Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord!
If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here.

User talk:Anonymous: Difference between revisions

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 99: Line 99:
==REMOVAL of all content from SOME S&W Auto pages==
==REMOVAL of all content from SOME S&W Auto pages==
I just banned an IP address (person did not log in as user Anonymous) for wholesale removal of data from three S&W pages.  That is NOT the way to do it.  If this is YOU (i.e. Anonymous  User), I will lift the ban, but you CREATE the new page first and then cut &  paste the old data AND then put a note at the TOP of the old page explaining what you did and ask a MOD to clear and delete the page.  Suddenly BLANK Pages by unknown IP addresses usually AUTOMATICALLY put up a big red flag.  If that is you, ALWAYS log in before you do stuff like that.  Unknown IP address get automatically banned for that. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)  PS I already made a note to MT2008.  Such changes have to be done a certain way or else the OTHER MODS will take action.
I just banned an IP address (person did not log in as user Anonymous) for wholesale removal of data from three S&W pages.  That is NOT the way to do it.  If this is YOU (i.e. Anonymous  User), I will lift the ban, but you CREATE the new page first and then cut &  paste the old data AND then put a note at the TOP of the old page explaining what you did and ask a MOD to clear and delete the page.  Suddenly BLANK Pages by unknown IP addresses usually AUTOMATICALLY put up a big red flag.  If that is you, ALWAYS log in before you do stuff like that.  Unknown IP address get automatically banned for that. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)  PS I already made a note to MT2008.  Such changes have to be done a certain way or else the OTHER MODS will take action.
::Thanks for the update, but if you notice, SOMEBODY (some anonymous user who did not log in and thus was only visible via IP address) wiped out the pages.  Perhaps someone else was trying to help you and forgot to log in when they wiped out those pages.  Sorry.  It was natural to assume that you may have wiped them out since you were merging those pages.  If you didn't that's a bit disturbing because it means someone ELSE was wiping out the pages.  Oh well, I figure it was another IMFDB user who was trying to assist.  As you already know, the best way is to either ask a MOD to do it right away, or you CAN blank a page as long as you put in a sentence saying what you did and where the info went and request a page delete.  ("Hi, I blanked this page, because it's all merged onto this page _ _ _ _ _ ).  This helps us shut out anonymous vandals.  I don't know how long you have been a member, but anonymous vandals routinely wipe out pages, or at least they were until the last couple of months, and we Mods routinely ban them, so that would be our knee jerk reaction based on the history of IMFDB :)  [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 04:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
==Animated stuff==
I'm not the admin who banned down Animation, I just codified it into the Rules because the other Admins banned it. It's a slippery slope, extending the concept of 'gun' to poorly drawn crap in many cases.  Too many OTHER members tried to push the edge of the boundary for acceptable content all the time and it got irritating.  I admit your examples are good drawings of real guns, But I'm not a sympathetic ear to that sort of arguement.  Being a real life armorer, I deal with real guns that exist physically.  I have no use for guns which essentially come from the imagination of an artist or a fanboy game programmer.  Whether it be based on a real life weapon or not, it does not literally exist, except as artwork.  If it were up to me, I would have eliminated the Anime and VG categories long ago (but I can't so I didn't).  Because of the VG category we are stuck with tons and TONS of prototype weapons (in the guns section) which have never seen the light of day in the real world, just because some VG CGI artist/programmer 'thought it was cool'.  Guns in MOVIES is actual Cinema history.  Guns in Video games is nothing, except a place for fanboys to argue what they think the artist was thinking when he drew a hybrid gun.  But that's my bias.  IMFDB allows VGs so I don't argue with it.  Back to your point, if other admins like the fact that Archer uses pretty good drawings of guns, I won't delete it, but it WOULD be an exception to the rules, which is possible.  [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
== Actor's Pages ==
Thanks for helping out with the actor's pages.  Just one minor note: could you use the new table format like on the [[Robert Urich]] page?  --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 02:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
==Creating an Actor Page==
Here's some steps to creating a new page in the new format:
1. Go to an actor page already modified such as [[Chris Evans]] (if the actor only has done films) or [[Robert Urich]] (if the actor has done movies and TV) and go into the edit page. 
2. Copy and paste the entire edit into the new page.
3.  Replace the actor's name and picture and then gun information to reflect the actor.
4.  Preview to make sure the format is correct before saving.
--[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 02:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
==Assault rifles==
I agree.  Distinguishing between the Assault Rifle and the Rifle, though most of us know the difference, creates an opportunity for the anti gunners to make political  hay out of the fact that they are different, when for all intents and purposes, they are not.  There are many rifles which break the mold.  If an Assault Rifle is a select Fire intermediate cartridge long gun for battle use AND a main battle rifle is any rifle whether bolt action or semi or full auto that fire a full sized cartridge and is the primary long gun of a military, then guns like the SKS, the M14, the AR10, the Ruger Mini-14 all break that mold.  I agree.  I prefer the generic category RIFLE.  We should not separate it into assault rifle.  If that were so then we would have to break out the SKSs from the AKs.  And then we would have to break out the Semi auto only civilian rifles from the full auto Military rifles (to be fair).  [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 05:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
==Assault rifle change==
Post it as a new thread in the forum.  I will respond that I concur.  I just want the membership to have a chance to air their opinions.  If it seems that most everyone agrees, than ANY change to the site can be countered with "It has been approved by IMFDB".  :)  Thanks.  [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 05:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
==The Way of the Gun==
The problem is that the user who changed the page was WRONG!  So I am deleting the talk page he created for The Way of the Gun.[[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
==S&W M&P/M10 vs. Colt Official Police==
Wow talk about a loaded topic. Thanks for the compliment by the way. Not sure if I've earned such a great title, but thanks. Okay in the twenties and thirties many considered the Official Police (OP) to be stronger than the M&P. Didn't become the Model 10 until 1957 when Smith & wesson numbered the various models. Colt's steel was higher quality than S&W back then. Many consider that Colt's metallurgy was superior to it's competition into the seventies. But of course that makes for a more expensive product.
The action of the OP is the same action as the Python. It required more hand fitting which added to the expense of Colt revolvers. Smith's action didn't require as much fine tuning and could be turned out faster and more economically. Therefore a lot of folks went with S&W becasue they were more affordable. Not cheap mind you. And while S&W steel might not have been as strong as Colt's it was strong enough for most people and cops.
Also back then S&W was more affordable because S&W was the "other guy". Kind of like what Ruger was doing in the sixties and seventies.
I own a S&W M&P that was made in 1913. It's a sweet little revolver and the quality of workmanship is impressive. Especially whne you consider that the M&P was a mid-line revolver.
There were endless debates as to the rotation of S&W cylinders vs. Colt. Colt cylinder go clockwise and S&W go counter-clockwise. Actually there are those who still debate that,but since Colt no longer makes revolvers most people don't care.
Well I could go on and on, but in the long run both were excellent revolvers. i don't believe one was really superior to the other. Thjey both had their good points and their weaknesses. Cost probably had alot to do with selection. Oh and the M&P was a little lighter by a couple ounces to the OP. Doesen't sound like much, but when you carry a handgun for ten - twelve hours every little bit helps.
Does this help? Becasue you'll never get a definite answer. Not if the person you are talking to is being fair and balanced. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 21:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad to have helped out. By the way if you ever get a chance to purchase a Colt Official Police or one of the older S&W M&P's go for it. Of course make sure they are in good condition and keep in mind that you should probably not shoot a steady diet of 38 +P loads through either one, but they are great revolvers and a piece of history. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 12:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
== SA/DA ==
Yes, I'm old school like that. Then again, I am speaking as a casual shooter and as someone who rarely carries. If I was a LEO, I might think different. I wonder if there would be that many striker-fired pistols in this world if we lived in a less litigious society. My buddy has a Walther P99, and it just seems a little too complicated, especially compared to my P38. It's either in Fire, or Safe/Decock, why mess with that? Some may criticize the Beretta 92, but I like the way it's set up. (The Army had a real hard-on for the P38. I read that the S&W 39 was supposed to be a postwar attempt at a P38.)
Traditional vs. striker-fire came up when I was looking for a CCW piece. It came down to a snubby or a Kel-Tec PF-9. In the end, I decided to go with the snubby, not only because of the price, but because I'd like a piece I can enjoy at the range. I couldn't picture myself enjoy shooting the PF-9, with the heavy DAO trigger.
:I saw that you had a Bersa Thunder 380. I was leaning heavily toward the Bersa Thunder 380, but this was also around the same time that the price of .380 ammo exploded, so I decided against it.
I see you're a fan of Archer too. I was disappointed when they deleted the page, as I could've gotten a lot of screen grabs, but oh well. I think an exception could've been made, especially if you're going to allow all anime under the catchall "because the animators give a crap," but I think the users have gone a little overboard with the anime too. It sucks that a great show like Archer is easily dismissed while we [[Talk:Cat_Shit_One | debate the fine print in regards to a short film about commando rabbits.]]  (Or shall we say, splitting hares?) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:I remember I was shooting the breeze with some co-workers at a meeting at the time of the Plax thing, and someone brought it up and wondered why he didn't have the safety on. I had to explain to him the gun he had didn't have a manual safety. The public sort of expects a manual safety, why deny them? I saw that NYPD allowed SIG Sauer P226s, but only in DAO, so what's the point? Given the choice between a DAO P226 and a Glock, I'll have to go with the Glock. I'm surprised that the LAPD still allows S&W 4506s.
:At the height of the .380 drought, I was in a gun shop in Texas (TEXAS!) and they wouldn't sell any .380 ammo unless you were buying a .380 gun as well.
:I thought about writing the admins and asking that an exception for Archer be made, with screenshots as proof, but in the end, as detailed as the guns are, they really screwed up a lot of the scaling. (Check out the pistol Cyril gets issued in the second episode, or the Skorpion on the wall in the 8th episode.) The animation looks good, but the writers don't really know anything. (.25 Chekhov?) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 18:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
::Hah, I totally missed that! Thank you for pointing that out! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
==RE: Type 56==
''I realized I've never seen a semi-automatic only Type 56 (not that I have anywhere near enough experience for that to indicate they don't exist)''
Of course I'm not referring to the ban on automatic weapons, LOL.  I don't have the money (or the patience) to buy a registered full-auto AK (though they do exist).  Anyway, semi-automatic-only Type 56s were manufactured by Norinco and Poly Technologies and exported to civilian firearms markets in North America and Europe for a short time.  In the U.S., these guns were imported between 1984 and 1989.  Then in '89, Patrick Purdy shot up a schoolyard in Stockton, California with a semi-auto Type 56, and President Bush (I) passed the Assault Weapons Importation Ban, which prohibited the import of semi-automatic assault rifles made outside of the U.S.
My own Type 56 is a semi-auto, and was manufactured in kit form by Poly Technologies and assembled in the United States by Golden State Arms, a distributor located in Manhattan Beach, California.  The serial number indicates it came into this country in 1987, two years before the import ban.  Although I call it a "Type 56", the gun actually says "AK47S" on the side of the receiver, but on IMFDB, we call all Chinese AKs "Type 56s" because the American importers used a zillion different designations ("AK47S", "AKS47", "Type 56S", "AKS-762", etc.) that sound too confusing, so "Type 56" is the blanket term we use.
Hope that clears it up. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:Yeah, the Bush administration (Bush, Jr., that is) passed sanctions against Norinco and Poly Tech due to their sales of weapons and nuclear technology to the Iranians.  As a result, Chinese-made firearms of ANY type (sporting or "assault" types) cannot be imported into the U.S. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
== Ammo question ==
''I think I may have asked you this before but I can't remember. Do you know to what extend, if any, revolver cartridges around the turn of the century like the .32 colt, .32 S&W, .38 Long Colt, and .38 S&W were interchageable. Also, just out of curiosity, do any manufacturers still make this ammunition. -Anonymous''
The .32 S&W is ''not'' interchangeable with the 32 Short colt.
The 32 S&W Long is also known as the 32 Colt New Police and the 32-44 Target.
The 32-20(32 Winchester/32 WCF) can be fired in both revolvers chambered for that load and rifles chambered for that load. You probably knew that.
The 38 Long Colt can be fired in a 38 Special revolver, but do not fire a 38 Special in a 38 Long Colt revolver.The 38 short Colt can be fired in a 38 Long Colt revolver. Also some 38 Long Colt revolvers will accept a .357 magnum round. It might be interesting watching the gun come apart, but otherwise I strongly recommend not firing the magnums in a 38 Long Colt revolver.
The 38 Special and the 38 S&W/38 Colt New Police/38-200 are not interchangable.
Yes many of those loads are still being made. Go to Winchester ammo and Remington ammo, Hornady and Black Hills websites.  In some cases they've been brought back thanks to the Cowboy Action Shooting sport.
Hope that helped. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
== MHC ==
::I miss that show. History International reshows some of the old episodes rebranded as "Guns of the World" but they only show a few episodes over and over. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]
:::They rebadged a few as Modern Marvels too. Keep in mind, there weren't that many episodes to begin with. I don't think they ever produced more than a dozen shows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
::::There are still alot of episodes that they do not reshow. Off the top of my head the episodes about Gangster era guns and shotguns come to mind. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]
:::::Check that, 22 episodes. And if you're lucky enough to get the Military History Channel, they're on all the time, almost commercial free. (Verizon FIOS has it.) MHC is basically what the old History Channel was, you know, back when they actually did shows about history. (Back in the good old days when people called it the Hitler Channel.) The weird thing is, it looks like they're having trouble selling airtime, as there are almost no commercials, so I wonder how they can afford to keep it on the air. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately, I don't get that channel. I too lament the History channel going from all Hitler to all Nostradamus. As for the lack of commercials, some companies keep certain channels afloat through money earned by other channels they own. I don't see the logic, but I'm no expert. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]
:::::::For me, what ticks me off is all the reality shows. Ice Road Truckers isn't history, it's going on RIGHT NOW. And even if it happened fifty years ago, it'd be 20 minutes in an episode of Modern Marvels. MHC has to be pretty cheap to run, because it's all reruns, (some of them really old too. They actually had Arms and Armor on a few months ago. I watched that freshman year of HIGH SCHOOL.) I'd be disappointed if Verizon yanked it from the lineup, but I wouldn't be surprised. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
We were abusing the Colt 1855 discussion page.
Back in college, I turned away from G-string Divas to watch an episode of Conquest. Conquest had a good premise, but I thought it would've been better as a one hour show. And I was wrong, the show was "Arms in Action," and it was an old English program from the mid nineties. It was very well done. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think there was much to learn about being a pirate. What's the difference in the skill sets between that and being a normal sailor? (Other than speech, of course.) Two other shows I grew up with were Wings and Brute Force. Brute Force was rebranded Weapons at War, and on the off chance an episode is on today, it seems REALLY dated. Then again, that was actually PRE History Channel, as it was actually on A&E. But I'd still watch the hell out of Wings, especially Wings of the Luftwaffe. Man I miss that show. It still shows up occasionally on the Military Channel. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
[http://www.cracked.com/funny-5720-the-history-channel/] So we're not the only ones who think the History Channel has lost its way.  --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Top Shot certainly has a place, as long as they keep historical guns in it. Then it's a fun way to learn history, by shooting things. So it's sort of like Tales of the Gun meets Conquest. Don't get me wrong, I liked the original Life After People, it's just not history. Even WWII in HD, despite it going back to their WWII roots, it just seemed lazy. Did you see Ken Burns The War? That did WWII in HD two years before WWII in HD. If they want to do a reality show, then do a historical one, like 1900 House. They can follow around Civil War reenactors for a summer, or put a few guys through WWI boot camp or something. Or do a mounted version of Top Shot, where various professional riders have to compete in old fashioned cavalry skills. They can bring riders in from all walks of life, like a real cowboy, a show jumper, a mounted cop, and a polo player. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad someone else remembered WWI in color too. It was mindblowing to see all these things you only saw in BW in color, and yes, it was rich in content as well. As for the cavalry show, I was thinking skills throughout history, like picking off rings while charging with a lance, slashing with a sabre while charging, shooting a bow and arrow while shooting, and firing and reloading a revolver while at full gallop as well. You can even do a Roman show, where you have to do basic tasks, but with a stirrup-less Roman saddle. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice article, thanks for the link! It's one of the better topic articles, that's for sure. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
== Reviews ==
I just checked it out and I had the send icon in the upper left hand side. Try it again. It that doesen't work copy the address and paste it to your e-mail (from your computer) and then send the review. Hope that helps. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 01:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
== 56-56 Spencer ==
Well, the 56-56 Spencer loaded a .52 caliber bullet weighing 350 grains on about 40 grains of black powder for about 1200 fps, so you couldn't really say it had a direct modern equivlent except maybe in an in-line muzzle loader. That said the closest you could get is probably a .44 Magnum fired out of a carbine. Not exactly rifle performance by today's standards, but pretty impressive by 1860s and 1870s reckoning. For comparison the standard US Civil War cartridge used with the Springfield and Enfields (which, at .577 caliber, was close enough to use a Springfield cartridge) was a 500 grain .58 caliber bullet on 60 grains of black powder for 950 feet per second.
There was a HUGE improvement in the 1870s with the introduction of .45 / 11mm cartridges with bigger powder charges. The orignal .45-70 loaded a .45 caliber 405 grain bullet on top of 70 grains of powder for 1400 fps, leading to a major increase in the effective range of rifles available.
In response to your second question, the Winchester 1876 never actually shot the .45-70, the round was actually just a little too long for the action. It's main chambering was a bottlenecked .45-75 round that actually fairly closely matched it's performance. The fact that it couldn't handle .45-70, and that it was so heavy, was really what prevented it's commercial success. The Marlin 1881 was actually the first lever-action to chamber the .45-70, but the big success was the Browning-designed Winchester 1886. Not only could it handle it, it was lighter and smoother to operate than the '76 or the Marlin. The Winchester 1892 and 1894 are really just scaled-down '86s.
The original .30-30 load was a 160 grain bullet at about 2000 fps, which will shoot much further and flatter than a .45-70. A .45-70 has alot more knock-down power close in, but in terms of ability to shoot at range there's really no contest. The .45-70 has a trajectory like a golf ball compared to a .30-30. That said, because you can't use pointed bullets in a tube mag, the .30-30 is still not a great long-range performer by today's standards.
- [[User:Nyles|Nyles]]
Winchester always wanted military customers for their guns, and pretty much every rifle they made was offered in "musket" (military) form. The largest use of the Winchester rifle by a military would be the 1895 Russian Musket, of which about 300,000 were made and used by the Russian's during WW1 and the ensuing internal struggles. The Russian Musket differed from the standard 1895 Musket in that it loaded via clip. The US Army also field tested 1000 Winchester 95 Muskets in .30-40 Krag during the Phillipine Insurrection in 1899, where they were not very well received.
In terms of the tube magazine models, the most famous use is, as you mention, the Turkish Model 1866 Musket which was used most famously at the Battle of Plevna in 1877. The Turks actually lost, but they held out far longer than they ought to have because of the firepower of the Winchester. Interestingly the Turks actually use both the Peabody-Martini 1874 (a straight copy of the Martini-Henry), which was their principle service arm, and the Winchester at Plevna. They'd use the Martinis at long range and then switch to the Winchester when things got close. The Russians were using obsolete mainly obsolete Krnkas, and their rifle units had the Berdan II.
The Mexican government bought about 600 (of 700 made) Winchester 1895 transitional rifles, which would be the only actual official sale of Winchesters to Mexico. The many used during the Revolution were privately owned. In terms of paramilitary use, the Canadian NWMP used the 1876 carbine for many years, as did the Texas rangers. There were several 1892s in .44-40 used as shipboard weapons in the Royal Navy during WW1, mostly used for blowing up mines. The Canadian Pacific Coast Militia Rangers used the 1894 in .30-30 during WW2. I've seen a Model 1886 with British markings being sold as an ex-Royal Naval Air Service gun, but I suspect its fake. Thats about all I can think of off the top of my head.
- [[User:Nyles|Nyles]]
== Hawaii Five-0 ==
Please don't change the px for these screenshots to 600px.  Since these shots are in the 4x3 format, 600px makes them seem way too big.  --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
== RE: Ammunition ==
I've shot most of the guns in my collection, and I figure eventually I'll shoot them all. There are calibers I haven't been able to find ammo for, although eventually I track down pretty much everything. Collecting vintage military guns is popular enough that there's alot of specialty companies loading obsolete rounds. Check out Fiocci's product line, for example, that's often pretty easy to find. It'd be even easier for you since you can actually order stuff from the States. It's not cheap, but it's doable. Ironically the hardest one to find ammo for is the 14.5mm Soviet, and that's still in current military use! - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]]
:No, legally it's treated the same as any hunting rifle here. I actually have a PTRD-41 anti-tank rifle in 14.5mm, and about 15 rounds that came with it. That said, as armor piercing ammo is illegal, and only armor-piercing ammo has ever been made, the only ammo available here is surplus Soviet cases that have been reloaded with soft point or solid copper bullets, and when it's available it's $40 a pop. Canada is actually better than the US when it comes to WW2 Soviet firearms - the Clinton administration signed an agreement with Russia that Russia wouldn't send certain firearms to the US, such as SVT-40s and SKSs. So they all come here instead. Our market is flooded with SVTs the way the US market is flooded with Mosins and Nagant revolvers. And of course anything over .50 cal is a destructive device in the US, so we got about 100 PTRDs that would have gone south instead. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]]
== 27 vs. 19 ==
Well as you know the 27/28 are N frame revolvers and the 19 is a K frame. As a result sometimes you can tell just because the revolver appears to be beefier in the actor's hand. Also from some angles you can look at the cylinders.
In the Model 19 the cylinder fills the entire frame. But with the 27/28 the forcing cone (the end of the barrel that faces the cylinder front) is huge and juts into the frame. There is a distinctive gap between the front of the cylinder and the frame as a result. Now if you look at a Model 29 you'll see that the cylinder fills the frame. That's because the .44 magnum is a longer cartridge compared to the .357 magnum and requires a longer cylinder. The N frame is bigger. But with the K frame the .357 magnum cylinder will fill the frame since the K frame is only a mid-size frame.
Did I explain that clearly? If not let me know.
Another feature is the barrel of the 27/28 model has a taper. The barrel on the Model 19 doesn't taper. It's more of what we call a "bull" barrel.
Over the past few months I've come across some pieces about imfdb (in cyberspace) in which the commentary basically states that imfdb's focus on firearms is repulsive, horrible blah blah blah. That's basically what I was referring to. The Antis have discovered us. Personally I believe it means we're popular when the other side starts to attack. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
==Sorry==
When guys talk out of their asses, I get bent out of shape.  Won't happen again. :)  [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]]
==Colt Detective Special Generations==
The subject of [[Colt Detective Special]] generations depends on which collector you're talking to.
Some say the 1st Gen ran from the late 20's (when it was introduced) until the early thirties when Colt changed the grips design. Giving it more flare and rounding it at the bottom. The grips re-design introduced in the early 30's was a good one. They consider that the 2nd Gen and then they count the changes made after WWII to be the 3rd Gen. The changes made after WWII were a mix of cosmetic and engineering. For awhile Colt replaced the wooden grips with plastic grips which the company called "Colt wood". Eventually the wood grips returned. The checkering on the trigger face and cylinder latch were dropped. The ejector rod was lengthened almost to the end of the barrel to aid with more efficent ejection of empties and the front site was flattened towards the rear (doing away with the half circle design) and serrated to cut down on glare.
The 4th Gen is the totally redesigned frame (heavy barrel, full lug protecting the ejector rod along with the shorter grip frame, wrap around wood grips and a ramped front sight) to be the 4th Gen or the Post-1971 Model.
That's one classification system.
There are some who call all the Colt DS models up until 1971/72 to be the "First Issue" and everything after 1971/72 to be "Second Issue". Pretty broad, but simple.
Then, finally, we have the classification system that we here at imfdb have choosen to go with. All Colt DS revolver made up to and through WW II are considered 1st Generation. Believe it or not Colt made a small number of Detective Specials during the war. Supposedly for use by O.S.S. agents. The Second Generation is the Post-WWII Detective Special up until 1971/72.
None of them are wrong or right. Just different. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 19:21, 29 September 2011 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 00:22, 30 September 2011

Please stop changing the page formats, since I made the pages, I have the write to keep it in my prefered format. I personally find that listing ugly and cumbersome. If you make your own pages, do as you please but stop changing pages. If you continue to do it, I will be forced to block you. - Gunmaster45

Thanks for being cooperative. - Gunmaster45
To be fair, I messaged you after I found Mr & Mrs Smith and Shoot 'Em Up both changed back for a second time, so I figured I'd message you. I was a little harsh and I apoligize, I just got annoyed I had to change stuff back again. Sorry and thanks again. - Gunmaster45
To add images from an online source, you first right click the image and select "Save Image As". It will save the image in your computer's files, you select how to store these images however you please. If required, open the image in a photo editing system and convert it to jpg, the prefered file name. Save the image with a name that is relevant to the image but unique so it won't save over any other images. Go to "Upload file" on the left and click browse when you reach the screen. Your computer's saved files will pop up and you select the image you saved. Write a description for the image in "Summary" section if you want. The image will upload and you will see both the image and a link name above it saying something along the lines of of "Image:example.jpg". Copy and paste that on the page you wish and you have successfuly uploaded an image. Good luck, hope I didn't make it too hard to understand. - Gunmaster45
You need a DVD player installed on your computer and a playing system that either allows you to take captures pressing the "Print Scrn SysRq" button or a player that has a screencapping function (like mine). Without these you cannot screencap. - Gunmaster45
Or you can use VLC Media Player.-Oliveira 12:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

VLC Media Player

You can download the son-of-a-bitch here:

The VLC page.

Just be sure to change the image format from PNG. to JPG. Also, VLC Media Player let's you watch movies in Slow Motion and Fast Foward. Really useful for screencapping.-Oliveira 16:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you on why the screencaps are so damn small, but for future reference, ALWAYS crop off the black bars. Just because some users do it (whether they should or not), it is prefered you don't keep the black bars.

Payback

Check the page again, I just moved the Beretta 92FS entry higher up on the page, because I personally feel the protagonist's guns should go at the top of the list. BTW, never just refer to the gun a a "Beretta 92", look at the Beretta page and you'll see why. The 92 is a specific model, as is the 92S, 92SB, 92F, and 92FS. - Gunmaster45

Okay, sorry for the confusion. If it happens again, expect the same results. - Gunmaster45
Once again, check the page again, I re-added it again as the Model 49 "Bodyguard" (the steel version, as the 38 is the aluminum version). I told you if I redo what I did before it's because I'm simply repositioning it on the page. - Gunmaster45
It's okay, just have faith in me. I know what I'm doing. - Gunmaster45
I removed the comment on the PPK pic because I thought I'd point out the PPK has no slide release, so the only way the slide would have gone down was if she removed the magazine and pulled the slide back to release it, in which case she would have known the gun was empty and reloaded. The follower on her magazine could have been shaved down, but it is probably safer to assume the film makers didn't know better. - Gunmaster45
I apologize for removing your comments, it was kind of lazy on my behalf as I should have turned them into a caption instead of remove them entirely. I didn't mean to cut up one of your favorite films, but you have to admit, they goof up on a lot of things. I just like commenting on them. - Gunmaster45

Template

I'd assume that would be the procedure, so if you have free time and know how to properly do it, feel free to use this new template on old pages. If you need guidance go to Test Template Page and copy & paste what you can't remember. - Gunmaster45

Oh. I personally am a little iffy on the new format (on actor pages with a ton of guns credited, the box can clutter up) but I'm outnumbered on people who love it, so I'm trying to get used to it. It appears to be the new format standards so I'm afraid it will likely stay. - Gunmaster45
Well this format isn't being applied to Movie, Television, Anime, or Video Game articles, only gun and actor pages. Most people don't really care about them, since they are a smaller effort than articles, so a lot of people don't share the same concern. - Gunmaster45

King of the Hill

That pages in now gone as there was no info on it. Thanks -Phoenixent

Animated Pages

When I know I'll tell you, but what is considered "site-worthy" is still up to debate among some users. - Gunmaster45

Ads

At first Bunni, the guy who runs the site, used gun ads from various sponsors, but now he is using google ads apparently. Google ads cost no money for him to use yet he still makes money, at the cost of him not choosing what is sponsored. So only the google ads are randomly selected. - Gunmaster45

Smith & Wesson hammers

To be honest, I'm not sure. I've seen the newest stainless S&Ws today that still have the that style hammer, so it is possible they still haven't adopted the design yet. - Gunmaster45

Re: 1911 adaptation

The 1911 pistols used in the early films fall into three categories. (1) 1911 used strictly as a hand prop has in waving it around or in a holster. (2) Fired live on set. This is something that was done in the 1920's and 1930's just prior to blank adapting. The scene would be of shooting a door or car trunk lid by the actor. (3) 1911 lookalikes which were a cast aluminum clam shell that looked like a 1911 but held a Colt Detective Special of Iver Johnson revolvers. These we used from 1930's to the early 1960's since the 1911 pistols could not fire more than one round. In most of your early films the autos used were the Colt 1903 Hammerless or another pistol that was similar. The reason for this was they are a direct blowback design so they were easy to convert to blanks. The 1911 is a delayed blowback design since the barrel is not fixed it cams up and down. The armories had to figure out how to get this to work with blanks. It took several different armorers 30 years to develop the blanks and the blank conversion to work in the 45 caliber 1911. The film industry was able to use the Star Model B as a stand in for the 1911 from the 1950's until 1970's and the 9mm was easier to convert than the 45 auto. As for how the 1911 are converted I can not pass on that information since I still work in the industry. But you can find other conversions online used by reenactors which are close. -Phoenixent 07:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Early Blank Adaption and Live Fire

The early films using Maxim or Vickers firing used blanks also but not the blanks we use today. The blanks used in the early movies were military blanks that had either a wood or paper bullet. The blank adapter on both the Maxim and the Vickers was designed to shred the wood or paper bullets. But by using those types of blanks the weapon would work as intended. It was not until the use of wadded or crimped blank that the weapons had to be redesigned to function properly as there was no pressure build up like the blanks with the wooden bullets. The live rounds fired on set in the early days were standard rounds. Most of the time they would have a expert shooter off camera firing toward the actors location right after they moved. You can spot this in early westerns when a bullet strikes a sign it's a bullet hole and not a squib hit. It is harder to spot these in the early gangster movies but they are there also. The use of blanks came became a standard on set after a incident on a Cagney movie after that movie no live fire were allowed on set. - Phoenixent 08:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Put this on Gunmaster's talk page, but I'll put it on yours too.

I disagree entirely with your idea that flagging useless articles for deletion is wrong when they're new. There's no excuse whatsoever for dumping trash pages on the site, and the only thing that will discourage it is if it's speedily removed; even if 'many people' do this [and I'd dispute that], we should make it clear this is not how articles should be constructed; a page with no useful information, no effort put into formatting and no screenshots is pointless, and hoping a turd will turn into a diamond if you leave it alone will soon get you a backyard full of turds.

Anyone can take the time and effort to write up an article to an acceptable standard in a word processor before posting it; anyone who does not is going to have their article removed. Your actions of trying to get these pages up to a standard where they are not instantly deleted are laudable, but misguided; you shouldn't be jumping to help out people who won't put the effort in themselves, you should be working on your own projects. We don't want people coming to the site with the mentality that they can put no effort at all into a page because someone else will fix it for them later, because that essentially makes us servants running around after lazy idiots. Vangelis 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the incomplete tag is for finding incomplete pages [it puts them into category:incomplete, so anyone who can't think of anything to do can check the list to see what needs doing], and should be placed on any obviously incomplete page regardless of age. I don't see what being new has to do with that template at all. If someone doesn't want it on their new article, their new article should perhaps try not being obviously unfinished. Vangelis 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Tim's got it right, I agree entirely. And at the very least, if someone makes a page with nothing on it but plans to later expand on it themselves, they can leave a note at the top of the page or in the discussion saying they will complete the page later. I've done that myself before. - Gunmaster45
  • In reply to your comment: the noeffort template does specifically note that not all users are capable of taking their own screenshots [though that doesn't stop them using Google] and that isn't reason in itself for using it; when I said no screenshots in replying to you I meant to say no images; no gun images, no poster, nothing. In that they're being used more frequently, the deletion templates have only existed since the third, so you didn't see them used before that because they weren't around to be used at all. Vangelis 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Payback

Damn it, I'm protecting that page! It is definately a Model 27, you can see when Porter points the gun the diameter of the barrel and cylinders is .357, not .44 Mag, which is way bigger. And yes, the PPK has a last round hold open because of the follower on the magazine. You just have to release it by pulling it and letting it fly when you reload. - Gunmaster45

I was just mad in general, not mad at you. Checking the discussion section, Jcordel made the edit, and he knows his shit on revolvers. In the end, I think both are used, and jump back and forth in continuity error. - Gunmaster45

Lock 'n Load

I wasn't sure what the pistol was, but I figured based on the era, it was the 1898 Colt. I'd assume it is in .38 Long Colt, since he tells the story of the soldiers in the Philipines not being able to take down crazed soldiers, which the round was infamous for.

As for the Beretta, the original Beretta 92 was introduced in 1975. Then came the 92S. Then in the early 80s came the 92SB, then the 92SB-F (known better as the 92F), and then the 92FS. That's why it pisses me off when people just say a pistol that is obviously a 92FS is a 92. It's ignorant. Anyway, I was more bugged he said the magazines hold 20 rounds, when the standard issue M9 mag holds 15. - Gunmaster45

locked pages

Pages are locked to SysOps only when there are just too many idiots who happen to register (and thus are not anonymous) but who still mess with the page. Messing with page, includes constantly changing formats or information back and forth, even when SysOps tell them to knock it off, makes for pages being locked. Also you don't have to add another shot of Kang, there are enough already. Feel free to add screenshots to other pages, but pages that have already been attacked so often that Sysops are fed up and locked them, are probably not good to try to edit. If you have a change that you feel has been overlooked, then by all means contact one of us and we'll make the change. If it's just added on more screencaps, this may not be seen as a necessity. MoviePropMaster2008 09:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RE

No problem on the comment removal.--Predator20 22:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Site Activity

I haven't been active on the site for quite some time. I have lots of screencaps saved for tons of movies but have been super swamped to the max and haven't gotten around to uploading. When I finally have a good amount of free time I'll get working on here again. - Gunmaster45

Gun images

One of the problems is that we're trying to cut down on the number of jacked gun images. If there is an obvious variant on a movie page that is missing, people have tracked down and googled an image as a placeholder which is acceptable, but to put every variant on a page whether it appears in a movie, tv show, Anime or VG or not is not acceptable. Sometimes we accept an image, if there is a strong possibility that it will or has appeared in something, yet to be 'honored' with a page, but IMFDB established a while ago (well at least the Mods started to) discourage people from uploading endless variants or versions of guns that have NOT appeared in anything. Remember that it is okay to upload a different variant ONCE it has appeared, thus needs an image. If it has no associated pages then it will get deleted in one of our maintenance sweeps (which usually happens about twice a year). As you well know, I photograph many of the guns that appear here. They are obviously licensed to IMFDB without question, but technically members who jack pics from other sites, don't own or have rights to the image. Security Arms, Guns of the World and Wikipedia (despite having varying degrees of quality in their images) all secured PERMISSION to use their gun pics. IMFDB is turning into one of the most egregious violators of gun image copyright on the net and that gets me nervous. We're in a grey area regarding screencaps since they are not being used for commercial usage or for a fan site, nor are we sharing anything via 'torrent' etc. etc. They are images taken for 'scholarly' or 'journalistic' purposes being that our pages are technically information articles about those movies, tv shows, etc. Writing an article ABOUT those things requires the screencaps for proof or 'analysis' if we are not sure. No one has ever bashed us for the legality of the screencaps, but we have been criticized for jacking gun images, sometimes from the copyright holders of those images. Hope this helps. MoviePropMaster2008 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


S&W hammer

I'll get your answer to you soon. I forget the name, but Smith adopted it's safety mechanism in 1945. More info coming later. Have to get my copy of the Standard Catalog of S&W (3rd edition)--Jcordell 04:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

S&W safety

Okay here we go. I was wrong first of all about the new design dating from 1945. The new safety was introduced in September of 1944. In 1944 a sailor in the U.S. Navy was killed when his Victory Model 38 special revolver (wartime M&P) was dropped onto the deck of a ship and it fired.S&W redesigned the safety at the request of the U.S. Navy.

The old safety was a shoulder on the rebound slide forced against a shoulder on the hammer. These shoulders kept the hammer nose off the cartridge in the down position. But enough force could shear the hammer pivot and hammer nose would strike the primer.

The new design was the "slide action hammer block" which placed a sliding arm between the hammer face and the frame unless the hammer was properly pulled to the rear. This was the safety S&W used until 1997 when the company switched to MIM hammers and triggers and CNC machinery. At that time they introduced the flat faced hammer and the floating firing pin.This is the design that S&W has used for the past twelve years. This info was obtained from the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson 3rd Edition. Is this what you were looking for? Let me know one way or the other. --Jcordell 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. I know it drives me nuts when I can't find any info about a question I have regarding a gun. --Jcordell 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: S&W 4500

Yeah, sure, I think that's a good idea. I mean, we already combined the 5900 and 6900 variants onto single pages, so I guess it makes sense to do the same with the 4500 series. Feel free. -MT2008 15:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

REMOVAL of all content from SOME S&W Auto pages

I just banned an IP address (person did not log in as user Anonymous) for wholesale removal of data from three S&W pages. That is NOT the way to do it. If this is YOU (i.e. Anonymous User), I will lift the ban, but you CREATE the new page first and then cut & paste the old data AND then put a note at the TOP of the old page explaining what you did and ask a MOD to clear and delete the page. Suddenly BLANK Pages by unknown IP addresses usually AUTOMATICALLY put up a big red flag. If that is you, ALWAYS log in before you do stuff like that. Unknown IP address get automatically banned for that. MoviePropMaster2008 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC) PS I already made a note to MT2008. Such changes have to be done a certain way or else the OTHER MODS will take action.

Thanks for the update, but if you notice, SOMEBODY (some anonymous user who did not log in and thus was only visible via IP address) wiped out the pages. Perhaps someone else was trying to help you and forgot to log in when they wiped out those pages. Sorry. It was natural to assume that you may have wiped them out since you were merging those pages. If you didn't that's a bit disturbing because it means someone ELSE was wiping out the pages. Oh well, I figure it was another IMFDB user who was trying to assist. As you already know, the best way is to either ask a MOD to do it right away, or you CAN blank a page as long as you put in a sentence saying what you did and where the info went and request a page delete. ("Hi, I blanked this page, because it's all merged onto this page _ _ _ _ _ ). This helps us shut out anonymous vandals. I don't know how long you have been a member, but anonymous vandals routinely wipe out pages, or at least they were until the last couple of months, and we Mods routinely ban them, so that would be our knee jerk reaction based on the history of IMFDB :) MoviePropMaster2008 04:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Animated stuff

I'm not the admin who banned down Animation, I just codified it into the Rules because the other Admins banned it. It's a slippery slope, extending the concept of 'gun' to poorly drawn crap in many cases. Too many OTHER members tried to push the edge of the boundary for acceptable content all the time and it got irritating. I admit your examples are good drawings of real guns, But I'm not a sympathetic ear to that sort of arguement. Being a real life armorer, I deal with real guns that exist physically. I have no use for guns which essentially come from the imagination of an artist or a fanboy game programmer. Whether it be based on a real life weapon or not, it does not literally exist, except as artwork. If it were up to me, I would have eliminated the Anime and VG categories long ago (but I can't so I didn't). Because of the VG category we are stuck with tons and TONS of prototype weapons (in the guns section) which have never seen the light of day in the real world, just because some VG CGI artist/programmer 'thought it was cool'. Guns in MOVIES is actual Cinema history. Guns in Video games is nothing, except a place for fanboys to argue what they think the artist was thinking when he drew a hybrid gun. But that's my bias. IMFDB allows VGs so I don't argue with it. Back to your point, if other admins like the fact that Archer uses pretty good drawings of guns, I won't delete it, but it WOULD be an exception to the rules, which is possible. MoviePropMaster2008 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actor's Pages

Thanks for helping out with the actor's pages. Just one minor note: could you use the new table format like on the Robert Urich page? --Ben41 02:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Creating an Actor Page

Here's some steps to creating a new page in the new format:

1. Go to an actor page already modified such as Chris Evans (if the actor only has done films) or Robert Urich (if the actor has done movies and TV) and go into the edit page.

2. Copy and paste the entire edit into the new page.

3. Replace the actor's name and picture and then gun information to reflect the actor.

4. Preview to make sure the format is correct before saving.

--Ben41 02:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Assault rifles

I agree. Distinguishing between the Assault Rifle and the Rifle, though most of us know the difference, creates an opportunity for the anti gunners to make political hay out of the fact that they are different, when for all intents and purposes, they are not. There are many rifles which break the mold. If an Assault Rifle is a select Fire intermediate cartridge long gun for battle use AND a main battle rifle is any rifle whether bolt action or semi or full auto that fire a full sized cartridge and is the primary long gun of a military, then guns like the SKS, the M14, the AR10, the Ruger Mini-14 all break that mold. I agree. I prefer the generic category RIFLE. We should not separate it into assault rifle. If that were so then we would have to break out the SKSs from the AKs. And then we would have to break out the Semi auto only civilian rifles from the full auto Military rifles (to be fair). MoviePropMaster2008 05:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Assault rifle change

Post it as a new thread in the forum. I will respond that I concur. I just want the membership to have a chance to air their opinions. If it seems that most everyone agrees, than ANY change to the site can be countered with "It has been approved by IMFDB".  :) Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 05:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Way of the Gun

The problem is that the user who changed the page was WRONG! So I am deleting the talk page he created for The Way of the Gun.MoviePropMaster2008 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

S&W M&P/M10 vs. Colt Official Police

Wow talk about a loaded topic. Thanks for the compliment by the way. Not sure if I've earned such a great title, but thanks. Okay in the twenties and thirties many considered the Official Police (OP) to be stronger than the M&P. Didn't become the Model 10 until 1957 when Smith & wesson numbered the various models. Colt's steel was higher quality than S&W back then. Many consider that Colt's metallurgy was superior to it's competition into the seventies. But of course that makes for a more expensive product.

The action of the OP is the same action as the Python. It required more hand fitting which added to the expense of Colt revolvers. Smith's action didn't require as much fine tuning and could be turned out faster and more economically. Therefore a lot of folks went with S&W becasue they were more affordable. Not cheap mind you. And while S&W steel might not have been as strong as Colt's it was strong enough for most people and cops.

Also back then S&W was more affordable because S&W was the "other guy". Kind of like what Ruger was doing in the sixties and seventies.

I own a S&W M&P that was made in 1913. It's a sweet little revolver and the quality of workmanship is impressive. Especially whne you consider that the M&P was a mid-line revolver.

There were endless debates as to the rotation of S&W cylinders vs. Colt. Colt cylinder go clockwise and S&W go counter-clockwise. Actually there are those who still debate that,but since Colt no longer makes revolvers most people don't care.

Well I could go on and on, but in the long run both were excellent revolvers. i don't believe one was really superior to the other. Thjey both had their good points and their weaknesses. Cost probably had alot to do with selection. Oh and the M&P was a little lighter by a couple ounces to the OP. Doesen't sound like much, but when you carry a handgun for ten - twelve hours every little bit helps.

Does this help? Becasue you'll never get a definite answer. Not if the person you are talking to is being fair and balanced. --Jcordell 21:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have helped out. By the way if you ever get a chance to purchase a Colt Official Police or one of the older S&W M&P's go for it. Of course make sure they are in good condition and keep in mind that you should probably not shoot a steady diet of 38 +P loads through either one, but they are great revolvers and a piece of history. --Jcordell 12:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SA/DA

Yes, I'm old school like that. Then again, I am speaking as a casual shooter and as someone who rarely carries. If I was a LEO, I might think different. I wonder if there would be that many striker-fired pistols in this world if we lived in a less litigious society. My buddy has a Walther P99, and it just seems a little too complicated, especially compared to my P38. It's either in Fire, or Safe/Decock, why mess with that? Some may criticize the Beretta 92, but I like the way it's set up. (The Army had a real hard-on for the P38. I read that the S&W 39 was supposed to be a postwar attempt at a P38.)

Traditional vs. striker-fire came up when I was looking for a CCW piece. It came down to a snubby or a Kel-Tec PF-9. In the end, I decided to go with the snubby, not only because of the price, but because I'd like a piece I can enjoy at the range. I couldn't picture myself enjoy shooting the PF-9, with the heavy DAO trigger.

I saw that you had a Bersa Thunder 380. I was leaning heavily toward the Bersa Thunder 380, but this was also around the same time that the price of .380 ammo exploded, so I decided against it.

I see you're a fan of Archer too. I was disappointed when they deleted the page, as I could've gotten a lot of screen grabs, but oh well. I think an exception could've been made, especially if you're going to allow all anime under the catchall "because the animators give a crap," but I think the users have gone a little overboard with the anime too. It sucks that a great show like Archer is easily dismissed while we debate the fine print in regards to a short film about commando rabbits. (Or shall we say, splitting hares?) --funkychinaman 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember I was shooting the breeze with some co-workers at a meeting at the time of the Plax thing, and someone brought it up and wondered why he didn't have the safety on. I had to explain to him the gun he had didn't have a manual safety. The public sort of expects a manual safety, why deny them? I saw that NYPD allowed SIG Sauer P226s, but only in DAO, so what's the point? Given the choice between a DAO P226 and a Glock, I'll have to go with the Glock. I'm surprised that the LAPD still allows S&W 4506s.
At the height of the .380 drought, I was in a gun shop in Texas (TEXAS!) and they wouldn't sell any .380 ammo unless you were buying a .380 gun as well.
I thought about writing the admins and asking that an exception for Archer be made, with screenshots as proof, but in the end, as detailed as the guns are, they really screwed up a lot of the scaling. (Check out the pistol Cyril gets issued in the second episode, or the Skorpion on the wall in the 8th episode.) The animation looks good, but the writers don't really know anything. (.25 Chekhov?) --funkychinaman 18:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hah, I totally missed that! Thank you for pointing that out! --funkychinaman 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Type 56

I realized I've never seen a semi-automatic only Type 56 (not that I have anywhere near enough experience for that to indicate they don't exist)

Of course I'm not referring to the ban on automatic weapons, LOL. I don't have the money (or the patience) to buy a registered full-auto AK (though they do exist). Anyway, semi-automatic-only Type 56s were manufactured by Norinco and Poly Technologies and exported to civilian firearms markets in North America and Europe for a short time. In the U.S., these guns were imported between 1984 and 1989. Then in '89, Patrick Purdy shot up a schoolyard in Stockton, California with a semi-auto Type 56, and President Bush (I) passed the Assault Weapons Importation Ban, which prohibited the import of semi-automatic assault rifles made outside of the U.S.

My own Type 56 is a semi-auto, and was manufactured in kit form by Poly Technologies and assembled in the United States by Golden State Arms, a distributor located in Manhattan Beach, California. The serial number indicates it came into this country in 1987, two years before the import ban. Although I call it a "Type 56", the gun actually says "AK47S" on the side of the receiver, but on IMFDB, we call all Chinese AKs "Type 56s" because the American importers used a zillion different designations ("AK47S", "AKS47", "Type 56S", "AKS-762", etc.) that sound too confusing, so "Type 56" is the blanket term we use.

Hope that clears it up. -MT2008 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Bush administration (Bush, Jr., that is) passed sanctions against Norinco and Poly Tech due to their sales of weapons and nuclear technology to the Iranians. As a result, Chinese-made firearms of ANY type (sporting or "assault" types) cannot be imported into the U.S. -MT2008 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ammo question

I think I may have asked you this before but I can't remember. Do you know to what extend, if any, revolver cartridges around the turn of the century like the .32 colt, .32 S&W, .38 Long Colt, and .38 S&W were interchageable. Also, just out of curiosity, do any manufacturers still make this ammunition. -Anonymous

The .32 S&W is not interchangeable with the 32 Short colt.

The 32 S&W Long is also known as the 32 Colt New Police and the 32-44 Target.

The 32-20(32 Winchester/32 WCF) can be fired in both revolvers chambered for that load and rifles chambered for that load. You probably knew that.

The 38 Long Colt can be fired in a 38 Special revolver, but do not fire a 38 Special in a 38 Long Colt revolver.The 38 short Colt can be fired in a 38 Long Colt revolver. Also some 38 Long Colt revolvers will accept a .357 magnum round. It might be interesting watching the gun come apart, but otherwise I strongly recommend not firing the magnums in a 38 Long Colt revolver.

The 38 Special and the 38 S&W/38 Colt New Police/38-200 are not interchangable.

Yes many of those loads are still being made. Go to Winchester ammo and Remington ammo, Hornady and Black Hills websites. In some cases they've been brought back thanks to the Cowboy Action Shooting sport.

Hope that helped. --Jcordell 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

MHC

I miss that show. History International reshows some of the old episodes rebranded as "Guns of the World" but they only show a few episodes over and over. -Anonymous
They rebadged a few as Modern Marvels too. Keep in mind, there weren't that many episodes to begin with. I don't think they ever produced more than a dozen shows. --funkychinaman 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
There are still alot of episodes that they do not reshow. Off the top of my head the episodes about Gangster era guns and shotguns come to mind. -Anonymous
Check that, 22 episodes. And if you're lucky enough to get the Military History Channel, they're on all the time, almost commercial free. (Verizon FIOS has it.) MHC is basically what the old History Channel was, you know, back when they actually did shows about history. (Back in the good old days when people called it the Hitler Channel.) The weird thing is, it looks like they're having trouble selling airtime, as there are almost no commercials, so I wonder how they can afford to keep it on the air. --funkychinaman 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't get that channel. I too lament the History channel going from all Hitler to all Nostradamus. As for the lack of commercials, some companies keep certain channels afloat through money earned by other channels they own. I don't see the logic, but I'm no expert. -Anonymous
For me, what ticks me off is all the reality shows. Ice Road Truckers isn't history, it's going on RIGHT NOW. And even if it happened fifty years ago, it'd be 20 minutes in an episode of Modern Marvels. MHC has to be pretty cheap to run, because it's all reruns, (some of them really old too. They actually had Arms and Armor on a few months ago. I watched that freshman year of HIGH SCHOOL.) I'd be disappointed if Verizon yanked it from the lineup, but I wouldn't be surprised. --funkychinaman 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We were abusing the Colt 1855 discussion page.

Back in college, I turned away from G-string Divas to watch an episode of Conquest. Conquest had a good premise, but I thought it would've been better as a one hour show. And I was wrong, the show was "Arms in Action," and it was an old English program from the mid nineties. It was very well done. --funkychinaman 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think there was much to learn about being a pirate. What's the difference in the skill sets between that and being a normal sailor? (Other than speech, of course.) Two other shows I grew up with were Wings and Brute Force. Brute Force was rebranded Weapons at War, and on the off chance an episode is on today, it seems REALLY dated. Then again, that was actually PRE History Channel, as it was actually on A&E. But I'd still watch the hell out of Wings, especially Wings of the Luftwaffe. Man I miss that show. It still shows up occasionally on the Military Channel. --funkychinaman 12:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] So we're not the only ones who think the History Channel has lost its way. --funkychinaman 14:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Top Shot certainly has a place, as long as they keep historical guns in it. Then it's a fun way to learn history, by shooting things. So it's sort of like Tales of the Gun meets Conquest. Don't get me wrong, I liked the original Life After People, it's just not history. Even WWII in HD, despite it going back to their WWII roots, it just seemed lazy. Did you see Ken Burns The War? That did WWII in HD two years before WWII in HD. If they want to do a reality show, then do a historical one, like 1900 House. They can follow around Civil War reenactors for a summer, or put a few guys through WWI boot camp or something. Or do a mounted version of Top Shot, where various professional riders have to compete in old fashioned cavalry skills. They can bring riders in from all walks of life, like a real cowboy, a show jumper, a mounted cop, and a polo player. --funkychinaman 19:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else remembered WWI in color too. It was mindblowing to see all these things you only saw in BW in color, and yes, it was rich in content as well. As for the cavalry show, I was thinking skills throughout history, like picking off rings while charging with a lance, slashing with a sabre while charging, shooting a bow and arrow while shooting, and firing and reloading a revolver while at full gallop as well. You can even do a Roman show, where you have to do basic tasks, but with a stirrup-less Roman saddle. --funkychinaman 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice article, thanks for the link! It's one of the better topic articles, that's for sure. --funkychinaman 06:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

I just checked it out and I had the send icon in the upper left hand side. Try it again. It that doesen't work copy the address and paste it to your e-mail (from your computer) and then send the review. Hope that helps. --Jcordell 01:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

56-56 Spencer

Well, the 56-56 Spencer loaded a .52 caliber bullet weighing 350 grains on about 40 grains of black powder for about 1200 fps, so you couldn't really say it had a direct modern equivlent except maybe in an in-line muzzle loader. That said the closest you could get is probably a .44 Magnum fired out of a carbine. Not exactly rifle performance by today's standards, but pretty impressive by 1860s and 1870s reckoning. For comparison the standard US Civil War cartridge used with the Springfield and Enfields (which, at .577 caliber, was close enough to use a Springfield cartridge) was a 500 grain .58 caliber bullet on 60 grains of black powder for 950 feet per second.

There was a HUGE improvement in the 1870s with the introduction of .45 / 11mm cartridges with bigger powder charges. The orignal .45-70 loaded a .45 caliber 405 grain bullet on top of 70 grains of powder for 1400 fps, leading to a major increase in the effective range of rifles available.

In response to your second question, the Winchester 1876 never actually shot the .45-70, the round was actually just a little too long for the action. It's main chambering was a bottlenecked .45-75 round that actually fairly closely matched it's performance. The fact that it couldn't handle .45-70, and that it was so heavy, was really what prevented it's commercial success. The Marlin 1881 was actually the first lever-action to chamber the .45-70, but the big success was the Browning-designed Winchester 1886. Not only could it handle it, it was lighter and smoother to operate than the '76 or the Marlin. The Winchester 1892 and 1894 are really just scaled-down '86s.

The original .30-30 load was a 160 grain bullet at about 2000 fps, which will shoot much further and flatter than a .45-70. A .45-70 has alot more knock-down power close in, but in terms of ability to shoot at range there's really no contest. The .45-70 has a trajectory like a golf ball compared to a .30-30. That said, because you can't use pointed bullets in a tube mag, the .30-30 is still not a great long-range performer by today's standards.

- Nyles

Winchester always wanted military customers for their guns, and pretty much every rifle they made was offered in "musket" (military) form. The largest use of the Winchester rifle by a military would be the 1895 Russian Musket, of which about 300,000 were made and used by the Russian's during WW1 and the ensuing internal struggles. The Russian Musket differed from the standard 1895 Musket in that it loaded via clip. The US Army also field tested 1000 Winchester 95 Muskets in .30-40 Krag during the Phillipine Insurrection in 1899, where they were not very well received.

In terms of the tube magazine models, the most famous use is, as you mention, the Turkish Model 1866 Musket which was used most famously at the Battle of Plevna in 1877. The Turks actually lost, but they held out far longer than they ought to have because of the firepower of the Winchester. Interestingly the Turks actually use both the Peabody-Martini 1874 (a straight copy of the Martini-Henry), which was their principle service arm, and the Winchester at Plevna. They'd use the Martinis at long range and then switch to the Winchester when things got close. The Russians were using obsolete mainly obsolete Krnkas, and their rifle units had the Berdan II.

The Mexican government bought about 600 (of 700 made) Winchester 1895 transitional rifles, which would be the only actual official sale of Winchesters to Mexico. The many used during the Revolution were privately owned. In terms of paramilitary use, the Canadian NWMP used the 1876 carbine for many years, as did the Texas rangers. There were several 1892s in .44-40 used as shipboard weapons in the Royal Navy during WW1, mostly used for blowing up mines. The Canadian Pacific Coast Militia Rangers used the 1894 in .30-30 during WW2. I've seen a Model 1886 with British markings being sold as an ex-Royal Naval Air Service gun, but I suspect its fake. Thats about all I can think of off the top of my head.

- Nyles

Hawaii Five-0

Please don't change the px for these screenshots to 600px. Since these shots are in the 4x3 format, 600px makes them seem way too big. --Ben41 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Ammunition

I've shot most of the guns in my collection, and I figure eventually I'll shoot them all. There are calibers I haven't been able to find ammo for, although eventually I track down pretty much everything. Collecting vintage military guns is popular enough that there's alot of specialty companies loading obsolete rounds. Check out Fiocci's product line, for example, that's often pretty easy to find. It'd be even easier for you since you can actually order stuff from the States. It's not cheap, but it's doable. Ironically the hardest one to find ammo for is the 14.5mm Soviet, and that's still in current military use! - Nyles

No, legally it's treated the same as any hunting rifle here. I actually have a PTRD-41 anti-tank rifle in 14.5mm, and about 15 rounds that came with it. That said, as armor piercing ammo is illegal, and only armor-piercing ammo has ever been made, the only ammo available here is surplus Soviet cases that have been reloaded with soft point or solid copper bullets, and when it's available it's $40 a pop. Canada is actually better than the US when it comes to WW2 Soviet firearms - the Clinton administration signed an agreement with Russia that Russia wouldn't send certain firearms to the US, such as SVT-40s and SKSs. So they all come here instead. Our market is flooded with SVTs the way the US market is flooded with Mosins and Nagant revolvers. And of course anything over .50 cal is a destructive device in the US, so we got about 100 PTRDs that would have gone south instead. - Nyles

27 vs. 19

Well as you know the 27/28 are N frame revolvers and the 19 is a K frame. As a result sometimes you can tell just because the revolver appears to be beefier in the actor's hand. Also from some angles you can look at the cylinders.

In the Model 19 the cylinder fills the entire frame. But with the 27/28 the forcing cone (the end of the barrel that faces the cylinder front) is huge and juts into the frame. There is a distinctive gap between the front of the cylinder and the frame as a result. Now if you look at a Model 29 you'll see that the cylinder fills the frame. That's because the .44 magnum is a longer cartridge compared to the .357 magnum and requires a longer cylinder. The N frame is bigger. But with the K frame the .357 magnum cylinder will fill the frame since the K frame is only a mid-size frame.

Did I explain that clearly? If not let me know.

Another feature is the barrel of the 27/28 model has a taper. The barrel on the Model 19 doesn't taper. It's more of what we call a "bull" barrel.

Over the past few months I've come across some pieces about imfdb (in cyberspace) in which the commentary basically states that imfdb's focus on firearms is repulsive, horrible blah blah blah. That's basically what I was referring to. The Antis have discovered us. Personally I believe it means we're popular when the other side starts to attack. --Jcordell 13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

When guys talk out of their asses, I get bent out of shape. Won't happen again. :) MoviePropMaster2008


Colt Detective Special Generations

The subject of Colt Detective Special generations depends on which collector you're talking to.

Some say the 1st Gen ran from the late 20's (when it was introduced) until the early thirties when Colt changed the grips design. Giving it more flare and rounding it at the bottom. The grips re-design introduced in the early 30's was a good one. They consider that the 2nd Gen and then they count the changes made after WWII to be the 3rd Gen. The changes made after WWII were a mix of cosmetic and engineering. For awhile Colt replaced the wooden grips with plastic grips which the company called "Colt wood". Eventually the wood grips returned. The checkering on the trigger face and cylinder latch were dropped. The ejector rod was lengthened almost to the end of the barrel to aid with more efficent ejection of empties and the front site was flattened towards the rear (doing away with the half circle design) and serrated to cut down on glare.

The 4th Gen is the totally redesigned frame (heavy barrel, full lug protecting the ejector rod along with the shorter grip frame, wrap around wood grips and a ramped front sight) to be the 4th Gen or the Post-1971 Model.

That's one classification system.

There are some who call all the Colt DS models up until 1971/72 to be the "First Issue" and everything after 1971/72 to be "Second Issue". Pretty broad, but simple.

Then, finally, we have the classification system that we here at imfdb have choosen to go with. All Colt DS revolver made up to and through WW II are considered 1st Generation. Believe it or not Colt made a small number of Detective Specials during the war. Supposedly for use by O.S.S. agents. The Second Generation is the Post-WWII Detective Special up until 1971/72.

None of them are wrong or right. Just different. --Jcordell 19:21, 29 September 2011 (CDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.buildlogs.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous&oldid=463810"