Home› Main Category› General Firearms
ironduke
MemberPosts: 143 Member
Recent movie mistakes about guns
ironduke
MemberPosts: 143 Member
The Desert Eagle/Baretta thread got me thinking about recent Hollywood gun mistakes I have seen on TV.
A few days ago there was an episode of Burn Notice where the mercenary approaching Michael has an M4 type rifle with a scope mounted on the flat top rail. problem is the scope is pointed BACKWARD!! Upon closer inspection, the scope is mounted on a QR type mount, but the levers of the mount ar on the right of the gun thus putting the occular bell forward. Obviously some prop guy mad a mistake.
Last night I watched an episode of Rizzoli and Isles (a show my wife really likes), and it was full of gun flubs.
1: The bullet recovered from the deceased was a jacketed, BT type bullet with a cannelure and "22 cal" It showed good expansion BTW
2: it was determined that it had been deflected off a nearby field piece (revolutionary war reenactors were nearby, but they were able to precisely judge the original firing position of the bullet, which was a tree branch, BTW Upon said branch they recovered skin and cosmoline.
3: The gun was later determined to be an Armelite AR7!, as you well know that is a 22LR chambered gun, tha wouldn't fire the type of jacketed bullt found in the deceased.
Seriously, I could consult for Hollywood and save them a lot of embarassment.
A few days ago there was an episode of Burn Notice where the mercenary approaching Michael has an M4 type rifle with a scope mounted on the flat top rail. problem is the scope is pointed BACKWARD!! Upon closer inspection, the scope is mounted on a QR type mount, but the levers of the mount ar on the right of the gun thus putting the occular bell forward. Obviously some prop guy mad a mistake.
Last night I watched an episode of Rizzoli and Isles (a show my wife really likes), and it was full of gun flubs.
1: The bullet recovered from the deceased was a jacketed, BT type bullet with a cannelure and "22 cal" It showed good expansion BTW
2: it was determined that it had been deflected off a nearby field piece (revolutionary war reenactors were nearby, but they were able to precisely judge the original firing position of the bullet, which was a tree branch, BTW Upon said branch they recovered skin and cosmoline.
3: The gun was later determined to be an Armelite AR7!, as you well know that is a 22LR chambered gun, tha wouldn't fire the type of jacketed bullt found in the deceased.
Seriously, I could consult for Hollywood and save them a lot of embarassment.
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
LOL! You are correct, sir. Funny how Karma works.
Obviously there isn't anything that embarrasses Hollywood.
Paul
No kidding...
Hollywood simply makes a money-based decision on technical accuracy, for guns and computers and other things. They've got a budget and a portion of it goes toward tech advisors, who review scripts and offer corrections. Whether the corrections are made depends on the cost and whether the producers or showrunners think it's worth the effort.
It's not that they have an agenda against accuracy, it's just that they spend their money on salaries and assign a limited value on assuring accuracy.
Regarding being a tech advisor, I remember years ago when I was a serious tournament-level chess player (USCF Expert's rating). Some guy wrote a letter to the editor of Chess Review, complaining that often, the boards in movies are set up 90-deg off (there should be a white square on the player's lower right), and that often the position of the pieces would be impossible. This guy of course offered his services and suggested that studios keep chess players on retainer as tech advisors. Yeah, tell me when that happens.
The answer, of course, is that the movie/TV producers just don't give a spotted damn. Same for gun errors. If it doesn't affect the monetary bottom line or the story theme, fageddaboudit.
Hi, I am the technical consultant for R&I after having served as a Sgt. of Marines and a Boston Police Detective (32 years). I just wanted to clear up some confusion. The ARMALITE AR-7 was issued with a military version of the .22LR Hornet centerfire jacketed round. I did the research for this weapon and when I was done I had two more professionals research the ammo. They provided me with the rounds used in the show. The "expansion" was really distortion from the shaving effect of the strike against the artillery piece. These prop rounds have to be hand made as it is quite a task to try to duplicate what the script calls for with a test firing.
The recreation and backtracking of the ballistics is a definitive science, though I will admit for the purpose of the show the science is condensed.
We do work very hard at maintaining the integrity and realism of the "real" world. I have yet to be embarrased.
You do have a great eye for detail and it's a pleasure to correspond with you. Sincerely, Russ Grant.
The M4 was 22 Hornet, the M6 was 22 Hornet and 410, the AR-5 was a bolt action 22 Hornet, the AR-7 was a 22LR.
http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/armalite
The AR-7 was derived from the AR-5, and is a blowback repeater in .22 Long Rifle using a standard magazine capacity of 8 rounds.
AR-5
AR-7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armalite_AR-5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-7
Edited to add: I see Varmintmist was on the same train I was.
VM, LCPL of Marines and not so much impressed by experts for a lot more than 23 years. :angel2:
Russ, welcome to the forum of country boys with internet access and a lot of experiance. Seriously, this is a good place to toss ideas around, though those that ride the credentialed expert train in to explain they are correct when they are wrong don't last long. We have every disipline of shooting that you know about and probably quite a few that you have never thought of covered here from Mall Ninjas to guys that wear dead animals on their heads so they can carry a murse (possibles bag) and still be manly. Breathe deep, hang out, hang in, and hang on.
Not to mention Armalite, not Armelite. But it's still the same thing, and we understand the point.
We can of course nitpick gun errors to death. There's certainly plenty to choose from. Myself, I sort of draw the line when the error is something that only a "gun nut" would spot. All I ask from a fictional depiction is that it's not laughably so far out that it doesn't even make sense.
If for example the CSI lab techs in the show misidentify a caliber or an AR model, and it's not particularly critical to the way the plot works out, I don't much care. If the gun error is critical to the story line, that can spoil the show.
We sort of need to take it with a grain of salt. When we see auto-rifles "fire" on a TV show these days, most of the time it's 100% CGI, the muzzle flashes being the only visible action -- no cartridge cases are ejected, no real recoil, etc. And the muzzle flashes are usually way too vivid.
Movie budgets (compared with TV) are higher, so we may see actual "trick" weapons fire, with real ejected casings and so on. I don't have any actual figures, but if you consider the whole picture, including insurance and training, the costs of "firing" fake autos where there's recoil and ejected casings must be 20-30 times doing the whole thing via CGI, where the weapon is a dummy. TV shows run on a budget that's teeny compared with the movies, where the weapons-firing budget of a movie might be what the whole TV episode costs.
I think we're stuck with RFE (rack for effect), where the gun-holder racks or cocks the weapon halfway through the scene, intending to show anger but actually showing that the weapon was essentially inert until then. Or, the mysterious click we hear whenever a pistol is pointed (even for guns like Glocks, with no safety to disengage or hammer to cock). That's showbiz, gang.
IMHO, a cannelure on on a bullet for the Hornet is pretty useless. Not like the horrific recoil of the .22 Hornet is going to back out the bullets in the rounds in the magazine. A quick check shows no bullets suitable for the Hornet with both a BT base and a cannelure. There is probably a reason for that, I suppose.:tooth:
― Douglas Adams
Fascinating stuff. I am glad to know they hire someone who actually knows a bit about the gun stuff. I sincerely appreciate your input on this issue. As a gun nut, I nit pick. I admit I have a problem. In this case I am pretty sure they show refers to the gun in question as an AR-7, which I have seen but never owned. I know they are made around the 22 LR. I had no idea a jacketed bullet of spitzer boat tail persuasion was used in specialty ammo. I can't imagine that would leave much room for powder in the case.... Nevertheless, I am pleased to have been shown something new.
As far as the tracing of trajectory, I know that is a routine part of the investigation, but the way they showed it on the show was a bit unrefined---much like my spelling. LOL!
My belief-o-meter is lingering around "give him benifit of the doubt, but prepare to yell liar."
Yet if someone does nitpick it, don't justify the mistake by being a expert. We can all live with all of the mistakes because we all understand that it is just a fake for a show. Stories require a willing suspension of disbelief to enjoy. Its one of the ways that I can enjoy "Dances With Smurfs" (Avatar) even though I know that the agenda of the antagonist is based on a false premise, or the tire squeal from a dirt road.
Jerry
I will fear no evil: For I carry a .308 and not a .270
From Russia with love, 1963:
AR-7 "sniper" rifle, .22 Long Rifle.
Q identifies it as ".25 caliber." sniper rifle,
It never was a "sniper rifle" it is a survival gun, that is what it was designed for.
Another note, a center-fire cartridge in a rim-fire rifle ????
Then it would not be a designated AR-7 then it would be a completely different model.
"Fleming admitted that he was not an expert in the firearms field and “Quite honestly, the whole question of expertise in these firearms matters bores me. Obviously, I want to know the facts. If a **** holster is better than a Berns-Martin, I want to know about it, but there is where my interest rather ends."
Italics mine
That explains plenty
Interesting and factual takes a lot more work and then the one choosing the experts must have some actual knowledge on the subject to choose accordingly, "experts" are most probably chosen on how much of a yes man they are plus based on the success of the projects they have worked on previously which at most does not have anything to do with their input.
The problem with all of this is that due to the media being where most folks get their education what they peddle becomes truth.
But your point is good--- it's not the errors that matter a lot, but the antigun or gun-error beliefs that the average TV watcher is exposed to. We're sort of "immune" to it but the continual left-leaning rhetoric in the story lines is enough to make us grind our teeth in frustration.
An example question: has anyone ever seen a modern TV episode (cop/suspense/crime) -- NOT a Western like Gunsmoke --- modern day only, in which a private citizen EVER used a firearm for proper self defense and didn't somehow suffer from it?
I can only recall ONE episode, Criminal Minds, in which a long distance killer had a hostage and the team goes to Utah or South Dakota or some similar rugged state, and the local gun folks are recruited to help, one pretty pro-gun guy in particular, a sort of rural-NRA stereotype but smart and law abiding. And in the climax, this old boy brings the killer down with one fine long shot, tosses his empty cartridge case at the FBI guy like he was offering a souvenir.
And thinking back, in one episode of 24, a local gun store owned by pro-American Muslims helps Jack by arming him with a rifle and helping in a standoff of the baddies.
This is pretty much the only time I've ever seen a private citizen use a firearm "properly". Never have we seen this on any of the Law & Order shows, of course -- they are mandated against this by their executive staff and Dick Wolf productions.
HOWEVER - one of the worst offenders I recall was "Walker, Texas Ranger" - especially an episode where Walker and some yokel park ranger faced off against a group of international drug overlords. Walker's 9mm Beretta hit the front of a full-sized Chevy Suburban, penetrated the entire length of the truck front-to-rear, to instantly ignite the gas tank (of course) into a dramatic, photogenic explosion. Even worse, the park ranger armed himself with a Ruger M77 (one of the all-weather stainless older models with the funky semi-skeletonized stock) from the rack of his patrol pickup, that lacked either iron sights or scope. THAT one just got under my skin.
NCIS was famous for showing Gibbs racking his sidearm.
It's when they rack the pistol midway DURING a confrontation that amuses me, showing us that prior to this moment, the pistol was just a hunk of metal.
Saw an episode of L&O-SVU where a rape victim was practicing at a range with her new ".50cal Desert Eagle with a 14 shot clip"! And it wasn't even moving when rapid firing.
Forget which recent cop shop it was , but the ME/ballistics expert describes the bullet as having "3 revs with a left hand groove"!
Don't know where these shows get their firearms 'facts'. Probably consulted by a former dectective from Boston.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
This "click" is so common as to be an almost automatic requirement for any TV show gun confrontation.
I'm curious if you'd ask the foley editor (sound effects person) what that added click was supposed to indicate. "I dunno -- we always do it," would probably be the reply. And he'd point to a stickynote on the bulletin board "all gun movements require clicks".
This completely unnatural sound is now embedded in the formal sound-effect mantra. I've seen it criticized on even non-gun forums, like a list of movie errors in Cracked. We could even make a drinking game out of it.
One of my fave fake-gun actions was last year, in L&O with Jeff Goldbloom, where this cutie "revolutionary" was trying to hold up the Federal Reserve. She had some sort of AR and when coming into the bank, she racked the action and strafed the cameras and such. Then, when cornered and Jeff confronts her, she racks the action right away, and then mid-argument, racks it once more. That's two RFE (rack for effect) AFTER we already know the gun's chambered. Naturally neither time did a live round eject.
Of course, the gal was the real-life hottie girlfriend of ol' Jeff at the time, Tanya Raymonde, "daughter" of the French Woman on Lost. So all is forgiven, heh, heh.
Winston Churchill