Original subtitles

Do not try what you're about

to see at home.

We're what you call experts.

[ Clank ]

Ow!

Narrator: On this episode of

"mythbusters"...

Ta-da!

Narrator: You're in

charge.

The team randomly selects

stories from the mailbox and

gives them a whirl.

You've asked, "are Hollywood

gun-handling techniques

effective or just for show?"

Nice, gangsta.

Narrator: Your next request

is to test a ballistic myth

sent in by the troops.

Whoa!

Narrator: Then, there's the

Internet craze for crazy

roadside assistance.

Whoo-hoo!

Looks like a really dangerous

way to fill a tire.

Narrator: And the final lucky

dip in this eclectic mix of

myths...

Pick... A... Door!

Narrator: Is a

mathematical paradox from a

game show.

We have a winner.

[ Cheers and applause ]

Narrator: Who are the

mythbusters?

Adam savage...

I reject your reality and

substitute my own.

Narrator: And

Jamie hyneman.

We're gonna have an

adventure.

Narrator: Between them, more

than 30 years of special-effects

experience.

Together with Tory belleci...

I'm gonna die!

Narrator: Grant imahara...

This is the most dangerous

thing we're gonna do all week.

Narrator: And

kari Byron...

Let's do it.

Narrator: They don't just

tell the myths.

They put them to the test.

Captions by vitac... www.Vitac.Com

step right up, step right up for

a viewer-request extravaganza.

What's this about?

Ah, well, this is the

wheel of mythfortune

[misfortune].

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 from the game show

"let's make a deal"?

This is great.

I know you're a big fan of

game shows, but let me remind

you what this one is.

Monty hall offers a contestant a

choice of one of three doors,

says there's a prize behind one

of them..

And the contestant chooses,

let's say, door "b."

Before he gets to see if there's

a prize behind that, 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?

Now, 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.

Wow. Well, I'm not sure why

that would be the case, but

let's test it.

Narrator: 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

2-part myth.

Supposedly, people

overwhelmingly decide to stick,

and apparently it's better to

switch.

So, how do you want to go

about this?

Well, as far as i can see,

there's two parts to the

story... one psychological and

one statistical... the

psychological being that people

do not want to switch from their

original choice, the statistical

being that there is an advantage

to them if they do.

Well, let's start with the

psychological then.

Perfect.

Narrator: So, 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?

Well, 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

decision-making, so I'm thinking

a real stage and some real doors

and set up a "mythbusters"

game-show scenario.

That looks great.

Narrator: And with their

premade props in tow, the team's

mathematical mission begins at a

local theater...

Ladies and gentlemen,

door number 1.

[ Tool whirring ]

Narrator: Where they

prepare their game-show setting,

which includes the obligatory

over-the-top game-show host

outfit.

Ta-da!

Uh, maybe you should try

door number 3.

Oh.

[ Chuckles ]

[ Sighs ]

Much better.

Now should we start?

Yep.

Narrator: 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.

[ Cheers and applause ]

Whoo!

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.

Hi.

We want to find out if

that's true.

We're gonna bring in a bunch of

contestants, run them through

the whole test, but what we're

really looking for is to see

how many stick with their

original choice and how many

switch.

[ Applause ]

Pick... A... Door!

We are playing a little game

today called "pick a door."

Okay.

I would like to start this

game by you telling me which

door is your choice.

I will take number 1.

Number 1.

Door number 1 is your choice?

Yeah.

Jamie, will you please show

Brian what's behind door

number 3.

Nothing.

As you can see, there's

nothing behind door number 3.

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 empty door on purpose.

Your prize is either behind

door number 1, your original

choice, or door number 2.

I'm gonna give you one last

chance.

You could switch right now to

door number 2, if you'd like, or

you can stick with your original

choice.

Narrator: And so to the

moment of truth.

As per the first part of the

myth, will he stick or will he

take the opportunity to switch?

I will stick with my

door number 1.

You'll stick. All right.

How come?

Because it was my first

instinct.

There it is.

Contestant number 1 sticks, and

Adam and Jamie have their first

data point.

Jamie, will you show Brian

what's behind door number 1.

Nothing.

Aw.

Sorry, there's nothing behind

door number 1.

Thank you very much for playing.

That's an excellent data point.

Thank you.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

[ Cheers and applause ]

Narrator: With no

pre-knowledge of the test, from

backstage the next contestant

steps up.

How are you?

Narrator: And after picking

her door...

Which door is your choice?

1.

Narrator: Jamie opens up a

losing door, and Adam moves the

test along to the relevant

data point.

You can switch to

door number 3 or you can stick

with your original choice.

What's it gonna be?

Are you gonna switch or stick?

I'm sticking.

You're sticking. How come?

Because the door is pink.

Okay.

Narrator: This time, sticking

pays off.

[ Cheers and applause ]

We have a winner.

It's a winner!

Congratulations.

Narrator: But, 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 3 or

stick with your original choice.

I'll stick with 1.

You really want to stick?

How come?

Gut feeling.

Gut feeling?

Narrator: That's 3 from 3.

I'm sorry.

Ha ha!

Narrator: And as the 100%

record in favor of the myth

continues...

I'm gonna still go with

number 1.

Narrator: Things start to

get really interesting.

I'm gonna stick with

number 2.

Is there a reason behind your

wanting to stick?

Uh, first choice.

Narrator: Because it's not

just the score that's providing

a pattern.

I'm gonna stick with 2.

Sticking with 3.

I'd like to stick with my

original.

You're gonna stick?

Narrator: But the motivation

for sticking is becoming

clearer.

I'm gonna stick.

You're gonna stick? How come?

I guess it's a 50/50 chance.

Narrator: The perception is

that with two doors left,

there's a 50/50 chance of

winning, and so there's

seemingly no advantage to

switching.

I trust my instincts.

I'm gonna stay with door

number 2.

Narrator: And, incredibly, as

every single contestant decides

to stick...

I'm gonna stay with 3.

Narrator: 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.

It's so cool.

I would not have called that.

[ Chuckles ]

Stick with number 1.

Narrator: And to fully

decipher the results...

I'm gonna stick.

Narrator: Adam and Jamie

roll their game-show credits...

[ Cheers and applause ]

Fantastic. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Nicely done.

Thank you so much.

Narrator: And head back to

the shop.

Okay, wheel of mythfortune.

Shall i give it a spin?

Please.

Go for it.

* doo doo

* doo doo

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, because if the shrapnel

goes up and out, it might create

a safe zone down below.

Narrator: Raised by a brave

friend in the military, it's an

interesting ballistics question.

Is the lethal fragment pattern

of a grenade really just up and

away?

Can you actually avoid shrapnel

damage by hitting the deck?

All right, so, there's two

things lethal about a grenade...

The shock wave and the shrapnel.

All right, well, why don't we

do this... let's go to the bomb

range, we'll set off some

hand grenades, and find out at

what point the shock wave is

no longer lethal.

Right. At that distance,

you'd be safe, and then all

you'd have to worry about is

the shrapnel.

So we build something to catch

all the shrapnel at that

distance and see what we get.

Narrator: To kick things off,

the guys hit their favorite

location.

We've come out to the

Alameda county sheriff's bomb

range to test the myth that if a

grenade is going off and you hit

the deck, lay flat on the

ground, you will get no

shrapnel.

But, before we get the

shrapnel, we need to establish

the blast-wave perimeter,

because, inside of that,

shrapnel or not, you'd be dead.

Now, to do that, we're gonna use

our oseco burst disks.

They're set to 75 psi, which is

the threshold of certain death.

Now, we'll have 10 burst

disks, starting at a foot, all

the way out to 10 feet from the

blast.

Now, this will record the

lethality of the blast from the

grenade.

Now, we've used these burst

disks in the past...

"knock your socks off"... and

"what is blast proof."

[ Explosions ]

So, it's gonna give us the data

we need.

All right, here's the last

one.

Sensors are set.

Narrator: Remember, this

first detonation is designed to

determine how far the lethal

perimeter of the shock wave

extends.

Later, the team will use that

minimum survival distance as the

point at which they measure the

height of the shrapnel

distribution.

But for now, it's all about the

shock wave, 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 that we can fire

remotely from the bunker.

Narrator: 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 3... 2... 1, fire.

[ Explosions ]

Wow. That was awesome.

All right.

That was energetic.

Let's check it out.

Narrator: What they're

checking is how many of the

burst disks burst and,

crucially, which ones survive.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

All right, 5-foot radius.

That is our blast zone for our

grenade.

So, we set off our grenade, and

we got some good results.

First disk, at 5 feet away,

ruptured, but the one at 6 feet

didn't, meaning, at 5 feet, the

shock wave alone would kill you,

but at 6 feet, you'd survive.

So we're gonna set up our

shrapnel catchers just outside

that 5-foot radius and find out

exactly what the fragment

pattern is.

Okay, let's go get the

shrapnel catchers.

Perfect.

Narrator: Yep, it's time to

bring out the shrapnel catchers.

The idea of this test is to

determine exactly how high the

fragments hit.

Okay, so, just outside of

5 feet.

Narrator: 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.

So, you see the blast wave

propagating.

If you're outside of that lethal

5-foot radius, you're safe from

that.

What we're interested in is the

shrapnel, which is all the

little sparkly things, and you

see that going up and out.

Now, the important thing for us

is what happens if you're close

to the ground,

how much of that shrapnel will

actually hit you?

Narrator: Coming up, Adam and

Jamie butt heads...

Adam's gonna kick my butt.

Narrator: In order to

crunch the monty hall numbers.

In your face!

Narrator: 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...

Whoo!

Narrator: Adam and Jamie

have answered part one of the

problem.

What's it gonna be?

Are you gonna switch, or are you

gonna stick?

Narrator: As far as the

psychology of sticking or

switching goes...

I'm gonna stick with 2.

Narrator: Contestants are

unwilling to change their

choice.

I'm gonna stick.

Where do we stand?

Well, amazingly, our

volunteers chose to stick 100%

of the time.

The second part states that

we should see a 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 that we can really

compare the numbers.

Narrator: As Jamie said, with

all of the contestants sticking,

they don't yet have any data on

whether switching is

advantageous.

So test 2 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 setup.

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 gonna have

two sets of three doors... one

for me, one for Jamie.

It's gonna have a roll of

50 tests, randomly selected,

preloaded so that we can cycle

through it really fast.

It's not gonna be a simple

build, but i think, in the end,

it's gonna 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 gonna run

through each of the tests, and

each time we win, we take a red

piece of paper and we thumbtack

it up onto the board behind us.

Okay.

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 gonna kick my butt.

[ Cheers and applause ]

Narrator: To find out, it's

"pick a door" take 2.

Test number 1, choose your

door.

I choose 1.

I choose door number 2.

Open an empty door.

I'm sticking.

I lose.

I am switching.

I win! Whee!

Narrator: Unlike the previous

test...

I choose 1.

I choose 3.

Narrator: Adam and Jamie

are focusing only on the

win-lose result.

I'm sticking.

I lose.

I am switching.

I win! Whoo-hoo!

Narrator: The rules are

exactly the same...

Test number 3.

Narrator: Except the

stick-or-switch variable is

removed.

I'm sticking.

Narrator: Jamie always

sticks...

I lose.

Narrator: And Adam always

switches.

I am switching.

I win! This is crazy.

I can't keep winning like this.

Narrator: In addition, the

large sample means that over

time...

I'm sticking.

I lose.

Narrator: The results will

reflect the true probability of

the choice to stick or switch.

I'm sticking.

I win.

Hey-hey!

Narrator: But it's not long

before the results on the board

paint a definitive picture.

I choose 2.

The monty hall paradox is

interesting because, on the face

of it, it seems simple.

I am switching.

I win!

During the final stage of it,

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 the statistics

and the theory and the proofs of

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 here is

really interesting.

If the prize is equally likely

to be behind each of the doors,

then if a player picks door 1,

there's a 1-in-3 chance the

prize is behind it.

That means that there's a 2-in-3

chance that the prize is behind

doors 2 and 3.

Now take away door 3, and

there's still a 2-in-3 chance

that it's behind door 2.

So switching effectively doubles

your chances of winning.

So, what advice can we offer our

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.

[ Cheers and applause ]

Narrator: Next...

Ready for some shrapnel?

Narrator: Kari, Grant, and

Tory get the lowdown on

"hit the deck."

[ Explosions ]

Whoa!

Narrator: Kari, Grant, and

Tory are back at the bomb range.

They're testing the myth that

the shrapnel from 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 a grenades explodes,

there's about a 5-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 low, near the ground.

That's where our shrapnel

catcher comes in.

Now, around me are our

shrapnel catchers.

Now, the white section

represents somebody standing,

and the red section...

Represents somebody getting down

on the ground.

[ Grunts ] Give me 20.

[ Grunts ]

Now, there are two reasons

why hitting the deck might be

advantageous.

First of all, obviously, you're

minimizing your profile to the

grenade.

But, secondly...

[ Grunts ]

the pattern of the shrapnel

seems to be going up and out,

and that's why we're adding a

top to our shrapnel catcher, so

we can see what that looks like.

Narrator: The debris from the

preliminary explosion does seem

to indicate it's moving up and

out, but to find out for sure,

any lethal damage from the less

visible metal fragments will

mark the painted plywood of

these boards.

If the area at the bottom is

clear, the myth is confirmed.

Just to cover all our bases,

we're gonna use a couple

different kinds of grenades.

We have a vintage, mid-century

pineapple grenade and a more

modern baseball grenade.

Now, both these names are

somewhat innocuous... baseball,

pineapple.

The important thing to know is

that they're gonna be throwing

out shrapnel at 22,000 feet per

second.

Now, just 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.

Narrator: First up, j.D.

Hooks up the pineapple grenade,

with its distinctive grooves,

and team heads down to the

bunker.

Ready for some shrapnel.

Narrator: With the remote

detonator rigged, it's time to

find out if you can avoid

grenade shrapnel by hitting the

deck.

In 3... 2... 1...

[ Explosions ]

[ Laughter ]

Wow!

[ Explosions ]

That did some serious damage.

It even knocked over one of

the shrapnel catchers.

Yeah!

I think we're gonna have a

lot of shrapnel.

All right, let's go check it

out.

Narrator: And what they find

is that being around when a

grenade goes off is not a good

idea at all.

The shrapnel spray on the

acrylic roof alone is

frightening.

Oh! Look at that!

Wow.

We got a lot of shrapnel.

But did we get it down below?

Yep.

So looks like this one is

busted.

You don't get away scot-free

down low.

Well, the shrapnel pattern is

definitely clear, and it's even

emphasized if you look at the

exit wound.

There's a lot more shrapnel at

the top than there is at the

bottom, but, clearly, there's

still shrapnel at the bottom, so

this myth is busted.

[ Explosions ]

Narrator: 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, so this one is

busted.

Why don't we move on to the

modern-day grenade and see what

that does.

Modern grenade.

Narrator: The team moves in

on the double and replaces all

of the shrapnel catchers, and

j.D. Does his thing with the

baseball grenade.

Okay, baseball-grenade

shrapnel test.

Do it.

Charging.

In 3... 2... 1...

[ Explosions ]

Whoa!

That was way bigger than the

pineapple grenade.

Let's go check the shrapnel

pattern.

Narrator: And their discovery

puts this ballistic myth to bed.

Whoa!

[ Laughs ]

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 gonna get hit by

shrapnel.

The myth that when a grenade

is going off, if you hit the

deck, you'll have no shrapnel

hit you is busted.

True, the pattern of shrapnel

mostly goes upward, but there's

still a lot that goes down below

in that zone.

Narrator: 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

best of a very bad situation.

Yeah, it might be busted,

but, look, if I'm in the

situation, I'm gonna hit the

deck.

[ Chuckling ] 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.

[ Gunfire ]

All right.

Let's see here.

"Mythbusters, I've been an

action-movie fanatic for years,

and I've noticed something about

the way people hold guns in

movies.

I've seen guns fired from the

hip, fired with an extended arm,

1-handed, 2-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.

We get some guns, some targets,

and see which technique is more

accurate.

Let's get shooting.

Narrator: The history of

firearm fashion is replete with

a heap of ever-changing stylish

poses.

Aah!

Narrator: 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.

[ Gasps, grunts ]

Narrator: 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 intended target and we

will score ourselves based on

timing and accuracy.

At the end of all those tests, a

quick look at both the targets

and the scores really ought to

give us a fantastic picture

about which handling techniques

are truly effective and which

ones are just for show.

Narrator: That sounds

straightforward.

All they need now are some guns

and targets.

Here is today's target.

If you see one of these perched

over your bed in the middle of

the night, shoot it!

Shoot it immediately.

[ Chuckles ]

The gun we'll be using is

a .45-caliber semiautomatic

pistol.

We'll be putting 230-grain

full-metal-jacket ammo in it.

Very common gun, very common

ammo worldwide.

Scoring... pretty

straightforward.

Black section equals 10 points,

yellow section, 7 points,

white, 6, red, 5.

Once we've tallied up all the

points from shooting, we will

divide that by the amount of

seconds it took to fire all

eight bullets, and that'll give

us a final score.

The main tool we'll be using

for this test is an acoustic

timer.

When we press this button...

[ Beep ]

it'll start working.

It'll hear each shot, and it'll

give us the total amount of time

it took to make the eight shots.

I know you may be looking at

this setup and thinking that

we're making things pretty easy

for ourselves, but the point of

this experiment isn't about

whether Jamie or i are good

shots.

It's actually to compare the

different handholds and their

accuracy and their

effectiveness.

We've chosen this distance to

give us the best resolution for

that comparison.

Narrator: That's the setup...

A gun, 2 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 used 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, 'cause

it's a really good group.

And Jamie and i have actually

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 to

me like a pretty good idea.

Narrator: With the Weaver

technique complete, the scores

can be collated, and if any of

the five Hollywood poses to be

tested come close to Adam and

Jamie's controlled average of

7.3, it'll be confirmed it's a

reasonable technique.

All right.

Well, we've got our control.

Let's start holding the gun in

other ways.

Narrator: And 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.

I mean, come on, you can't even

see the sight.

How are you gonna know where

you're aiming?

And after the gun resets, how

are you gonna get that second

shot?

I don't think it's gonna be that

effective.

Jamie's been shooting from the

hip for years.

[ Chuckles ]

Ready?

Safety's off.

Shooting from the hip.

[ Beep ]

Narrator: 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.

I mean, you're... you're just

sort of like, "well, that seems

about right."

[ Chuckles ]

I can't wait to try.

Good luck.

This is a crazy position to

shoot from.

[ Beep ]

Narrator: With a few hits

loosely spread 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.

Just you're hoping every single

time.

Oh, let's figure out what the

score is.

Narrator: And the scoreboard

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.

Well, that was fun.

Oh, it's not over yet.

There's more to go.

Coming up on "mythbusters,"

fix your tire by fire.

Whoo-hoo!

It's gonna blow!

[ Explosion ]

Narrator: 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 here.

Just you're hoping every single

time.

Narrator: Up next is 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 gonna

be good, because i am able to

line up with the sights, as well

as my body, in a fairly stable

position.

[ Beep ]

Narrator: Jamie unloads, and

even before the points are

tallied, it's clear the position

is working well.

Nice shooting, Tex!

Narrator: As Adam also

demonstrates...

Okay, Adam, straight-arm

shooting.

Narrator: 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.

[ Laughs ]

That's fun.

Narrator: And it all boils

down to a score that compares

extremely favorably with the

control.

I love this stance almost as

much as i like the Weaver.

It gives me a tremendous amount

of control.

The accuracy was as good as the

Weaver stance.

Yeah, this one's a winner.

So, 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.

Narrator: A staple of the

'90s, on-screen hoodlums seem to

think a 90-degree twist adds a

little something to their

shooting skills.

But does it really?

Adam's excited to find out.

[ Laughs ]

I have always wanted to 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.

Okay, I'm ready.

[ Beep]

Did i hit it once?

Narrator: Although the

straight arm did enable Adam to

fire off his rounds quickly

enough, his score was poor.

Final score of 1.0.

Narrator: Let's see how Jamie

does.

Mr. hyneman, gangster-style.

[ Chuckles ]

Narrator: Looking

suspiciously natural in the

gangsta pose, Jamie outscores

Adam.

Final score is 1.6.

Nice, gangsta.

Narrator: But 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.

And 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 actually 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 reseat an inflated

tire using starter fluid?"

There's so many videos on the

Internet of people with deflated

tires.

They put something flammable in

it, light it, and it goes

"whoo!" And it actually reseats,

inflates, and stays inflated.

Sounds simple enough.

All we need is a tire and some

starter fluid.

This could be so dangerous.

Or explosive.

Narrator: Where there's fire,

there's folk that just can't

help themselves.

But despite the danger, the

mythbusters want to know if

these clips of explosive

roadside assistance are real.

Can you really reseat and

inflate a tire by heating things

up?

Well, there's only one way to

find out.

Getting a flat on a deserted

road... this is how all horror

movies start.

[ Tires screech ]

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, so that is

what we're gonna be testing.

So, we're gonna try this with

a classic fire, and if that

doesn't work...

We're gonna move on to a truck

tire 'cause it has thicker

walls.

Narrator: First up, it's 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.

Narrator: 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.

Narrator: But it's just a big

letdown.

But it's not inflating.

No.

Okay.

It doesn't go "poof" like

that, right?

Let's try that again.

Narrator: Take 2.

But this time, Tory pumps his

foot on the air, mixing the

accelerant with air.

We'll see, if we get some air

in there, we get a better mix

ratio.

Whoo-hoo!

[ Laughing ] Wow!

That that worked like a

charm!

Narrator: Except now they

seem to have a rapidly inflating

tire on fire.

That means an explosion is a

very real possibility.

Whoo-hoo-hoo!

It's gonna blow!

Uh, maybe we should all, uh,

step a little bit further back.

Okay.

That was probably the most

terrifying tire inflating I've

ever experienced.

[ Whoosh ]

Whoo-hoo!

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

gonna explode, and we all took

off running.

Whoo-hoo-hoo!

However, when it was all said

and done, a lot of cooling

happened, a lot of fuel was

burned, and we actually created

a vacuum inside the tire.

Yeah, look at that.

It's a vacuum.

Wow.

[ Laughs ]

I wouldn't call that inflated.

I'd call that the opposite of

inflated.

So, there's a couple parts to

this myth.

One, does it seat the tire on

the rim?

Yes, you ignite the gases, they

expand rapidly, and it pops

right off.

Two, does it inflate the tire?

Yes, it actually inflates it

very quickly, and it almost

looks like it's gonna blow up.

But, three and most important,

does it stay inflated?

No, because as the gas is

cooled, it forms sort of a

vacuum and you see the tire

shrink back down onto the room.

So this one is busted.

Narrator: Busted, but there

is some truth to the myth.

It's an excellent, if highly

dangerous method, of reseating

and briefly inflating the tire.

It just doesn't stay inflated.

But the team isn't done yet.

All right, next up,

heavy-duty truck tire.

Narrator: The clip the viewer

sent in showed the trick being

done on a truck tire.

So to cover all their bases,

they're giving that a go.

And once again, kari gets the

accelerant right into the tire

before lighting it.

Whoa!

Whoo-hoo!

Nice!

It worked.

Narrator: But did it really?

Oh, but look at that.

It's lost its inflation.

Oh!

So it's a great party trick but

not really good for road

repairs.

Not practical.

Narrator: The initial rapid

expansion of gases from the

explosion does pop the tire onto

the rim, but when those gases

cool, you're pretty much back to

square one.

Whoo-hoo!

Now, if you're watching the

video, it seemed like seating

and inflating your tire with

fire is dangerous, and, well,

face it, 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.

Narrator: Coming up on

"mythbusters"...

Jamie, you look bad-ass.

Narrator: Duck and cover,

because Jamie's letting loose.

[ Chuckles ]

[ Gunfire ]

Welcome back.

We have been testing a bunch of

gun-handling techniques that we

have seen in the movies.

But now it's time to add another

layer... a gun-shaped layer.

That's right.

It's now time for two guns.

[ Gunfire ]

Narrator: So, "matrix" -style

2-gun gunplay is up next.

But are you really doubling your

chances of a ballistics

bull's-eye?

Jamie, you look bad-ass.

I'll tell you that.

Ready.

Here we go.

Narrator: There is one

important factor to note.

Despite using double 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.

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.

Narrator: Before we tally the

total, Adam's up.

And despite Jamie having a

'tache-tickling experience,

Adam's not confident.

Safeties are on.

Bang, bang, bang.

Bang, bang, bang.

Bang, bang, bang.

Low score, low score.

Moving on, right?

That's what I'm expecting.

Okay, here we go.

Safety's off.

Narrator: 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.

Yay!

That was awesome.

Isn't it?

Yes!

I really liked how that feels.

It's like a rocking horse of

death.

Jamie is totally right.

Two guns might not mean double

the score, but it is super fun.

I mean, you end up with this

kind of rhythm where you're

rocking your head and firing,

like, bang, bang, bang, bang,

bang, bang, bang.

Feels very kind of weirdly

natural and like you're a

cartoon character.

So what could be better?

Narrator: The score, for one

thing, because the final tally

of 4.1 means it might be an

adrenaline-surging ton of fun,

but it's also a whole heap of

busted.

Well, haven't we covered just

about everything?

Just about.

There's one more thing i want

to try.

We've done two guns towards one

target, but, 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,

'cause i don't point real guns

at our cameraman.

Narrator: It's where ballet

meets ballistic gunplay... the

ultimate in slick cinematic

choreography... but Adam is

unimpressed.

Crisscross is ridiculous.

I say now that it's second only

to the gangster-style in

ridiculousness and the lack of

effectiveness.

Narrator: With the targets

several feet apart, Jamie gets

his bearings, lines up, and

unleashes hell.

[ Beep ]

[ Gunshots ]

[ Laughs ]

You looked like you were

going a little popcorn-machine

there for a second.

I figured i might as well

have some fun with it.

Narrator: 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

pretest prediction.

Final score, 2.1.

Narrator: But there's no

denying Jamie did look every

inch the cool cinematic

hit man... 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!

Narrator: The stance was much

more effective than he expected.

The final score was 7.1...

Nice! Whoo!

Which is pretty good.

That's pretty good.

Narrator: But 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.

Narrator: So, with crisscross

consigned to the "busted" bin,

let's get the lowdown on the

whole history of filming firearm

fashion.

Let's assess what we've

learned, shall we?

We started with the Weaver

technique, which was the best

store and the best clustering

for Jamie and i.

And 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 side, we did pretty

darn well, getting most of the

bullets on the target and the

second-best score to the Weaver.

Gangsta-style [Laughs] what can

i say?

It's terrible. It's ridiculous.

It's totally a useless way to

hold a handgun.

And we brought two guns into the

mix, and what we saw when we

brought two guns into the mix,

with double the bullets, was

not double the scores.

In fact, the scores most of the

time went down except for, i

think, a couple 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 just leave this

thing set up.

I have a feeling we're gonna be

using it again.

All right.

You heard the man.

Send us your ideas!

Want to know why we did what

we did and why we didn't do what

we didn't?

Go to discovery. Com/

mythbusters-aftershow

and check it out.