed machine gun. Besides, Browning's early machine guns were air-cooled (eg., the model 1890(?) "Potato Digger"), and thus did not have the sustained fire capability of the Maxim, which was water-cooled from the get-go.

The belief that the Gattling gun didn't catch on until the end of the Civil War because "...humans are idiots" simply doesn't square with the technological history of this weapon. In point of fact, the Gattling gun didn't catch on at all during the war. Here are the reasons why, using the 1862 model as a point of reference:

* The primitive, paper cartridge ammunition was fragile, unreliable, and led to jams. Think of it as a cigarette rolling machine, but with burning bits of black powder gumming up the works instead of tobacco.

* Stoppages were extremely difficult to clear under field conditions.

* The weapon simply could not be broken down in the field. (Compare this to the seven-shot Spencer repeater, whose inner workings could be completely removed in less than a minute; over fifty thousand Spencers had been issued by 1864. Or the Henry, would could be broken down in about five minutes; over ten thousand Henry's were in circulation during the war.)

* The 1862 model lacked a practical gas sealing system, to prevent combustion gasses from leaking out of the Breech--as opposed to the Sharps rifle, which also used paper ammunition, but which employed a floating gas check to cap off the chamber. Remember, we're using combustible paper cartridges, here.

* The Gattling was roughly the same weight and size as a contemporary field gun. It offered nothing in the way of portability. It was therefore classified as artillery--and rightly so.

* The 1862 Gattling cost roughly $1000 per unit--those are 1862 dollars, son.

* The thing was all but impossible to crank and aim accurately at the same time.

The 1862 Gattling was used with some success during the siege of St. Petersburg in 1864, but only from fixed fortifications.

So in short, Survivor, I believe you are confusing the 1862 paper cartridge model with the 1865 metallic cartridge model, which didn't show up until after the war was all but over.

The 1862 Gattling was ultimately unsuccessful because it was dependant on an immature technology: self-contained ammunition. Likewise, one of the big objections raised toward the G11 has to do with its radical, unproven ammunition.

The Brits adopted the Maxim in 1889. However, prior to that, they'd already been using the Gattling gun in quantity since at least 1875. When the Maxim came along, the Brits dropped the Gattling like a Schenkl shell with a sputtering time fuse...