Talk:Magnum Force

That Model 29 has a 6 1/2" barrel. If you were to put the Model 29 with the 6.5" barrel and the other model with the 8 3/8" barrel you would see a noticable difference. I believe they might have used the longer barrel version for some shots for dramatic purposes, but mostly it's the 6.5" model. S&W stopped making the 6.5" and went to the 6" version in the late 70's. Which is what Eastwood uses in Sudden Impact and Dead Pool. Jcordell

AS for ammunition, Harry probably meant he's using a .44 light magnum, think of it like a .44 spl+P. "Light special load" may mean specially made and not a 44 special. There are some reduced recoil magnum rounds out there.

Yep one of the stranger things in the movie. It makes sense and as a shooter I understand the purpose, but it sort of does in the "Most powerful handgun in the world" line. Jcordell

On the DVD commentary John Milus the screenwriter notes that it shouldn't be "light special", but a lighter load. Like an 180 grain bullet compared to 200+ grain, I guess. --Predator20 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(took the liberty of removing this commentary from the page. It belongs here on the discussion page. --Jcordell 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) Actually the director said in the commentary that he wrote the line wrong. They are actually light 44 magnum rounds, not .44 special rounds.--QBert 06:06,

GOOBER TOPIC: The fore-end of the "Winchester Model 70" rifle is closer to that of a Sako-Style Copy rifle.

Armory Room

In that third picture I see a Browning Hi-Power, a Reichsrevolver most likely the '79 but could be the '83, the barrel seems a bit short, an SAA possibly a copy, an M&P Smith, a .22 or .25 pocket pistol, the rest are obscured in the pic, but just a few frames later are visable. On the shelf I see a .32 or .38 topbreak, the second could be as well, but it's just a bit tough to tell. The second pic shows an AR-15 or a copy over Callahan's shoulder, note the sight. As for the third I can make out on the right what seems like the muzzle break of a Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine, but sporterizing could explain that away. Black Irish Paddy (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Hijacker's Model 10

That looks like a Smith & Wesson Victory Model to me. Note the finish. --Maxman (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Justification for Harry's trigger finger

"Callahan aims his Model 29 through the two-way glass during the stakeout in the Cost Plus. Here Eastwood has a loaded gun cocked, with his finger on the trigger before he plans to fire it."

Dude, a robbery is taking place in the Cost Plus store, with a shotgun-wielding robber aiming at Callahan's partner posing as a cashier. Harry has every goddamn right to have his finger on the trigger with the hammer cocked, ready to blast the scumbag who might kill his partner at any time. Damn IMFDB editors, bringing up gun safety rules when it isn't relevant.

I first planned to edit out this comment, but I changed my mind and let it stay as it is, as a reminder of asinine gun commentary.

--Leon Okazaki (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Are you fucking serious? Or is this some titchy trolling? Firearms safety is ALWAYS relevant whenever and wherever firearms are concerned, yes including - I would daresay especially - fictional media. Nevermind the site that chronicles firearms in said media. And one of the cardinal rules of handling firearms is you keep finger off and away from the trigger until the moment you're absolutely ready to fire. That is a rule that always applies but if ever there was a case it should apply more it would be especially on a weapon in a cocked state where it takes very little force on the trigger to shoot.
If you watch the scene Harry is wielding his Model 29 in that fashion well before he actually fires, including a time when Callahan's partner is between him and the robber, blocking Callahan's line of fire. It's a ridiculous and unnecessary risk and a breach of basic gun safety that actual training will drill out of you and common sense should dissuade you from.
As for your slight towards IMFDB editors - Which is strictly speaking pretty much everyone here - Quite a few of them are cops/ex-cops and soldiers/veterans that have the training (along with the sense) to know better than to violate basic gun safety ever and no doubt have seem your so-called 'asinine commentary' and decided it was fine to stay due to its educational and informative value. You on the other hand, are as far as any of us know a red-paged nobody who thinks for whatever reason you can be a grand arbiter of what is or isn't 'asinine' to post on this wiki, and to make your grand statement you focus on an accurate, completely informational remark that has been posted on this page as long as I've been here, and I've been here a decade. With that being said, it's a good thing you didn't remove it, 'cause I'd put it right back.
In closing, if you really think so negatively of us and have nothing to contribute but complaint of how we do things here - including reminders of safe firearms handling to anybody who peruses the site, I'd frankly feel no big loss if you up and left. Otherwise, maybe you at least might wanna build your user page and bother to give us an idea who the hell you actually are, that way we all can make an informed decision for ourselves on just how much consideration we should give your malformed criticisms, if any. StanTheMan (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Guys, this was the 1970s. Modern gun safety wasn't a thing yet. NO need to get bent out of shape over people fifty years ago not being as safe as modern standards call for.--Mandolin (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Doesn't change the fact it's an unsafe practice, end of. That said, again, the statement pointing that out has been there the whole time and nobody got 'bent out of shape' until this guy out of literally nowhere decided to act a fool and call pointing out an unsafe practice 'asinine'. Sorry not sorry for 'getting bent out of shape' on someone who thinks gun safety isn't 'relevant' on a site that chronicles use of firearms and insults us to boot. Once more, I fail to see what reason someone who displays that kind of attitude has for being here, other than to start shit. StanTheMan (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Some strong feeling beings expressed and the thread is getting towards the edge. So allow me to remind everybody about one of the rules here on imfdb. Just trying to stop things from escalating.

Maintain professional standards of conduct. Be polite. Keep swearing to a minimum and try to refrain from harsh or volatile arguments or bashing of another user. As in all things 'internet', try your best NOT to lose your temper. Refrain from posting while 'mad', believe me, everything looks and reads differently when you've had a chance to cool off. More importantly, be forgiving of your fellow members (and mods ;) ) if we break the "don't lose your temper rule". We're all human here (as far as I know) and always try to forgive your fellow human beings.

Let's all take a deep breath and move on. Thank you guys. --Jcordell (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2020 (EDT) (one of your friendly neighborhood administrators).

I didn't say that gun safety is bad, I said that it shouldn't be brought up when it is not the priority. Based on your logic, when a police officer points his handgun at an armed criminal who has his weapon trained at an innocent person, he must make sure that his finger is off the trigger until the very moment the criminal decides to fire his weapon, regardless of what may happen (most cops in real life don't follow the 'index finger on the frame' rule when a victim is about to be killed). I reckon you're like the rookie cop with the shotgun during the Cost Plus scene, who was so worried about standard police procedures that he didn't fire at a robber when he had the opportunity to do so, and got blasted in the chest as a result. Thank god for his ballistic vest. Earned Callahan's disgust too.

--Leon Okazaki (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Okay that's enough of that

Okay I'm locking this page down for awhile. This isn't the place to engage in an Internet flame war. --Jcordell (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Okay the dust has settled. The page is unlocked. Actually, I forgot and tonight I realized that it's been a couple of years since I locked it. Sorry. --Jcordell (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)