| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:The Park is Mine: Difference between revisions
m (WZHBot moved page Talk:Park is Mine, The to Talk:The Park is Mine over redirect: Bot: Fixing title according to new titling rule.) |
|
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 22:33, 28 July 2023
NYPD Shotgun
The NYPD officer next to the one holding the J.C. Higgins looks to carrying a Winchester Model 1897 Riot Gun by the look of the magazine tube & forend.
Verdanken's SMG
Take a closer look at Verdanken's SMG, it's not a Smith & Wesson M-76, but a Carl Gustaf M/45. One detail that reveals it to be a M/45 is that the barrel shroud only has 3 or 4 holes in it, while the M-76 shroud has 7. The sights on the weapon in the movie also match the M/45 and not the M-76. You can compare the screenshot with a picture of an M/45 at the Modern Firearms website: http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg48-e.htm --Phillb36 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This was a terrible movie
I know I know. this isn't imdb it's imfdb. Who cares about the movie. We're all about the firearms, but this made for HBO "movie" sucked. Anyway just thought I would put that out there. Strictly my opinion of course. Jcordell
- There are LOTS of terrible movies listed here. There are lots of terrible movies with a good selection of guns. Some of the films I would never watch if it weren't for the firearms. The talk section is the correct place for this type of opinion. We should use the talk sections more about film commentary that veers too far away from the weapons or movie trivia. Boy do I have a lot of negative things to say about 28 Weeks Later ..... MPM2008
- I liked it :(. 28 Weeks Later does suck ass from a straw though.-Oliveira 13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are LOTS of terrible movies listed here. There are lots of terrible movies with a good selection of guns. Some of the films I would never watch if it weren't for the firearms. The talk section is the correct place for this type of opinion. We should use the talk sections more about film commentary that veers too far away from the weapons or movie trivia. Boy do I have a lot of negative things to say about 28 Weeks Later ..... MPM2008
Mitch's MG
- Are you sure it's an MG42 and not an MG3? Not saying you're wrong, just that it's more likely to be the MG3 since those are much more modern and therefore more easily available.
- In reality it would be more likely to be an MG42, since there were way more "bring back" guns from WW2. The MG3 would be easier for a licensed firearms importer or Class III FFL, but a regular guy operating on the fringes of society? Probably an MG42 some vet brought back and threw into a closet. It could be one of those 'amnestied' veteran "bring back" guns which were allowed to be registered as transferable Class III guns under the Gun Control Act of 1968. In any case, the older gun is more likely from a script perspective. What was available to the armorer is another matter. MoviePropMaster2008 17:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with you it would be more likely in reality to be an MG42. As far as the prop gun, dunno. The ammo belt is visible...can you tell if those are 7.92x57s (Mauser rounds) or 7.62x51s (.308 NATO)? That would be the easiest way to answer the question with the picture we have, but I'm not sure myself. -MT2008 18:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)