Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games - User contributions [en]

Talk:Saving Private Ryan

2010-09-06T05:26:09Z

M-16fan: /* Helmet Throwing */

I apoligize to anybody's pictures I replaced but I was making all the pictures 600px and some wouldn't go past 500px. I hope everyone likes the completed SPR page. - GM

===M1 Garand===
Some comments in the article are made about soldiers holding their M1 rifles with one hand. The comments say that the weapons shown are replicas due to their obvious light weight. While I've never held an M1, I have held an M14 with one hand. It is not difficult to hold such a weapon with one hand, especially for brief periods. [[User:Axeman|Axeman]] 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:An M14 is maybe a pound or two lighter (less wood and a little smaller) but Garands are bulky and heavy. They may have been accurate and reliable but they were very cumbersome. For maybe a few seconds you can hold an M1 with one hand but it is terribly uncomfortable and definitely not how someone would hold a Garand comfortably when not reading it. Plus many of those soldiers hold the gun with one hand at an forward tilted angle, which would cause quite some strain on the wrist. (I repeated everything they did with their Garands in the movie and most of it is not that easy) And what I mean to say by lightweigh replicas is that it is likely the extras were using resin replicas that were nice and light but even the main characters had lighter rifles, they were considerably gutted in heavy spots to make them easier to carry. -[[User:Gunmaster45|GM45]]

::Something else I realized he said that is bullshit; 'An m14 is maybe a pound or two lighter'. A GI M14 weighs ~2 pounds more than an M1 garand. It is EASIER to hold an M1 than an M14. M1s are lighter due to being SHORTER and having a much smaller magazine (8 rounds of 30 caliber ammo versus 10-20 rounds of 30 caliber ammo). GM, it appears you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and I really question if you ever held either of the firearms in question. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

::An M1 Garand weighs less than 10 pounds. It is not hard to hold 10 pounds in one hand, and if you really think its some sort of feat of strength, you need to go to a gym. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Was about to say the same. But if you're happen to be that weak, you should carry something like M1 carbine or a Grease gun. Or sit and fill the blanks in HQ.

Holding the thumb to the offside, as shown in the illustration of Upham firing his Garand, is actually the "proper" way to hold the rifle to AVOID getting hit in the nose by one's own thumb in recoil. While the gas operation of the Garand somewhat tames the recoil impulse, there's still plenty. Also, the stock and upper handguard will protect the hand from being pinched by the reciprocating operating rod, as long as the finger tips are not actually stuck in the gap between the two parts of the stock. Upham shows good form, for a guy who appeared to have no prior experience as a rifleman.

Okay I'll be contentious just for the heck of it. I would argue that in combat with adrenalin blasting through your body you might just be able to hold the M1 Garand with one hand for awhile. Not only would you be having a temporary increase in strength but you probably wouldn't notice the discomfort for awhile. Adrenalin is a weird thing. Many stories from wars of soldiers getting shot and not even realizing it until minutes after the fact.Just thought I would put that at there. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's not that far fetched to hold an M1 Garand one handed. I own a Mossberg 500 with a 28" barrel and a Mosin Nagant 91/30. The Mossberg is about 7.5lbs and I do one hand hold reloads, holding the shotgun on target. The Mosin is 8 1/2 lbs and I have no trouble holding it one handed. I'm not a trained soldier, nor a weight lifter. But, it seems to me that a trained soldier should have no problem lifting one more pound than I can.

::Actually, the M1 Garand is about 9 to 11 pounds and the M14 is 11.5 pounds. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== B.A.R. pronouncing ==

I'm still trying to understand why some particular gun people would rather spell the acryomn B-A-R, instead of just calling it "BAR". It's abbrieviated like a word that anyone recognize. I don't see why some gun nuts find it semi offensive when someone doesn't "pronounce" it right. It's like if ppl started calling NATO "N.A.T.O." cause it stands for something instead of just one flowing "word" NATO, or NORAD by each letter. I just don't get it [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:It's just how it is. Everyone called it a B.A.R. and Bar just doesn't sound profesional. Personally I find it annoying when people call an A.C.O.G. an Acog, although this is okayed by most people so it's just a pet peeve of mine. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

Wow you can see the decimal points and dashes in a "pronunciation" of a word" ?? You sir are gifted.

Maybe cos 'bar' is a word and people could think you're refering to a pub or a metal rod, whereas NATO, NORAD and ACOG etc. aren't similar to real words.

How it's pronounced is irrelevant. The site wants to appear professional, so it's best to properly punctuate the abbreviation. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I like to go back on this and ask, why not pronounce the acronym as it is? It is really so wrong? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:Again, because it's not the way it was done. It's an old weapon. Someone back in the twenties decided to spell it out. It may not make sense, but that's the way it is, and we shouldn't change it. Now, if you want to change the way we pronounce a modern weapon like the HK UMP, and just start calling it "ump," then go ahead. As a social experiment, I'd truly like to see how far it goes. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
::BTW, I've heard some of the kids I played WaW with refer to the BAR as a bar (rhymes with car.) These are the same kids who refer to the G43 as the gew-er (rhymes with sewer.) Do the kids playing MW2 refer to the UMP as an ump (rhymes with hump?) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That just show you that unless your homeschooled in this day and era (like me) or just pretty damn smart (like me), you turn into a damn moron. Kids have become so damn stupid that they think Karabiner sounds like car with an a at the end and beaner. - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 20:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

==Thompson Submachine Gun==
The nickname "Tommy Gun" is derived from either it's use by British troops ("Tommies") early in WWII, or is a reference John T. Thompson, who inspired its development.
The M1 and M1A1 were both easier and cheaper to make successors to the earlier M1928 model. The most obvious difference between the earlier M1928 and the two later models was the bolt cocking handle being moved to the side of the later models - it was on top on earlier Thompson versions - and the most obvious visible difference between the M1 and the M1A1 was the protective "ears" around the rear sight of the latter. Late-production M1928s and M1s had just an L-shaped piece of sheetmetal, with the peep sight drilled through it, welded to the top of the receiver.
::Um thanks, but why? We all know this information.... [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why is differing or contrary information still on the site? Attention is specifically drawn to Upham's holding his Garand with his thumb off to the side, with the comment that it would cause the very problem that holding the rifle that way will prevent. As you can see in the pic of Vin Diesel, wrapping the thumb around the pistol grip is the way to get a big rap on the nose from your own thumb.
My comments about the Thompson (other than the Tommy Gun reference, which wasn't really specific to anything), is that the currently posted information says the M1A1 replaced the more expensive/complicated M1, when the M1 was actually the first of the "cheap" Thompsons, with the M1A1 being merely the definitive cheap Thompson. The Blish lock deletion, side cocking knob, fixed sight, smooth barrel, and other mods were already present on the M1.
::Then FIX it. I'm sure there are tons of little mistakes all over IMFDB and we can't catch them all. And users are supposed to catch mistakes when they see them. Sure, sometimes there will be 'contention' regarding an edit, but it it's an obvious mistake, then no one will complain. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

== M2 Mortar ==

I think the opinion on which end of the mortar shell to bang is incorrect. If the mortar shells are time fused (for airburst) the impact on the tail would simulate the high g-forces experienced when firing the shell from the tube. The time element would start burning/turning and then detonate later. If the shells are impact detonated the tail tap would arm the impact fuzing, the next shock would be the shell coming back to earth.

You are correct , mortar roundsare armed when they drop to the bottom of the mortar tube at the instant of firing. The movie is correct, the caption under the pic is wrong. Hitting the nose of the mortar against the base plate as the caption suggest would either do nothing if the fuse is not armed or would cause it to detonate in the guys hand.

== Scope differnces ==

by the looks of things jackson uses three different scopes in some of the pics, i the scene where he is adjusting his scope for windage the scope clearly has a wider front end , in the stand-off scene where wall colapases he is using one the has a wider back end and a completely round front, and in the bell tower the scope has two vertical bars sticking out of the rifle which arent present in the previous scenes

A big problem I see is the caption under the unertl scope states he s twisting the front objective to adjust the elevation . The front objective is adjustable but just like all other scopes with adjustable objective all he is doing is adjusting the parallax. This adjustment keeps the cross hairs from apearing as if there floating around by properly focusing the scope for the range its being used at. Just because there are distance markings on the part he is turning it has nothing to do with elevation. You can clearly see the elevation and windage knobs, which he does adjust at one point , on the top and side of the rear scope mount.

As far as bullet impact and crosshair relationship at the moment of impact for the bullet, of course they dont match , forgetting the fact that its a movie we're talking about the simple fact that it take some length of time between when the shot is fired and the bullet impacts makes this a reality and historicly accurate. Simply put when you pull the trigger on any gun there is a delay before the bullet impacts your target , during this time the gun has begun to recoil, muscles contarct etc and the sights will not be pointed at the same object as they were at the moment of firing, simple physics. [panaceabeachbum]
==Prop Guns==
I almost bought a prop gun used in this movie from a guy with around 20-30 of them at a gun show about 7 years ago-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

:I'd say none but MPM can be MPM, but we could always use more screen-used guns.-protoAuthor

==Inaccuracy==
:My teacher showed us the begining of this movie in History when we started our '''WW1''' unit! You would think that a US history teacher would know that D-Day didn't occur in WW1-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that your teacher was showing you that part of the movie becasue it demonstrates what is involved when the infantry does a frontal assault against troops that are in heavily fortified positions? He might not have been able to find a WWI movie that recreated a frontal assault as effectively. Just an idea. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:Back when I was in college, we watched the end of Gallipoli for a demonstration of WWI tactics. Paths of Glory and All Quiet on the Western Front would've worked too. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My 7th grade history teacher was the dumbest bastard I've ever seen. He didn't even know the difference between World War I and World War II. He also called Vietnam Soldiers "Baby Killers". I got suspended later when I beat him up for saying that. Just show you that school teachers are stupid. - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

==Helmet Throwing==
I watched this again for old times sake, and I had to laugh at the scene where Horvath and a German both have rifle jams, so what else could they do but pitch their helmets at each other and go for their sidearms? Unnecessary, but anything to stop your enemy from killing you I guess. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I remember another movie, I think it was set in Vietnam, where a guy bludgeoned someone with his helmet. And Horvath only threw his because he was pissed the German threw his first. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it was platoon when the soldier killed someone with his helmet[M-16fan]

==The Pacific==
Is The Pacific a spin off of this movie?
:Band of Brothers was sort of a spin off, in that in involved a lot of the production people. And those same people did the Pacific.--[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

::Funnily enough, SPR is the only one in this discussion NOT based entirely on real events.-protoAuthor 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

== Color Saturation ==

The movie itself has a purposeful 60% reduction in color saturation, giving it that bleached and washed out look, this is present in many of the screenshots, but some others have the regular color levels associated with some TV broadcasts of the film which are due to complaints about color problems from television owners unfamiliar with the look of the film. I was just wondering which color level is the preferred for this page?

I.E. :
This shot, with seemingly corrected color.
[[Image:SPRM1A1Thompson-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Cpt. Miller with his Thompson at the ready.]]
As opposed to this shot, from my copy of the movie, with the washed out bleached look.
[[Image:SPRcolortest.jpg|600px|thumb|none]]

--[[User:Toadvine|Toadvine]] 07:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is suppose to look desaturated and old. It was done to give it that look of old film style. Also, when you place a picture from this movie that is "corrected color", it just doesn't look right. - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:20100616144428!SPRM1A1Thompson-3.jpg|600px|thumb|none|original pic]]
This was the original pic that Gunmaster uploaded, it has even more grain than yours, Toadvine. I'm not sure if Ben41 color corrected his new image or got it off Blu-Ray. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think the "corrected" colors looks over colored. I think somebody should upload some pictures that are better colored then the actual movie colors, but are not over colored like Ben41's uploaded pics. I wish I had a DVD of Saving Private Ryan (I've got it on VHS) - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

::The Color saturated NEW PICS are TOO saturated. They even look more color saturated than other regular Modern Color movies (see the Ed Burns pic). This really makes the Screenshots look even LESS like the stylized look of the original FILM. I vote to keep 'some' color saturation' but DIAL IT BACK a bunch. Split the difference between the original Desaturated look and the new super saturated look. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

==SS Got Issued More Lugers?==

I'm curious as to who posted the comment about pictorial evidence suggesting the SS got more Lugers than the Wehrmacht, and what your source is for that? The Wehrmacht controlled procurement, which put the SS at the bottom of the chain for new weapons, espescially in the beginning of the war. That's why they ended up with so much foreign equipment, like the ZB-26 LMG and the Radom and Hi Power pistols. Almost all of the German produced Radoms and Hi Powers went to the SS so I doubt very much they'd have more Lugers than the regular army. More pistols maybe, but because they were getting the non-German ones I doubt Lugers. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]]

Remember that the army adopted the P38, so it makes sense to have older handguns in the SS. [[User:Markost|Markost]] 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:The SS also got all the money from running the concentration camps, which included whatever money they can make from harvesting raw materials (by which I mean gold teeth, jewelry, hair, etc) and contracting out the labor. This allowed them to get a lot of stuff the army didn't get, or got later, like camo, because they actually owned or operated the factories. Small arms were probably included. I'm not saying whether or not the were or were not first in line to get Lugers, I'm just saying they probably could have if that's what they wanted. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Saving Private Ryan

2010-09-06T05:25:28Z

M-16fan: /* Helmet Throwing */

I apoligize to anybody's pictures I replaced but I was making all the pictures 600px and some wouldn't go past 500px. I hope everyone likes the completed SPR page. - GM

===M1 Garand===
Some comments in the article are made about soldiers holding their M1 rifles with one hand. The comments say that the weapons shown are replicas due to their obvious light weight. While I've never held an M1, I have held an M14 with one hand. It is not difficult to hold such a weapon with one hand, especially for brief periods. [[User:Axeman|Axeman]] 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:An M14 is maybe a pound or two lighter (less wood and a little smaller) but Garands are bulky and heavy. They may have been accurate and reliable but they were very cumbersome. For maybe a few seconds you can hold an M1 with one hand but it is terribly uncomfortable and definitely not how someone would hold a Garand comfortably when not reading it. Plus many of those soldiers hold the gun with one hand at an forward tilted angle, which would cause quite some strain on the wrist. (I repeated everything they did with their Garands in the movie and most of it is not that easy) And what I mean to say by lightweigh replicas is that it is likely the extras were using resin replicas that were nice and light but even the main characters had lighter rifles, they were considerably gutted in heavy spots to make them easier to carry. -[[User:Gunmaster45|GM45]]

::Something else I realized he said that is bullshit; 'An m14 is maybe a pound or two lighter'. A GI M14 weighs ~2 pounds more than an M1 garand. It is EASIER to hold an M1 than an M14. M1s are lighter due to being SHORTER and having a much smaller magazine (8 rounds of 30 caliber ammo versus 10-20 rounds of 30 caliber ammo). GM, it appears you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and I really question if you ever held either of the firearms in question. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

::An M1 Garand weighs less than 10 pounds. It is not hard to hold 10 pounds in one hand, and if you really think its some sort of feat of strength, you need to go to a gym. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Was about to say the same. But if you're happen to be that weak, you should carry something like M1 carbine or a Grease gun. Or sit and fill the blanks in HQ.

Holding the thumb to the offside, as shown in the illustration of Upham firing his Garand, is actually the "proper" way to hold the rifle to AVOID getting hit in the nose by one's own thumb in recoil. While the gas operation of the Garand somewhat tames the recoil impulse, there's still plenty. Also, the stock and upper handguard will protect the hand from being pinched by the reciprocating operating rod, as long as the finger tips are not actually stuck in the gap between the two parts of the stock. Upham shows good form, for a guy who appeared to have no prior experience as a rifleman.

Okay I'll be contentious just for the heck of it. I would argue that in combat with adrenalin blasting through your body you might just be able to hold the M1 Garand with one hand for awhile. Not only would you be having a temporary increase in strength but you probably wouldn't notice the discomfort for awhile. Adrenalin is a weird thing. Many stories from wars of soldiers getting shot and not even realizing it until minutes after the fact.Just thought I would put that at there. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's not that far fetched to hold an M1 Garand one handed. I own a Mossberg 500 with a 28" barrel and a Mosin Nagant 91/30. The Mossberg is about 7.5lbs and I do one hand hold reloads, holding the shotgun on target. The Mosin is 8 1/2 lbs and I have no trouble holding it one handed. I'm not a trained soldier, nor a weight lifter. But, it seems to me that a trained soldier should have no problem lifting one more pound than I can.

::Actually, the M1 Garand is about 9 to 11 pounds and the M14 is 11.5 pounds. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== B.A.R. pronouncing ==

I'm still trying to understand why some particular gun people would rather spell the acryomn B-A-R, instead of just calling it "BAR". It's abbrieviated like a word that anyone recognize. I don't see why some gun nuts find it semi offensive when someone doesn't "pronounce" it right. It's like if ppl started calling NATO "N.A.T.O." cause it stands for something instead of just one flowing "word" NATO, or NORAD by each letter. I just don't get it [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:It's just how it is. Everyone called it a B.A.R. and Bar just doesn't sound profesional. Personally I find it annoying when people call an A.C.O.G. an Acog, although this is okayed by most people so it's just a pet peeve of mine. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

Wow you can see the decimal points and dashes in a "pronunciation" of a word" ?? You sir are gifted.

Maybe cos 'bar' is a word and people could think you're refering to a pub or a metal rod, whereas NATO, NORAD and ACOG etc. aren't similar to real words.

How it's pronounced is irrelevant. The site wants to appear professional, so it's best to properly punctuate the abbreviation. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I like to go back on this and ask, why not pronounce the acronym as it is? It is really so wrong? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:Again, because it's not the way it was done. It's an old weapon. Someone back in the twenties decided to spell it out. It may not make sense, but that's the way it is, and we shouldn't change it. Now, if you want to change the way we pronounce a modern weapon like the HK UMP, and just start calling it "ump," then go ahead. As a social experiment, I'd truly like to see how far it goes. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
::BTW, I've heard some of the kids I played WaW with refer to the BAR as a bar (rhymes with car.) These are the same kids who refer to the G43 as the gew-er (rhymes with sewer.) Do the kids playing MW2 refer to the UMP as an ump (rhymes with hump?) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That just show you that unless your homeschooled in this day and era (like me) or just pretty damn smart (like me), you turn into a damn moron. Kids have become so damn stupid that they think Karabiner sounds like car with an a at the end and beaner. - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 20:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

==Thompson Submachine Gun==
The nickname "Tommy Gun" is derived from either it's use by British troops ("Tommies") early in WWII, or is a reference John T. Thompson, who inspired its development.
The M1 and M1A1 were both easier and cheaper to make successors to the earlier M1928 model. The most obvious difference between the earlier M1928 and the two later models was the bolt cocking handle being moved to the side of the later models - it was on top on earlier Thompson versions - and the most obvious visible difference between the M1 and the M1A1 was the protective "ears" around the rear sight of the latter. Late-production M1928s and M1s had just an L-shaped piece of sheetmetal, with the peep sight drilled through it, welded to the top of the receiver.
::Um thanks, but why? We all know this information.... [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why is differing or contrary information still on the site? Attention is specifically drawn to Upham's holding his Garand with his thumb off to the side, with the comment that it would cause the very problem that holding the rifle that way will prevent. As you can see in the pic of Vin Diesel, wrapping the thumb around the pistol grip is the way to get a big rap on the nose from your own thumb.
My comments about the Thompson (other than the Tommy Gun reference, which wasn't really specific to anything), is that the currently posted information says the M1A1 replaced the more expensive/complicated M1, when the M1 was actually the first of the "cheap" Thompsons, with the M1A1 being merely the definitive cheap Thompson. The Blish lock deletion, side cocking knob, fixed sight, smooth barrel, and other mods were already present on the M1.
::Then FIX it. I'm sure there are tons of little mistakes all over IMFDB and we can't catch them all. And users are supposed to catch mistakes when they see them. Sure, sometimes there will be 'contention' regarding an edit, but it it's an obvious mistake, then no one will complain. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

== M2 Mortar ==

I think the opinion on which end of the mortar shell to bang is incorrect. If the mortar shells are time fused (for airburst) the impact on the tail would simulate the high g-forces experienced when firing the shell from the tube. The time element would start burning/turning and then detonate later. If the shells are impact detonated the tail tap would arm the impact fuzing, the next shock would be the shell coming back to earth.

You are correct , mortar roundsare armed when they drop to the bottom of the mortar tube at the instant of firing. The movie is correct, the caption under the pic is wrong. Hitting the nose of the mortar against the base plate as the caption suggest would either do nothing if the fuse is not armed or would cause it to detonate in the guys hand.

== Scope differnces ==

by the looks of things jackson uses three different scopes in some of the pics, i the scene where he is adjusting his scope for windage the scope clearly has a wider front end , in the stand-off scene where wall colapases he is using one the has a wider back end and a completely round front, and in the bell tower the scope has two vertical bars sticking out of the rifle which arent present in the previous scenes

A big problem I see is the caption under the unertl scope states he s twisting the front objective to adjust the elevation . The front objective is adjustable but just like all other scopes with adjustable objective all he is doing is adjusting the parallax. This adjustment keeps the cross hairs from apearing as if there floating around by properly focusing the scope for the range its being used at. Just because there are distance markings on the part he is turning it has nothing to do with elevation. You can clearly see the elevation and windage knobs, which he does adjust at one point , on the top and side of the rear scope mount.

As far as bullet impact and crosshair relationship at the moment of impact for the bullet, of course they dont match , forgetting the fact that its a movie we're talking about the simple fact that it take some length of time between when the shot is fired and the bullet impacts makes this a reality and historicly accurate. Simply put when you pull the trigger on any gun there is a delay before the bullet impacts your target , during this time the gun has begun to recoil, muscles contarct etc and the sights will not be pointed at the same object as they were at the moment of firing, simple physics. [panaceabeachbum]
==Prop Guns==
I almost bought a prop gun used in this movie from a guy with around 20-30 of them at a gun show about 7 years ago-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

:I'd say none but MPM can be MPM, but we could always use more screen-used guns.-protoAuthor

==Inaccuracy==
:My teacher showed us the begining of this movie in History when we started our '''WW1''' unit! You would think that a US history teacher would know that D-Day didn't occur in WW1-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that your teacher was showing you that part of the movie becasue it demonstrates what is involved when the infantry does a frontal assault against troops that are in heavily fortified positions? He might not have been able to find a WWI movie that recreated a frontal assault as effectively. Just an idea. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:Back when I was in college, we watched the end of Gallipoli for a demonstration of WWI tactics. Paths of Glory and All Quiet on the Western Front would've worked too. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My 7th grade history teacher was the dumbest bastard I've ever seen. He didn't even know the difference between World War I and World War II. He also called Vietnam Soldiers "Baby Killers". I got suspended later when I beat him up for saying that. Just show you that school teachers are stupid. - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

==Helmet Throwing==
I watched this again for old times sake, and I had to laugh at the scene where Horvath and a German both have rifle jams, so what else could they do but pitch their helmets at each other and go for their sidearms? Unnecessary, but anything to stop your enemy from killing you I guess. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I remember another movie, I think it was set in Vietnam, where a guy bludgeoned someone with his helmet. And Horvath only threw his because he was pissed the German threw his first. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it was platoon when the soldier killed someone with his helmet[M-16fam]

==The Pacific==
Is The Pacific a spin off of this movie?
:Band of Brothers was sort of a spin off, in that in involved a lot of the production people. And those same people did the Pacific.--[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

::Funnily enough, SPR is the only one in this discussion NOT based entirely on real events.-protoAuthor 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

== Color Saturation ==

The movie itself has a purposeful 60% reduction in color saturation, giving it that bleached and washed out look, this is present in many of the screenshots, but some others have the regular color levels associated with some TV broadcasts of the film which are due to complaints about color problems from television owners unfamiliar with the look of the film. I was just wondering which color level is the preferred for this page?

I.E. :
This shot, with seemingly corrected color.
[[Image:SPRM1A1Thompson-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Cpt. Miller with his Thompson at the ready.]]
As opposed to this shot, from my copy of the movie, with the washed out bleached look.
[[Image:SPRcolortest.jpg|600px|thumb|none]]

--[[User:Toadvine|Toadvine]] 07:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is suppose to look desaturated and old. It was done to give it that look of old film style. Also, when you place a picture from this movie that is "corrected color", it just doesn't look right. - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:20100616144428!SPRM1A1Thompson-3.jpg|600px|thumb|none|original pic]]
This was the original pic that Gunmaster uploaded, it has even more grain than yours, Toadvine. I'm not sure if Ben41 color corrected his new image or got it off Blu-Ray. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think the "corrected" colors looks over colored. I think somebody should upload some pictures that are better colored then the actual movie colors, but are not over colored like Ben41's uploaded pics. I wish I had a DVD of Saving Private Ryan (I've got it on VHS) - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

::The Color saturated NEW PICS are TOO saturated. They even look more color saturated than other regular Modern Color movies (see the Ed Burns pic). This really makes the Screenshots look even LESS like the stylized look of the original FILM. I vote to keep 'some' color saturation' but DIAL IT BACK a bunch. Split the difference between the original Desaturated look and the new super saturated look. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

==SS Got Issued More Lugers?==

I'm curious as to who posted the comment about pictorial evidence suggesting the SS got more Lugers than the Wehrmacht, and what your source is for that? The Wehrmacht controlled procurement, which put the SS at the bottom of the chain for new weapons, espescially in the beginning of the war. That's why they ended up with so much foreign equipment, like the ZB-26 LMG and the Radom and Hi Power pistols. Almost all of the German produced Radoms and Hi Powers went to the SS so I doubt very much they'd have more Lugers than the regular army. More pistols maybe, but because they were getting the non-German ones I doubt Lugers. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]]

Remember that the army adopted the P38, so it makes sense to have older handguns in the SS. [[User:Markost|Markost]] 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:The SS also got all the money from running the concentration camps, which included whatever money they can make from harvesting raw materials (by which I mean gold teeth, jewelry, hair, etc) and contracting out the labor. This allowed them to get a lot of stuff the army didn't get, or got later, like camo, because they actually owned or operated the factories. Small arms were probably included. I'm not saying whether or not the were or were not first in line to get Lugers, I'm just saying they probably could have if that's what they wanted. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Die Hard

2010-09-06T05:09:06Z

M-16fan: /* M16? */

I am pretty sure it was not a recoiless rifle used to hit the LAPD APC in the movie. If I remember the scene correctly it seemed more like a bazooka a la the USMC SMAW (the Israeli B-300) where the missle/rocket is in a separate tube screwed into the rear of the launcher. In addition the launcher itself does not have the "crank" to close the rear hatch as is the case with most recoiless weapons. Finally, the reloads shown in the movie do not have the perforated shielding common to most/all recoiless rifle rounds.

:I don't have this on DVD but I swear at least one of them is a chopped down HK94 and not an A3. During the elavator scene, you can see it is missing a paddle mag release and 3 lugs on the barrel end. If someone could cap that, it would be much appreciated. -GM

::They're all chopped-down HK94s, every one of them, just like in ''[[Lethal Weapon]]'' and ''[[Predator]]''. I have this movie on DVD, so I'll try to screencap the MP5s when I'm back at my apartment tomorrow.

==AQ11==
Nice work with the page! It was in much need of better shots. I have 2, 3, and 4 on DVD, but 1 on VHS. I guess now 1, 2, and 3 are your work mainly. Excellent work. -GM

Thanks, I've been meaning to redo the page. I especially wanted to get rid of the screengrabs taken from Youtube videos, those didn't look too great. Anyway, now everyone can say IMFDB has completed pages of every film in the Die Hard series.--[[User:Alienqueen11|Alienqueen11]] 05:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch never made a stainless version of their P7, it´s either nickel plated or hard chromed. Keep up the good work.

==Recoilless rifle==

I've taken a look around and I can't see any recoilless with a tube that looks like that one at the back. Thing is, there are some recoilless rifles with ''muzzles'' that look like that; if it's not a prop, it looks like they mounted it backwards.

== Walther ppk ==

if u look at the Walther used by karl, the silncer looks alot smaller than the one on the picture of the silenced walther.

[[User:Dongs|Dongs]] 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

== Beretta taped to Willis' back ==
First off, I love "Die Hard". Always have, ever since I first saw it 20 years ago.
But I can't help but doubt that cheap tape would hold a Beretta.
That pistol is at about 2 lbs.

Don't you guys outthere think, filmmakers tend to forget about the weight of weapons too often?
In many movies, people can be seen throwing and catching guns, as if they were baseballs.
And how many times have we seen guns hidden in clothing and even in hats?! Even a small handgun like a Browning Baby or one of the small Berettas are at least 400 g. That's the weight of a beer can. Ever tried to hide a beer can under your hat?
In one of his movies, I remember seeing Schwarzenegger carrying his Beretta 92 in one of his socks!
Don't you think, it would be a hell of a job to walk that way?
What dou you think about all these almost weightless guns in many movies?
--[[User:Lastgunslinger|Lastgunslinger]] 14:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

:In the filmmaker's defense, he only had two rounds in the mag, instead of a full mag. That has to count for something, right? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I love that we have a film loaded with unrealistic stuff and people pick out the gun related material to hack on. I would suggest you go home tonight and try taping one of your handguns to your back with some standard issue packing tape. The shiny brown kind. I bet it works just fine. I would be more compelled to ask how the tape stuck to a man sweating and bleeding so badly!

The Arnold flick where he had a beretta in his sock was Last Action Hero, and it was a parody of action films within a film of exactly what you are talking about here.

== Five vs Six ==

What's the story on the five vs six shots from Powell at the end? I was expecting to see some explanation that there was a discrepancy between how many shots are seen verses heard or something like that, but after reading to the end it looks like two editors can't agree on who is correct. -[[User:ReverendTed|ReverendTed]] 20:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Lastgunslinger that movie you're talking about with Arnold and the beretta in his sock is Kindergarten Cop and by the way he actually had the gun in an ankle holster I believe. Still doubtful he could fit a full size beretta in a ankle holster that would be a little awkward

== M16? ==

The M16 that the SWAT guy has (the one going through the thorn bushes) looks like one of those fake MGC M16s. It looks like it has the nut where the forward assist should be. What do you think? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 03:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

all of the m-16s used by the s.w.a.t team are MGC m-16s

== Did you know ==
Did you know in every Die Hard movie, there is at least one German made gun that is used by a bad guy.
Did you know that H&K are German and have very popular guns therefore they are used alot?

== What I thought about all the Die Hard movies ==

This is what I thought about all the Die Hard movies.

First: Excellent and probably the best of the series.

Second: It was OK.

Third: Very, very hilarious.

Fourth: It was good.

== Front cover ==
Is it just me or does the Beretta that Willis is holding on the front cover of the film look like a 92SB because the trigger gaurd looks rounded.

- It's still a 92F. You can ''just'' make out the semi-squared re-curve on the forward-bottom part of the trigger guard under his right index finger. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 18:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

==terrorists count?==
i just watched the film again and i realised that theres 13 terrorists and not 12.

- Are you sure? I thought it only was 12. In any case, if it really ''is'' 13 best I can figure is Clarence Gilyard's character isn't counted as he isn't really one of the armed 'terrorists' and spends most of his time in the film breaking into the Nakatomi vault. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 03:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's 12 + Hans. McClane counts 9 to Officer Powell after he kills Tony, Marco and his friend Heinrich. He kills 2 terrorists who were manning the SMAW, then 2 in the computer room (That's 5 left). Al Leong gets killed on the roof and the terrorist that looks like Huey Lewis gets shot in the head (that's 3 left). ([[Clarence Gilyard]]) gets knocked out by Argyle the chauffeur and another terrorist holding the bearer bonds gets knocked out by McClane. Last of course, is Karl. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 05:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

== Johnson's Sniper Rifle ==

So what rifle does Special Johnson use? It's not an M24 or M40? --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 05:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:Looks like a [[Winchester Model 70]], judging by the sights. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

::Looks more to me like a [[Steyr SSG]]. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 02:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Oh I didn't even think of that. Then, yes, I agree, it looks more like a Steyr. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:SteyrSSG69.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

[[Image:DH1 5018.jpg|thumb|none|700px|]]

[[Image:DH1 5021.jpg|thumb|none|700px|]]

== Beretta 92F ==

[[Image:DH-Beretta-1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|]][[Image:DH-Beretta-2.jpg|thumb|none|400px|]]
Got a couple of Questions. (1) Can a Police Officer actually carry a Gun in his Holster like that on an Airplane? What if a Passenger tried to subdue the Officer and Grab the Gun. Shouldn't it be secured in a Suitcase under the Plane. (2) I know that the Beretta 92F was introduced to the LAPD in 1988. Was this purhaps inspired by movies like Lethal Weapon & Die Hard? Were any other Police Departments issued Beretta 92F's before the LAPD?

My Explaination.
1. Back in the day police officers WERE able to carry on to a plane. Now they have to check their firearms. Air Marshals are the only ones who can carry on a plane.
2. The Beretta was probably issued because it was heavily promoted, the military used them, and it accomplished what they wanted for less than competing designs.
-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Any law enforcement officer can carry weapons on a plane if they get clearance.

Trivia- In every Die Hard movie, John has killed someone by firing a hail of ammo through something at them. The table, in Die Hard, the air duct vent cover in Die Hard 2, and the truck doors in DH w/a Vengeance and Live Free or Die Hard.

== SMAW-D ==

I don't know what that weapon is, but I do know it isn't a SMAW-D. The M141 BDM, or SMAW-D was the McDonnel-Douglas candidate chosen over an AT-4 variant in 1996, eight years before the movie was made. The chance of a movie director or weapons consultant even KNOWING about it, much less a group of terrorists/thieves getting their hands on one is so small as to be infinetisimal.