i am not sure about claymore but i am pretty sure that c4 will not explode by normal bullet.

correct me if i am wrong, but the explosives used in a claymore is usually c4, so both should not explode when hit by a bullet.

с4 is very stable. Only with special detonator it can be exploded. Not sure about claimore

Downvoted becauce I don't believe everything that's in Hollywood films...

Downvoted, because.

Ask the Mythbusters: Busted.

Shooting C4 (also inside claymores) is like shooting at a lump of clay. The only way you can disable it with bullets/explosives is by completely wrecking the electronics or vaporizing it. And most military grade explosives don't get destroyed too easily.

Yes, C4 is stable for through regular contact with the bullet. But you tend to think that C4 can be stable in contact with 30 mm HE projectile? Is this a joke? How about this: http://youtu.be/_Cwz9_P5cYM. In your C4 can be stable in contact with 120mm HE projectile, and then continue to function? This is ridiculous. I also doubt that C4 is stable to the tracer bullet.

Tracer rounds are nothing special, they are not setting off explosives period.

As in the other explosives related ticket about HE grenades setting off C4: if you can provide us with the blast velocities generated by an HE grenade and the required shockwave to set off a C4 charge, you have valid arguments. Just doubting something is not enough.

@tyler2, you keep on showing videos of the game /not doing what you want/ instead of providing links that /reality is not present in the game/. I agree after some huge explosives nearby the C4 should be "deleted" (aka not working anymore), but it should not trigger "just like this" just because *you want*.

Impact and fire are separately not enough to detonate C-4, but the combination of the two can create the necessary circumstances for detonation. http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/C-4

Many detonators' primary explosive is a material called ASA compound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator

C4 is easily and reliably initiated by L1A2, or L2A2 detonators, detonating cord L5A1 or Detonating Cord Boosters (DCB). http://www.militarysystems-tech.com/files/militarysystems/supplier_docs/CEUK-C4-Mouldable-Plastic-Explosive.pdf

The L2A2 comprises an aluminium tube with an output charge of PETN initiated with a primary charge of Aluminium / Lead Styphnate / Lead Azide. http://www.mondial-defence.com/images/PDF_Data_Sheets/L2A2%20Detonator%20Electric.pdf

PETN is the least stable of the common military explosives. Under certain conditions a deflagration to detonation transition can occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETN

PETN may be exploded by rifle fire. It also detonates sympathetically with the detonation of an adjacent high explosive. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-nitrate-petn.htm

Lead Azide explodes after a fall of around 150 mm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_azide

Lead Azide explodes at 350°C. May explode from shock, heat, flame or friction when dry. http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11731

Lead Styphnate is particularly sensitive to fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_azide

Lead Styphnate detonation Temperature 260°C. Very sensitive to friction, heat, and impact. http://design.caltech.edu/micropropulsion/styphnate.html

I'm not sure if I followed your line of reasoning correctly...
you can use B to do something to A
B has a certain characteristic
Conclusion: A has the same charasteristic B does

Did I get it right?

You may not realize that the detonators are very unstable?

Seriously... Wouldn't it be easier to just find an article about exploding explosives with bullets instead of roaming around the net desperately trying to find a chain of quotes that would validate your claim somehow..? Or maybe there isn't one, and that's why you post quotes like "Detonating cord is insensitive to friction and ordinary shock, but may be exploded by rifle fire" (nice quotemining, btw. This is the original quote. It's about detonating cord, not fuses...)?

You have an interesting logic. The article in which it will be written that "the shot in the explosives will explode" may be irrefutable proof? Moving substance "PETN" from one type to another detonator make the substance safe? Can you prove it? Even the careless use can cause explosion of the detonator, unfortunately Events such happened a lot. You can buy a detonator, and try to warm him or hit, it will be conclusive evidence for you. I think you need to stop wasting your time trying to flood here.

I don't have to prove anything because I didn't claim it makes it safe (I only called your quote mining), the burden of proof is still on you. You're the one who is flooding here by not presenting evidence to support your claim. If you can provide concrete evidence that you can explode explosives with bullets (and don't just say "you can because the fuses are unstable", because thats not your claim), or even better; an article or video (with enough details so we can verify what really happens) where this method is used in real-life situation (say, an EOD team makes detonates an explosive by firing at it) then I'd be happy to change my pose (from "I don't know if it's possible" to "you can detonate explosives with bullets").

In this situation absence of evidence is evidence of absence, at least to me. If it would be possible to detonate them by just firing at them then why haven't I read about it? *As far as I know* this method wasn't used, ever. If it wasn't used then maybe it belongs to Hollywood?

You are a troll ...

Trust me, I'm not.

It's pretty clear now that you're either unable or unwilling to provide us satisfactory evidence to support your claims. You're intellectually dishonest if you still keep claiming such things you can't proof.

This conversation is pointless and will not lead anywhere. 86,96% disagrees with you. The situation would be completely different if you can prove you're right and 86,96% are wrong.

I believe that I should not have to prove to you that irrefutable evidence submitted by me above is actually an irrefutable proof. In addition, not everyone in ARMA 3 is realistic, but it does not mean that everything has to be changed. If the players do not bother to search for information, but require this of me (voting down), it means that they do not want it to be implemented. If you believe that the evidence is not sufficient, then subsequent attempts to reason with you is not my burden.

I'm more concerned about the following: if the players are young age playing ARMA 3 (simulator) will see that shooting in the explosive is safe enough, it can lead to disastrous consequences. As here: http://www.exponent.com/lead-azide-detonation-at-detonator-manufacturing-facility/

Yet another quote mining. That article has absolutely nothing to do with bullets...

What you have written does not matter. This article is about the instability of explosives used in detonators, C-4 and Claymore. It is directly related to the C-4 and Claymore who are immortal in the game, and even withstand a direct spillage of 120 mm HE projectile. If you are unable to understand this, it is your problem.

Instability of a chemical compound != zomg they must explodez when u shoot 'em

120 mm HE rounds have absolutely nothing to do with this ticket.

In which country do people live who are not able to understand that the instability of the chemical compound explosives = explosive when exposed to heat, shock, friction?
Stability / Sensitivity explosives (for you) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_(explosives)
If the bullet hit the object, that object will be exposed to strong impact. Do you need proof of this?
I think you have no awareness of this issue. Does it make sense to me to try to explain to you anything else? I think not....

Copypaste me saying bullets don't cause heat or shock when it hits something. I'm questioning your claim that it's enough to detonate explosives! QUESTIONING! That doesn't mean I make a counter-claim. I'm demanding you provide satisfactory evidence to back up your claim.

"If the bullet hit the object, that object will be exposed to strong impact. Do you need proof of this? "
We need proof that the impact is strong enough for the explosive to detonate! How many times do I have to repeat myself?!

You Have Absolutely No Idea How Burden Of Proof Works! There's a saying "put up or shut up". I know which one should be used in this case.

You can try to be clever in a different place, but I do not advise you to try to be clever in another place that the impact of hitting a bullet to the object has less of an impact than a hammer (hammer blow enough to detonator exploded, there is evidence above), you'll look silly. You can continue to try to prove that the evidence is not enough, but it's your opinion that has nothing to do with reality....

I have nothing more to add to this discussion: "*facepalm*"
k thx bai