I have a question for all the other gun enthusiasts out there. Am I the only one that has a hard time watching action movies without pointing out all the mistakes they make with firearms in movies (eg. a sound of a hammer cocking on a pistol with no hammer, the sound of shell casings falling to the ground when someone shoots a revolver, or they show a bullet pulled from someone with no deformation). You also see guns magically reload themselves or I have even seen a person continue to fire an auto with the slide locked open. Am I the only person that feels like movie makers are not paying enough attention to the details; you would think they would have a competent firearms handler on the set to keep them straight. It just really breaks the flow of the movie when I see these and makes it hard for me to enjoy the film. Has anyone else seens these or can point out any they have seen. Let me know, I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

Doc

They don't have any real experts on the set. If they did, they'd ignore whatever he says in the interest of the movie's action.

Remember, movies are FAKE. It isn't real!! Nothing you see there has or would happen. You may as well expect Wiley Coyote to obey the laws of physics as to expect reality in a movie.

Finally, one personal point: Gun usage in movies unquestionably inspires imitation in the real world, where wounds cannot be shrugged off. How do you think gang hoodies learned to shoot with their guns turned sideways? Movies, of course. If there is one place where guns ought to be banned, it's in the movies, not in real life. Banning guns from movies would cost nobody anything, infringe on no real person's rights, and (best of all) petty crooks would have no stupid tricks to copy.

I especially like one of the Rocky movies where he was shooting the M-60 machine gun and it showed a pix of blanks hitting the floor.

I always enjoyed watching the Duke with his 26 shot revolver .

My wife doesn't enjoy watching some movies with me anymore, because I can't help pointing out all the mistakes (about guns and other things). To me, it's not interesting if it's not believable, and mistakes with guns or other subjects that I'm familiar with cause me to doubt the credibility of the rest of the subject matter as well. The same goes for books. I have quit reading a number of authors because of all the mistakes they make.

Sometimes there are certainly mistakes, but it may have more to due with editors than incompetence on the part of directors, etc. Especially on reloading. They're not ALWAYS going to show someone reloading, though in many cases it is perfectly possible they did.

One of the few that insists on accuracy for period firearms and their shooting abilities is Tom Selleck - a true friend of sportsmen(women) and a dyed in the wood NRA member.

My wife doesn't enjoy watching some movies with me anymore, because I can't help pointing out all the mistakes (about guns and other things). To me, it's not interesting if it's not believable, and mistakes with guns or other subjects that I'm familiar with cause me to doubt the credibility of the rest of the subject matter as well. The same goes for books. I have quit reading a number of authors because of all the mistakes they make.

When was the last time anything from Hollyweed had credibility? They are stories. Just enjoy the stuff these kooks put out and certainly don't take them seriously...otherwise you might start buying into their politics. That would be a real travesty!

My favorite is when they go thru all kinds of adventures, stalking the adversaries, get into a confrontation, point the gun threateningly, and only then, when they need the extra drama, do they finally cock the revolver, rack the slide, or pump that shotgun.

Or, ever count the number of times they pump that 12ga before & while going into action. Yet, the shells don't eject. I figure they go into a fight with an empty mag ½ the time!

.

There's a scene in Open Range where Costner fires about 8 rounds. When I pointed that out to a friend of mine who's big into CAS, he told me that Costner had reloaded, but it was edited out...and that made Costner furious as he wanted it to be as authentic as possible.

If true...that gets my respect.

i hate to see everything regulated .. but the real life imitation of movies
sure is frustrating.. that and the games..but i think they should not be taken out of movies ..
for the same reason i didn t like it when the liberals got smoking taken out of movies ..
its trying to control how we think thru the power of the entertainment and media.. i think most know which way the entertainment industry leans .. as to reality in movies i kid my wife all the time,, example,,
a guys taking fire,, hes a good bad guy[expendable] and his shirts out .. then next scene he s sayin his final wds and doing a good job actin .. but somewhere in there he tucked his shirt in.:)
its not important to me tho as real life is more interesting than movies ..movies accurately depicting real happenings [ without trying to promote some political agenda] are rare but my favorites.. ps no i don t smoke

I'm pretty sure they fail at pretty much anything they do when it comes to authenticity. Guns aren't that bad, the stuff they do with computers... argh! It's probably cost your average geek 5 years of life.

I'm pretty sure they fail at pretty much anything they do when it comes to authenticity.



Loraksus, that's an excellent point. It's true for classical music, too. It's true for anything which requires needle and thread, as well.

The purpose of Hollywood is to distract, and to ruin morals. Details pertaining to accuracy regarding any subject matter are extraneous to that purpose.

In the nineteenth century, it was still considered morally deficient to read novels. Novels instill false ideals and wrong hopes. They deform true values, regardless of the occasional pithy insight or catchy phrase. Movies and television are but more extreme forms in the same spectrum.

Truth is not an attribute of something which is not real.

Sensationalism sells, and the louder, faster and more explosive it is, the more sensational it is. Nobody wants to watch Bruce Willis do a tactical reload, even if he could do one, they'd rather see him blasting bad guys.

aparently the makers of "Tombstone" took a lot of pride in being as aufentic as they could with there guns , clothing , sadlery and anything else they could think of . Next time you see it take notice of all the diferent types of guns used . Aparently many of them were mueseam peices . makes a nice change from seeing only colt revolvers and winchester leaveractions .

You can tel what earer a hollywood western was made by the style of hat they wear . They nearly always use the contempory style of the day in there moovies . Take a look at say the "Magnefecent 7"and ull see the same hats as every one was wearing at rodeos in the lat 60's.

There's a scene in Open Range where Costner fires about 8 rounds. When I pointed that out to a friend of mine who's big into CAS, he told me that Costner had reloaded, but it was edited out...and that made Costner furious as he wanted it to be as authentic as possible.

If true...that gets my respect.

I thought they did a good job of keeping track of the shots fired (at least early in the big fight), but the reaction to getting hit was way over the top. I mean Costner's character shoots the gunslinger in the forehead and he just stands there and drops (feasible), then with the same gun shoots a guys in the midsection and the guy flies back 6 feet (maybe if you hit the guy with a 150lb sack of potatoes??). Just think about inertia. If there is that much force on the receiving end there would have an equal and opposite reaction on the sending end.

I also like the fact that Selleck tries very hard in his movies to be accurate. However, in Quigley Down Under, he reads the wind, sets his elevation and drift, and then snap shoots offhand? He also sends a guy an ad that he used as a target and it has a 2-3" group for like 800 yards? Open sighted? (can we assume offhand too?)

Hollywood just can't resist helping physics. :D

I never seen any one shot . and please god i never will , but any animals I seen shot never just fall over and lie still evan with head shots , they twitch and kick . Would imagine humans would be the same , moovies never show this .

As long as people keep going to their movies, they will assume that people approve of the crap they are putting out. I decided long ago to stop helping Hollywood in their whacko agenda. They no longer get any of my money.

End of political rant - so the thread doesn't get closed.

Some books are just as bad. My favorite is (he snicked the safety off of his .357 Magnum).

I always enjoy hearing everyones thoughts on these subjects; what spurred this topic in my head? I was watching the movie Assassins (1995) with Stalone and Julian Moore the other night and if you have seen this movie the prime assassin weapon used by Stalone is a Ruger .22 auto. Everytime they showed either Stalone or Moore getting ready to fire this gun there was this loud sound of a hammer being cocked and it drove me crazy everytime because there is no hammer on that handgun. Not to mention the spectacular firepower produced by this .22 that left huge holes everywhere it hit even blasting away marble and stone in big chunks. Yes, I can seperate reality from fiction it really makes me laugh more than anything; I could really careless about Hollywoods political agendas. I just know that they stress accuracy on many things that they portray and only wish that they would do thier homework on firearms but like many here have stated reality is not what sells tickets. Be careful out there in the real world where the good guy doesn't always get shot in the arm and the bad guy doesn't always gets it in the end.

Doc

Some books are just as bad. My favorite is (he snicked the safety off of his .357 Magnum).

didn't have a clue about "snicked". bit am now up to speed....
[edit (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=snick&action=edit&section=3)] Etymology 1

Probably from snick or snee (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snick_or_snee).

[edit (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=snick&action=edit&section=4)] Verb

<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="19%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Infinitive
to snick
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="21%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Third person singular
snicks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicks)
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="19%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Simple past
snicked (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicked)
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="19%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Past participle
snicked (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicked)
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="19%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Present participle
snicking (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicking)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
to snick (third-person singular simple present snicks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicks), present participle snicking (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicking), simple past and past participle snicked (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicked))

To cut (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cut) or snip (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snip)
(cricket) to hit the ball with the edge of the bat, causing a slight deflection (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deflection)
[edit (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=snick&action=edit&section=5)] Noun

<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="49%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Singular
snick
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="49%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Plural
snicks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicks)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
snick (plural snicks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicks))

(cricket) a small deflection of the ball off the side of the bat; often carries to the wicketkeeper for a catch
[edit (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=snick&action=edit&section=6)] Etymology 2

Imitative.

[edit (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=snick&action=edit&section=7)] Verb

<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="19%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Infinitive
to snick
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="21%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Third person singular
snicks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicks)
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="19%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Simple past
snicked (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicked)
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="19%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Past participle
snicked (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicked)
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="19%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Present participle
snicking (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicking)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
to snick (third-person singular simple present snicks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicks), present participle snicking (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicking), simple past and past participle snicked (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicked))

to make something click (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/click), to make a clicking noise
[edit (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=snick&action=edit&section=8)] Noun

<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="49%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Singular
snick
</TD><TD width=0.5%></TD><TD vAlign=top width="49%" bgColor=#f8f8ff>Plural
snicks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicks)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
snick (plural snicks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snicks))

a sharp clicking sound <DL><DD>
1893: Then it grew louder, and suddenly there came from the window a sharp metallic snick. — Arthur Conan Doyle, ‘The Naval Treaty’ (Norton 2005, p.698)</DD></DL><!-- NewPP limit reportPreprocessor node count: 714/1000000Post-expand include size: 4468/2048000 bytesTemplate argument size: 182/2048000 bytesExpensive parser function count: 0/500--><!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiktionary:pcache:idhash:60935-0!1!0!default!!en!2 and timestamp 20080807173846 -->Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snick"

I love the movies. My wife and I go every chance we get. We have a 1930s era theater that has been restored, one screeen, one movie per week, we go to every one that looks remotely watchable.

They show Buck Rogers episodes before the feature, it does not bother me in the least that I can see the strings "flying" Buck's spaceship around.:)

DOK, I looked up "snicked" as well. Here's the online Merriam-Webster:

\ˈsnik\
Function:verb
Etymology: probably from obsolete snick or snee to engage in cut-and-thrust fighting — more at snickersnee

Date: circa 1700

transitive verb

1 archaic: to cut through
2: to cut slightly

intransitive verb: to perform a light cutting action

It's a nice, useful word.

I used to shack my head in disgust at that old TV show the Ä Team" . when the used to cut up old oil drums to armor plate the trucks . and how they could give warning blast with machine guns in front of the baddies without shatering there legs with rickoshays

i once bought an 25 when i saw it put an hole in my new 55 gal drum.. not much of an armor plate id say..

many yrs ago here in australia this guy shot about 4 cops . he was useing a 303 and was shooting them through there cars that they were hiding behind . the cops only had 38's and cars in those days would stop a 38 .

One of the few that insists on accuracy for period firearms and their shooting abilities is Tom Selleck - a true friend of sportsmen(women) and a dyed in the wood NRA member.

I know Selleck is gun friendly, but it really burns me to see an actor shoot it up in a "gun" movie then see him speak out in favor of gun control.:mad:

Selleck is the exception for sure. His westerns are always a real treat. But most of the others? Hypocrites big time. Bill Ruger wrote a scathing article/letter about this years ago, I think for the American Rifleman, the jist of which was critical of the duel nature of current "Hollywood" elite: On the one hand the average Hollywood action film is disgraceful in the way it glorifies gun violence to make money, yet the same actors, producers and directors are often outspoken critics of gun owners and the NRA in private. Mr. Ruger was basically appalled at the way Hollywood makes money off images of terrible violence and death. I miss Mr. Ruger, who was one of my heros in the gun world. --Mykal Banta

Joining the Army ruined most military movies for me and becoming a Police Officer ruined many others. I guess knowing the truth goes against what Hollywood wants you to believe (that goes for politics too).
As far as bulltes being recovered looking like new; that sometimes happens with FMJ's. I have seen many where the only marks were from the rifleing.

Kudu40

kudu40,
Yeah I saw this on the show COPS years ago; a guy had been shot and the officers were looking around on the pavement with thier flashlights around the area where the shooting took place. I was thinking there is no way they are going to find anything; maybe a fragment. Then one officer said "yeah here it is", and right there laying on the ground was a perfect FMJ slug laying on the ground like someone had just layed it there. Sometimes things happen in real life that we would never believe if in a movie; I remember one episode of COPS where a fairly large guy had been shot with a .22 while running from the gunman. The guy was wearing some very tight blue jeans and the .22 bullet acutally flatened out on the guys left butt check without even breaking the fabric. After seeing that I never even considered carrying a .22 as a carry weapon; although I know some do, and again a .22 is better than no protection at all. But if I had seen that in a movie I would have said no way that would happen. Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction.

Doc