Badmovies.org Forum

I think Flangepart made similar points not to long ago, but I just wanted to weigh in.
I'm forever running across errors in films in which firearms are described and used. And they aren't errors that you have to be an exprert or technically skilled to spot. I think they're obvious to almost anyone with a passing knowledge of the subject(s).

For instance, semi-automatic pistols are often referred to as revolvers...when obviously they are semi-auto's. I see this alot in older films but it still crops up once in awhile. Fairly simple thing for a continuity person to check. Often a character will mention the caliber of the rounds for a weapon, incorrectly, in A Few Good Men, it was mentioned that Col. Markham put a .45 to his head, when the weapon was clearly a 9mm. Also, supressors or silencers, don't work on revolvers in real life, but work like a charm in movies.

 Finally, and this is a HUGE pet peeve with me in my professional life with people who should know better. It's not a clip, it's a magazine. You load the clip into the magazine...then the magazine into the weapon. Nitpicky stuff, I know. But, it seems they would have someone in a production crew who would spot this stuff.

I always got a kick out of the scenes in Rambo where he's firing an M-60 from the hip with pinpoint accuracy.

In "Aliens" after the Colonial Marines get their asses kicked and are taking an inventory of their remaining weapons, Hicks states that each pulse rifle has about 50 rounds each but each rifle fires about 10 times that amount throughout the rest of the film!

One pet peeve of mine pops up quite often, especially in Hollow Man.  They decide to issue tranq guns.  Yet the guns they are given are FRIGGIN PAINTBALL PISTOLS!

Arrrrgh.....

It hurts me to see a major film with well known actors running around with paintball guns.

I mentioned this in another thread, but it seems to fit in here as well, so I'll repeat it;

In the Clint Eastwood movie THE ENFORCER, they keep referring to a "LAWS rocket." What they mean is a LAW or "Light Anti-tank Weapon." It just bugged me that they kept saying "LAWS rocket" instead of just "LAW."

Not only that, but when the soldier is demonstrating how to use the LAW, he simply fires it and Tyne Daly almost has her head incinerated by the back blast.  Any soldier (especially a LAW expert), should know that you are supposed to make sure that no one is standing behind you and you are supposed to say, "back blast clear!" before firing the damned thing.



Post Edited (02-07-04 08:43)

How about those card tables that keep stopping AK-47 rounds?  An AK-47 can shoot through a car, by which I mean it can kill someone hiding on the other side of one.

An AK-47 can shoot through a car, by which I mean it can kill someone hiding on the other side of one.

Now that's something handy to know in case the situation ever comes up

Ever since I started target shooting with handguns and learned how they work
virtually every movie I see they do something incorrect, impossible or stupid with
a gun.

"Now that's something handy to know in case the situation ever comes up"

Freep - if you ever find yourself in that situation, God forbid, and you have to hide behind a car, try to hide behind the front end of the car where the engine will afford you some extra protection.  I've seen this capability of that rifle demonstrated on a range and frankly is shocked the hell out of me.

How about stances and holds?

I still see the very old 'cup and saucer' hold used in movies/tv.  Worse yet is when someone is using their weak hand to grab around the WRIST of their strong hand.  Arrgh.  

I absolutely hate in movies when the 'hero' or soon-to-be-hero grabs two handguns and goes off blazing with both simultaneously, one in each hand.  If you've ever trained for combat handgunning, you have probably been taught that SHOT PLACEMENT (hitting the dang target) is the most important thing.  Speed and firepower come after accuracy with the weapon.  That is kinda hard to do running, and point shooting with BOTH HANDS.  Arrgh.

I also cannot stand the stupid gangster 'hold the gun sideways' thing.  Again, that is NOT a way to hold a handgun if any kind of accuracy is planned.  True, this is usually seen for close up, execution style stuff, but it is still irritating.  Especially when cops in movies (who should know better) do it.

Finally, I did see in one movie an EXCELLENT example of someone who obviously got some realisitic training...for one scene at least.  In "Lethal Weapon," the scene by the pool where the guy jumps up, Mel Gibson pushes off with his weak hand while drawing and firing with his stong hand is a beautiful, textbook demonstration of the technique we used to use here in SC called "Speed Rock."  There are several elements of "Speed Rock" that were constantly hammered in during training, and Mel did them all.  

This shows it CAN be done right, with proper coaching.  Begs the question why more is not done better.



Post Edited (02-07-04 11:33)

I can understand with why the heros fire while rolling and fire one handed, and fire from horses or on the run or from a speeding car and always hit center mass. It's cinematic, it looks cool, and it makes for exciting motion picture goodness.

My gripe is with all the errors that are made that even someone with minimal knowledge of firearms could spot. Calling a weapon a revolver, when it isn't one, doesn't further the excitement factor of the script, just makes the  production look sloppy. I'm probably just way to involved in my movie watching experience...but DAMMIT, it bugs me.

Don't get me started on the haircuts of servicemembers in movies....that REALLY p**ses me off. Yep, I just proved it...I'm a hard-on.

I always like seeing a gun that fires  400 rounds per minute and has a 30 round magazine go for 10 minutes on full auto without a reload.

I would be satisfied if all filmmakers would learn the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. I get really annoyed when somebody treats them as interchangeable terms.

Whoa, when the hell did -that- happen?

My favorite one is from "Eye of the Needle".
Kate Nelligan shoots Donald Sutherland 6 times with a gun that is plainly shown earlier in the movie to only hold 5 rounds. I know that revolvers often seem to have unlimited ammo in movies, but they made it so obvious in this one.

Bargle5 wrote:

> My favorite one is from "Eye of the Needle".


I think one of my all time favorite firearm problems in a movie comes from "Billy the Kid Meets Dracula."  Billy shot and shot and shot, and Dracula just stood there-didn't even FLINCH.  When we was out of bullets, Billy threw the gun at Dracula, and Dracula DUCKED. Bullets=okay, but whatever you do, Count, don't get hit by a thrown  handgun.

(Sorry, I posted this in an earlier thread, but it *IS* still funny....)

I hate when a character fires ONE round and the slide locks open, meaning the gun is empty, then in the next shot, the slide is forward again. I've read that it's SOP to only load as many rounds as is required by the scene, but it looks pretty dumb when the cop pulls out their gun, fires one round and the gun is clearly empty.

It also bugs me when you can clearly see that the bad guy isn't actually aiming at the hero, but rather to the side of him. I know it's done for safety, especially in light of what happened to Brandon Lee, but it still looks stupid.

How about when a character just pops the magazine out of the gun, and lets it fall to the ground while they put in a new one. I guess heroes automatically get free replacement magazines. I want to see a scene where a character runs out of ammo, pops out the magazine to let it fall somewhere inaccessable and then comes across a box of ammo, but has no magazine to load it into.

Or where a character shoots someone and then pulls the spare magazines off the body without even checking to see if they'll fit their weapon, or if they're even the same caliber.

"If you've ever trained for combat handgunning, you have probably been taught that SHOT PLACEMENT (hitting the dang target) is the most important thing. Speed and firepower come after accuracy with the weapon. That is kinda hard to do running, and point shooting with BOTH HANDS. Arrgh."

Well, very often when you shoot in combat, what you're trying to accomplish isn't so much killing the enemy but getting him to get his head down and stop shooting at you.  This kind of semi-aimed rapid fire can cover a retreat or an advance, and it can buy time to figure out what's going on.  Of course in movies when people shoot like you were saying, the enemy will often drop like flies as if each shot was right on the mark, so in fact you make a good point.

I have a few peeves about the way guns are handled in movies (and TV for that matter). One of my more favorite things that I see is the lack of recoil in almost all firearms. People fire all kinds of heavy calibers and full autos and have no problem with muzzle climb and seem to be able to hold on target with little or no difficulty. A great example of this that comes to mind is from Charlies Angels Full Throttle. Demi Moore packs 2 Desert Eagles that look like they are chambered for .50 AE which is no light weight round by any stretch. She fires these things with almost no recoil right and left handed and she's an awesome shot too.
The other thing that I love to see is when there is shooting indoors, especially a basement or warehouse. The characters are then able to talk to each other or at least hear with no problems right after they are done. I've experienced shooting .22's indoors (at a range) without hearing protection when I was younger and hearing anything other than a steady ringing for a minute or so isn't likely. For that matter I have fired heavier calibers outdoors and it happens also but not quite as bad (ok, I learned my lesson and never shoot without hearing protection anymore).
Something else I have seen, but can't recall a specific movie at this time, is the way that some movies just interchange revolvers and autos. I have seen a character holding a revolver in one seen and then an auto in the next and then back to the revolver in the next scene.
Last but not least...the point that JohnL makes about the slide locking back when the gun is empty...that drives me nuts when I see it.

And another thing while we are on the subject of semiautos and slides:

Who bothers to carry a gun does so without a round in the chamber?  Especially cops and soldiers.  Yet how many times have you seen them jack that slide (as if for emphasis - "I am serious now").  In reality, they would have just wasted a round.

Or worse, when they do it several times in 'one scene' due to a true continuity error in editing the film (I have seen this numerous times, but cannot recall specific film titles).

With revolvers, they always open that cylinder to check for ammo.  It is irritating.

I realize that they do that 'for the benefit of the audience,' so everyone knows the gun is really loaded.  But come on.  When the guy is a cop, and he is on-duty, I think it is safe to say we all expect his sidearm to be loaded.  He does not have to jack the slide or check the cylinder.

That's an interesting point, but in all the training I have had, I have NEVER been taught to try that.  Ammo is too precious in a gunfight - you don't waste it on 'suppresive' fire (at least that is the doctrine under which I was trained - others may have been trained differently).

It helps in movies when you have fifteen magazines or unlimited ammo (at the director's whim), but on duty or as a civilian, I never carried more than three total mags (one in the gun and two spares).  If I was under fire that bad, I probably would be thinking three mags was too few to waste 'em.  ALL of my training on the range was premised on three mags - that's all we ever had to work with in our scenarios.

Ulthar, you stated that you've had training with firearms.

Were you in the military or perhaps a cop?

What types of training did you have?

I was a cop for a few years....did mostly Crime Scene Investigations and Forensics.  Also, I have been training with firearms since a little kid (my Dad was a cop and a Firearms Instructor).

Ya know, they could show a bad guy aiming directly at a man, if they used a mirror. The camera sees the image, from behind the sights, and the reflection compleats the view, while the "Target" is safely out of line with the gun fireing. That might work.
Oh, yeah. Hearing protection! I first shot a handgun, and it was mom's cousin's .45 colt combat commander. Three mags worth. My ears rang for two days! Never agine! You'd think suppressors would be common on the battlefield. Easier to hear orders, harder for the bad guys to locate ya....
Gun control IS useing both hands! Nuff said.
And finaly, will someone please count the rounds! Eastwood did it in "Magnum force." Take a hint from clint! It can make for good suspence, if you make the audience see the importance. Its worked with john McClaine in "Die hard!"

Flangepart wrote:

>You'd think suppressors
> would be common on the battlefield. Easier to hear orders,
> harder for the bad guys to locate ya....

Major John Paster (Ret.), author of "The Ultimate Sniper," talked about this a little bit.  He claimed that he was on a mission in Viet Nam and he had the only suppressed weapon in his team.  They were under fire while boarding the extraction helicopter, and he was returning fire.  The enemy paid no attention to his return fire (he says) because there was no muzzle blast.  They did not know he was shooting back.  He argued that while a suppressed weapon has a place, the reduced psychological effect *CAN* make the suppressor a hindrance.

Take it with a grain of salt...I just wanted to throw it in there.

Oh yeah, suppression only works (effectively) on subsonic rounds...this makes it only useful for very short range, and not at all feasible for high powered rounds like .308 Win, .300 Win Mag, .50 Browning, etc.

I've never had any formal firearms training, but I've been told that one of the points they stress is to *NEVER* hand a loaded gun to someone else. You're supposed to unload it and make sure it's empty first. The story I was told was that a guy was being tested for a permit and when the officer administering the test asked to see the gun and the guy handed it over fully loaded, the cop flunked him. Characters in movies do this all the time.

"That's an interesting point, but in all the training I have had, I have NEVER been taught to try that. Ammo is too precious in a gunfight - you don't waste it on 'suppresive' fire (at least that is the doctrine under which I was trained - others may have been trained differently)."

The emphasis in the American military training definitely stresses accuracy - one of the reasons they phased out full auto for the M-16.  Of course in practice, this measure ticked off a lot of commanders who know that in some tactical situations (ambushes for instance) there's a lot to be said for the ability to empty your magazine in the enemy's direction while you grab cover and set up your defense.  It can quickly regain you the initiative.  Covering fire is also still used in today's military.  Observe Tom Hanks with the Thompson in Saving Private Ryan.  He blares away at the enemy machinegun nest to give his guys time to run past it.  Then of course there is the imfamous "reconnaisance by fire," which is now discouraged.  That one goes something like this: Do you think there's enemy in that hut?  I dunno, let's shoot it up and see.

Yes - a cop would NEVER learn covering fire (except maybe SWAT).  They also don't learn headshots.  Accuracy (and the path of the bullet in the event of a miss) is definitely the most important thing.

Here's another pet peeve from movies:

I can't stand it when characters are aiming a shotgun at someone and then pump it, apparently to emphasize the fact that they mean business.  Pumping it like that would eject the shell in the chamber... but this never happens.  So that means the dumbass is aiming a shotgun with nothing in the chamber at the beginning of the scene.

>Eirik wrote about military training...

My specific training was in civilian law enforcement, which is a completely different animal than military.  I have done some reading on military training doctrine, and imho, it went to the dogs with the "Trainfire" concept.  I think it is coming back around toward accuracy, though.

Two more;

A character is aiming a semi-auto at someone and when the person doesn't do what they're told, the guy holding the gun cocks it. Unless I'm mistaken, the majority of semi-auto handguns need to be cocked before they can be fired. So they were threatening someone with a gun that couldn't currently be fired.

Good guys can hit the bad guys while on the move and at a disadvantage, but the bad guys can't hit the good guys, even when they have time to aim. Right now there's a movie on SciFi called Deathlands. The good guys drive their armored truck into the bad guy's compound, guards pop up on top of all the walls and start shooting at it. The good guys throw open the back door, jump out and start dropping the bad guys. In reality, the bad guys should have been able to pick them off as soon as they stepped out into the open.

JohnL wrote:

> Two more;
>
> A character is aiming a semi-auto at someone and when the
> person doesn't do what they're told, the guy holding the gun
> cocks it. Unless I'm mistaken, the majority of semi-auto
> handguns need to be cocked before they can be fired. So they
> were threatening someone with a gun that couldn't currently be
> fired.

Yep, this happens alot in westerns too, with single-action revolvers.

It would make more sense with a fully auto weapon to lay down supressing fire.

Here is a favorite one of mine.If someone is threatening someone with a gun and they want to make there threat look serious they will cock the gun.If they make there point they will then holster the gun still cocked and then prociede to run or walk around.
In real life that gun would blow a hole in the guys leg if he started walking around with a fully cocked gun in his holster.

People throwing themselves in front of bullets really annoys me. What i mean is 'human shields' when the heroes sidekick leaps into the path of the bullet or postions himself so that he is in front of the hero and takes a bullet for him. This is rubbish as most bullets especially those fired from heavy calibre pistols or rifles would just go straight through the first guy and STILL blow out the heroes spleen.

I know exactly what  you mean. Or goodguys in movies that hold up dead bodies as human shield to M16's or M249's... i mean give me a break. Its going to go through the already dead guy, the goodguy holding the dead guy and anything within 30 yards behind the goodguy.... on another note some movies don't even bother putting magazines in the M16's... i just sit back and laugh.

wyckednick wrote:


> In real life that gun would blow a hole in the guys leg if he
> started walking around with a fully cocked gun in his holster.


Not necessarily.  I often carry my 9mm Condition 3, 'cocked and locked.'  The Single Action Only (SAO) semiauto's were always carried like this.  Well, if you expected to need it in a hurry, that is.

Cocking a gun before using it is often viewed by the courts as an aggressive act.  If you are ever in a self defense shooting situation, do *NOT* cock your gun before returning fire (unless it is required to do so).

Disclaimer:  IANAL; opinions based on reading about shooting cases in criminal and civil court.

Eirik wrote:


> Here's another pet peeve from movies:
>
> I can't stand it when characters are aiming a shotgun at
> someone and then pump it, apparently to emphasize the fact that
> they mean business.  Pumping it like that would eject the shell
> in the chamber... but this never happens.  So that means the
> dumbass is aiming a shotgun with nothing in the chamber at the
> beginning of the scene.

Yes!  That is my biggest peeve.

Also many revolvers (I think it's most, but I ain't sure) have what is called a 'drop safety'. This works by blocking the firing pin from striking the cartridge unless the trigger is held back.  Nearly all double action revolvers and some single actions have this feature. This brings up another thing that happens in movies and that is guns going off when dropped. On guns with this safety, that doesn't happen.

Bargle5 wrote:

> Also many revolvers (I think it's most, but I ain't sure) have
> what is called a 'drop safety'. This works by blocking the
> firing pin from striking the cartridge unless the trigger is
> held back.

That's a good point.  Many semiautos have this, too.  I know my 9mm does.

by: ASHTHECAT

"In "Aliens" after the Colonial Marines get their asses kicked and are taking an inventory of their remaining weapons, Hicks states that each pulse rifle has about 50 rounds each but each rifle fires about 10 times that amount throughout the rest of the film!"

They were supposed to be 10 mm caseless rounds too.  The magazine for their pulse rifles was suppose to hold 100 (Red counter located on the side of the rifle, WHY THE SIDE!!!) yet the magazine was not much bigger that an average paperback novel.

Stargate SG-1- the P-90 is supposed to hold a 50 round magazine.  O'Neill indicates the "shots per second" capability of the gun.  While watching the episode, I did a quick calcuation in my head and determine that they did not have long before they were out of ammo in the gun.  Only a few seconds.  However, during a demonstraition, Sam Carter shoots the thing for nearly 10 seconds without reloading.  Well outside the capacity O'Neill stated

Not hand held weapons but with aircraft I always laugh at how long the guys keep firing their guns.  Example: A-10 Fairchild's main Gatling Cannon can theoretically shoot 6000 rounds a minute.  That's 100 shots a second.  If your ammo belt is, for sake of argument since I don't remember how long the belt is nor the caliber, 15 ft long and the bullets are 1 inch in diameter, you have less than 540 shots.  Less that 6 seconds round.

Maybe someone here knows the actual lengths and sizes and can improve my estimate.

(My edit was to correct a SIMPLE mathematical error.  I divided 6000 by 60 and got 600???  I have a degree in Mathematics and can solve advanced calculus equations but when I'm typing fast I hit just aboiut evrrrry key on the board!!)

Still, in 6 secconds. your out of ammo!



Post Edited (02-13-04 22:58)

Of course if you burn through 540 rounds in a second, your barrels are toast.  Real pilots do quick bursts only.

I heard once that more fake rounds were fired during the filming of The Wild Bunch than real ones were fired during the Mexican revolution.  Maybe the commentator was just kidding.  I have seen characters fire more rounds in a single scene than they would have been capable of physically carring on their person.  Bullets are heavy, especially when you're dealing in hundreds of rounds.

The main gun on an A-10 is a 7 barrel  Gatling gun in 30mm which is capable of 3,900 rds/min. This breaks down to 65 rds/sec and approximately 9 rds/sec per barrel. If you look at this on a per barrel basis, an Uzi has a higher cyclic rate but when you consider all 7 barrels throwing rounds that size, that fast, it's awesome. Even at this slower rate than Jamtoy had figured, there still wouldn't be 'endless' ammo on a plane like this as they are so used to showing us in movies and on TV. This , along with the point that raj made that sustained fire will toast a barrel makes some of these scenes ludicrous. Then again, how entertaining would movies be if they stuck to the rules of real life?

Thanks odinn7,  I knew someone on this board would know the facts about that cannon.  Any idea how long the ammo belt is for it?

BTW Stargate SG-1 example I gave,  the P-90 is stated to have a 50 round magazine and a rate of 900 rds/min.  900/60=15 rds/sec.  With only 50 rounds, 50/15=3.333 seconds of ammo.  Carter fired a lot longer than that without reloading.

Still cool how it tore the target log up though.

I'm having a hard time understanding this convesation in the same forum where time travelling cyborgs and killer mutants demon monsters from another dimension are discussed as a matter of course

Freep, we're thinking along the same lines on this one. :D

Freep,

I Know, I know, your right.  

But I also hate it when movies get the time traveling cyborgs anti-temporal sequencers confused with dynamic temporal disrupter coils with an operating capacity of 22.8 MHz.  That's just one of my pet peeves.  

And as for their take on killer mutants demon monsters from another dimension, Oh I really hate it when they say they are methane breathers when it is so obvious that they breath a methane derivative.

Oh Well,  ; P

(All in fun, Freep.)

>I'm having a hard time understanding this convesation in the same forum where
>time travelling cyborgs and killer mutants demon monsters from another
>dimension are discussed as a matter of course

Because, not being real (at least not yet), there's no real point of reference for those things (that most people will understand). Guns are real and easy to verify their behavior.

If a character in a movie says that mixing water and borindium makes a fuel that will work in any car, nobody can prove it won't because there's no such thing as borindium. But if a character says that mixing water and bleach will make a fuel for any car, people will know it's a load of crap.

Someone may have mentioned this already, but it really bothers me to see Nazis using Stens, Russians using M-16's, etc. I don't know if this is what you mean, but it bothers me nonetheless.

"BATEMAN!!!!!!"

"I'm having a hard time understanding this convesation in the same forum where time travelling cyborgs and killer mutants demon monsters from another dimension are discussed as a matter of course"

A fair point, Freep...  however, this board has two general kinds of movie threads - those pertaining to Bad Movies, and those pertaining to mainstream movies.  If it's a Bad Movie (as in: "what is the LA skyline doing in Medieval Germany??" and "Hey, I had that same monster mask when I was a kid!"), then I'm willing to live with just about any unrealistic firearms depiction the writer/director cares to throw my way - it's all part of the fun.  But in your average mainstream Bruce Willis techno-thriller or Tom Clancy adaptation, where there is actually some pompous claim of realism implied in the style of the film, then they better get it right and it's annoying when they don't.

Rounds per min. Verrrrrry important!
Thats why all light Machine guns have quick change barrels. Started with the German MG34, and improved with the later MG-42. Enev the British BREN guns had one. Thats one reason for Gatling derivitives. Its devides the rounds per barrel for a given rate of fire. 600 rpm divided by 6=100 rpb. Hence, lower over heat problims per barrel.
Oh, btw....Agent for H.A.R.M.....East german border guard with an M-16. Not that spore guns make a whole lot of sense!

Haven't you ever heard of Stens? The British used a lot of them in WWII. They had a magazine that stuck out to the side. The commando team in THE GUNS OF NAVARONE had quite a few, and Stromberg's troops in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME used them.

"BATEMAN!!!!!!"

Stens also figure prominently in Day of the Triffids.

Jamtoy, in response to your earlier question about belt length for the A-10 cannon...I have no idea how long it is but my reference for the A-10 lists the ammo capacity for the 30mm cannon at 1,350. So, if you do the math:
3,900 rds/min divided by 60 seconds=65 rds/sec
1,350 rds carried divided by 65 rds/sec=20.77 secs before empty

As far as Stens and Brens are concerned, for those that do not know, both are British guns. The Sten is a cheap stamped steel 9mm submachine gun and the Bren is a light machine gun with a top feed magazine chambered in 7.92mm or .303 British.

Flangepart, you are correct about one of the reasons for a Gatling style and one of the bigger reasons for it is the rate of fire that can be achieved with multiple barrels.

OK, back to the main part of the topic...
I was watching the dish last night and saw a movie called 'Lone Star State of Mind'. The movie wasn't overly bad but there was a big mistake with a shotgun, well 2 actually. The big bad drug dealer guy was shooting at live pigeons that his henchman was throwing in the air while he was talking to someone who had let him down. He was using an over-under and to make a point, he somehow managed to pump this gun as you could distinctly hear the ka-chink of a pump shotgun while he was holding it down and out of sight of the camera and his arm jerked like as if he was going through the motion. Seconds later the guy that let him down was running across the field and had to be 75 or 100 yards away when this guy shot him. If anyone knows about shotguns and shot, you will know that shooting pigeons would be done with birdshot (about #7 I think) and there's no way you're going to kill anyone that far out with birdshot. Stupid mistakes that should easily be caught.