| 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:Lord of War: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
In the movie, when Yuri is selling the guns in Lebanon, he says that it is cheaper for the U.S. government to buy new ones then ship the ones used back. Is this true? Seems wasteful to me. --[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 00:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC) | In the movie, when Yuri is selling the guns in Lebanon, he says that it is cheaper for the U.S. government to buy new ones then ship the ones used back. Is this true? Seems wasteful to me. --[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 00:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I was wondering the same thing when I saw it. This can't possibly be true, can it? The History Channel did a program on Anniston Army Depot, and while most of the work they do there is on vehicles, they also refurbish small arms, and destroy whatever is too worn out to refurbish. And the thought of rebels, freedom fighters, or death squads armed with former American weapons on the nightly news would be much to embarrassing to the government. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) | :I was wondering the same thing when I saw it. This can't possibly be true, can it? The History Channel did a program on Anniston Army Depot, and while most of the work they do there is on vehicles, they also refurbish small arms, and destroy whatever is too worn out to refurbish. And the thought of rebels, freedom fighters, or death squads armed with former American weapons on the nightly news would be much to embarrassing to the government. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
::I wouldn't say the U.S. ''generally'' doesn't take its munitions (especially costly, high-tech systems that the U.S. doesn't want its enemies to take apart and investigate), but it is true that sometimes, given the time constraints and costs, they aren't able to bring everything back. There are hundreds of thousands of U.S. military-issue small arms floating around Southeast Asia due to the Vietnam War, many of which have been used by various insurgencies, drug trafficking groups, and pirates in the region. Also, during the 1970s and 1980s, the Vietnamese government had a working arrangement with Cuba where they would ship U.S. military weapons to South America so that leftist guerrillas (including FARC) could use them, and the communist governments could deny responsibility. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:25, 12 July 2010
I just saw this movie again yesterday, there was no Steyr AUG in his container, it was a golden Hungarian AMD-65. - Flying Dane
- Actually, it wasn't a gold AMD-65, it was a nickel-plated Chinese Type-56 with ivory furniture and a Romanian-style folding grip. It's the same gun used in Belly. I had a picture of the gun on my Belly page when it still existed (before the server crash), but the picture of that gun is here: http://www.weaponspecialists.com/insiteTemplate.php?includeWhat=propView&id=160&category=&primaryCategory=ter&refID=20&cf=bpic
Orca, it is actually a MP5A4, i can see by the trigger group. The trigger groups of the MP5A2 and the MP5A4 are different. - Flying Dane
AKS74U
I don't think it's a 74u. the barrel seems too long and it doesn't have a triangular side folding stock (though that's not exactly definite). At the same time, the front sight and the flash hider look right. Plus, not to mention it's gold plated and the furniture looks strange to me. I think it looks more like an AKMS. Ah well, anybody see any of these things or am I just tired?
- It's probably a custom weapon that was assembled just for the film by the armorers. It is obviously not a 74U because that is a 7.62x39mm magazine (older style, before the ribbed versions), it has an East German-style side-folding stock, and a short barrel (AKMSU-style). You have to keep in mind that AKs can't all be classified so neatly (many countries have built their own versions, some of which are very different from the original Russian-made guns), which is one of the problems with this site. The best description I can give would be "custom-built Kalashnikov".
Poster Change
Is this poster better? - Gunmaster45
- Eh, not sure. I happen to prefer the older one just because it's a more creative design. But that's just me. -MT2008
- I just don't like it because it's a white poster, and the site's white background blend wierd and it looks ugly. But that's just me. - Gunmaster45
- The fact that the image has a border around it cancels that out in my opinion. I think the first poster is better, the above poster is so very generic and not nearly as interesting. --MattyDienhoff 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with MT, the other one is more creative and way cooler. Spartan198 04:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that the image has a border around it cancels that out in my opinion. I think the first poster is better, the above poster is so very generic and not nearly as interesting. --MattyDienhoff 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just don't like it because it's a white poster, and the site's white background blend wierd and it looks ugly. But that's just me. - Gunmaster45
Micro-Uzi
On the section about the Micro-Uzi, it says that it's unrealistic since it was first introduced in 1983. As far as I know, it was actually introduced in 1982, as it says on wikipedia and most sources I can find. Also many films as far back as 1985 show their useage (Invasion USA and Commando), so I doubt they were only known about for a couple of years before being so popular in civilian culture as to be placed in films. Infact I even doubt the 1982 introduction date, as Israel and weapon secrecy seem to go hand-in-hand as well. -Tec-9
- The civilian version of the Micro Uzi (which is what you see in most American movies, including this one) was introduced to the American market in 1983. So, it would not have been around in 1982. As far as their appearances in mid-80s movies, that is actually common in Hollywood. The Desert Eagle was introduced in 1984 and shown immediately afterwards in Year of the Dragon and Commando, both of which came out in 1985. A more extreme example that I documented was RoboCop 2, which features the SIG-Sauer P228 even though the P228 was introduced in 1990 (the same year that the movie came out). -MT2008
- That explains it then - sorry about the edit then, feel free to revert it back. Thanks for the explanation too man - but just wondering whats the difference with the civilian version of the micro-uzi? Do you mean the semi-auto uzi pistol? Also I am getting loads of conflicting sources - when was the Micro-Uzi first made, I got another source from the manufacturers that suggest it started in the 1990's as well! Thanks. -Tec-9
- Changed back the edit I done to how it was like before, saying that it is indeed unrealistic in 1982. :) -Tec-9
- Maybe you should consider that Yuri's contact at the synagogue (where he obtained the guns) may not be much of a civilian at all and therefore have access to military equipment directly from Israel.
Unknow AR-15
- I'd say CQBR, but thats Navy SEAL only, but on the Bourne Identity page, the M16s that the Marines are using are actually Bushmasters. I'll look up more and get back to you. The Winchester
- The receiver is the wrong style for CQBR, and not all ARs with 10" barrels match that type, anyway. -MT2008
- Like i said: CQBRs are only for SEALs. Its gotta be a custom piece. No forward assist or shell deflector and a 10 inch barrel. -The Winchester
- It could be custom, i look in the net several images of SBR AR-15. -Dillinger
- Like i said: CQBRs are only for SEALs. Its gotta be a custom piece. No forward assist or shell deflector and a 10 inch barrel. -The Winchester
- The receiver is the wrong style for CQBR, and not all ARs with 10" barrels match that type, anyway. -MT2008
The 1911 entry looks more like a Hi-Power to me.
typo
"This particular Chinese Type 56 has the ribbed top cover of an Russian (or licensed third party) AKM - the Chinese AKs have smooth top covers."
"...of an Russian..."
- Thanks for the correction, but...it's perfectly fine if you make it yourself. -MT2008 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Special Edition DVD errors
Someone want to go through the second disc of the Special Edition DVD and make a list of all the factual errors in the history/specs for the weapons? Saw it at a friends house - it lists the M16 as a belt-fed 7.62mm rifle with an effective range of 1100 meters...
-Seriously? Now I gotta see this feature Excalibur01 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Busted AR-15?
The Closeup of the AR-15 in the weapons pile looks like its missing its bolt catch and its upper reciever looks bulged, Am I right?
- I do believe you might be correct. Spartan198 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Customized Saiga
It says that the trigger was moved forward but this is normal for converting a Saiga to a pistol grip, did he somehow move it farther or is it just saying one of the results of converting a Saiga?--FIVETWOSEVEN 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Moving guns vs buying new ones.
In the movie, when Yuri is selling the guns in Lebanon, he says that it is cheaper for the U.S. government to buy new ones then ship the ones used back. Is this true? Seems wasteful to me. --Gunkatas 00:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing when I saw it. This can't possibly be true, can it? The History Channel did a program on Anniston Army Depot, and while most of the work they do there is on vehicles, they also refurbish small arms, and destroy whatever is too worn out to refurbish. And the thought of rebels, freedom fighters, or death squads armed with former American weapons on the nightly news would be much to embarrassing to the government. --funkychinaman 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say the U.S. generally doesn't take its munitions (especially costly, high-tech systems that the U.S. doesn't want its enemies to take apart and investigate), but it is true that sometimes, given the time constraints and costs, they aren't able to bring everything back. There are hundreds of thousands of U.S. military-issue small arms floating around Southeast Asia due to the Vietnam War, many of which have been used by various insurgencies, drug trafficking groups, and pirates in the region. Also, during the 1970s and 1980s, the Vietnamese government had a working arrangement with Cuba where they would ship U.S. military weapons to South America so that leftist guerrillas (including FARC) could use them, and the communist governments could deny responsibility. -MT2008 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)