Do not try what you about to see at home.
We're what you call experts.
On this episode of "Mythbusters,"
You're in charge.
The team randomly selects stories from the mailbox
and gives them a whirl.
You asked are our hollywood gun-handling techniques
effective or just for show?
Nice, gangster.
Your next request
is to test a ballistic myth sent in by the troops.
Then there's the internet craze
for crazy roadside assistance.
Like a really dangerous way to fill a tire.
And the final lucky dip in this eclectic mix of myth...
Pick a door.
is a mathematical paradox from a game show.
We have a winner.
Who are the mythbusters?
Adam Savage...
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
And Jamie Hyneman.
We'll have an adventure.
Between them, more than 30 years of special-effects experience.
Together with Tory Belleci.
I'm gonna die!
Grant Imahara.
This is the most dangerous thing we gonna do all week.
And Kari Byron.
Let's do it.
They don't just tell the myths.
They put them to the test.
Step right up, step right up
for a viewer request extravaganza.
What's this about?
Ah, this is the wheel of mythfortune.
In each one of these boxes is a suggestion
from a fan for a story we should do.
Give it a spin.
Dear mythbusters,
can you please test the Monty Hall paradox
I know you're a big fan of game shows.
But let me remind you what this one is.
Monty Hall offers a contestant one of three doors,
says there's a prize behind one.
The contestant chooses, say, Door B.
Before he gets to see if there's a prize,
Monty opens up Door A
and shows him that there's nothing behind it.
Monty then offers the contestant a chance to switch
from his original Door B to the remaining Door C.
The question is-- should you switch?
This is interesting for two reasons.
One is that apparently psychologically
people do not want to switch from their original choice.
Two is, apparently they will win more often
if they do switch.
Well, I'm not sure why that would be the case.
But let's test it.
It's unusual that a complex mathematical paradox
is named after a game show host.
But this counterintuitive problem has puzzled
number-crunchers for years.
After a door selection is made,
the host always opens one of the remaining two doors
and then gives the contestant a chance
to stick with their original choice
or switch to the other unopened door.
Which leaves us with a two-part myth.
Supposedly people overwhelmingly decide to stick,
and apparently it's better to switch.
So how do you want to go about this?
As far as I can see,
there are two parts to the story--
One psychological and one statistical.
The psychological being that people do not want to switch
from the original choice.
The statistical being
that there is an advantage to them if they do.
Let's start with the psychological then.
Perfect.
Let the games begin.
If we're gonna test this out on the general public,
we should get a bunch of people, say 20 or so.
20 sounds like a good number.
How do you want to run them through it?
We could do it with, say, a deck of cards.
I feel like that's missing something
essential to a game show experience
that may influence people's decisionmaking.
I'm thinking a real stage
and some real doors
and set up a "Mythbusters" game show scenario.
That looks great.
And with their pre-made props in tow,
the team begin at a local theater.
Ladies and gentlem, door number one.
Where they prepare their game show setting,
which includes the obligatory over-the-top game show host outfit.
Maybe you should try door number three.
Much better.
Now should we start?
Yep.
With Adam dressed for the test,
let's find out exactly what the test is.
We've gotten 20 volunteers,
and the door behind which the prize has been placed
will be determined by a computer-generated randomizer.
The psychology of this myth
is what we're investigating with this test.
It is stated that most people
if given the choice to switch their door will not do it.
Hello, sir.
We want to find out if that's true.
We'll bring in a bunch of contestants,
run them through whole the test.
But what we're looking for is to see
how many stick with their original choice
and how many switch.
Pick a door.
We are playing a game called "Pick a door."
Okay.
I would like to start
by you telling me which door is your choice.
I will take number one.
Number one.
- Door number one is your choice. - Yeah.
Jamie, will you please show Brian
what's behind door number three.
Nothing.
As you can see
there's nothing behind door number three.
Those of you playing at home,
there's an important fact you should know which is that
whenever I open an empty door for the contestant,
I know where the prize is,
and I'm showing them an minute door on purpose.
Your prize is either behind door number one,
your original choice, or door number two.
I'll give you a last chance.
You can switch right now to door number two, if you like,
or you can stick with your original choice.
And so to the moment of truth.
As per the first part of the myth,
will he stick or take the opportunity to switch?
I will stick with my door number one.
You will stick.
How come?
Because it was my first instinct.
There is, contestant number one sticks.
Adam and Jamie have their first data point.
Jamie, will you show brian
what's behind door number one.
Nothing.
Sorry, there's nothing behind door number one.
Thank you very much for playing.
That's an excellent data point. Thank you.
- Have a good day! - Thank you.
With no preknowledge of the test,
from backstage the next contestant steps up.
How are you?
After picking her door-
Which door is your choice?
One.
Jamie opens the losing door,
and Adam moves the test along to the relevant data point.
You can switch to door number three
or you can stick to your original choice.
What's it gonna be? Are you going to switch or stick?
I'm sticking.
You are sticking.
How come?
Because the door is pink.
Okay.
This time sticking pays off.
We have a winner.
It's a winner. Congratulations.
Remember, the win/lose result is irrelevant
in part one of the myth.
We're testing
the psychology of the decision making.
Is it true that the contestants
will predominantly choose to stick?
Nothing.
I'd like to offer you one last chance
to perhaps switch your choice to door number three
or stick with your original choice.
I'll stick with one.
You really want to stick?
How come?
Gut feeling.
That's three from three.
I'm sorry.
And as the 100% record
in favor of the myth continues-
I'm going to go with number one.
things start to get really interesting.
I'm going to stick with number two.
You are going to stick with number two.
Is there a reason behind your wanting to stick?
First choice.
Because it's not just the score
that's providing a pattern.
I'm going to stick with two.
Sticking with three.
I'd like to stick with my original.
You are gonna stick.
But the motivation
for sticking is becoming clearer.
I'm going to stick.
You are gonna to stick, how come?
I guess it's a 50/50 chance.
The perception is with two doors left
there's a 50/50 chance of winning,
and so there's seemingly no advantage to switching.
You know what, I trust my instincts.
I'm going to stay with door number two.
And incredibly, as every contestant decides to stick-
I'm going to stay with three.
Part one of the myth is looking great.
Dude, this is so cool.
They are all of them sticking with their original choice.
I know.
That is so cool.
I would not have called that.
Stick with number one.
And to fully decipher the results,
I'm going to stick.
Adam and Jamie roll their game show credits.
Fantastic.
Congratulations. Thank you.
Nicely done.
Thank you very much for playing.
And head back to the shop.
Wheel of mythfortune.
Shall I give it a spin?
- Please. - Go for it.
What does it say?
This letter comes from a U.S. soldier.
He writes, "Dear mythbusters,
if a hand grenade lands next to you,
is it better to hit the ground
because shrapnel will go up and out?"
Okay, if it goes up and out,
it might create a safe zone down below.
Raised by a brave friend in the military,
it's an interesting ballistics question.
Is the lethal fragment pattern
of a grenade really up and away?
Can you actually avoid shrapnel damage
by hitting the deck?
There's two things lethal about a grenade.
The shockwave and shrapnel.
All right. What are we gonna do this?
Let's go to the bomb range,
set off some hand grenades,
and find out at what point
the shockwave is no longer lethal.
At that distance you'd be safe.
And then, all you'd have to worry about is shrapnel.
We'll build something to catch all the shrapnel
at that distance and see what we get.
To kick things off,
the guys hit their favorite location.
We've come to the Alameda county sheriff's bomb range
to test the myth that if a grenade is going off
and you hit the deck and lay flat on the ground,
you will get no shrapnel.
But, before get the shrapnel,
we need to establish the blast wave perimeter.
Because inside of that,
shrapnel or not, you'd be dead.
To do that we'll use our oseco burst disc,
set to 75 psi,
which is the threshold of certain death.
We'll have ten burst discs
starting at a foot to ten feet
all the way out from the blast.
This will record the lethality
of the blast from the grenade.
We've viewed these in the past,
"Knock Your Socks Off",
and "What's Blast-proof".
It's going to give you the data we need.
Here's the last one.
Sensors are set.
Remember, this first detonation is designed
to determine how far the lethal perimeter
of the shockwave it stands.
Later, the team will use that minimum survival distance
as the point at which they measure
the height of the shrapnel distribution.
For now it's all about the shockwave,
which means they're ready to pull the pin, right?
Wrong.
Because pulling a pin from a grenade can be somewhat dangerous,
we're having J.D. set it up
so we can fire remotely from the bunker.
So while the team hunker down in the bunker,
sergeant J.D.Nelson takes a decommissioned grenade
and rigs it with an equivalent amount of high explosive,
a blasting cap, and a remote-control detonator.
And that definitely means it's boom time.
All right, you guys ready?
Let's do this.
All right, this is testing the blast wave of a hand grenade.
This is the first time
I've ever seen a hand grenade go off this closely.
Me, too.
Here we go.
In three, two, one, fire.
That was awesome.
- All right. - Energetic.
Let's check it out.
What they're checking is
how many of the burst discs burst
and crucially which ones survive.
One, two, three, four, five.
Five-foot radius.
That is our blast zone for our grenade.
We set off our grenade and got some good results.
First disc at five feet away ruptured.
The one at six feet didn't,
meaning at five feet
the shockwave alone would kill you.
But at six feet, you'd survive.
So we're gonna set up our shrapnel catchers
just outside that five-foot radius
and find out exactly what the fragment pattern is.
OK, let's go get the shrapnel catchers.
Perfect.
It's time to bring out the shrapnel catchers.
The idea of this test is to determine exactly
how high the fragments hit.
Okay, just outside of five feet.
If there's a zone near the ground
that is free from damage,
then the myth will be confirmed.
And from what he's already seen,
Grant is optimistic.
So if you look at the high-speed footage,
it's looking really good for this myth.
You see the blast wave propagating.
If you're outside of that lethal five-foot radius,
you're safe from that.
What we are interested is the shrapnel
which is all total sparkly bits,
and you see that going up and out.
And the important thing for us
is what happens if you're close to the ground.
How much of that shrapnel will actually hit you?
Coming up, Adam and Jamie butt heads-
Adam's going to kick my butt.
in order to crunch the Monty Hall numbers.
In your face!
AmericasCardroom.com brings poker back Million Dollar Sunday Tournament every Sunday
What do you get when you cross a complex
probability puzzle with a game show?
The answer is the viewer-requested myth
known as the Monty Hall paradox.
And so far-
Adam and Jamie have answered part one of the problem.
What's it gonna be?
Are you going to switch or stick?
As far as the psychology of sticking
or switching goes-
I'm going to stick with two.
Contestants are unwilling to change their choice.
I'm going to stick.
Where do we stand?
Well, amazingly, our volunteers
chose to stick 100% of the time.
The second part states that
we should see clear statistical advantage to switching.
Did we see anything like that in the numbers?
Well, given that nobody decided to switch,
we don't really know.
Clearly we should run this again.
And I think with an equal number
of switching iterations to sticking iterations,
so we can really compare the numbers.
As Jamie said,
with all of the contestants sticking,
they don't yet have any data
on whether switching is advantageous.
So test two will focus on the statistical paradox.
Is switching in what appears to be a 50/50 situation
really your best bet?
To find out, Adam and Jamie will collect a large
and definitive sample of 100 data points
with an elegant, mechanical, mini game show set up.
So what I need to do right now
is build a physical Monty Hall paradox testing simulator.
And it's a machine-
I need to think of it like a machine
because there's a lot of moving parts.
I'm thinking it's going to have two sets of three doors.
One for me, one for Jamie.
It's gonna have a row of 50 tests randomly selected.
Preloaded so that we can cycle through it really fast.
It's not going to be a simple build,
but I think in the end it's going to be really cool.
All right, let's bring it on in.
This rig serves a couple of functions.
First, it increases our sample size
which in turn increases our accuracy.
Secondly, it removes the variable of choice
from the equation and puts both switching
and sticking on an even playing field.
We'll show you how you would fare over time
with either choice.
So this all looks lovely,
but how does it work?
You and I are going to run through each of the tests.
And each time we win,
we take a red piece of paper
and we thumb tag it up onto the board behind us.
At the end, we should be able to see visually
if there's a difference
between me always switching and you never switching,
and we should be able to count and compare the numbers.
How do I think I'll do?
Well, if the myth is true,
Adam's going to kick my butt.
To find out, it's "Pick a door" -- Take two.
Test number one-
choose your door.
I choose one.
I choose door number two.
Open an empty door.
I'm sticking.
I lose.
I am switching.
I win.
Unlike the previous test-
I choose one.
I choose three.
Adam and Jamie are only focusing on the win/lose result.
I am sticking, I lose.
I am switching, I win.
The rules are exactly the same-
Test number three --
except the stick or switch variable is removed.
I'm sticking.
Jamie always sticks-
I lose.
and Adam always switches.
I am switching.
I win!
This is crazy.
I can't keep winning like this.
In addition, the large sample means that over time-
I'm sticking.
I lose.
The results will reflect the true probability
of the choice to stick or switch.
I'm sticking.
I win.
It's not long before the results on the board
paint a definitive picture.
I choose two.
The Monty Hall paradox is interesting
because on the face of it, it seems simple.
I am switching.
I win!
During the final stage,
you've got two choices,
you know one of them's a winner and one of them's not.
So common sense would tell you
that you've got a 50/50 chance of winning.
And yet, you don't.
That's where the paradox comes in.
I am switching.
I win!
Seven in a row.
In your face!
You could talk about the mathematics and statistics
and the theory and the proofs this story
until you're blue in the face.
But the only way to make the numbers truly clear
is just to do it.
And the results are crystal clear.
Switching is far, far better
Than sticking with your original choice.
What's going on is really interesting.
If the prize is equally likely
to be behind each of the doors,
then if a player picks door one,
there's a one this three chance
the prize is behind it.
That means that there's a two in three chance
that the prize is behind doors two and three.
Now take away door three,
and there's still the two and three chance
that it's behind door two.
So switching effectively doubles your chances of winning.
So what advice can we offer viewers
about the Monty Hall paradox?
Well, clearly if you're ever playing this game,
you will have an overwhelming urge
to stick with your original choice.
But given the fact that the host knows
where the prize is and shows you an empty door,
it is always an advantage for you to switch.
Then it would be confirmed.
Totally confirmed.
Next-
Ready for shrapnel?
Getting the lowdown on "Hit the deck."
Carrie, Grant, and Tori are back at the bomb range.
They're testing the myth of whether a grenade only goes up and out.
If you hit the deck,
you won't get hit.
Here's what we've learned so far.
When the grenades explodes,
There's about a five-foot perimeter
in which the blast wave is what's going to kill you.
But from the high speed,
it looks like the shrapnel's all going upward,
leaving a safety zone near the ground.
That's where our shrapnel catcher comes in.
Around me are our shrapnel catchers.
The white section represents somebody standing.
The red section
represents somebody getting down on the ground.
Give me twenty.
Now there are two reasons
why hitting the deck might be advantageous.
First of all, you're minimizing your profile to the grenade.
Secondly, the pattern of the Shrapnel
seems to be going up and out.
That's why we're adding a top to the catcher,
so we can see what that looks like.
The debris from the preliminary explosion
seems to indicate it's moving up and out.
But to find out for sure,
any lethal damage from the less visible metal fragments
would mark the painted plywood of these doors.
If the area at the bottom is clear,
then the myth is confirmed.
Just to cover all our bases,
we're going to use a couple different kinds of grenades.
We have a vintage, mid century pineapple grenade,
and a more modern baseball grenade.
Though these names are somewhat innocuous baseball and pineapple,
the important thing to know is that
they're going to be throwing shrapnel
at 22,000 feet per second.
To illustrate what we're talking about here,
the inside of this grenade is perforated.
Each of these little sections
is going to be a lethal projectile.
First up, J.D. hooks up.
The pineapple grenade with distinctive grooves.
And the team heads down to the bunker.
Ready for some sharpnel.
With the remote detonate ring,
it's time to find out
if you can avoid grenade shrapnel by hitting the deck.
In three, two, one --
{pos(190,268)}
That did some serious damage.
Even knocked over one of the shrapnel catchers.
I think we're going to have a lot of shrapnel.
Let's go check it out.
They found that being around
when a grenade goes off is not a good idea at all.
The shrapnel sprayed on the acrylic roof alone is frightening.
Look at that.
We got a lot of shrapnel.
Did we get it down below?
Yep. Yep.
Looks like this one is busted.
You don't get away scot-free down low.
The shrapnel pattern is clear.
It's even emphasized if you look at the exit wounds.
There's a lot more shrapnel at the top
than there is at the bottom.
Clearly there's still shrapnel at the bottom.
So this myth is busted.
Yep, for the pineapple grenade at least,
the myth that the blast carries all of the shrapnel up and away
and leaves a clear zone near the ground
is busted.
All right. This one is busted.
Why don't we move to the modern-day grenade
and see what that does.
Modern grenade.
The team moves into the double,
and replaces all of the shrapnel catchers.
J.D. does his thing with the baseball grenade.
Okay, baseball grenade shrapnel test.
Do it.
Charging.
In three, two, one --
That was way bigger than the pineapple grenade.
Let's check the shrapnel pattern.
The discovery puts this ballistic myth to bed.
Look at that.
The modern-day grenade had even more shrapnel
in the shrapnel-free zone.
Even if you hit the deck
you're still going to get hit by shrapnel.
The myth when a grenade is going off
and you hit the deck
you'll have no shrapnel hit you is busted.
Ture, the pattern goes upward,
but there's still a lot that goes down below in that zone.
The exit wounds tell the story.
The fragment pattern is a chaotic spray in all directions,
including the mythical shrapnel-free zone.
But it is less dense down low
which suggests that hitting the deck although busted
is the very best of a bad situation.
It might be busted, but look,
if I'm in the situation,
I'm going to hit the deck.
Absolutely.
Coming up on "Mythbusters,"
Adam and I shoot each other in the face.
Do not try what you're about to see at home.
We're what you call experts.
All right.
Let's see here.
"Mythbusters, I've been an action movie fanatic for years
and noticed something about the way
people hold guns in movies.
I've seen them fired from the hip,
fired from a extended arm,
one handed, two handed, and even two guns at the same time,
lately everyone seems to be holding guns sideways.
Do any of these styles offer specific advantages
and accuracy over the others
or are they all just meant to look cool?"
That seems pretty straightforward.
Let's get some guns and targets.
and see which technique is more accurate.
Let's get shooting.
The history of firearm fashion is replayed
with a heap of ever-changing stylish poses.
And this fan request is all about accuracy.
They want to know of five classic cinematic stances
which work and which are style over substance.
To find out, Adam and Jamie are down at the range.
This is perfect. Should we get to shooting?
I think so.
Shooting and shooting.
Here is the plan.
For every single handling technique we'll be testing,
Jamie and I will each unload a full magazine of eight bullets
at the extended targets
and we'll score ourselves base on timing and accuracy.
At the end of the test, a quick look at both targets and scores
really ought to give us a fantastic picture
about which handling techniques are truly effective
and which ones are just for show.
That sounds straightforward.
All they need now are some guns and targets.
Here's today's target.
If you see one of these perched over your bed
in the middle of the night, shoot it.
Shoot it immediately.
The gun we'll be using is a 45 caliber semiautomatic pistol.
We'll put 284 grain full metal jacket ammo in it,
very common gun, very common ammo worldwide.
Scoring, pretty straight forward.
Black section equals ten points; yellow section, seven points,
white, six; red, five.
Once we've tallied the points from shooting,
we will divide that by the amount of seconds
it took to fire all eight bullets,
and that will give us the final score.
The main tool we'll be using is an acoustic timer.
When we press this button --
it will start working and hear each shot
and give us the total amount of time it took
to make the eight shots.
I know you may be looking at the set and think
we're making things pretty easy for ourselves.
But the point of the test isn't about
whether Jamie or I are good shots,
it's actully to compare the different handholds
and their accuracy and effectiveness.
We've chosen this distance
to give us the best resolution for that comparison.
That's the setup.
A gun, two targets 15 feet away,
a scoring system that combines accuracy and firing rate,
and there's a ballistics expert on hand
to keep everyone safe.
The only missing component is a baseline control.
Range is hot.
Safety is on.
We'll be comparing all the firing styles
we're using against this --
The weaver stance.
It's been using since the 1980s
by law enforcement and in competition,
and it's regarded as the most effective way
to repeatedly and accurately fire a handgun.
That's good shooting.
It's a really good group.
And Jamie and I have been trained in it.
The weaver position has a couple of things going for it.
The first is that it feels nice and stable.
You're using both hands.
You've got a good, solid purchase on the gun.
The second thing is
if you're holding it in such a position
that you can see down the sights of the gun.
That also seems like a pretty good idea.
With the weaver technique complete,
the scores can be co-lated.
And if any of the other five hollywood poses to be tested
come close to Adam and Jamie's controlled average of 7.3,
it will be confirmed it's a reasonable technique.
All right. We've got our control.
Let's start holding the gun in another way.
First up, popularized by bogart
in gangster movies of the '30s and '40s,
it's shooting from the hip.
I don't know about you,
but I don't have high hopes for this stance.
Come on, you can't even see the sights,
how are you going to know where you're aiming?
And after the gun resets,
how are you going to get the second shot?
I don't think it's going to be that effective.
Jamie's been shooting from the hip for years.
Ready?
Safety's off.
Shooting from the hip.
As Jamie fires off his eight rounds,
it seems Adam's prediction is spot on --
Jamie missed all eight.
You just got no clue where it's going.
You're just sort of like,
well, that seems about right.
I can't wait to try.
Good luck.
This is a crazy position to shoot from.
With a few hits lossless right around the target,
Adam is marginally more successful than Jamie.
But this classic stance is clearly not ideal.
It's crazy. There's just no kinesthetic reset down here.
You're hoping every single time.
Let's figure out what the score is.
At scoreboard the story is a sorry tale of woe
for the first hollywood handling technique.
An average of 2.8 is significantly short of the control.
Meaning that method is busted.
That was fun.
It's not over yet, there's more to go.
Coming up on "Mythbusters,"
Fix your tire by fire.
It's gonna blow!
Jamie and Adam have already proved
that as far as firearm fashion goes,
shooting from the hip might look cool,
but it's just not very effective.
It's crazy. There's just no kinesthetic reset down there.
You're hoping every single time.
Up next, the straight arm from the shoulder.
It peaked in popularity in the cheesy action movies of the '80s,
but has long been a stylish staple.
But will it work?
My feeling is
that the straight-arm position is going to be good
because I am able to line up with the sights
as well as my body in a fairly stable position.
Jamie unloads and before the points are tallied,
it's clear the position is working well.
Nice shooting, Tex.
As Adams demonstrates,
Adam, straight-arm shooting.
compared to the hip shot,
it's stable which enables rapid, repeat firing.
And being able to use the gun's sights
is another obvious advantage.
That's fun.
It all boils down to a score
that compares extremely favorably with the control.
I love this.
It's almost -- almost as much as I like the weaver.
It gives a tremendous amount of control.
The accuracy was as good as the weaver stance.
This one's a winner.
Next up is the gangster style, right?
Yes, yes.
What we were just doing, like this,
body on the side, except with the gun turned.
Like we're a straight-up thug.
A staple of the '90s,
hoodlums seem to think a 90-degree twist
adds something to their shooting.
But does it really?
Adam's excited to find out.
I have always wanted hold a gun this way.
I've heard tell that you could break your wrist.
Clearly I don't think that's about to happen,
but I'm interested to see what my accuracy is like.
Ok, I'm ready.
Did I hit it once?
Although the straight arm did enable Adam
to fire off his rounds quickly enough,
his score was poor.
Final score of 1.0.
Let's see how Jamie does.
Mr. Hyneman, Gangsta style.
Looking suspiciously natural in the Gangsta pose,
Jamie outscores Adam.
- Final score 1.6. - Nice, Gangsta.
When totaled into the table, the result tells us
this funky-looking firearm fashion is, frankly, defunct.
I'll be honest with you, the Gangsta style,
it's the one I was anticipating the most.
After shooting with it,
it is by far the most ridiculous of all.
You can't see where your bullets are going.
You have no point of reference.
You're looking at the wrong part.
You're ignoring useful sights
that are right -- forget about it.
Don't shoot that way.
Wheel of mythfortune.
What we got?
All right.
"Dear Mythbusters, is it true
that you can re-seat and inflated a tire using fire"?
There are so many videos on the Internet.
People put something flammable in it, light it,
and it re-seats, inflates,
and stays inflated.
Sounds simple enough.
All we need is a tire and starter fluid.
- This could be so dangerous. - Or explosive.
Where there's fire,
there's folks who just can't help themselves.
Despite the danger, the Mythbusters want to know
if these clips of explosive roadside assistance are real.
Can you really re-seat
and inflate a tire by heating things up?
There's only one way to find out.
Getting a flat on a deserted road.
This is how all horror movies start.
Imagine you're in a deserted location,
you've got a flat tire, and you've got no spare.
That's what this myth is all about.
Seating a tire on a rim and inflating it
when you've got nothing but a can of starter fluid and a lighter.
Now in the internet clip,
we see a man spray starter fluid into the deflated tire.
He lights a match and it reseats instantly
and inflates, and stays inflated.
That is what we're going to be testing.
We're going to try this with a classic tire.
If that doesn't work,
we're going to move on to a truck tire
because it has thicker walls.
First up, the regular-size tire which Kari lets down
before getting dressed up for a date with danger.
Good luck, Kari.
Here's your fluid.
Here's your lighter.
Don't blow yourself up.
Just like the video,
the tire is deflated and unseated from the rim.
And also just like the reference clip,
Kari sprays an accelerant into the tire before lighting it.
Well, we got a tire on fire.
But it's just a big letdown.
It's not inflating.
No.
It doesn't go poof like that.
Let's try that again.
Take two.
This time, Tori pumps his feet on the tire,
mixing accelerant with air.
We'll see if we get air in there for a better mix ratio.
That worked like a charm.
Except now they seem to have a rapidly inflating tire on fire.
That means an explosion is a very real possibility.
It's going to go.
Maybe we should all step a little bit further back.
Okay.
That was probably the most terrifying tire inflating
I've ever experienced.
Seems like a really dangerous way to fill a tire.
We got the starter fluid into the tire,
we got the mixture right, Kari lit it,
and it instantly seated and inflated just like in the video.
In fact, it worked so well
that it looked like the tire was going to explode,
and we all took off running.
However, when it was all said and done,
a lot of cooling happened, a lot of fuel was burned,
and we created a vacuum inside the tire.
Look. It's a vacuum.
I wouldn't call that inflated.
I call that the opposite of inflated.
There are a couple parts this myth.
One, does it seat the tire on the rim?
Yes, you ignite the gases,
they expand rapidly, and it pops off.
Two, does it inflate the tire?
Yes, it actually inflates it very quickly.
And it almost looks like it's going to blow up.
Three and most important, does it stay inflated?
No because as the gas is cooled it forms a vacuum.
You see the tire shrink back onto the rim.
This one is busted.
Busted.
But there is some truth to the myth.
It's an excellent if highly dangerous method of re-seating
and briefly inflating the tire.
It just doesn't stay inflated.
But the team isn't done yet.
Next up, heavy-duty truck tire.
The clip the viewer sent in showed
the trick being done on a truck tire.
To cover all their bases,
they're giving that a go.
One again, Kari gets the accelerant right into the tire
before lighting it.
Nice!
It worked.
But did it really?
Look, it's lost its inflation.
So it's a great party trick
- but not really good for road repairs. - Not practical.
The initial rapid expansion of gases from the explosion
does pop the tire onto the rim.
But when the gases cool,
we're pretty much back to square one.
Now, if you were watching the video,
it seemed that seating and inflating your tire
with fire is dangerous. Well, it is.
However, it does work. You can seat the tire,
but it does not stay inflated.
You still need some kind of compressed air to keep the tire filled.
So, this one's busted.
Coming up on "Mythbusters",
Jamie, you look bad ass.
Duck and cover,
because Jamie's letting loose.
Welcome back. We have been testing
a bunch of gun-handling techniques that we have seen in the movies.
Now it's time to add another layer.
A gun-shaped layer.
That's right. It's now time for two guns.
So, "Matrix" style two gun play is up next.
Are you doubling your chance of a ballistics bull's eye?
Jamie, you look bad ass, I'll tell you that.
- Ready. - Here we go.
There's one important factor to note.
Despite using doubled the amount of ammo,
the final time-adjusted score
will still give an accurate comparison to the control.
After all, firing twice as many bullets takes twice as long.
Nice work, hombre.
That was an experience.
And there's a certain kind of symmetry to it that I liked.
You can almost brace your hands together on each other while you're firing.
Before we tally the total, Adam's up.
Despite Jamie's having a tactically experience,
Adam's not confident.
Take these.
Bang, bang, bang.
Low score, low score. Moving on, right?
That's what I'm expecting.
Okay, here we go. Safety's off.
Yep, the balance and symmetry of shooting two guns at once
may be the reason it looks so cool.
But really, it's a tricky feat of coordination
that makes real marksmanship tough.
- That was awesome. - Isn't it?
Yes. I really liked how that feels.
It's like a rocking horse of death.
Jamie's totally right.
Two guns might not mean double the score,
but it's super fun.
You end up with this kind of rhythm
where you're rocking your head and firing.
Bang, bang, bang, bang.
Feels very, kind of, weirdly natural,
and like you're a cartoon character.
So, what could be better?
The score for one thing.
Because the final tally of 4.1
means it might be an adrenaline-surging tad of fun,
it's also a whole heap of busted.
Haven't we covered just about everything?
Just about. There's one more thing I want to try.
We've done two guns toward one target.
In the movies I've seen this --
Crossed hands, two different targets.
I think we should try it.
- Why not? - All right.
These aren't real guns, these are our stand-in guns
because I don't point real guns at our cameraman.
It's where ballet meet ballistic gun play.
The ultimate and slick cinematic choreography.
But Adam is unimpressed.
Criss-cross is ridiculous,
I'd say now that it's second only to the Gangsta style
in ridiculousness and the lack of effectiveness.
With the targets several feet apart,
Jamie gets his bearings, lines up, and unleashes hell.
You looked like you were going
a little popcorn machine there for a second.
I figured I might as well have fun with it.
Yep, he was off-balance,
and the patting your head while rubbing your stomach-type action
means coordination was also an issue.
All of which was reflected in a low score
that matches the pre-test prediction.
Final score, 2.1.
But there's no denying.
Jamie did look every inch the cool cinematic hitman --
something, as he takes his position, Adam aspires to.
And as he fires at the dual targets,
it turns out it's a role Adam believes he can fill.
Not bad. Not bad at all.
The stance was much more effective than he expected.
- Final score was 7.1. - Nice.
Which is pretty good. That's pretty good.
Despite Adam's surprisingly healthy points total,
and considering he used twice as many rounds as the control,
in the final analysis, it just doesn't cut it.
I thought because you could brace your arms against each other
it might work.
But it doesn't.
You'd be much better off using a proper technique and one gun.
Crisscross is clearly busted.
So with criss-cross consigned to the busted bin,
let's get the lowdown on the history of filming firearm fashion.
Let's assess what we've learned. Shall we?
We started with the Weaver technique,
the best score and best clustering for Jamie and I.
We went to shooting from the hip
which was pretty much the worst.
When you did look down the sights,
as we did by holding the gun at the sight,
we did pretty darn well.
We get most of the bullets on the target
and the second best score to the Weaver
Gangsta style, what can I say?
It's terrible, ridiculous.
It's totally a useless way to hold a handgun.
We brought two guns into the mix,
and what we saw when we brought two guns into the mix?
We doubled the bullets, but did not double the scores.
In fact, the scores most of the time went down except for,
I think, couple of lucky shots for me at the end.
After looking at all of this, I have to conclude that,
as long as you're looking down the sights
of a single gun and concentrating on it,
you're going to have the most effective shooting technique.
You don't need two guns.
- This wheel thing worked pretty well. - It did.
But I'm wondering, what do we do with the myths
we haven't read or filmed yet?
Well, let's leave this thing set up.
I have a feeling we're going to be using it again.
All right.
You heard the man. Send us your ideas!
Please rate this subtitle at www.osdb.link/ftdm Help other users to choose the best subtitles