| 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:Dirty Harry: Difference between revisions
(→.44 Magnum/.41 Magnum: new section) |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
== .44 Magnum/.41 Magnum == | == .44 Magnum/.41 Magnum == | ||
From what I remember reading in gun mags of the time, when they contacted Smith & Wesson a week before production was due to start no M29's where being produced at that time. They where in the middle of a run of M57 .41 Magnums, which are identical appart from the differance in Calibur. They sent them a pair of these with an advisory | From what I remember reading in gun mags of the time, when they contacted Smith & Wesson a week before production was due to start no M29's where being produced at that time. They where in the middle of a run of M57 .41 Magnums, which are identical appart from the differance in Calibur. They sent them a pair of these with an advisory note not to film the muzzle until some .44's could be sourced to replace them. | ||
Revision as of 15:06, 7 September 2009
I've read that the gun actually was a Model 25 in .45 Colt. The substitution for the M29 was lack of availability of a M29 and the easy availability of blank cartridges in .45 Colt (which were probably widely used in Colt Peacemakers in Westerns).
- I heard it was a Model 57 in .41 caliber, but it makes more sense for it to be a Model 25, because .45 Colt blanks were very common thanks to the ridiculous amount of westerns made during that time. - Gunmaster45
John Milius supplied the Model 29 for the film then both Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals supplied them. The ones from Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals were .44 Magnums but were re-chambered to use 5 in 1 blanks. - Steve
John Milius Model 29
What is known is that after Magnum Force was finished Milius was presented with a Model 29 by CLint Eastwood and Warner Brothers. It has a small plaque on the grip. I've seen numerous photos of it and a few years ago it was on display at the NRA's museum in Virgina. Does anyone know if that Model 29 was used in either movie or was it just a gift? --Jcordell 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a Model 29(maybe)
It has also been written that two Model 29's were used in the filming of Dirty Harry. The Smith & Wesson company historian, Roy Jinks, has stated that the company was approached by Warner Brothers before filming had begun with a request for specimens. Evidently no Model 29's could be found to purchase. The Model 29 was something of a "niche" gun in the fifties and sixties and S&W did not produce large numbers of the 44 magnum revolver.
There had not been a production run for awhile and they had become rather scarce on the market. The factory did have parts on hand and were able to put together two models for the production. However all they had were 6.5 inch barrels so that's what the film went with.
John Milius has stated in the past that when he was doing fine tuning on the script he gave Inspector Callahan a Model 29 with a 4 inch barrel. Which makes sense since since it would be more practical for a cop to carry the 4" version. Of course practical in this case in more a matter of schemantics.
As others have said though it's hard to know what really occurred. The makers of Dirty Harry had no way of knowing that they were involved with pop culture history and nobody thought to keep accurate records about the props. So we continue to have fun debating all the possible models used by Inspector Callahan. --Jcordell 14:59, 16 April 2009
- I'm pretty sure that this is a .44 Magnum bore, because I've seen a Model 29 up close and remember it looking just like this. I've never seen a Model 25, but some pictures I've seen online suggest it doesn't look like this.
- My guess is that they used the Model 25 mostly for the firing scenes, the Model 29 whenever the gun wasn't fired. -MT2008
Rifle as Evidence
The reason the rifle was not viable evidence is because it was "fruit of the poisonous tree." Harry had no warrant to search the stadium so evidence pulled from the scene is not admissible in court. this is the reason stated in the movie BUT any halfway decent cop and district attorney would make it a legal search due to it being "fresh pursuit" not to mention the exigent circumstance of said pursuit. moreover scorpio could only get the protection of that statute if he were a legal resident of the stadium and i am pretty sure he wouldn't be recognized as such legally. so in reality it wouldn't happen quite like that, but the entire movie was an exercise of complaint at the systems apparent apathy towards victims rights and total obsession with criminal rights. so the whole point is rendered moot. just felt like sharing.
=====
I concur. the statement on the picture is just careless. However, the doctor said that the groundskeeper let him live there. That was the easy way they explained he was legally living there. Contract living or not, the implication that his living space is consensual with the owners or caretakers is legally enough to make it a protected area which requires a warranted search. Also, there was no "hot pursuit" or fresh pursuit. they were led to the stadium through a tip. They didn't see him run there and they didn't follow him in. Just my two cents 69.23.137.224 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Your point is quite valid, I only brought it up as it was a topic in my Substantive Law class. The fresh pursuit part isn't so much about actively chasing the suspect into the area, but the small amount of time that has passed in the pursuit, bolstered by the exigent circumstances (which is a trump card). The trouble with the groundskeeper giving permission to live there is that he (in all probability) has no legal standing to grant that permission. Since Scorpio is effectively a squatter and the "search" was more or less the rifle being in plain view during the course of a lawful arrest (if i remember correctly) the point is again moot. But I do agree with you on a few levels, I just merely wanted to point out that the topic in question is more of a legal quagmire than the cut and dry "you were bad, Harry" that the movie states or the cut and dry "they have the rifle there just use it as evidence" that others wish were the case. Just adding a few more cents, I think I'm up to a nickel now. =P
Harry and the 4th Amendment
I can't speak for 1971 but in 2009 if I was in a similar situation a couple phone calls and I would have a very quick answer from the on-call prosecutor. Also I would call my superior and make sure that I surrounded the stadium with officers and locked it down. I've gotten search warrants before and a couple times it only took about 90 minutes. Plus there would be a very good chance that the PA (prosecutor) would give you the green light to enter based on the exigent circumstances.
Also I imagine that you could contact the owner or owners and get permission to search fairly quickly. Especially considering the circumstances. Most people are essentially good and want to help the police. At least in the U.S.A. But if they showed that the system was somewhat flexible and that other folks also wanted to save the girl than Harry would lose his Lone Wolf status. That would have changed the whole movie and fun would that be?
I own all the Dirty Harry movies and I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood, but they are works of fiction and they play fast and loose with the law in order to make a political/social point. Your observations are dead on. --Jcordell 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
.44 Magnum/.41 Magnum
From what I remember reading in gun mags of the time, when they contacted Smith & Wesson a week before production was due to start no M29's where being produced at that time. They where in the middle of a run of M57 .41 Magnums, which are identical appart from the differance in Calibur. They sent them a pair of these with an advisory note not to film the muzzle until some .44's could be sourced to replace them.