User talk:Jcordell

Here I am in all my glory

File:Jeff.jpg

For those who are interested. I see other frequent posters have done vanity photos and I have made reference to my profession in the past. So yes I am a cop and this is me. Well almost. This photo was taken in December 2002. I'm a little more balder and a little heavier. But I'm also wiser and richer (ha!)

Stevens 520/620

I didn't think to ask you about it too, even though we had that discussion on the Model 12 page. I asked Nyles because he had uploaded that 520 pic. So I guess we'll do it like the Winchester Model 1200/1300 page and call it Stevens Model 520/620. Then do the redirects for the individual models. We need to find a better 620 pic. The 520 pic is good. If you don't beat me to it, I build the page this evening. Thanks for your help.--Predator20 13:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Review position

I tried to submit an example review for the notice on the main page but I was unable to find how to submit my work after I typed into the email box as their was no "Send" icon. As an Administrator I was hoping you could help me with this issue. -Anonymous

Hidalgo

Gee thanks! putting the incomplete template on the page right when I'm working on it! LOL! Itchy trigger finger there? ;) MoviePropMaster2008 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea

Got that the first time you told me. -Winn

zombie cross genre?

I don't like how my search for Zombie movies ends up with a list of all Zombie related Video Games or Anime. Any category search would not Cross genres like that. I think we should separate them since the search result was jarring in that a lot of unrelated titles showed up. MoviePropMaster2008 04:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

==zombie sub category-- Say you want to look for films by Romero and related (like Zombieland) and you end up with 'left for dead' or 'Zombie Panic Source' etc. etc. which are Videogames. I think there should be a zombie movie category in the movie section and a zombie genre game in the VG section. Or something akin to that. But I have long been an advocate of separating the NON film/tv categories from the rest for a long time. As an armorer, I see no value in trying to figure out what an artist was thinking when they DREW a piece of art. Only in movies and television, was a REAL firearm or mockup used, not something out of some techno-geek's imagination. Also the fact that MOST of the kids are capping Videogames or Anime veers us more away from the 'movie' element :( MoviePropMaster2008 15:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

user 58.171.239.105

User:Phoenixent has already banned him. --Predator20 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Total Recall

I'm not really sure what to think of it. From the way I read it, Goncz is mad because he doesn't want is name associated with Claridge and feels he's being misrepresented. On the Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz GA page it explains some of the history. I don't think we're in the wrong.--Predator20 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Note my comment to the NUTCASE 'inventor' on the Total Recall Page

If he were real he would NOT be talking to a lawyer. Despite being a gun inventor, he sounds like a kid when he writes. In order to be liable, one must inflict some sort of 'damage' whether to reputation, marketing, sales, review, etc. This guy is 2 bottles short of a sixpack based on his comments. I have no problem telling him where to shove it. (his rant was moved to discussion page and my response as well) MoviePropMaster2008 22:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reilly: Ace of Spies

I finally finished up the Reilly: Ace of Spies page with some additional weapons I had noticed, including a Browning Hi-Power and additional instances with Lugers and 1911s. However, I was wondering if you could help to identify the two pistols I had under the "unidentified pistols" section. Also, I noticed you had left spots for a Mannlicher Model 1903 and a Webley & Scott automatic. Do you remember when in the series these were used? I could find them if you'd like, if you know where to look. Thanks. - Speakeasy804 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very possible I missed them too! I'd have loved to have seen an old Webley auto in action (or even on-screen in anything). I finally finished the mini-series today, I liked to watch it in blocks rather than just one at a time and unfortunately I had been much too busy before that. Fascinating stories, especially in relation to history. You starting the article was one of the reasons I picked it up (as well as my love for espionage-related things) so thanks for the recommendation! I'll keep my eyes peeled for more on future viewings. - Speakeasy804 06:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Axeman and Lost Images

On the Lost page, the user Axeman keeps reverting the screencaps back to originals he put up. Axeman's images weren't cropped and were too dark. I put up a comparison of his images next to mine on the Lost Discussion page. I think mine would be preferable, but I want to get some other opinions. --Ben41 22:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Colt Category????????

Sorry fellow Mod, but why did you create a Colt category? This issue was discussed before on IMFDB (it may have been before you joined), but we thought it made little sense since ALL of the Colt Firearms were bunched together already by virtue of their titles. As you can see, categorizing a gun as COLT does little in that the grouping is no different than just looking at the gun listing by alphabetical order. The purpose of the Categories is to gather completely disparate elements which would be hard to find and group them together. Also I've been putting the kebosh on tons of extraneous Categories that other members have been trying to institute (categories like Slasher, Giallo, Cyberpunk, Main Battle Rifle, SBR, assassination, covert, used by Green Berets, etc. etc. etc.) I think we had better start putting new categories to votes, so that I have some backup when I try to stop those noobs from putting in every conceivable sub-category they can think of. MoviePropMaster2008 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was really worried that I had hurt your feelings :) But then you're not one of those folks who flies off the handle. in fact you're WAY more tolerant (and less sarcastic) than I am! LOL. Hope you see my reasoning for, at least, trying to limit newer members from creating a torrent of new subcategories :) Thanks and best regards MPM2008

JCordell

People who hate you? Can't see that. Can't even imagine that. I think everyone on IMFDB thinks of you as one big TEDDYBEAR. Now ME on the other hand is a ranting lunatic sometimes, usually when I'm yelling at some stupid 'extra' who is dry firing or worse, disassembling a firearm without my knowledge or permission. hahahaha. MoviePropMaster2008 03:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

- I think MPM said it - I don't know you that well, but I can tell from the way you type around here that you're a pretty cool guy - Hell you're probably the damn Ned Flanders of this site. But, being a cop, I can understand where some of the animosity comes from, I sometimes don't think highly of law enforcement personally but I always give respect to those who deserve it. And that certainly includes you, as again, you seem like a pretty alright guy. Hell, anyone that likes Smith revolvers can't be all bad to me. Anyway, real life is one thing, but I doubt people hate you here on the site, unless they're jerks. Now MPM I could understand.. Bah! :b StanTheMan 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching you Stan the man!!!!!! MoviePropMaster2008

- My dad would like you, he swears by Smiths. He religiously owned and shot a 4-inch Model 29 for quite a while. He advised me to go for the 6 1/2 when I buy one myself, saying my hands would thank me for it if I ever shot it real seriously. As for your story, that sounded like quite a fun ordeal - Yow. Yeah, I know cops have to be hardass at times, goes with the territory. But I dislike lawmen that feel they're entitled to be dicks because of the badge and would lean more to giving folks a hard time rather than serving and protecting. Sounds like you've met some of them, and hey, the fact that you know the difference confirms to me that you're pretty alright. Anyway, that's cool, and quite a story. You know, I myself have noticed it's really the scrawny ones you should watch out for, heh. And that's a good point, I know even cops can be scared - even with the training and the weapons you're still human, same as the rest of us. But again, glad to know you get what I was aiming at. I appreciate the insight. Quite enlightening. StanTheMan 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Boxcar Bertha

This is labeled as an Ithaca 37 on the Boxcar Bertha page, but the forend doesn't go all the way to mag tube cap or were older Ithaca's like that? It looks to be bottom ejecting like the Ithaca, unless it's a left handed pump. What do you think it is?--Predator20 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Deputy Hall watches the chain gang with his Ithaca 37.

You the man, since you figured it out, you change the Boxcar Bertha page.--Predator20 12:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the one guy beat you to it on building the page. --Predator20 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

CC revolver choices

I just got my concealed carry license (came in today, only waited two weeks) :). I was thinking about purchasing a S&W Model 638, which is the stainless steel, alloy frame bodyguard 38spec +p. But your comments on the Model 36 take page got me thinking. Would it be better to suffer the added weight of a Ruger SP101 or Colt DS or even a steel frame S&W? While the airweight might be easier to carry. But shooting on the other hand, which is what really counts I feel, will be a lot harder to do. I was maybe going to try to pocket carry (with a pocket holster) or go IWB. Going OWB on a snub would probably work but I'm worried about printing. Also what about exposed hammers vs bobbed hammers or shrouded hammers. Is snagging really a big issue or is something that can be overcome with enough practice?--Predator20 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew you would be a big help. I'm going to look into the steel frame S&W's more, I may just go with the SP101 with the bobbed hammer. I didn't really think of Taurus. My dad has a PT1911, its been a good gun. But like you say Taurus is hit or miss most of the time. I get what you mean about Colt. --Predator20 00:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about Charter Arms too. I'll probably just stick to getting a S&W or Ruger. Our local gun shop has a SP101, but it has a 3" barrel. They also have some Model 442's I think. I don't think they have any steel frame S&W snubs. I've been thinking about a picking a LCP, but with a .380 I feel like that's a back-up gun, not a primary gun. But anything is better than nothing. No problem putting the message on my user page. Also what are your thoughts on a Model 19 or 66 snub carrying IWB, too much width with the cylinder? Or is it better to stick to a J-frame starting out? I really appreciate your help. --Predator20 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ended up buying a Model 642 they had at the gun shop. It's black with stainless barrel and cylinder, which I don't really care for. Would rather have had all black. I really don't plan on doing a lot of shooting with it. At least now I have more than one revolver. The price they had listed was comparable to Bud's Gun Shop. Also came with a $50 rebate. Anyway thanks for all your help. --Predator20 15:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I have some snap caps in .357 but they just won't fit :). I'm going to order some caps, along with a pocket holster, and some speed strips, maybe even a speedloader or two. But because of the overall size of the gun, speedloaders don't look like they will work too fast. The grips on the gun are okay, but no room for my pinkie. So I may look from some different ones. I would still like to maybe get a SP101 in the future. --Predator20 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit mine is actually a Model 442.--Predator20 20:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

More revolver talk

I read up on you and Pred's convos and found them very informative. I always had a bit of liking for the Ruger SP101, despite my own immense attraction to Smiths. That said I'll ask if you've had any serious experience with a 640 Centennial? I only ask because that was one I would seriously consider getting right away. I have looked at some other .38 only revolvers like the Bodyguard series and such but I wanted the 640 for common caliber with the other Smiths, (As you can see, a vast majority of my 'wishlist' wheelguns are .357s) and if I'm not mistaken, you can shoot lower .38s in a .357 anyway. :b Anyway, that all said, figured I'd ask you on that more specific gun (If you had any exposure to it, that is). I had a couple of general questions but you've already answered them with Pred's comments and some of your past postings so I won't be redundant. Thanks for the help. StanTheMan 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, looks like a few people have bombarded you with revolver stuff lately, heh. Anyway, I appreciate your input. As for weight, I agree - as you said, it's a only few ounces and I never considered that to have too much an impact. Besides I do intend to have something that is pretty hard-wearing (which the all steel guns have proven good at for quite some time now), and I was considering belt carry rather than ankle anyway. But, there may come a time/case where I have to use ankle carry and again, I like being versatile. As you said larger 6-shot guns can be a little problematic there. And I guess I'm also like you in the sense that all the newer polymer and aluminum guns don't really blow my skirt up either; I myself am pretty old fashioned when it comes to firearms - growing up with a mechanic/repairman/technician for a dad, you learn that plastic and aluminum are good for some things but not everything and are often overrated. :b Not to chub down polymer or alum guns, many of them seem pretty good, some of them I actually have interest in. But, I am definitely one of those 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' guys. I know they make the bigger Smiths in snub versions but I've always considered them just a bit too big to carry practically speaking. I really like the look of the snubs for the 19/66 and 686, and even 629, but I don't think I could be conformable carrying any of those on the real (Especially the latter, lol). But yeah, thanks for the input for a potential 'oh god' (or as I would say, 'oh SHIT!') gun. ;)

PS - I also saw that 'controversial' section in MPM's talk page (he always has a way of making me feel less conscious about the size of my own personal pages, hah!), and though I didn't actually read it I figured the gist of it was that the antis had discovered us. But that's cool, I think it actually means we're fairly famous and makes us legit, if that makes sense. Bah! StanTheMan 16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Down here in Georgia I know about warm summers plenty so that's a good thought. Again, that's why I like being versatile when it comes to those kinda things. It's kinda funny, I thought some guns (most of them semiauto pistols) looked neat and awesome when I was younger but I soon came to find out that those neat guns are mostly 'weeaboos' (Especially stuff like the Desert Eagle and all that, yeesh) - So, I've kinda grown out of that. They are still neat to look at though. But I like to think I'm a practical guy (at least when it comes to serious stuff like this) and I've always found revolvers to be perfectly adequate. I'm not against semiautos either, but I may as well be, especially considering that the guys my age I know are all about them and I'm kinda.. not, heh. Like I said, I'm kinda old-fashioned. Funny enough, the guns I had most exposure to were semiautos - That said, I always wanted to get a SIG P220, now I'm determined to have one, especially since I got the chance to try it out. I shot that boy and it felt real nice, I also helped disassemble it, and everything just looks first-rate in there. It's a good one. But for general carry, especially concealed, I've found a revolver to be it, especially for beginners like myself.

And fun, yes.. heh! :) I imagine the badge helps at times, too. Sounds good to me. Thanks again. StanTheMan 17:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

S&W 27 vs 19

I watched a film recently and the main cop in the film uses a Smith & Wesson revolver that is definitely either a Model 19 or a Model 27. While the film has very low key lighting throughout making identification difficult, that doesn't really matter considering I cant really tell the difference between the two under almost any circumstances. I compared the images of the two we have on the site but could not see what specific features I could use to differentiate them. Normally when I see one of these weapons something tells me which one it is, and that something is generally right, I can't consciously make a distinction between the two. And since film has, as previously mentioned, a dark tint and low key, shadow filled, lighting, I really can't trust my unconscious identification system. I was hoping you could give me some tips on how to tell these two weapons apart, both because you are very knowledgeable about revolvers and, as the Payback article can attest to, you really know how to distinguish Smith & Wesson revolvers from each other. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated and, as can be seen by the back-and-forth between myself and MPM on the Chicago article discussion page, detecting minute differences in revolvers is something I have difficulty with in general so if you could try to explain how to spot these differences as simply as possible it would be a big help. Thanks in advance. -Anonymous

PS. I was reading something on MPM's talk page and saw a comment you posted about IMFDB becoming controversial or something. Are anti-gun people attacking us, or did we commit some copyright infringement or something? I can't see any reason why we would be controversial or frankly even on the radar enough for someone to have a bone to pick with us.

S&W Response

Thanks for the help. I always noticed the model 27 was beefier than the model 19 but couldn't place my finger on what about it made it look that way, frame size, ejector shroud thickness, grip size. The tip about the barrel tapper and the cylinder gap will be very useful as they tend to be visible even when the actor's position obscures some other parts of the frame. Why the Anti-gun jerks out there are picking a fight with us I can't understand, however things like this are what should encourage us to make the site as reputable as possible to give them less to pick at. -Anonymous

The Fly 1986

I just added screencaps and cleaned up the page, so please don't delete. --Ben41 22:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll remember to take the delete tag off next time. --Ben41 23:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope you relieve the boredom! ;) LOL hahahaha

I'm super busy, but I get these patches of hours where I have nothing to do. Don't know if you've noticed but I've been photographing a bunch of weapons that are closer to configurations in certain movies. I got the Mossberg 500 from Raw Deal and the short SPAS-12 from Snatch.. I'll be getting the exact Savage 99 from Dawn of the Dead (1978) soon. But I'm struggling to get a Remington Model 11 Whipit gun (short shotgun). I have one, but the buttstock that was used before being sawn down was weird. I think it was either from another gun or it was a higher end sporting buttstock for the Remington Model 11. I didn't want to use it because of the weird buttstock. I've been trying to find the correct buttstock, buy it, and then saw it down and put it on the gun for the photo. That's my curse. I run into all these hard to find variants ... and there's always SOMETHING wrong with them that makes it not be identical to what was used in the movie .....MoviePropMaster2008 18:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Stand actors

First, thanks for adding the poster shots for the films. I'll try to remember to do that in the future.

Second, I noticed that when you changed all the PNG shots from The Stand to JPG's, the corresponding actor pages weren't changed to reflect this. So, a few of the actor pages such as for Richard Lineback don't have a screenshot anymore on them. I tried changing some, but I don't know if I got all of them. You might want to check them out to make sure. Thanks. --Ben41 22:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Stevens 67

Well, thanks, except all I did was add an entry. I have a feeling you meant to message MPM really. But thanks anyway I guess. StanTheMan 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)