Talk:The Hurt Locker: Difference between revisions
Talk:The Hurt Locker: Difference between revisions - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Talk:The Hurt Locker: Difference between revisions
(122 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 1:
Line 1:
==M4A1 pics==
==barrett==
Aren't some of the M4A1 pics a little unnecessary. Like five of the publicity stills barely show guns and the ones with stamps on the lower right look like crap. I vote to have them removed. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]
Can the barrett use ammo from the M2 or are the bullets different sorta like 50. cal in pistols and 50. cal in rifles
:It can, but different ammunition better suited to long range use is preferred over standard ball. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:27, 12 June 2011 (CDT)
:Well, if you won't do it, I will.-protoAuthor
==The "Airsoft" M16A4==
Someone said there they believe some of the M16A4s are airsoft because of "unnecessary screws in the A2 stocks" Can someone point out to me what they mean? Because my assumption would be that those are simply QD sling swivel holes being mistaken for screws. This is the only thing I know of thats common on airsoft AR15 full stocks that is rare on real ones.
==The helmet covers==
==The helmet covers==
Line 22:
Line 24:
:::Well, rotten tomatoes seems to agree with me. [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hurt_locker/ RottenTomatoes page] .
:::Well, rotten tomatoes seems to agree with me. [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hurt_locker/ RottenTomatoes page] .
"In the summer of 2004". Mark Boal was also in Iraq in 2004.--[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"In the summer of 2004". Mark Boal was also in Iraq in 2004.--[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
== PNGs need to go ==
Whoever capped this page really needs to change their images to JPGs. PNGs make this really page really slow to upload, which could potentially turn other users away from this page in frustration. Thanks. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 05:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Rotten Tomatoes could be wrong, too. They aren't exactly the official source. It's possible that whoever wrote the entry just assumed that because Mark Boal was in Iraq in 2004, the movie was set at the same time. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
::NPR agrees with me too. [http://http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105964997].--[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
:Saw it again today. Yeah, it's set in 2004.-protoAuthor 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
::The reviews indicate 2004, but iirc there is no explicit reference to that year in the movie, unless there was a scene that I forgot.--[[User:Markit|Markit]] 07:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
How about the beginning caption when the movie opens that says "Baghdad 2004".
::That title only appeared in some of the releases of the film - for instance it is on the DVD, but not on the version screened internationally at film festivals.--[[User:Markit|Markit]] 22:34, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
:::Little off question. Why most hi-speeds ignore helmet covers? Pimpin'?
:If it is set in 2004, then the ACU uniforms are anachronistic at the time as the ACU uniform was not issued until February 2005. A more accurate choice would be the DCU uniform. Also, the ACU uniforms in the movie appear to have an inaccurate appearance, such as the nametapes and the "U.S. Army" title in the wrong spots. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 20:43, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
::I dislike dredging up this two year old debate, but it isn't particularly clear whether the director/producers intentionally set the film in 2004 when it was being made- the title "2004" was added in afterwards when the movie got a wider release. At the same time, some of the inaccuracies also can be attributable to the film's relatively low budget (around $10 million iirc)- that probably meant less retakes to cover up mistakes such as the guns changing or incorrect nametapes and so on. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 22:34, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
== Watermarked pic ==
Putting this picture here until I can find one that doesn't have the watermark on it.
[[Image:THL M4A1 2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|James and Sanborn open fire with their M4A1's at a pair of insurgents attempting to hold Eldridge prisoner. They manage to kill the pair, but Eldridge is hit in the femur thereafter.]] --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Rank Issue.
I believe Renner's character wore Sergeant First Class (E-7 - Three stripes up with two rockers below) chevrons. This is a rank that is one grade higher than Staff Sergeant. Also, SSGT is not an abriviation used by the US Army as SSG is used instead.
:SSGT is Marine Corps abbreviation. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
SSGT may be a USMC designation but this movie is about US Army Soldiers, not Marines.
:Yes, we already know that. I was pointing out that SSGT is the Marine Corps abbreviation for the rank, not that the soldiers in the movie were Marines. And sign your posts by typing four '''~''' symbols at the end of it. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 20:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
== Glock? ==
Is that a Glock 23 or 19? im so bad with glocks :(
:It's always hard to tell Glock models based on bore diameter, but IMFDB's rule of thumb is to assume that a pistol is a 9mm model unless we have inside information that the gun is another caliber, or unless there is a close-up of the slide where we can see caliber/model number markings. We do know that historically, movie armorers have tended to use 9mm pistols because this caliber is the easiest and most reliable to convert to blank-fire. So it's a safe bet that this Glock is probably a G19. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Think about it: If a contractor in the middle east is carrying a Glock, would it be a 19 or a 23? How easy do you think it is to find some 40sw there?
:Right, but that would be '''real life''', whereas this is a '''movie'''. Since this is a site about guns in '''movies''', what's relevant to us is what caliber pistols are most likely to be in the inventory of Hollywood's '''prop houses'''. The movie armorers who are readers/members of this very site have told us that prop houses tend to stock mostly 9mm pistols. Sometimes, I feel that trying to explain this stuff to people is like spitting into the wind. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::I just removed some commentary by another person who actually tried to make the argument using a reference to the real-life availability of Glock 19s in Iraq. It's not that I disagree the pistol is probably a Glock 19 - but I find it unfathomable that anyone could fail to understand that there's a difference between real and life and what armorers bring to a movie set. Am I just too OCD, or is it downright retarded to use real life to argue what guns are used in a movie? How is it that people can't grasp the difference? -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
:::It is not unfathomable to think that the film makers might have actually done research and asked themselves what kind of weapons a British contractor might use in Iraq. I feel this is especially so because he is also using an AK. If they didn't do any research why not just give him an AR or SA80? I personally know British contractors who carry Ak's and Hi Powers or Glock 19's because they are reliable,easy to get ammo for, and readily available. Since movies are meant to mirror real life in some ways, maybe you are retarded to not realize that it might be relevant to the film maker what would be available and likely for a character to carry. -[[User:Captain America]]
::::Yes, of course the directors are going to ask for weapons that match the characters as accurately as possible, and they will ask the armorers (the people who supply and handle the weapons on the show) for advise on the correct weapons. One would, for instance, expect U.S. Army personnel in Vietnam to have XM16E1s or M16A1s, not the modern-day M4 used by today's troops. That being said, when it comes to something as minor as the particular caliber of a weapon (which looks identical to the same weapon in a different caliber), there isn't some iron law that the exact variant of a weapon in a movie (i.e. Glock 19 vs. Glock 23) absolutely '''has''' to accurately mirror what it would be in real life.
::::If you ever look at some of the pages on this site for WWII movies, you will notice that the Colt MK IV Series 70 in 9x19mm has often been used to stand-in for the [[M1911A1]] (which was the correct service pistol for the U.S. at the time). The reason for this is that for years, movie armorers had difficulty converting .45 ACP pistols to reliable blank-fire, so they used 9mm 1911 stand-ins (some of which are historical anachronisms) because they knew audience was not likely to recognize the difference. The same applies to Glocks - most armorers use (and still use) 9mm Glocks because that's what they had in stock. So they often use 9mm Glocks regardless of what the model should be in real life, because they know that even gun experts will not be able to tell the difference. That is the point I am making here. If your sole reference for a specific weapon in a movie is what it ''should'' be in real life, then you are thinking the wrong way. As our own MPM2008 (who is a movie armorer) has told us many times, the reality of movie gun use differs from the reality of real life ''very'' often. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
::::I understand the difference between movie guns and real guns completely. I just don't understand why someone would make an assumption that the Glock in this movie was a 23 when, as you said, people who are familiar with movie guns would know that they tend to be 9mm. Add to that the context of the movie, and again, why would someone even guess it was a 23? I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating that sometimes the "movie" gun used does not necessarily represent what the character is "supposed" to be carrying in the movie. Much like the Browning Hi Power used in Raiders of the Lost Ark. In the original script and artwork, Indy is "supposed" to be carrying a Colt 1911. But as we all know it back in the day it was hard to get .45's to function with blanks, so a BHP was used, thus still creating debate between what "was used" and what was "supposed to be" used. That was my only point about what a "real life" PSC would have used.-[[User:Captain America]]
I was the guy who originally stated it may be a G23. For the record, all I did was comment on the bore size, and said it looked kinda big for a 9mm. Someone took that to change the page.-AC
After doing some research, it seems that Glcok 19s are the prefered handgun of most contractors in Iraq. From Blackwater, to Armour Group.-AC
:Your research is irrelevant. Again, '''we don't care about real life.''' What matters is what the '''movie's armorers''' had in inventory. Thinking about real life is the wrong way to make your case, as I've said repeatedly on this page. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree, but for plot purposes, its probally supposed to be a 19.-AC
Why does there continue to be a disclaimer about the Glock? The OP admitted he guessed at the fact it was a 23 to begin with. Everyone agrees it is a 19. So then there is a disclaimer saying that it could be a 23 but it's not? The gun should simple be identified as what it is agreed to be. If there is a footnote, it should be on this discussion page.
== Movie Connections ==
Does this sucessful movie have any connections with the Matt Damon movie "Green Zone"?
Doubt it. --[[User:Crazycrankle|Crazycrankle]] 10:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
:Aside from taking place in Baghdad, it's doubtful. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
::I just saw ''Green Zone'' recently, and I can say that there is zero connection, besides the fact that both movies had the same cinematographer (according to one review I read). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:The Green Zone had a lot more Matt Damon shaking the camera during the action scenes [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]]
Actually, the "shaky camera" technique in The Green Zone is a common trademark in Paul Greengrass' films as he somewhat presumes that shaking the camera often makes the action scenes more intense and cool. Despite this, I consider it as annoying as you can't actually see the details of the scene (ex. say in ''The Bourne Ultimatum'' where I couldn't tell who is punching who), the scenes being zoomed in too far and not stable, causing motion sickness, and the camera shooting the scenes at a terrible angle. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 23:08, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
== Blood covered rounds?? ==
Would the blood on the Barrett rounds really be enough to jam them in the chamber? I could maybe see it if the blood were dried on & formed any sort of crusty residue (ICK!!)... [[User:Tommyt|Tommyt]] 03:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
:Maybe if there was a lot of blood and it congealed within the magazine. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 06:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
::Doesn't seem like there was that much time for the blood to coag, but it does sound plausible actually. There wasn't much of a time element to the scene I guess... thanks for the theory tho! [[User:Tommyt|Tommyt]] 03:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Just looking at the condition of that Barret with all the dust and sand, I would think that just that would be enough to jam the weapon.--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I assumed the sand that was kicking about would stick to the blood on the round, and tats what would cause a jam. Tho i also thought it would have been easier to empty the mag, and load the rounds into the breech directly, one shot at a time - Captain Snikt
::Anyway you have sand in any gun chamber will definitely damage the weapon in one way or another. Right? - [[User:S9771773G|S9771773G]]
I don't think it will damage the weapon but it can clog up the internals causing a possible failure. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 17:53, 2 November 2011 (CDT)
== Taking it a bit further... ==
If I may dork out a little more, it looked like he was using a SOG Power Plier multitool in the beginning, but later switched to a Leatherman Wave. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 06:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
== Barrett Shells ==
When Sanborn is using the barrett, as he reloads you can see the magazine is loaded with (live?) rounds in one shot, and then in another shot, as he is inserting the magazine, the shells have no bullets in them. And right after this, they show another shot of the mag and it is loaded with live rounds again. WTF? --[[User:FirearmFanatic|FirearmFanatic]] 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
:You sure they are live rounds? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]]
What I mean is that they have the appearance of live rounds. They have the slug in the shell casing. But when Sanborn reloads, they show two different shots. In one, he holds a loaded magazine, but in the other he has what looks like just empty shell casings. Watch the part again if you can and tell me what you think. --[[User:FirearmFanatic|FirearmFanatic]] 12:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
:They'd be dummy rounds (no propellent or primer) though from what you're explaining it sounds like they failed at editing, ussaly dummy rounds would be shown being loaded, then blanks would be switched out off camera then filming would continue giving the effect that a round had been loaded but in reality a blank is being fired (look into the death of Brandon lee to see how they can still go wrong...)
== Airsoft? ==
Ok, who put the Airsoft M4 there and what proof is there that there are Airsoft M4s? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In some scenes, Sandborn and Eldridge have Classic Army M15A4 airsoft rifle replicas.
Like this one - http://shop.georgiaairsoft.com/ProductImages/CA%20M15A4%20CARBINE%20RIS%20AEG%20NEW%20MODEL%20WEBSIZE%20IMAGE.jpg - If you look closely at recievers of their guns, you would see the white "Armalite" logo partially covered with black paint and Save - Semi - Auto highlighted with white paint on the fire selector. As far as I know, no real AR-15 manufacurer (apart from the HK and their HK-416) does not highlight markings on AR-15 recievers with white paint.
::::I just watched this movie on Blu Ray again, and I can confirm that yes, the non-firing M4s in the movie are Classic Army airsoft replicas (some of them don't even have completely blacked-out markings). We've already pointed out that the buttstocks of the M4s in the movie keep changing from 6-position to 4-position types. From what I can tell, any time you see an M4 with a 4-position stock, it's a Classic Army replica. The real M4s used in the movie all have 6-position stocks. They probably used the Classic Army weapons so that the actors could handle them when the armorer wasn't on-set. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::What exactly ''are'' Airsoft replicas, and how are they so different from the actual rifles (so they can be used on set w/o an armorer present, as mentioned in the article)?[[User:Sentient6|Sentient6]] 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't understand...are you asking what airsoft guns are? -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 01:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
::::I think he's asking what airsoft is. Airsoft replicas are replicas of real world firarms that shoot plastic BBs and can be powered by CO2, springs, even electric motors. High quality airsoft replicas are often used when it is more economical to do so, since they are less expensive than actual firearms. The trained eye can spot a lot of instances of this in this movie - burgershot621
:::::They don't use airsoft guns because they're less expensive. The real guns you see in movies aren't ''bought''; they are ''rented'' (usually, on a weekly basis). Airsoft guns are used in locations where the gun laws are so restrictive that real can't be handled on-set without a licensed armorer present (i.e. Jordan, where this movie was filmed). Since airsoft guns are not real, they can be handled by the actors when the armorer isn't on-set, which saves money. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::I stand corrected, they are less expensive to use on set. - Burgershot621
:::::::Yeah, I was asking what Airsoft replicas are.. Thanks for the answer =) - [[User:Sentient6|Sentient6]] 16:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter about gun laws. If a blank firing firearm is on set it is required that an armourer is on set regardless of the country it is filmed in. Airsoft guns are used for non-firing scenes because it is cheaper than having an armourer on set which is required even if they are not loaded. It's all down to health and safety, an armourer is needed because they need someone on the set who has a lot of experience and to be responsible for the handling of the weapons. If airsoft guns are used without a battery in them the AEGs (most of the rifles) pose no threat. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 17:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
== M 136. ==
One of the soldiers near the end, that has cordoned off the forced suicide bomber has an M-136 on his back. It can be seen fairly clearly, when he pulls the interpretor behind cover.
:Correct. Also, the guy who apprehends James at the checkpoint (after his vigilante mission) has what seems to be a Remington 870 folder. I'll get them all added when I do the Blu-Ray update to this page (can't give an ETA yet, but hopefully this weekend). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 13:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't notice the remington.
On a sidenote, what pistol does James have when he goes on his little vigilante crusade? Most of the camera angles for that part, make it hard to identify the trigger guard.
:It's a Beretta 92 series. I'm pretty sure it was a 92FS, from the hooked trigger, but I'll have to check. --''[[User:Blemo|<span style="color: gray; font-family: georgia; font-size: 10pt;"><font color="#D3D3D3">'''B'''</font><font color="#A9A9A9">'''le'''</font><font color="#808080">'''mo'''</font></span>]] <small><sup>[[user talk:Blemo|<font color="#A9A9A9">'''TALK'''</font>]]</sup></small> • <sub><small> [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|<font color="#A9A9A9">'''CONTRIBUTIONS'''</font>]]</small></sub> • <sub><small>[[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|<font color="#A9A9A9">'''EMAIL'''</font>]]</small></sub> • <sub><small><font color="#A9A9A9"><span style="font-weight: light;" title="By the time you finish reading this hidden message, twelve nuclear warheads will have been launched toward your location. Thank you and have a nice day.">'''MESSAGE'''</span></font></small></sub>'' 10:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
== Six wheeled armore vehicles. ==
What models are those six whelled APCs seen throughout the movie? I dont know if this site is a good place to ask this, but i cant find it anywhere.
Also, I assume there stand-ins for Strikers.-AC
:::The vehicles are South African Ratel IFVs, likely borrowed from the Royal Jordanian Land Force (where the movie was filmed). IMCDB has a thorough list of the vehicles if you are interested. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
== Eldridge's Eye Protection ==
Although it may be irrelevant, does anyone happen to know what brand or type of eye protection (or shooting glasses) that Eldridge uses throughout the movie? My guess is the Oakley M-Frame Sweeps with the clear lenses, but I'm not sure. Thanks. --''[[User:Blemo|<span style="color: gray; font-family: georgia; font-size: 10pt;"><font color="#D3D3D3">'''B'''</font><font color="#A9A9A9">'''le'''</font><font color="#808080">'''mo'''</font></span>]] <small><sup>[[user talk:Blemo|<font color="#A9A9A9">'''TALK'''</font>]]</sup></small> • <sub><small> [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|<font color="#A9A9A9">'''CONTRIBUTIONS'''</font>]]</small></sub> • <sub><small>[[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|<font color="#A9A9A9">'''EMAIL'''</font>]]</small></sub> • <sub><small><font color="#A9A9A9"><span style="font-weight: light;" title="By the time you finish reading this hidden message, twelve nuclear warheads will have been launched toward your location. Thank you and have a nice day.">'''MESSAGE'''</span></font></small></sub>'' 08:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I reckon that is ESS product, check their page cuz I dont know what the product name is
==Blu-Ray update finished==
Sorry it took me so long. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 19:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
== James' Knife ==
Can anyone tell me what knife James had in his hand after disarming the "Send Us All To Jesus" VB-IED? The one he throws in the back before Sanborn thumps him.
Can anyone help me out?
Thanks.
Benchmade 155. Next time try google I found the answer in .032 seconds. Your Welcome. Gunner313
==Barrett Description Tweak==
One of the admins might want to tweak the description for the M107. The current line reads ''"It should be noted that Sanborn and the other EOD members could conceivably know how to operate this rifle since one of the M107's uses as an anti-materiel rifle is using it to destroy IED's from a distance."'' The last half of that line should probably read ''"...as a one of the M107's uses as an anti-materiel rifle is to destroy IED's from a distance."'' The "uses... is using it" is a little awkward. I would tweak this myself, but the page is kinda' locked down.--[[User:PistolJunkie|PistolJunkie]] 02:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
:I changed it, the page was locked because a user kept changing the Glock model. But shouldn't it be "as a one of the M107's uses is an anti-materiel rifle is to destroy IED's from a distance."?--[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 03:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
::Current line: "as a one of the M107's uses as an anti-materiel rifle is to destroy IED's from a distance". Just remove that first "a". Changing the "as an" to "is an" wouldn't read as smoothly. Since it's describing a role that it serves specifically because it functions as an anti-materiel rifle (as opposed to just a regular sniper rifle), "as an" works just fine.--[[User:PistolJunkie|PistolJunkie]] 05:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
== The PMC AKMS is not really AKMS ==
I do not think that is purely AKMS cuz you could see the reciever should be AKS47...
:You are correct that it is not a regular AKMS (lacks the indent above the magazine well), but it is still a stamped receiver so not an AKS47 (that has a long rectangular indent above the magazine well. My guess, it is a [[AKMS#Romanian_WASR|Romanian WASR-10]]. There is no pic of this 7.62x39mm version on the site, but the rivets above the magazine well are in the same place as the other versions, making it a match for the film's guns. Apart from the Valmet M76 (where the rivets are in the wrong place and would need a lot more modification) this is the only gun I can think of which has a flat sided receiver above the mag well. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 06:03, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
::Just realised the one in the film has a folding stock, and should point out that there were underfolding variants of the WASR, although these were rare (apparently only 300 were imported into the US). Anyone know how difficult it is to turn a regular WASR into an under-folder? Is it just a case of replacing the rear trunnion and drilling a hole for the stock, or is it more complicated than that? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 07:37, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
:::The Hurt Locker wasn't filmed in the US though so it's more likely that some of the weapons came from more local armourers. It is possible that most of the PMC AKMS rifles were actually airsoft guns as well as I only remember one of the PMC people actually firing his rifle, but it's been a while since I've seen this. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 07:57, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
::::Maybe, but bear in mind that if it was an airsoft gun it would either be based on an AK-47 or an AKM, and would have the correct lower receiver with dimple/indent. I don't think the WASR is only available in the US (I mentioned the number imported into US to demonstrate its relative rarity), it is the export version of the PM md. 63 so think it would be available in other countries. Having said that, I think the WASRs that are manufactured in Romania have single stack magazines (lack of dimple on lower receiver is to do with this) and the US WASRs are converted to double stack by the importer Century Arms, but I would assume that this conversion can be done by importers in countries other than the US or by individual armourers. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 08:39, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
:::::I mentioned about the filming location because you mentioned about only a few being exported into the US. Another gun that I thought it could be when I was looking on the AK page was the Bulgarian AR AKs. Is that a possibility? I don't know a lot about the differences between specific varients down to the little details lol. I only wondered that it could be an airsoft version because I'm pretty sure that one of the airsoft companies made an AK model that looked very similar to that at one point. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 10:07, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
::::::Is definitely not an Arsenel AR as that has no flash hider, larger type front sight and a milled receiver. The easiest way to tell receiver type is the long rectangular indent indent in the lower receiver above the magazine well on a milled receiver, wheras normally stamped receiver guns have a much smaller rounded indent above the magazine well. The gun in this film has neither, and the only AK pattern rifles I can think of that don't have an indent here are the Valmet M76 (which this isn't), and a WASR. I'm going to change the page to a WASR, as even if that isn't what the gun is, it is identical in every way as far as I can tell.--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:37, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
::::::::Here are my thoughts on this issue:
::::::::(1.) Someone pointed out that the weapon might have come from local armorers. Actually, most of the guns in this movie were supplied by American and Canadian armories and imported to Jordan for filming (if you look at the credits, the credited armorers include David Fencl, who is an American, and Charles Taylor, who is Canadian). With some exceptions - i.e. the Beretta 92 which came from a Jordanian military officer after the 92FS got held up in customs - we can assume most of the hardware in this film came from American armories.
::::::::(2.) I have postulated (though without evidence) that the AKMS rifles in this movie are the same ones from ''[[The Kingdom]]'' (an American movie filmed in the U.S.), except with the AK-74 flash hiders removed.
::::::::(3.) Movie guns are often built up from parts of different guns of different brands. This is particularly true of AR variants, which is why I always insist that we never label a gun as a "Colt M16A2" or "Colt M4A1" instead of just "M4A1". Indeed, in this movie, as I pointed out, the M4 used by Eldridge is actually an M4 upper on a Lewis Machine & Tool lower receiver. I would guess that the same is true of the AKMS rifles - they're custom-built guns that were constructed from stock receivers and fitted with parts kits.
::::::::(4.) Therefore, I do not want the rifles to be labeled as "WASR-10s" since we can't verify this. "AKMS" is the catch-all term for ALL rifles that look like AKMS until we can verify exact manufacturer. If any armorers on here can get us more info on these guns and prove that they are WASR-10s, then cool. Until then, we call them "AKMS".
::::::::Cheers, -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 08:48, 2 February 2012 (CST)
:::::::::These are not the same as the guns from ''The Kingodom'', as those ones are fitted with a different RIS system and use the standard stamped AKMS folding stock, wheras these guns use an AK-47 type stock. I don't see the problem with calling this a WASR-10, as this is the only gun that has a stamped receiver without the dimple above the magazine well. Although these may be built up from several different rifles, the receiver is unique to a WASR, and everything else matches a WASR-10. I think what I read before about the underfolding being rare (less than 300) was BS, as have googled it and have found a few of them for sale at about $400 - $500 so they are obviously around. Quoting from Wikipedia: "''After the sunset of the assault weapons ban, importers were able to legally equip WASR-10s with compensators, bayonet lugs, and folding stocks, thus making the GP WASR-10 (with GP standing for general purpose).''" --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:08, 2 February 2012 (CST)
Can the barrett use ammo from the M2 or are the bullets different sorta like 50. cal in pistols and 50. cal in rifles
It can, but different ammunition better suited to long range use is preferred over standard ball. Spartan198 17:27, 12 June 2011 (CDT)
The "Airsoft" M16A4
Someone said there they believe some of the M16A4s are airsoft because of "unnecessary screws in the A2 stocks" Can someone point out to me what they mean? Because my assumption would be that those are simply QD sling swivel holes being mistaken for screws. This is the only thing I know of thats common on airsoft AR15 full stocks that is rare on real ones.
The helmet covers
I know the military seems awesome and all, but they screw up sometimes too. They don't always issue the right shit, like the Marines in Generation Kill were issued the wrong camo for desert operations. Especially helmet covers. They are really bad on those. So it doesn't designate that hes EOD, it just shows that the Army screws up -The Winchester
Except that the Marines in the 2003 were issued woodland camo because the USMC already were replacing the desert camo and the woodland camo with MARPAT. Hence that Iceman was wearing MARPAT and so were the officers. The Army replaced the Desert Camo and the Woodland camo in 2005 so it's unlikely that in 2007 (the year the movie takes place) there would be still camouflage needed replacing. It's most likely that the Prop Department didn't have enough UCP helmet covers. The Prop Department also screwed up by giving a lot of soldiers PASGT helmets. By 2007 the MICH TC-2000 Combat Helmet had completely replaced the PASGT helmet.-Oliveira 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the USMC was issued MARPAT in 2003, but per the Army, the Woodland and DCU were officially no longer regulation at the end of October 2006. Even from that time, it took months for soldiers to get gear completely replaced. A rule of thumb ever since the American Civil War and one that applies today is that it takes about a YEAR from an official change to filter down to all soldiers in a theatre of operations.MoviePropMaster2008 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The woodland cover is probably just a stylistic choice on the part of the director to make Sergeant James more distinctive from the other members of the team and to enhance his "outsider" status. As for the PASGT helmets, The Hurt Locker is an indie film that was produced on a limited budget by most action movie standards, so it is far cheaper just to outfit everyone in the background with the existing PASGT helmets rather than to purchase genuine or replica MICH helmets. Markit
I agree. Makes more sense.-Oliveira 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't remember where the movie specifies when it takes place.-protoAuthor
Definitely right about the military screwing up, or sometimes new kit taking longer to get in service. I worked with US troops in 2007 that were still using mixed camouflage and ALICE gear. Out of a whole battalion I think like 5 guys had all the new stuff. Hell, sometimes it depends on what base you get issued your kit at. I got my tans in Winnipeg and got the old desert boots, everyone who kitted in Edmonton got the new ones. - Nyles
Sometimes they don't even issue people the correct sidearms due to limited supplies. For example, My cousin was issued a very old M1911 when he joined the Navy (He now has a privately owned Desert Warrior)and many of the people that he was with ddn't get the M9 either-S&Wshooter 20:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Could be worse, we've used the Inglis Hi Power so long we don't have anything else in stores but 1050 Sig P225s we bought for MPs in the 90s. I wasn't even supposed to get one until they dug up a few more spares - I was literally last on the list to get one, the two guys in my section with names later in the alphabet didn't! Couldn't even get a shoulder holster because all the senior officers got them all.
Alright, I found out that this movie is set in 2004. Won't UCP be a inaccuracy?--Oliveira 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This movie isn't set in 2004; it's set in 2007, the same year it was filmed. I'm not sure why people think it's set in 2004. -MT2008
"In the summer of 2004". Mark Boal was also in Iraq in 2004.--Oliveira 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes could be wrong, too. They aren't exactly the official source. It's possible that whoever wrote the entry just assumed that because Mark Boal was in Iraq in 2004, the movie was set at the same time. -MT2008 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
NPR agrees with me too. [1].--Oliveira 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Saw it again today. Yeah, it's set in 2004.-protoAuthor 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The reviews indicate 2004, but iirc there is no explicit reference to that year in the movie, unless there was a scene that I forgot.--Markit 07:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
How about the beginning caption when the movie opens that says "Baghdad 2004".
That title only appeared in some of the releases of the film - for instance it is on the DVD, but not on the version screened internationally at film festivals.--Markit 22:34, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
Little off question. Why most hi-speeds ignore helmet covers? Pimpin'?
If it is set in 2004, then the ACU uniforms are anachronistic at the time as the ACU uniform was not issued until February 2005. A more accurate choice would be the DCU uniform. Also, the ACU uniforms in the movie appear to have an inaccurate appearance, such as the nametapes and the "U.S. Army" title in the wrong spots. - Kenny99 20:43, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
I dislike dredging up this two year old debate, but it isn't particularly clear whether the director/producers intentionally set the film in 2004 when it was being made- the title "2004" was added in afterwards when the movie got a wider release. At the same time, some of the inaccuracies also can be attributable to the film's relatively low budget (around $10 million iirc)- that probably meant less retakes to cover up mistakes such as the guns changing or incorrect nametapes and so on. --Markit 22:34, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
Watermarked pic
Putting this picture here until I can find one that doesn't have the watermark on it.
James and Sanborn open fire with their M4A1's at a pair of insurgents attempting to hold Eldridge prisoner. They manage to kill the pair, but Eldridge is hit in the femur thereafter.
I believe Renner's character wore Sergeant First Class (E-7 - Three stripes up with two rockers below) chevrons. This is a rank that is one grade higher than Staff Sergeant. Also, SSGT is not an abriviation used by the US Army as SSG is used instead.
SSGT is Marine Corps abbreviation. Spartan198 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
SSGT may be a USMC designation but this movie is about US Army Soldiers, not Marines.
Yes, we already know that. I was pointing out that SSGT is the Marine Corps abbreviation for the rank, not that the soldiers in the movie were Marines. And sign your posts by typing four ~ symbols at the end of it. Spartan198 20:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Glock?
Is that a Glock 23 or 19? im so bad with glocks :(
It's always hard to tell Glock models based on bore diameter, but IMFDB's rule of thumb is to assume that a pistol is a 9mm model unless we have inside information that the gun is another caliber, or unless there is a close-up of the slide where we can see caliber/model number markings. We do know that historically, movie armorers have tended to use 9mm pistols because this caliber is the easiest and most reliable to convert to blank-fire. So it's a safe bet that this Glock is probably a G19. -MT2008 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Think about it: If a contractor in the middle east is carrying a Glock, would it be a 19 or a 23? How easy do you think it is to find some 40sw there?
Right, but that would be real life, whereas this is a movie. Since this is a site about guns in movies, what's relevant to us is what caliber pistols are most likely to be in the inventory of Hollywood's prop houses. The movie armorers who are readers/members of this very site have told us that prop houses tend to stock mostly 9mm pistols. Sometimes, I feel that trying to explain this stuff to people is like spitting into the wind. -MT2008 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I just removed some commentary by another person who actually tried to make the argument using a reference to the real-life availability of Glock 19s in Iraq. It's not that I disagree the pistol is probably a Glock 19 - but I find it unfathomable that anyone could fail to understand that there's a difference between real and life and what armorers bring to a movie set. Am I just too OCD, or is it downright retarded to use real life to argue what guns are used in a movie? How is it that people can't grasp the difference? -MT2008 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not unfathomable to think that the film makers might have actually done research and asked themselves what kind of weapons a British contractor might use in Iraq. I feel this is especially so because he is also using an AK. If they didn't do any research why not just give him an AR or SA80? I personally know British contractors who carry Ak's and Hi Powers or Glock 19's because they are reliable,easy to get ammo for, and readily available. Since movies are meant to mirror real life in some ways, maybe you are retarded to not realize that it might be relevant to the film maker what would be available and likely for a character to carry. -User:Captain America
Yes, of course the directors are going to ask for weapons that match the characters as accurately as possible, and they will ask the armorers (the people who supply and handle the weapons on the show) for advise on the correct weapons. One would, for instance, expect U.S. Army personnel in Vietnam to have XM16E1s or M16A1s, not the modern-day M4 used by today's troops. That being said, when it comes to something as minor as the particular caliber of a weapon (which looks identical to the same weapon in a different caliber), there isn't some iron law that the exact variant of a weapon in a movie (i.e. Glock 19 vs. Glock 23) absolutely has to accurately mirror what it would be in real life.
If you ever look at some of the pages on this site for WWII movies, you will notice that the Colt MK IV Series 70 in 9x19mm has often been used to stand-in for the M1911A1 (which was the correct service pistol for the U.S. at the time). The reason for this is that for years, movie armorers had difficulty converting .45 ACP pistols to reliable blank-fire, so they used 9mm 1911 stand-ins (some of which are historical anachronisms) because they knew audience was not likely to recognize the difference. The same applies to Glocks - most armorers use (and still use) 9mm Glocks because that's what they had in stock. So they often use 9mm Glocks regardless of what the model should be in real life, because they know that even gun experts will not be able to tell the difference. That is the point I am making here. If your sole reference for a specific weapon in a movie is what it should be in real life, then you are thinking the wrong way. As our own MPM2008 (who is a movie armorer) has told us many times, the reality of movie gun use differs from the reality of real life very often. -MT2008 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand the difference between movie guns and real guns completely. I just don't understand why someone would make an assumption that the Glock in this movie was a 23 when, as you said, people who are familiar with movie guns would know that they tend to be 9mm. Add to that the context of the movie, and again, why would someone even guess it was a 23? I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating that sometimes the "movie" gun used does not necessarily represent what the character is "supposed" to be carrying in the movie. Much like the Browning Hi Power used in Raiders of the Lost Ark. In the original script and artwork, Indy is "supposed" to be carrying a Colt 1911. But as we all know it back in the day it was hard to get .45's to function with blanks, so a BHP was used, thus still creating debate between what "was used" and what was "supposed to be" used. That was my only point about what a "real life" PSC would have used.-User:Captain America
I was the guy who originally stated it may be a G23. For the record, all I did was comment on the bore size, and said it looked kinda big for a 9mm. Someone took that to change the page.-AC
After doing some research, it seems that Glcok 19s are the prefered handgun of most contractors in Iraq. From Blackwater, to Armour Group.-AC
Your research is irrelevant. Again, we don't care about real life. What matters is what the movie's armorers had in inventory. Thinking about real life is the wrong way to make your case, as I've said repeatedly on this page. -MT2008 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree, but for plot purposes, its probally supposed to be a 19.-AC
Why does there continue to be a disclaimer about the Glock? The OP admitted he guessed at the fact it was a 23 to begin with. Everyone agrees it is a 19. So then there is a disclaimer saying that it could be a 23 but it's not? The gun should simple be identified as what it is agreed to be. If there is a footnote, it should be on this discussion page.
Movie Connections
Does this sucessful movie have any connections with the Matt Damon movie "Green Zone"?
Doubt it. --Crazycrankle 10:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Aside from taking place in Baghdad, it's doubtful. Spartan198 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I just saw Green Zone recently, and I can say that there is zero connection, besides the fact that both movies had the same cinematographer (according to one review I read). -MT2008 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The Green Zone had a lot more Matt Damon shaking the camera during the action scenes Excalibur01
Actually, the "shaky camera" technique in The Green Zone is a common trademark in Paul Greengrass' films as he somewhat presumes that shaking the camera often makes the action scenes more intense and cool. Despite this, I consider it as annoying as you can't actually see the details of the scene (ex. say in The Bourne Ultimatum where I couldn't tell who is punching who), the scenes being zoomed in too far and not stable, causing motion sickness, and the camera shooting the scenes at a terrible angle. - Kenny99 23:08, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
Blood covered rounds??
Would the blood on the Barrett rounds really be enough to jam them in the chamber? I could maybe see it if the blood were dried on & formed any sort of crusty residue (ICK!!)... Tommyt 03:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe if there was a lot of blood and it congealed within the magazine. --Funkychinaman 06:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like there was that much time for the blood to coag, but it does sound plausible actually. There wasn't much of a time element to the scene I guess... thanks for the theory tho! Tommyt 03:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Just looking at the condition of that Barret with all the dust and sand, I would think that just that would be enough to jam the weapon.--MarineCorps1 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I assumed the sand that was kicking about would stick to the blood on the round, and tats what would cause a jam. Tho i also thought it would have been easier to empty the mag, and load the rounds into the breech directly, one shot at a time - Captain Snikt
Anyway you have sand in any gun chamber will definitely damage the weapon in one way or another. Right? - S9771773G
I don't think it will damage the weapon but it can clog up the internals causing a possible failure. --cool-breeze 17:53, 2 November 2011 (CDT)
Taking it a bit further...
If I may dork out a little more, it looked like he was using a SOG Power Plier multitool in the beginning, but later switched to a Leatherman Wave. --Funkychinaman 06:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Barrett Shells
When Sanborn is using the barrett, as he reloads you can see the magazine is loaded with (live?) rounds in one shot, and then in another shot, as he is inserting the magazine, the shells have no bullets in them. And right after this, they show another shot of the mag and it is loaded with live rounds again. WTF? --FirearmFanatic 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that they have the appearance of live rounds. They have the slug in the shell casing. But when Sanborn reloads, they show two different shots. In one, he holds a loaded magazine, but in the other he has what looks like just empty shell casings. Watch the part again if you can and tell me what you think. --FirearmFanatic 12:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
They'd be dummy rounds (no propellent or primer) though from what you're explaining it sounds like they failed at editing, ussaly dummy rounds would be shown being loaded, then blanks would be switched out off camera then filming would continue giving the effect that a round had been loaded but in reality a blank is being fired (look into the death of Brandon lee to see how they can still go wrong...)
Airsoft?
Ok, who put the Airsoft M4 there and what proof is there that there are Airsoft M4s? Excalibur01 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In some scenes, Sandborn and Eldridge have Classic Army M15A4 airsoft rifle replicas.
Like this one - http://shop.georgiaairsoft.com/ProductImages/CA%20M15A4%20CARBINE%20RIS%20AEG%20NEW%20MODEL%20WEBSIZE%20IMAGE.jpg - If you look closely at recievers of their guns, you would see the white "Armalite" logo partially covered with black paint and Save - Semi - Auto highlighted with white paint on the fire selector. As far as I know, no real AR-15 manufacurer (apart from the HK and their HK-416) does not highlight markings on AR-15 recievers with white paint.
I just watched this movie on Blu Ray again, and I can confirm that yes, the non-firing M4s in the movie are Classic Army airsoft replicas (some of them don't even have completely blacked-out markings). We've already pointed out that the buttstocks of the M4s in the movie keep changing from 6-position to 4-position types. From what I can tell, any time you see an M4 with a 4-position stock, it's a Classic Army replica. The real M4s used in the movie all have 6-position stocks. They probably used the Classic Army weapons so that the actors could handle them when the armorer wasn't on-set. -MT2008 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are Airsoft replicas, and how are they so different from the actual rifles (so they can be used on set w/o an armorer present, as mentioned in the article)?Sentient6 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand...are you asking what airsoft guns are? -MT2008 01:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think he's asking what airsoft is. Airsoft replicas are replicas of real world firarms that shoot plastic BBs and can be powered by CO2, springs, even electric motors. High quality airsoft replicas are often used when it is more economical to do so, since they are less expensive than actual firearms. The trained eye can spot a lot of instances of this in this movie - burgershot621
They don't use airsoft guns because they're less expensive. The real guns you see in movies aren't bought; they are rented (usually, on a weekly basis). Airsoft guns are used in locations where the gun laws are so restrictive that real can't be handled on-set without a licensed armorer present (i.e. Jordan, where this movie was filmed). Since airsoft guns are not real, they can be handled by the actors when the armorer isn't on-set, which saves money. -MT2008 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected, they are less expensive to use on set. - Burgershot621
Yeah, I was asking what Airsoft replicas are.. Thanks for the answer =) - Sentient6 16:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter about gun laws. If a blank firing firearm is on set it is required that an armourer is on set regardless of the country it is filmed in. Airsoft guns are used for non-firing scenes because it is cheaper than having an armourer on set which is required even if they are not loaded. It's all down to health and safety, an armourer is needed because they need someone on the set who has a lot of experience and to be responsible for the handling of the weapons. If airsoft guns are used without a battery in them the AEGs (most of the rifles) pose no threat. --cool-breeze 17:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
M 136.
One of the soldiers near the end, that has cordoned off the forced suicide bomber has an M-136 on his back. It can be seen fairly clearly, when he pulls the interpretor behind cover.
Correct. Also, the guy who apprehends James at the checkpoint (after his vigilante mission) has what seems to be a Remington 870 folder. I'll get them all added when I do the Blu-Ray update to this page (can't give an ETA yet, but hopefully this weekend). -MT2008 13:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't notice the remington.
On a sidenote, what pistol does James have when he goes on his little vigilante crusade? Most of the camera angles for that part, make it hard to identify the trigger guard.
It's a Beretta 92 series. I'm pretty sure it was a 92FS, from the hooked trigger, but I'll have to check. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 10:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Six wheeled armore vehicles.
What models are those six whelled APCs seen throughout the movie? I dont know if this site is a good place to ask this, but i cant find it anywhere.
Also, I assume there stand-ins for Strikers.-AC
The vehicles are South African Ratel IFVs, likely borrowed from the Royal Jordanian Land Force (where the movie was filmed). IMCDB has a thorough list of the vehicles if you are interested. --Markit 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Eldridge's Eye Protection
Although it may be irrelevant, does anyone happen to know what brand or type of eye protection (or shooting glasses) that Eldridge uses throughout the movie? My guess is the Oakley M-Frame Sweeps with the clear lenses, but I'm not sure. Thanks. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 08:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I reckon that is ESS product, check their page cuz I dont know what the product name is
Blu-Ray update finished
Sorry it took me so long. -MT2008 19:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
James' Knife
Can anyone tell me what knife James had in his hand after disarming the "Send Us All To Jesus" VB-IED? The one he throws in the back before Sanborn thumps him.
Can anyone help me out?
Thanks.
Benchmade 155. Next time try google I found the answer in .032 seconds. Your Welcome. Gunner313
Barrett Description Tweak
One of the admins might want to tweak the description for the M107. The current line reads "It should be noted that Sanborn and the other EOD members could conceivably know how to operate this rifle since one of the M107's uses as an anti-materiel rifle is using it to destroy IED's from a distance." The last half of that line should probably read "...as a one of the M107's uses as an anti-materiel rifle is to destroy IED's from a distance." The "uses... is using it" is a little awkward. I would tweak this myself, but the page is kinda' locked down.--PistolJunkie 02:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed it, the page was locked because a user kept changing the Glock model. But shouldn't it be "as a one of the M107's uses is an anti-materiel rifle is to destroy IED's from a distance."?--Predator20 03:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Current line: "as a one of the M107's uses as an anti-materiel rifle is to destroy IED's from a distance". Just remove that first "a". Changing the "as an" to "is an" wouldn't read as smoothly. Since it's describing a role that it serves specifically because it functions as an anti-materiel rifle (as opposed to just a regular sniper rifle), "as an" works just fine.--PistolJunkie 05:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The PMC AKMS is not really AKMS
I do not think that is purely AKMS cuz you could see the reciever should be AKS47...
You are correct that it is not a regular AKMS (lacks the indent above the magazine well), but it is still a stamped receiver so not an AKS47 (that has a long rectangular indent above the magazine well. My guess, it is a Romanian WASR-10. There is no pic of this 7.62x39mm version on the site, but the rivets above the magazine well are in the same place as the other versions, making it a match for the film's guns. Apart from the Valmet M76 (where the rivets are in the wrong place and would need a lot more modification) this is the only gun I can think of which has a flat sided receiver above the mag well. --commando552 06:03, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
Just realised the one in the film has a folding stock, and should point out that there were underfolding variants of the WASR, although these were rare (apparently only 300 were imported into the US). Anyone know how difficult it is to turn a regular WASR into an under-folder? Is it just a case of replacing the rear trunnion and drilling a hole for the stock, or is it more complicated than that? --commando552 07:37, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
The Hurt Locker wasn't filmed in the US though so it's more likely that some of the weapons came from more local armourers. It is possible that most of the PMC AKMS rifles were actually airsoft guns as well as I only remember one of the PMC people actually firing his rifle, but it's been a while since I've seen this. --cool-breeze 07:57, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
Maybe, but bear in mind that if it was an airsoft gun it would either be based on an AK-47 or an AKM, and would have the correct lower receiver with dimple/indent. I don't think the WASR is only available in the US (I mentioned the number imported into US to demonstrate its relative rarity), it is the export version of the PM md. 63 so think it would be available in other countries. Having said that, I think the WASRs that are manufactured in Romania have single stack magazines (lack of dimple on lower receiver is to do with this) and the US WASRs are converted to double stack by the importer Century Arms, but I would assume that this conversion can be done by importers in countries other than the US or by individual armourers. --commando552 08:39, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
I mentioned about the filming location because you mentioned about only a few being exported into the US. Another gun that I thought it could be when I was looking on the AK page was the Bulgarian AR AKs. Is that a possibility? I don't know a lot about the differences between specific varients down to the little details lol. I only wondered that it could be an airsoft version because I'm pretty sure that one of the airsoft companies made an AK model that looked very similar to that at one point. --cool-breeze 10:07, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
Is definitely not an Arsenel AR as that has no flash hider, larger type front sight and a milled receiver. The easiest way to tell receiver type is the long rectangular indent indent in the lower receiver above the magazine well on a milled receiver, wheras normally stamped receiver guns have a much smaller rounded indent above the magazine well. The gun in this film has neither, and the only AK pattern rifles I can think of that don't have an indent here are the Valmet M76 (which this isn't), and a WASR. I'm going to change the page to a WASR, as even if that isn't what the gun is, it is identical in every way as far as I can tell.--commando552 11:37, 8 October 2011 (CDT)
Here are my thoughts on this issue:
(1.) Someone pointed out that the weapon might have come from local armorers. Actually, most of the guns in this movie were supplied by American and Canadian armories and imported to Jordan for filming (if you look at the credits, the credited armorers include David Fencl, who is an American, and Charles Taylor, who is Canadian). With some exceptions - i.e. the Beretta 92 which came from a Jordanian military officer after the 92FS got held up in customs - we can assume most of the hardware in this film came from American armories.
(2.) I have postulated (though without evidence) that the AKMS rifles in this movie are the same ones from The Kingdom (an American movie filmed in the U.S.), except with the AK-74 flash hiders removed.
(3.) Movie guns are often built up from parts of different guns of different brands. This is particularly true of AR variants, which is why I always insist that we never label a gun as a "Colt M16A2" or "Colt M4A1" instead of just "M4A1". Indeed, in this movie, as I pointed out, the M4 used by Eldridge is actually an M4 upper on a Lewis Machine & Tool lower receiver. I would guess that the same is true of the AKMS rifles - they're custom-built guns that were constructed from stock receivers and fitted with parts kits.
(4.) Therefore, I do not want the rifles to be labeled as "WASR-10s" since we can't verify this. "AKMS" is the catch-all term for ALL rifles that look like AKMS until we can verify exact manufacturer. If any armorers on here can get us more info on these guns and prove that they are WASR-10s, then cool. Until then, we call them "AKMS".
These are not the same as the guns from The Kingodom, as those ones are fitted with a different RIS system and use the standard stamped AKMS folding stock, wheras these guns use an AK-47 type stock. I don't see the problem with calling this a WASR-10, as this is the only gun that has a stamped receiver without the dimple above the magazine well. Although these may be built up from several different rifles, the receiver is unique to a WASR, and everything else matches a WASR-10. I think what I read before about the underfolding being rare (less than 300) was BS, as have googled it and have found a few of them for sale at about $400 - $500 so they are obviously around. Quoting from Wikipedia: "After the sunset of the assault weapons ban, importers were able to legally equip WASR-10s with compensators, bayonet lugs, and folding stocks, thus making the GP WASR-10 (with GP standing for general purpose)." --commando552 10:08, 2 February 2012 (CST)
