Talk:Dirty Harry

Model 25?

I've read that the gun actually was a Model 25 in .45 Colt. The substitution for the M29 was lack of availability of a M29 and the easy availability of blank cartridges in .45 Colt (which were probably widely used in Colt Peacemakers in Westerns).

I heard it was a Model 57 in .41 caliber, but it makes more sense for it to be a Model 25, because .45 Colt blanks were very common thanks to the ridiculous amount of westerns made during that time. - Gunmaster45

It can't be a model 25. It looks completely different near the forcing cone and cylinder lock-up as well. Gunmaster45, you heard correctly. It is a model 57 in 41 Magnum. Dead ringer except for calibre and the muzzle size difference will not be noticed between those two calibers on screen.

John Milius supplied the Model 29 for the film then both Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals supplied them. The ones from Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals were .44 Magnums but were re-chambered to use 5 in 1 blanks. - Steve

John Milius Model 29

What is known is that after Magnum Force was finished Milius was presented with a Model 29 by Clint Eastwood and Warner Brothers. It has a small plaque on the grip. I've seen numerous photos of it and a few years ago it was on display at the NRA's museum in Virgina. Does anyone know if that Model 29 was used in either movie or was it just a gift? --Jcordell 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a Model 29(maybe)

It has also been written that two Model 29's were used in the filming of Dirty Harry. The Smith & Wesson company historian, Roy Jinks, has stated that the company was approached by Warner Brothers before filming had begun with a request for specimens. Evidently no Model 29's could be found to purchase. The Model 29 was something of a "niche" gun in the fifties and sixties and S&W did not produce large numbers of the 44 magnum revolver.

There had not been a production run for awhile and they had become rather scarce on the market. The factory did have parts on hand and were able to put together two models for the production. However all they had were 6.5 inch barrels so that's what the film went with.

John Milius has stated in the past that when he was doing fine tuning on the script he gave Inspector Callahan a Model 29 with a 4 inch barrel. Which makes sense since since it would be more practical for a cop to carry the 4" version. Of course practical in this case in more a matter of schemantics.

As others have said though it's hard to know what really occurred. The makers of Dirty Harry had no way of knowing that they were involved with pop culture history and nobody thought to keep accurate records about the props. So we continue to have fun debating all the possible models used by Inspector Callahan.And while your bringing it geel free to identify yourself like I just did. --Jcordell 14:59, 16 April 2009

I would also bring to the table that in 1971 gun accuracy was not high priority. Revolvers shooting 123 rounds without ever reloading. Even today 100% gun accuracy isn't achievable. You must remember it's hollywood. However if you start reading printed books and that kind of thing on the topic you will see that it was indeed a model 57. Also saying that "Harry" said it is a 44 magnum doesn't make it so. Just because a character in a movie claims it to be a something definately doesn't make it so. Now on Magnum Force and his later movies I'm sure it was a model 29 but for Dirty Harry (the movie of this page) it definately is a model 57. If you really want to I can go get some book references for you and post them here. However that is going to take some time going through my library but I will. Myth busting when it comes to be guns is what I like. So bring it. Potentpoefie

Okay. It's supposed to be a Model 29 in the movie.Even if it was actually a Model 57 that was used. And I have also read so called printed books which was where I got the info about Roy Jinks and the Model 29's being used. So once again I'm going to change it.Also I get the impression that almost everyone here is accepting of the fact that it might have been a Model 57, but don't really care. However I would like to see your references.Please post them. --Jcordell 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Jcordell I don't know if I should thank you are swear at you. I had to go through 17 year's worth of gun magazines. However I knew I read about it before. But I finally found the articles. The thank you part comes in because I took the time and finally organized those 17 year's worth of gun magazine. So without even going to online references here you go. Man Magnum March 1998 - One-Stop Shot by Keith Dyer Man Magnum November 1998 - The Movie Guns of Clint Eastwood by Paul Scarlata Man Magnum July 2006 - 44 Magnum - The First Fifty Years by Keith Dyer So now this model 29 is turning into a model 57 again and if it doesn't bother you so much then I guess it's fine. Potentpoefie

Yeah okay. I'm calling a truce. I'm leaving it to MoviePropMaster2008 to decide what he wants to do. He's basically the webmaster and it's his site. Peace my brother. --Jcordell 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well no peace to be made. Nobody declared war. Like I said. Thanks. It was an experience going through those magazines. Funny how what is "tactical/practical" has changed over the years. Potentpoefie

I took the snap below and brightened the image to better see the magnum markings. It looks like 44 Magnum to me. --Predator20 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

looks like 44 Magnum to me

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

I'm pretty sure that this is a .44 Magnum bore, because I've seen a Model 29 up close and remember it looking just like this. I've never seen a Model 25, but some pictures I've seen online suggest it doesn't look like this.

My guess is that they used the Model 25 mostly for the firing scenes, the Model 29 whenever the gun wasn't fired. -MT2008

In the last screenshot it clearly says ".44 magnum" down the side of the barrel. --cool-breeze (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Rifle as Evidence

The reason the rifle was not viable evidence is because it was "fruit of the poisonous tree." Harry had no warrant to search the stadium so evidence pulled from the scene is not admissible in court. this is the reason stated in the movie BUT any halfway decent cop and district attorney would make it a legal search due to it being "fresh pursuit" not to mention the exigent circumstance of said pursuit. moreover scorpio could only get the protection of that statute if he were a legal resident of the stadium and i am pretty sure he wouldn't be recognized as such legally. so in reality it wouldn't happen quite like that, but the entire movie was an exercise of complaint at the systems apparent apathy towards victims rights and total obsession with criminal rights. so the whole point is rendered moot. just felt like sharing.

I concur. the statement on the picture is just careless. However, the doctor said that the groundskeeper let him live there. That was the easy way they explained he was legally living there. Contract living or not, the implication that his living space is consensual with the owners or caretakers is legally enough to make it a protected area which requires a warranted search. Also, there was no "hot pursuit" or fresh pursuit. they were led to the stadium through a tip. They didn't see him run there and they didn't follow him in. Just my two cents 69.23.137.224 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your point is quite valid, I only brought it up as it was a topic in my Substantive Law class. The fresh pursuit part isn't so much about actively chasing the suspect into the area, but the small amount of time that has passed in the pursuit, bolstered by the exigent circumstances (which is a trump card). The trouble with the groundskeeper giving permission to live there is that he (in all probability) has no legal standing to grant that permission. Since Scorpio is effectively a squatter and the "search" was more or less the rifle being in plain view during the course of a lawful arrest (if I remember correctly) the point is again moot. But I do agree with you on a few levels, I just merely wanted to point out that the topic in question is more of a legal quagmire than the cut and dry "you were bad, Harry" that the movie states or the cut and dry "they have the rifle there just use it as evidence" that others wish were the case. Just adding a few more cents, I think I'm up to a nickel now. =P

I've altered the statement on the picture to refelct the fact that the rifle could have been used as evidence and the trial legally brought to court. - Maxman 0:14 8 September 2013 (EST)

Harry and the 4th Amendment

I can't speak for 1971 but in 2009 if I was in a similar situation a couple phone calls and I would have a very quick answer from the on-call prosecutor. Also I would call my superior and make sure that I surrounded the stadium with officers and locked it down. I've gotten search warrants before and a couple times it only took about 90 minutes. Plus there would be a very good chance that the PA (prosecutor) would give you the green light to enter based on the exigent circumstances.

Also I imagine that you could contact the owner or owners and get permission to search fairly quickly. Especially considering the circumstances. Most people are essentially good and want to help the police. At least in the U.S.A. But if they showed that the system was somewhat flexible and that other folks also wanted to save the girl than Harry would lose his Lone Wolf status. That would have changed the whole movie and fun would that be?

I own all the Dirty Harry movies and I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood, but they are works of fiction and they play fast and loose with the law in order to make a political/social point. Your observations are dead on. --Jcordell 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You said it though when you said, you can't speak for 1971. It was a different time. You can't compare today with 1971. Heck, I used to ride my motorcycle with a Springfield 03 rifle slung on my back (not in a case) down the 101 freeway on the way to a target shoot and nobody cared. This was back in the 1970s IN California (!?) Times surely have changed. MoviePropMaster2008 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the politics of the film was in response to a lot of the changes brought about by the Warren court. I'm sure many people may have resented that these rulings swung in favor of the accused at the cost of the police. (Gideon, Miranda, Mapp, Escobedo, etc) But since then, with more conservative courts, some of that has been rolled back or relaxed, like Miranda. --Funkychinaman 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In the spring of 1981 I was thirteen and in 7th grade. Near the end of the school year my P.E. teacher let us have a "Fun Day" which included many activities to include archery. One of my friends brought his Barnett Crossbow and a quiver full of bolts onto the bus and walked with it into our school. The only thing he had to do was leave it with the P.E. teacher until classtime. But at the end of the day he rode the bus home with the crossbow and bolts and nobody even went "eek". That was just 29 years ago. Times do change don't they? --Jcordell 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When I would walk to school in My Homestate of North Carolina, I would see men huntin' (My house was on a dirt road) in the open where everybody could see them and Me and My Friends just thought it was normal, but when I moved out of the country and into the city, with My Grandpa's old Springfield M1903A3 Rifle slung over My shoulder and a 1911A1 pistol tucked into the waist of my pants , driving an old 1950's pickup truck with half the paint worn off. Now imagine driving to New York in 1979 wearing the old uniform your father wore during the Korean War with a pair suspenders and a hand-me-down bandana soaked in blood and sweet. I saw things I didn't even think existed. That was the strangest moment in My Life. Now everbody used to seeing that stuff. The small town I lived near has been abandoned and torn down to make place for a tourist trap and mini mall. I searched for the America I grew up in and could not find it. - Kilgore 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

.44 Magnum/.41 Magnum

From what I remember reading in gun mags of the time, when they contacted Smith & Wesson a week before production was due to start no M29's where being produced at that time. They where in the middle of a run of M57 .41 Magnums, which are identical appart from the differance in Calibur. They sent them a pair of these with an advisory note not to film the muzzle until some .44's could be sourced to replace them.

This means that i was fooled, i always believed that it was a Model 29, god this isn't a good week for me.--Dillinger 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

M57 vs. M29

It's a moot point what the real model was. In the movie it's identified as a S&W 44 magnum which means it's a Model 29. So I'm going to take the liberty of changing it back to being identified as a Model 29, but with all the info still included. Anyway the company historian has stated that the production company did use a couple Model 29's that the factory put together from spare parts. --Jcordell 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Arisaka paratrooper rifle

I understand that sporterising a rare firearm negates its value as a collector's item, but is it possible that this particular Arisaka could remain valuable due to its appearance in this film?

That exact specimen would probably get a large amount of money at auction as long as there was provenance. --Jcordell 19:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Only as a movie memorabilia, not as a collector gun. There is a difference. MoviePropMaster2008 21:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask: what happens to movie prop guns when they're worn out? (I presume they get worn out.) Are they destroyed? Are they still considered firearms and regulated as such? Can they be converted back into regular firearms? Are they sold as collector's items? I'm sure the hero guns will go to some museum or something, but what of the rest? --Funkychinaman 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They are usually sold off to other prop houses/armories or gun collectors. Many of Stembridge's guns were sold to collectors in other states (back in 1999) when the Anti gun Atty General Bill Lockyer (D) was dead set on trying to nail Stembridge. The 1990s were a DARK TIME for gun rights. Dan Shea brokered a lot of the Title II sales to other buyers outside of California. You are right about the pendulum swinging back, but a lot of damage has been done and I don't see how many of the laws which really hurt armorers / gun owners can be turned back at the state level. We'll see. MoviePropMaster2008 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was curious about the appearance of the takedown Arisaka in film, as it seems to have been a rather rare specimen compared to the scores of Type 38/Type 99 rifles brought back from the Second World War and the Korean War. Still, it appeared from time to time in movies, I remember Raymond Shaw (Lawrence Harvey) used one in The Manchurian Candidate.

Scorpio Killer

I think the scorpio killer was supposed to be potrayed as a nazi or a racial socialist. He uses two of the most infamous nazi firearms in film, he had blonde hair and blue eyes, and finally he had a racial slur of african americans in his first death note.

Arisaka suppressor

What type of suppressor is the suppressor used on the Arisaka? I can't remember any suppressors being made for the Arisaka before WWII, or indeed if it was able to use any sort of suppressor. Also, it's called a 'paratrooper' rifle, were they ever actually used by Japanese paratroopers? Were there any Japanese paratroopers during WWII?

Actually in WWII the Japanese had two separate paratrooper forces. Both the Special Naval Landing Forces (Marines) and the Imperial Army Air Force developed their own paratroopers. Although like the German Fallschirmjäger they only jumped a few times early in the war and spent the rest of it fighting as infantry. As for the Type 2 Paratroop Rifle, it wasn't designed for a suppressor, so it would have to custom fitted. Pravda616 15:53 28/12/11

6 shots or 5?

In the orginal theatrical release, "Harry" fired 5 shots, not 6. The recent DVD added a sixth to the soundtrack. He fired 5 rounds single action and then cocked on the sixth. After not firing, he lowered the hammer, then cocked again which rotated the cylinder to a previously fired chamber, which enabled him to click on that empty chamber. The public is so dense that even Milius has given up arguing the point. --Sg688 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Crew visible?

In the closeup of the Type 2's bolt handle, there are several reflections that almost look like crew or film equipment. - Maxman 1:07 8 September 2013 (EST)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing