Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games - User contributions [en]

Talk:The Art of War

2014-07-13T12:30:47Z

Estenwall:

== Need ID of this suppressed pistol possibly a Makarov or Beretta? ==

A female assassin is seen with a suppressed pistol when confronting Julia Fang ([[Marie Matiko]]) in the hospital.
[[Image:AOW033.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
:Could it be a Walther PPK .380? Chris_Hun7er 6:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
:[[image:WaltherPPKSuppressed.jpg‎|thumb|none|300px]]
::Going by the color of the frame, I would say it's a PA-63. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:::[[image:FEG_PA63.jpg‎|thumb|none|300px]]

==Unknown pistol (Still not identified) ==
United Nations operative Neil Shaw ([[Wesley Snipes]]) carries a pistol as his sidearm when he pursues the assassin through the streets of New York. He is seen giving up the weapon when he's confronted by the NYPD.
[[Image:AOW009.jpg|thumb|none|600px|United Nations operative Neil Shaw ([[Wesley Snipes]]) gives up his pistol.]]
[[Image:AOW010.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Closeup of the pistol.]]

wasn't this movie made before Walther made the PPS?
:I believe you're correct. From what I've read, the PPS was first produced in 2007. Chris Hun7er 6:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That cant be a Walther P22 in the movie...the first production of that pistol wasnt out tell 2001 and this movie was released in 2000 [[Spades of Columbia]] 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone Change the Walther p22 to a unknown Pistol on the main page [[Spades of Columbia]] 18 may 2010

Ok...Im almost positive that pistol marked as p22 is actually a Kahr PM9, based on the round trigger guard and the open gap at the bottom of the magazine well both in which the p22 lacks. [[Spades of Columbia]]

Using the logic of this movie being made in 2000 then it can't be a PM9 either seeing as they were not introduced until the 2002 shot show. I am thinking it is a Kel Tec P11 based on the 2nd screen cap. The grip of the gun does not have the Kahr logo and the shape of the grip is off. It is, however, similar to the P11. --[[User:Ram229|Ram229]] 20:18, 2 November 2011 (CDT)

[[Intratec_CAT_Series_of_Pistols|Intratec CAT-9]]? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 08:50, 8 February 2012 (CST)
[[image:Intratec_Cat_9.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Intratec CAT-9 - 9x19mm]]

==Confusing Ending==
I don't get the ending, why are some of the Chinese assassins are still active, like the guy with the Beretta 93R???

== Beretta 93R==
Where in the second screenshot is there a slide mounted safety? I don't see one, seems like a genuine 93R to me.

:I'm not sure it's a genuine 93R. You'll notice that the safety seems to be more the style of Taurus pistols, and it also has a Target rear sight. You can also faintly see the slide markings, and they seem consistent with a Taurus. It looks to me like it might actually be a [[Taurus PT99]] mocked up as a Beretta 93R. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 17:24, 17 November 2013 (EST)

== Glock Supressor ==

Are that square Glock supressor real, or was it a stylistic choice for the movie? I have seen square suppressors in other movies and Tv shows, but have never known if they genuinely exist. Thanks --[[User:Rebusdi|Rebusdi]] 05:14, 6 October 2011 (CDT)

:All suppressors that you see in movies are fake, regardless of whether they are based on real suppressors or not. The common practice amongst movie armorers with suppressors is to take a piece of rebar (or whatever is available), bore a hole through it, and then add an attachment that screws into the gun's internal barrel threading (which is necessary in order to put in the blank adapter). This is also why you routinely see actors attaching suppressors to guns that do not have externally threaded barrels. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 09:34, 8 February 2012 (CST)

== Heckler & Koch MP5A3 ==

Are you sure that the MP5 in below screenshot is the version with a Surefire 628 dedicated forend weaponlight? Based by the one screenshot, I would say it's the version with the original “slimline” forearm. Thing is I don’t really see a flashlight and the forearm looks pretty straight to me -- [[User:PeeWee055|PeeWee055]] ([[User talk:PeeWee055|talk]]) 05:28, 18 November 2013 (EST)
[[Image:HKmp5A3.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Heckler & Koch MP5A3 9x19mm with Surefire 628 dedicated forend weaponlight and safe-semi-two round burst trigger group]]
[[Image:H&KMP5A3slimforearm.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Heckler & Koch MP5A3 with original "slimline" forearm - 9x19mm]]
[[Image:AOW011.jpg|thumb|none|601px|NYPD ESU officers are armed with the [[Heckler & Koch MP5A3]] when confronting Shaw on the street.]]

== Final battle last shot ==
When Shaw forces Bly to shoot the floor in the final confrontation what does explode on Bly's face? Is it the gun breaking, maybe parts of the hammer or something? Or is it just pieces of the stone floor slab? Is either of the cases realistic? Hastily pressing the tip of the suppressor on the floor is not a very good seal and bits of the floor slab wouldn't fly straight up. [[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] ([[User talk:Estenwall|talk]]) 08:30, 13 July 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Alex Cross

2014-04-14T15:42:02Z

Estenwall: Created page with "==RGP on the train== Matthew Fox's character, Picasso commandeers a car of the Detroid people-mover. He rigs the doors on one side open. Picasso even sets up a rack to rest th..."

==RGP on the train==
Matthew Fox's character, Picasso commandeers a car of the Detroid people-mover. He rigs the doors on one side open. Picasso even sets up a rack to rest the rocket launcher on. When he fires the RPG we see smoke coming from the rear of the thing.
Wouldn't backblast from the RPG kill him because he has not opened the door behind him? He'd atleast be blown out of the open door infront of him. Should this kind of mistake be mentioned on the page? Typical movie style RPG firing in close quarters. http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:AlexCross_rpg_cq.jpg -[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] ([[User talk:Estenwall|talk]]) 11:42, 14 April 2014 (EDT)

The Net

2014-03-27T13:46:29Z

Estenwall:

File:The net 00213.jpg

2014-03-27T13:42:23Z

Estenwall:

Talk:Hostages

2013-12-10T16:15:09Z

Estenwall: Created page with "==Suppressors== I wonder why the kidnappers don't use suppressors with their pistols. Very often they threaten someone inside the house. Firing a shot inside the house could b..."

==Suppressors==
I wonder why the kidnappers don't use suppressors with their pistols. Very often they threaten someone inside the house. Firing a shot inside the house could be heard from outside and raise suspicion. I also think suppressors make guns look more assassin/covert ops-like to an average tv audience. [[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] ([[User talk:Estenwall|talk]]) 11:15, 10 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:RPG-7

2013-08-12T11:22:36Z

Estenwall:

==Additional Variants==

[[File:Airtronic RPG7.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Airtronic RPG-7 - 40mm. The Airtronic RPG-7 (or RPG-7-USA) is an American produced version that adds a quad-rail system, AR-15-style pistol grip and foregrip, and a M4-style telescoping stock.]]

==Diameter==
How should the weapon's Diameter be measured? It has a 70mm diameter warhead, but a 40mm tube where the rocket is inserted. I always said it was a 70mm, but it is changed back to 40mm on this page constantly. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

*I think it's the same as any other gun, the diameter of the tube / barrel is what matters, since that's what matters when you're working out what you can actually put into the gun. [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

* Just to add to this it is a 40mm, as the diameter of the warhead is variable with different types. Current warhead diameters are 93mm for HEAT, 105mm for tandem HEAT and thermobaric, and 40mm for the anti personnel fragmentation warhead.--[[User:Commando552|Commando552]] 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's what they call "overcaliber rounds". Similarily, you would say that the M1 Garand's caliber is a 7.62 even if it's used to fire 75 mm rifle grenades; or that a tank's main gun is a 120 mm even if it fires a 40 mm saboted AP rod.--[[Special:Contributions/109.252.15.58|109.252.15.58]] 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::You measure by the diameter of the launching tube. Munitions can CHANGE per type of payload but the launcher remains the same. The RPG launcher is a 40mm tube. the M72 LAW tube or the AT-4 Tubes enclose the rocket, thus their 'interior diameter' doesn't change with the payload. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:11, 1 May 2011 (CDT)

== Rocket Launchers in general ==

Are rocket launchers better if they are reloadable or unreloadable?

That depends a lot on what you want them to do. The RPG-7 is actually more of a crew-operated weapon as are most GMPGs and reloadable rocket launchers. If you need one soldier to be able to blow up a tank, you'd typically have him carry a single-shot disposable launcher like the LAW for Vietnam. Hughjefender.

:Except a single LAW wouldn't do jack against a tank. It's effective mainly against APCs or unarmored vehicles. --[[User:JEESUS|JEESUS]] 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

::- LAW rockets seem to have done fine for 1950s/1960s-era tanks, since that was the time it was introduced. It was intended to perform the same as the original RPG-7. Though we have newer and more effective anti-armor launchers, the LAW still has it's viable uses and advantages today. But the point is you can't compare the performance of 40+ year old Anti-tank rocket systems against modern-day heavy armor, because the result is obvious, and a bit misleading. I doubt original RPG-7 warheads are much good against MBTs today either. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of a reloadable system when updating or upgrading is easier because only the warhead needs to be changed and the launcher doesn't. This is a cost-effective solution because stockpiles of existing launchers are still usable and the old warheads can be expended in training and exercises. As for performance against modern MBTs, the RPG-7 can be surprisingly effective, even with the original warheads. The user has to more creative in getting a shot into the side or rear armor or to try a top-attack from an elevated position such as the balcony on an apartment block. Since the rockets and warheads are relatively cheap, multiple shots from different angles on the same target is a tactical option. Used officially by 40 countries (and more unofficially) and manufactured in 9 of them (including Iraq, explaining why so many are available there) there will be no shortage of rockets and launchers for current and future conflicts.

:- 'Side or rear armor' or 'top shot'? That's not the same thing. A LAW can be used effectively in any of those spots as well. Again, it's a bit misleading. I just didn't like the offhand, vague, and slightly ignorant comment that a LAW isn't quite that effective. Anyway, to the original point, as Hughjefender said, it's all about what role you intend the weapon to play specifically, same as any weapon (among other things). As the above comment stated, there are numerous advantages to reloadable systems. But there are advantages to non-reloadable ones as well. Whether a launcher is outright 'better' if it's reloadable or not is a somewhat inane question that can't be answered in that manner. It's like asking if a revolver or a pistol is better and expecting a clean answer either way. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 05:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::I was mainly commenting on the usage of the singular, a single LAW probably wouldn't do much to a modern tank, I would assume it would need a perfect hit to a 60s tank too. Back in the army (Finnish) the LAW (M72A5) carrying "tank buster" teams or "suicide squad" were instructed to fire several LAWs in rapid succession to just disable a tank, and this was mainly used in emergency situations. The main unguided AT rocket we used was the APILAS which is somewhat similar to the AT4. --[[User:JEESUS|JEESUS]] 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

::- Almost all of the past or current light anti-armor weapons are ineffective against tanks over the frontal arc, and have limited effectiveness against APC/IFV and other lighter armored vehicles. Either the armor is too thick, is made composite armor (Chobham used on M1 Abrams), reactive armor, or spaced armor, will lessen or nullify the effect of HEAT warheads. Tandem warheads (developed as an upgrade for the RPG-7) will increase the chance of damaging the tank. The advantage the M72 has is light weight and is still used for that reason. Which is better? Depends on the role and availability. If weight is an issue, the M72 is a clear winner at 2.5kg complete. The RPG-7 weighs 7kg for the launcher and 2 (fragmentation), 2.5 (single stage HEAT), or 4.5kg (tandem HEAT or thermobaric) for the warhead. But if flexibility, anti-armor performance, and range are more important, the RPG-7 is the better option.

::: - Well anyway, there you are. They both have pros and cons, and that's all I was getting at. As said, it all really depends on what you want out of the weapon, same as any other weapon. That said, the RPG-7 is/was a better launcher as an active main weapon for a soldier (or a team) that's meant to go after armored vehicles and other certain targets, given the reload-ability function allowing it to use other more specialized and newer warheads (And I appreciate a little extra info on them, as well as clarification about the present overall effectiveness of 'light' anti-armor launchers in general). Anyway, the LAW and newer AT-4, with their considerably lighter weight and (In the case of the LAW) better compactness are easily one-man carryable/operable launchers, and what I consider more as an secondary weapon for 'just-in-case' antiarmor situations. In that regard, I wouldn't say it's fair to compare the RPG-7 with the LAW, as one being a reloadable system and the other not makes them unequal - The M3 system or something of the like would probably be better to compare to the RPG-7, especially for the present day. That all aside, again, being reloadable or non-reloadable isn't something that makes a launcher inherently better or worse, it all depends on what you're looking for out of it overall. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

== A few warhead questions. ==

Just curious, but is the ammunition for the RPG-7 and the Type 69 interchangeable? I would imagine so, what with both being 40mm, but I just wanted to be sure. For that matter, did the Chinese military ever adopt any other warhead types? I've only ever seen it loaded with the PG-7VM (or something very like it). Lastly, does anyone know if the Chinese made warheads are exact copies of the Russian ones (if so that would kinda make my first question unnecessary), or are there minor differences like with the launcher? [[User:Jimmoy|Jimmoy]] 19:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

== Acronym ==

Where should we add the note that the Russian acronym РПГ stands for both rocket-propelled and hand-thrown anti-tank grenades?--[[Special:Contributions/109.252.15.58|109.252.15.58]] 13:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

== Since the debate's over, can we get this unlocked now? ==

It's an awfully common weapon to have a locked page, after all. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:27, 1 May 2011 (CDT)

== Aiming the RPG-7 ==

What would you pick in aiming the weapon? Flip up the iron sights aim and then fire or attach it with the PGO-7 scope look through it, aim then fire? Most RPG-7's are fired by aiming with the iron sights and most of them are used with no scope. The Russians and some combatants have a PGO-7 scope attached to it. For me i like them both! Its easier to aim with the iron sights just flip them up and aim then fire. Almost every RPG-7's are used with no scope. But it looks way more cooler when its attached with its PGO-7 scope and using it is slighty more accurate when you use its scope. Just attach it on its side mounted rail, aim then fire! But i like using them both.
[[User:Dangerclose96|Dangerclose96]]
'''Please reply!'''
:What are you, a terrorist? ;) - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 13:53, 8 May 2011 (CDT)

:There's some upgrade kits available that allow mounting of red dot sights and other modern optics to the weapon via RIS rails. In fact, if you look on the RPG-7's Wikipedia page, you can see an example of this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RPG_soldier_and_squad.jpg RPG-7 with red dot scope] [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 14:45, 8 May 2011 (CDT)

== The correct way to hold ==

I just want to verify, the correct way to hold is (assuming user is right handed) right hand on forward grip (with trigger) and left hand on rear grip with the tube on the right shoulder? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 02:30, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

==Airtronic RPG-7-USA Operators==
To whom is this modernised westernised version intended for? I can't see the US Military as an end user customer for the Airtronic's RPG. Did they develope it to be sold to allies of the US that are using the Soviet and Chinese RPG-7s and have large stocks of rockets? Afghanistan/Iraq likely? Many users of the original build versions of the RPG-7 locally with or without license. -[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] ([[User talk:Estenwall|talk]]) 07:22, 12 August 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Olympus Has Fallen

2013-07-19T13:07:21Z

Estenwall:

Why would an AC-130 have guns as small as M134s? IIRC, the 25mm GAU-12 is what current AC-130s carry after being upgraded from 20mm M61s, so it should be noted that such an armament is inaccurate. Furthermore, why is an AC-130 attacking a Secret Service sniper? Somehow stolen by the NKs? The trailer ''did'' show it being shot down by an F-22.

This movie is gonna be awesome. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 21:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)

I think the AC-130 was meant to be 2 things, shock and awe and to eliminate the Secret Service snipers on the roof top, which would clear the entry teams going through the front door. Of course even if it was depicted with the GAU 12 guns...It would be just as overkill with the cannon if they used it. I don't know what the roof of the White House is armored with...but I doubt it could withstand anything from an AC-130. Also the movie expected us to believe that the White House's AAA defenses didn't activate the moment it detected something like an AC-130 coming at it? Honestly, the invasion of the White House in 24 was more realistic and less over the top. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 21:25, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Not saying an ACOG on in MP5 is impractical but...there's something odd about it, mostly that the MP5 lacks range, accuracy and punch of a rifle and they would be using it indoors for the assault on the White House...wouldn't it have been practical for all the MP5s to be equipped with zero magnifying optics like Aimpoints, Eotechs...an ACOG on an MP5 to me is just...weird. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 21:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:A similar setup was used by Jason Issacs in Green Zone. MP5A3 with an ACOG on top that had a magical nightvision mode that didn't require goggles. He used it for close-quarters street combat. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 00:38, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

:I feel the same way but I remember seeing some early model MP-5s with the 4x Hendsolt scope which was/is a lot bulkier than the ACOG if memory serves. --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] ([[User talk:Charon68|talk]]) 21:39, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::True, then as the MP5 aged all the way to modern times, you rarely see it with a powered optic. Also be in mind that the Hendsolt scope was never designed for the MP5. Just because a weapon has a maximum range of X doesn't mean a powered optic will 100% guaranteed a hit at X range or would it be effective in a combat situation. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:::The British SAS used to sometimes mount Hensoldt Z-24 scopes on their MP5s, as did the British police. However I think this was partly due to the fact that red dot sights were not as far along as they are today, and also that compact carbines were not as prevelant as they are today which now fill the medium range roll that these scoped MP5s had. For example whereas the police used to have an MP5 with a 4x scope, you will now only see MP5s with an EOTech or other red dot sight, alongside G36Cs with either the ZF 3x4° carry handle or a Leupold 1-3x14mm CQ/T. These days if it is being used in a role where it would benefit from a powered optic, a compact carbine is generally the preferred choice. Particularly in the case of this film where they are going fighting in a building, the ACOG is an odd choice. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 07:21, 27 February 2013 (EST)
:::An ACOG on an MP5 simply means said MP5 can be employed at its ''maximum effective range'', not at the optic's ''maximum viewing range''. It can also be used as a means of reconnoitering a distant location up close, such as bad guys' positions, before moving in closer. [http://www.abload.de/img/780049wsps5.jpg This guy], for example, wouldn't have the extra weight of an Elcan on his CQBR unless he had some use for the secondary magnification level. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 18:16, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
::::That is a 5.56x45mm AR-15 rather than a 9x19mm MP5 though which has more range so benefits more from a magnified optic. Regardless, it is not so much just that there are ACOGs on MP5s, but the fact that they are using them for an operation which will be purely CQB inside a building where the longest range they will be shooting at is 10-20 meters. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 20:52, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::The idea is the same, though. Effective use of the weapon at its maximum range. Any magnified optical sighting system can see far beyond the max range of its host weapon, regardless of whether that weapon is an MP5 sub gun or an M68 cannon on an Abrams tank. Plus, an ACOG with an illuminated reticle (which is most models) can be used as a rudimentary CQB optic by looking through it with both eyes open and using the reticle as your point of aim. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 07:03, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
Some of them do come in from the fence in the trailer and that would mean a bit of range to the building. --[[User:Iceman|Iceman]] ([[User talk:Iceman|talk]]) 10:57, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

Why would a man with a rifle try to shoot at an AC-130? It just stands out. Also the reverse shot both bothered me in the trailer and interested me. Butler did a shoulder transition around corners, pretty smart. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 13:06, 27 February 2013 (EST)

I think the AC-130 we see might not be an actual AC-130, it might just be something that the North Koreans piece together from a C-130 so it can conceal the miniguns on board and pretend to be a regular C-130.--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] ([[User talk:Wildcards|talk]]) 12:22, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

:Plus if you notice on one of the previews, the AC-130 uses its gatling guns to engage a F-22 on its right side. AC-130s only have guns on the left hand side. --[[User:Insertjjs|Insertjjs]]

I want to know what's coming out of those MP5s the terrorists are using cause they were going right through whatever the Secret Service guys were wearing. It's like the movie forgot that every agent wears a vest of some sort and 9mm won't go through them. And the ACOGs on MP5s still is weird to me. Almost as weird as ACOGs on P90s. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 01:04, 23 March 2013 (EDT)

I don't think it's supposed to be a legit AC-130. It's probably a modified C-130 by the North Koreans. That's why it had guns on the right and left side. Why the plane would have only miniguns is beyond me, but they are the North Koreans. What I want to know, is why are they so God Damn accurate? They were headshotting people left and right. Also why did it take so long for the military to respond? You would think that the U.S Military would be sending the most elite special forces to take back the White House. I was expecting Delta and DevGru on the roof in a matter of minutes. Oh well, guess I'm logical.--[[User:NJGunner|NJGunner]] ([[User talk:NJGunner|talk]]) 00:22, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

:Delta and DevGru (What a dumb name) would take at least a day to show up, being based in Georgia and...I'm not sure where DevGru is. But you do have the Secret Service at the White House, Washington PD, the FBI headquarters, local SWAT, fighters out of Andrews and Langley AFBs, the Marine Barracks in DC, HMX-1, and all of Qunatico Marine Base. All of those would be able to respond faster. BTW, are the Norks trying to get control of our nukes or something? --[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 14:53, 30 March 2013 (EDT)
::Delta is based out of North Carolina and DEV is based out of Virginia Beach. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 17:05, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

:Virginia Beach is roughly 3 hours and 20 minutes away by car. By helicopter, maybe like an hour an a half (accounting for speed and everything). One would think that a Tier one special forces unit would be the first choice for saving POTUS. Hell, Banning was a former Ranger and he single-handedly saved the President and killed a a quarter of a million terrorists. If one Ranger could do that, 4 DevGru operators could take it in a matter of minutes. Also during the initial assault, where did the RPGs come from? It's a little off track from what I was originally talking about but this pisses me off alot. I liked the movie, but there were alot of inaccuracies.--[[User:NJGunner|NJGunner]] ([[User talk:NJGunner|talk]]) 16:43, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
::How is this comparing to White House Down?? --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
:::Similar concept. Terrorists invade the White House to capture/kill POTUS and it's up to one man to save him. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 18:53, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

The AC-130 fires several showy series of flares when missiles are fired at it from the ground and air. Firing the flares is accompanied by loud thumping boom sound effects. Does firing flares really make that kind of sound? Countermeasure flares are just magnesium or something else burning really hot. Were the sound effects truthful or was the sound put in to make the scenes more showy? I've seen flares fired from a jet fighter but it was from a distance and the sound of the jet masked everything so I didn't hear if the flare firing makes a sound. [[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] ([[User talk:Estenwall|talk]]) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (EDT)

==Unknown 1911==
Mike Banning ([[Gerard Butler]]) retrieves an unidentified 1911 pistol from President Ashur's desk inside the oval office, and wields it along with his Glock and Sig 229.--[[User:Mmarlon brando|Mmarlon brando]] ([[User talk:Mmarlon brando|talk]]) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

== Semi auto Remington??? ==

Ok so I saw the movie today and found a few errors, which were expected because no movie is perfect, but there's one part, when the NK mock AC-130 is attacking and the snipers are shooting at it, and it really annoys me. One of the snipers has a bolt action Remington 700 and he fires two shots simultaneously with no recoil and he never pulled the bolt. Don't know why this pisses me off so much...--NJGunner

Common SFX muck-up, no different from hammer sounds for Glocks and the like. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 18:53, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Alcatraz

2012-07-12T20:33:11Z

Estenwall: /* Taclights */

this page is free to edit (please feel free to make changes and add weapons and pics)--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 18:35, 9 February 2012 (CST)

I grabbed some temporary caps off of Hulu from the pilot to spruce up the page. I don't think I'll be keeping up with this series though. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:09, 10 February 2012 (CST)

As i said, feel free to edit and change things--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 18:27, 10 February 2012 (CST)
:Yes, it's a wiki. That's sort of implied. :P --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:34, 10 February 2012 (CST)
Thanks for that. Make me feel like a a**hole.

I'm sorry, i tried to insert a better M4 pic. Can someone please make that change for me. You'll find the pic under the file name that is listed, its the one with the forward railguard and sight attachment--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 19:26, 10 February 2012 (CST)
:Is that the one? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 19:45, 10 February 2012 (CST)

yeah, thanks very much--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 19:47, 10 February 2012 (CST)

Would it be possible to get screens that don't have the huge "Buffer" box at the top... --[[User:K|K]] 16:04, 26 February 2012 (CST)

== Guy Hastings 1911 ==

I believe that Guy Hastings uses a standard Colt M1911 or a Colt Government Model [Cant find a decent pic, so identifying exact make/model is impossible]this is due the to original style Hammer, Safety and slide release but I'm sure it wasn't a Kimber Warrior. --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 14:11, 11 February 2012 (CST)

How do you get screen grabs off of HULU?--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 09:21, 12 February 2012 (CST)
:It's a little trickier now than it was a year ago since they updated their player. I use a program named FastStone Image Viewer, which has an option for capturing windows. Open the video in a pop-out window, and when you capture the window, you can't actually click on the video itself, otherwise the image will be obscured. Click AROUND the video, and then crop it. I hope that helps. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 14:24, 12 February 2012 (CST)

== Proper Titles ==

Please note my fine firearm-identifying comrades that the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) has never had "Detectives".They have always have, and still do, identify their plainclothes investigators as "Inspectors" Ex: Inspector Harry Callahan or Insp. Callahan. As a result title them as such.

-GladeTaylor
:Thanks. Someone should tell [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1728102/combined IMDb] then. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 19:41, 13 February 2012 (CST)

:This is Hollywood, BTW, so don't expect accuracy. —nkingman
::Someone needs to tell the show's writers. The title "Detective" is incorrectly used throughout the show. It's bugged me since the pilot episode. -APS221

== Madsen's Backup gun and Kit Nelson's Revolver ==
Can someone please look over episode 3 so that we can try to figure out what Madsen's B.U. Gun is and what kit nelson's revolver is?

:I produced a pic of Nelson revolver but I don't know much about telling the variations apart, so i cant ID it... --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 14:45, 26 February 2012 (CST)

And Madsen's Back up Gun?--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 16:21, 26 February 2012 (CST)

Kit Nelson is carrying some kind of smith & wesson for sure--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 20:46, 27 February 2012 (CST)

Pic is up of Madsen's back-up gun, feel free to ID --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 06:24, 9 March 2012 (CST)

First-time poster, long-time lurker. Here's a blurry close-up of the gun drawn from the ankle holster. http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7897684/img/7897684.jpg

It helps a little. Could u post it to the page?--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 09:52, 28 March 2012 (CDT)
:It looks like some sort of ultra compact M1911 variant. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 11:16, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

At a rough guess i'd say Colt Officers ACP. Not 100% though. --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 17:13, 30 March 2012 (CDT)

== End of Season 1 ==
Ok people, season 1 has ended. Lets try to get some more pics up and try to identify some guns. I have all season 1 episodes on iTunes. If u get the episodes in HD, it would help with the clarity. AS of right now, Fox does not have a plan for a second season, but the ratings hit an all time low with the season 1 finale, so hopes for a second season aren't high.--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 09:58, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

Worse series have had renewals...Kinda like this series as a bit of something different and intriguing --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 13:27, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

True. And J.J. Abrams has money to keep the series going, but he has to first convince Fox to keep the series going.--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 13:57, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

==Series Cancelled==
SERIES CANCELLED...... I am still going to edit this page and try to get it close to finalized and complete status. I would like some help. If u want to reach me

Email : mthcolt@gmail.com

==Winchester model 70==
In the second episode a criminal uses a Winchester rifle to shoot people. The female detective Madsen deduces he's using the Winchester instead of M40 that the police think he uses. She says the rifles use same bullets. In my opinion this is a stupid statement and plot hole because the Winchester 70 was/is not available in 7.62x51mm NATO. Correct me if I'm wrong and if not someone with better expertise could word it more clearly and add it to the Winchester Model 70 section of the page. Also could someone comment if ranges said by Madsen: 750 yards for M40 and 500 yards for Winchester are correct? Also later they say the time travelling criminal would have had to get his weapon of choise from a special gun shop because the rifle model is old. The model 70 is still produced today. Last restart of production was in 2008.
[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] 15:52, 10 July 2012 EEST

Any decent bolt gun is accurate to far beyond that. Modern boltgun don't have sights graduated out to 2000+ yards like old military rifles, but they are effectve to very long range. Any bolt-action in .308 or higher should be usable, with a scope and some training, to 1000 yards. There's a civilian program-I forgot the name- whos sole purpose is to teach you to be able to hit targets at 500 yards with iron sights. In short: nobody has a clue what they're talking about on that show.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 09:05, 10 July 2012 (CDT)

==Taclights==
In the episode 7 when Madsen and Hauser raid the abandoded school chemistry class. Both turn their lights off and even the clicks of the switches is heard. To me it seemed Hauser had a taclight fitted to the bottom of his Glock's grip. I'm not sure is Madsen light was fitted or if she just held a flashlight with her hand.
In many other episodes the light clearly is a separate flashlight. This bugs me as another impracticality and mistake in this show. She uses a gun and a flashlight in almost every episode. Couldn't the shows armorer tell them that a fitted tactical light would be cooler, more practical and maybe more realistic? --[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] 18:23, 12 July 2012 (EEST)
:Seeing as how Madsen's carry gun is a Glock 26 which doesn't have an accessory rail, it can't easily be fitted with a light. Even if whe was carrying a Glock 19 or something else with a rail, having a light attached to your gun makes it a lot more bulky for plain clothes carry. It also means that unless you want to carry two lights, if you want to look at something in the dark you need to be pointing your gun at it. In real life police generally don't have torches fitted to their carry weapons. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:50, 12 July 2012 (CDT)
::Ah. I didn't even think of if it had or hadn't an accessory rail. I just though all Glocks had a place infront of the trigger guard. Taclight for Glocks that I've seen are quite small and Madsen wears shoulder holster sling thing under her jacket. A taclight would also affect ability to holster the gun wouldn't it? I bet though that there are holsters for guns with taclights too. --[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] 23:30, 12 July 2012 (EEST)

Talk:Alcatraz

2012-07-12T20:32:42Z

Estenwall: /* Taclights */

this page is free to edit (please feel free to make changes and add weapons and pics)--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 18:35, 9 February 2012 (CST)

I grabbed some temporary caps off of Hulu from the pilot to spruce up the page. I don't think I'll be keeping up with this series though. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:09, 10 February 2012 (CST)

As i said, feel free to edit and change things--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 18:27, 10 February 2012 (CST)
:Yes, it's a wiki. That's sort of implied. :P --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:34, 10 February 2012 (CST)
Thanks for that. Make me feel like a a**hole.

I'm sorry, i tried to insert a better M4 pic. Can someone please make that change for me. You'll find the pic under the file name that is listed, its the one with the forward railguard and sight attachment--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 19:26, 10 February 2012 (CST)
:Is that the one? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 19:45, 10 February 2012 (CST)

yeah, thanks very much--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 19:47, 10 February 2012 (CST)

Would it be possible to get screens that don't have the huge "Buffer" box at the top... --[[User:K|K]] 16:04, 26 February 2012 (CST)

== Guy Hastings 1911 ==

I believe that Guy Hastings uses a standard Colt M1911 or a Colt Government Model [Cant find a decent pic, so identifying exact make/model is impossible]this is due the to original style Hammer, Safety and slide release but I'm sure it wasn't a Kimber Warrior. --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 14:11, 11 February 2012 (CST)

How do you get screen grabs off of HULU?--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 09:21, 12 February 2012 (CST)
:It's a little trickier now than it was a year ago since they updated their player. I use a program named FastStone Image Viewer, which has an option for capturing windows. Open the video in a pop-out window, and when you capture the window, you can't actually click on the video itself, otherwise the image will be obscured. Click AROUND the video, and then crop it. I hope that helps. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 14:24, 12 February 2012 (CST)

== Proper Titles ==

Please note my fine firearm-identifying comrades that the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) has never had "Detectives".They have always have, and still do, identify their plainclothes investigators as "Inspectors" Ex: Inspector Harry Callahan or Insp. Callahan. As a result title them as such.

-GladeTaylor
:Thanks. Someone should tell [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1728102/combined IMDb] then. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 19:41, 13 February 2012 (CST)

:This is Hollywood, BTW, so don't expect accuracy. —nkingman
::Someone needs to tell the show's writers. The title "Detective" is incorrectly used throughout the show. It's bugged me since the pilot episode. -APS221

== Madsen's Backup gun and Kit Nelson's Revolver ==
Can someone please look over episode 3 so that we can try to figure out what Madsen's B.U. Gun is and what kit nelson's revolver is?

:I produced a pic of Nelson revolver but I don't know much about telling the variations apart, so i cant ID it... --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 14:45, 26 February 2012 (CST)

And Madsen's Back up Gun?--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 16:21, 26 February 2012 (CST)

Kit Nelson is carrying some kind of smith & wesson for sure--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 20:46, 27 February 2012 (CST)

Pic is up of Madsen's back-up gun, feel free to ID --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 06:24, 9 March 2012 (CST)

First-time poster, long-time lurker. Here's a blurry close-up of the gun drawn from the ankle holster. http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7897684/img/7897684.jpg

It helps a little. Could u post it to the page?--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 09:52, 28 March 2012 (CDT)
:It looks like some sort of ultra compact M1911 variant. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 11:16, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

At a rough guess i'd say Colt Officers ACP. Not 100% though. --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 17:13, 30 March 2012 (CDT)

== End of Season 1 ==
Ok people, season 1 has ended. Lets try to get some more pics up and try to identify some guns. I have all season 1 episodes on iTunes. If u get the episodes in HD, it would help with the clarity. AS of right now, Fox does not have a plan for a second season, but the ratings hit an all time low with the season 1 finale, so hopes for a second season aren't high.--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 09:58, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

Worse series have had renewals...Kinda like this series as a bit of something different and intriguing --[[User:BrokenBullet|BrokenBullet]] 13:27, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

True. And J.J. Abrams has money to keep the series going, but he has to first convince Fox to keep the series going.--[[User:Coltmth|Coltmth]] 13:57, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

==Series Cancelled==
SERIES CANCELLED...... I am still going to edit this page and try to get it close to finalized and complete status. I would like some help. If u want to reach me

Email : mthcolt@gmail.com

==Winchester model 70==
In the second episode a criminal uses a Winchester rifle to shoot people. The female detective Madsen deduces he's using the Winchester instead of M40 that the police think he uses. She says the rifles use same bullets. In my opinion this is a stupid statement and plot hole because the Winchester 70 was/is not available in 7.62x51mm NATO. Correct me if I'm wrong and if not someone with better expertise could word it more clearly and add it to the Winchester Model 70 section of the page. Also could someone comment if ranges said by Madsen: 750 yards for M40 and 500 yards for Winchester are correct? Also later they say the time travelling criminal would have had to get his weapon of choise from a special gun shop because the rifle model is old. The model 70 is still produced today. Last restart of production was in 2008.
[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] 15:52, 10 July 2012 EEST

Any decent bolt gun is accurate to far beyond that. Modern boltgun don't have sights graduated out to 2000+ yards like old military rifles, but they are effectve to very long range. Any bolt-action in .308 or higher should be usable, with a scope and some training, to 1000 yards. There's a civilian program-I forgot the name- whos sole purpose is to teach you to be able to hit targets at 500 yards with iron sights. In short: nobody has a clue what they're talking about on that show.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 09:05, 10 July 2012 (CDT)

==Taclights==
In the episode 7 when Madsen and Hauser raid the abandoded school chemistry class. Both turn their lights off and even the clicks of the switches is heard. To me it seemed Hauser had a taclight fitted to the bottom of his Glock's grip. I'm not sure is Madsen light was fitted or if she just held a flashlight with her hand.
In many other episodes the light clearly is a separate flashlight. This bugs me as another impracticality and mistake in this show. She uses a gun and a flashlight in almost every episode. Couldn't the shows armorer tell them that a fitted tactical light would be cooler, more practical and maybe more realistic? --[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] 18:23, 12 July 2012 EEST
:Seeing as how Madsen's carry gun is a Glock 26 which doesn't have an accessory rail, it can't easily be fitted with a light. Even if whe was carrying a Glock 19 or something else with a rail, having a light attached to your gun makes it a lot more bulky for plain clothes carry. It also means that unless you want to carry two lights, if you want to look at something in the dark you need to be pointing your gun at it. In real life police generally don't have torches fitted to their carry weapons. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:50, 12 July 2012 (CDT)
::Ah. I didn't even think of if it had or hadn't an accessory rail. I just though all Glocks had a place infront of the trigger guard. Taclight for Glocks that I've seen are quite small and Madsen wears shoulder holster sling thing under her jacket. A taclight would also affect ability to holster the gun wouldn't it? I bet though that there are holsters for guns with taclights too. --[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] 23:30, 12 July 2012 EEST

Talk:Alcatraz

2012-07-12T15:24:35Z

Estenwall:

Talk:Alcatraz

2012-07-10T13:05:56Z

Estenwall: /* Winchester model 70 */

Talk:Alcatraz

2012-07-10T12:54:27Z

Estenwall:

Talk:Hard Target

2012-06-07T22:35:12Z

Estenwall:

== John Woo Movies ==

I can't help laugh at John Woo Movies on how he just milks the action for all it's worth without any consideration to realism. The Anti-Michael Mann. I guess the only thing realistic was the use of a larger magazine on the Beretta 92F's. I think he still fired over the magazine capacity.

== M203 GL firing twice in a row?! ==

I've been watching this movie recently and noticed that just like in Face Off the M203 is shown firing twice in very close succession (as it is also mentioned on the page). This made me wonder how this could be so i looked at both movies very closely and noticed, that John Woo just used the same shot twice, just shown from a different angle and in a bit of slowmotion. It seems like he really likes to show it off so it is simply shown like a recap but in fact in both movies it's just firing one grenade and theres also just one impact, simply shown from different angle again.

==Defusing M67==
In this film the main baddie tries to defuse an M67 by taking off the fuse. Is this a viable method of defusing a hand grenade that has its handle already sprung off? http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Hard_target#M67_hand_grenade
How many seconds time is there?