Talk:Sudden Impact - Revision history

StanTheMan: /* M 1911A1 or STAR model B? */

2017-01-06T20:12:14Z

M 1911A1 or STAR model B?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 6 January 2017
Line 125:		Line 125:
	[[Image:DH4M1911A1-1.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|M1911A1 or Star Model B? Is there an external extractor?]]		[[Image:DH4M1911A1-1.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|M1911A1 or Star Model B? Is there an external extractor?]]
	:It's hard to see because of the low resolution, but it ''does'' look like there's an external extractor. If someone could get a clearer shot of the slide, we might be able to tell decisively. -- [[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 08:30 20 November 2013 (EST)		:It's hard to see because of the low resolution, but it ''does'' look like there's an external extractor. If someone could get a clearer shot of the slide, we might be able to tell decisively. -- [[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 08:30 20 November 2013 (EST)
			:: Looking close at the images I agree, and in fact I think all the 1911s might be Stars. As stated we need some clearer/better screecaps to help confirm, though. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 15:12, 6 January 2017 (EST)

	== Backstory of Harry's AutoMag ==		== Backstory of Harry's AutoMag ==

Maxman: /* S&W Model 29 */

2016-12-11T21:18:50Z

S&W Model 29

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 11 December 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:- Oh really? You must have the best eyes in the universe, to detect '''one-hundredth of an inch''' of a difference in a hole diameter, especially with no reference. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)		:- Oh really? You must have the best eyes in the universe, to detect '''one-hundredth of an inch''' of a difference in a hole diameter, especially with no reference. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
	::Someone posted a comment on [[The Enforcer]] saying they may have used a Model 57 - 41. Magnum couldn't find a Model 29 blah, blah. Which I ~~though~~ was stupid considering MPM posted the ''actual'' screen used Model 29 in the film. I doubt they had a problem finding a Model 29 in this '83 film. --[[User:Predator20\|Predator20]] 20:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)		::Someone posted a comment on [[The Enforcer]] saying they may have used a Model 57 - 41. Magnum couldn't find a Model 29 blah, blah. Which I thought was stupid considering MPM posted the ''actual'' screen used Model 29 in the film. I doubt they had a problem finding a Model 29 in this '83 film. --[[User:Predator20\|Predator20]] 20:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
	:- I remember that. What's also interesting here is that he's going by the first two screencaps, which are past the shooting part and are now in a part of a sequence that most certainly wouldn't involve any active firing gun as he points it at a person up close in that part of the scene. On the opposite, I myself would contend that that's where they would use a real Model 29 - for detailed non-firing close-up shots. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)		:- I remember that. What's also interesting here is that he's going by the first two screencaps, which are past the shooting part and are now in a part of a sequence that most certainly wouldn't involve any active firing gun as he points it at a person up close in that part of the scene. On the opposite, I myself would contend that that's where they would use a real Model 29 - for detailed non-firing close-up shots. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
	:- I read on this website (http://www.vincelewis.net/44magnum.html) that the S&W they use on the close up shots where a model 29 with the barrel bored out for effect. The bore of the barrel is way to big to be a .44 magnum. On the big screen it's even more intimidating. [[User:Charterarmsoffduty\|Charterarmsoffduty]] 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)		:- I read on this website (http://www.vincelewis.net/44magnum.html) that the S&W they use on the close up shots where a model 29 with the barrel bored out for effect. The bore of the barrel is way to big to be a .44 magnum. On the big screen it's even more intimidating. [[User:Charterarmsoffduty\|Charterarmsoffduty]] 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Driven by curiosity I've just went on the Smith & Wesson website: in my humble opinion, the muzzle diameter of the model 25 indeed looks just like the one in the screencaps (take a look at the 360° view on the said website).[[User:MikeF88\|MikeF88]] ([[User talk:MikeF88\|talk]]) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (EDT)		::Driven by curiosity I've just went on the Smith & Wesson website: in my humble opinion, the muzzle diameter of the model 25 indeed looks just like the one in the screencaps (take a look at the 360° view on the said website).[[User:MikeF88\|MikeF88]] ([[User talk:MikeF88\|talk]]) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
	::The Model 25 has the standard pencil barrel. The Model 29 has the heavy "bull" barrel. Harry's gun has the heavy barrel. Please check more than just the bore diameter. Also, .44 is very close in diameter to .45, close enough to make differentiation virtually impossible. --[[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (EST)		::The Model 25 has the standard pencil barrel. The Model 29 has the heavy "bull" barrel. Harry's gun has the heavy barrel. Please check more than just the bore diameter. Also, .44 is very close in diameter to .45, close enough to make differentiation virtually impossible. --[[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (EST)
			:::Hmm. It seems S&W switched to the heavy barrel on the 25 at some point. Disregard that first part. --[[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 16:18, 11 December 2016 (EST)

	==Smith & Wesson 3000 Info==		==Smith & Wesson 3000 Info==

Maxman: /* .44 special Colt DS? */

2016-12-11T20:51:48Z

.44 special Colt DS?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 11 December 2016
Line 77:		Line 77:

	-I'm not sure about that. Muzzle diameters can look larger than real in movies/pics, specially in stainless or nickel handguns, and particularly if the muzzle hole is slightly out of focus, as it happens with the screenshot (I took some pics of my .22 l.r. S&W 617, and the muzzle looked like a .38). In the scene where Sondra Locke loads her revolver, the cartridges look like .38 specials (they look too "stylized" to be .44 specials, although I admit that it's hard to be really sure). BTW: if I remember well, when Callahan prints the ballistics report in the police precinct, it can be read ".38 special" (I'll have to see that scene again).--[[User:Rafa\|Rafa]]		-I'm not sure about that. Muzzle diameters can look larger than real in movies/pics, specially in stainless or nickel handguns, and particularly if the muzzle hole is slightly out of focus, as it happens with the screenshot (I took some pics of my .22 l.r. S&W 617, and the muzzle looked like a .38). In the scene where Sondra Locke loads her revolver, the cartridges look like .38 specials (they look too "stylized" to be .44 specials, although I admit that it's hard to be really sure). BTW: if I remember well, when Callahan prints the ballistics report in the police precinct, it can be read ".38 special" (I'll have to see that scene again).--[[User:Rafa\|Rafa]]
			:Also, Sondra Locke is s rather petite woman, so it might look larger in comparison. --[[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 15:51, 11 December 2016 (EST)

	-FWIW: here are some answers from Coltforum.com:		-FWIW: here are some answers from Coltforum.com:

Maxman: /* S&W Model 29 */

2016-12-11T19:20:01Z

S&W Model 29

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 11 December 2016
Line 26:		Line 26:
	:- I read on this website (http://www.vincelewis.net/44magnum.html) that the S&W they use on the close up shots where a model 29 with the barrel bored out for effect. The bore of the barrel is way to big to be a .44 magnum. On the big screen it's even more intimidating. [[User:Charterarmsoffduty\|Charterarmsoffduty]] 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)		:- I read on this website (http://www.vincelewis.net/44magnum.html) that the S&W they use on the close up shots where a model 29 with the barrel bored out for effect. The bore of the barrel is way to big to be a .44 magnum. On the big screen it's even more intimidating. [[User:Charterarmsoffduty\|Charterarmsoffduty]] 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Driven by curiosity I've just went on the Smith & Wesson website: in my humble opinion, the muzzle diameter of the model 25 indeed looks just like the one in the screencaps (take a look at the 360° view on the said website).[[User:MikeF88\|MikeF88]] ([[User talk:MikeF88\|talk]]) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (EDT)		::Driven by curiosity I've just went on the Smith & Wesson website: in my humble opinion, the muzzle diameter of the model 25 indeed looks just like the one in the screencaps (take a look at the 360° view on the said website).[[User:MikeF88\|MikeF88]] ([[User talk:MikeF88\|talk]]) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
			::The Model 25 has the standard pencil barrel. The Model 29 has the heavy "bull" barrel. Harry's gun has the heavy barrel. Please check more than just the bore diameter. Also, .44 is very close in diameter to .45, close enough to make differentiation virtually impossible. --[[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (EST)

	==Smith & Wesson 3000 Info==		==Smith & Wesson 3000 Info==

StanTheMan: /* 92SB Image */

2016-12-10T06:42:35Z

92SB Image

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:42, 10 December 2016
Line 134:		Line 134:

	This image is from a batch of newly photographed weapons from [[User:Yournamehere\|Yournamehere]] that were posted in the forum. This was a tryout to see how it looked. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 20:40, 9 December 2016 (EST)		This image is from a batch of newly photographed weapons from [[User:Yournamehere\|Yournamehere]] that were posted in the forum. This was a tryout to see how it looked. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 20:40, 9 December 2016 (EST)
			: Ah! Test run. Apologies for any problems, then. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 01:42, 10 December 2016 (EST)

Ben41: /* 92SB Image */

2016-12-10T01:40:34Z

92SB Image

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:40, 10 December 2016
Line 132:		Line 132:

	Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The new one is slightly sharper and larger I grant, but it's also oddly angled - Meanwhile the one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less, a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)		Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The new one is slightly sharper and larger I grant, but it's also oddly angled - Meanwhile the one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less, a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)

			This image is from a batch of newly photographed weapons from [[User:Yournamehere\|Yournamehere]] that were posted in the forum. This was a tryout to see how it looked. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 20:40, 9 December 2016 (EST)

StanTheMan: /* 92SB Image */

2016-12-09T07:11:06Z

92SB Image

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:11, 9 December 2016
Line 131:		Line 131:
	== 92SB Image ==		== 92SB Image ==

	Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The new one is slightly sharper and larger I grant, but it's also oddly angled - Meanwhile one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less, a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)		Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The new one is slightly sharper and larger I grant, but it's also oddly angled - Meanwhile the one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less, a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)

StanTheMan: /* 92SB Image */

2016-12-09T07:10:49Z

92SB Image

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:10, 9 December 2016
Line 131:		Line 131:
	== 92SB Image ==		== 92SB Image ==

	Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration~~. The new one is a good bit sharper I grant, but it's also oddly angled as well~~. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less, a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)		Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The new one is slightly sharper and larger I grant, but it's also oddly angled - Meanwhile one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less, a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)

StanTheMan: /* 92SB Image */

2016-12-09T07:09:50Z

92SB Image

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:09, 9 December 2016
Line 131:		Line 131:
	== 92SB Image ==		== 92SB Image ==

	Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. The new one is a good bit sharper I grant, but it's also oddly angled as well. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)		Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. The new one is a good bit sharper I grant, but it's also oddly angled as well. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less, a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)

StanTheMan: /* 92SB Image */ new section

2016-12-09T07:09:00Z

92SB Image: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:09, 9 December 2016
Line 128:		Line 128:

	Should this be included in the description? -- [[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 08:40 20 November 2013 (EST)		Should this be included in the description? -- [[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 08:40 20 November 2013 (EST)

			== 92SB Image ==

			Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. The new one is a good bit sharper I grant, but it's also oddly angled as well. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less a redundant image. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 11 December 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:- Oh really? You must have the best eyes in the universe, to detect '''one-hundredth of an inch''' of a difference in a hole diameter, especially with no reference. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)		:- Oh really? You must have the best eyes in the universe, to detect '''one-hundredth of an inch''' of a difference in a hole diameter, especially with no reference. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
	::Someone posted a comment on [[The Enforcer]] saying they may have used a Model 57 - 41. Magnum couldn't find a Model 29 blah, blah. Which I ~~though~~ was stupid considering MPM posted the ''actual'' screen used Model 29 in the film. I doubt they had a problem finding a Model 29 in this '83 film. --[[User:Predator20\|Predator20]] 20:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)		::Someone posted a comment on [[The Enforcer]] saying they may have used a Model 57 - 41. Magnum couldn't find a Model 29 blah, blah. Which I thought was stupid considering MPM posted the ''actual'' screen used Model 29 in the film. I doubt they had a problem finding a Model 29 in this '83 film. --[[User:Predator20\|Predator20]] 20:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
	:- I remember that. What's also interesting here is that he's going by the first two screencaps, which are past the shooting part and are now in a part of a sequence that most certainly wouldn't involve any active firing gun as he points it at a person up close in that part of the scene. On the opposite, I myself would contend that that's where they would use a real Model 29 - for detailed non-firing close-up shots. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)		:- I remember that. What's also interesting here is that he's going by the first two screencaps, which are past the shooting part and are now in a part of a sequence that most certainly wouldn't involve any active firing gun as he points it at a person up close in that part of the scene. On the opposite, I myself would contend that that's where they would use a real Model 29 - for detailed non-firing close-up shots. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
	:- I read on this website (http://www.vincelewis.net/44magnum.html) that the S&W they use on the close up shots where a model 29 with the barrel bored out for effect. The bore of the barrel is way to big to be a .44 magnum. On the big screen it's even more intimidating. [[User:Charterarmsoffduty\|Charterarmsoffduty]] 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)		:- I read on this website (http://www.vincelewis.net/44magnum.html) that the S&W they use on the close up shots where a model 29 with the barrel bored out for effect. The bore of the barrel is way to big to be a .44 magnum. On the big screen it's even more intimidating. [[User:Charterarmsoffduty\|Charterarmsoffduty]] 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Driven by curiosity I've just went on the Smith & Wesson website: in my humble opinion, the muzzle diameter of the model 25 indeed looks just like the one in the screencaps (take a look at the 360° view on the said website).[[User:MikeF88\|MikeF88]] ([[User talk:MikeF88\|talk]]) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (EDT)		::Driven by curiosity I've just went on the Smith & Wesson website: in my humble opinion, the muzzle diameter of the model 25 indeed looks just like the one in the screencaps (take a look at the 360° view on the said website).[[User:MikeF88\|MikeF88]] ([[User talk:MikeF88\|talk]]) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
	::The Model 25 has the standard pencil barrel. The Model 29 has the heavy "bull" barrel. Harry's gun has the heavy barrel. Please check more than just the bore diameter. Also, .44 is very close in diameter to .45, close enough to make differentiation virtually impossible. --[[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (EST)		::The Model 25 has the standard pencil barrel. The Model 29 has the heavy "bull" barrel. Harry's gun has the heavy barrel. Please check more than just the bore diameter. Also, .44 is very close in diameter to .45, close enough to make differentiation virtually impossible. --[[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (EST)
			:::Hmm. It seems S&W switched to the heavy barrel on the 25 at some point. Disregard that first part. --[[User:Maxman\|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman\|talk]]) 16:18, 11 December 2016 (EST)

	==Smith & Wesson 3000 Info==		==Smith & Wesson 3000 Info==