| 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:American Sniper: Difference between revisions
Spartan198 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| (89 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Please help ID the rifle== | |||
Please help ID the rifle on the left. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 12:04, 21 May 2015 (EDT) | |||
[[File:AmericanSniper SEALs AR-15.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The SEAL on the left with an AR-15 platform. However, the handguard seems too far forward for a M4 and too close for a M16, has no front triangular sight.]] | |||
:I'm pretty sure that's the Mk.12[[User:AgentGumby|AgentGumby]] ([[User talk:AgentGumby|talk]]) 15:15, 22 May 2015 (EDT) | |||
==Pistol ID== | |||
Currently unidentifiable pistols | |||
[[File:AmericanSniper DIA Pistols.jpg|thumb|none|600px|DIA Agent Snead with a pistol and the magazines on his belt. It seems to be a M1911 style handgun from the magazine.]] | |||
==Rifle ID== | |||
Please help ID this rifle. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 13:57, 21 January 2015 (EST) | |||
[[File:AmerSBTS_511.jpg|thumb|none|600px]] | |||
:Pretty certain that's the TAC-338A. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] ([[User talk:Orca1 9904|talk]]) 20:39, 21 January 2015 (EST) | |||
GAP Gladius in .308--[[User:Gwhysow|Gwhysow]] ([[User talk:Gwhysow|talk]]) 00:00, 24 January 2015 (EST) | |||
:Is the TAC_388 based on the Remington 700? Because the rifle is very clearly marked as such. Also, there's a SEAL with what looks like a Mk.14 EBR.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (EST) | |||
==Template Status== | ==Template Status== | ||
Would it be alright to update the page's header template from upcoming to now showing to reflect the Christmas debut, or wait for the full release in January? [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] ([[User talk:Orca1 9904|talk]]) 18:03, 25 December 2014 (EST) | Would it be alright to update the page's header template from upcoming to now showing to reflect the Christmas debut, or wait for the full release in January? [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] ([[User talk:Orca1 9904|talk]]) 18:03, 25 December 2014 (EST) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 31: | ||
[[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] ([[User talk:Orca1 9904|talk]]) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (EST) | [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] ([[User talk:Orca1 9904|talk]]) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (EST) | ||
:The USMC used woodland-patterned vests all the way through to the Second Battle of Fallujah in November 2004, and you can see them in many of the photos taken of the battle. The coyote brown variant of the Interceptor wasn't produced until after the invasion of Afghanistan (and the Interceptor started mass production in 1999 in only woodland camo) so it is accurate for the Marines to be wearing a mix of coyote-brown and woodland vests during the rough time frame between 2003 and 2005. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] ([[User talk:Markit|talk]]) 23:56, 5 January 2015 (EST) | |||
::Markit is right. The USMC used both coyote brown and M81-pattern IBAs during the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004. During that time, there were Marines using both the coyote brown and the M81-pattern vests, as there weren't enough coyote brown ones to go around. The film is accurate (surprisingly so) in this regard. In later scenes, the Marines start wearing MTV vests. I was pleasantly surprised how accurate they got the gear for the time periods, even though there aren't any time cards to show dates and such. Even the U.S. Army used M81 vests until the ACU was issued around late-2005, early 2006. Desert DCU-patterned IBAs were extremely rare and were only used by higher-ranking rear echelon guys, civilian interpreters, MPs, and USAF security forces, since they were considered "un-expendable". [[User:Laqueesha|Laqueesha]] ([[User talk:Laqueesha|talk]]) 19:28, 20 January 2015 (EST) | |||
==M14s look like M1As== | ==M14s look like M1As== | ||
They lack the selector switches on the receiver. 05:27, 5 January 2015 (EST) | They lack the selector switches on the receiver. 05:27, 5 January 2015 (EST) | ||
== Kyle's sidearm == | |||
In a picture from an article about Bradley Cooper's experience with sniper rifles during preproduction, Cooper appears to be carrying a 1911 of some sort. It could possibly be a Springfield TRP like Chris Kyle said that he carried in his first deployment. In his later deployments Kyle carried a Sig p220 to replace the Springfield that was damaged by shrapnel. | |||
[[File:American Sniper m4 1.jpg|thumb|none|400px]] | |||
:Can't tell by this picture, but having seen the movie, I can say that he uses a SIG 226, same as the rest of the SEALs. (And it's definitely a 226 and not a 220; I saw the wider grip/frame.) Kyle's sidearm is, unfortunately, one of the movie's gun-related inaccuracies. But I suppose it's a forgivable inaccuracy compared to ''[[Lone Survivor]]'' depicting the SEALs using Berettas - which was entirely due to a product placement deal. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 00:24, 15 January 2015 (EST) | |||
In this picture, as well as a scene from his first deployment, where he is discussing the identity of the butcher, there is a beavertail and grip angle that is uncharacteristic of a Sig. Also, in said scene, the stainless steel muzzle can be seen below the hip holster that Cooper is wearing, also uncharacteristic of a Sig. However, these traits are charactetistic of a TRP. | |||
::Don't remember that scene, and you may be right. But I recall seeing other scenes where he had a SIG 226, and I remember thinking to myself (having read the book), "Wrong gun." I suppose we'll have to wait for the Blu Ray to confirm. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 22:49, 16 January 2015 (EST) | |||
:::Just got back from watching this and I can confirm that he has some sort of 1911 pistol during the first half of the film. It looks to have the wider magwell of the TRP but without a screenshot I can't be certain. I also noticed at least one AK during the sandstorm sequence was a Zastava. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] ([[User talk:Cool-breeze|talk]]) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (EST) | |||
I saw an Episode of NRA Gun Gurus (Episode 203), this past week dealing with Hollywood Guns. In the episode they visited ISS and on the table was several of the weapons used for American Sniper. While they did not talk about the firearms from this movie specifically, a passing camera shot provided a nice look at what appeared to be a Springfield TRP Operator Full Rail with a label beside it that said, "American Sniper, Bradley Cooper." I have been trying to find that episode in order to provide a screenshot, but am coming up empty thus far. ----[[User:CLambert|CLambert]] ([[User talk:CLambert|talk]]) 01:07, 21 January 2015 (EST) | |||
I think Kyle is definitely using the TRP then a P220. He was definitely using a 1911 type pistol in the early scenes. With the scenes with the P220, I looked at his spare mags to try and see if the gun was a P220 or a P226. The mags appeared to be single stack stainless mags, characteristics of a P220. On another note, how about Kyle's other sidearm, the Colt Single Action Army he was carrying at home near the end of the film? --[[User:Charterarmsoffduty|Charterarmsoffduty]] ([[User talk:Charterarmsoffduty|talk]]) 10:12, 1 February 2015 (EST) | |||
Yeah, his second sidearm does appear to be the correct P220, because the grip is quite thin and the magazines look to be single stack. I was thinking that its classification as a P226 is incorrect. Maybe this should be discussed further? ([[User:Votesmall|Votesmall]] ([[User talk:Votesmall|talk]]) 19:29, 5 September 2015 (EDT)) | |||
==Another pic== | |||
Got this from an online article about Kyle and the SEALS. It shows his Mk.18 and his sniper rifle on racks on the left side, if anyone wants to add it to the article. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 22:44, 16 January 2015 (EST) | |||
[[File:Kyle.jpg|thumb|none|400px]] | |||
==TAC-388/Mk.13== | |||
You sure they're not the same rifle? | |||
[[File:AmericanS_216.jpg|thumb|none|600px|This is listed as the TAC-388.]] | |||
[[Image:American Sniper Bradley Cooper.jpg|thumb|none|601px|Supposed Mk.13.]] | |||
[[File:AmericanS_200.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Supposed Mk.13.]] | |||
I really don't see any difference between the two.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 00:19, 21 January 2015 (EST) | |||
Yeah, they're the same rifle. Both a TAC-338. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 22:11, 22 January 2015 (EST) | |||
These are not even close to the same rifle. The one on top is in a McMillan A5 stock. It has a McMillan boult shroud, and a McMillan bolt handle. The rifle in the second two images has a Remington 700 bolt handle, Remington 700 bolt shroud, and FFS it says "Remington" on the side of the action. It is also sitting in an A2 stock, which was used for the MK13 initially, but has NEVER been used for the TAC-338. Furthermore, it is wearing a KAC 30 caliber suppressor (note that KAC does not and has never made a 338 suppressor). How is he getting a 338 Lapua to shoot through a 30 caliber can? You kids might want to get some new glasses. [[User:Regality|Regality]] ([[User talk:Regality|talk]]) 12:06 AM, 9 February 2015 (MST) | |||
I can't see the difference, and the only markings I saw were the Remmington ones. I'd be shocked if any of the rifles were really .338, there's no reason ''not'' to use a 7.62 NATO rifle there's lots off ammo for. As for the suppressor, there's no reason an armorer couldn't or wouldn't stick an existing .30 suppressor on a .338. Why buy a new one when you already have one that fits? Personally, I think they're all Mk.13s come to think of it.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 10:42, 9 February 2015 (EST) | |||
If you shoot a 338 through a 30 cal can, the can will explode, that's a reason an armorer wouldn't do that. At this point I'm not sure if your serious or just trolling. [[User:Regality|Regality]] ([[User talk:Regality|talk]]) 11:49 AM, 9 February 2015 (MST) | |||
:I just want to remind everyone that no one is actually firing live ammo at any point here. And most Hollywood suppressors aren't really suppressors. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 13:55, 9 February 2015 (EST) | |||
::I know they're not using live ammo or real suppressors. Not sure about Regality though...--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (EST) | |||
:::I'm aware that they aren't using live ammo, but we are trying to determine what the rifle is based off the images we have. Either we ignore the can and don't know what caliber it is, or we account for the can and conclude it's a 30 cal rifle. The KAC suppressor takes a significant amount of work to adapt to a different platform, they didn't just slap it on there because it "fit". Even if it is a fake can, they put a lot of effort into getting it onto that gun. And even if they did move the suppressor to a rifle it doesn't belong on, you still haven't accounted for the fact that one rifle has a Remington action, and the other has a McMillan action. Maybe come back with a shred of evidence more than "I can't see the difference". [[User:Regality|Regality]] ([[User talk:Regality|talk]]) 3:17 PM, 9 February 2015 (MST) | |||
::::Top one certainly doesn't have the same scope on it (there's an extra diagonal control, the top turret is taller and the side one flatter) and it doesn't look like the barrel is the same either (compare the last shot of the TAC-338 to the one with the suppressor here). I think these are two similar-but-different guns as the page currently says. | |||
::::Regality, lose the attitude, all this chest-thumping about how stupid everyone is for not agreeing with you is not in any way productive even if you're right. I'm not sure how you could possibly claim "I don't see the difference" isn't a rebuttal to a claim that something is different, and since you're the one asserting there are two weapons here you have the burden of proof, not them. And FYI movie suppressors generally could not possibly explode even if you shot the wrong round though them because they have no baffles or wipes in them. Nevermind that since the weapon is bolt-action there's no need to make it cycle and since it's suppressed there's not much call for a full-power hot blank. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (EST) | |||
:::::I apologize for the attitude. I was frustrated because he changed it to be incorrect twice, and then said that he can't see the difference immediately after I explained the difference. | |||
In any case, both pistol grip shots seem to be of the TAC-338, just slightly different quality. | |||
[[File:AmericanS 437.jpg|thumb|none|600px|TAC-338 trigger shot.]] | |||
[[File:AmericanSniper Trigger.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Mk 13 trigger shot.]] | |||
The Mk 13 doesn't have Kyle's cheat sheet taped to it in any other shots. Maybe the latter is a trailer shot that was left in? I would suggest deleting the latter due to the inferior quality. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 01:03, 25 April 2021 (EDT) | |||
== BTS Images == | |||
[[File:AmerSBTS 502.jpg|thumb|none|600px]] | |||
:Was the faux Abrams not available? I'm pretty sure even the Marine Corps had phased out M60 tanks by whenever the movie is set. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 14:08, 21 January 2015 (EST) | |||
:: The tank was probably used as reference and then an M1A1 Abrams was added in digitally. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 15:18, 21 January 2015 (EST) | |||
:::Yeah, the final scene was an Abrams. Didn't even notice it was CG.[[User:Temp89|Temp89]] ([[User talk:Temp89|talk]]) | |||
::::Yeah, [http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_778425-Made-for-Movie-M1--Abrams-.html IMCDB has the final shot] and it looks like it's a digital composite with a completely reworked turret and the hull front changed, but they've left some parts like the [http://pics.imcdb.org/3321/americansniper162.jpg running gear] which is completely incorrect for an Abrams. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 21:21, 29 January 2015 (EST) | |||
[[File:AmerSBTS 506.jpg|thumb|none|600px]] | |||
[[File:AmerSBTS 508.jpg|thumb|none|600px]] | |||
[[File:AmerSBTS 501.jpg|thumb|none|600px]] | |||
[[File:AmerSBTS 510.jpg|thumb|none|600px]] | |||
[[File:AmerSBTS 552.jpg|thumb|none|600px]] | |||
==The way the SEALs are carrying their pistol== | |||
The ways the SEALs are carrying their P226 pistols, stuffed into their plate carriers, is this even a safe carrying method? I imagine the P226 could bounce around in the plate carrier, and not only that, it looks like the pistols could end up shooting them if it discharges. | |||
[[File:AmericanSniper SIG Pistol (2).jpg|thumb|none|600px|A SEAL member with a P226 tucked in his plate carrier.]] | |||
[[File:AmericanSniper SEAL Punisher.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A SEAL with a SIG-Sauer P226 pistol tucked in his plate carrier.]] | |||
[[File:American-sniper-sam-jaeger-chance-kelly.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A SIG-Sauer P226 pistol is seen in the vest of Navy SEAL.]] | |||
:Since the hammer isn't cocked you'd have to somehow generate a 10-pound DA trigger pull from jostling the weapon. This doesn't seem particularly likely. 1 and 2 look like they have a holster attached to the front of the plate carrier with the chest rig on top of it (you can see something at the base of the gun that isn't part of it in both shots); I can't see one on the third guy, but it could just be too low down to be visible. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 15:37, 22 May 2015 (EDT) | |||
== "delta sniper" == | |||
I'm pretty sure the Delta guy is a ranger using a M24 rifle. | |||
:In the credits, he's "Delta Sniper." However, you might be right about the M24. --[[User:Inceptor57|Inceptor57]] ([[User talk:Inceptor57|talk]]) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (EDT) | |||
Gotcha I didn't watch the credits, but his patch says airborne ranger, and the rifle has the lil nubby at the end for the irons. And the rifle being used during training definitely isn't a M40A1, the stock is a hs precision stock. Could just be a regular 700P or something similar. | |||
:However, maybe Delta Sniper could be the other guy working on the comms with the sniper, who might be Ranger One due to the patches. This would have to be confirmed with what role the actors is playing (its hard to tell with all the uniform and helmets). | |||
Both the sniper and the spotter have name and rank patches on their right shoulders, with the sniper outranking the spotter (sniper is a Master Sergeant, spotter is a Staff Sergeant ). It's common knowledge these days that outside of IR flag patches and maybe a blood type/allergen tape, Delta operators don't wear tabs indicating name or rank or specializations. The role "Delta Sniper" might just be a casting title goof --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 00:32, 24 May 2015 (EDT) | |||
Yeah, I thought they were Army Snipers at least but then I saw the Ranger patches and wondered if they were Rangers and they do have their own snipers. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 10:17, 24 May 2015 (EDT) | |||
:It might be a good time to bring up [http://www.recoilweb.com/preview-the-guns-of-american-sniper-61255.html this article]--[[User:Quarax|Quarax]] ([[User talk:Quarax|talk]]) 12:40, 6 September 2015 (EDT) | |||
== Brochure cover == | |||
For anyone wondering, [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nFCdh4KxQds/Tb9yrgmzALI/AAAAAAAABBw/NkL_9IwoExw/s1600/us-navy-seals-48.JPEG this] is the image on the front of the brochure. I've seen it in numerous publications over the years. In addition to the MP5N, the SEAL on the left has an M16A2/M203 while the two in the rear have Model 653s. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 18:30, 28 January 2016 (EST) | |||
:M16A1, not A2. There's no brass deflector and the rear sight is simpler.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 22:28, 28 January 2016 (EST) | |||
::It may even be an XM16E1. Note the partial fence. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 22:46, 28 January 2016 (EST) | |||
== AR-15A2 Government Carbine == | |||
Look at the screencaps at their largest size, the one pictured at least has an A1 upper receiver and flat delta ring. I think it's a Model 653. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 00:43, 11 February 2016 (EST) | |||
==MK 12 anachronistic? == | |||
During the only scene were see Chris training with the mk 12 SPR it was implied that scene took place before 9/11 but everything about that rifle seemed like it doesn't belong in 2001. Anybody know if such a rifle configuration was possible in 2001? I know for the fact that that stock looked more like a BCM than the early crane stock. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (EDT) | |||
== Sniper rifle in bounty == | |||
Errh is not a SVD is a Tabuk. Doesnt anyone noticed the Tabuk stock? It have even a cheek rest.--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 04:56, 18 March 2017 (EDT) | |||
== Operational Range of either the FSL or the SVD == | |||
I was always wondering, (1) the 'optics' for either of those guns don't offer the magnification as seen in the film. and (2) I don't think they're accurate that far out. I'm thinking 1000 yards or more, even with a scope. 300 win mag or 338 Lapua will definitely hit targets that far away, but in the film it looks farther than 1000 yards sometimes, especially looking over the cities. What do you guys think? Comments welcome. :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] ([[User talk:MoviePropMaster2008|talk]]) 03:30, 4 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
2 reasons that reply at both. 1) On-screen both are very highly trained marksmen. 2)Off-screen, well is called "we-need-something-for-surprise-the-audience". | |||
: SVD/PSL is IIRC a DMR in the vein of the SR-25/M14 EBR, and that PSO-1 scope is a 4x. So even a really good sniper isn't going to be able to shoot at long range. If the guy existed IRL, he was either working at much shorter ranges or had an actual sniper rifle.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 08:33, 4 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
Hasnt the Red Army adopted the SVD as a SNIPER rifle?--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 10:32, 4 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
:Its a DMR for platoon-level marksmen. Among other things the scope is too low-magnification to work at long range. It is also fairly light for a sniper rifle, doesn't (IIRC) have a free-floated barrel, and has a bayonet mount. Russia never really had a sniper rifle during the Cold War.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 12:47, 4 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
==ISS confirms a P220 for this movie== | |||
In a recent Facebook live post with Larry Vickers, ISS has the actual P220 in the movie [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 22:23, 27 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:Yeah, I just now took a close look at the caps and all three SIGs shown (Kyle's, Dauber's, and LT Martens') all lack the double stack bulge. Not sure how that escaped notice all this time. They also said that the one used by Kyle was an original West German P220. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 03:34, 1 September 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Guys, sorry to be the naysayer, and I acknowledge that I haven't seen the Facebook Live post referenced above, but something seems a little off here. If you look closely at the last screencap on the page (of LT Martens and Colonel Jones), the SIG in Martens' holster seems to have double-stack bulges which are consistent with a P226, not a P220. You have to enlarge the pic to full-size to see what I'm talking about. Also, in the top screencap of Kyle leaning over the table, the grip just looks a bit too wide for a -220, and seems more consistent with a -226. Finally, I should point out that in the screencap that shows Kyle lifting up the bed, he seems to be using his Springfield, not a SIG. The mags in that screencap are clearly single-stack mags, but looking at the grip on his right, it seems consistent with a 1911-type pistol, not any sort of SIG. | |||
::I realize that I may out of depth questioning Larry Vickers, but I should point out that we've seen these types of inconsistencies before. Consider ''[[The Departed]]'', for example: The NRA Museum in Fairfax has a SIG P228 on display that was supposedly carried by Matt Damon in the film. However, as we point out on the IMFDB page for ''[[The Departed]]'', Damon is never seen using a P228 at any time in the finished film, only the -226. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 14:14, 3 September 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Chris Kyle and Marc Lee's 1911s == | |||
I've rewatched the film again and inspected the image in the TRP section to safety say both Chris Kyle and Marc Lee's 1911s are different from each other because the lower frame on Marc's gun appears to be more of a traditional 1911 style frame pistol while Kyle's TRP Operator obviously features the underbarrel full frame rail and extended chrome barrel. Any ideas what Marc's gun model could be? Maybe from the book or an online source? My suggestion would be the MEU/SOC listed here but a SEAL wouldn't have a Marine style 1911 now would they? - MrJDK9412 (talk 01:17, 19 October 2022 (AEST) | |||
See for yourself the two 1911 pistols in each hip holster | |||
[[File:AmericanSniper Pistols.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Kyle with a Springfield TRP Operators and Marc with a different 1911 pistol.]] | |||
Latest revision as of 14:20, 18 October 2022
Please help ID the rifle
Please help ID the rifle on the left. --Ben41 (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2015 (EDT)
- I'm pretty sure that's the Mk.12AgentGumby (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2015 (EDT)
Pistol ID
Currently unidentifiable pistols
Rifle ID
Please help ID this rifle. --Ben41 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2015 (EST)
- Pretty certain that's the TAC-338A. Orca1 9904 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2015 (EST)
GAP Gladius in .308--Gwhysow (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2015 (EST)
- Is the TAC_388 based on the Remington 700? Because the rifle is very clearly marked as such. Also, there's a SEAL with what looks like a Mk.14 EBR.--Mandolin (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (EST)
Template Status
Would it be alright to update the page's header template from upcoming to now showing to reflect the Christmas debut, or wait for the full release in January? Orca1 9904 (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2014 (EST)
- I'd be inclined to wait 'til the full release, but ultimately the fact it's on a partial release is irrelevant - The 'Now Showing' template is still technically correct, while the 'unreleased' template is now technically incorrect. Plus it'd have be to be changed at some point anyway, so may as well do it now. It still otherwise notes it's unavailable for capping outside of official images and trailers/clips, which I think is the central point. StanTheMan (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2014 (EST)
- IMDB has it as 2014. --Funkychinaman (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2014 (EST)
Marine Uniform Authenticity
I noticed in some of the screenshots that the Marines were wearing desert MARPAT uniforms with woodland camo Interceptor vests. I was under the impression the USMC stopped using woodland-patterned vests at about the same time as they stopped using the 6-color DCU uniforms?
Orca1 9904 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (EST)
- The USMC used woodland-patterned vests all the way through to the Second Battle of Fallujah in November 2004, and you can see them in many of the photos taken of the battle. The coyote brown variant of the Interceptor wasn't produced until after the invasion of Afghanistan (and the Interceptor started mass production in 1999 in only woodland camo) so it is accurate for the Marines to be wearing a mix of coyote-brown and woodland vests during the rough time frame between 2003 and 2005. --Markit (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)
- Markit is right. The USMC used both coyote brown and M81-pattern IBAs during the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004. During that time, there were Marines using both the coyote brown and the M81-pattern vests, as there weren't enough coyote brown ones to go around. The film is accurate (surprisingly so) in this regard. In later scenes, the Marines start wearing MTV vests. I was pleasantly surprised how accurate they got the gear for the time periods, even though there aren't any time cards to show dates and such. Even the U.S. Army used M81 vests until the ACU was issued around late-2005, early 2006. Desert DCU-patterned IBAs were extremely rare and were only used by higher-ranking rear echelon guys, civilian interpreters, MPs, and USAF security forces, since they were considered "un-expendable". Laqueesha (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2015 (EST)
M14s look like M1As
They lack the selector switches on the receiver. 05:27, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Kyle's sidearm
In a picture from an article about Bradley Cooper's experience with sniper rifles during preproduction, Cooper appears to be carrying a 1911 of some sort. It could possibly be a Springfield TRP like Chris Kyle said that he carried in his first deployment. In his later deployments Kyle carried a Sig p220 to replace the Springfield that was damaged by shrapnel.
- Can't tell by this picture, but having seen the movie, I can say that he uses a SIG 226, same as the rest of the SEALs. (And it's definitely a 226 and not a 220; I saw the wider grip/frame.) Kyle's sidearm is, unfortunately, one of the movie's gun-related inaccuracies. But I suppose it's a forgivable inaccuracy compared to Lone Survivor depicting the SEALs using Berettas - which was entirely due to a product placement deal. -MT2008 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2015 (EST)
In this picture, as well as a scene from his first deployment, where he is discussing the identity of the butcher, there is a beavertail and grip angle that is uncharacteristic of a Sig. Also, in said scene, the stainless steel muzzle can be seen below the hip holster that Cooper is wearing, also uncharacteristic of a Sig. However, these traits are charactetistic of a TRP.
- Don't remember that scene, and you may be right. But I recall seeing other scenes where he had a SIG 226, and I remember thinking to myself (having read the book), "Wrong gun." I suppose we'll have to wait for the Blu Ray to confirm. -MT2008 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2015 (EST)
- Just got back from watching this and I can confirm that he has some sort of 1911 pistol during the first half of the film. It looks to have the wider magwell of the TRP but without a screenshot I can't be certain. I also noticed at least one AK during the sandstorm sequence was a Zastava. --cool-breeze (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (EST)
- Don't remember that scene, and you may be right. But I recall seeing other scenes where he had a SIG 226, and I remember thinking to myself (having read the book), "Wrong gun." I suppose we'll have to wait for the Blu Ray to confirm. -MT2008 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2015 (EST)
I saw an Episode of NRA Gun Gurus (Episode 203), this past week dealing with Hollywood Guns. In the episode they visited ISS and on the table was several of the weapons used for American Sniper. While they did not talk about the firearms from this movie specifically, a passing camera shot provided a nice look at what appeared to be a Springfield TRP Operator Full Rail with a label beside it that said, "American Sniper, Bradley Cooper." I have been trying to find that episode in order to provide a screenshot, but am coming up empty thus far. ----CLambert (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2015 (EST)
I think Kyle is definitely using the TRP then a P220. He was definitely using a 1911 type pistol in the early scenes. With the scenes with the P220, I looked at his spare mags to try and see if the gun was a P220 or a P226. The mags appeared to be single stack stainless mags, characteristics of a P220. On another note, how about Kyle's other sidearm, the Colt Single Action Army he was carrying at home near the end of the film? --Charterarmsoffduty (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2015 (EST)
Yeah, his second sidearm does appear to be the correct P220, because the grip is quite thin and the magazines look to be single stack. I was thinking that its classification as a P226 is incorrect. Maybe this should be discussed further? (Votesmall (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2015 (EDT))
Another pic
Got this from an online article about Kyle and the SEALS. It shows his Mk.18 and his sniper rifle on racks on the left side, if anyone wants to add it to the article. --DeltaOne (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2015 (EST)
TAC-388/Mk.13
You sure they're not the same rifle?
I really don't see any difference between the two.--Mandolin (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2015 (EST)
Yeah, they're the same rifle. Both a TAC-338. Spartan198 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2015 (EST)
These are not even close to the same rifle. The one on top is in a McMillan A5 stock. It has a McMillan boult shroud, and a McMillan bolt handle. The rifle in the second two images has a Remington 700 bolt handle, Remington 700 bolt shroud, and FFS it says "Remington" on the side of the action. It is also sitting in an A2 stock, which was used for the MK13 initially, but has NEVER been used for the TAC-338. Furthermore, it is wearing a KAC 30 caliber suppressor (note that KAC does not and has never made a 338 suppressor). How is he getting a 338 Lapua to shoot through a 30 caliber can? You kids might want to get some new glasses. Regality (talk) 12:06 AM, 9 February 2015 (MST)
I can't see the difference, and the only markings I saw were the Remmington ones. I'd be shocked if any of the rifles were really .338, there's no reason not to use a 7.62 NATO rifle there's lots off ammo for. As for the suppressor, there's no reason an armorer couldn't or wouldn't stick an existing .30 suppressor on a .338. Why buy a new one when you already have one that fits? Personally, I think they're all Mk.13s come to think of it.--Mandolin (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2015 (EST)
If you shoot a 338 through a 30 cal can, the can will explode, that's a reason an armorer wouldn't do that. At this point I'm not sure if your serious or just trolling. Regality (talk) 11:49 AM, 9 February 2015 (MST)
- I just want to remind everyone that no one is actually firing live ammo at any point here. And most Hollywood suppressors aren't really suppressors. --Funkychinaman (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2015 (EST)
- I know they're not using live ammo or real suppressors. Not sure about Regality though...--Mandolin (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (EST)
- I'm aware that they aren't using live ammo, but we are trying to determine what the rifle is based off the images we have. Either we ignore the can and don't know what caliber it is, or we account for the can and conclude it's a 30 cal rifle. The KAC suppressor takes a significant amount of work to adapt to a different platform, they didn't just slap it on there because it "fit". Even if it is a fake can, they put a lot of effort into getting it onto that gun. And even if they did move the suppressor to a rifle it doesn't belong on, you still haven't accounted for the fact that one rifle has a Remington action, and the other has a McMillan action. Maybe come back with a shred of evidence more than "I can't see the difference". Regality (talk) 3:17 PM, 9 February 2015 (MST)
- Top one certainly doesn't have the same scope on it (there's an extra diagonal control, the top turret is taller and the side one flatter) and it doesn't look like the barrel is the same either (compare the last shot of the TAC-338 to the one with the suppressor here). I think these are two similar-but-different guns as the page currently says.
- Regality, lose the attitude, all this chest-thumping about how stupid everyone is for not agreeing with you is not in any way productive even if you're right. I'm not sure how you could possibly claim "I don't see the difference" isn't a rebuttal to a claim that something is different, and since you're the one asserting there are two weapons here you have the burden of proof, not them. And FYI movie suppressors generally could not possibly explode even if you shot the wrong round though them because they have no baffles or wipes in them. Nevermind that since the weapon is bolt-action there's no need to make it cycle and since it's suppressed there's not much call for a full-power hot blank. Evil Tim (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (EST)
- I apologize for the attitude. I was frustrated because he changed it to be incorrect twice, and then said that he can't see the difference immediately after I explained the difference.
- I'm aware that they aren't using live ammo, but we are trying to determine what the rifle is based off the images we have. Either we ignore the can and don't know what caliber it is, or we account for the can and conclude it's a 30 cal rifle. The KAC suppressor takes a significant amount of work to adapt to a different platform, they didn't just slap it on there because it "fit". Even if it is a fake can, they put a lot of effort into getting it onto that gun. And even if they did move the suppressor to a rifle it doesn't belong on, you still haven't accounted for the fact that one rifle has a Remington action, and the other has a McMillan action. Maybe come back with a shred of evidence more than "I can't see the difference". Regality (talk) 3:17 PM, 9 February 2015 (MST)
- I know they're not using live ammo or real suppressors. Not sure about Regality though...--Mandolin (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (EST)
In any case, both pistol grip shots seem to be of the TAC-338, just slightly different quality.
The Mk 13 doesn't have Kyle's cheat sheet taped to it in any other shots. Maybe the latter is a trailer shot that was left in? I would suggest deleting the latter due to the inferior quality. Spartan198 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2021 (EDT)
BTS Images
- Was the faux Abrams not available? I'm pretty sure even the Marine Corps had phased out M60 tanks by whenever the movie is set. --Funkychinaman (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2015 (EST)
- The tank was probably used as reference and then an M1A1 Abrams was added in digitally. --Ben41 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2015 (EST)
- Yeah, the final scene was an Abrams. Didn't even notice it was CG.Temp89 (talk)
- Yeah, IMCDB has the final shot and it looks like it's a digital composite with a completely reworked turret and the hull front changed, but they've left some parts like the running gear which is completely incorrect for an Abrams. Evil Tim (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2015 (EST)
- Yeah, the final scene was an Abrams. Didn't even notice it was CG.Temp89 (talk)
- The tank was probably used as reference and then an M1A1 Abrams was added in digitally. --Ben41 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2015 (EST)
The way the SEALs are carrying their pistol
The ways the SEALs are carrying their P226 pistols, stuffed into their plate carriers, is this even a safe carrying method? I imagine the P226 could bounce around in the plate carrier, and not only that, it looks like the pistols could end up shooting them if it discharges.
.jpg){kind=link}
- Since the hammer isn't cocked you'd have to somehow generate a 10-pound DA trigger pull from jostling the weapon. This doesn't seem particularly likely. 1 and 2 look like they have a holster attached to the front of the plate carrier with the chest rig on top of it (you can see something at the base of the gun that isn't part of it in both shots); I can't see one on the third guy, but it could just be too low down to be visible. Evil Tim (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2015 (EDT)
"delta sniper"
I'm pretty sure the Delta guy is a ranger using a M24 rifle.
- In the credits, he's "Delta Sniper." However, you might be right about the M24. --Inceptor57 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (EDT)
Gotcha I didn't watch the credits, but his patch says airborne ranger, and the rifle has the lil nubby at the end for the irons. And the rifle being used during training definitely isn't a M40A1, the stock is a hs precision stock. Could just be a regular 700P or something similar.
- However, maybe Delta Sniper could be the other guy working on the comms with the sniper, who might be Ranger One due to the patches. This would have to be confirmed with what role the actors is playing (its hard to tell with all the uniform and helmets).
Both the sniper and the spotter have name and rank patches on their right shoulders, with the sniper outranking the spotter (sniper is a Master Sergeant, spotter is a Staff Sergeant ). It's common knowledge these days that outside of IR flag patches and maybe a blood type/allergen tape, Delta operators don't wear tabs indicating name or rank or specializations. The role "Delta Sniper" might just be a casting title goof --DeltaOne (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, I thought they were Army Snipers at least but then I saw the Ranger patches and wondered if they were Rangers and they do have their own snipers. Excalibur01 (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
- It might be a good time to bring up this article--Quarax (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2015 (EDT)
Brochure cover
For anyone wondering, this is the image on the front of the brochure. I've seen it in numerous publications over the years. In addition to the MP5N, the SEAL on the left has an M16A2/M203 while the two in the rear have Model 653s. Spartan198 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2016 (EST)
- M16A1, not A2. There's no brass deflector and the rear sight is simpler.--Mandolin (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2016 (EST)
- It may even be an XM16E1. Note the partial fence. --Funkychinaman (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2016 (EST)
AR-15A2 Government Carbine
Look at the screencaps at their largest size, the one pictured at least has an A1 upper receiver and flat delta ring. I think it's a Model 653. Spartan198 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2016 (EST)
MK 12 anachronistic?
During the only scene were see Chris training with the mk 12 SPR it was implied that scene took place before 9/11 but everything about that rifle seemed like it doesn't belong in 2001. Anybody know if such a rifle configuration was possible in 2001? I know for the fact that that stock looked more like a BCM than the early crane stock. Excalibur01 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (EDT)
Sniper rifle in bounty
Errh is not a SVD is a Tabuk. Doesnt anyone noticed the Tabuk stock? It have even a cheek rest.--Dannyguns (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
Operational Range of either the FSL or the SVD
I was always wondering, (1) the 'optics' for either of those guns don't offer the magnification as seen in the film. and (2) I don't think they're accurate that far out. I'm thinking 1000 yards or more, even with a scope. 300 win mag or 338 Lapua will definitely hit targets that far away, but in the film it looks farther than 1000 yards sometimes, especially looking over the cities. What do you guys think? Comments welcome. :D MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
2 reasons that reply at both. 1) On-screen both are very highly trained marksmen. 2)Off-screen, well is called "we-need-something-for-surprise-the-audience".
- SVD/PSL is IIRC a DMR in the vein of the SR-25/M14 EBR, and that PSO-1 scope is a 4x. So even a really good sniper isn't going to be able to shoot at long range. If the guy existed IRL, he was either working at much shorter ranges or had an actual sniper rifle.--Mandolin (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
Hasnt the Red Army adopted the SVD as a SNIPER rifle?--Dannyguns (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
- Its a DMR for platoon-level marksmen. Among other things the scope is too low-magnification to work at long range. It is also fairly light for a sniper rifle, doesn't (IIRC) have a free-floated barrel, and has a bayonet mount. Russia never really had a sniper rifle during the Cold War.--Mandolin (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
ISS confirms a P220 for this movie
In a recent Facebook live post with Larry Vickers, ISS has the actual P220 in the movie Excalibur01 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
- Yeah, I just now took a close look at the caps and all three SIGs shown (Kyle's, Dauber's, and LT Martens') all lack the double stack bulge. Not sure how that escaped notice all this time. They also said that the one used by Kyle was an original West German P220. Spartan198 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
- Guys, sorry to be the naysayer, and I acknowledge that I haven't seen the Facebook Live post referenced above, but something seems a little off here. If you look closely at the last screencap on the page (of LT Martens and Colonel Jones), the SIG in Martens' holster seems to have double-stack bulges which are consistent with a P226, not a P220. You have to enlarge the pic to full-size to see what I'm talking about. Also, in the top screencap of Kyle leaning over the table, the grip just looks a bit too wide for a -220, and seems more consistent with a -226. Finally, I should point out that in the screencap that shows Kyle lifting up the bed, he seems to be using his Springfield, not a SIG. The mags in that screencap are clearly single-stack mags, but looking at the grip on his right, it seems consistent with a 1911-type pistol, not any sort of SIG.
- I realize that I may out of depth questioning Larry Vickers, but I should point out that we've seen these types of inconsistencies before. Consider The Departed, for example: The NRA Museum in Fairfax has a SIG P228 on display that was supposedly carried by Matt Damon in the film. However, as we point out on the IMFDB page for The Departed, Damon is never seen using a P228 at any time in the finished film, only the -226. -MT2008 (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2018 (EDT)
Chris Kyle and Marc Lee's 1911s
I've rewatched the film again and inspected the image in the TRP section to safety say both Chris Kyle and Marc Lee's 1911s are different from each other because the lower frame on Marc's gun appears to be more of a traditional 1911 style frame pistol while Kyle's TRP Operator obviously features the underbarrel full frame rail and extended chrome barrel. Any ideas what Marc's gun model could be? Maybe from the book or an online source? My suggestion would be the MEU/SOC listed here but a SEAL wouldn't have a Marine style 1911 now would they? - MrJDK9412 (talk 01:17, 19 October 2022 (AEST)
See for yourself the two 1911 pistols in each hip holster
