• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

5 weapon myths from the movies

The one that bugs me is the way people who get shot fly back through the air as if hit by a car. (I was hit by a car once and sailed about 20 feet or so though the air, and I,m a big guy) the myth busters did a show where the shot a pig carcass with various guns and the only one to cause even the slightest movement was a 12 ga shotgun. while they may have plenty of energy bullets and shotgun pellets don't pack the momentum needed to fling someone backwards. and equal and opposite reactions mean the shooter would fly back just as far. Sure it looks good on film, but is annoying to anyone who knows the least bit of physics.

R
 
I always get a kick out of it when any time some pulls out a gun and/or points it at some one they cock it. Even if it was cocked already and even if it is a Glock, which doesn't even have a hammer to cock.

Shotguns are the worst offender, though. If you racked the thing as often as they do in a movie scene it'd be empty by the time you actually fired it at the bad guy.
 
Good guys superhuman shots, bad guys hit nothing. By superhuman I mean 100 yard shots up two stories with a 2-inch barrel pistol.


Funny story, when I was active duty an HRT member from the FBI was showing us their mad skills during an 'impress the low tier MPs' event. This was 20 years ago so he showed us the FBI version Smith 3-inch 357 (by strange chance S&W made it later with rosewood grips as the Ladysmith full size and my wife has one as her car gun), the Smith 10mm, and the MP-5.

He shot the 357 and the 10mm, and I was sitting there thinking 'Heck, I shoot better than that', because I could. Then he dumped the MP-5 mag into a group the size of my two hands at 25 meters, reloaded in about three seconds, and repeated.

I could barely shoot the 20-inch barrel M-16A2 that well on semi. I could, on my best day back then, keep the .mil version of the MP-5 on a torso target on 3-round burst. In that case, there are people who can shoot some weapons that well.
 
I could barely shoot the 20-inch barrel M-16A2 that well on semi. I could, on my best day back then, keep the .mil version of the MP-5 on a torso target on 3-round burst. In that case, there are people who can shoot some weapons that well.

Yep, practice and familiarity. When I was a kid I used to hit birds on the wing with a .22 at 30 yrds. But, we grew up in the middle of nowhere and were carrying at age 8...
 
Yep, practice and familiarity. When I was a kid I used to hit birds on the wing with a .22 at 30 yrds. But, we grew up in the middle of nowhere and were carrying at age 8...

I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters.

:)
 
The one that bugs me is the way people who get shot fly back through the air as if hit by a car. (I was hit by a car once and sailed about 20 feet or so though the air, and I,m a big guy) the myth busters did a show where the shot a pig carcass with various guns and the only one to cause even the slightest movement was a 12 ga shotgun. while they may have plenty of energy bullets and shotgun pellets don't pack the momentum needed to fling someone backwards. and equal and opposite reactions mean the shooter would fly back just as far. Sure it looks good on film, but is annoying to anyone who knows the least bit of physics.

R

I wonder where that started. In the movies of the 1930's, the target grabbed dramatically at the supposed wound and grimaced before falling, or he just crumpled and fell if he were an extra. When did Hollywood decide that bullets hit you like a semi truck?
 
Explosions from military munitions are huge fireballs. The reality is they are grey-black puffs of smoke and what's really dangerous is the flying shrapnel that tears you a new one.
 
I wonder where that started. In the movies of the 1930's, the target grabbed dramatically at the supposed wound and grimaced before falling, or he just crumpled and fell if he were an extra. When did Hollywood decide that bullets hit you like a semi truck?

Probably when Dirty Harry first picked up a .44 magnum and the director decided having the bad guy hit with it fly backwards through a door would impress the audience.
 
I've heard that silencers aren't really that silent. Is that true?

it depends on what ammunition is used and what the weapon action is. The optimum silenced weapon is a single shot one using sub-sonic ammunition, such as the .45 Colt Automatic Pistol round. With that, you can get the sound down to a bottle being uncorked, and possibly quieter.

As for the movies having bodies go flying when hit by revolver bullets, that started before Dirty Harry. I just cannot remember the first time that I saw it.
 
It's been a standard in TV and movies since they started making cowboy and gangster films. Even most old war films don't show the true horror of the battlefield.

From a drama perspective how do you show on stage/film/TV that someone has been shot if you aren't allowed to show blood or brains?

You have them fall over, you have them fall over so dramatically and so often the meme becomes established in the majority that if you are shot you fall over or collapse at the least.

You want to show the effect of a bigger gun? They fall over more violently or even get lifted off your feet. Total hollywood rubbish - but believed by so many that it is now standard practice for action films.
 
From a drama perspective how do you show on stage/film/TV that someone has been shot if you aren't allowed to show blood or brains?

I guess it would be obvious from the context and sound ('Bang!' Bloke falls over). Before talkies they exaggerated almost everything didn't they? I wonder whether it had something to do with silent films?
 
I've heard that silencers aren't really that silent. Is that true?

My only experience is with 5.56 rifle, 9mm, and 22. 22LR can be quieted to a loud hand clap with a pricey enough suppressor (other .22 versions can be made quieter), 9mm in the MP-5 down to as loud as an air powered nail gun a roofer uses, and a rifle cuts some of the noise down.

However, as already noted, supersonic rounds negate most of the quieter advantage.

I heard, but have not seen, that the Israeli army used .22 bolt action rifles with suppressors and .22 shorts from concealment to shoot the legs of Palestinians during the riot/rock/fire bombing attacks. In that case, the sound of the shot would be lost in the sound of shouting.

In manual rifles and revolvers, .22 rimfires come in five sizes based on length, and therefore power. They are .22 magnum, .22LR, .22L, .22S, and CB Caps. The caps have so little power that in a rifle length barrel they are very quiet without the suppressor, but they have little effective power when they hit.


(There are some other .22s, but they are very rare. 95% of the .22s are LR. Walmart and sporting stores even sell them in 550 round cardboard party pack containers.)
 
One of those is wrong. Medieval swordsman absolutely did parry edge on edge. Not least because there are many surviving swords with nicked edges. Italian master Fiore de Liberi's manuscript is based on parrying.

The no edge parrying is the pet theory of one group in the US (ARMA) I'm not aware of any others anywhere in the world who agree with it. It has been debated to death on historical martial arts forums & is now widely mocked.
 
I remember reading a Tom Clancy novel where he talked of some gun used by the special forces that was so quiet that the clicking of the mechanical parts was louder than the gunfire. It was over 10 years ago, so maybe my memory is faulty. I had always thought that Clancy was a bit of a stickler for that sort of detail but I guess in this instance (assuming my memory is correct) he wasn't?
 
I have never seen it, but I have been told there are very specialized rounds used in specially designed guns. The round has a casing with the powder and a piston. The powder ignites and forces the piston forward to the neck of the case, where it jams and seals the case keeping the burned gas in.

The forward motion of the piston knocks the bullet down the barrel like a pool cue hitting the ball.
 
When a gun fires it produces a lot of noises; the hammer or firing pin "thunks", the gunpowder goes "BLAM", the supersonic bullet goes anywhere from "CRACK" to "zip", and, if the weapon is automatic, the slide/bolt goes "clack" or "clang" as it moves back and forth.

These sounds can mostly be controlled to some degree. Some automatics, those intended for clandestine use with a silencer/suppressor, often have a latch or lock affixed in order to keep the weapon from cycling and making action noises. Bullets which are either normally subsonic or else are down-loaded to subsonic speeds produce little noise in flight - about like a house fly if that. IF large enough, the silencer/suppressor will absorb every bit of the escaping gasses and so render the combustion of the gunpowder silent; but this can result in a rediculously large can on the end of your gun and this type, if attempted at all, is generally "built-in" around the gunbarrel. About the only sound you cannot prevent is the "thunk" of the firing pin striking the cartridge; this can however be muffled by insulation or, if you wanted it gone badly enough, used electrically detonated primers (they do exist).
 
I've heard that silencers aren't really that silent. Is that true?

a homemade silencer on a .22LR takes the bang down to about like dropping a large book off the table.... still a loud noise, but a lot less loud. Commercially made one with subsonic rounds is a medium sized book, more a thud than a bang. Not the TV Sneeze sound.
 
Back
Top