Talk:Dirty Harry: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 23:07, 11 November 2018

Model 25?

I've read that the gun actually was a Model 25 in .45 Colt. The substitution for the M29 was lack of availability of a M29 and the easy availability of blank cartridges in .45 Colt (which were probably widely used in Colt Peacemakers in Westerns).

I heard it was a Model 57 in .41 caliber, but it makes more sense for it to be a Model 25, because .45 Colt blanks were very common thanks to the ridiculous amount of westerns made during that time. - Gunmaster45

It can't be a model 25. It looks completely different near the forcing cone and cylinder lock-up as well. Gunmaster45, you heard correctly. It is a model 57 in 41 Magnum. Dead ringer except for calibre and the muzzle size difference will not be noticed between those two calibers on screen.

John Milius supplied the Model 29 for the film then both Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals supplied them. The ones from Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals were .44 Magnums but were re-chambered to use 5 in 1 blanks. - Steve

From "guns and ammo" november 2006; Garry James: "my friend writer/director/gun enthusiast John Milius told me he originally intended for Eastwood to carry a 4- inch model 29 in "dirty harry,but model 29s of any stripe were in such short supply at the time that they couldn't find enough 4-inchers but did manage to scrounge up three 6 1/2 - inch 29s, so that's what they went with".Rafa (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

The HD screencaps on both the main page and posted below show '44 MAGNUM' on the gun - I think it's irrefutable that Model 29s were used in the film at this point. StanTheMan (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

John Milius Model 29

What is known is that after Magnum Force was finished Milius was presented with a Model 29 by Clint Eastwood and Warner Brothers. It has a small plaque on the grip. I've seen numerous photos of it and a few years ago it was on display at the NRA's museum in Virgina. Does anyone know if that Model 29 was used in either movie or was it just a gift? --Jcordell 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a Model 29(maybe)

It has also been written that two Model 29's were used in the filming of Dirty Harry. The Smith & Wesson company historian, Roy Jinks, has stated that the company was approached by Warner Brothers before filming had begun with a request for specimens. Evidently no Model 29's could be found to purchase. The Model 29 was something of a "niche" gun in the fifties and sixties and S&W did not produce large numbers of the 44 magnum revolver.

There had not been a production run for awhile and they had become rather scarce on the market. The factory did have parts on hand and were able to put together two models for the production. However all they had were 6.5 inch barrels so that's what the film went with.

John Milius has stated in the past that when he was doing fine tuning on the script he gave Inspector Callahan a Model 29 with a 4 inch barrel. Which makes sense since since it would be more practical for a cop to carry the 4" version. Of course practical in this case in more a matter of schemantics.

As others have said though it's hard to know what really occurred. The makers of Dirty Harry had no way of knowing that they were involved with pop culture history and nobody thought to keep accurate records about the props. So we continue to have fun debating all the possible models used by Inspector Callahan.And while your bringing it geel free to identify yourself like I just did. --Jcordell 14:59, 16 April 2009

I would also bring to the table that in 1971 gun accuracy was not high priority. Revolvers shooting 123 rounds without ever reloading. Even today 100% gun accuracy isn't achievable. You must remember it's hollywood. However if you start reading printed books and that kind of thing on the topic you will see that it was indeed a model 57. Also saying that "Harry" said it is a 44 magnum doesn't make it so. Just because a character in a movie claims it to be a something definately doesn't make it so. Now on Magnum Force and his later movies I'm sure it was a model 29 but for Dirty Harry (the movie of this page) it definately is a model 57. If you really want to I can go get some book references for you and post them here. However that is going to take some time going through my library but I will. Myth busting when it comes to be guns is what I like. So bring it. Potentpoefie

Okay. It's supposed to be a Model 29 in the movie.Even if it was actually a Model 57 that was used. And I have also read so called printed books which was where I got the info about Roy Jinks and the Model 29's being used. So once again I'm going to change it.Also I get the impression that almost everyone here is accepting of the fact that it might have been a Model 57, but don't really care. However I would like to see your references.Please post them. --Jcordell 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Jcordell I don't know if I should thank you are swear at you. I had to go through 17 year's worth of gun magazines. However I knew I read about it before. But I finally found the articles. The thank you part comes in because I took the time and finally organized those 17 year's worth of gun magazine. So without even going to online references here you go. Man Magnum March 1998 - One-Stop Shot by Keith Dyer Man Magnum November 1998 - The Movie Guns of Clint Eastwood by Paul Scarlata Man Magnum July 2006 - 44 Magnum - The First Fifty Years by Keith Dyer So now this model 29 is turning into a model 57 again and if it doesn't bother you so much then I guess it's fine. Potentpoefie

Yeah okay. I'm calling a truce. I'm leaving it to MoviePropMaster2008 to decide what he wants to do. He's basically the webmaster and it's his site. Peace my brother. --Jcordell 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well no peace to be made. Nobody declared war. Like I said. Thanks. It was an experience going through those magazines. Funny how what is "tactical/practical" has changed over the years. Potentpoefie

I took the snap below and brightened the image to better see the magnum markings. It looks like 44 Magnum to me. --Predator20 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

looks like 44 Magnum to me

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

I'm pretty sure that this is a .44 Magnum bore, because I've seen a Model 29 up close and remember it looking just like this. I've never seen a Model 25, but some pictures I've seen online suggest it doesn't look like this.

My guess is that they used the Model 25 mostly for the firing scenes, the Model 29 whenever the gun wasn't fired. -MT2008

In the last screenshot it clearly says ".44 magnum" down the side of the barrel. --cool-breeze (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Rifle as Evidence

The reason the rifle was not viable evidence is because it was "fruit of the poisonous tree." Harry had no warrant to search the stadium so evidence pulled from the scene is not admissible in court. this is the reason stated in the movie BUT any halfway decent cop and district attorney would make it a legal search due to it being "fresh pursuit" not to mention the exigent circumstance of said pursuit. moreover scorpio could only get the protection of that statute if he were a legal resident of the stadium and i am pretty sure he wouldn't be recognized as such legally. so in reality it wouldn't happen quite like that, but the entire movie was an exercise of complaint at the systems apparent apathy towards victims rights and total obsession with criminal rights. so the whole point is rendered moot. just felt like sharing.

I concur. the statement on the picture is just careless. However, the doctor said that the groundskeeper let him live there. That was the easy way they explained he was legally living there. Contract living or not, the implication that his living space is consensual with the owners or caretakers is legally enough to make it a protected area which requires a warranted search. Also, there was no "hot pursuit" or fresh pursuit. they were led to the stadium through a tip. They didn't see him run there and they didn't follow him in. Just my two cents 69.23.137.224 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your point is quite valid, I only brought it up as it was a topic in my Substantive Law class. The fresh pursuit part isn't so much about actively chasing the suspect into the area, but the small amount of time that has passed in the pursuit, bolstered by the exigent circumstances (which is a trump card). The trouble with the groundskeeper giving permission to live there is that he (in all probability) has no legal standing to grant that permission. Since Scorpio is effectively a squatter and the "search" was more or less the rifle being in plain view during the course of a lawful arrest (if I remember correctly) the point is again moot. But I do agree with you on a few levels, I just merely wanted to point out that the topic in question is more of a legal quagmire than the cut and dry "you were bad, Harry" that the movie states or the cut and dry "they have the rifle there just use it as evidence" that others wish were the case. Just adding a few more cents, I think I'm up to a nickel now. =P

Scorpio would've had the expectation of privacy, since he considered it his home. But the key thing to consider here it not how the courts would consider this TODAY, but how they would've considered this in 1971. The Warren era had just handed down Gideon, Miranda and Escobedo less than a decade prior, so there's a good chance the courts would've sided with the defendant on this one. --Funkychinaman (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2013 (EDT)

I've altered the statement on the picture to refelct the fact that the rifle could have been used as evidence and the trial legally brought to court. - Maxman 0:14 8 September 2013 (EST)

Harry and the 4th Amendment

I can't speak for 1971 but in 2009 if I was in a similar situation a couple phone calls and I would have a very quick answer from the on-call prosecutor. Also I would call my superior and make sure that I surrounded the stadium with officers and locked it down. I've gotten search warrants before and a couple times it only took about 90 minutes. Plus there would be a very good chance that the PA (prosecutor) would give you the green light to enter based on the exigent circumstances.

Also I imagine that you could contact the owner or owners and get permission to search fairly quickly. Especially considering the circumstances. Most people are essentially good and want to help the police. At least in the U.S.A. But if they showed that the system was somewhat flexible and that other folks also wanted to save the girl than Harry would lose his Lone Wolf status. That would have changed the whole movie and fun would that be?

I own all the Dirty Harry movies and I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood, but they are works of fiction and they play fast and loose with the law in order to make a political/social point. Your observations are dead on. --Jcordell 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You said it though when you said, you can't speak for 1971. It was a different time. You can't compare today with 1971. Heck, I used to ride my motorcycle with a Springfield 03 rifle slung on my back (not in a case) down the 101 freeway on the way to a target shoot and nobody cared. This was back in the 1970s IN California (!?) Times surely have changed. MoviePropMaster2008 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the politics of the film was in response to a lot of the changes brought about by the Warren court. I'm sure many people may have resented that these rulings swung in favor of the accused at the cost of the police. (Gideon, Miranda, Mapp, Escobedo, etc) But since then, with more conservative courts, some of that has been rolled back or relaxed, like Miranda. --Funkychinaman 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In the spring of 1981 I was thirteen and in 7th grade. Near the end of the school year my P.E. teacher let us have a "Fun Day" which included many activities to include archery. One of my friends brought his Barnett Crossbow and a quiver full of bolts onto the bus and walked with it into our school. The only thing he had to do was leave it with the P.E. teacher until classtime. But at the end of the day he rode the bus home with the crossbow and bolts and nobody even went "eek". That was just 29 years ago. Times do change don't they? --Jcordell 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When I would walk to school in My Homestate of North Carolina, I would see men huntin' (My house was on a dirt road) in the open where everybody could see them and Me and My Friends just thought it was normal, but when I moved out of the country and into the city, with My Grandpa's old Springfield M1903A3 Rifle slung over My shoulder and a 1911A1 pistol tucked into the waist of my pants , driving an old 1950's pickup truck with half the paint worn off. Now imagine driving to New York in 1979 wearing the old uniform your father wore during the Korean War with a pair suspenders and a hand-me-down bandana soaked in blood and sweet. I saw things I didn't even think existed. That was the strangest moment in My Life. Now everbody used to seeing that stuff. The small town I lived near has been abandoned and torn down to make place for a tourist trap and mini mall. I searched for the America I grew up in and could not find it. - Kilgore 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above regarding the rifle being admissible, Scorpio was living in the Kezar Stadium under the consent of the groundskeeper, but the groundskeeper, in all likelyhood, does not have the right to grant that kind of permission, which would make Scorpio a squatter in the eyes of the law and therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment. - Maxman 02:56 8 September 2013 (EST)

.44 Magnum/.41 Magnum

From what I remember reading in gun mags of the time, when they contacted Smith & Wesson a week before production was due to start no M29's where being produced at that time. They where in the middle of a run of M57 .41 Magnums, which are identical appart from the differance in Calibur. They sent them a pair of these with an advisory note not to film the muzzle until some .44's could be sourced to replace them.

This means that i was fooled, i always believed that it was a Model 29, god this isn't a good week for me.--Dillinger 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they were actual Model 29s, in .44 Magnum. Bob Sauer had two made from parts in the Smith and Wesson factory. If you look carefully, the barrel actually says .44 MAGNUM. - Maxman 03:04 8 September 2013

M57 vs. M29

It's a moot point what the real model was. In the movie it's identified as a S&W 44 magnum which means it's a Model 29. So I'm going to take the liberty of changing it back to being identified as a Model 29, but with all the info still included. Anyway the company historian has stated that the production company did use a couple Model 29's that the factory put together from spare parts. --Jcordell 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The barrels actually say .44 MAGNUM, so I'd say that's pretty conclusive. - Maxman 03:07 8 September 2013

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Arisaka paratrooper rifle

I understand that sporterising a rare firearm negates its value as a collector's item, but is it possible that this particular Arisaka could remain valuable due to its appearance in this film?

That exact specimen would probably get a large amount of money at auction as long as there was provenance. --Jcordell 19:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Only as a movie memorabilia, not as a collector gun. There is a difference. MoviePropMaster2008 21:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask: what happens to movie prop guns when they're worn out? (I presume they get worn out.) Are they destroyed? Are they still considered firearms and regulated as such? Can they be converted back into regular firearms? Are they sold as collector's items? I'm sure the hero guns will go to some museum or something, but what of the rest? --Funkychinaman 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They are usually sold off to other prop houses/armories or gun collectors. Many of Stembridge's guns were sold to collectors in other states (back in 1999) when the Anti gun Atty General Bill Lockyer (D) was dead set on trying to nail Stembridge. The 1990s were a DARK TIME for gun rights. Dan Shea brokered a lot of the Title II sales to other buyers outside of California. You are right about the pendulum swinging back, but a lot of damage has been done and I don't see how many of the laws which really hurt armorers / gun owners can be turned back at the state level. We'll see. MoviePropMaster2008 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was curious about the appearance of the takedown Arisaka in film, as it seems to have been a rather rare specimen compared to the scores of Type 38/Type 99 rifles brought back from the Second World War and the Korean War. Still, it appeared from time to time in movies, I remember Raymond Shaw (Lawrence Harvey) used one in The Manchurian Candidate.

Scorpio Killer

I think the scorpio killer was supposed to be potrayed as a nazi or a racial socialist. He uses two of the most infamous nazi firearms in film, he had blonde hair and blue eyes, and finally he had a racial slur of african americans in his first death note.

Arisaka suppressor

What type of suppressor is the suppressor used on the Arisaka? I can't remember any suppressors being made for the Arisaka before WWII, or indeed if it was able to use any sort of suppressor. Also, it's called a 'paratrooper' rifle, were they ever actually used by Japanese paratroopers? Were there any Japanese paratroopers during WWII?

Actually in WWII the Japanese had two separate paratrooper forces. Both the Special Naval Landing Forces (Marines) and the Imperial Army Air Force developed their own paratroopers. Although like the German Fallschirmjäger they only jumped a few times early in the war and spent the rest of it fighting as infantry. As for the Type 2 Paratroop Rifle, it wasn't designed for a suppressor, so it would have to custom fitted. Pravda616 15:53 28/12/11

6 shots or 5?

In the orginal theatrical release, "Harry" fired 5 shots, not 6. The recent DVD added a sixth to the soundtrack. He fired 5 rounds single action and then cocked on the sixth. After not firing, he lowered the hammer, then cocked again which rotated the cylinder to a previously fired chamber, which enabled him to click on that empty chamber. The public is so dense that even Milius has given up arguing the point. --Sg688 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Crew visible?

In the closeup of the Type 2's bolt handle, there are several reflections that almost look like crew or film equipment. - Maxman 1:07 8 September 2013 (EST)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Additional

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Callahan shows the punk he had indeed fired six shots. He cocks the hammer, but due to continuity error, the alternate angle shows him pull the trigger in double action.

Only 6.5 inch barreled M29s were used.

I have seen numerous sources over the years state that 6.5 inch versions AND 8.3/8 versions were used in the movie. This is NOT correct. Only 6.5 versions were used.

I believe this rumour owes its existence to the football stadium scene where Harry chases down Scorpio onto the playing field and shoots him in the leg. The lens used to show Harry aiming the Model 29 at Scorpio distorts the perspective similar to a "fish eye" lens but not as severe. This has the effect of elongating the image of the Model 29.

However the easiest way to confirm the barrel length is to compare the length of the ramp base of the foresight blade to the gap between it and the front of the ejector shroud. The ramp base would barely fit into the gap once. If the 8.3/8 barrel was used it would fit in almost twice.

Just examine the gap difference on any profile of the two variations. Even with the distortion in the scene the proportions stay the same.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Um, this is a shot with a perspective so severe that Harry's right hand is about the size of his entire head, the gap would not stay the same size relative to the front sight base. Plus the front of the gun isn't even in focus so the front sight base is going to appear bigger than it actually is. Evil Tim (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

I concur with the above, this is hardly a good image to use as any reference let alone 'proof' and regardless this one instance is hardly a basis as to definitively state which particular gun (or not) was used for the entire film. That said, I've watched the film many times and there are other scenes where it looks like the longer barrel Model 29 is used, if however only briefly. I will grant the 6.5 inch version is clearly the predominant one used but you are one of the very few if only ones I've seen to state ONLY it was used. Bottom-line if what you're looking for is to remove the notation about how a 8 3/8" barreled Model 29 was used in the film I see no reason to do so with what's been given here. This coming from someone who is known to be a sticker for those kinds of details and is a revolver/S&W man himself. StanTheMan (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+== Model 25? ==
 I've read that the gun actually was a Model 25 in .45 Colt.  The substitution for the M29 was lack of availability of a M29 and the easy availability of blank cartridges in .45 Colt (which were probably widely used in Colt Peacemakers in Westerns).
 :I heard it was a Model 57 in .41 caliber, but it makes more sense for it to be a Model 25, because .45 Colt blanks were very common thanks to the ridiculous amount of westerns made during that time. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]
+::It can't be a model 25. It looks completely different near the forcing cone and cylinder lock-up as well.  Gunmaster45, you heard correctly. It is a model 57 in 41 Magnum. Dead ringer except for calibre and the muzzle size difference will not be noticed between those two calibers on screen.
-John Milius supplied the Model 29 for the film then both Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals supplied them. The ones from Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals were .44 Magnums but were re-chambered to use 5 in 1 blanks. - [[User:Phoenixent|Steve]]
+:::John Milius supplied the Model 29 for the film then both Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals supplied them. The ones from Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals were .44 Magnums but were re-chambered to use 5 in 1 blanks. - [[User:Phoenixent|Steve]]
+::::From "guns and ammo" november 2006; Garry James: "my friend writer/director/gun enthusiast John Milius told me he originally intended for  Eastwood to carry a 4- inch model 29 in "dirty harry,but model 29s of any stripe were in such short supply at the time that they couldn't find enough 4-inchers but did manage to scrounge up three 6 1/2 - inch 29s, so that's what they went with".[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] ([[User talk:Rafa|talk]]) 14:32, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
+::::: The HD screencaps on both the main page and posted below show '44 MAGNUM' on the gun - I think it's irrefutable that Model 29s were used in the film at this point. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 21:53, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
 == John Milius Model 29 ==
-What is known is that after ''[[Magnum Force]]'' was finished Milius was presented with a Model 29 by CLint Eastwood and Warner Brothers. It has a small plaque on the grip. I've seen numerous photos of it and a few years ago it was on display at the NRA's museum in Virgina. Does anyone know if that Model 29 was used in either movie or was it just a gift? --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
+What is known is that after ''[[Magnum Force]]'' was finished Milius was presented with a Model 29 by Clint Eastwood and Warner Brothers. It has a small plaque on the grip. I've seen numerous photos of it and a few years ago it was on display at the NRA's museum in Virgina. Does anyone know if that Model 29 was used in either movie or was it just a gift? --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 ==It was a Model 29(maybe)==
@@ Line 14: / Line 17: @@
 John Milius has stated in the past that when he was doing fine tuning on the script he gave Inspector Callahan a Model 29 with a 4 inch barrel. Which makes sense since since it would be more practical for a cop to carry the 4" version. Of course practical in this case in more a matter of schemantics.
-As others have said though it's hard to know what really occurred. The makers of [[Dirty Harry]] had no way of knowing that they were involved with pop culture history and nobody thought to keep accurate records about the props. So we continue to have fun debating all the possible models used by Inspector Callahan. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 14:59, 16 April 2009
+As others have said though it's hard to know what really occurred. The makers of [[Dirty Harry]] had no way of knowing that they were involved with pop culture history and nobody thought to keep accurate records about the props. So we continue to have fun debating all the possible models used by Inspector Callahan.And while your bringing it geel free to identify yourself like I just did. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 14:59, 16 April 2009
+I would also bring to the table that in 1971 gun accuracy was not high priority. Revolvers shooting 123 rounds without ever reloading. Even today 100% gun accuracy isn't achievable. You must remember it's hollywood. However if you start reading printed books and that kind of thing on the topic you will see that it was indeed a model 57. Also saying that "Harry" said it is a 44 magnum doesn't make it so. Just because a character in a movie claims it to be a something definately doesn't make it so. Now on Magnum Force and his later movies I'm sure it was a model 29 but for Dirty Harry (the movie of this page) it definately is a model 57. If you really want to I can go get some book references for you and post them here. However that is going to take some time going through my library but I will. Myth busting when it comes to be guns is what I like. So bring it. [[Potentpoefie]]
+Okay. It's supposed to be a Model 29 in the movie.Even if it was actually a  Model 57 that was used. And I have also read so called printed books which was where I got the info about Roy Jinks and the Model 29's being used. So once again I'm going to change it.Also I get the impression that almost everyone here is accepting of the fact that it might have been a Model 57, but don't ''really care''. However I would like to see your references.Please post them.  --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
+OK, [[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] I don't know if I should thank you are swear at you. I had to go through 17 year's worth of gun magazines. However I knew I read about it before. But I finally found the articles. The thank you part comes in because I took the time and finally organized those 17 year's worth of gun magazine. So without even going to online references here you go.
+Man Magnum March 1998 - One-Stop Shot by Keith Dyer
+Man Magnum November 1998 - The Movie Guns of Clint Eastwood by Paul Scarlata
+Man Magnum July 2006 - 44 Magnum - The First Fifty Years by Keith Dyer
+So now this model 29 is turning into a model 57 again and if it doesn't bother you so much then I guess it's fine.
+[[Potentpoefie]]
+Yeah okay. I'm calling a truce. I'm leaving it to [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] to decide what he wants to do. He's basically the webmaster and it's his site. Peace my brother. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
+Well no peace to be made. Nobody declared war. Like I said. Thanks. It was an experience going through those magazines. Funny how what is "tactical/practical" has changed over the years. [[Potentpoefie]]
+I took the snap below and brightened the image to better see the magnum markings. It looks like 44 Magnum to me. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
+[[Image:DH-00002.jpg|thumb|none|600px|looks like 44 Magnum to me]]
 :[[Image:DH1S&W25-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
 :[[Image:DH1S&W25-8.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
@@ Line 22: / Line 42: @@
 :My guess is that they used the Model 25 mostly for the firing scenes, the Model 29 whenever the gun wasn't fired. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]
+::In the last screenshot it clearly says ".44 magnum" down the side of the barrel. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] ([[User talk:Cool-breeze|talk]]) 02:30, 16 December 2012 (EST)
 == Rifle as Evidence ==
 The reason the rifle was not viable evidence is because it was "fruit of the poisonous tree." Harry had no warrant to search the stadium so evidence pulled from the scene is not admissible in court. this is the reason stated in the movie BUT any halfway decent cop and district attorney would make it a legal search due to it being "fresh pursuit" not to mention the exigent circumstance of said pursuit. moreover scorpio could only get the protection of that statute if he were a legal resident of the stadium and i am pretty sure he wouldn't be recognized as such legally. so in reality it wouldn't happen quite like that, but the entire movie was an exercise of complaint at the systems apparent apathy towards victims rights and total obsession with criminal rights. so the whole point is rendered moot. just felt like sharing.
+:I concur. the statement on the picture is just careless. However, the doctor said that the groundskeeper let him live there. That was the easy way they explained he was legally living there. Contract living or not, the implication that his living space is consensual with the owners or caretakers is legally enough to make it a protected area which requires a warranted search. Also, there was no "hot pursuit" or fresh pursuit. they were led to the stadium through a tip. They didn't see him run there and they didn't follow him in. Just my two cents [[Special:Contributions/69.23.137.224|69.23.137.224]] 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
-=================
+::Your point is quite valid, I only brought it up as it was a topic in my Substantive Law class. The fresh pursuit part isn't so much about actively chasing the suspect into the area, but the small amount of time that has passed in the pursuit, bolstered by the exigent circumstances (which is a trump card). The trouble with the groundskeeper giving permission to live there is that he (in all probability) has no legal standing to grant that permission. Since Scorpio is effectively a squatter and the "search" was more or less the rifle being in plain view during the course of a lawful arrest (if I remember correctly) the point is again moot. But I do agree with you on a few levels, I just merely wanted to point out that the topic in question is more of a legal quagmire than the cut and dry "you were bad, Harry" that the movie states or the cut and dry "they have the rifle there just use it as evidence" that others wish were the case. Just adding a few more cents, I think I'm up to a nickel now. =P
-I concur. the statement on the picture is just careless. However, the doctor said that the groundskeeper let him live there. That was the easy way they explained he was legally living there. Contract living or not, the implication that his living space is consensual with the owners or caretakers is legally enough to make it a protected area which requires a warranted search. Also, there was no "hot pursuit" or fresh pursuit. they were led to the stadium through a tip. They didn't see him run there and they didn't follow him in. Just my two cents [[Special:Contributions/69.23.137.224|69.23.137.224]] 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
+:::Scorpio would've had the expectation of privacy, since he considered it his home. But the key thing to consider here it not how the courts would consider this TODAY, but how they would've considered this in 1971. The Warren era had just handed down Gideon, Miranda and Escobedo less than a decade prior, so there's a good chance the courts would've sided with the defendant on this one. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 04:37, 8 September 2013 (EDT)
+:I've altered the statement on the picture to refelct the fact that the rifle could have been used as evidence and the trial legally brought to court. - [[User:Maxman|Maxman]] 0:14 8 September 2013 (EST)
-Your point is quite valid, I only brought it up as it was a topic in my Substantive Law class. The fresh pursuit part isn't so much about actively chasing the suspect into the area, but the small amount of time that has passed in the pursuit, bolstered by the exigent circumstances (which is a trump card). The trouble with the groundskeeper giving permission to live there is that he (in all probability) has no legal standing to grant that permission. Since Scorpio is effectively a squatter and the "search" was more or less the rifle being in plain view during the course of a lawful arrest (if i remember correctly) the point is again moot. But I do agree with you on a few levels, I just merely wanted to point out that the topic in question is more of a legal quagmire than the cut and dry "you were bad, Harry" that the movie states or the cut and dry "they have the rifle there just use it as evidence" that others wish were the case. Just adding a few more cents, I think I'm up to a nickel now. =P
 == Harry and the 4th Amendment ==
@@ Line 37: / Line 57: @@
 Also I imagine that you could contact the owner or owners and get permission to search fairly quickly. Especially considering the circumstances. Most people are essentially good and want to help the police. At least in the U.S.A. But if they showed that the system was somewhat flexible and that other folks also wanted to save the girl than Harry would lose his Lone Wolf status. That would have changed the whole movie and fun would that be?
 I own all the Dirty Harry movies and I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood, but they are works of fiction and they play fast and loose with the law in order to make a political/social point. Your observations are dead on. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
+::You said it though when you said, '''you can't speak for 1971'''.  It was a different time.  You can't compare today with 1971.  Heck, I used to ride my motorcycle with a Springfield 03 rifle slung on my back (not in a case) down the 101 freeway on the way to a target shoot and nobody cared.  This was back in the 1970s IN California (!?)  Times surely have changed. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
+:::I think the politics of the film was in response to a lot of the changes brought about by the Warren court. I'm sure many people may have resented that these rulings swung in favor of the accused at the cost of the police. (Gideon, Miranda, Mapp, Escobedo, etc) But since then, with more conservative courts, some of that has been rolled back or relaxed, like Miranda. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
+In the spring of 1981 I was thirteen and in 7th grade. Near the end of the school year my P.E. teacher let us have a "Fun Day" which included many activities to include archery. One of my friends brought his Barnett Crossbow and a quiver full of bolts onto the bus and walked with it into our school. The only thing he had to do was leave it with the P.E. teacher until classtime. But at the end of the day he rode the bus home with the crossbow and bolts and nobody even went "eek". That was just 29 years ago. Times do change don't they? --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
+When I would walk to school in My Homestate of North Carolina, I would see men huntin' (My house was on a dirt road) in the open where everybody could see them and Me and My Friends just thought it was normal, but when I moved out of the country and into the city, with My Grandpa's old Springfield M1903A3 Rifle slung over My shoulder and a 1911A1 pistol tucked into the waist of my pants , driving an old 1950's pickup truck with half the paint worn off. Now imagine driving to New York in 1979 wearing the old uniform your father wore during the Korean War with a pair suspenders and a hand-me-down bandana soaked in blood and sweet. I saw things I didn't even think existed. That was the strangest moment in My Life. Now everbody used to seeing that stuff. The small town I lived near has been abandoned and torn down to make place for a tourist trap and mini mall. I searched for the America I grew up in and could not find it. - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
+As mentioned above regarding the rifle being admissible, Scorpio was living in the Kezar Stadium under the consent of the groundskeeper, ''but'' the groundskeeper, in all likelyhood, does not have the right to grant that kind of permission, which would make Scorpio a squatter in the eyes of the law and therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment. - [[User:Maxman|Maxman]] 02:56 8 September 2013 (EST)
+== .44 Magnum/.41 Magnum ==
+From what I remember reading in gun mags of the time, when they contacted Smith & Wesson a week before production was due to start no M29's where being produced at that time. They where in the middle of a run of M57 .41 Magnums, which are identical appart from the differance in Calibur. They sent them a pair of these with an advisory note not to film the muzzle until some .44's could be sourced to replace them.
+This means that i was fooled, i always believed that it was a Model 29, god this isn't a good week for me.--[[User:Dillinger|Dillinger]] 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
+:No, they were actual Model 29s, in .44 Magnum. Bob Sauer had two made from parts in the Smith and Wesson factory. If you look carefully, the barrel actually says .44 MAGNUM. - [[User:Maxman|Maxman]] 03:04 8 September 2013
+== M57 vs. M29 ==
+It's a moot point what the real model was. In the movie it's identified as a S&W 44 magnum which means it's a Model 29. So I'm going to take the liberty of changing it ''back'' to being identified as a Model 29, but with all the info still included. Anyway the company historian has stated that the production company did use a couple Model 29's that the factory put together from spare parts. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
+:The barrels actually say .44 MAGNUM, so I'd say that's pretty conclusive. - [[User:Maxman|Maxman]] 03:07 8 September 2013
+[[Image:DH-00002.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
+== Arisaka paratrooper rifle ==
+I understand that sporterising a rare firearm negates its value as a collector's item, but is it possible that this particular Arisaka could remain valuable due to its appearance in this film?
+That exact specimen would probably get a large amount of money at auction as long as there was provenance. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 19:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
+::Only as a movie memorabilia, not as a collector gun.  There is a difference.  [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 21:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
+:::I have to ask: what happens to movie prop guns when they're worn out? (I presume they get worn out.) Are they destroyed? Are they still considered firearms and regulated as such? Can they be converted back into regular firearms? Are they sold as collector's items? I'm sure the hero guns will go to some museum or something, but what of the rest? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
+::::They are usually sold off to other prop houses/armories or gun collectors.  Many of Stembridge's guns were sold to collectors in other states (back in 1999) when the Anti gun Atty General Bill Lockyer (D) was dead set on trying to nail Stembridge.  The 1990s were a DARK TIME for gun rights.  Dan Shea brokered a lot of the Title II sales to other buyers outside of California.  You are right about the pendulum swinging back, but a lot of damage has been done and I don't see how many of the laws which really hurt armorers / gun owners can be turned back at the state level.  We'll see.  [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
+:::::Thanks, I was curious about the appearance of the takedown Arisaka in film, as it seems to have been a rather rare specimen compared to the scores of Type 38/Type 99 rifles brought back from the Second World War and the Korean War. Still, it appeared from time to time in movies, I remember Raymond Shaw (Lawrence Harvey) used one in The Manchurian Candidate.
+== Scorpio Killer ==
+I think the scorpio killer was supposed to be potrayed as a nazi or a racial socialist. He uses two of the most infamous nazi firearms in film, he had blonde hair and blue eyes, and finally he had a racial slur of african americans in his first death note.
+== Arisaka suppressor ==
+What type of suppressor is the suppressor used on the Arisaka? I can't remember any suppressors being made for the Arisaka before WWII, or indeed if it was able to use any sort of suppressor. Also, it's called a 'paratrooper' rifle, were they ever actually used by Japanese paratroopers? Were there any Japanese paratroopers during WWII?
+Actually in WWII the Japanese had two separate paratrooper forces. Both the ''Special Naval Landing Forces'' (Marines) and the ''Imperial Army Air Force'' developed their own paratroopers. Although like the German ''Fallschirmjäger'' they only jumped a few times early in the war and spent the rest of it fighting as infantry. As for the Type 2 Paratroop Rifle, it wasn't designed for a suppressor, so it would have to custom fitted. [[User:Pravda616|Pravda616]] 15:53 28/12/11
+== 6 shots or 5? ==
+In the orginal theatrical release, "Harry" fired 5 shots, not 6. The recent DVD added a sixth to the soundtrack.  He fired 5 rounds single action and then cocked on the sixth.  After not firing, he lowered the hammer, then cocked again which rotated the cylinder to a previously fired chamber, which enabled him to click on that empty chamber. The public is so dense that even Milius has given up arguing the point. --[[User:Sg688|Sg688]] ([[User talk:Sg688|talk]]) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (EST)
+== Crew visible? ==
+In the closeup of the Type 2's bolt handle, there are several reflections that almost look like crew or film equipment. - [[User:Maxman|Maxman]] 1:07 8 September 2013 (EST)
+[[Image:DH1Sniper-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
+== Additional ==
+[[Image:DH1S&W25-5.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Callahan shows the punk he had indeed fired six shots. He cocks the hammer, but due to continuity error, the alternate angle shows him pull the trigger in double action.]]
+== Only 6.5 inch barreled M29s were used.  ==
+I have seen numerous sources over the years state that 6.5 inch versions AND 8.3/8 versions were used in the movie. This is NOT correct. Only 6.5 versions were used.
+I believe this rumour owes its existence to the football stadium scene where Harry chases down Scorpio onto the playing field and shoots him in the leg. The lens used to show Harry aiming the Model 29 at Scorpio distorts the perspective similar to a "fish eye" lens but not as severe. This has the effect of elongating the image of the Model 29.
+However the easiest way to confirm the barrel length is to compare the length of the ramp base of the foresight blade to the gap between it and the front of the ejector shroud.
+The ramp base would barely fit into the gap once. If the 8.3/8 barrel was used it would fit in almost twice.
+Just examine the gap difference on any profile of the two variations. Even with the distortion in the scene the proportions stay the same.
+[[File:DH1S%26W25-6.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]
+:Um, this is a shot with a perspective so severe that Harry's right hand is about the size of his entire head, the gap would ''not'' stay the same size relative to the front sight base. Plus the front of the gun isn't even in focus so the front sight base is going to appear bigger than it actually is. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 15:25, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
+:: I concur with the above, this is hardly a good image to use as any reference let alone 'proof' and regardless this one instance is hardly a basis as to definitively state which particular gun (or not) was used for the ''entire film''. That said, I've watched the film many times and there are other scenes where it looks like the longer barrel Model 29 is used, if however only briefly. I will grant the 6.5 inch version is clearly the predominant one used but you are one of the very few if only ones I've seen to state ONLY it was used. Bottom-line if what you're looking for is to remove the notation about how a 8 3/8" barreled Model 29 was used in the film I see no reason to do so with what's been given here. This coming from someone who is known to be a sticker for those kinds of details and is a revolver/S&W man himself. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

Talk:Dirty Harry: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 23:07, 11 November 2018

Contents

Model 25?

John Milius Model 29

It was a Model 29(maybe)

Rifle as Evidence

Harry and the 4th Amendment

.44 Magnum/.41 Magnum

M57 vs. M29

Arisaka paratrooper rifle

Scorpio Killer

Arisaka suppressor

6 shots or 5?

Crew visible?

Additional

Only 6.5 inch barreled M29s were used.

Navigation menu

Talk:Dirty Harry: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 23:07, 11 November 2018

Model 25?

John Milius Model 29

It was a Model 29(maybe)

Rifle as Evidence

Harry and the 4th Amendment

.44 Magnum/.41 Magnum

M57 vs. M29

Arisaka paratrooper rifle

Scorpio Killer

Arisaka suppressor

6 shots or 5?

Crew visible?

Additional

Only 6.5 inch barreled M29s were used.

Navigation menu

Search