Neat article on Guns.

anthorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
815
Location
County Durham
This is taken from Yahoo news and although it is about films it is more than relevant for those writing about guns too.


Pretty much everything we know about guns in Britain we learned from the movies. But, as you'll find out, our teachers in Hollywood have (on the most part) been peddling lies.
Peter Berg’s latest film ‘Lone Survivor’ (out on DVD and Blu-ray now) is an incredible true story. A four man Navy SEALs recon team's 2007 mission into Afghanistan goes disastrously wrong. The title gives it away: not all the men came home.

“[The story was] not something that some writer dreamt up to sell a movie,” explains the film’s technical advisor Mark Semos, "There are a number of people who had to satisfied by the film and that was an enormous weight on Peter Berg’s shoulders."
[Mark Wahlberg on the realism of 'Lone Survivor']

The results are startling. ‘Lone Survivor’ takes what you know about gunplay and turns it on its head. It’s not just there to serve up an awesome action sequence.
It’s loud, it’s brutal, and it’s utterly terrifying.

We spoke to Mark to help clear up some myths about guns that Hollywood has proliferated over the years to discover which ones stand up to scrutiny and which ones miss the mark.

Myth: A dropped gun will always kill the bad guy
Guilty film: ‘True Lies'


"In California, all guns have to be drop-tested from 12ft. You could throw a Glock across a room and it probably won’t go off. I have heard of it happening, but I’ve never personally experienced it or seen it.

"That’s not something you’d expect to happen when you drop a gun."

Verdict: Possible but unlikely.

Myth: You can shoot a padlock off with a pistol

Guilty film: ‘Die Hard 2’

"Sure, that happens in reality. Tactical teams will use shotguns to breach doors and open doors. They’ll attack the hinges or the locking mechanism, but there’s a specific technique to it and there’s a reason they use a shotgun.

"Generally speaking, you’re not going to shoot a padlock and have one shot from 25 yards open it. The padlock is not going to do what you think it will do. They’re made of steel and a bullet is lead. It’s probably not going to go through it, it may break it, it may not, and it’s not a sure thing.

"I would probably get a crowbar.”

Verdict: Myth busted.

Myth: Shooting car’s gas tank will cause an explosion

Guilty film: Every Jerry Bruckheimer film ever

I’ve never blown up a car with a pistol. Not that I’ve tried, but I don’t think that’s quite possible. Everyone is afraid of their car blowing up because you’re sitting on a gas tank, but cars don’t really blow up like that unless they have explosives in them.

[Debunking common Bruce Lee myths]

"It’s physically impossible. In the internal combustion engine there’s only a small amount of fuel in the motor at any given time. Then you’d need a bullet that can get into the engine block, there are not a lot of rounds that can even do that.

"That may be one for Mythbusters, but my vote is for no.”

Verdict: A non-starter.

Myth: Silencers make guns whisper quiet
Guilty film: Most James Bond films





"Number one: we don’t even call them silencers, that is a film term. They’re actually called sound suppressors; because they suppress the noise.

"A bullet makes a number of sounds when fired. The first is the sound from the muzzle, that’s an explosion, and that’s what the sound suppressor covers up. The other noise that the bullet will make is when it breaks the sound barrier and you get a supersonic sound and you can’t stop that unless you’re using subsonic ammunition.

"So it’s not silent, you still get the supersonic crack of the round, what you don’t have is the explosion out of the muzzle of the weapon.”

Verdict: A total Hollywood invention.

Myth: A bullet-proof vest will always save the day

Guilty film: ‘A Fistful of Dollars’, ‘Back to the Future’

"There are two types of body armour: hard and soft. Soft body armour is not rated for rifles. A level 3A vest, the vest you see a lot of police officers wearing, that will stop a high velocity 9mm round, it will stop a 44 Magnum, it will stop a 12 guage, but it won’t stop a rifle.

[Classic Hollywood myths debunked]

"They’re not really “bullet-proof vests”, it’s body armour, and whether or not it will stop a bullet, depends on the threat.”

Verdict: They’re not magic force-fields, but they do work.

Myth: Using two guns makes you more effective and looks cool
Guilty film: ‘The Matrix trilogy’, ‘Sin City’, ‘Grosse Pointe Blank’
"I think when you do that you accomplish two things. You waste ammunition and you scare small animals.

"There are these little pieces of iron on top of every weapon: they’re called sights. They’re there so you know what you’re shooting at. If you don’t use those generally you miss. That’s why you don’t see that happen in real life.

"In 'Lone Survivor' we disallowed the actors from ever taking a shot during the filming unless they were looking down the optics.

"Generally speaking the whole 'shooting from the hip' thing doesn’t happen.

"You’re responsible for every one of these rounds that land. Every bullet in the real world, every round that you shoot, has to land somewhere, and wherever that round lands, you’re responsible for it."

Verdict: Two guns = double trouble

Myth: No one ever runs out of bullets
Guilty film: ‘Escape from New York’, ‘Predator’, ‘Commando’, ‘I, Robot’



"This is usually sanity checked on set, but sometimes it gets lost in the edit. The editor has a lot of shots to use of the same action sequence, so the magazine becomes extended, and you get 60 rounds instead of 30. That’s an issue.

[Has Arnie been lying about his real height for years?]

"On 'Lone Survivor' we kept track of how many rounds they were firing and how many magazines they had. We drove the script supervisor insane because obviously we don’t shoot in chronological order, and we counted the magazines down throughout the whole film.

"We figured out how many magazines and bullets the real guys had from photographs of the guys and their equipment, exactly as they had it. Using that we just filled out their gear with all the ammunition possible which always come up to about 9 or 10 mags on these longer ops. Each mag holds around 28 rounds.”

Verdict: Magic magazines don’t exist.
 
There are lots of great articles on Cracked about gun myths (some already mentioned above).

Something Hollywood is even worse at is bullet lethality. Mooks die when hit in the toe, protagonists can shake of a broadside.
 
Re: Guns and Silencers

There was of course the De Lisle carbine - a British machine gun that was designed for subsonic ammunition, a built in sound suppression system and produced no muzzle flash. Apparently one of the quietest guns ever made (and if other specialist weapons were quieter they didn't have the range or ability to fire the large numbers of bullets that this did) :

De Lisle carbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaudible at 50 yards and effective up to 200.

I like how they tested the prototype in 1943 by firing it from a hotel into the river Thames to see if any passers-by below noticed it. (They didn't).

I seem to remember someone who used one in WW2 being interviewed saying that the loudest noise it made was the mechanical sounds of the machine gun mechanism going through its cycle - so lots of clunks and clicks instead of bang-bang-bang.
 
What about that movie where they were bending the flight path of a bullet so it would curve around objects rather than just go straight?

I thought that was a bit far fetched.
 
What about that movie where they were bending the flight path of a bullet so it would curve around objects rather than just go straight?

I thought that was a bit far fetched.

They do have guns that shoot round corners (even today I believe) -

The Germans had attachments to do such a thing in WW2.

Krummlauf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No idea how effective they were.
 
Broon, he meant curving the flight path of the bullet, not bending the gun. And no, that doesn't work. Neither does shooting around corners, since you can't, you know, SEE where you're aiming.

Other Hollywood lies:

Bullets are magical death rays, one bullet kills everything instantly always:
Complete and utter fabrication. A bullet is just a piece of lead wrapped in copper, and all it does is violently punch a hole in your target. Most people survive single gunshot wounds, those that don't take a long time to die. The point of the gun is to tear the target's flesh, reducing (ideally, but not usually, completely stopping) the functionality of the damaged part, and causing bleeding. And of the two, it's the latter that kills you. Yes, even when shot in the head. And while bullets cause more damage than anything so small has any purpose causing, it still isn't instantly fatal or even incapacitating, and most other weapons have more stopping power. It might not kill somebody, probably won't stop them, and definitely won't kill them instantly.

If you need a character killed right away, don't just have them shot. Go for something that actually can kill them right away. Like being shot dozens of times. Or blown up. Or decapitated. Or just forget about instant death and go for something better, more dramatic, like a delayed but inevitable death from a gunshot wound through the heart. Somebody shot in the heart may still take the better part of a minute to die, maybe even more, but there's no saving them. They'll be unconscious for a good chunk of it, but it still gives them time for a final action or speech, whatever you need them to do before they lose consciousness. And if you can't allow a last action, choose something that is immediately incapacitating even if it's not immediately fatal, like dismemberment or disembowelment, neither of which a bullet can do just so you know.

Concealment equals cover:
THIS IS GETTING PEOPLE KILLED. Bullets are great at going through things, rifles rounds are especially great at it. A good rifle round can fly through three houses and not find anything that can stop it, and most things won't work as cover if somebody has one. There isn't even a guarantee the bullet will do less damage after passing through a wall, as bullets are liable to yaw and go in sideways after passing through objects at an angle, doing more damage as a result. As a general rule, a wall or couch will only stop buckshot (if that), a fridge or car door will only stop pistol rounds (if that), and only brick walls, concrete, or some parts of an automobile will stop a rifle round. Hiding behind thin objects and thinking you're safe is a great way to end up with a bleeding hole in your chest, and that sucks. Figuratively and literally. Sure, hide. But keep moving and try not to be where they think you are, because the only thing a plaster wall is stopping is their line of sight.

Guns are like little firecrackers:
Guns are kinda loud. Like, less of that hollywoody little whizzy popping noise and more of a BAM! SWEET MERCIFUL GODS, MY EARS! MY POOR, USELESS EARS!

You know how in documentary-style war films the actors are always SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS while in battle? That's because they're all either wearing hearing protection they need to shout over, or they have all suffered serious hearing damage because they were too stupid to wear hearing protection and now they have to shout because their hearing has been damaged due to firing their guns unprotected.

Shotguns are just the bestest guns ever:
Most of the time, when people think "shotgun", they think "buckshot". Buckshot is terrible in combat. Buckshot has good stopping power at close range, but it's not as good as you probably think and they have very little stopping power beyond that. (Although their range is longer than you probably think.) A full load of buckshot has, maybe, 3-4 times the stopping power of a typical pistol round. A pistol has longer range, greater accuracy, better manoeuvrability and is easier to get good placement with, has a larger capacity and a faster rate of fire. A pistol has better penetration than buckshot, so it'll go through thicker things at worse angles or longer ranges and do more damage after going through objects than a shotgun will. Buckshot cannot penetrate, or even damage, body armour. Pistol rounds still have a hard time, but are much more likely to manage it. After failing to penetrate armour, buckshot leaves minor bruises and welts on the wearer. Pistols still leave bruises, but larger and deeper ones, with big pistols often cracking ribs, which although not much is a lot better than anything buckshot can accomplish at that range. Buckshot also suffers at a distance as fewer pellets hit, and the pellets have slowed down much more than a pistol would have, and since they only went a bit over halfway in at point blank, they probably won't even reach vitals at a hundred metres.

Translated, buckshot sucks in combat. A shotgun loading buckshot is a worse weapon than a pistol at all ranges, and this is especially pronounced at longer ranges, through cover or against armour. Any shotgun you want to use on a person should be loaded with a slug. Otherwise, you probably want, you know, anything else.

Revolvers are also awesome:
Revolvers are reliable, lighter than other guns, and can use bigger rounds. But they also hold fewer shots, fire slower and aren't any more accurate. Nice if you can't maintain your gun regularly or the area would be hard on any other pistol, if you need to conceal it, don't want much weight, or want a huge round. And as for that last one, that's actually not the best option since that limits your rate of fire and capacity, thus making multiple good shots difficult, and the single bullet still won't stop your target like you expect it to. Seriously, a modern semi-automatic pistol is a LOT better.

The .22 bounces around in the skull:
A complete fabrication. The skull provides very little resistance from the inside out, so there's no issue for the bullet at most angles. Even at an oblique angle, it can only bounce one time and then it's given a perfect angle to punch out through the skull. And even if it could find only oblique angles it'd ricochet off at, each impact will reduce its momentum considerably and it'd stop very, very quickly. And even if THAT wasn't true, brain matter is way tougher than we give it credit for and the .22 can't go through all that much of it. The .22 will not ricochet more than once before leaving the skull or coming to rest, end of story.

Jammed=Broken:
Unjamming a gun takes a couple seconds if you know what you're doing. If you don't, sure, it might as well be broken, but otherwise it's a really quick, easy fix.

Well, that's all that comes to mind. I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but I'm going to go before I write three pages that basically amount to "Hollywood doesn't quite get what a gun is."
 
Hi,

Actually in The Nephilim I had a gun issue and went to the boards at kindleboards to answer it.

My scenario was that a guy holstered his weapon in a damaged shoulder holster with the safety off. A stone in the holster caught the trigger and fired the weapon wounding him in the leg. Multiple problems. First I had him using a glock which I thought were standard issue for feds. Turns out they use sig 40s - despite the movies. Second instead of safeties glocks have trigger guards which would have prevented it. So I ended up changing weapons completely just to fit the accident.

All I can say is if you're like me and come from a country with little access to fire arms it might pay to run your scenarios by people who do actually have them.

Cheers, Greg.
 
Well, if you guys ever have a gun issue, feel free to ask me. I might not have answers on specific things like what gun specifically is used by what department, but with general gun stuff I do know quite a bit and in particular I have a grasp of terminal ballistics and, frankly, how many people really do and are present in writing forums? It's not a high number, I'm pretty sure of that.
 
Broon, he meant curving the flight path of the bullet, not bending the gun. And no, that doesn't work. Neither does shooting around corners, since you can't, you know, SEE where you're aiming.

Which is why they were all equipped with small periscopes to let you SEE what you were shooting at. :) (as are the modern variants like Cornershot)

How useful such weapons are however, I admit, probably highly debatable :)
 
Yeah, they're not any good for a lot of reasons. One is the camera provides no rear sight, have fun hitting a damn thing. Physics also doesn't really like the idea, with the recoil now being difficult to counter with only your wrists. It's also awkward as hell and disorienting to work with for the same reason some people get motion sickness from playing video games.
 
Always amazes me the lack of knowledge in the UK about firearms, but then again I'm a shooter and a firearm-buff, so I'm "in the cycles" as it were.

That's not me being elitist :) That's just general interest on my part.

I'm forever picking gun errors in films and games. :D

Nice article.
 
Good to see I'm not the only one here.

Nope. :) Been shooting for about 9 years. Shot most things under the sun that's legal for a civvie to shoot, and some things in the US that aren't, for a Brit at least.

All of my gear is First World War rifles and a few muskets with a 15th century crossbow thrown in. :D

"Gun knowledge" ruins books, too.
 
Well, despite only owning a single .303 rifle, I have also fired a wide variety of firearms, but just using them doesn't mean you know much about them. Especially what they do if they hit somebody. It's not like you usually have, or want, that kind of experience. I have been shot, though. Nasty experience.
 
Well, despite only owning a single .303 rifle, I have also fired a wide variety of firearms, but just using them doesn't mean you know much about them.

This is true. However my knowledge base has never failed me amoung my shooting peers.
 
Hmmm... The only guns I've ever fired were a couple of air weapons and a .303 Lee Enfield, which I got to fire a few times at a cadet force summer camp a depressingly long time ago. One thing I did find out was that blanks for full-bore rifles can cause serious damage at short range. And the other lesson was learned in almost the most emphatic way possible.

Picture this. There is a line of teenage boys, most of whom have had maybe an hour of firearms training and none of it with live rounds, standing in a firing trench. (I don't know whether that's the official name, but that is what it amounted to.) About half of them have been issued ammo and told to load the rifle and chamber a round; teacher (calling himself an officer but who knows?) walks in front of the loaded guns to issue ammo to the rest.

It had to be me. I thought the safety was on; was pointing the rifle downrange and squeezed the trigger not expecting anything to happen, when Captain Deathwish was about 2-3 feet to the left of my aim, moving right.

The safety wasn't on. Teacher dropped like a stone; I've never seen anyone hit the deck so fast, and I thought for a second (the longest second of my life!) I had hit him.

Quite a lot of lessons learned there, and I thought I was going to be expelled. Nope. The man in charge basically must have said something to Capt. Deathwish like "your fault, idiot!" and all that happened was that I was issued an extra round and had to have my practice session at the end. You might not be surprised to learn that I missed by a mile. :)
 
I dread to think of what state Captain Deathwish's trousers were. A 90 degree spin cycle would have been necessary ;)
 
I dread to think of what state Captain Deathwish's trousers were. A 90 degree spin cycle would have been necessary ;)

Well, he was wearing khaki battledress... ;)

But semi-seriously, it would have been a .303 rifle bullet at a range of about three feet. I don't want to think about what sort of mess that would have made.
 
Well, he was wearing khaki battledress... ;)

But semi-seriously, it would have been a .303 rifle bullet at a range of about three feet. I don't want to think about what sort of mess that would have made.

Not as much as you'd think. Rifles actually don't have much stopping power, and pretty poor lethality, due to their small bore. And there are accounts of people not even noticing gunshot wounds right away. The stopping power of a .303 is pretty good for a rifle, kinda, but that's not really that much.

And for a specific failing of the .303, see Wenseslao Moguel. He was executed by firing squad during the mexican revolution. He was shot at close range eight times in the chest and once in the head with .303 rifles, then took a pistol round at point blank to the jaw. He waited for the firing squad to leave, then got up under his own power (with his arms bound, no less) and found a doctor. And yep, he lived. Earned the nickname "El Fusilado". I know that's an extreme example, but our time is limited so a tonne of less extreme ones isn't an option.
 
People have survived lighting strikes too. And 10+ kilometres falls.

Having studied anatomy at university, and having seen the cavitation that some of these bullets cause, there are very, very few places that a bullet impact would be low risk. For a man to survive eight cavities within the thorax (containing the lungs, heart, major blood vessels, spinal column and nerves, etc) is pretty miraculous.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top