Talk:Tears of the Sun: Difference between revisions
Talk:Tears of the Sun: Difference between revisions - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Talk:Tears of the Sun: Difference between revisions
:I do not understand why the medic and the signaller, who would carry the heaviest loads, are both armed with heavier weapons plus ammunition.
:I do not understand why the medic and the signaller, who would carry the heaviest loads, are both armed with heavier weapons plus ammunition.
i wouldnt call the m203 the heaviest load . theres the M60 , but that is strange . usualy some one else would have tham to cover those two positions but its a movie . -[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]]
== Not an M1A ==
== Not an M1A ==
If you enlarge the second picture and look at the stock near the rear of the reciever, you'll see that it is cut for the selector switch. No M1A stock is like this, but all wood stocked M21 are since they're just rebarreled M14s with the selector removed and a scope attached. --[[User:Zurak 47|Zurak 47]] 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If you enlarge the second picture and look at the stock near the rear of the reciever, you'll see that it is cut for the selector switch. No M1A stock is like this, but all wood stocked M21 are since they're just rebarreled M14s with the selector removed and a scope attached. --[[User:Zurak 47|Zurak 47]] 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:I just watched the film again and I agree with you. His rifle obviously has a cut-out for a selector switch , and M1A rifles were never fitted with stocks that had a cut-out for a selector switch, since they were civilian rifles. -Jacco Croon-
::Somebody should do something about this. [[User:BurtReynoldsMoustache|BurtReynoldsMoustache]]
::: It is correct, the first screencap itself shows a notch for a fire-selector, which is not on any civilian semi-auto-only rifles, only actual M14s and M21s. As to whether this is an M14 or M21 I'm not particularly certain (The same mod involving removing the selector was done on normal M14s), however, it indeed is not an M1A. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
: EDIT - Going through the edit logs, I've found it was previously called an M25, which from what I gather, is what the Navy designates the M21 as (The Army uses the M21 designation). SO, to be accurate, I'll edit to M25 instead of M21. Of course, I still doubt whether it is an actual M21/M25 and not just a modded M14, but I guess we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a Modded M1A. you can see the reciver through the notch in the stock and not only is it missing the selector lock that is on a real M21/M25 but it is missing the Lug that mounts Select fire control parts. It is an M1A. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 22:03, 24 April 2011 (CDT)
== Shotgun muzzle device... ==
== Shotgun muzzle device... ==
Line 39:
Line 52:
Here are the main knives used; Emerson Police Utility Knife, Sog X-42 Recondo and Emerson Kandahar. Gunner313
Here are the main knives used; Emerson Police Utility Knife, Sog X-42 Recondo and Emerson Kandahar. Gunner313
Silk: Hard to tell if Kabar 1256 w/ kydex sheat or another Ontario.
Doc: Ontario SP knife.
Zee: Emerson LaGrieffe, Kabar.
:I'm pretty sure Waters' third knife (on his left leg) was another Kandahar, not a Recondo. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 06:43, 24 July 2020 (EDT)
== Doc's AK ==
== Doc's AK ==
Line 47:
Line 73:
The PP looks a little short. Are we sure it's not a PPK? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The PP looks a little short. Are we sure it's not a PPK? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like a FEG PA-63 to me.
==Uniform Goofs==
==Uniform Goofs==
Just thought I'd point out a goof I noticed in the Marines' uniforms at the end of the film; they had the sleeves of their BDU uniforms rolled up. This is ONLY done when in garrison, NEVER during combat. Some people might also say that their BDU's were somewhat anachronistic as well, but this can be debatable as the digital MARPAT uniform was still being distributed to Marines. In fact, news footage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which took place the same year this film came out) often shows Marines wearing the older 3-color Desert Combat Uniform instead of MARPAT.
Just thought I'd point out a goof I noticed in the Marines' uniforms at the end of the film; they had the sleeves of their BDU uniforms rolled up. This is ONLY done when in garrison, NEVER during combat. Some people might also say that their BDU's were somewhat anachronistic as well, but this can be debatable as the digital MARPAT uniform was still being distributed to Marines. In fact, news footage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which took place the same year this film came out) often shows Marines wearing the older 3-color Desert Combat Uniform instead of MARPAT (when they weren't covered by woodland-patterned MOPP gear due to fears that Saddam might try to use WMD's against coalition forces).
::Technically manning a refugee checkpoint is NOT considered a battle zone. I've asked that question of Jarheads and they said that (a) it was probably really hot and humid and (b) whatever the uniform of the day dictated would be what they were wearing and (c) the moment a senior officer gets fed up and rolls up his sleeves because of the heat, all bets are off, the rest of the brigade will be doing it. They are not actively patrolling for enemy combatants or on an actual combat mission. They're border security at a refugee camp. So yes, that is the rule and in the field there are always exceptions to the rule. At least that's what my USMC vet associates have said. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]]
:::I'm afraid I have to disagree; the Marines weren't manning that checkpoint, they had just landed there via helicopter from the ''Stennis'' to extract Waters' team, which would likely count as a combat mission since Waters' team was under heavy enemy attack when the Marines initially deployed(albet the threat was neutralized by air support by the time the Marines got boots on the ground) and were in full battle gear as if expecting to engage hostiles themselves. Not trying to start an arguement, just pointing out an oversight in your asessment. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right if they are landing from a helicopter into a hotzone then it is a combat OP and they would have their sleeves down. Though that is operational doctrine, I would at least opine (according to MANY COMBAT vets in past wars, not now, but back to even NAM) that regs got loose the more combat you saw. Even among marines. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]]
[[Image:TOTS M16A2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|US Marines at the Cameroon border, incorrectly having the sleeves of ther BDU's rolled up while in a combat zone.]]
[[Image:TOTS M16A2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|US Marines at the Cameroon border, incorrectly having the sleeves of ther BDU's rolled up while in a combat zone.]]
[[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
== M203s are Cobray 37mm Launchers ==
I'm pretty sure that both the M203s on Doc and Zee's M4s are Cobray 37mm launchers. I'm basing this on the screenshots taken. If you blow them up to full size you can see the cocking handle on them.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
:I'm looking at a very nice close-up of the receiver on Doc's launcher at the 1 hour mark of the film (the scene where they're at rest and everyone's eating) on my TV and I can tell you there's no cocking handle and the trigger guard is a rounded shape rather than square like a CM203's trigger guard is. They are indeed actual M203s. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
== Biased, Personal Comments ==
Does it really matter if a Beretta 92FS made it into the movie or not? The comment of "While I was hoping to get through a movie without a Beretta 92FS, but sure enough, one shows up in the hands of a militant officer" seems unnecessary. [[Special:Contributions/71.200.27.204|71.200.27.204]] 11:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
:Yes it is unnecessary. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 13:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Berettas appear in pretty much most modern movies involving lots of guns, plus it doesn't really make sense of how it this militant officer had one. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Its not a problem to see the comment so just leave it as is.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
::Nope, IT IS UNNECESSARY. Or at least change the tone of the comment, making it more scholastic, and not the musing of a snarky, sarcastic critic. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]]
Why wouldn't the militant officer be able to get one? they can buy arms just like any other country. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That comment has always annoyed me too. If you're going to lament the ubiquity of Beretta 92s in movies, you might as well complain about all the Thompsons in WW2 films, or Peacemakers in Westerns. I may not like the Smith and Wesson semi-automatics, but I understand there are people who do, for valid reasons, so I keep my opinions to myself, instead of using the IMFDB as a soapbox to espouse my hate for them.--[[User:Mr-Jigsaw|Mr-Jigsaw]] 22:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, it was originally a sarcastic comment due to the fact that all of the movies ive done in the past have had Berettas in them and being sarcastic doesnt work in writing. And honestly, i love Berettas and own one of my own. Sorry for the trouble. -[[User:The_Winchester|Winchester]]
just saying but the movie battle of the bulge used all Grease Guns or at least dominately which is a nice change. just saying [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|Dirtdiver 6421]] 01:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
== Missiles ==
Is it worth pointing out that the Hornets missile load outs are all air-to-air weapons, which would be useless against ground targets? Or is that to far out of IMFDB's area of jurisdiction? [[User:Pravda616|Pravda616]] 17:59 4/3/11
:I've never found any AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-120 AMRAAM pages on this site, so I surmise that yes, aircraft ordinance such as missiles and bombs are out of the scope of the site. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:55, 21 June 2011 (CDT)
== History ==
Just wondering, has there ever been a time in history that the US Military was in Nigeria? I know the US has been in Africa, but I haven't heard of Nigeria, great movie by the way.--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] 22:40, 21 July 2011 (CDT)
:None documented that I'm aware of. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:09, 7 March 2012 (CST)
If I'm not mistaken USSOCOM sent in a unit or two. I have a book somewhere that talks about it, I'll see if I can find it. [[User:Puppet.of.fate|Puppet.of.fate]] 19:21, 7 March 2012 (CST)
[http://www.nigerdeltarising.org/article/2009/09/14/us-military-involvement-nigeria U.S. Military Involvement in Nigeria] --[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 02:10, 9 March 2012 (CST)
==Order of page listings==
It seems that all the entries are in alphabetical order, which isn't a bad thing per-say but it's out of place for the vast majority of other pages - It's frankly rather strange to see a movie page that has a Beretta shown in one scene for a few seconds first rather than the Mk23s that are used by main characters throughout the film, and so forth. I believe the custom was that prominent and hero guns typically get first listings, and then the rest gets organized at will (usually chronologically, not always though). Normally I'd just change it but that edit was done by Zackmann so I've been hesitant, nevertheless, again, the page seems out-of-place and so I'd like to know if changing the listing order around to show the more prominent weapons in the film first would be ok or not. Another user above complained about placing the weapons in category format (something that is also typically done at a certain point now), and I see that he was ignored/overruled. But since this was an admin edit, well, just want a formal ok or not. If Zackmann's layout is fine as decided by other admins, I won't touch it, but if not, well, again, just want to keep this page in line with the majority of those on the site. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 14:19, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
:An alphabetical listing has always seemed a bit... arbitrary. I've always put hero/prominent guns first, then the rest chronologically. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 14:28, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
:: Hey I'm with you, of course. Granted sometimes alphabetical can work if a number of guns have roughly equal screen appearance or something, but that'd be a rare situation - Generally chronological seems to be the way to go, even for videogame pages and such. I think Zack might have been trying to counter a vandal edit or something, but I'm not sure. Anyway, there seem to be no objection so I'll go about re-arranging the page. If there's a problem later, we can just revert. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 19:05, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
:I try to list them in order of appearance myself (within the constraints of organizing by type, of course). Hell, I'm even OCD about the screenshots themselves being in chronological order, as can be seen [[Walking Dead: Season 1, The (VG)|here]]. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
== Arthur's handgun? ==
Apparently, in the buildup to the sniper ambush towards the end of the movie, Arthur is shown briefly holding some sort of pistol.
It's not clear enough in the image for me to identify, but maybe someone else can tell
: Decided to turn that into a thumbnail, as it's bit large. That said, it is indeed hard to tell from that image that it looks like anything really - the pistol appears to have no detail at the top, no ejection port, sights, any slide markings/etc. Again, hard to tell, though. It could be a Beretta but otherwise I couldn't say. In honesty I'm not sure if it is a real firearm at all, might just be a generic prop to just be held for that one shot (he doesn't fire said pistol, nor is seen using it any other time, IIRC). [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (EDT)
:: [[File:Tears ArthurPistol Ground.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]A-ha, I found another instance that the gun appears. Apparently we never see it again because Arthur leaves it on the ground and doesn't get a chance to pick it back up when the group gets ambushed. Looking at it now, it appears to be a 92FS, but it's still a blurry shot, so it'd be nice if someone could confirm that.[[File:Tears SomeGun.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]I also noticed that one of the guys on the truck, who gets shot by Flea in the village scene, is holding something that does not look like an AK. It could very well be one without the magazine, but it seems to be more of a central handgrip rather than one towards the back, as is on most rifles. I have no idea what it could be, though. [[User:Sergeant Simpleton|Sergeant Simpleton]] ([[User talk:Sergeant Simpleton|talk]]) 18:33, 18 June 2014 (EDT)
::: Still a bit too blurry to positively tell, though I agree a 92FS fits the general look and shape. As for the other gun, again, really too far back and blurry to make out, but judging by the way he holds it and the basic layout, shape and size, it could be a SMG, one that loads the mag inside the pistol grip, such as an [[Uzi]]. However it seems to have too much of a rear receiver. Again it's really not possible to tell much there. I wonder what you're using to get your screencaps with; you might be able to get better images using different methods and programs. That being said, this might be worth a look - [[IMFDB Screencapping Guide]]<br>[[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (EDT)
:::: I've just been playing the movie in Windows Media Player & print-screening the page into PhotoShop before cropping it out and uploading it. Not the most conventional method, I know, but it's been the quickest (as I tend to forget about things if I take too long to do them). I'll try using VLC (something I've actually had for a while, but I don't use too much because it takes much longer to load up) to get better screencaps. [[User:Sergeant Simpleton|Sergeant Simpleton]] ([[User talk:Sergeant Simpleton|talk]]) 13:12, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
::::: [[File:Tears BetterShotOfTruckGuy.jpg|thumb|none|600px]] Yep, it works out much better to do so frame-by-frame in VLC. The gun in question definitely looks more like an Uzi when the order is correct. The screenshot I took before had the weapon at an odd angle which gave the effect of it looking larger than it really was. [[User:Sergeant Simpleton|Sergeant Simpleton]] ([[User talk:Sergeant Simpleton|talk]]) 13:20, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
:: I agree, that does look a bit cleaner there. Glad to be of help. Might wanna go back and redo the other screencaps and see if you can get better images there. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 14:17, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
==Walther==
It's listed as a PP but the slide doesn't look quite long enough - I think this is actually a PPK. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 13:39, 22 March 2015 (EDT)
Great! Except that the weapon you IDed as an "AKS-47" is actually a Chinese Type 56-1. -MT2008
It needs a small rewrite though.Oliveira 17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I added caps from the alternate opening of the director's cut of the film. They have the triangular handguards of the 'Nam-era M16s, but I couldn't get any clear shots of the receivers for further ID. Spartan198
Please put captions on the screencaps. Please?-Oliveira 13:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Didn't really know what exactly to put, but I hope those captions suffice. Spartan198
Thank you Spartan! Great Job! Those captions suffice. Even if they are generic they suffice.-Oliveira 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you've noticed, but you also need the gun picture and the page links. Remember, if you're going to make additions, it's totally welcome, but please follow format. -MT2008
I don't think gun pictures are needed in this case since Spartan doesn't know what kind of M16s they are.-Oliveira 15:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You can always guess. And that only addresses half my request. -MT2008
I do not understand why the medic and the signaller, who would carry the heaviest loads, are both armed with heavier weapons plus ammunition.
i wouldnt call the m203 the heaviest load . theres the M60 , but that is strange . usualy some one else would have tham to cover those two positions but its a movie . -simmons 8492
If you enlarge the second picture and look at the stock near the rear of the reciever, you'll see that it is cut for the selector switch. No M1A stock is like this, but all wood stocked M21 are since they're just rebarreled M14s with the selector removed and a scope attached. --Zurak 47 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I just watched the film again and I agree with you. His rifle obviously has a cut-out for a selector switch , and M1A rifles were never fitted with stocks that had a cut-out for a selector switch, since they were civilian rifles. -Jacco Croon-
It is correct, the first screencap itself shows a notch for a fire-selector, which is not on any civilian semi-auto-only rifles, only actual M14s and M21s. As to whether this is an M14 or M21 I'm not particularly certain (The same mod involving removing the selector was done on normal M14s), however, it indeed is not an M1A. StanTheMan 03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
EDIT - Going through the edit logs, I've found it was previously called an M25, which from what I gather, is what the Navy designates the M21 as (The Army uses the M21 designation). SO, to be accurate, I'll edit to M25 instead of M21. Of course, I still doubt whether it is an actual M21/M25 and not just a modded M14, but I guess we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. StanTheMan 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a Modded M1A. you can see the reciver through the notch in the stock and not only is it missing the selector lock that is on a real M21/M25 but it is missing the Lug that mounts Select fire control parts. It is an M1A. Rockwolf66 22:03, 24 April 2011 (CDT)
Shotgun muzzle device...
...is a "duckbill choke" intended to spread the shot pattern horizontally vs. vertically. They were also used by Vietnam era SEALS, primarily on pump shotguns. The intent is to have an effective, short ranges anti-ambush weapon for the point man. By aiming in the general direction of an identified ambusher and maintaining a horizontal hold, the shotgun can be effective against that ambusher as well as having a chance to hit/distract others close around him. In jungle and forest terrain with limited visibility and engagement ranges, ambushers would have to bunch up in order to maximize firepower on a patrol, especially along a trail.
The new layout
Whoever changed the pages layout to the guns being organized by gun type. yea, dont do that again as i dont like it nor do i think the page that I made and put a lot of effort into. If you want to do that to your page, knock yourself out, but do not do this to any of my pages again. Thank you. -Winchester
Chill the hell out! Christ!
The Knives
And Knives ???
Where are you??
IMFDB. Firearms unless a cultural reference i.e. Rambo's knives. -The Winchester
Here are the main knives used; Emerson Police Utility Knife, Sog X-42 Recondo and Emerson Kandahar. Gunner313
Here's the list of used knives:
A.K Waters: Emerson PUK, Emerson Kandahar, SOG X-42 Recondo.
Lake: Atrezzo machete.
Red Atkins: Emerson PUK and an Ontario SP43.
Flea: Sog Seal 2000.
Slo: Ontario SP2 airforce (possibly).
Silk: Hard to tell if Kabar 1256 w/ kydex sheat or another Ontario.
Doc: Ontario SP knife.
Zee: Emerson LaGrieffe, Kabar.
I'm pretty sure Waters' third knife (on his left leg) was another Kandahar, not a Recondo. Spartan198 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2020 (EDT)
Doc's AK
Doc is carrying older AK 47 not AKM. He also has early type magazine on it.
PP or PPK?
The PP looks a little short. Are we sure it's not a PPK? --funkychinaman 05:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like a FEG PA-63 to me.
Uniform Goofs
Just thought I'd point out a goof I noticed in the Marines' uniforms at the end of the film; they had the sleeves of their BDU uniforms rolled up. This is ONLY done when in garrison, NEVER during combat. Some people might also say that their BDU's were somewhat anachronistic as well, but this can be debatable as the digital MARPAT uniform was still being distributed to Marines. In fact, news footage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which took place the same year this film came out) often shows Marines wearing the older 3-color Desert Combat Uniform instead of MARPAT (when they weren't covered by woodland-patterned MOPP gear due to fears that Saddam might try to use WMD's against coalition forces).
Technically manning a refugee checkpoint is NOT considered a battle zone. I've asked that question of Jarheads and they said that (a) it was probably really hot and humid and (b) whatever the uniform of the day dictated would be what they were wearing and (c) the moment a senior officer gets fed up and rolls up his sleeves because of the heat, all bets are off, the rest of the brigade will be doing it. They are not actively patrolling for enemy combatants or on an actual combat mission. They're border security at a refugee camp. So yes, that is the rule and in the field there are always exceptions to the rule. At least that's what my USMC vet associates have said. MoviePropMaster2008
I'm afraid I have to disagree; the Marines weren't manning that checkpoint, they had just landed there via helicopter from the Stennis to extract Waters' team, which would likely count as a combat mission since Waters' team was under heavy enemy attack when the Marines initially deployed(albet the threat was neutralized by air support by the time the Marines got boots on the ground) and were in full battle gear as if expecting to engage hostiles themselves. Not trying to start an arguement, just pointing out an oversight in your asessment. Orca1 9904 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right if they are landing from a helicopter into a hotzone then it is a combat OP and they would have their sleeves down. Though that is operational doctrine, I would at least opine (according to MANY COMBAT vets in past wars, not now, but back to even NAM) that regs got loose the more combat you saw. Even among marines. MoviePropMaster2008
I'm pretty sure that both the M203s on Doc and Zee's M4s are Cobray 37mm launchers. I'm basing this on the screenshots taken. If you blow them up to full size you can see the cocking handle on them.--Gunkatas 03:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking at a very nice close-up of the receiver on Doc's launcher at the 1 hour mark of the film (the scene where they're at rest and everyone's eating) on my TV and I can tell you there's no cocking handle and the trigger guard is a rounded shape rather than square like a CM203's trigger guard is. They are indeed actual M203s. Spartan198 17:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Biased, Personal Comments
Does it really matter if a Beretta 92FS made it into the movie or not? The comment of "While I was hoping to get through a movie without a Beretta 92FS, but sure enough, one shows up in the hands of a militant officer" seems unnecessary. 71.200.27.204 11:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is unnecessary. --Predator20 13:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Berettas appear in pretty much most modern movies involving lots of guns, plus it doesn't really make sense of how it this militant officer had one. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Its not a problem to see the comment so just leave it as is.--FIVETWOSEVEN 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope, IT IS UNNECESSARY. Or at least change the tone of the comment, making it more scholastic, and not the musing of a snarky, sarcastic critic. MoviePropMaster2008
Why wouldn't the militant officer be able to get one? they can buy arms just like any other country. --AdAstra2009 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That comment has always annoyed me too. If you're going to lament the ubiquity of Beretta 92s in movies, you might as well complain about all the Thompsons in WW2 films, or Peacemakers in Westerns. I may not like the Smith and Wesson semi-automatics, but I understand there are people who do, for valid reasons, so I keep my opinions to myself, instead of using the IMFDB as a soapbox to espouse my hate for them.--Mr-Jigsaw 22:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, it was originally a sarcastic comment due to the fact that all of the movies ive done in the past have had Berettas in them and being sarcastic doesnt work in writing. And honestly, i love Berettas and own one of my own. Sorry for the trouble. -Winchester
just saying but the movie battle of the bulge used all Grease Guns or at least dominately which is a nice change. just saying Dirtdiver 6421 01:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Missiles
Is it worth pointing out that the Hornets missile load outs are all air-to-air weapons, which would be useless against ground targets? Or is that to far out of IMFDB's area of jurisdiction? Pravda616 17:59 4/3/11
I've never found any AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-120 AMRAAM pages on this site, so I surmise that yes, aircraft ordinance such as missiles and bombs are out of the scope of the site. Spartan198 07:55, 21 June 2011 (CDT)
History
Just wondering, has there ever been a time in history that the US Military was in Nigeria? I know the US has been in Africa, but I haven't heard of Nigeria, great movie by the way.--MarineCorps1 22:40, 21 July 2011 (CDT)
None documented that I'm aware of. Spartan198 16:09, 7 March 2012 (CST)
If I'm not mistaken USSOCOM sent in a unit or two. I have a book somewhere that talks about it, I'll see if I can find it. Puppet.of.fate 19:21, 7 March 2012 (CST)
It seems that all the entries are in alphabetical order, which isn't a bad thing per-say but it's out of place for the vast majority of other pages - It's frankly rather strange to see a movie page that has a Beretta shown in one scene for a few seconds first rather than the Mk23s that are used by main characters throughout the film, and so forth. I believe the custom was that prominent and hero guns typically get first listings, and then the rest gets organized at will (usually chronologically, not always though). Normally I'd just change it but that edit was done by Zackmann so I've been hesitant, nevertheless, again, the page seems out-of-place and so I'd like to know if changing the listing order around to show the more prominent weapons in the film first would be ok or not. Another user above complained about placing the weapons in category format (something that is also typically done at a certain point now), and I see that he was ignored/overruled. But since this was an admin edit, well, just want a formal ok or not. If Zackmann's layout is fine as decided by other admins, I won't touch it, but if not, well, again, just want to keep this page in line with the majority of those on the site. StanTheMan (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
An alphabetical listing has always seemed a bit... arbitrary. I've always put hero/prominent guns first, then the rest chronologically. --Funkychinaman (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
Hey I'm with you, of course. Granted sometimes alphabetical can work if a number of guns have roughly equal screen appearance or something, but that'd be a rare situation - Generally chronological seems to be the way to go, even for videogame pages and such. I think Zack might have been trying to counter a vandal edit or something, but I'm not sure. Anyway, there seem to be no objection so I'll go about re-arranging the page. If there's a problem later, we can just revert. StanTheMan (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
I try to list them in order of appearance myself (within the constraints of organizing by type, of course). Hell, I'm even OCD about the screenshots themselves being in chronological order, as can be seen here. Spartan198 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
Arthur's handgun?
Apparently, in the buildup to the sniper ambush towards the end of the movie, Arthur is shown briefly holding some sort of pistol.
It's not clear enough in the image for me to identify, but maybe someone else can tell
Decided to turn that into a thumbnail, as it's bit large. That said, it is indeed hard to tell from that image that it looks like anything really - the pistol appears to have no detail at the top, no ejection port, sights, any slide markings/etc. Again, hard to tell, though. It could be a Beretta but otherwise I couldn't say. In honesty I'm not sure if it is a real firearm at all, might just be a generic prop to just be held for that one shot (he doesn't fire said pistol, nor is seen using it any other time, IIRC). StanTheMan (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (EDT)
Error creating thumbnail: File missingA-ha, I found another instance that the gun appears. Apparently we never see it again because Arthur leaves it on the ground and doesn't get a chance to pick it back up when the group gets ambushed. Looking at it now, it appears to be a 92FS, but it's still a blurry shot, so it'd be nice if someone could confirm that.Error creating thumbnail: File missingI also noticed that one of the guys on the truck, who gets shot by Flea in the village scene, is holding something that does not look like an AK. It could very well be one without the magazine, but it seems to be more of a central handgrip rather than one towards the back, as is on most rifles. I have no idea what it could be, though. Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2014 (EDT)
Still a bit too blurry to positively tell, though I agree a 92FS fits the general look and shape. As for the other gun, again, really too far back and blurry to make out, but judging by the way he holds it and the basic layout, shape and size, it could be a SMG, one that loads the mag inside the pistol grip, such as an Uzi. However it seems to have too much of a rear receiver. Again it's really not possible to tell much there. I wonder what you're using to get your screencaps with; you might be able to get better images using different methods and programs. That being said, this might be worth a look - IMFDB Screencapping Guide StanTheMan (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (EDT)
I've just been playing the movie in Windows Media Player & print-screening the page into PhotoShop before cropping it out and uploading it. Not the most conventional method, I know, but it's been the quickest (as I tend to forget about things if I take too long to do them). I'll try using VLC (something I've actually had for a while, but I don't use too much because it takes much longer to load up) to get better screencaps. Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
Error creating thumbnail: File missing Yep, it works out much better to do so frame-by-frame in VLC. The gun in question definitely looks more like an Uzi when the order is correct. The screenshot I took before had the weapon at an odd angle which gave the effect of it looking larger than it really was. Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
I agree, that does look a bit cleaner there. Glad to be of help. Might wanna go back and redo the other screencaps and see if you can get better images there. StanTheMan (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
Walther
It's listed as a PP but the slide doesn't look quite long enough - I think this is actually a PPK. StanTheMan (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2015 (EDT)
