Talk:Lethal Weapon 2: Difference between revisions
Talk:Lethal Weapon 2: Difference between revisions - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Talk:Lethal Weapon 2: Difference between revisions
On the cover it appears he is using the extended slide release model from the first film (the shot is reversed). - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]
On the cover it appears he is using the extended slide release model from the first film (the shot is reversed). - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]
[[Image:Lethal Weapon 2 Poster.jpg|thumb|none|300px|''Lethal Weapon 2'' (1989) The poster image is obviously reversed as the slide release and take down lever are on the wrong side in the photo. The flip was most likely done for aesthetics (although it led to gun confusion). Note the tipped up slide release lever, meaning that the magazine is empty.]]
==Moved from Main Page==
''ERROR: One odd thing here: When Riggs sneaks into the embassy and confronts all the guys in Rudd's office, he has the henchman with the MP5 show it to him. He acts suprised and impressed and even says, "Where the hell do you get that stuff, I haven't even seen anything like that on the force." Problem is in the first film Rigg's uses two types HK weapons, one of them an MP5. It also seems odd as the MP5 and several varients are general issue to SWAT and other tactical officers. No way is it the first time he seen or come into contact with the weapon. Sorry, I had to raise the issue, it's bugged everytime I watch it, and I watch it a lot.''
:- It was meant to be a sarcastic and revealing remark about how his security men carry automatic machine pistols under their jackets - A rather high amount of firepower for a supposedly simple diplomat. It's not that Riggs means he's never seen them before, he means he's never seen them carried by supposedly regular security men. Though MP5s are in use by police departments, they were not common - they are used by SWAT teams, not regular police, and certainly not typical security men. The point that Rudd's men carry such weapons on them, and the manner in which Riggs is expressing himself about them to the viewer is all meant to add to the point that Rudd and his men are up to no good. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 22:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
== Choice of backup Gun ==
== Choice of backup Gun ==
I praise Murtaugh's choice of the fine Smith 5906, but why he uses that as his backup gun and the old .38 revolver as his main weapon is beyond me. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]] 06:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I praise Murtaugh's choice of the fine Smith 5906, but why he uses that as his backup gun and the old .38 revolver as his main weapon is beyond me. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]] 06:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Two reasons i can see. First the model 19 is .357 magnum. And secondly, since Murtaugh is an older cop he was most definitely trained with a revolver so he would be more comfortable, and more accurate with the piece he's carried most of his career.
you do make a point there, but I'd still rather have 15 rounds of 9mm then 6 of .357 [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
IMO Murtaugh's choice is a little odd.
Most people would use something, that is more or less a smaller version of the main weapon.
A S&W snubnose (Model 36, 38 or similiar) would make sense.
Or a model 19 with the shorter barrel, since Murtaugh doesn't seem to care about the weight of a backup gun.
But of course, to carry a fullsize pistol with 15 rounds as a "backup" is kind of cool, lethal-weapon-wise.
--[[User:Lastgunslinger|Lastgunslinger]] 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Try looking at it this way. If you run into a problem that six rounds of .357 can't fix then you would probably have a need for 15 rounds of 9mm at your disposal.
:Good point, and with Murtaugh's career it looks like it's a good idea for him atleast. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
== Riggs' wounds ==
Has anyone ever noticed in ''[[Lethal Weapon 3]]'' when Riggs is showing of his scars he refers to the bullet holes as "a family of .44s"? Was he just trying to make it seem like he got wounded worse than he was or was this just an error on the filmmakers part?
If one is inclined towards realism then the filmmakers didn't do their research and failed to learn that the C96 was never chambered for a 44 caliber round. But if one wants to follow through with the movie, Riggs was trying to brag about his injuries so it could be argued he was inflating the truth.
Very good point.
----
If you look at the scars in the 3rd film, you'll notice they are in a fairly close group, all on his back. It's doubtful that Rudd hit him that well, especially considering after the first shot/hit from Rudd, Riggs went down and the further bullet hits were while he was on his back in the scene.
With that, and the fact the C.96 was indeed never a .44 caliber weapon, it's quite plausible Riggs was telling the truth and the scars could very well have been from some other shootout that didn't happen in either of the previous films. Just a thought. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]]
There was however a Chinese version of the C-96 in .45, which is fairly darned close.
I would think he would be lying because a .44 is a huge round. Just one would have blown a huge hole in his torso, and a few would just...liquify it.--[[User:ColonelTomb|ColonelTomb]] 02:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Or we could always assume that the film makers have no clue what the fuck they're talking about. Cause, you know, that DOES happen. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
== 92F or 92FS ==
Are you sure that the gun used in the film is a 92FS ? For what I know the 92FS was introduced in 1990 and the film is dated 1989? ([[User:MacGuns 659|MacGuns 659]]
:Nope, the 92FS was introduced late in 1988 to the civilian market. Also, we have inside information on this:
:[[Image:BerettaM92FS DH1&LW1.jpg|thumb|400px|none|Beretta 92FS 9x19mm. This well worn movie gun is the Beretta 92FS that Mel Gibson used in the film, as well as in ''[[Lethal Weapon 3]]'' and ''[[Lethal Weapon 4]]'']]
:The gun you see in this picture is ''the'' actual Beretta 92FS used in the movie. It was photographed by our own [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]], who is a movie armorer. MPM got access to the gun because he knows Mike Papac, who was the weapons handler on ''[[Lethal Weapon 2]]''. I believe we also have a picture of the gun in the display case that now sits in the offices of Cinema Weaponry (Mike Papac's company), and I recall the right side was visible and it was clearly marked as a 92FS. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (EST)
Oh,ok ,I probably just confused with the Inox that was introduced in 1990.Thank you for clarifying. [[User:MacGuns 659|MacGuns 659]]
On the cover it appears he is using the extended slide release model from the first film (the shot is reversed). - Gunmaster45
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) The poster image is obviously reversed as the slide release and take down lever are on the wrong side in the photo. The flip was most likely done for aesthetics (although it led to gun confusion). Note the tipped up slide release lever, meaning that the magazine is empty.
Moved from Main Page
ERROR: One odd thing here: When Riggs sneaks into the embassy and confronts all the guys in Rudd's office, he has the henchman with the MP5 show it to him. He acts suprised and impressed and even says, "Where the hell do you get that stuff, I haven't even seen anything like that on the force." Problem is in the first film Rigg's uses two types HK weapons, one of them an MP5. It also seems odd as the MP5 and several varients are general issue to SWAT and other tactical officers. No way is it the first time he seen or come into contact with the weapon. Sorry, I had to raise the issue, it's bugged everytime I watch it, and I watch it a lot.
- It was meant to be a sarcastic and revealing remark about how his security men carry automatic machine pistols under their jackets - A rather high amount of firepower for a supposedly simple diplomat. It's not that Riggs means he's never seen them before, he means he's never seen them carried by supposedly regular security men. Though MP5s are in use by police departments, they were not common - they are used by SWAT teams, not regular police, and certainly not typical security men. The point that Rudd's men carry such weapons on them, and the manner in which Riggs is expressing himself about them to the viewer is all meant to add to the point that Rudd and his men are up to no good. StanTheMan 22:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Choice of backup Gun
I praise Murtaugh's choice of the fine Smith 5906, but why he uses that as his backup gun and the old .38 revolver as his main weapon is beyond me. M14fanboy 06:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Two reasons i can see. First the model 19 is .357 magnum. And secondly, since Murtaugh is an older cop he was most definitely trained with a revolver so he would be more comfortable, and more accurate with the piece he's carried most of his career.
you do make a point there, but I'd still rather have 15 rounds of 9mm then 6 of .357 M14fanboy
IMO Murtaugh's choice is a little odd.
Most people would use something, that is more or less a smaller version of the main weapon.
A S&W snubnose (Model 36, 38 or similiar) would make sense.
Or a model 19 with the shorter barrel, since Murtaugh doesn't seem to care about the weight of a backup gun.
But of course, to carry a fullsize pistol with 15 rounds as a "backup" is kind of cool, lethal-weapon-wise.
--Lastgunslinger 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Try looking at it this way. If you run into a problem that six rounds of .357 can't fix then you would probably have a need for 15 rounds of 9mm at your disposal.
Good point, and with Murtaugh's career it looks like it's a good idea for him atleast. M14fanboy
Riggs' wounds
Has anyone ever noticed in Lethal Weapon 3 when Riggs is showing of his scars he refers to the bullet holes as "a family of .44s"? Was he just trying to make it seem like he got wounded worse than he was or was this just an error on the filmmakers part?
If one is inclined towards realism then the filmmakers didn't do their research and failed to learn that the C96 was never chambered for a 44 caliber round. But if one wants to follow through with the movie, Riggs was trying to brag about his injuries so it could be argued he was inflating the truth.
Very good point.
If you look at the scars in the 3rd film, you'll notice they are in a fairly close group, all on his back. It's doubtful that Rudd hit him that well, especially considering after the first shot/hit from Rudd, Riggs went down and the further bullet hits were while he was on his back in the scene.
With that, and the fact the C.96 was indeed never a .44 caliber weapon, it's quite plausible Riggs was telling the truth and the scars could very well have been from some other shootout that didn't happen in either of the previous films. Just a thought. StanTheMan
There was however a Chinese version of the C-96 in .45, which is fairly darned close.
I would think he would be lying because a .44 is a huge round. Just one would have blown a huge hole in his torso, and a few would just...liquify it.--ColonelTomb 02:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Or we could always assume that the film makers have no clue what the fuck they're talking about. Cause, you know, that DOES happen. Acora 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
92F or 92FS
Are you sure that the gun used in the film is a 92FS ? For what I know the 92FS was introduced in 1990 and the film is dated 1989? (MacGuns 659
Nope, the 92FS was introduced late in 1988 to the civilian market. Also, we have inside information on this:
The gun you see in this picture is the actual Beretta 92FS used in the movie. It was photographed by our own MoviePropMaster2008, who is a movie armorer. MPM got access to the gun because he knows Mike Papac, who was the weapons handler on Lethal Weapon 2. I believe we also have a picture of the gun in the display case that now sits in the offices of Cinema Weaponry (Mike Papac's company), and I recall the right side was visible and it was clearly marked as a 92FS. -MT2008 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (EST)
Oh,ok ,I probably just confused with the Inox that was introduced in 1990.Thank you for clarifying. MacGuns 659
