| 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:Sudden Impact: Difference between revisions
m (→S&W Model 29) |
|||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
-I'm not sure about that. Muzzle diameters can look larger than real in movies/pics, specially in stainless or nickel handguns, and particularly if the muzzle hole is slightly out of focus, as it happens with the screenshot (I took some pics of my .22 l.r. S&W 617, and the muzzle looked like a .38). In the scene where Sondra Locke loads her revolver, the cartridges look like .38 specials (they look too "stylized" to be .44 specials, although I admit that it's hard to be really sure). BTW: if I remember well, when Callahan prints the ballistics report in the police precinct, it can be read ".38 special" (I'll have to see that scene again).--[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] | -I'm not sure about that. Muzzle diameters can look larger than real in movies/pics, specially in stainless or nickel handguns, and particularly if the muzzle hole is slightly out of focus, as it happens with the screenshot (I took some pics of my .22 l.r. S&W 617, and the muzzle looked like a .38). In the scene where Sondra Locke loads her revolver, the cartridges look like .38 specials (they look too "stylized" to be .44 specials, although I admit that it's hard to be really sure). BTW: if I remember well, when Callahan prints the ballistics report in the police precinct, it can be read ".38 special" (I'll have to see that scene again).--[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] | ||
:Also, Sondra Locke is s rather petite woman, so it might look larger in comparison. --[[User:Maxman|Maxman]] ([[User talk:Maxman|talk]]) 15:51, 11 December 2016 (EST) | |||
-FWIW: here are some answers from Coltforum.com: | -FWIW: here are some answers from Coltforum.com: | ||
Revision as of 20:51, 11 December 2016
the Auto Mag was the ORIGINAL automag the AMP NOT the AMT. Same name, completely different weapon. 69.23.137.224 07:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Additional Discussions (Moved From Main Page)
A note to those who made their comments, please note who you are if you're a registered member with three (preferably four) tildes at the end of your comment. And a note to admins, I hope I haven't done too much to annoy any of y'all, just trying to help keep a page clean and professional, and (in the case of the DS) avoid any further controversy on something that isn't concrete in the first place. StanTheMan
.44 Special Detective Special - Round 2
(This is actually a .38 Special and not a .44 Special. The Colt Detective Special was never chambered for the .44 Special cartridge; the frame size of the gun is too small. The barrel diameter does indeed look large in the picture where Sondra Locke is holding the gun, but this is because she is a petite female. Note how the gun looks smaller in the picture where Paul Drake holds it.
This is a great page and apart from this all the other gun info looks accurate to me. The pics are all great as well.)
but what about the fact that the first picture of the gun itself says, "Detective Spec.-.44 Special"? Look closely.
(The markings on the gun barrel are a little blurry but if you use the Microsoft magnifier application you can see that the gun barrel says "Detective Spec" on the first line and ".38 Special Ctg" on the second line.)
- - You know, without knowing any more details about the actual gun used in the film, I don't think we'll ever know any specifics for certain. Nonetheless, I've removed all mention of it being .44, or even it being simply bigger than .38 on the page itself - if noone knows for certain, we therefore can't state it as such with any certainty. So, I've removed any mention of caliber, and I think we should just leave it at that. As such, I've moved all recent comments here, where they should be anyway. StanTheMan 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
S&W Model 29
(From the size of the bore in the first two movie images below, this looks like a Smith and Wesson Model 25 .45 Colt subbing for a Model 29 .44 Magnum. This would allow 5-in-1 blanks to be used in the gun, which are easier to acquire than .44 Magnum blanks.)
- - Oh really? You must have the best eyes in the universe, to detect one-hundredth of an inch of a difference in a hole diameter, especially with no reference. StanTheMan 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Someone posted a comment on The Enforcer saying they may have used a Model 57 - 41. Magnum couldn't find a Model 29 blah, blah. Which I though was stupid considering MPM posted the actual screen used Model 29 in the film. I doubt they had a problem finding a Model 29 in this '83 film. --Predator20 20:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- - I remember that. What's also interesting here is that he's going by the first two screencaps, which are past the shooting part and are now in a part of a sequence that most certainly wouldn't involve any active firing gun as he points it at a person up close in that part of the scene. On the opposite, I myself would contend that that's where they would use a real Model 29 - for detailed non-firing close-up shots. StanTheMan 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- - I read on this website (http://www.vincelewis.net/44magnum.html) that the S&W they use on the close up shots where a model 29 with the barrel bored out for effect. The bore of the barrel is way to big to be a .44 magnum. On the big screen it's even more intimidating. Charterarmsoffduty 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Driven by curiosity I've just went on the Smith & Wesson website: in my humble opinion, the muzzle diameter of the model 25 indeed looks just like the one in the screencaps (take a look at the 360° view on the said website).MikeF88 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
- The Model 25 has the standard pencil barrel. The Model 29 has the heavy "bull" barrel. Harry's gun has the heavy barrel. Please check more than just the bore diameter. Also, .44 is very close in diameter to .45, close enough to make differentiation virtually impossible. --Maxman (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (EST)
Smith & Wesson 3000 Info
A little history of the Smith & Wesson Model 3000 (later Mossberg Model 3000) 12-gauge Pump-action Shotgun. I hope that this will help add a little to the online history of the Smith & Wesson Model 3000 Shotgun, which seems lacking.
Smith and Wesson long held a strong police presence in the firearm market with their line of revolvers, their "Military & Police" model, aka Model 10 was long a standard sidearm for many officers. Smith & Wesson offered a broad market of Police-oriented gear as well as ammunition, adding Shotguns in the mid-to-late 1970s. The Model 3000 was a companion piece to the semi-automatic Model 1000, a gas-operated design, in their product line.
In the April 1983 issue of EAGLE Magazine, a bi-monthly Publication of Command Publications, then Sergeant Gary Paul Johnston reviewed a sample of the then new shotgun. For comparison, it was to be shot next to the Remington Model 870 Pump-action, considered the standard by which new shotguns were being judged.
Where were these differences in the two? Using a fairly new Remington, both shotguns were equipped with 20" rifled sights. This would help reduce friction on critical parts. Where Remington used flat springs, the S&W used coil springs. Parts were simplified, the ejector being mentioned. The S&W's barrel was hammer forged for both strength and precision, with a "taper bore" vs a conventional choke method as found in the 870's barrel.
The one, well-known problem with the Model 870 was being stoppage-prone, when a cartridge would fall onto the carrier and create a frustrating jam. According to the Sales Manager Johnston spoke too, this was specifically engineered out of the 3000's design.
Johnston replicated (with some difficulty he noted) these stoppages with both shotguns, to see how they compared to one another. On the Remington, he had to use both hands on the pump and have the buttstock on the ground to get it cycle. The S&W, he reported cycled and chambered the "jammed" round with relative ease.
So, he went to the next part of the test, comparing S&W's "taper bore" with a Remington Improved Cylinder choked barrel. Given poor weather (gusting wind) at 50yds, he felt they were at a draw using the Federal rifled slugs. Later testing indoors netted 3" groups at 100ft. Moving on to buckshot, was to be of more interest to him as he felt that slugs had limited use in the majority of Police usage. Tight patterns, given that each pellet becomes accountable, was paramount. Again using Federal-brand buckshot, firing four rounds at 50yds, using the standard B-21 large silhouette the Remington put 16 of 36 pellets onto the silhouette body. Repeating with the Smith & Wesson, it put 11 of 36 on the body. Things changed when distance was moved in to 25yds. Both Federal and Remington "00" buckshot was used and performed well, as the full 36 pellets stayed on the paper, but the patterns the S&W printed were tighter overall.
Having used a Remington Model 870 both personally and professionally as a Police Officer, the question would be asked, which is the better gun. He felt it was hard to answer, but winning factor was the "Jam-free" engineering.
At the time, the gun was offered with Blued and Parkerized finishes, could come with a regular stock, or the optional Choate-manufactured (for Smith & Wesson) Pistol-gripped stock or a folding-stock.
That, as I mentioned was in 1983. The movie tie-in of Sudden Impact was obvious, the Smith & Wesson revolver carried by Clint Eastwood was a stand-out co-star, and had been from the beginning. Albert Popwell, the man who played "Horace King" in Sudden Impact, of course had been in all of the previous "Dirty Harry" movies. He finally got to be "The Partner" and was well-rewarded with a Smith & Wesson firearm of speciality, their new Shotgun. Many look at the AutoMag used by Eastwood, and it did stir press back then, but the shotgun was looked over by most.
How is it I believe it was a S&W Model 3000 and not a Mossberg Model 500? Several reasons. I have a Mossberg Circular from an old gun magazine in my files, it has the Model 3000 series in it. This circular was the "New for '86" guns. Mossberg, I believe, acquired the rights from Smith & Wesson, but it didn't stay in their line very long.
A brief summary of the Model 3000 can be found in Leroy Thompson's guide on "Combat Shotguns," (Greenhill Military Manuals, 2002)
Now, for the nitty gritty. If you have the DVD, you can slow-frame through Horace's approach to Harry from the car. The shotgun is "profiled" and you can look at the bolt through the ejection port. It looks more like an 870 rounded bolt than the Model 500 Mossberg, with it's flatter design.
Also, you get an opportunity to look at the feeding port. If you look closely, you'll see the shell elevator is shiny and at the bottom of the port, not recessed into the flat of the bolt like the Mossberg design.
Added by BC2009.
- I originally thought it was an 870 but the magazine tube cap is off and the ejection port isn't quite right. If you can find a good picture of this gun, that would be great, since I'll be revamping this page soon. - Gunmaster45
- Great insight. You should repost all this on the 3000 page itself. StanTheMan 00:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
.44 special Colt DS?
a ".44 special Colt Detective Special"???? Such gun NEVER existed.
-You're right. The Colt DS was only made in .38 special. I've modified the page.--Rafa
Actually, the DS was made in .44 Special. Look at the pictured DS on this page. Its clearly says ".44 Special" on the barrel. -Gunman69 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
-Funny, I was pretty sure that the DS was never made in that caliber (I've read all of the John Taffin books, and being one of the greatest admirers of the .44 special caliber, I think that he would have mentioned such a gun). I'm not able to find any other reference to a .44 special DS in any of my books/magazines (and I've been collecting them since 1981). I've magnified the pic, and, indeed, it seems to say ".44 special", although the quality of the pic is not high. May it really says ".38" and a horizontal scratch makes it to look like ".44"? May be it was a prototype that never was commercially released? I think that the frame of this revolver is too small to chamber it in .44 special (S&W used the "L" and "N" frames, that are larger than Colt's "D" frame for their .44 special wheelguns). I've posted the question in www.coltforum.com. --Rafa
- Even so, look at the screenshots on the page. The muzzle diameter is WAY to big to be a .38 special. -Gunman69 23:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
-I'm not sure about that. Muzzle diameters can look larger than real in movies/pics, specially in stainless or nickel handguns, and particularly if the muzzle hole is slightly out of focus, as it happens with the screenshot (I took some pics of my .22 l.r. S&W 617, and the muzzle looked like a .38). In the scene where Sondra Locke loads her revolver, the cartridges look like .38 specials (they look too "stylized" to be .44 specials, although I admit that it's hard to be really sure). BTW: if I remember well, when Callahan prints the ballistics report in the police precinct, it can be read ".38 special" (I'll have to see that scene again).--Rafa
- Also, Sondra Locke is s rather petite woman, so it might look larger in comparison. --Maxman (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2016 (EST)
-FWIW: here are some answers from Coltforum.com: --Not possible. The barrel does say .44 Special, but that's probably just a good Photoshop job. What's telling is that the cylinder has six chambers, and there isn't enough room in a DS cylinder to get six .44's in there.
- Uh, no, that is NOT a photoshop job. In fact, if you knew anything about me, I am super against Franken guns, which are guns which are altered in Photoshop. Just because you never encountered one doesn't mean it does not exist. I saw, handled and photographed this gun IN PERSON. .44 Special does exist. Don't know the history of the gun, but it was a .44 Special revolver. And like some anonymous guy on the COLT FORUM would trump a physical example of a .44 Special CDS. Really. "I trust everything on the Internet too! ;) "MoviePropMaster2008 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
--Movies are a wonderful make believe world filled with props and/or PhotoShop can do wonders. In a word, no. JMO
--Nice photoshop job
- Well, personally I think you should ask MPM2008 about it. He's the one who took that picture, so I think he would have the best information about the Colt DS. I very highly doubt that he just photoshopped ".44 Spl" onto a picture just for him to prove a point, so I think you need to ask him about it. -Gunman69 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, just take a look here: http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Talk:Colt_Detective_Special -Gunman69 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Gunman69 for the backup. :) MoviePropMaster2008 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
--Interesting, indeed. Would it be possible to know if the gun pictured was a gun modified in a custom shop? (and if so, who made the job?). ).--Rafa
- Interesting how the ones blabbing 'Photoshop' don't ID themselves. In any case, regardless of the gun MPM provided (which I myself think is genuine - A photoshop could be done better than that :P) I do believe that the gun in the film itself is .44, or at least, it's certainly bigger than a .38 anyway. There are numerous shots in the film and even on the page where you can plainly see the barrel is too big for .38 caliber. If it is focus error, then it's a focus error that happens throughout the film.
Looking at it in side-by-side shots of the other DS examples, one can tell it has a larger cylinder and is generally a bit bigger overall. Which only makes sense if it is a .44.
Anyway, that's my say. And while there are some who'd do a photoshop in a case like this, MPM just doesn't strike me as that kind of fellow.
A funny thing though is that one of the comments is correct, the gun is referred in the film as a .38. Bah. StanTheMan 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I just found out about this discussion and I think I should throw in my 2 cents. As far as the .44 DetSpec goes, I can find NO example other than what MPM2008 has posted. Additionally, in theory it's impossible to fit a six shot .44 Special cylinder into a small framed revolver like the Detective Special, at least one that will be strong enough to withstand the round going off. Even current production small framed .44 Revolvers only hold 5 shots, and they are still quite big. The cylinder of the DetSpec is a 6 shot and looks just like the .38 Cylinder, and the only explanation for that would be that the entire gun was scaled up, which is unlikely.
I think the gun either doesn't say .44 Special on the barrel (which is what it looks like it says, but it's not perfectly clear, it could say .38 and we just can't tell), it has been stamped wrong, or was some kind of rare variant that was never mass produced. I'm not an expert, but these are just some ideas as to what it may be. The only person who could shed some more light on the subject would be MPM2008, and while he has told us some things, like it was part of a museum collection, we don't have a size comparison to a .38 Detective Special, a clear picture of the chambers, different views etc. to determine what it is exactly. Overall, we don't have enough evidence to say the gun is a .44 Special, other than MPM2008s word, which is not as valid as physical evidence, that is not to say I don't trust MPM2008, but we all have spells of ignorance or don't know absolutely all the intricate details about certain guns or production lines. I do have faith in MPM2008s integrity, and I have no doubt in my mind that the gun is not photoshopped, though.
All that being said, if the .44 DetSpec is extremely rare or even real, I highly doubt someone would have had one for this movie, at least over a .38 version which would be a dime a dozen in the early 80s, when the movie was made. The overall size argument is moot as in the pictures where men hold the gun, it looks to be of normal size. It looks bigger when Sondra Lock holds it, but women generally have smaller hands, so the gun might just look big. The bore can look bigger in most lighting and angles due to the curve at the front. I wasn't on the set of Sudden Impact, but I'm willing to bet, unless someone has the particular gun with paperwork, that the DetSpec in the movie was a .38 Special, as a .44 just doesn't make sense. --Yournamehere 06:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
-I agree. I think that there is a scene where Sondra Locke loads 6 cartridges in the revolver. Even the S&W "L" frame, which is substantially larger than Colt's "D" frame can only load five .44 cartridges. I'm pretty sure that the gun is a regular .38 special revolver.
- You know, if they had just used a Smith Chief's Special or Model 10 snub or something, we wouldn't be in this mess! :b StanTheMan 17:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Great forum here
I love forum vey professional and clean. i live in the us well philly to be exact just wanted to drop and see how everyone is and what not.
FN 1903 Pocket Hammerless?
Is it me or does anyone else think that Tyrone's pistol looks too long to be a colt pockect hammerless. It looks like an FN to me
M 1911A1 or STAR model B?
I'm not sure, but I think that in the first vidcap of the bank robber holding his pistol, an external extractor can be barely seen. Thus, it might actually be a Star model B, used in many films as a substitute for the 1911 Rafa 15:02, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
- It's hard to see because of the low resolution, but it does look like there's an external extractor. If someone could get a clearer shot of the slide, we might be able to tell decisively. -- Maxman (talk) 08:30 20 November 2013 (EST)
Backstory of Harry's AutoMag
According to the novelisation, Harry received the AutoMag as a gift from a custom gunsmith for saving the man's wife. Knowing Harry, he probably shot the bastards endangering her. The dialogue mentions this is the only gift he's accepted, which suggests he's offered gifts quite often.
Should this be included in the description? -- Maxman (talk) 08:40 20 November 2013 (EST)
92SB Image
Any particular reason the gun image was swapped? The new one is slightly sharper and larger I grant, but it's also oddly angled - Meanwhile the one originally posted was one of MPM's images of the same exact model/configuration. Basically I just don't see the need for changing it with what is, more-or-less, a redundant image. StanTheMan (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (EST)
This image is from a batch of newly photographed weapons from Yournamehere that were posted in the forum. This was a tryout to see how it looked. --Ben41 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2016 (EST)
- Ah! Test run. Apologies for any problems, then. StanTheMan (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2016 (EST)