I think the article should be amended to only mention the weapon seen on Hoot's person when he's confronted by Capt. Steele during chow time. The weapon he's holding in the screengrab of him being picked up by Wolcott and the Delta guys is the same M727 he uses in the rest of the film. --131.216.48.250 16:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure? I'm fairly certain the carbine Sanderson handed him had the knobs signifying a detachable carry handle. Spartan198 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Pretty damn sure. The front corner of that carry handle in the screencaps is too thin to be from an M4's carry handle. Definitely the mark of an A2 upper's carry handle as seen on M727s--24.253.69.199 00:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
"I think the article should be amended to only mention the weapon seen on Hoot's person when he's confronted by Capt. Steele" - Corrected the section as noted. Sgtmonroe (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
This probably isn't very important, but...
I went through and corrected the abbreviated ranks. Most of them were in Marine Corps form as opposed to Army form (ex., SSgt vs SSG). Like I said, probably not worth mentioning, but it's a little detail that was bugging me. Spartan198 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, correctness is a virtue. Good on you for doing it. Cozmo 01:39, 5 March 2011 (MSK)
Weapon used by delta force
M4 was issued in 1994 before the battle which took place in 1993 ...the weapon seen in the movie and used by Delta operators was CAR-15
If you'll look at the upper reciever and carry handle/rear-sight assembly, you'll see they match the M16A2-style of the early-model M4 carbine as shown in the picture above the screenshots. The CAR-15 (also known as the Colt Commando) used the recievers and carry handle/rear sight assembly of the M16A1. Orca1 9904 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the stock is wrong for the CAR15...its an M4
:How is the stock "wrong"? And no M4 has the flash suppressor of the Car-15 Excalibur01
Isn't it more likely that Randy Shughart was actually carrying a Springfield M21 rather than the M14?
No, he was carrying a M14 during the actual battle and it is in his Medal of Honor citation. So its definitely a M14.
Do you happen to have a link to his MoH citation? The book accounted that Shughart used an M21. --Blemo 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
To Blemo - I've got the book in my lap. Page 208, and I quote, "They used to kid Randy Shughart because he shunned the modern rifle and ammunition and carried a Vietnam era M-14, which shot a 7.62mm round without the penetrating qualities of the new green tip." Right there in black and white. --NMOne 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Your point about the issue date of the M4 flies in the face of the logic that "IT'S A MOVIE".-protoAuthor 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Your point about "It's a movie" is in the face of the logic that we shouldn't use our brains and common sense. It's like watching a 1920s movie and seeing someone riding into a scene with a 1970 Mustang. Would you use the "It's a movie" logic there? What about a WWII movie and you see an F-18 shooting sidewinders at a Japanese Zero? The point of this site is so that we do point of the little details. It's like in IMDB where it points out which movie a certain actor has been in and what his role is. The same here on this side except you replace "Actor" with "pick a gun". Accuracy is the whole point. Excalibur01
My point was, movies don't get things 100% correct.-protoAuthor 03:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a scene in the movie (1:37:53) where Yurek, Nelson and Twombly are about to rejoin the other Rangers at the Black Hawk crash site. While Yurek is on the radio to Eversmann (Josh Hartnett's character) he grabs a mag out of a Type 47 that a dead Somali soldier is still holding. Since the Rangers are all carrying 5.56 NATO M4A2s and FN Minimis, what would be the point of grabbing a 7.62mm mag? Seems like an odd oversight considering the camera kinda focuses on him taking the mag, and they've worked quite hard to maintain accuracy and detail in the film. Any ideas? Am I missing something? DamageW 06:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What the hell is a Type 47?Oliveira 15:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
i dont know, but they did that so the weapon was useless for someone to pick up and use. He probaly just ditched it later. -The Winchester
He's talking about an AK-47, but Type 47 definately isn't the right term. I always assumed he took it as a memento or something, because anyone can reload a weapon even if the magazine is removed. - Gunmaster45
Actually, he grabs the mag because he's carrying an M60, and he probably figured he may be able to use the ammo later. Also, many SF types are known to, in extreme need, use the local weapons, and he may also have been preparing for that eventuality. Asmkillr323 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Taking AK rounds for an M60? the M60 fires 7.62x51 rounds, while the AK fires 7.62x39, plus you'd need to have the rounds already on a belt to be fired by an M60. M14fanboy 15:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that what Yurek was trying to do was deny the enemy ammunition should they pick up the AK. The Bowden's book accounted that many Somalis that were killed would have others reuse the same weapon. They briefly showed that when Busch was making his last stand by the downed chopper. Also, he may have kept it as a souvenir. It's not everyday you'll find a loaded AK magazine that had the potential to kill you. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was suggesting that he was picking up the mag out of fear that at some point, he would need to resort to using an Ak, or that he would have the ammo if someone else had already been forced to pick up a local weapon. --Asmkillr323 05:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, What the motherfuck is an M4A2?-Oliveira 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The motherfuck that is an M4A2 is basically an M4 produced by another company such as Bushmaster Firearms. It's just another "M4gery". Also, Google is everyone's friend and it wouldn't hurt to ask it. ;) --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 02:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to think he kept it as a souvenir, although the actual reason was whenever a member of militia was killed they were extremely dedicated to retrieving the body and the firearm, so removing the magazine would have made it useless, although picking up the the weapon and smashing it to pieces would probably have worked betterOwen642 14:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Smashing the weapon would have been noisy and they were trying to be quiet at that point IIRC.
fair point but i was thinking more like removing the driver spring, and its probably just that it would have made one less magazine for the somalians to use
I think the reason is that the enemy has 30 rounds less against the rangers. It's like in 'Saving Privat Ryan': the rescue team left Steamboat Willy alive; so he could kill Captain Miller. A wise decision of Yurek, I think
Those of you who were saying he was denying the enemy are correct. You'll notice that he doesn't pocket the magazine. He tosses it away. He didn't field strip it because he likely didn't know how. So the easiest thing to do would be to unload it and throw the magazine away. I was in the military and we were trained to be observant and look for things that would compromise security (like unsecured enemy weapons). One thing you never do is use ammo you find lying around on the street, and in any case, M14Fanboy was right in that the calibers of the US weapons were totally incompatible with the Soviet rounds. Smashing the rifle would have taken time and energy that needed to be spent elsewhere. Besides, it's a rifle...not an airsoft gun. Have you ever tried to smash a real AK? There's a reason it's been in service for so many years... Cozmo 01:52, 5 March 2011 (MSK)
I noticed another mistake. During the scene where Gordon and Shughart are holding off the Somalis at the crash sight there's a quick moment when Shughart is seen using an M16A2 rifle instead of his M14 rifle. And in the very next scene and all following he's back to using the M14. Ballistics_Expert2
I believe it was because he was firing his M14 until it ran out of ammo, and then using a helo crew member's M16 before retreating to reload both rifles.:::
- Yes, that's the case. Gordon is also seen dropping his CAR-15 when it's empty and using his 1911. Later, when Shughart is killed, he fires the M14 'til it's empty, then switching to his 1911, and when that is empty, using an MP5 from the chopper. Hell, they're being overwhelmed, and it is quicker to pick up and and shoot another weapon that is ready than reload the present one. They were pretty much using whatever they could trying their damndest to fend an army off, I would think that was obvious. StanTheMan 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Mike Durant's Book
In Mike Durant's book "The Night Stalkers" he quoted a few weapons he was using in the real life in the "Mog". I remember him talking about his MP5 not to metion he called it a "german piece of crap" for jamming. He also said Randy's Commando was on burst-fire 3 shots 1 kill. And the mini guns the rescue team could have been using can not run on the Black Hawk's batteries only on pure engine generating turbine power.
To be fair, Mike Durant also seems to know very little about firearms. Also note that his memory may be jarred by the fact that, you know, he had just suffered a fucking HELICOPTER CRASH. --Asmkillr323 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, helicopter pilots have to be trained with certain firearms in order to survive in the event of a crash. Durant at least knew how to clear the jam on the 9mm submachine gun. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 02:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
160th SOAR aircrews, being a part of ASOC are trained not only in their specific role in the aircraft, but also on how to continue with the mission at hand along with their "customers." Hence, they're well-familiarized with fighting with the weapons carried on board with them (in the case of what was aboard Super-64, MP5s for the pilots, M16s for the crewchiefs and M9s carried by all of them).
What baffles me is how his MP5 kept jamming (in the book atleast). I know they were in the desert, but that MP5 had been stashed inside a helicopter, so it wouldn't be all dusty and full of sand. Maybe it is a German piece of crap then M14fanboy 15:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it was dusty inside of the chopper. Flying around in a helicopter with the rotor wash sending dust, smoke, and sand into and around the cabin won't help the MP5 from jamming, either. Pilots don't normally clean their emergency back-up weapons as they're supposed to. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Helicopter crews don't regularly use their weapons and so may not be as maintenance-minded as a Ranger or Delta. That could be one reason it kept jamming. Spartan198 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I did read Mike Durant's book and would like to point out he referred to Randy's weapon as a High-Tech rifle. as we all no, it was a vietnam era M14. Dirtdiver 6421 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I just stared reading Durant's "In the Company of Heroes" before he called it a "German piece of crap", he said the MP5 had shot fine at the range but he probably had neglected to clean it. It was after Shughart gave him Gordon's CAR-15 which didn't jam and was far more effective despite only having half a mag left he thought of the MP5 as a piece of shit. He also had an M9 that he never drew, which he said probably saved his life since he wasn't seen as a threat. While Shughart's M14 isn't really a "High-Tech rifle" it was a lot better than a bolt-gun in the situation he was in. --Predator20 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The Hand
Does anyone know why that Ranger took the dead Delta Force member's hand?-Oliveira 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably to send it home with the rest of the body-76.31.5.208 16:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (S&Wshooter)
I figured that too. But it's kind of creepy going around carrying an dead man's severed hand in your pocket. What about the smell? However, if i died in combat, i would like if my body went home and i had an funeral.-Oliveira 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In the book, Othic took the hand that he had found and put it in his pocket to return it to the Delta operator that was blown in half. He had placed it with his body after he died, but strangely the movie did not show that, and made it seem like Othic kept the hand. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 02:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't the Delta Operator's hand. The shots of MSGTTim "Griz" Martin after being hit by the RPG show his hand still intact. More likely it belonged to one of the other soldiers aboard the truck that got hit. MSGT Martin was shipped off to Germany IIRC where he succumbed to his wounds shortly after.
I bet it started to smell after a while-S&Wshooter 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I was always under the assumption that it was taken to be put to rest with the rest of the body. Never leave a soldier behind.
That all said, i was always told by SF soldier i knew that they were trained to even go as far as to scoop up vomit they might have left to not leave behind any traces of themselves. -MissySummers-
The film (as everyone knows) took liberally from Mark Bowden's book. The film splits one incident ("the hand" and the "RPG in the chest") into two different scenes. According to Bowden's book (and the actual accounts of the Rangers) the hand belonged to SP4 Richard 'Alphabet' Kowalewski. It was blown off when an RPG hit him in the chest (while in the cab of a truck), but did not explode. PFC Clay Othic was in the truck when the RPG hit, but did not pick up Kowalewski's hand. It was SP4 Aaron Hand (ironic?) that "found the lower portion of Alphabet's arm on the street. All that remained intact was the hand. He picked it up and put it in his side pants pocket. He didn't know what else to do, and it didn't feel right leaving it behind." (quoted portion from Bowden's book "Black Hawk Down"). So, the film split the one incident into two scenes. The first scene of Othic picking up a hand, that in the film, could not have belonged to Kowalewski and the second (and later) scene of Kowalewski being hit and killed by the RPG rocket that did not explode. Sgtmonroe (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
What is the technical term for the flashlight to be attached to the barrel of the AR-15 series? It seems to be used only when there are handguards in place of the RIS railing. Sergeants Hoot, Busch, Sanderson, Gordon, and a couple other Deltas used the same attachment. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Before R.I.S. was introduced, I used to see a whole bunch of different flashlight attachments just like that one in the Blue Press. Some of them were even advertised as able to work on multiple types of weapons in the same caliber (i.e. AR-15s and Mini-14s). There were many different brands, so we can't be 100% sure what this movie's armorers used. -MT2008
Oh, thanks, but I didn't mean what brands the movie used. I meant, what the generic term for these types of attachments that connect the flashlight to the barrel are called. I'm thinking about purchasing one for an AR-15 platform without the RIS. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 03:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a barrel mount for a flashlight, that specific one was made by Surefire.
Like the above said, It's a barrel mounted flashlight, made by Surefire. I actually managed to buy one of them that had been used in the Operation Gothic Serpent theater. These are still a good alternative to adding the weight of a rail to your firearm. I believe the flashlight is a model 600 or something similar.--Asmkillr323 05:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
M4 in 1994?
Question about the M4 not being period correct. If the events took place in September 1993 and the M4 went into service sometime in 1994, isn't possible that members of an elite group like Delta Force could have gotten their hands on a couple?
I'd say it's plausible that Delta could have been field-testing a few XM4s that day. Spartan198
In today's case, some special units are using the HK416 in the field. It likely that this was also the case with the M4 in 1993. That, or the armorers to the film got lazy and decided to throw in a few M4's for the M4 fans. Unlikely, but movies will do this. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Well it isn't completely out there that at the time US special forces can get their hands on some experimental weapons and field test them. But I think for this movie, they just ran out of Car-15s to give to the Delta actors.Excalibur01 04:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)he
The m4 was used in service since 1997 it is not possible for an m4 to be used.the delta operators may have used a xm117e2.
Just because it didn't go into service until 94 or 97 doesn't mean D-boys didn't have a hold of them. There could well have been a prototype (or many test models) sent out with D-boys to see if the rifle performed to what was expected.
More than likely just an error. The simplest explanation is usually correct (Occam's Razor) BA
More likely than not the M4 in the film is simply an anachronism due to a shortage of Colt Commandos. --AdAstra2009 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget about the 10th Mountain and the U.N Soldiers. Whoever created this page missed them completly and they had alot of firearms. Whats omore is i can't for some reason edit the page. the autheor needs to fix this right away
I have explained elsewhere that the Colt Model 727 carbine, which LOOKS just like an early M4 (but has a semi/full-auto trigger group, rather than semi/burst as on the Model 777, AKA the earliest M4) was introduced in the late-1980s. -MT2008 05:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The 727 has a fixed carry handle, though. Spartan198 16:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
So did the Model 777, which is the first gun that was ever adopted by the U.S. military as the "M4". The 727 and 777 are the same gun aside from their trigger groups. -MT2008 18:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain this convo is referring to the later M4 with detachable carry handle. That's why I mentioned the 727 having an A2 upper. ;) Spartan198 23:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
All gear that is used in the US Army has to be tested. Part of this testing cycle is to give it to SF, Rangers, Delta, etc. to field it before it is approved for widespread use. Considering the length of trials and the endless bureaucracy in the DoD, it is completely plausible that these guys had the first generation of the M4 in TFR/OGS. I saw a SCAR in the wild on my latest deployment to Afghanistan last year. These guys are like the pro athletes of the military world. All sorts of manufacturers will just give them gear to use in order to try to get them to reccomend it... Optics, armor, boots, gun accessories, etc...
Shughart and the M14/M16 switch
Does anyone know if Shughart briefly using an M16A2 while defending Durant's crash site is intentional or a mistake? Spartan198
intentional, in the book moments beforehand hed asked durant where the spare weapons were kept aboard the black hawk, and for some reason this scene was omitted from the film. Shughart had ran dry with his 7.62 M14 and so couldnt have used the 5.56 from the M16 mags. :)
Yeah, Shughart asked if there were any spare rifles or radios after Gordon got shot. This caused Durant to realize that Gordon may have been hit and that they were stranded on their own. However, the book didn't mention Shughart actually using the M16. --BlemoTALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, good point, but i dont get why brad hallings didnt join them? he could have done so much more on the ground than on the black hawk, especially since he had his leg blown off up there aswell. oh and btw, im a newcomer, how do i tag comments with my name at the end?
By putting four ~ at the end of every message.-Oliveira 17:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the reason why Halling didn’t insert with the Shughart and Gordon was because by the time the team was given the go-ahead to insert, Halling had taken control of the minigun due to a member of the helicopter crew being injured.--Mauser 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
i dont know if he was actually using it, but in the movie version i think were supposed to think he took from a crew chief (since they carried an m16a2
the guy must have to taken the m16 from one of the blackhawk passengers and the blackhawks do carry spare weapons on board. (actual assassin)
Im sure most people so dedicated to this site probably noticed this but ill say it anyway. (**SPOILER**) ok right as MSsgt. Gordon is shot in the head and Shughart checks him it flashes over to Durant, and sure enough if you look you'll notice Gordon's CAR-15 on his lap. moments later Shughart runs over to Durant hands him the CAR-15 and says "Gordy's gone man, i'll be outside...Goodluck." just pointing it out. Dirtdiver 6421 23:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Change made to 1911 article/picture
Not sure where IMDB gets its info from, but Kim Coates plays Master Sergeant Tim 'Griz' Martin, the unfortunate Delta operator who was blown in half by the RPG when the convoy is attempting to extract. He is not the Delta operator seen using the 1911 at the firing range and the picture and article have been edited for correction.
All the Delta Force members' names were changed for the film except for Busch, Shughart and Gordon. "Wex" is the name credited to Kim Coates in the end credits. --Ben41 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Which is funny, because when Griz is drawing in the barracks and Busch walks up behind him, he calls him "Griz." But not "all" Delta had their names changed. Norm Hooten was really there, but for the movie they combined him with John Macejunas. Cozmo 02:04, 5 March 2011 (MSK)
Anybody else notice that when Wex is firing his 1911, he's walking down the range towards the targets while people behind him are still firing? seems kind of unsafe.--Pølaris 19:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
-- In a deleted scene, it is shown that Eversman calls cease fire on the range in response to him moving into the line of fire, and just responding to such percieved recklessness by simply muttering "Fuckin' Delta..."--24.253.69.199 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
on topic of 1911s does anyone know what kind of 1911s they really used? for example i find it hard to believe they would be using normal 1911s when the MK.IVs were out
-- They were regular M1911A1s as it is cheaper for the armorers to use GI style pistols instead of procuring brand new weapons or paying a pistolsmith for costly modifications on movie props that could later be used in other films. In reality, Delta operators would take their issued 1911s (which were often relics found in the supply system) and have them done by some of the best pistolsmiths they could find to do the work (or do the work in-house when at all possible). Some of that talent rubbed off on the operators themselves; Larry Vickers, a former Delta Operator himself, is one of the best 1911 pistolsmiths in the business and is one of the go-to guys for Delta's custom 1911s.
I read somewhere that Delta Operators are given an allowance to pay for their 1911 and any customisations they want done to it. --cool-breeze 12:59, 18 September 2011 (CDT)
Dillon/GE Miniguns
The Miniguns during the actual event would have been GE M134s. The Miniguns in the movie were Dillon Aero Miniguns, but not quite M134Ds. They had some of the DA upgrades on them though. That's from the commentary and some interviews online with Dillon Aero. I remember it being mentioned in one of the special features that the Dillon guns in the movie could have been fired off the Black Hawk's batteries, but the older GE ones in the real incident would have been unuseable at the crash site.
Isn't GAU-17 an Air Force designation? When the weapon is in Army use isn't it still referred to as the M-134? --Charon68 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2013 (EST)
Yes, but it is the designation for a particular variant of the M134 which is what was used in the film. As far as I know there is no Army designation for this variant so I can only assume that they refer to it as the GAU-17/A. If not, using this term is still clearer than "M134 variant that would be the GAU-17/A if it was in the USAF". I'm guessing the term is universal, as the Navy use it for airborne mountings and refer to it as the GAUSE-17/A (with the SE standing for Shipboard Equipment) when it is mounted to the deck of a ship for point defence. --commando552 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2013 (EST)
To weigh in on this again (first comment), I don't think the answer is "M134 variant that would be the GAU-17/A if it was in the USAF" nor is it "GAU-17." The answer is, it's a GE M134 with DA upgrades. The reason that is the answer, is that is what is stated in the film commentary, and that is what it is. The Minigun is an interesting weapon in that, as far as the US Army is concerned, the designation doesn't change, even though the weapon has, significantly. A stock GE Minigun, a PI GE Minigun with DA upgrades and a DA Minigun are all "M134" as far as the Army is concerned. The manufacturers' designations of M134D, M134D-T, M134D-H, M134G, M134GI etc are not recognized designations in the Army. Just because the weapon has a vented flash hider doesn't make it a GAU-17. The original DA flash hiders were vented anyway before they adopted a non-vented flash hider for their ground-up built Miniguns. --Gau17 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2013 (EST)
Remington 870 Shotgun
Not sure if this is worth noting, but in real life, the operator on who SGT. Sanderson was based, Paul Howe, had his shotgun rigged under his CAR-15 in a "Masterkey" configuration. Also, it can be seen being used in the directors cut to breach a door.
As indicated on the main page and above (by an unknown poster), the Remington 870 Shotgun is seen being used by an extra/stuntman to breech a door right after being dropped by the Little Birds. The extra/stuntman IS NOT William Fichtner as evidenced by the images below - his individual equipment does not match that of Fichtner's. Further there are "on set" photographs showing at least one extra/stuntman equipped with the same type Remington 870 in addition to the one carried by Fichtner. The scene is from the "Black Hawk Down Extended Cut," NOT a "director's cut" (as the unknown person posted above). Ridley Scott has yet to do a "director's cut" of "Black Hawk Down," and I doubt he ever will due to his negative feelings about how the Alien and Blade Runner Director's Cuts turned out.
Error creating thumbnail: File missingUnknown extra/stuntman preparing to fire a Remington 870. He also carries one of the rubber stunt prop M4 carbines that appear throughout the film in the hands of different extras, stuntmen, and actors. Note: there were no actual "firing" M4 carbines utilized in the film - only rubber stunt props of them.Error creating thumbnail: File missingUnknown extra/stuntman firing a Remington 870.
Further, MSG (SFC in 1993) Paul Howe did indeed carry, and utilize, a CAR-15 (his was a Colt Model 653) with a 12-gage shotgun mounted on it (at least two photographs exist of him with the weapon prior to the operation). The term "Masterkey" is anachronistic as Knight's Armament came up with the term years later. At the time (1993) Ciener was the only company producing a shotgun mount for M16-series rifles and carbines. They simply called it an "under/over mount." Sgtmonroe (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
Rescue Heli Star 41
The AH-6, that inbounds to Wolcott's crash site (Star 41), has miniguns and rocket pods. The helicopter that is finally landing at the chrashed Black Hawk hasn't any weapons onboard, so probably a MH-6.
Continuity error most likely. Spartan198 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Flashlights
I watched the movie, and I was wondering, if Delta force had flashlights on their M733 and M727's, why didnt they use them? I could see that they would want to keep stealth in night, but if they're firing at the enemy, the muzzle flash would show their position anyway.
Actors probably forgot or were never told Excalibur01
Flashlights are not going to give you enough illumination to shoot at targets across buildings. They're better for room clearing. Besides you wouldn't use them if you have NOD's. --Ben41 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)v
Not to mention a flashlight beam in that environment would scream, "here I am, shoot me!" Spartan198 05:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
does anyone no how they would have mounted the tac-lights back then? like now-a-days we have RIS/Picatanny rails. then they would mod it to the barrel. how would they do that if they have a shotgun under the barrel? Larry Vickers mentioned that he hose clamped his to the bottom of the barrel. but he didnt have a masterkey. any suggestions? Dirtdiver6421 15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hose clamped it to the side or top of the barrel? -Ranger01 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Larry had his hose-clamped to the bottom. he used his in Panama (acid Gambit) i was surprised at how resoursefull they were. he also took some cardboard and put them inbetween Mags for a quick reload. and the aimpoint on his gun looked ancient. 71.194.219.9 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible Error?
Anyone notice that the picture of Sanderson firing his M727 during the Mogadishu Mile? It looks like the chamber is clear and the bolt is open. That means the weapon is empty, but in the movie you still hear two more shots before he switches to his sidearm. Is it just the angle, or is it just an error in continuity?--MarineCorps1 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a continuity error, a continuity error would be when one seen a guy has a 1911 and the next he suddenly has a Beretta M9. I can't say for I don't remember this. --FIVETWOSEVEN 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Actor in the Specials
Do we see this actor in Delta costume in the movie often? Because all the behind the scenes shot is this guy and I don't recognize him. Is he an extra that is like way in the back of the other guys? Excalibur01 05:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? A well trained operator wouldnt wear his gloves like that? This mall-ninja crap needs to stop. Theres no special way to wear flight gloves, you put the goddamn things on and wear 'em. -Winn
Actually, special forces operators of that era often wore flight gloves, just like that. Fun fact. Flight gloves are made for use by individuals who fly planes; they need a glove that will keep their hands a bit warmer than they normally will be, but will still allow them to feel the tactile sensation of the various knobs and switches and provide the nimbleness that the human hand gives us. The solution? Flight gloves. They are the precursors to the gloves we see in use by military units now; the Oakley tacticool gloves (fun fact: Oakley started out making motorcycle gloves) or the Blackhawk gloves and what have you. I'm really loving these mall-ninjas popping up thinking they know about shooting or special forces work. I can think of a few damn good reasons off the top of my hand to never, ever take gloves off in a combat situation, personally, and a well-fitted pair of gloves will be just like a second skin.--Asmkillr323 01:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the comment means it isn't likely he'd wear them while shooting - Full-finger gloves can be obstructive/restrictive when it comes to finger movement, which isn't exactly a good thing when you need to make accurate shots. StanTheMan 01:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Flight gloves, as I just fucking explained, are not restrictive or obstructive in the slightest.--Asmkillr323 12:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, I had replied below I didn't know about these gloves specifically, which you seem to have failed to notice. Just as you also seem to have failed to notice that all these comments you posted this slightly irritable and unnecessary response in-between were all posted days ago. It might help if you thoroughly read the comments and check the dates next time.StanTheMan 15:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Honestly how would anyone here really know....are any of you "operators"?? -and if you say yes I'm going to say that your lying.....I'm going to delete that quip about his gloves in the caption, it's not hard to shoot with gloves on, especially flyers gloves. --AdAstra2009 03:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, it just bugs the living shit outta me when armchair commandos think they know operator/tactical/omfgdelta stuff. -Winn
- Well, I'm indeed no 'operator', but I don't have to be one to know that it is hard to shoot with some gloves, especially if you're making distance shots. But I'm not familiar with flight gloves specifically, so I guess they're no trouble, I don't know. In any case, it just seemed to me the context of Winn's comment was that he was saying that it was stating merely that the gloves need to be worn some special way (and Winns right - they're gloves, what special way is there), but that's the problem with text sometimes. Anyway, not trying to make a valid claim, just an opinion. I can't speak for whoever made original remark, though. Either way, I never gave that comment much thought myself. I'm personally more peeved about quips on peoples (actors) stances myself. StanTheMan 17:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Flight gloves are a very thin layer of Nomex with a Clarino palm and finger overlaid. These are very light, wick sweat, and give you tactile feeling and the ability to perform tasks as though you were bare handed. They are maybe a few mm thick on the palms, and do not affect in any way your shooting ability or accuracy, even whilst firing an M249, which is notorious for running away due to gloves getting stuck and holding the trigger back.
I was in the Army for 9 years, and I wore flight gloves all the time during exercises. I never had a problem with them whatsoever. I was a SAW gunner as well. Whoever posted that caption about trained operators not wearing gloves is an idiot. Cozmo 02:14, 5 March 2011 (MSK)
Discussion about the bullets, or something
- Something I always found a bit funny about that particular scene - Sanderson misses the two targets with his 727 carbine (firing several shots), yet hits them both with one .45 shot each (or actually, maybe one was hit twice, and the other once). Heh. But of course, I'd imagine some people can actually be better with a handgun than a rifle in some instances. StanTheMan
I haven't seen the movie in a few months, but if I remember correctly he had actually hit the targets with his rifle, but the rounds went completely through and didn't kill the targets. So he used his .45 to actually kill them. There is a part in the book where it is mentioned that they had been issued "green tip" rounds (armor piercing/ anti personnel 5.56 ammo with a steel penetrator tip), and another part that talked about the rounds lack of effectiveness against the drugged up Somalis. One guy unloaded a belt from his SAW into a couple Somalis and they kept coming at them b/c the rounds just went right through and didn't do any major (fight stopping) damage. Another reason why they talk about how Randy Shughart was a smart SOB for using a 7.62 M14 and normal ammo. As for the gloves... Flight gloves have been used for years by ground personnel because they are thin enough to still be able to feel things with your hands, but they are still something to protect against scrapes, burns, dirt, etc.. -Ranger01 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No argument here Ranger. but i would also like to point out in the book Mark also mentions that they(the rangers) fired SAW and believe it or not M-60 ammunition, that would happen to be the same M-60 that carries the heavy hitting 7.62mm however that guy was probably high as a kite anyways so idont think it would have made much of a difference. Dirtdiver 6421 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's all fascinating, except in the movie, Sanderson (Fichtner) just missed them. I was remarking on how the movie showed him missing two almost perfectly still targets with the 727 carbine and hitting them with the .45. That's all. Interesting tidbit about the ammo though. StanTheMan
Well, the point about RS and his M14 was what the book said. It was not so much the size of the bullet, but whether or not it was AP ammo (super hard bullet at very high velocity). An AP round from a 5.56 to the heart will create a very small hole, and if the person who is shot is high on drugs then they are probably not even going to notice it until they finally keel over (which will probably take a while). At the same time a FMJ from a .45 while it still probably wont blow the heart to kingdom come, will make a large enough hole that it will cause bleed out to happen faster (hopefully fast enough). Then again at close range any 5.56 and even 7.62 ammo isnt going to be as effective as a .45 round b/c of the rifle round's high velocities compared to the .45s low velocity. When faced with an unarmored threat below about 50 yards, a pistol round (be it .45, 9mm, .40, etc) is going to be much more effective (unless it is something like the 5.7 round, which has no immediate stopping power unless a CNS or head shot is attained). Long post short: will a 5.56 or 7.62 to the heart kill someone at close range? Most likely yes. Will it do it quick enough to stop an attacker from killing/ wounding you or your allies? Maybe. If he missed them, then it was probably just to add suspense or a "weapon switch to show he is an elite operator" shot to the scene.-Ranger01 00:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
um this is extremely off topic like usual but id just like for someone to explain the purpose of using a 5.56 by a Counter-Terrorist Unit. tell me if im missing something but when their clearing rooms A.) the round wont immediatly kill a combatant when you wont him to die. and 2. say its an assault on multiple rooms at once and boom you miss your target (or it just passes through him) and boom goes through the wall like the round is meant to and bam! clips a friendly or even worse a hostage. explain the logic to me please. Dirtdiver 6421 00:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, logistics. If they are expecting to be 100% in a building they will use SMGs, Shotguns, etc. But if they have an expectation that being in a building is only going to be 10-25% of the mission they will usually carry rifles. The main problem with the mission portrayed in BHD is that the brass expected to have to combat (lightly) armored vehicles, so they issued AP rounds. Now days the AP rounds are for some odd reason pretty much 90% of what the US Army issues. Army Special Forces (Green Berets), Delta, etc. use a type of semi-expanding bullet, as does the Marine Corps.-Ranger01 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There are other reasons as well. It's a fairly accurate rifle round, which, when in situations that will require shooting further than 50-100 meters, is necessary to have. It's a relatively light round, and most people can easily carry a few mags of 5.56 without feeling it too much. As far as stopping power goes, in barrels that don't over-stabilize the round, the 5.56 will fragment (not the AP round, obviously), slowing itself in the body and thus penetration becomes less of an issue. When you consider that most SF types use expanding bullets, this nearly negates the issue. There's a reason that most countries use the 5.56 round or something similar.
As far as the issuance of AP rounds in a war that clearly didn't need them, I've heard two sides of the argument. I've heard that, as Ranger01 said, they were issued because they thought they may run into light vehicles (although they brought along plenty of LAWs to deal with that). But what I heard from an individual who was there was that the men believed it was because Clinton believed that rounds that expanded would A) not make good headlines and B) violate some convention (I believe the Geneva convention).--Asmkillr323 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the Geneva convention forbids hollow point ammo in the military. The Police of the nation is a different subject. Excalibur01 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You're thinking of the Hague Convention of 1899, not the Geneva Convention.--PistolJunkie 03:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't remember if it was the GC or HC and didn't really care to look it up at the moment.--Asmkillr323 12:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Hague banned all use of ammunition that easily expands or flattens in a human target. I have no exact idea of what round is being used or how it gets around the HC, I only know that when asked about the effectiveness of 5.56 ammunition, a few SF guys made mention that have been issued a new "expanding" round. I have also heard that Marines are now being issued an expanding type round. It may be that since we are not actually fighting an official "military force" that the HC and GC do not apply. Also you must remember that the use of .50 cal against personnel is banned too, how often do you think that is observed?-Ranger01 11:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying we follow either conventions to a T in every war, I'm just echoing what I heard from a man who was there. A lot of people who lived through the battle of mogadishu came away with the feeling that Bill Clinton cared more about how headlines would look than he did about the safety of our soldiers. As for HC and GC not applying, I agree that they really don't apply to A) organizations that are not militaries but instead ragtag terrorist groups and B) hail from nations that didn't exist at the time of the convention and never signed a similar document. It's the same argument that was applied for the waterboarding of captured terrorists; apparently, they apply some standards to those who didn't sign, but not others. Personally, I think that terrorist groups and undeveloped countries where they never signed the conventions shouldn't get the protection of them, and we really need to invest into expanding ammunitions for everyone; AP doesn't make sense for unarmored targets.--Asmkillr323 12:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The question about observing the laws was rhetorical in nature. But I agree wholeheartedly about what you say pertaining to the HC and GC applying to people who did not sign it. Its like bringing pirates and terrorists into the US to give them civilian trials. People say they should get military trials... When according to the GC (that people are so happy to apply to the situation) pirates and terrorists are not able to receive either. We selectively apply laws to make us look good internationally, when in reality it costs money, and even worse lives of US citizens and military forces.-Ranger01 12:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Under normal circumstances full metal jacket .556 is an ideal round. When fighting a traditional battle, against an enemy that follows the rules of war, it is far better to wound the enemy than kill him. Gunner313
We haven't fought a conventional war that lasted any period of time since Korea (and you could even say WWII, since Korea was less than conventional). Also with the way the enemy works now, any intel we can gather from enemy combatants will likely be useless (if it ever was useful) by the time it gets to the guys on the ground. Also as stated by me, and others before, under 50 yards and especially against an enemy that is drugged up a FMJ is likely not going to down an enemy either by wounding him or killing him. Of course shot placement comes into play heavily, but as cases have proven a COM shot is likely not to drop a determined attacker immediately. Head and extremity shots are also very hard to make, with FMJ pretty much the only way to immediately and most important reliably drop an attacker at close range is a pelvic shot. But now days in Afghanistan most fighting is taking place on the far end if not beyond the 5.56's effective range. Also Gunner313 it is 5.56, not .556, .556mm is a really damn small projectile haha. -Ranger01 14:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
One could say that the First Gulf War was conventional. we were fighting an organized military(Iraq), i still think they were a bunch of crazy towel heads hellbent on destroying the western world.User:SargeOverkill
Why is it better to wound them? -SasquatchJim.
Because then you can detain them get information from them.-Ranger01 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. That makes sense. I apologize; I thought he meant that wounding them was more humane, or something. Although, dead people can't keep shooting at you; wounded ones can. -SasquatchJim
It is better to wound them because it requires the enemy to care for their wounded, they have to be treated, they have to be transported, it is demoralizing to the others to hear someone in terrible pain, so for a short time a wounding shot, takes two people out of the fight. Also the more medical supplies that have to be shipped to the front for the wounded, means less of other items such as ammo, food, fuel, misc... Gunner313
Makes sense to me. Thanks. -SJ
Well in my opinion, I still think it's better to kill the enemy rather than just wound them, that way they don't get patched up and come back later to kill you.
agreed. especially in Somalia when if their not dead their gunna come back and shoot you in the back. 24.15.103.231 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bah, can't believe my one off-hand comment spawned all this. Heh. StanTheMan 22:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to add other than that this was really informative. This site is one of the best blind discoveries I've made on the internet. --John Ryder 01:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Never Forget
Sorry to post as anon, but I dont have an account but frequent the site. Just wanted to point out that today is the 17th anniversary of the US intervention in Somalia.
- Actually the anniversary is for the mission and subsequent battle portrayed in the film. The 'intervention' began as Operation Provide Relief, which started in December 1992. Still, good to point it out. EDIT - I actually just realized that not only is it the anniversary, but the actual day is correct (That is, Oct. 3 was a Sunday, same day as the Oct. 3 in the battle). Again, pretty cool I guess. StanTheMan 03:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The entire day yesterday i thought about it. i decided to watch the movie being Sunday Oct-3. i also found it fit to say a pray for the brave soldiers who lost their lives fighting to help the ungratefull bastards. 24.15.103.231 22:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting Uniform Note
Just wanted to point out an interesting observation about the uniforms worn by the Rangers; this is one of the few films to accurately depict the transition from the 6-color "chocolate chip" camouflage made famous during Desert Storm to the 3-color "coffee stain" pattern that was used throughout the rest of the 1990's and during the invasion and early occupation of Iraq in the early 2000's. During the transition between these two camouflage patterns, it was common to see a combination of the two patterns on the same soldier; they would wear the new DCU's with the old 6-color on their PASGT helmets. Practically all the Rangers in the film have this combination.
are you referring to the AK-74u? Dirtdiver6421 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think he is referring to the pistol in his shoulder holster under his left arm. Can't make it out though, will have to have a look on my Bluray version when I get a minute, but don't think it can be seen well enough to make it out. --Commando552 10:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
i wasn't aware he had a shoulder holster? can you upload a photo?Dirtdiver6421 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
In the movie PFC Kurt "Doc" Schmid is shown as a Ranger medic but in reality he was Delta Force. It's curious why they chose to depict him as a Ranger and not a Delta operator in the movie.
Maybe they forgot Excalibur01 20:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This is somewhat unrelated, but I found it really funny that Schmid is played by the same actor who later played Adam. -MT2008 22:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
"In the movie PFC Kurt "Doc" Schmid is shown as a Ranger medic but in reality he was Delta Force" - Added this information to the front page. Sgtmonroe (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
tapeing
i was just watching this , and i noticed that a majority of the rangers taped the ends of the butt stocks on their rifles . Why is that?-Simmons 8492
I believe that tape was used (not quite sure how) to attach the sling to the butt of the rifle. Tape is also used at the front of the rifle, to attach a loop of para cord around the front sight to the sling. The reason this was done was so that the sling would be attached on the top/side of the weapon, rather than the bottom (where the only fitted sling loops are) to make it more usable in combat. --commando552 12:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
i noticed nearly all the mag's have brown tape on them, any reasons for this, or is it just purely cosmetic? scarecrow 11:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
STANAG Magazines are smooth and can be hard to grip on to to reload, especially in a high stress situation like combat. The tape helps you to grip the magazine for a speedy reload, MAGPUL makes sleeves that slide over them now. Doc345 3:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Nelson's M60
Is is correct to have Nelson carrying the Vietnam Era M60 over the M60E3 or E4? I'm not sure when the E3 or E4 came out.--MarineCorps1 03:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The M60 used in the film is an original spec M60, the same as were actually used by the Rangers in Somalia (As identified by the hand guard and bi-pod attaching at the end of the barrel). Not sure exactly when the E3 was made (started being issues in 1986), but I know there was one in the 1985 film Commando. Regardless, I don't think it was that widely used, as the lighter weight barrel and other parts made the gun more prone to overheating and malfunction. The rangers actually used a mix of M60s and FN MAGs as shown below:
"Is is correct to have Nelson carrying the Vietnam Era M60 over the M60E3 or E4" - Yes, because the United States Army never adopted the M60E3 - the United States Navy and Marines Corps however did. Sgtmonroe (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
Also, there has been talk on this page about what the actual weapons used by Delta where, and I cannot speak to this operation in particular, but in most of the photos I have seen of Delta force in Somalia, there are actually armed with M16A2s, normally with a telescopic sight mounted onto the carry handle (example below). --commando552 12:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The photograph linked above DOES NOT depict Delta operators, they are Rangers. Sgtmonroe (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
Delta operators in Somalia used Colt Model 723 carbines with M4 style barrel, at least watching the few pictures of that time. --X-Ray Bravo 6 13:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Model 723s utilized by Delta operators, during Operation Gothic Serpent, DID NOT have the "M4 style barrel" - they had the standard barrel. Further they utilized Model 653s along with the Model 723s and Model 727s. Sgtmonroe (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
Did the Rangers at the time use a black ballistic vest in addition to the woodland RBAs? While searching for M60 photos saw several photos of people in black vests carrying M16A2s with an optic on the handle, also sometimes carrying shotguns and LAWs. Are these likely Rangers rather than Delta then? Also, there are pictures of rangers using colt carbines with the step down M4 type barrels, so I think there was a much wider variety of weapons used than the film shows. --commando552 14:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Rangers only wore Woodland camo RBA (Ranger Body Armor) vests and desert-camo PASGT helmets during the operation (see the "Interesting Uniform Note" section above for info about the desert camo patterns used in the film). Black vests were Delta-issue only. Sort of like present-day spec. ops units using Dragon Skin vests while the main Army uses Interceptor/IOTV vests (though it's not as easy to tell the difference between the modern-day examples by looking at them. Orca1 9904 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
In the book there was specific mention of a couple of the Rangers being stuck with the Delta "Turtle" Armor because they didn't have enough of the Ranger vests for a while.-Ranger01 09:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains photos like the following one then (also, note the Colt carbines with M4 type barrels the Rangers are carrying.)
First off, isn't this an E2, rather than the E1 as the main article says was used by the Rangers? Also, why does it look like the receiver is made of different metal, and is the sight mount a standard fitting, or something cobbled together? --commando552 00:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Another thing the book mentions is that Delta's Armorer played gunsmith for some of the Ranger guys (at least 1 customized SAW is mentioned).-Ranger01 20:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
that part of the book is referring to Spc. Waddell's SAW and i believe is was a grip that was put on. i would also like to shed some light on the fact that in 1993 only the Armys Special Ops like Delta Force had that kind of ability on their weapons, and now every soldier on the battlefield has the ability to put on optics, lights, lasers, and stocks. Dirtdiver6421 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes that is the part I was referring to, although I remember there being more than just a grip added, but its been a while. Also Rangers aren't basic infantry, they too are a part of USASOC. and in a combat zone leeway with weapons (also uniforms, gear, etc) is pretty much at the command's discretion. I believe that they would allow Rangers a bit of leeway with modifying their weapons in certain ways to enhance their effectiveness in a given environment. Spc. Waddell's SAW grip would have been noticed by his command at some point, and either him or the Delta armorer would have had to get permission to modify it, being that it is US Gov property (not to mention the other customized weapons we see in Ranger's hands in photos).-Ranger01 04:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Just noticing. Why do some people call it an "M4" type barrel? I mean it's a rifle in service before the M4 came out, so shouldn't it NOT be called an M4 barrel Excalibur01 05:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You got me on that one... Probably because most people know the "M203 Step" Barrel as an M4 feature, so it gets genericised as an "M4 Profile Barrel".-Ranger01 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I mean didn't they have the step down barrel before the M4 came about? Excalibur01 07:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe so, but it would have only been within a couple years of the M4s debut (the Colt 727 comes to mind). Another reason would be marketing, people will pay more for a milspec carbine that has the "M203 step barrel" so companies market the rifles as having "M4 profile barrels".-Ranger01 23:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this the only film to have someone shooting an M16 on burst-fire mode?
I would kinda doubt it, but it's the only time I've ever seen it. That's One Angry Duck 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You referring to when Daniel Busch is sliding out from under the Walcott bird? That's the only time I remember. Thursday 07:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
He's referring to a point where one of the Rangers kills an approaching Somali with a three round burst from his M-16A2. Sgt. Busch is using an M727 and fires quick single shots to kill the miltia approaching the Blackhawk. DeltaOne 08:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, can remember any burst stuff, I'll re-watch it after work. And I'm very aware Busch had a 727. I wonder why Gary Gordons rifle wasn't on burst in the movie, it was in real life. Thursday 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
They're referring to the part near the end when the rangers are running out of the city and one of them guns down a woman who picks up a rifle. As for burst mode: most likely the M16 in question was a full auto weapon (as virtually all of them in Hollywood are) and the actor simply fired a couple of short bursts (possibly with some editing done by the sound and special effects teams) to make in appear as though he was using burst mode.--Lynx 17:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
RPG Shooting
I was just looking through the section regarding the RPGs, and noticed something peculiar. Look at the shooter in the first picture. Now look at the guy in the second. Now back at the first. Is it just me, or are the two guys shooting down the two different helicopters from two different places actually the exact same guy? Notice the matching folds in their clothing, and the cloth wrapped around their heads, and their silhouettes. They're all identical. Anyone else see what I'm seeing? August.allocco 18:20, 18 March 2011 (CDT)
M16A2
I think The M16A2's in the film are actual real ones. the lower reciever is that of an actual A2, and they fire in two modes only, Semi and 3 round burst.--Gunner5
Question
Why was Gordon's 727 suppressed? In the book, it says that he was providing sniper cover from the air until he landed to defend the downed Black Hawk, but wouldn't it make more sense to fire unsuppressed. I mean, why would he worry about making too much noise when theres a battle going on? And wouldn't this decrease the muzzle velocity, surely that would make sniping from the air much harder.
Might have been a flash suppressor. But it might also be Hollywood getting mixed in there. Cozmo (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2015 (EST)
Bah, it's plainly a sound suppressor (or 'silencer' as some would call it) on Gordon's M733, not just a flash hider (though proper sound suppressors still suppress muzzle flash as well). That said, the 733 is a considerably short-barreled weapon normally and the suppressor would give some extra length aiding in accuracy, though it would be at the cost of some muzzle velocity (which would probably be mostly negligible in the environment/ranges he's operating at). The more bluntly obvious explanation is that it's a film that takes a few liberties and obviously doesn't follow the book to the letter for any number of reasons. Finally, I doubt any of this matters to the (unsigned) user who originally asked this and who also seemingly hasn't been on the site since making said inquiry - more than 4 years ago now. StanTheMan (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2015 (EST)
It seems that all of the so-called "M16A2s" have forward assists and are probably M16A1s with M16A2 handguards or mocked up to resemble an M16A2. - Kenny99 10:16, 15 October 2011 (CDT)
Not to sound disrespectful but what the hell are you talking about? The M16 in that screenshot clearly has the A2 sights and the A2s have forward assists as well. They are not A1s with A2 handguards because of the A2 sights. They could possibly have A1 lowers to make them fully automatic as opposed to firing 3 round bursts like the A2 does. But externally they are definitely an M16A2. --cool-breeze 11:03, 15 October 2011 (CDT)
Makes sense as MPM2008's images of the M16A2 are M16A2s with A1 lower receivers as one user pointed out, which caused some confusion for me when I started learning about the M16A2. - Kenny99 14:55, 15 October 2011 (CDT)
The point is those could actually be real deal M16A2s as they fire semi auto in every shot apart from at the end where one Ranger fires what looks like a 3 round burst anyway. --cool-breeze 12:40, 16 October 2011 (CDT)
Firstly M16A2s have forward assists, so there is no reason that having the FA would make it an A1. Secondly, the guns have brass deflectors (triangular protrusion behind the ejection port) which A2s have and A1s don't. Thirdly these guns have the more complicated adjustable rear sights of A2s. The guns in this film do use M16A1 pattern lower receivers, as noted by the lack of reinforcement around the takedown pins, but I don't think they are actually Colt lowers as the M16A1 type lowers didn't have the fire selector markings stamped on the right side of the gun. Also, MPM2008's image of an M16A2 is correct, it is the M16A1 images which have the wrong lower receiver (not a standard Colt lower as it has the front reinforcement of an A2, but like the A1 lacks the rear reinforcement and right side fire selector stampings). --commando552 17:07, 16 October 2011 (CDT)
Hold on. Upon seeing this picture, I started wondering why some of the Army or Special Forces personnel will have their rifle stock and or end of magazine taped with different colours? Is it just a habit or to serve other purposes?
The tape on the magazine is to make it easier to grip, since STANAG magazines are fairly smooth; I guess it's the same theory with the stock. Tape can also be used to mark magazines for easier recognition of special loads (say, a tracer-heavy magazine for marking targets). Evil Tim 09:29, 2 November 2011 (CDT)
I think the tape on the stock is actually something to do with the way the sling is attached on to the rifle. They don't seem to be using the sling loop at the bottom of the stock, instead I think it is just attached to paracord wrapped around the stock and held in place with the tape. The main reasons I have seen for wrapping tape around the bottom of a magazine was to hold a loop of paracord in place to make it easier to get the magazine out of a webbing pouch (the pre Magpul solution) or for marking magazine loads as Evil Tim said. This is not the case here so I suppose it must be for grip, but seems odd that the tape is around the middle of the magazine rather than the bottom, where the the magazine would be held to get it out of a pouch. --commando552 09:52, 2 November 2011 (CDT)
Sorry, but when do they fire the guns on full auto? I saw the movie not too long ago and i only saw them fireing on semi and 3 round burst. I never saw a full auto one. --Gunner5
Right towards the end of the film one of the Rangers fires two quick bursts. --cool-breeze 17:51, 2 November 2011 (CDT)
I'm just watching the movie to look out for burst/auto, but jsut noticed something else. Can't screencap blurays, but at 50 minuted in as Eversmann is watching the first blackhawk go down you see the butt of his rifle, showing that it is from an A1 rifle. Also, at 40:30 when Hoot is pushing gown the heads of the prisoners as they are captured, the Delta behind him has a CAR-15 with 10" barrel, no forward assist or brass deflector, and possibly a partial fence lower (out of focus and hard to tell), making it an XM177, also called GAU-5/A. --commando552 18:22, 2 November 2011 (CDT)
ok, but Cool-breeze, you just said he fired two quick BURSTS. Not a full auto drag. I just rewatched that scene and he fired two quick THREE round bursts.--Gunner5
Yeah but the likelihood that it is an M16A2 with an A2 lower is very remote as pretty much every motion picture M16A2 I've seen fires full auto at some point. The only way to find out if it has a burst lower is if there is a decent screen grab so we can read the markings on the receiver. I think Black Hawk Down is the only film I've seen an A2 not firing full auto if it's not firing on semi. --cool-breeze 19:46, 2 November 2011 (CDT)
The guy fires 2 bursts, the second of which sound like it might have been 4, but it is off-screen so that proves nothing. These rifles have A1 lowers which would suggest that they are full auto. However in the screencap above, the third position (although hard to read) looks more like burst than auto. Swinging it back the other way though, A1 receivers shouldn't have selector markings on this side, so it is either a non Colt lower so could be burst or auto, or it has been engraved by the armourer to replicate an A2 so wouldn't necessarily be correct. --commando552 20:00, 2 November 2011 (CDT)
can anyone tell me why the buttstocks are taped?-2ndCommandos
M249/FN Minimi
This page lists Twombly's (and others') weapon as an FN Minimi standing in for an M249-E1.
However, the weapon in the movie clearly has U.S. M249-style rear sights, which was the main differentiator from the FN design it was based on.
I believe that the weapon is really a M249 (first edition, before the E1), not a FN Minimi.
Problem is, from looking things up more recent Minimis have started using the SAW rear sight. Wikipedia's article on the Minimi has pictures of Swedish and Australian soldiers with SAW-rear-sight Minimis. IMO, these are more likely to be Minimis with new top covers than 1980s-vintage unimproved SAWs. Evil Tim 05:07, 25 December 2011 (CST)
Issue with some of the recent edits
While I like how some parts are more detailed and some sections split/modified, I have a bit of an issue with the descriptions forcefully stating how actors and stuntmen are portraying the operators and soldiers. It seems a bit much, not to mention redundant - though based on an actual event, it is still a movie, and I would think it's generally assumed the actors are of course actors and stunt performers and aren't any of the actual operators/soldiers - to deliberately 'state' so seems kind of rich and perhaps a bit improper. In the case of the actors and their characters, we go by how they're credited, not who they are 'portraying' since its not always the same (the portrayals can be noted, but the actual credit shouldn't be ignored/removed) - if there are exceptions to this (such as the pilot) they are also noted but I thought it was pretty much common knowledge about how these are still actors, and that they may may 'portraying' certain individuals that don't match their credited role and that that doesn't need to be unduly, possibly negatively emphasized. What's more, I'm not sure omission of some information and even some additions are in the page's best interest (An edit by someone stating that they did away with 'some nonsense' is a bit harsh and frankly may not be said person's call) - There were some quotes or notations that were removed when there seemed to be no need to do so. Also the use of word 'allegedly' also seems a bit improper and unnecessary as well, especially in spots.
Generally it seems these edits don't keep a fully impartial and encyclopedic viewpoint, which is what I take issue with. Bottom line as I understand it, the site is foremost about documenting the movie's firearms and any information or notations relevant to that or in furtherance of that - the site is not here to make corrections about any and all factual errors regarding the events portrayed in this film, or indeed in any film, except again perhaps in regards to the firearms. It's also not about playing with semantics either. Any errors or such about the film that may or (generally) may not apply to the weapons should, for the most part, be kept on the discussion page. At least that is how I understand it. That said, any other significant edits being made should also be noted in the discussion before being made. StanTheMan (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
You're 100% correct. I'm going to undo the edits. --Mandolin (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
There's no need to undo everything, just bring everything in line with our style. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
Will do.--Mandolin (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
Am I the only person who wishes that Delta soldiers weren't called "operators"? It just sounds so corny in a bad, mall-ninja way. Not calling Delta mall-ninjas, but they really need a less cheesy name. It's not like "commando" was already taken.--Mandolin (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
You can leave in the gun stuff, like the tidbit about the tape around the magazines, which is pretty interesting. "Commando" IS taken, is it not? --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
US doesn't have any "Commando" units. I'll put the tape bit back.--Mandolin (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
No, but when I read "commando," I think of the Brits first. --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
As well you should :) --commando552 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
I think the term operator is alright.. it is proper nomenclature, isn't it? Otherwise looks alright.. I didn't mind things like the NSN for the carbine and all that, but that's only 'cause I'm into military-technical crap like that. :P Plus it has little to do with the movie weapons I suppose. Frankly I think the page was fine before the edits - I don't see why the other stuff couldn't have just been added on. Basically I have no problem with addition of anything relevant, but pejorative-sounding words and phrases and removal of possibly relevant info I take issue with. That said, I kinda liked the grouping of the Colt 727 and 733 and I liked that layout - sure it wasn't standard but it was a nice little specific feature of this film page which I liked a lot, but that's just me I guess.. The old notations in the 733 section about the ones with the XM177 muzzle moderator and Gordon's rifle with the suppressor and the like should probably be put back also since otherwise it would appear different weapons are grouped into the same entry. I could patch 'em up if you guys want, either way. Thanks fellas. StanTheMan (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
The term Operator applies to members of Delta who have passed the Operator's Training Course and is also used to seperate the door-kickers from the support guys in the unit. DeltaOne (talk)
Why no SEALs in the movie?
Anyone happen to know why aren't the four DEVGRU operators in the movie? I know this is not a documentary but still. Was the ST6 involvement classified back in 2001? - bozitojugg3rn4ut (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2014 (EDT)
The SEALs were mentioned in the 1999 book the movie is based on, guess the director figured that they already had a bunch of Delta, Rangers, and 160th guys to work with and four guy from a different unit weren't worth adding. And it's not like they'd be all that different from Delta in the end anyway. Just four guys in a slightly different uniform.--Mandolin (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2014 (EDT)
I remember reading something written about when they were writing the script they already had to compress about 150 people into a more managable number of characters, cutting it down to about 40 characters. Some of the real life people were merged together into one character. Adding the SEALs in would have just added more characters to a script that already had far more main and supporting characters than 95% of Hollywood films. Bare in mind the average cinema-goer isn't going to know the difference between Delta, SEALs, Marines, Rangers etc. Keeping it to Delta and Rangers helped set up that the Rangers were the normal soldiers and the Delta guys were the more elite soldiers. --cool-breeze (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2014 (EDT)
Not M68s?
An off hand comment I read on Facebook when plugging our site claimed that the Aimpoints on the Delta Rifles are not the M68s. Were there any optics that looked like these during the film's production or is this random guy blowing smoke? Excalibur01 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2016 (EDT)
Well, at the time of this film there would have been a range of sights from Aimpint in the COMP range that are pedantically not M68/COMPM2s. I don't really think that you could visually distinguish most of them though to the point where you could definitely say that a sight isn't a COMPM2. However there are a couple of individual sights in this that look a bit off, for example in this image you can see a whole collection of Aimpoints:Error creating thumbnail: File missingSanderson's Aimpoint appears smaller than all the others so it may be a the compact version, the COMPC. Also, the Aimpoint on Gordon's 733 appears like it lacks the sloped section at the back of the front lens portion, which I think might mean it is an earlier model like the original COMP:Error creating thumbnail: File missingI'm just going by the screenshots though, other images might show these better. It's also possible that these are cheap knock-offs anyway rather than real Aimpoints. In the description it also states "In the film, most of the Model 727 carbines are anachronistically equipped with Aimpoint M68 CCO reflex sights (which was not standardized until 17 March 1995)", but I don't think that this statement can be true, as I believe that the M68 is specifically the COMPM2 version which didn't exist until 2000. Even if it refers to the original COMPM (the first militarised version which was accepted by the US Army) this wasn't release until 1997. --commando552 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2016 (EDT)
Well according to Wikipedia, filming began in March 2001 and concluded in late June. So we have a time frame of when the filming took place so it is POSSIBLE that since the M68 was introduced in 2000, that the armorer could have gotten his hands of a few of them or replicas of them existed at the time. Excalibur01 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2016 (EDT)
