Home Main Category General Firearms

Recent movie mistakes about guns

124

Replies

  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,821 Senior Member
    So you agree with my number 2 item in the second part of my long post?
    2- Speed draws, especially from concealment require an extraordinary amount of training in order to become proficient, point shooting is a very difficult skill to acquire and maintain.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Yep. I knows because I's been dere, done dat, and am dere agin.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,821 Senior Member
    Understood. I have seen this déjà vu before also.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I would say that "Quigley Down Under" has a good movie mistake, the one you mentioned: unless one is highly, highly skilled with a handgun, using one in a spectacular fashion as shown in the movie is not a skill that one can aquire and then retain without some degree of practice.

    Quigley is however one of those "good" gun movies that is highly entertaining. And Alan Rickman always end up either getting shot or being dropped off a high building (Die Hard), being one of the best of recent smart movie villians.

    When I watch the movie I never even think about "gun errors" in Quigley, it's such a fun movie. Suspension of disbelief is easy there.
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,664 Senior Member
    I would say that "Quigley Down Under" has a good movie mistake, the one you mentioned: unless one is highly, highly skilled with a handgun, using one in a spectacular fashion as shown in the movie is not a skill that one can aquire and then retain without some degree of practice.

    Not necessarily..... Most people are good at things because they practice, practice,practice. A few just have a natural proclivity.

    The friend of the family I used to hunt with had such a skill. His 30'' full choke, vent rib 870 sat in the closet until opening morning. He would pull it out, load it up, and then put a single slug dead center thru the boiler room at 40-75 yards on a deer at a dead run (we ran deer drives).....
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,821 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Quigley is however one of those "good" gun movies that is highly entertaining. And Alan Rickman always end up either getting shot or being dropped off a high building (Die Hard), being one of the best of recent smart movie villians.

    When I watch the movie I never even think about "gun errors" in Quigley, it's such a fun movie. Suspension of disbelief is easy there.

    The only two "errors" in that movie that I could point out are first, that shootout, one against three with a new-to-him revolver (after getting soundly beaten up,) and second, his initial LR shooting skills demonstration of shooting that bucket at 4-500 yards+, offhand. I did like the display of horsemanship skill shown when the rider picks up the bucket from the ground at full gallop.

    It is an excellent movie which I have on DVD and watch occasionaly. Tom Selleck knows how to handle a rifle, unlike the US Army "sniper" in "Saving Private Ryan" who handles his about as well as I handle an accordion.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Notice that the sniper in "Private Ryan"

    Shoots left-handed, but doesn't fully pull back on the bolt, meaning he has to shake it to get the cartridge to fall out.
    Swaps scopes with impunity, never rezeroing. He does miss a bit due to this (see the belltower scene.)
    When we see him shooting through the scope, the impact relative to the crosshairs is off (see above.) However, the impacts relative to the cross hairs shift randomly.

    I would like the reticle feature that his smaller scope has. If you'll notice in the assault on the machinegun nest, Upham twists the scope and the reticle stays perpendicular. I wish my scope did that.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,821 Senior Member
    Another funny one is in the movie Full Metal Jacket. You might remember the scene at the end with the female Vietcong sniper? The weapon used by this "sniper" was an AK-47 with open sights.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Actually it was a vz 58. which was preferred by some elite in the Viet Cong. Aesthetically similar to an AK-47, it was a different animal. It's nominally more accurate than an AK-47, but still limited by open sights and the round it fires.

    I'd pull up a photo but Imfdb is down.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,821 Senior Member
    I love this place, I always learn things. I have not seen this movie in a few decades but I still remember that scene and what I thought was an Ak-47. To be honest, I am not very familiar with Combloc weapons and I didn't even know the vz 58 existed or that it was used by the Viet Cong.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Let not forget the scene in "Flashpoint" where the Canadian Tactical Team "snipers" rifle has the scope mounted upside down, then we see him rotating the scope within the rings in order to "focus"
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,044 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »

    However, I will relay how I arrive at that conclusion... You all remember the oil and solvent test done on the site hat for the life of me I can't call the name of.... Remember? Those guys SOAKED seated primers in several different types of oils and solvents typically found in gun cleaning kits. NOT ONE round failed to fire.
    \

    That was the "Box Of Truth": http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot39.htm
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,044 Senior Member
    Hi D.G.,
    There is a file: "Firearm Survival for Law Enforcement Officers" at SPAM!! that might be helpful. But this is the third time I've posted it and I'm beginning to feel like a spammer. So unless a wizop tells me it's okay, or how else to provide access, I won't be mentioning it again. Of course any suggestions from members here that take a peek will be appreciated.

    yes, your site is spam. At the bottom it says: "If you would like to compensate the author of this work, please copy the document ID above and click..." I am going to edit it out of all your posts. If you would like to advertize on GunsAndAmmo.com, you can find several links to contact ad sales.

    Also, your site is full of errors, urban legends, and just outright horse-hockey. It sounds like a mix of knowledge learned from bad detective novels, 1970's police dramas, and 3rd graders trying to one up each other on how much they know about guns. Feel free to stick around and learn some reality about guns.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,821 Senior Member
    Curse you bullsi, now I'm going to have to visit his site and report back here on some of the more egregious errors I find.
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    Most city blocks (urban addresses) are usually atleast 250 to 250 to 300 feet by 300 feet give or take in older north east coast to some southwestern and midwestern cities with 600 plus feet blocks ... a 100' (or 33 1/3 yards) block is very rare at best.

    I don't doubt that you are correct, NCFUBAR,
    As I said I didn't measure the blocks, and it would've been better if I'd just stated the distance to begin with. However, I was in the habit of estimating just what distance was practical in my own neighborhood. Therefor my mental attachment to the "block" measurement.
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Um, hold the phone a sec. Sweat can cause duds? I am gonna have to call BS on that. I could be wrong..

    However, I will relay how I arrive at that conclusion... You all remember the oil and solvent test done on the site hat for the life of me I can't call the name of.... Remember? Those guys SOAKED seated primers in several different types of oils and solvents typically found in gun cleaning kits. NOT ONE round failed to fire.

    The only way I could think of sweat killing a round is if it made it between the bullet and case mouth.... And if you are sweating that much, I don't think you need to worry about carrying a weapon. Because no one is going to mess with you. Because you are POURING sweat.

    And that's gross.

    Hi Buffco,
    Actually I HAVE been called "gross" at times. But liquid sweat does not have to enter between bullet and case mouth. Your ammo can cool at night or in A/C, the air inside will contract and can draw in moist air. On further cooling (at that time or later) the moisture can condense. I don't know that this is the exact mechanism that happened, I only know that after carrying several summer months I got duds. When I used the Winchester ammo I did not. I don't even remember how I determined that oil in the chamber killed one round. But I believe my recommendation of using waterproof ammo and firing a load on schedule is sound.
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    MALE HOGS HAVE NIPPLES!
    Babe may indeed have been a female, I didn't look. But the nipples wouldn't have been an indication. I think this post sets the record for number of times the word nipple was used. I am proud and embarrassed again.


    Buffco,

    Are you saying that nipples on male (juvenile) pigs are just as prominent as on females?? You should look at the scene where Esme is petting her stomach and telling her what a good little porkchop she is.

    I wanna see if you're big enough to come back and apologize.
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Dude...somebody needs some anti-antiperspirant...in a really bad way...However...to test this theory, we need to get someone to carry a cartridge in their armpit for oh...say...six months...gonna have to be someone in the deep south...it's snowing here..



    Yup. But if it produces no duds, what'll it prove? Remington may have changed their mfg practices by now. I just don't want some Good Guy whose life is depending on their weapon firing, to have duds in their guns. The fact that it has happened in the past makes me advise the cautions I have recommended. COULD it happen now? MAYbe not. Why take a chance?
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    Buffco,

    Are you saying that nipples on male (juvenile) pigs are just as prominent as on females?? You should look at the scene where Esme is petting her stomach and telling her what a good little porkchop she is.

    I wanna see if you're big enough to come back and apologize.



    Dude! Does this mean that you are an expert on pig nipples too?

    (When is this information going on your website?)
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Buffco,

    Are you saying that nipples on male (juvenile) pigs are just as prominent as on females?? You should look at the scene where Esme is petting her stomach and telling her what a good little porkchop she is.

    I wanna see if you're big enough to come back and apologize.

    Haha. Yeah, apologize for what exactly? And Babe was a small pig, and yes a gilt (do you know what a gilt is?) and a male pig have the same size, shape and number of teats.

    A SOW, however, is filled out. But Babe was no sow. She was either a young boar or a gilt and nipple size would be the same. Bout how many hogs a year do you raise?

    Get back to me.
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    DoctorWho wrote: »
    A wise old Instructor taught a great truth, he said, every year We learn many things we should not do, and we have compiled a book of those things, and when we finally eliminate enough of the things we should not do, we will have a much better idea of what we should do.

    When marksmanship is taught at the LE level, the Patrolman, the Detective and attendant Brass, is trained in handling firearms at the basic levels and at ranges from 7 - 25 feet.
    Any type of "trick shooting" shooting guns out of criminals hands, head shots at long ranges are not in the training of Police Officer in standard academy training.
    There is too much potential liability in teaching rank & file Police Officers anything but shooting centermass.

    Long range rifle and pistol shooting is reserved to special units like SWAT, ESU, etc...

    Modern Police Training techniques have evolved and changed over the years from 1890 to the present.
    you start teaching Police Officers to take headshots at distances of one block with a handgun and you better be prepared for lots of dead innocent bystanders and lawsuits.


    WOW. I really AM impressed, Dr.

    You really CAN talk logic! Of course, you were a little sly putting the "shooting guns out of criminals hands" thing in there. If someone supposes from that that *I* said such a thing, they could certainly suppose that I was a complete idiot. But back to talking turkey:

    My file isn't suggested as a model for police forces RIGHT NOW. It is for the good guy, officer or self defense student that wants to take their training as far as possible to insure their survival.

    There WOULD be a big advantage in having specialists in accuracy do that part of the training because of benefits such as: self-confidence- if you know you can hit a 2" bull at 75', you are less likely to get rattled and miss at 10'. If you are in the habit of hitting your target every shot, you are less likely to run out of ammo in critical situations. Then there are the times that you can't wait for SWAT. Take the time my suspect ran to his car and peeped over the door jamb. I was not flustered because I didn't have a COM shot; I KNEW I could "stop" him whenever I wanted, and so was very steady. That was a big factor in all my confrontations. Since I was virtually certain that, once my gun was in my hand, I had control, one way or another, I never got shaky. If LEOs are only taught the "basics", then there's a good chance their opponent is better. This knowledge is NOT a confidence builder or tranquilizer for the officer. On the other hand, if he has the confidence that he is likely much better than the BG, he is likely to think clearer and make better decisions. And it certainly doesn't hurt to not have misses hitting bystanders!

    There would be other necessary changes in procedure. For instance, there would be periodic barrel inspections by machine. You can't depend on the accuracy of a weapon after the barrel has been "broken in".

    Head shots are still for special circumstances. But if you are alone, and maybe not in uniform the psychological advantage can be critical. Most bad guys (except for the odd suicidal maniac) don't mind hurting or killing, but mostly they don't want to GET hurt! At least not too badly. But when you're staring directly down the barrel of a gun (and if the light's just right you can maybe see the gold of the bullet or imagine you can) THEN you have just about as iron-clad a guarantee that you're coming to your end as you are ever likely to get. It will cause ANY non-suicidal, not out-of-their-mind person to pause!

    But of course, THIS training has to come after the accuracy training is considered old training. And still not be SOP.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Hi Buffco,
    Actually I HAVE been called "gross" at times. But liquid sweat does not have to enter between bullet and case mouth. Your ammo can cool at night or in A/C, the air inside will contract and can draw in moist air. On further cooling (at that time or later) the moisture can condense. I don't know that this is the exact mechanism that happened, I only know that after carrying several summer months I got duds. When I used the Winchester ammo I did not. I don't even remember how I determined that oil in the chamber killed one round. But I believe my recommendation of using waterproof ammo and firing a load on schedule is sound.

    Oh I believe you that you got duds. I don't believe you are correct as to WHY.
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    yup. But if it produces no duds, what'll it prove? Remington may have changed their mfg practices by now. I just don't want some good guy whose life is depending on their weapon firing, to have duds in their guns. The fact that it has happened in the past makes me advise the cautions i have recommended. Could it happen now? Maybe not. Why take a chance?


    ... He's Baaaaacccckkkk!!!
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Considering that we've had cartridges soaked in everything water to penetrating oil, I have my doubts that a cartridge, loaded in a firearm and carried in a holster would be affected by the sweat of the wearer. Condensation? unlikely, I hunt in freezing temps or below all day and bring my rifle and ammo into the 72 degree house day after day all season long...if anything would generate condensation, that will and I've NEVER had a round subjected to that treatment fail to fire... so no, I'm hoisting the bsflag.gif flag on the sweat concept.

    Strange stuff happens but that would have to be an anomaly of enormous proportions...

    As an afterthought...I dropped a full 20 round mag from my AR in some standing water last season. I froze overnight and I recovered it three days later after finding it sticking out of a block of ice...no misfires in any of the ammo in that mag...


    Jayhawker,
    It sounds as though you think all ammo is the same. But I've explained that I had different results with different ammo. I don't think you HAVE a flag that will change my experiences. So IF there IS still ammo being made (or even stored away somewhere) that can be killed by carrying in sweaty clothes, I hope that it's only the bad guys that are impressed by your flags, votes, and any other maneuver used to try to discredit me, and the good guys play it safe.

    I also hope that those of you who disregard this advice (assuming you are good guys) always get the "foolproof" ammo.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Gentlemiant...
    I'd still like to know your qualifications. Why should we listen to you over others?
    I'm just here for snark.
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    Pegasus wrote: »
    Thanks for the offer. Let me just say that I am first and foremost a rifleman. However, since this is a thread about use of guns in movies, let me bring up a line from a movie that I think will illustrate my answer to you very well. The movie is Quigley Down Under, starring Tom Selleck in the eponymous role. Throughout the movie Matthew Quigley (Tom Selleck) demonstrates finely honed skills as a long range rifleman, while his nemesis Elliot Marston (Alan Rickman) shows off his predilection for the revolver. At the end of the movie (spoiler alert), Matthew Quigley guns down Elliot Marston and two of his henchmen, using a revolver, a weapon for which he had previously stated he didn't have much use. As an explanation to the dying Marston, Quigley finally reveals that while he had said he did not have much use for the handgun, he had not said he didn't know how to use one.

    Wow Pegasus,

    I had no idea my post was so obtuse!
    Firstly, it was addressed primarily to Dr. Who, and the training statement was intended for him.
    Then, after the "I suspect there are shooters on this forum that can (make a head shot at 75') also." It was to this last line that I asked for anyone to speak up, having read some of your posts I suspected that you could likely do it. That's why I mentioned your name.
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Haha. Yeah, apologize for what exactly? And Babe was a small pig, and yes a gilt (do you know what a gilt is?) and a male pig have the same size, shape and number of teats.

    A SOW, however, is filled out. But Babe was no sow. She was either a young boar or a gilt and nipple size would be the same. Bout how many hogs a year do you raise?

    Get back to me.

    My dad raised pigs. But I've never seen nipples on a boy pig like those on Babe's actress.. Did you LOOK at the scene I suggested?
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    Aaaaaaaaaaand still now qualifications. Man, you should have been a politician...
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • GentleMiantGentleMiant Member Posts: 32 Member
    Dude! Does this mean that you are an expert on pig nipples too?

    (When is this information going on your website?)

    Naw, that's Buffco.(chuckle) I'd never plagiarize.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand still no qualifications.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
This discussion has been closed.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement