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

Talk:Kong: Skull Island

2017-04-06T14:50:23Z

Thursday:

== 1911 ==
I don't think that's a 1911 sam jackson is using in that screenshot, looks more like a colt 1903 hammer --[[User:Toadvine|Toadvine]] ([[User talk:Toadvine|talk]]) 00:32, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

I think it looks like a Colt 1902 Model. [[http://66.media.tumblr.com/5d50c2b4441bdd1d723dc212a186573a/tumblr_mz22pyU8qP1s57vgxo2_1280.jpg]]--[[User:Bad Boy|Bad Boy]] ([[User talk:Bad Boy|talk]]) 00:37, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

Yeah I think you're right--[[User:Toadvine|Toadvine]] ([[User talk:Toadvine|talk]]) 01:37, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

==M16==
Granted it's a blurry shot, but it looks to have the three-prong flash hider which would make it more likely an M16/SP1. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 01:51, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

:Yeah, I saw one in the BTS footage too, but I think there was also a birdcage.--[[User:Quarax|Quarax]] ([[User talk:Quarax|talk]]) 02:37, 25 July 2016 (EDT)
:: To be fair the SP1 can have (and is indeed seen) with A1-style flash-hiders as well as 3 prong. We really need a shot of the receiver to positively confirm. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 16:21, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

The rifle in the second cap definitely has a forward assist, so that is an A1 (or perhaps an XM16E1, though that's less likely). The other one still has the 3-prong, making me think it's still an SP1. It ''could'' be an XM16E1 or even an A1 with the older flash hider fitted but both are very unlikely (the latter very much so). That said I think the two should be listed separately for the time being. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 15:10, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

Can someone remind me when 30 round mags were introduced? Did they come out before or after the M203 was put into service? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 10:18, 9 March 2017 (EST)

:I think that 30 rounders were first available in late 1970, and the M203 was adopted in 1969 so slightly earlier. I think they were very limited in 69 though, it would be another year or two before they started being widespread. However the film is set in 1973 so there is no anachronism with either though. I'm not sure, but i think the 30 rounders were mainly used with the carbines, so still having the 20 rounders in 1973 on M16s as seen here would probably be more common. On the topic of M16s, did anybody manage to keep track of what was going on with the SP1s/M16A1s? I couldn't decide if they were a random mix and everybody kept their own, or if they were randomly switching throughout the film. I know that Hiddleston's character used both, but I think he had an SP1 before they got on the boat and an A1 after so it may have been meant to be a different gun rather than a continuity error, but I doubt it. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 07:34, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

I'm actually glad they didn't use any CAR-15s on the fact that most likely they'll get it wrong and throw an M733 into this [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 09:40, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

== .50 ==

I call bullshit on Kong surviving barrages from a .50 cal, I get godzilla, he has scales and those are magnified what 100 times from like a gator, but Kong is just a huge ape, he has no protection, I hope they do something like Helos and planes can't fly on the island due to magnetic fields or some other cop out,so that Kong goes against only the main characters, that would be realistic,but a whole carrier a 60-70's era military would kill Kong in a few seconds.
:Well, to be fair, the shot shows no indications that Kong is the one they are firing the .50 cal at. The trailer showed a giant spider like creature, and I do not doubt we'll see some of Skull Island's more notorious creatures. -[[User:1morey]] August 18, 2016 4:20 PM (EST)

We saw how the original Kong got killed from machine gun bullets from bi-planes and those were smaller caliber than the .50 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 17:08, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
:Granted, this Kong is MUCH bigger than Peter Jackson's Kong, about Godzilla size. [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] ([[User talk:Mr. Wolf|talk]]) 01:39, 19 August 2016 (EDT)
::Cross your fingers for a Godzilla vs King Kong made by Legendary Pictures crossed with Pacific Rim [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 14:54, 19 August 2016 (EDT)
:::Well, they already have Godzilla 2 (With Rodan, Ghidorah, and Mothra scheduled for 2018) and Godzilla vs. Kong for 2020. I think Pacific Rim should be its own thing, didn't really care for it. -[[User:1morey]] August 20, 2016 8:37 AM (EST)

:I just saw this movie and I have no idea where the .50 came from. They literally pulled it out of their ass for that scene. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 10:36, 13 March 2017 (EDT)
::I'm glad you said that, I though I had just missed it somehow. I character just screams "set up the 50" and it is suddenly there. And to answer the initial concern, it isn't Kong they are shooting at but a skullcrawler, however it is only one of the small ones so that makes even less sense that it is totally ineffective (especially considering that its skin is thin enough that a camera flash shines through). That was one of my gripes with the movie, that bullets had basically zero effect on any of the creatures yet that is pretty much all they did in any of the fights. It especially annoyed me that the soldiers were carrying at lest two grenade launchers (and a very obvious full bandolier of grenades) but they were never used in the film, despite being probably the only weapon they were carrying that would realistically do anything. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 07:46, 14 March 2017 (EDT)
::Captain Cole had the M79 and didn't use it once and the flamethrower guy also kinda came out of no where because I don't remember seeing him walk with Sam Jackson's group. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 10:16, 14 March 2017 (EDT)
:::You could actually see the flamethrower guy earlier in the film, part of the problem though is that they were really bad at establishing how many people there were with Jackson's group, it seemed to fluctuate wildly depending on the plot with people seeming to show up for the first time just to get killed. If we are talking about thing magically appearing, I feel I should mention the helicopters. There was a very clear establishing shot of the freighter which showed it had a Chinook on the bow, a Sea Stallion on the stern and then (I think)) five Hueys talking up the whole of the deck. However, a few seconds later there were somehow 10+ Hueys in the air, and then at the end of the film 3 more showed up. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 13:02, 14 March 2017 (EDT)
::I think there were more helicopters inside the ship. I saw some kind of hanger to the rear of the ship where the Sea Stallion took off from. But yeah, there were more Heuys than the ship could clearly carry on deck. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 10:16, 15 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I missed the hanger but just looked on Youtube and it is actually in one of the trailers, and it holds 2 unarmed medevac Hueys. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 10:57, 15 March 2017 (EDT)
::::So they were hiding a 3rd one somewhere for the end?[[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 09:39, 16 March 2017 (EDT)
:::::I also find it hilarious that both Marlow and Gunpei couldn't hit shit with their handguns at the ranges. It was funny kinda cartoony standoff they had, also kinda odd that Gunpei has a C96 instead of any of the typical Japanese pistol, but not entirely impossible. Officers in the Japanese military were encouraged to purchase their own personal handgun and a lot did because they recognize how inadequate the standard issued sidearms are. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 11:09, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

It's also never clear where exactly is Skull Island, so it's impossible to tell if any US battle groups were engaging the Japanese fleet and this late in the war, yeah...unlikely since by this time, pretty much all of the Japanese's carrier groups were destroyed, most at Midway. So this is very unlikely that either fighters could have made it to Skull Island, let along get pass the eternal storm that no one seems to know about. It's like they borrowed the island from the Tomb Raider remake game but made it into Skull Island. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 11:09, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

Also funny how a flare gun had some kind of explosive effect on the side of the big skull crawler. Makes me wonder what'll happen if they used the grenade launchers [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 10:18, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::While we're on the subject of bullshit in this movie, what about that P-51 somehow magically ending up on Skull Island? Should've been a Hellcat, and in any case, the odds of such a fight happening in 1944 seem pretty slim to me. --[[User:Godzillafan93|That's the Way It's Done]] ([[User talk:Godzillafan93|talk]]) 22:19, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Some P-51 units did serve in the Pacific, though I'm unsure of when or where exactly.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 14:41, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Which goes back to my question of where is Skull Island in relations to the Pacific War? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 15:07, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
::::The P-51 is a land based fighter, though, so if one crashed on Skull Island during a dogfight, then it would've had to have been within reach the plane's legs, especially when you realize it would've been using extra fuel fighting the Zero and fighting through the hurricane constantly around the island. The island can't actually be ''that'' far away if a land based fighter was able to reach it. Also, Zeros are carrier-based, so it seems odd to me an Axis carrier-based fighter is fighting an Allied land based fighter in 1944. I think this is more a matter of critical research failure, though; it should absolutely have been a Hellcat off a carrier.
::::Also, while we're on the subject, does it seem I dunno, just ''stupid'' how the Skull Crawlers' skin can resist a .50 machine gun burst but a katana can part it like butter?--[[User:Godzillafan93|That's the Way It's Done]] ([[User talk:Godzillafan93|talk]]) 20:08, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
:::::P-51s were used in the Pacific flying from Iwo Jima, mainly flying to mainland Japan escorting B-29s. The first Mustangs were on Iwo Jima in March 1945, and I think this is the first time they were used in the Pacific so if that opening scene was in 1944 (I can't remember) then it is incorrect. Also, although Zeros where carrier planes there weren't that many carriers left after Midway, so most of the Zeros were flying from ground bases. As for the range of a Mustang, with tanks they can fly for 1500 miles, so draw a 750 mile circle around any island with a runway that the US captured and Skull Island should logically be in there somewhere. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 08:15, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

I will forget rag on the fact that monster movies or really any movie completely underestimate the power of the Ma Deuce. I think Rambo is one of the only time that shows us how destructive a .50 cal is. Also I am not letting go of the fact that they hid a .50 cal that needed to be "set up"...who the fuck was carrying it? The thing weighs like 80 lbs [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 09:55, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

:I looked through some of the trailers and B roll footage that they released, and you actually see it a couple of times, but you wouldn;t really know it and it is still totally unrealistic that somebody would be able to carry it like this. If you look at this bit of the B-roll footage, the character in the background has a canvas bag that you can just see the spade grips sticking out of:[[ File:Kong B roll 0001.jpg |thumb|600px|none|]]You can also see this bag earlier in the film when the two groups meet back up, but at this point it looks more like an empty sack that is not actually holding anything. There are many shots that are meant to show the whole group that he isn't in though, he comes and goes like a few other cannon fodder soldiers. Nobody else seems to be carrying any of the parts though (somebody else can be seen with 2 ammo cans) so must still be carrying the receiver, barrel and tripod, so it is 128 lbs. Even if we imagine that he could somehow carry it or they are sharing the weight, the M2HB actually takes a few minuted to put together as in this incarnation the barrel isn't quick change and needs to be head-spaced before it can be fired. By this point, they should have already been eaten, not that it really matters because as you say the machine gun doesn't actually do anything anyway. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 11:41, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

It annoys me a great deal when people just bust out an M2, the thing is a monster, carrying any part of it sucks. Been there, done that. [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] ([[User talk:Thursday|talk]])
== Please help ID ==

Please help ID this flare gun. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 01:58, 8 March 2017 (EST)
[[File:KSI 515.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]
: It looks like a [http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Type10Safety.jpg Type 10 japanese one]--[[User:Death Shadow20|Death Shadow20]] ([[User talk:Death Shadow20|talk]]) 08:48, 8 March 2017 (EST)

:: I really doubt that a Hollywood prop company could get their hands on a fairly rare Type 10 Japanese flare gun, and while this looks close to it, it isn't. The finish is too dark and too nice looking for a fairly rare flare gun, combo that with the evident lanyard loop, different grip angle and much larger trigger guard, it looks to be an Orion Flare Gun that's being made to look like a period flare gun by being painted black.- [[User:PaperCake|PaperCake]] 13:54, 8 March 2017 (EST)

Yeah, that curved grip definitely makes me think Orion.--[[User:H3nry8adger1982|H3nry8adger1982]] ([[User talk:H3nry8adger1982|talk]]) 19:52, 8 March 2017 (EST)H3nry8adger1982

Looks like a Webley & Scott No. 4 Mk. 1 to me. [[User:Black Irish Paddy|Black Irish Paddy]] ([[User talk:Black Irish Paddy|talk]]) 10:54, 9 March 2017 (EST)

Here is a production image. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 13:18, 9 March 2017 (EST)
[[File:KSIBTS 04.jpg|thumb|none|800px]]

Yep, it's a 25mm Orion, painted black. Might be to masquerade it as a WWII-era M8 Flare gun. -- [[User:PaperCake|PaperCake]] 20:21, 9 March 2017 (EST)

:I don't really know why they did that, as another character uses a real M8 at another point in the film. Maybe they didn't like how it looked in her hand so chose a smaller gun, or perhaps it is because she is firing it towards the camera and they wanted something of a smaller calibre that they could control more easily. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 07:54, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

Talk:Battle: Los Angeles

2013-06-21T08:44:38Z

Thursday: /* Notes as I watch for others / self: */

==aliens==
I wounder if the aliens are going to be easy to kill as us humans with a few bullets, or talk an entire magazine from am M4 to kill.

Probably like [[Independence Day]] where they will be some what easy to kill like us...but have supior body armor or way better technolgy.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this photo from their website? The site doesn't want to put unauthorized BTS photos (see the discussion on the [[Transformers 3]] page.
--[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:BattleLosAngelesm1a2.jpg|thumb|none|350px|M1A2 Abrams on set in Louisiana.]]
This behind-the-scenes shot of the M1 Abrams on this Louisiana freeway set takes place when the main characters encounter it during the tank's battle with several alien platoons on the Los Angeles freeway overpasses mid-way into the film. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 22:01, 30 August 2011 (CDT)

== Laser Modules on M4s ==
By the shape, they appear to be AN/PEQ-16As. I do believe this would qualify as the film debut of the device. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

:I thought it was the AN/PEQ-15? Still, I do believe this is the first film appearance of that system. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

::Upon second look, you're right. It is a 15, not a 16A. With that revelation, this would then be the ''second'' film appearance of it. The M4s used by the security team in Resident Evil: Afterlife had PEQ-15s on them. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 09:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

== FN M16? ==

I know FN actually makes the M16 as well, but how can you be certain the guns in the movie are FN? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:Colt and FN share the US military's M16A4 contract (I don't think they're buying M16A2s anymore). But where does it say the M16s in this film are FNs? I don't see it mentioned anywhere. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 08:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

::I changed it to just plainly M16A2 until whoever stated previously can prove it [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 17:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

== Interesting concept behind this movie... ==

I know that the whole alien invasion genre of film has been done to the death so many times over to the point where most audiences will just scoff at films like this just like they scoffed at Independence Day or, but I gotta admit, this film has an interesting concept to it's backstory.

I don't know if anyone has ever read about this, but on the night of Feburary 24-25, 1942, there was a "supposed" air raid against the city of Los Angeles where some unidentified aircraft appeared in the skies over Los Angeles, and since several other raids by Japanese aircraft and bombardments by Japanese submarines had been taking place all along the West Coast of the United States and even one attack on the coast of Vancouver, Canada had been happening throughout the beginning of 1942 (fresh after the attack on Pearl Harbor), this supposed "raid" on Los Angeles caused MASS hysteria and panic that an enemy invasion would be next after all these raids. So therefore the skies were lit up that night with anti-aircraft fire which damaged several buildings (since they fired around 1,400 shells), and caused 3 people to get killed by the anti-aircraft fire while 3 others died from the massive stress of the whole situation. However, it was revealed in the U.S. Government's "official" after-action report that there was NOTHING in the skies over Los Angeles except for a weather balloon and flares fired off from training aircraft, and that the reason why all the panic happened was because of "war nerves" causing people to mistake them for enemy aircraft and think that a raid was happeneing.

But some UFO theorists believe that the "unknown aircraft" in the skies over Los Angeles that night were alien craft, and that the government was covering it up.

So from what I have gathered, the plot behind this movie is the idea that when the Great Los Angeles Air Raid of 1942 happened, those REALLY were alien aircraft in the skies. And now, 69 years later in the movie's timeline (If it's supposed to take place in the year 2011), the aliens have returned to not only begin their invasion of Los Angeles, but to invade the rest of the world as well.

^Sounds like Harry Turtleodve's Worldwar series [[User:BeardedHoplite|BeardedHoplite]] 14:31, 16 March 2011 (CDT)

Interesting backstory concept for this movie? I like to think so. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 13:24, 8 March 2011 (MSK)

It seems to be just a modernized Independence Day plot. Aliens come to invade Earth to get at our resources or something and wants to wipe us out and we fight back. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 19:11, 8 March 2011 (MSK)

:I guess this movie could be considered a more "modernized" version of Independence Day (And I'll be the critics will be comparing this film to Independence Day on it's official release), but at the same time, it takes a real life event that happened 69 years ago, and makes it into a more creative story where the event that took place really WAS the cause of aliens, and now they have returned to invade earth, with the city of Los Angeles being the steppingstone battleground to their campaign. Whereas with Independence Day, it only made passing mentions of past alien spacecraft sightings throughout history before the main invasion begins, but they never really dove into greater detail behind the reasons why in that film. And besides, this movie looks really interesting since (from what I have seen in the trailers) the aliens apparently will not always be in massive spaceships blasting the shit out of buildings, or using sneaky mind control tactics to assimilate humans, they will actually be on the ground, with weapons of their own, engaging in modern combat scenarios with a human army, and that is something (at least to my knowledge, but I could be wrong) that hasn't been (if ever) done in an alien invasion film. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 08:54, 9 March 2011 (MSK)

== Weapons + thoughts ==
M9/Beretta 92 used in end battle by Aaron Eckart's character and someone else

M240 may have been on the LAV, too dark to see it clearly.

M2 on the Humvee

Unidentified mortar in the background early on, probably 81mm.

Round frag grenades (M67? M61?)

Smoke grenades (M18?)

I personaly thought that the movie was exhalent, good tactics on both sides.
Dont belive Roger Ebert's idioitic review. Seriously, go see the movie.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 17:16, 12 March 2011 (MSK)

:Well, the problem is that alot of people (being the gullible sheep that some people are) will listen to what the professional movie critics will say about movies like this, and just flat out dismiss it like they do (Even though there are some exceptions like when all the crazed fans of The Dark Knight sent death threats to the professional critics for giving that film anything less than 5 stars or A+ back in 2008... ridiculous huh?). And of course there is an even bigger majority of people who refuse to throw reality out the window these days and would rather nit-pick movies like this one to death for being "unrealistic" or whatever other bullshit arguments they bring up (Especially with movies like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for it's "unrealistic" refrigerator nuke scene, God... the arguments on that scene were so fucking ridiculous, even more ridiculous than the "Han Solo shot first!" argument). But really, I saw Battle: LA for myself, and I agree, it is a great alien invasion movie, and it also has done something that has never been seen in a major-budget blockbuster alien invasion film from years gone by (at least to my knowledge), and besides, pretty much ALL the actors in this film actually went through boot camp training so that way they look picture-perfect playing the U.S. Marine characters that they portray in the film. So rather than people blindly agreeing with what the professional critics are saying, I say go see this film for yourself and judge it for yourself. Maybe moviegoers might like this movie, and maybe they might not, but it's still a damn good film nevertheless. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 04:15, 15 March 2011 (CDT)

Anyone see what the corpsman's sidearm was? He never draw the weapon and it's kind of dark to see when I saw the weapon in the holster. I think it might be a SIG, which would make sense since Navy does issue M11/P228s. Can't be sure though.--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 15:36, 13 March 2011 (MSK)
:Just FYI, Navy Corpsmen who are attached to Marine units are issued Marine weapons, so the proper sidearm would be an M9/M9A1. The Marine Corps does not possess or issue any SIG firearms (unfortunately, in my opinion). However, I don't remember seeing any close-up shots of "Doc's" sidearm. Next time I watch the movie I'll keep an eye out for it.[[User:Travestytrav|Travestytrav]] 19:30, 24 May 2012 (CDT)

I just got back from seeing the film, and I REALLY want to say it's an MEU SOC. Hopefully somebody can clarify this for me. Also, was it me, or were the M16A4s seeming like they were going full auto? :P -Kangabox
:I don't recall seeing any MEU(SOC) pistols in the movie, but it would be cool if they had some in it. The MEU(SOC) is pretty rare in the Marine Corps and is usually only available in Recon and/or MARSOC units, and even then they're hard to come by. I've heard there are less than 1,000 MEU(SOC) pistols in the entire Marine Corps inventory. And as for the M16A4s seeming to fire on full-auto, yeah it did kind of seem that way in some scenes, which could just be an inaccuracy. However, that could be explained away as a hard-charging Marine just being really fast on the trigger, which is possible.[[User:Travestytrav|Travestytrav]] 19:30, 24 May 2012 (CDT)

I paid special attention to the gear details of this movie when I saw it a few hours ago, and I did notice a few moments when the M16s fired on fully automatic (when Hectair's father used one for example) but through most of the
film I noted the soldiers were useing their weapons on semi-automatic, just as they damn should be, but every other
movie has ignored this to my knowledge. So either this was simply a little hollywood hickup in the movie or its
assumed that M16A5s are being used (S-S-B-A M16s proposed by some firearms company that escapes my mind right now) by the USMC by the time the invasion happens. On a very possitive note I saw that the marines were all wearing MICH
helmets rather than PSGAT (marines have a different name for it) ones and the aformentioned laser designators as well as uniforms (patterns, gloves, body armour etc.) makes me think they had military reference on sight for the making of, because this movie was totally a PR thing for the USMC like transformers or stargate was for the airforce. Only three things that I actually didn't like were:
- the AT4 having a lock on tone (damn you call of duty!).
- the laser designator having a visable beam and them not simply useing the designators on their rifles.
- and finally; why didn't the aliens just drop a small nuclear weapon on every major military base from orbit and make us helpless as an opening strike? Because then there wouldn't be a movie, so I can ignore that one haha.
Anon has spoken, this movie is epic.
::I feel compelled to mention that the A5 upgrade proposed by the USMC for the M16 is the addition of a collapsible stock and a new buffer system to make it friendlier to shooters wearing body armor. I haven't heard anything about adding a 4-position trigger system. Not that I disagree with the addition of or replacement of burst with a full auto mode, though, since it would ease the squad's reliance on the M249 for suppression fire (Why do you think SOF teams tend not to carry a squad auto all the time? Because their M4s are capable of full auto). [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 08:03, 23 February 2012 (CST)

:I think the auto firing M16 could be the sound crew's fault too, just like how they added the lock on tone. I watched the movie again, Santos was actually aiming the AT4 at the drone's flight path, the the rocket travelled in a straight line rather than chasing after the drone like they did in the Stargate series. Also, PEQ lasers on the rifles cannot be use to paint target for missiles/LGBs, it can only illuminate the target for pilots and the pilots would need to target the weapons themselves. Most FACs and JTACs do use big ass laser designators like the ones in the movie (usually mounted on tripod).--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 03:15, 20 March 2011 (CDT)

:Speaking of sound crews, don't forget about that awkward sound the SAW made when we first saw it being fired. Sounded more like stock gunfire sounds coming from an M60. Also from a more technical standpoint, I saw esentially all the Marines wearing MARPATs with the standard BDU-style cut, but if we're assuming that this film takes place in the near future, shouldn't we see at least a few of the grunts wearing the newer FROG suits? Just a thought. -Kangabox

I don't think Lenihan is adjusting the knobs on his ACOG in the picture that is up. Looks like his fingers aren't near the knobs, he's probably wiping the lense.

:That actually make sense since he just got covered with laundry detergent. Once again, the sound crew messed up!--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 13:53, 24 June 2011 (CDT)

Even though i'm just reiterating everyone's point, i feel obligated to say it (or rather type it). This was a damn good movie, i know my opinion doesn't really mean a damn thing as i'm not a famous movie critic, but goddamn can this guy make a movie. The action part just as good as movies like Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down, which he says were his inspiration for it. It somehow captured the drama well without coming off as a poorly acted hacky pg-13 POS where the good guy just acts manly and goes "GODDAMMIT! I CANT LEAVE YOU!" and all that other horseshit dialogue that bad movies use. It also had something very unique and appreciated, an Alien force that acted like an actual military. If if they might have been conscripts (implied through the dialogue mentioning the alien weapon fused to the alien's arm) they still fought like trained combatants, and didn't just march forward slowly firing from the hip. They took cover, there were scenes when alien medics dragged comrades to safety, there were officers issuing orders, and aliens giving covering fire before advancing. And the director had the good sense to use a lot of particle effects instead of just 3D. 3D may look good in theaters, but when its not it comes off as the most hokey youtube 5 min edit job, turning a good movie into shit. And also surprisingly good acting, sure it wasn't Nicholson from CucKoo's Nest, but for an action flick it had some great dialogue in it. The actors training was also top-notch, they had the dedication to go to real bootcamp and learn how to properly portray themselves as highly trained U.S. Marines, it looked like even the extras playing the Army soldiers had perfect form and weapons handling. And from what the director says Aaron Eckhart broke his arm but continued filming/training. All in all- Great Movie. And if the critics don't agree- Fuck Em', this was a good movie, and i hope this review will inspire more people to go and see it.--[[User:Doc345|Doc345]] 2:20, 27 June 2011 (CDT)

One of my favourite moments in the film was when Aaron Eckhart's character ended up shouting "NOT AGAIN!" to the Lieutenant. It really made you think about how real this character is coming across. People were talking behind his back saying how he got all his people killed but he was dealing with some heavy guilt over the situation. Also, damn Brian Tyler did an amazing job with the score. One of the best film scores of the year for me. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 17:35, 3 July 2011 (CDT)

I enjoyed it too. It doesn't default to the "they're aliens so nothing they do has to make sense" cliche (say, the aliens in ''Signs'' jumping around on roofs for absolutely no discernable reason), and neither are the aliens so ridiculously superior to us that it's obvious we'll never defeat them without something totally stupid happening (one of the issues I had with ''Independence Day'' is it was obvious about halfway through that the only way the good guys would win would be to cheat somehow). I rather like the way the aliens act like actual soldiers, ducking and hesistating and generally moving like they don't enjoy the prospect of dying, and I get the strong idea from their equipment that they're used to fighting wars their way and are finding out the hard way that it isn't all as effective as it was back home. I imagine the idea of the surgically grafted weapons is to ensure that they can't possibly surrender because they can't be disarmed or disarm themselves; I've heard the filmmakers said they're soldiers of some hideous fascist alien government, so I'd assume that government would take steps like that to make sure there wasn't any kind of communication between them and the natives that could jeopardise the mission to kill all of them. Unlike the terminally stupid videogame, the only really silly thing I've noticed is Eckhart's uniform keeps washing itself, and the movie aliens look way better than the zombie scarecrow robots in the game. I guess some people tend to be too cynical to just accept a story about soldiers (well, Marines in this case, I know the USMC don't like being called soldiers) as good people trying to do their best and make a difference in a hard situation. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 17:24, 13 July 2011 (CDT)

== gloves ==

the gloves that SSgt Nantz use throughout the film, anyone know what they are or who makes them? im looking to purchase a pair

Blackhawk if you check their website I'm sure you will spot them , I read it on the website who supplied the movie, don't remember the model though.

The model of the gloves are Blackhawk Nomex Fury Commando Gloves ($70.99)

==C4==
I'm pretty sure that they were using C4s in the movie. That one 2nd Lieutenant killed himself with it and they attempted killing the aliens at one point with them. Just saying. That and I believe that there was one scene where the lady was using a shotgun. It was the scene where the alien landed on the car and she shot it with the shotgun and then some alien blood splattered all over her face lol.

Yes, they were using C4 and the officer blew himself and a bunch od aliens up with it. Michele Rodreigez's character (Sgt. Santos) didn't have a shotgun, she was still using her M4A1.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 09:07, 27 April 2011 (CDT)

:I'll have to check the lettering, obviously it's not real C4 but they could be imitations of M112 "Charge, Demolition" blocks and if so we can use that image I have to ID them. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 03:31, 14 July 2011 (CDT)

[[Image:M112.jpg|thumb|none|600px|M112 demolition charge]]

=="Elena" Santos==

I just changed the poor womans name to Elena (which is the characters correct name) instead of Adriana. Where did Adriana come from?

:The film was a big hit at Comic-Con when they previewed it there. I vaguely remember her name being given as ''Adriana'' rather than Elena. But I could be wrong, so take that with a grain of sand. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:56, 28 June 2011 (CDT)

== There's a game ==

I played it through. It's...Well, awful. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:27, 6 June 2011 (CDT)

Hey, at least it beats E.T. on the Atari XD -Kangabox

== M240 ==
This screenshot is lumped in under the M240D entry.
[[Image:BLA 050.jpg‎|thumb|600px||none|An LAV gunner mans the M240.]]
And being that it's an M240''G'' rather than a D, shouldn't it be under its own entry? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 11:58, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
:In fact, if you look at the screenshot in full resolution, you can see there's a heat shield on the barrel, which would make it an M240''B''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 12:01, 19 June 2011 (CDT)

== Battle of Los Angeles ==
I put a mention of the film's inspiration and link to the Wikipedia article for the Battle of LA at the top of the page beneath the film summary. It may not be totally relevant to the guns used in the movie, but I feel it worth mentioning that the film was inspired by a historic event. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:56, 28 June 2011 (CDT)

Good idea. Some people tend to forget that this website isn't just about guns but about the films as well. I think it would be cool if there were reviews of the various films and TV shows on here. I don't mind writing a few reviews if they are wanted. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 17:39, 3 July 2011 (CDT)

== Notes as I watch for others / self: ==

Mark 19 grenade launcher at 15:47 on an AAVP7A1 on television.

Plenty of USMC Cobras flitting around, have to check if there's a clear shot of an M197.

[[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 14:58, 13 July 2011 (CDT)

:Oh, and I think it might be worth repeating from the game article that they're showing Copperhead guided artillery rounds as missiles with exhaust flares and smoke trails, and they call them missiles a couple of times. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 10:34, 14 July 2011 (CDT)

::The missiles that was fired looked to big to be a 155mm artillery shell (looks kind of like an ATACMS), not to mention it flew sraight. It might just be the Marines/script writers mis-used the term Copperhead for the laser guided missiles in the movie. --[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 18:03, 19 August 2011 (CDT)

:::Yeah, but this is one of the few things the videogame and the movie both agree on; they're supposed to be M712 Copperhead rounds (movie uses Copperhead, game goes so far as to call them "em-seven-twelve" when they're calling for support). They're just incorrectly shown as weird do-everything missiles rather than guided arty rounds. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 10:21, 31 August 2011 (CDT)

Well there's the fact that they try to pass the copperhead off as a missle, there's also the little issue of them passing a 6 digit grid and only having the top half of an LLDR (the Target Locater module) and showing it functioning and on continuously, while broken down to a dismounted system it runs off of a single non-rechargeable 5590 which lasts about 2 seconds when the device is discharged. [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] ([[User talk:Thursday|talk]]) 04:44, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

== Additional Screenshots ==

[[File:BLA 047.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A Marine passes out the M16A4 at Camp Pendleton.]]

[[Image:BLA 081.jpg|thumb|600px|none|Another shot of Joe Rincon with his newly acquired M16A4.]]

[[Image:BLA 17.jpg|thumb|600px|none|Several other U.S. Marines provide overwatch with their M16A4's.]]
[[File:BLA 281.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Another view of the M16A4 held by the California National Guard soldiers.]]
[[Image:Battle_los_angeles3.jpg‎|thumb|600px|none|Cpl. Harris and PFC Lenihan are seen armed with M16A4's as they're surprised by an alien soldier jumping out of a swimming pool.]]
[[Image:BLA 18.jpg|thumb|600px|none|Private First Class Lenihan ([[Noel Fisher]]) nervously holds his M16A4 at the ready as an alien soldier approaches from behind him.]]

[[File:BLA 057.jpg|thumb|none|600px|PFC Lenihan nervously cleans off the ACOG scope.]]

== M4A1 with bayonets ==

In the final battle scene, marines were seen having hand-to-hand combat with aliens using M4A1 with bayonet attached. I am wondering if M4A1 are meant suitable to go with the bayonets because Ive also seen a lot montage on US Rangers/Marines storming into and clearing rooms in Afangistan, Iraq etc and they did not have bayonets attached despite expecting enemies at point-blank range. So the point Im trying to put across is that is it a movie effect, or US Army did have a training on this. And is M4A1 suitable to be attach with bayonets despite that it is heavily attached with scopes, handles etc?

As far as I know standard M4A1 rifles have bayonet lugs. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 14:42, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

:The M4 carbine can take both the M9 and OKC-3S bayonets. The US Army doesn't do very much bayonet training any more (USMC still does though), due to the fact that the last time there was a bayonet assault was during Korea. I imagine the reason they aren't used for house clearing is the fact that when a bunch of guys are bursting through a door one behind the other, the last thing you want is for them to have knives on the end of their rifles. Bayonets also mess up the barrel harmonics, making the rifle less accurate. Only time I'm aware of bayonets being used in recent times was in an incident where a British Army convoy was ambushed outside of Basra, ran short on ammunition and bayonet charged the enemy position. This were pretty exceptional circumstances though. I haven't seen the movie, but if the soldier were short on ammunition then it is justifiable. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:22, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

:They were severely outnumbered, outgunned, and very nearly overran. Considering those circumstances, it would make sense for some to mount bayonets ''just in case''. But my question is, is it correct that Santos has an OKC-3S? She's Air Force and I thought the OKC-3S was unique to the Marines? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 23:31, 24 November 2011 (CST)
::The Marine she was with could have given her his bayonet, he doesn't attach one to his rifle if I remember correctly. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 02:12, 25 November 2011 (CST)
:::No, he has his attached, too. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:45, 28 November 2011 (CST)
::::They're a small, outnumbered force trapped behind enemy lines. They're definitely going to be scrounging to get extra supplies, gear, ammo, etc. Heck, they even show them scrounging stuff in the store and at the abandoned airbase. It's quite possible that she took the OKC-3S bayonet off of a dead Marine as she was looking for additional ammo, etc. [[User:Travestytrav|Travestytrav]] 08:31, 29 November 2011 (CST)
:::::Possible, but we don't see it. That kind of thing is referred to as "plot spackle" by fanfiction writers, I believe; you're not supposed to have to make things up to fill in "cracks" in the information you're given. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:45, 29 November 2011 (CST)

== Sneaky M249 Para ==
It can briefly be spotted in the opening scene within the 1 minute mark as the Marines are rushing toward the helicopters.

(removed link [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]])

I took it on my phone (best I can do until I get my hands on the blu-ray come Christmas). Should I go ahead and upload it as a temporary cap or does someone with the blu-ray want to handle this? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:03, 28 November 2011 (CST)

I don't think it's a Para. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 15:30, 28 November 2011 (CST)

[[File:BLA 1003.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]
[[File:BLA 1004.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]
[[File:BLA 1005.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]

:I think that that gun has the M249E1 tubular steel stock, Para barrel and M249E2 handguard, so is a bit of a mix. I think it is a match for the one pictured below, which was described where I found it as the "Minimi PIP", but am fairly sure that is wrong as one of the things in the PIP was the synthetic stock with the buffer. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 16:40, 28 November 2011 (CST)

:[[File:Minimi unknown variant.jpg|thumb|400px|none|Minimi with short barrel - 5.56x45mm]]

::It's hard to tell the difference between stocks since the buttpad area looks vaguely similar on them and it's all we see of this one, but the above pic seems to me like a good compromise in this case. There appears to be a second M249 with the new style M4-ish collapsible stock on the left edge of the third screencap above, though. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:06, 28 November 2011 (CST)
:::I think it is the original metal one, as if it were the plastic one the bottom of the stock would go straight forward from he bottom of the butt plate, whereas on this gun it appears to slope upwards. The butt plates themselves are essentially the same though, so is very hard to tell. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:34, 28 November 2011 (CST)
::::The most widely available M249 buttstock, by far, in the Marine Corps is the collapsible one similar to an M4 buttstock. The actual super short Para SAW buttstock is not widely used by the USMC. It's mainly an Army issued thing. The Marines also still have some of the older contoured synthetic stocks like the M240's for some SAWs, but those have mostly been relegated to training and reserve units. I personally never saw one in the fleet, and I've NEVER seen one of the tubular stocks on a Marine SAW. I'm fairly sure only the FN MINIMIs used by foreign militaries, and maybe some Army M249s have those. However, like Commando said, all SAW buttstocks have essentially the same butt plate, so it's impossible to tell which one is shown in the screen shot the way the Marine is carrying it, which by the way IS the proper way to carry a SAW when it's not in action (Kudos to the production company for ensuring some accuracy in their portrayal). [[User:Travestytrav|Travestytrav]] 13:32, 29 November 2011 (CST)

Well, since there doesn't seem to be any more discussion on it, I'm going to go ahead and add the M249 Para with the M4-style buttstock to the main page. Since a SAW with said stock can be seen in one of the screenshots above, I'm just going to presume the one in question has the same stock. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 01:35, 8 April 2012 (CDT)

== AN/PEQ-15 ==

I know i might sound stupid, but im not familiar with laser designators, why is it most interesting that the marines are using AN/PEQ-15's on their rifles?--gunner5

:The older PEQ-2 tends to be used much more frequently. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:59, 18 February 2012 (CST)
::That's actually no longer the case. PEQ-15s are now far more prevalent. I think 10 years of war have worn out most of the PEQ-2s. I never used a -2 while I was in the Corps, only the -15, although some of the "old" guys swear the PEQ-2 is better.[[User:Travestytrav|Travestytrav]] 19:39, 24 May 2012 (CDT)

:::I meant ''in movies''. The older PEQ-2 tends to be used much more frequently ''in movies''. Though it seems the PEQ-15 is starting to replace it nowadays. Wonder when we'll start seeing PEQ-16As... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 03:38, 25 May 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Saving Private Ryan

2013-06-21T08:23:08Z

Thursday:

\/ Why are these here? Explosives aren't talk page only last I checked, I thought that was just knives and suchlike. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:12, 20 April 2011 (CDT)

==Explosives==

=== Sticky Bomb ===

While planning the defense of Ramelle, Captain Miller comes up with a unimprovised explosive device he calls a "sticky bomb". It consists of a sock filled with Composition-B explosive with a fuse attached and covered in grease so it sticks where it's placed. Deploying it is a hazardous proposition though; as one soldier is killed when the fuse runs out while he is trying to place it on one of the German tanks, though the bombs do succeed in immobilizing one Tiger tank by destroying its treads. The improvised explosive is apparently inspired by the actual "sticky bomb", the short-lived British No. 74 ST Grenade, which used a purpose-designed super strong resin adhesive instead of axle grease, which was tested and found to be insufficiently sticky. The sticky bomb also had several other problems, not the least of which was a habit of sticking to the soldier using it.

[[Image:SPRStickybomb-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A paratrooper lights a sticky bomb with his Zippo but take too long to attach it and...]]
[[Image:SPRStickybomb-2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|...ends up getting blown up by his own sticky bomb.]]
[[Image:SPRStickybomb-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|These two paratroopers fare better and take out a Tiger tank's treads with two of these sticky bombs and render it immobile.]]

=== Mk-II No. 75 Hawkins Grenade/Mine ===
Prior to the climactic battle Cpl. Henderson relays to Cpt. Miller that their arsenal of "spitwads" includes Hawkins mines. Later a 101st Airborne soldier is seen placing one on the main street and camouflaging it.
[[Image:Hawkinsmine.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Although manufactured as a grenade the Mk-II No.75 Hawkins Grenade was utilized more efficiently as an anti-tank/vehicle mine. Partly because its shape and weight made accurate throwing difficult.]]
[[Image:SPRMKII75-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A paratrooper brings over a helmet full of Mk-II No. 75 grenade mines to set up on the road.]]
[[Image:SPRMkII75-2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A paratrooper readies the No. 75 mines detonator by wrapping the arming fuse.]]
[[Image:SPRMkII75-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The paratrooper detonates the No. 75 mines....]]
[[Image:SPRMkII75-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|...which devastates the German infantry. (Even though the explosion is clearly hidden debris jets.)]]
[[Image:SPRMkII75-5.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Cpt. Miller readies the No. 75 mines detonator when they fall back to "The Alamo".]]
[[Image:SPRMkII75-6.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Cpt. Miller looks over at the detonator before trying to retrieve it. Captain Miller is fatally wounded before he can reach it.]]

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)
:::While this discussion is relatively dead now, my point at the time was that it's not comfortable to carry the weapon like that. It's not impossible, but the weight is enough that carrying it like that (especially at enough of an angle that the front end would direct the weight forward, giving the wrist more work) would be uncomfortable. That was my reason to assume that some of the rifles were lighter weight props (seeing as some of these are for sale, they were present for filming along with the firing props). As for the M14 info, I fucked up there. It's not hard to correct someone without being a dick about it. Grow up. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

I can carry my Grandfather's M1 with one hand no problem. But then again I'm a pretty big guy. Everybody be friends. --[[User:Ardtanker14|ardtanker14]] 16:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

==Guy Blowing Up==
Do we rely need a picture of a guy getting blown up? Frankly, I think it's disgusting and unnecessary. There's really no point, IMO, to have the picture on here. I know we censor nudity (''The Whole Nine Yards'', for example and I think extremely gory images should go or, if image has a nice shot of the gun, possibly cover the gore with a blck box. Seriously, there's no need for a gratuitous shot of a guy blowing up here. --[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 02:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

- I would say you're being a bit prudish personally (A guy gets blown up and that's sick but all the other images of blood-spraying bullet hits are ok?), but your comment has merit. If the dude got blown up but the image had a good shot of a firearm, that would be one thing I guess, but the point stands that that particular image is indeed unnecessary in terms of the informational value of it's section. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 02:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Prude? if the picture wasn't this:
[[Image:SPRStickybomb-2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|...ends up like this.]]
I'd agree with you, but the picture is a bit extreme--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 03:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

: I'm not saying it isn't. Guess I'm just not as disgusted, I don't know. But it is gruesome, and it is unneeded. I don't agree the content itself warrants removal, but that, plus it's lack of informational contribution does. Graphic detail aside, the guy getting blown up doesn't help the section, in terms of describing the weapon. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 03:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

:Actually yes it is informative, it shows what happens if you hold the weapon for too long with a lit fuse.[[User:Kornflakes89|Kornflakes89]] 03:11, 12 April 2011 (CDT)

[[Image:SPR-stickybombcensored.jpg|thumb|none|600px|...ends up getting blown up.]]
Here's a censored one. Noticed that I removed the meat chunks flying around. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 03:40, 10 September 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)

Internet Argument Phenomena #37 - In 97% of observed cases, when attacking their opponent's spelling, grammar or punctuation, participants in bitchy Internet Arguments will make a blunder of their own. Cause is undetermined, but is suspected to be related to excessive smugness which leads to a lack of care in checking for mistaked.
Observations continue. [[User:Stickie|Stickie]] ([[User talk:Stickie|talk]]) 08:26, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

==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.

Hitting the tail of any mortar will not arm it, it doesn't function by just applying force. The tail section would need a typical pin ignition, there's a spike in the tube that does this. It's a relatively simple concept. [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] ([[User talk:Thursday|talk]]) 04:23, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

== 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)

The mini-series '''ANZACS''', starring Paul Hogan, is also another good source of recreated WW1 battles. Don't watch the stripped down movie version. You have to watch the full mini-series (nearly 10 hours long) to appreciate the story and attention to period detail. Does ANZACS have it's own page? If not, it deserves one. It was one of the first war movies/series where strict attention to detail with regard to weapons, uniforms, tactics, vehicles, etc, was used. Also '''The Light Horsemen''' is a good example of the fighting in Palestine later in WW1. Other movies to consider are '''All The King's Men''' and '''Lawrence of Arabia'''.

==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[[Special:Contributions/71.59.54.184|71.59.54.184]] 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We Were Soldiers had a character to beat NVA soldier to death with his helmet, when the stranded platoon was engaged in close quarters combat at night. --[[User:AlkoTanko|AlkoTanko]] 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:Definitely We Were Soldiers, I don't even remember a part in Platoon where anyone uses a helmet as a weapon.[[User:Kornflakes89|Kornflakes89]] 03:25, 12 April 2011 (CDT)

Funkychinaman, the movie you're referring to is Hamburger Hill. --[User:BigD]] 17:30, 6, June 2011

==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-Ben41s.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)

[[Image:SPRM1A1Thompson-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Current pic with decreased saturation.]]

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)
Some of the movies Ben41 screencaps had a similar effect, too. I'll try to remove some of his pics and put it back to its original quality. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 03:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg make the color of his movies this way on purpose. Example: War of the Worlds has and unusual color to it to give the supernatural, extraterrestrial feeling. Schindlers List is Black and white so people get that dark, sad feeling to the movie.--[[User:Gunner5|Gunner5]]

==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)

::In fact, non-standard weapons come mostly in the foreign SS units - Balkan, Baltic, Ukrainian, Russian, Belarussian and other entities in which the Germans were in the minority. German Waffen-SS units (1,2,3,5,9,10,17 SS Division) received a standard weapon, the same as the Wehrmacht.[[User:Flexo|Flexo]] 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

==Arming Mortars by Banging==
Is it really inaccurate that they are banging them on the base to arm them? The arming process occurs when the projectile is launched from the tube and the arming mechanism senses a sudden acceleration. Hitting the base should make the round think it was launched, and activate the detonation fuse in the nose which is sensitive to the sudden deceleration of impacting something. Banging it on the nose would provide a deceleration force, which would set it off if already armed, but in theory do nothing if it was still safed.[[Special:Contributions/207.98.198.136|207.98.198.136]] 02:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

== M1 Carbine ==
In the Neuville scene, I saw a paratrooper with a full stock M1 Carbine. I don't know how to screencap but it's at the part where Jackson is creeping around the car to get to a position to kill the sniper. The paratrooper is leaning against a wall. --[[User:Ardtanker14|ardtanker14]] 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 13:53, 23 December 2011 (CST)
[[Image:SPR-M1CarbinePara.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A U.S. paratrooper taking cover behind a wall with his M1 Carbine during the sniper ambush. Note that it would be more accurate for this paratrooper to be seen with an M1A1 Carbine, a variant of the M1 Carbine that features a folding stock and is commonly issued to paratroopers.]]

== Fake Tigers ==

The Tigers in this movie are actually built on T-34/85s. You can tell in some shots because they don't have interleaved roadwheels and the turrets are too far forward (or rather the engine deck is too long compared to the rest of the tank), but they're ''very'' good fakes. The Marder III Ausf. H, Marder III Ausf. M, Shermans, M5 halftrack and Kettenkrad halftrack-motorcycle are all real. The Hanomag (Sd.Kfz.251 Ausf.D, the German halftrack) is a postwar Czech chassis with the roof cut off; it's missing the external hull stowage compartments of a real 251, and has all-steel treads with no rubber pads for travelling on road. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 04:47, 4 July 2011 (CDT)
:You Sir are correct. Too bad this is Guns in Movies and not Tanks in Movies ;) [[User:Dudster32|Dudster32]] 13:03, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
::We do military vehicle IDs as well, especially if they're one vehicle dressed as another. See [[Rambo III]], for example. Another little trivia note; the radar bunker seems to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammut_radar Mammut], the world's first phased-array radar. Probably built for the production, I don't think any have been preserved and if they had I doubt they'd be willing to rip a hole in it for a movie. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 20:48, 27 September 2011 (CDT)

== M1 Garand mechanical mockup? Airsoft?==

Hey all! I've been wondering about the M1 Garand Mellish uses in one scene in the Normandy Invasion sequence. More specifically the scene featured in the photo below.
[[Image:SPR_303.jpg‎|thumb|none|250px|Mellish and Carparzo watching the entrance of a bunker.]]
When Mellish fires his Garand it looks odd. Specifically it looks like the bolt-handle moves very VERY slowly. When a real garand is fired the bolt-handle move so swiftly you can barely see it because its so fast.
Second: There is practically zero gunsmoke coming from the chamber. Even with blanks there should have been at least SOME smoke. There is also almost no recoil whatsoever.
So based on those observations I have to ask if Mellishes Garand in this scene was a sort of mechanical special effects weapon that, for safety issues due to the very short distance between the actors gun and the german extras, simulated a real gun: blast (maybe propane), brass ejection and bolt-handle movement.
[[User:Dudster32|Dudster32]] 07:01, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
:If it was a flashpaper Garand, would the bolt handle be moving at all? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 09:05, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
::Well thats my point: If the bolt-handle didnt move because of a gunpowder explosion from a blank cartridge, then that blowback would have had to be mechanical or maybe pneumatical. [[User:Dudster32|Dudster32]] 09:45, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
:::[http://youtu.be/S3_zG7fsfsA?t=8m50s | Found it on Youtube.] Is it ejecting casings as well? Weird. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 10:02, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
::::Yeh exactly! There you can see how the bolt-handle moves extremely slow in comparison to live or even blank round firing. No gunsmoke or anything.
::::It wouldn't be impossible to build a mockup, but still mechanical weapon capable to display flash, bolt-movement and even casing-ejection, for safety reasons. Even if you are firing a blank at someone there is always a risk there might be some foreign material being propelled by the blanks gasses to such high velocity thus making a penetration on the person being fired at. Normally when firing blanks the actors fire away from the target as to minimize the risk. If this M1 garand is a mockup like I'm speculating then the risk would be extremely minimal and it would allow the actors to fire straight at their target, in this case two extras portraying german soldiers. [[User:Dudster32|Dudster32]] 12:59, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
::::So what do you veterans think? Is it a genuine M1 Garand in the scene displayed above? [[User:Dudster32|Dudster32]] 14:53, 30 August 2011 (CDT)

Guys! I stumbled upon a youtube vid showing a M1 Garand airsoft rifle: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE12jF2jjtE "Marushin M1 Garand Video Review - RedWolf Airsoft - RWTV "]
Note how it behaves like Mellishes M1 Garand in the movie, minus the case ejector and muzzle flash. [[User:Dudster32|Dudster32]] 09:39, 12 September 2011 (CDT)

== Faulty scope ==

Subsection "1.4.1 Faulty Scope" states the following: "During the bell tower sequence, Jackson's Unertl scope appears to be very off from where the bullets hit, likely because he didn't zero it when switching it with his other scope."

There's nothing in the film to suggest what the Jackson character did or didn't do to the scope. In addition, each shot's landing is irregular. Even if the scope wasn't zeroed, we could still expect placement to be consistent relative to the reticle. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to attribute this phenomenon to filmmaker's error, rather than an unsubstantiated back-story? [[User:Armandthecorsair|Armandthecorsair]]

:That section's always bothered me too. Yes, it's an error in the film, but it's got nothing to do with the weapon Jackson's using. It's clearly a result of the filming technique. I'm guessing they just filmed the shots normally and simply super-imposed the crosshairs onto the footage in post-production, without bothering to centre the image on where the bullets actually hit. I keep wanting to change the article to reflect that, but obviously the page is locked.--[[User:Leigh Burne|Leigh Burne]] 07:54, 25 May 2012 (CDT)

== MG 42 ==

The correct german spelling is: "Maschinengewehr". Original naming by the Heereswaffenamt was "Universal-Maschinengewehr Modell 42".
The caliber is 7,92x57mm wich was known as 8x57IS (Infantrie spitz).
The term "8mm Mauser" is not commonly used nor was it commonly used in the Wehrmacht.

:8mm Mauser is a common ''American'' name for the cartridge, and the site generally defaults to US terminology (same with using NATO designations for Soviet hardware, for example). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 21:36, 7 November 2011 (CST)
Why are other weapons like the Karabiner 98k and their ammunitions described correctly while this must have a branch expression from post war private business manufacturers?

:It's only in brackets to identify another common name for that cartridge in the US. It's not like it doesn't also have the full name. Also, sign your comment with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:12, 8 November 2011 (CST)

:I like the changes you've made

::Oh, you're not supposed to copy the "nowiki" tags. Those are usurp because if I didn't use them it would just sign my list again. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 15:18, 8 November 2011 (CST)

==MG34 machine gun==
Can someone add the section below to the machine gun section on the Saving Private Ryan page now that Ben41 locked it down?

The Tiger tanks (in reality, mocked-up T-34/85s) in the movie are seen with a hull-mounted [[MG34]]s.
[[Image:MG34-SPr.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A Tiger tank with a hull-mounted MG34 (circled in red).]]

==Caps from special features==
I finally went through all the special features on the second disc of the 60th anniversary edition that I bought years ago. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 19:52, 14 July 2012 (CDT)
[[Image:SPR_BTS_sling_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Barry Pepper demonstrating how to shoot with a sling. I don't remember him doing it in the film though. Note the M1911 stuck in his pants.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_shoot_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|The actors fire their weapons towards the sea. This was from the boot camp featurette.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_Maxson_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks talk in front of a dual, possibly quad .50 cal AA mount on Omaha Beach.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_tank_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|The faux Tiger test fires its "gun" before the scene where it blows apart the building behind Ryan. Notice how there is no recoil or concussion blast.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_rifles_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|The Irish extras, some with modern shades, are issued their plastic-wrapped M1s. The M1s appear to be rubber, given how easily they're being handled. There were 750 extras, 250 of which had blank firing weapons, the rest with rubber replicas.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_flak_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|A Flak 38 overlooking the Omaha Beach set. Possibly the same one that was used in the final battle sequence.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_armorer_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Armorer Simon Atherton.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_armorer_02.jpg|thumb|none|500px|A table of M1 Garands. According to Atherton, he prepared two thousand weapons, five hundred of which were blank firing, 1500 of which were rubber replicas.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_armorer_03.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Whoa, where did THOSE come from?]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_armorer_04.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Some SMGs.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_armorer_05.jpg|thumb|none|500px|These weapons have seen better days. Atherton said much time had to be devoted to cleaning and repairing the weapons after exposure to the salt water and sand.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_armorer_06.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Atherton himself unloading an M1 Garand.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_armorer_07.jpg|thumb|none|500px|One of the armorers reassembling an M1 Garand.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_RG_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|An extra or actor tries to shake out the sand from his rifle grenade so he can attach it to the rifle.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_paintball_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Crew members fire paintballs at a Higgins boat. For sound effects maybe?]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_bunker_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Another angle for the scene where Miller's men clear a bunker with a flamethrower. Since the scene was filmed from a low angle, the firemen and the pads were not visible. The black smoke overhead is from fires on the beach lit for that purpose.]]
[[Image:SPR_BTS_flame_01.jpg|thumb|none|500px|The scene where the flame thrower blows up from another angle. That jet coming in from the left is actually propane, designed to enhance the exploding gas tank on the flamethrower.]]

== Fake Omaha Beach ==

The actual fortifications at Omaha Beach were nothing like the ones depicted in the movie. For whatever reason, there are two Leitstands overlooking the beach. There weren't any Leitstands at Omaha Beach, there were just fortifications. The beach was also much longer, about three football fields long.

==Panzerschreck faulty shield==

If you look at the first image of the German with the Panzerschreck, you can see that the shield has slipped around on its mount, it's no longer in line with the launcher's pistol grip/sights. Yet in the next shot it's vertical again. I'd add something mentioning this, but, obviously, the page is locked.--[[User:Leigh Burne|Leigh Burne]] ([[User talk:Leigh Burne|talk]]) 11:46, 8 January 2013 (EST)
:I added the note. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 11:51, 8 January 2013 (EST)

== Request to add link for actor's name ==

It's just a little thing, but could somebody with access to the editing function for this page, make a small revision in the section for the M1 Flamethrower? The actor playing Doyle is Glenn Wrage and currently there's no brackets around his name to make a link to his actor page (like [[Glenn Wrage]]). Thanks in advance, --[[User:PeeWee055|PeeWee055]] ([[User talk:PeeWee055|talk]]) 04:46, 31 January 2013 (EST)
:Done. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 05:01, 31 January 2013 (EST)

== Lyman Super TargetSpot scope ==

The Springfield 1903's scope shown as "Unertl scope" in the movie is a pre or post-war Lyman Super TargetSpot (undefined power).
That's identifiable thanks to the objective which is different than Unertl scopes.

Lyman Super TargetSpot :
[[File:Lyman sts objective.JPG|thumb|none|400px]]

Unertl :
[[File:Unertl objective.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]

The 1903 A4 are never used with these models.

Talk:Black Hawk Down

2011-02-27T15:31:01Z

Thursday: /* Is this the only film to have someone shooting an M16 on burst-fire mode? */

== Hoot's "M4" ==
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. --[[Special:Contributions/131.216.48.250|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. [[User:Spartan198|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--[[Special:Contributions/24.253.69.199|24.253.69.199]] 00:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== 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 [[M16 rifle series#M16A2 Rifle|M16A2]]-style of the early-model M4 carbine as shown in the picture above the screenshots. The CAR-15 (also known as the [[M16 rifle series#Colt Commando Carbine|Colt Commando]]) used the recievers and carry handle/rear sight assembly of the [[M16 rifle series#M16A1 Rifle|M16A1]]. [[User:Orca1 9904|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 [[User:Excalibur01|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. --''[[User:Blemo|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. --[[User:NMOne|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. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]]
:My point was, movies don't get things 100% correct.-protoAuthor 03:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Sometimes. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

== Mistake? ==
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? [[User:DamageW|DamageW]] 06:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
:What the hell is a Type 47?[[User:Oliveira|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. -[[User:The Winchester|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. - [[User:Gunmaster45|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. [[User:Asmkillr323|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. [[User:M14fanboy|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 05:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
----
Also, What the motherfuck is an M4A2?-[[User:Oliveira|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. ;) --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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 better[[User:Owen642|Owen642]] 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

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. [[User:Ballistics_Expert2|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. [[User:StanTheMan|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. --[[User:Asmkillr323|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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 [[User:M14fanboy|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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. [[User:Spartan198|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. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|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. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

== The Hand ==
Does anyone know why that Ranger took the dead Delta Force member's hand?-[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
:Probably to send it home with the rest of the body-[[Special:Contributions/76.31.5.208|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.-[[User:Oliveira|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

==Flashlight Attachment Help==
[[Image:BHD Commando Flashlight.jpg|thumb|none|600px|What is this type of flashlight attachment called?]]
''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.'' --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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. -[[User:MT2008|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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. [[User:Spartan198|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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.[[User:Excalibur01|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. --[[User:AdAstra2009|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. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:::The 727 has a fixed carry handle, though. [[User:Spartan198|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. -[[User:MT2008|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. ;) [[User:Spartan198|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? [[User:Spartan198|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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.-[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 17:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks :) [[User:Owen642|Owen642]] 00:28, 29 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.--[[User:Mauser|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. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|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.

--[[User:NMOne|NMOne]] 19:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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.--[[User:Pølaris|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..."--[[Special:Contributions/24.253.69.199|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.

== 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.

== 870 Remington 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.

== 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. [[User:Spartan198|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 [[User:Excalibur01|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. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)v
:Not to mention a flashlight beam in that environment would scream, "here I am, shoot me!" [[User:Spartan198|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? [[User:Dirtdiver6421|Dirtdiver6421]] 15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hose clamped it to the side or top of the barrel? -[[User:Ranger01|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. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|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?--[[User:MarineCorps1|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. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|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? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What guy?-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy
[[Image:BHD2Arm.jpg|thumb|none|600px|An actor aims Durant's MP5 in movie armory. Note the other weapons behind him.]]
[[Image:BHD1Arm.jpg|thumb|none|600px|An actor in Delta clothes shows M16A2 in the movie armory.]]
[[Image:DHD3Arm.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Delta actor shows vehicle-mounted M60s.]]

That's Jeremy Piven, nowadays best known for playing Ari Gold on HBO's Entourage. Wikipedia says he played CFO Clifton Wolcott.

:I do not think it Piven. In the film he plays a pilot role and his hair is black.
http://files.haiguinet.com/flashupload/UploadedFiles/1252005569_159Jeremy_Piven.jpg
http://emsworth.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/jeremy-piven-in-black-hawk-down-2.jpg
When I put the photos on the page, before to name him "delta actor", I looked for the name of this guy in the entire cast. Unsuccessfully. I think it is a stunt.--[[User:Charly Driver|Charly Driver]] 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

== Seriously ==
[[Image:BHD 015.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Delta Force SFC Sanderson ([[William Fichtner]]) fires his M1911A1 during the "Mogadishu Mile". It seems unlikely a well trained operator would wear his flight gloves like shown.]]
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. -[[User:The_Winchester|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.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 01:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

::Flight gloves, as I just fucking explained, are not restrictive or obstructive in the slightest.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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.'' [[User:StanTheMan|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. --[[User:AdAstra2009|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. -[[User:The_Winchester|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. [[User:StanTheMan|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.

==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. [[User:StanTheMan|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.. -[[User:Ranger01|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. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|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. [[User:StanTheMan|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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).--[[User:Asmkillr323|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. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:You're thinking of the Hague Convention of 1899, not the Geneva Convention.--[[User:PistolJunkie|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.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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?-[[User:Ranger01|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.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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. -[[User:Ranger01|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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. [[Special:Contributions/24.15.103.231|24.15.103.231]] 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:- Bah, can't believe my one off-hand comment spawned all this. Heh. [[User:StanTheMan|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. --[[User:John Ryder|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. [[User:StanTheMan|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. [[Special:Contributions/24.15.103.231|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.

[[Image:BHDMinimi-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|[[Tom Hardy]] wielding an FN Minimi as Spc. Twombly, giving us a good look at his 3-color DCU uniform and 6-color helmet cover]]

[[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 07:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

== Mo'alim (Razaaq Adoti) gun ==

What gun have Mo'alim in his shoulder? He don't remove it from the shoulder at any time, but there are two scenes where you can see:

1 When prevents the killing of Duran:
http://img839.imageshack.us/i/moalimhandgun1.png/

2 When the cannon is firing in the area of the first downed helicopter:
http://img401.imageshack.us/i/moalimhandgun2.png/

are you referring to the AK-74u? [[User:Dirtdiver6421|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. --[[User:Commando552|Commando552]] 10:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

i wasn't aware he had a shoulder holster? can you upload a photo?[[User:Dirtdiver6421|Dirtdiver6421]] 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is a revolver or a pistol:
http://img839.imageshack.us/i/moalimhandgun1.png/
http://img401.imageshack.us/i/moalimhandgun2.png/
i couldnt see anything on the 2nd picture but the first was definetly a revolver. my guess, and im not expert with revolvers would be a .38 or 357 perhaps a S&W? [[User:Dirtdiver6421|Dirtdiver6421]] 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

== Doc Schmid ==
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 [[User:Excalibur01|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 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185836/ Adam]. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 22:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

==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?-[[User:Simmons 8492|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. --[[User:Commando552|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? [[User:Scarecrow|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. [[User:Doc345|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.--[[User:MarineCorps1|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:
:[[Image:101120ritchie20pursley8yp.jpg|thumb|500px|none]]
: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). --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 12:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
:http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/9607/21820burns20weaver6az.jpg
::Delta operators in Somalia used Colt Model 723 carbines with M4 style barrel, at least watching the few pictures of that time. --[[User:Pz.Abt.100|X-Ray Bravo 6]] 13:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Commando552|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. [[User:Orca1 9904|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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.)
:[[Image:RangersM4.jpg|thumb|500px|none|]]

:Also, can anyone shed some light as to what is going on with this SAW:
:[[Image:Saw.jpg|thumb|500px|none|]]
: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? --[[User:Commando552|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).-[[User:Ranger01|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. [[User:Dirtdiver6421|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).-[[User:Ranger01|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 [[User:Excalibur01|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".-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean didn't they have the step down barrel before the M4 came about? [[User:Excalibur01|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".-[[User:Ranger01|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. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|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. [[User:Thursday|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. [[User:DeltaOne|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. [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Black Hawk Down

2011-02-27T15:29:41Z

Thursday: /* Is this the only film to have someone shooting an M16 on burst-fire mode? */

== Hoot's "M4" ==
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. --[[Special:Contributions/131.216.48.250|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. [[User:Spartan198|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--[[Special:Contributions/24.253.69.199|24.253.69.199]] 00:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== 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 [[M16 rifle series#M16A2 Rifle|M16A2]]-style of the early-model M4 carbine as shown in the picture above the screenshots. The CAR-15 (also known as the [[M16 rifle series#Colt Commando Carbine|Colt Commando]]) used the recievers and carry handle/rear sight assembly of the [[M16 rifle series#M16A1 Rifle|M16A1]]. [[User:Orca1 9904|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 [[User:Excalibur01|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. --''[[User:Blemo|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. --[[User:NMOne|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. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]]
:My point was, movies don't get things 100% correct.-protoAuthor 03:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Sometimes. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

== Mistake? ==
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? [[User:DamageW|DamageW]] 06:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
:What the hell is a Type 47?[[User:Oliveira|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. -[[User:The Winchester|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. - [[User:Gunmaster45|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. [[User:Asmkillr323|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. [[User:M14fanboy|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 05:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
----
Also, What the motherfuck is an M4A2?-[[User:Oliveira|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. ;) --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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 better[[User:Owen642|Owen642]] 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

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. [[User:Ballistics_Expert2|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. [[User:StanTheMan|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. --[[User:Asmkillr323|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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 [[User:M14fanboy|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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. [[User:Spartan198|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. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|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. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

== The Hand ==
Does anyone know why that Ranger took the dead Delta Force member's hand?-[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
:Probably to send it home with the rest of the body-[[Special:Contributions/76.31.5.208|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.-[[User:Oliveira|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

==Flashlight Attachment Help==
[[Image:BHD Commando Flashlight.jpg|thumb|none|600px|What is this type of flashlight attachment called?]]
''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.'' --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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. -[[User:MT2008|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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. [[User:Spartan198|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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.[[User:Excalibur01|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. --[[User:AdAstra2009|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. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:::The 727 has a fixed carry handle, though. [[User:Spartan198|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. -[[User:MT2008|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. ;) [[User:Spartan198|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? [[User:Spartan198|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. --''[[User:Blemo|'''B''''''le''''''mo''']] [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] [[user talk:Blemo|'''TALK''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|'''CONTRIBUTIONS''']] • [[Special:Emailuser/Blemo|'''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.-[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 17:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks :) [[User:Owen642|Owen642]] 00:28, 29 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.--[[User:Mauser|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. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|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.

--[[User:NMOne|NMOne]] 19:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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.--[[User:Pølaris|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..."--[[Special:Contributions/24.253.69.199|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.

== 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.

== 870 Remington 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.

== 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. [[User:Spartan198|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 [[User:Excalibur01|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. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)v
:Not to mention a flashlight beam in that environment would scream, "here I am, shoot me!" [[User:Spartan198|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? [[User:Dirtdiver6421|Dirtdiver6421]] 15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hose clamped it to the side or top of the barrel? -[[User:Ranger01|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. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|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?--[[User:MarineCorps1|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. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|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? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What guy?-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy
[[Image:BHD2Arm.jpg|thumb|none|600px|An actor aims Durant's MP5 in movie armory. Note the other weapons behind him.]]
[[Image:BHD1Arm.jpg|thumb|none|600px|An actor in Delta clothes shows M16A2 in the movie armory.]]
[[Image:DHD3Arm.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Delta actor shows vehicle-mounted M60s.]]

That's Jeremy Piven, nowadays best known for playing Ari Gold on HBO's Entourage. Wikipedia says he played CFO Clifton Wolcott.

:I do not think it Piven. In the film he plays a pilot role and his hair is black.
http://files.haiguinet.com/flashupload/UploadedFiles/1252005569_159Jeremy_Piven.jpg
http://emsworth.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/jeremy-piven-in-black-hawk-down-2.jpg
When I put the photos on the page, before to name him "delta actor", I looked for the name of this guy in the entire cast. Unsuccessfully. I think it is a stunt.--[[User:Charly Driver|Charly Driver]] 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

== Seriously ==
[[Image:BHD 015.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Delta Force SFC Sanderson ([[William Fichtner]]) fires his M1911A1 during the "Mogadishu Mile". It seems unlikely a well trained operator would wear his flight gloves like shown.]]
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. -[[User:The_Winchester|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.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 01:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

::Flight gloves, as I just fucking explained, are not restrictive or obstructive in the slightest.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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.'' [[User:StanTheMan|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. --[[User:AdAstra2009|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. -[[User:The_Winchester|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. [[User:StanTheMan|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.

==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. [[User:StanTheMan|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.. -[[User:Ranger01|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. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|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. [[User:StanTheMan|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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).--[[User:Asmkillr323|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. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:You're thinking of the Hague Convention of 1899, not the Geneva Convention.--[[User:PistolJunkie|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.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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?-[[User:Ranger01|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.--[[User:Asmkillr323|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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. -[[User:Ranger01|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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. [[Special:Contributions/24.15.103.231|24.15.103.231]] 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:- Bah, can't believe my one off-hand comment spawned all this. Heh. [[User:StanTheMan|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. --[[User:John Ryder|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. [[User:StanTheMan|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. [[Special:Contributions/24.15.103.231|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.

[[Image:BHDMinimi-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|[[Tom Hardy]] wielding an FN Minimi as Spc. Twombly, giving us a good look at his 3-color DCU uniform and 6-color helmet cover]]

[[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 07:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

== Mo'alim (Razaaq Adoti) gun ==

What gun have Mo'alim in his shoulder? He don't remove it from the shoulder at any time, but there are two scenes where you can see:

1 When prevents the killing of Duran:
http://img839.imageshack.us/i/moalimhandgun1.png/

2 When the cannon is firing in the area of the first downed helicopter:
http://img401.imageshack.us/i/moalimhandgun2.png/

are you referring to the AK-74u? [[User:Dirtdiver6421|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. --[[User:Commando552|Commando552]] 10:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

i wasn't aware he had a shoulder holster? can you upload a photo?[[User:Dirtdiver6421|Dirtdiver6421]] 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is a revolver or a pistol:
http://img839.imageshack.us/i/moalimhandgun1.png/
http://img401.imageshack.us/i/moalimhandgun2.png/
i couldnt see anything on the 2nd picture but the first was definetly a revolver. my guess, and im not expert with revolvers would be a .38 or 357 perhaps a S&W? [[User:Dirtdiver6421|Dirtdiver6421]] 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

== Doc Schmid ==
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 [[User:Excalibur01|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 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185836/ Adam]. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 22:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

==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?-[[User:Simmons 8492|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. --[[User:Commando552|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? [[User:Scarecrow|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. [[User:Doc345|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.--[[User:MarineCorps1|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:
:[[Image:101120ritchie20pursley8yp.jpg|thumb|500px|none]]
: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). --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 12:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
:http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/9607/21820burns20weaver6az.jpg
::Delta operators in Somalia used Colt Model 723 carbines with M4 style barrel, at least watching the few pictures of that time. --[[User:Pz.Abt.100|X-Ray Bravo 6]] 13:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Commando552|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. [[User:Orca1 9904|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.-[[User:Ranger01|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.)
:[[Image:RangersM4.jpg|thumb|500px|none|]]

:Also, can anyone shed some light as to what is going on with this SAW:
:[[Image:Saw.jpg|thumb|500px|none|]]
: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? --[[User:Commando552|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).-[[User:Ranger01|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. [[User:Dirtdiver6421|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).-[[User:Ranger01|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 [[User:Excalibur01|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".-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean didn't they have the step down barrel before the M4 came about? [[User:Excalibur01|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".-[[User:Ranger01|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. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|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. [[User:Thursday|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. [[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 08:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, can remember any burst stuff, I'll re-watch it after work. [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Black Hawk Down

2011-02-27T07:51:49Z

Thursday: /* Is this the only film to have someone shooting an M16 on burst-fire mode? */

Talk:Gran Torino

2011-02-25T06:33:47Z

Thursday: /* "We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea and use you for sandbags." */

==Gran Torino 1972 Fastback==
Some shots of the car from the film:
[[Image:GT-GranTorino72Fastback-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:GT-GranTorino72Fastback-2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:GT-GranTorino72Fastback-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:GT-GranTorino72Fastback-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:GT-GranTorino72Fastback-5.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]

Nice vehicle, no? - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]
:I still think the Cobra model is the best Torino.-[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
::They said something about it having a Cobra engine... - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

::That is one nice car, I would love to have it.--[[User:Alienqueen11|Alienqueen11]] 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Beautiful, just beautiful. I wish American cars were this classy nowadays. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 04:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::It's too bad that all the cars today are either hippie made POS or Damn riceburners made in Asia. That is why I'm about to buy me a retired 1977 Plymouth Fury police car. Been saving up for years just to buy one in good condition. - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
:::- '77, so it'll have the rectangular quad headlamps, right? Nice choice, I love me some Mopar B-bodies. Though this is a stunning piece as well. And it's true, they don't make 'em like they used to. Damn my old man had it awesome in his youth, these kind of cars were everywhere, and he went through several Mopars himself. Bah, I'm so jealous. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

== Pistols ==

:I remember the guy in the hooded sweatshirt using either a Beretta or Taurus-type 9mm. I don't remember when it's seen clearly enough to ID, though. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]
::I looked back and never saw a clearer shot than the shot I have here. Is it somewhere else in the film? - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

:::There isn't a cleaner shot, but I watched this movie again tonight and just going by tiny hints, I'm pretty sure the guy in the hooded sweatshirt has a Beretta 92FS Inox. The guy next to him firing his pistol sideways looks like he has another Glock of some type, probably one of the G17s used by the actors playing the cops in the film. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]

== Condition of the 1911A1 ==

Not only did Clint's character take care of his stuff. but he might of had his 1911 refinished sometime in the past. Why not? It's believable.--[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

== "We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea and use you for sandbags." ==

My knowledge of the Korean war doesn't cover this, but I find the prospect of using corpses for military sandbags (for a bullet-, fragmentation-, and explosive-resistant barrier) rather implausible. Stopping fragments and submachine gun rounds seems alright (though not all of the time), but rifle and LMG rounds? Not really. Also, it has all the problems of what is effectively an open-air mass grave--the corpses will stink and rot in short order unless it's in the dead of winter, whereupon the cold temperatures will preserve the bodies (until warmer weather rolls around). Not good for hygiene or disease control once the corpses start decaying, and probably not for morale ("So Sarge, if I get 86'd, are you going to add me to the wall?"). Can anyone verify or refute this quote by Clint Eastwood's character? The only movie I know of that used a "wall of corpses" was ''300''. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:In defense of Clint, A) it WAS extremely cold for parts of the war, B) I don't know if you want to ask the Box 'O' Truth guys on this, but I'd think a frozen body would stop bullets and fragments better than a non-frozen one, and it wouldn't stink, and C) if it's that cold, you won't be able to dig and fill sandbags, and there'd be plenty of corpses available, and D) stopping just fragments and SMG fire is better than nothing, (helmets won't stop bullets either) and E) as for morale, I can't think of a better way to dehumanize the enemy. Just my two cents. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think in the history of modern warfare where any army actually used people stacked like sandbags. This isn't 300 where you can make a mountain of corpses and throw them at the enemy. It's against military conduct for any military in the UN and those that adhere to the Geneva convention and against hygiene for rotting dead people around you. I think in the movie what Clint Eastwood said was more as a figure of speech to intimidate the Asians. You'd be shitting your pants if Clint Eastwood shouted at you that he used to pile people up like sandbags. It gives an aura of "You don't want to fuck with me" kinda of mentality. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Geneva convention may say don't do certain things but when the fighting gets that bad, rules go out the window and it becomes all about survival.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 17:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't think you'll survive long when you are stacking bodies like sandbag. In a couple hours, they will rot and the smell will attribute to what's killing you and in a couple days, people will get sick [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 19:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As said above, it was more of a mind fuck tool to throw them off balance.

Like Excalibur01 said, I think the most likely explanation was that Clint's character was trying to scare whoever he was talking to. --[[User:Westernman1987|Westernman1987]] 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems everyone in here wants to be an internet Rambo, do some reading on the Korean conflict, got pretty desperate at times. Might I suggest this book, lots of insight and soldiers eye view.

http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Combat-John-Toland/dp/0688125794

And bodys dont rot when your body parts are freezing off ;) [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] 06:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tremors 2: Aftershocks

2011-02-25T06:27:13Z

Thursday:

: Why did Burt (A badass) bring bitch pistols? Thats unlike him-[[Special:Contributions/76.31.5.208|76.31.5.208]] 00:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC) (S&Wshooter)
::That's the last thing he used, if that's any comfort.-protoAuthor
:It's not-[[Special:Contributions/76.31.5.208|76.31.5.208]] 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC) (S&Wshooter)

You'ed think he would have at least brought pistols that were bigger than 9mms.

Agreed; 1911s would've been a lot cooler. Also, I always wondered what kind of "hand to hand techniques" he used againt the Shriekers... -SasquatchJim

Burt brought 92's because of the capacity and he didn't know about the shriekers. He would have just run out of ammo faster with 1911's [[Special:Contributions/98.237.107.108|98.237.107.108]] 02:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

However, if he thought he was dealing with graboids, he would have known that 9mms had next to no effect. It seems like he would want stopping power over capacity. -SJ

Which is exactly why he brought the Grizzley and double rifles. Mabye he was just more comfortable with Berettas, he didn't bring nearly enough 9mm making it clear that he really didn't intend on using them much. I still to this day wonder where Earl and Gradys m4's went after getting the double rifles. [[Special:Contributions/98.237.107.108|98.237.107.108]] 03:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose. Odd, though, that even AFTER he discovers Shriekers, he carries a Desert Eagle in the other ones. -SJ

That's also interesting, I'd wager a guess that was for the stopping power side of things. I would prefer a high capacity .45 myself after knowing of those ugly little toads. Just my .02 [[Special:Contributions/166.137.8.172|166.137.8.172]] 20:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would bet that they left the M4's in the bed of Earls truck after they wrecked it.

:What M4s? -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the Colt Commandos.

AR/M style bean shooters, jeez [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] 06:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Saiga shotgun series

2011-01-23T20:16:47Z

Thursday: /* Price */

== Select fire.... ==

Are you sure its select fire? according to World guns.ru its semi-auto only [http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh07-e.htm][[User:5t3v0|5t3v0]]

:I've seen them shoot full auto before-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
From the factory they are Semi-Auto but numerous end users have converted them into Automatic shotguns. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 20:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. [[User:5t3v0|5t3v0]]

:Here are two examples of Saiga shotguns of full auto [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K-heFRwuWs] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUe4NWiOq5A&feature=related]. Enjoy-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

==Price==
The Saiga shotgun series are the most reasonably priced semi auto shotguns I have yet to encounter-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 19:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

:Given that they used the [[AK-47]] as the basis of their design, it shouldn't be surprising that they're not too expensive, compared to other shotguns like Benelli or Franchi. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 01:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:: How much does it cost in the U.S.? In Russia, Saiga-12 costs about $ 700. Saiga is the most popular weapon of self-defense due to the fact that we are prohibited from buying pistols in private use (although allowed to buy semi-automatic rifles, such as the Steyr AUG, AR-15 or AK-47 with 10-round magazine. We can also buy these rifles and as AWP). In addition to the Saiga in Russia is rather popular weapons such as the Remington 870 or Mossberg 590 (it costs about $ 1200). But such a weapon as the Benelli M4 (M1014) is less common because it costs about $ 3500 and it is being bought by professionals who are addicted to practical shooting. [[User:Slow Rider|Slow Rider]] 13:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not too odd to see new Saigas go around $499, get them now though, the ATF has a hard on for them as of late [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] 20:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Expendables

2011-01-22T06:49:21Z

Thursday: /* Barney's (Stallone) holsters */ new section

==Question on the weapons used==
anyone know what the 6th barrel down is, between the silenced M4 and the MP7? Might be a shotgun of sorts, based on the barrel/handguard...also no magazine. Can pick out the grip/trigger to the right of the skull's eye.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2378533888/tt1320253

-Barrett M107 with SUSAT (?!) Scope
-M16A1
-C8 with M203
-G36 with AG36
-No idea
-Shorty Remington 870 / Masterkey
-MP7
-Mk. 23
-Model 29
-Steyr M9A1
-Beretta M9 with front cocking serrations
-SVI Infinity
-Beretta 93R
-Desert Eagle
-A fuckload of knifes --[[User:Yocapo32|yocapo32]] 03:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It matches the sg9000 airsoft shotgun i once saw at a gunshow. so i think it may be it.
http://www.planxairsoftguns.com/store-products-UU-2272027---Walther-SG9000-SHOTGUN---C02_1096639197.html

I just thought I'd point out that the M107 does not have a SUSAT, but an ELCAN C79. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess I stand correct, it is a ELCAN C79, they look similar thought -_-' --[[User:Yocapo32|yocapo32]] 23:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown 1911 ==

I think it's a Detonics Scoremaster, Check out the two Pictures on the 1911 section.
It's got the same trigger, and possibly the same magazine buttpad and hammer.

Also, I deleted my previous two posts. - Thomas.

== CQB-R Image ==

[http://www.screeninglog.com/journal/2010/5/12/check-out-these-new-expendables-photos.html Screeninglog.com - Here is page link instead]

New Image featuring the CQB-R Rifles, can someone replace the one on the main page? Thx - Thomas.

[http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2691072512/tt1320253 IMDB.com]

Look at this pic of Jet Li, the grip on his 'CQB'. Thats a Heckler & Koch 416?

Definatly a 416 look at the shape of the grip. Is Terry Crews using frag 12 rounds, as frag 12's normally come in a green casing and the spent cartridges in the image all appear to be see thu / white. this could of course just be hollywood, being hollywood - Captain Snikt

I also thing stathams 92 is most likely a 92G elite, or a ninety two based on the squared off pistol grip - captain snikt

Tango Down makes a pistol grip almost identical to that of the HK416, the BG-16 Battle Grip or so it's supposedly called. It could be one of those. I'd rather wait until we can find better shots of his gun to determine whether it's a 416 or not. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 23:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

== Cameos ==
Is it me or does anybody else miss hearing arnie's voice lol

:I just saw Commando last week so...no I don't miss his voice [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else think Clint Eastwood shoulda had a cameo?

I gotta disagree. He was huge int he 80s of course, but not in the same way these guys were. Eastwood is on another level in many ways. My question, where is Segal? Chuck Norris? Tom Berhinger?
:I agree on Clint. While he was a definite star, he was a different sort of star than these guys. As for your question about where is Seagal? Well, he WAS offered a part and turned it down. Apparently, Seagal has issues with one of the produces of The Expendables and refuses to work with him(you can catch him September in Machete though). Jean-Claude Van Damme was also offered a role and turned it down, because he "doesn't want his career going in that direction"(that direction being "up" I assume), and Kurt Russell turned a part down due to "a lack of interest in ensemble acting at this time". Wesley Snipes was going to be in it, but he wasn't allowed to leave the country due to that whole tax evasion thing, so he couldn't go down to South America or Mexico or wherever it was they filmed it. Chuck woulda fit in too, but I don't think he was offered a part. And Berrenger? Nothing against the guy, but Berrenger was pretty much third tier even in his heyday, even the average classic action fan isn't gonna bring him up when they're thinking of action stars. Not that I woulda opposed him don't get me wrong, but at the same time, I don't think his omission is exactly as noticeable as say, Seagal or Mel Gibson(I think we can all guess why he wasn't offered a part) for example. I also missed Chow Yun-Fat. Li is a badass to be sure and I'm glad he's here, but woulda been cool to see Chow going back to old school Woo-mode and packing a couple handguns as well. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
::Addendum. Apparently at Comic-Con, Stallone said "I talked to Van Damme. I talked to [Steven] Segal. I even talked to Chuck Norris." He then added, "But there are certain considerations, like insanity.". Not sure if the insanity line was specifically for one of them, or all of them. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 22:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Screw Chuck Norris bring Jack Bauer up in here. [[User:24guns|24guns]]
:I totally woulda dug Kiefer Sutherland getting a part. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Chan should have been in this. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
::Nope, Jackie Chan focuses on much lighter 'comical' action fare. He would not be comfortable with such grisly violence as this does not fit with his cinema history well at all. It would not have made sense to include Jackie Chan. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Actually Jackie Chan did a lot of serious, even dark action/drama movies before ([[New Police Story]] for example). It's just that his Hollywood movies are all action comedy and that's what North American viewers are used to.--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 17:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn straight[[User:24guns|24guns]]

Bruce Campbell ftw. -SasquatchJim

==Charles Daly 1911's - CONFIRMED AS KIMBER CUSTOMS==

The pistols list as Charles Daly Customs are Kimber Customs with Bright Blue finish. But I will confirm before I change the heading.-[[User:Phoenixent|Phoenixent]] 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Who in their right mind would customize a Charles Daly...I would have to hear it from the movie armor himself before i believe that one.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 15:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

CONFIRMED:Whoever thought they were CDs could not have been further off. Like the above, my vote went for Kimber, and NOW it is CONFIRMED--->

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/exclusives/kimber-the-expendables/?hp=exclusives_title
--[[User:Gwhysow|Gwhysow]] 23:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

After this confirmation I changed the heading on the main page to reflect this. Since, I confess, I'm kinda new at editing this, I just changed the heading, wasn't sure if the details of the customization are meant to be included or not. If they are, feel free to add whatever is necessary. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 02:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

==clip==
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elpaRzwICMk

I think there is a Saiga 12 being used by Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) in the clip

== Holy Cow ==

So many action stars in one movie. This can only be good --[[User:Milkovich|Milkovich]] 15:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

==Plane==

Can anyone identify the plane and the machine guns in the nose they use to take out the dock?

:I would guess either .30 or .50 cal browning machine guns

Plane is a Grumman HU-16 Albatross. --[[User:Sidewinder Forge|Sidewinder Forge]] 14:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
::And they are identified in 'the making of' pre-released video as 50 cals, so I assume they are AN-M2 machine guns [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 18:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Fact: In "Inferno: The making of the Expendables", which is really good, Stallone only thought of that scene with Statham on the front of the plane and them dropping gas on the soldiers on the dock during production. They were literally almost done shooting when he saw a crew member standing in the hatch area and thought, "Hey, ya know what would be cool?" I think that's awesome that a director can pull a scene like that out of his head and have the crew instantly support it.

== Gunnar's M79 ==

I saw a Clip from when the Screenshot was taken. I believe he uses a Non-Explosive round like the HK69A1 in Miami Vice.
[[Image:Expendables-M79-1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Gunnar Jensen opens fire with his [[M79]].]][[Image:MV_Launcher.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Tubbs pulls out his [[Heckler & Koch HK69A1 40mm Launcher|Heckler & Koch HK69A1]] on Yero.]]

It's possible, the Miami Vive Round is a custom made single shot (giant) shotgun round made from a 40mm.--[[User:Jackie.45Cal|Jackie.45Cal]] 23:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

:: It's not a custom round per se; it's called a M576. It loads 20 pellets of #4 shot, and the US Army developed it because the original plan was that the M79 would the grenadier's only weapon, and you can't exactly shoot someone standing right in front of you with a grenade. Well, I suppose you could, but it wouldn't be terribly practical. The M576 is also compatible with the M203, though generally what a 40mm shotgun does you can do with a Masterkey or M1014. [[User:Atypicaloracle|Atypicaloracle]] 04:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

== Christ, those pistols look tiny. ==

I mean, I shouldn't be surprised that Stalone has massive hands, but still, the Beretta and the SSA look absolutely tiny in his hands. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 04:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

== Willis' Role ==

From what I've heard, Willis isn't just a cameo. He apparently plays an important part in the plot. At least, that's what I've heard. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 21:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

SPOILER SPOILER
*I saw it today. He isn't much more than a cameo. Three minutes of screen time, and mentioned again later.
*Stallone and Statham make up a sizeable portion of it, effectively being the two leads.
-SasquatchJim, 19:47 EST 13 August 2010

==Just watched it==

Pardon my french, but i fucking loved it!!! Arnie and bruce sadly only do cameos, but its worth it for a few jokes.
But onto the guns. Stallone (barny ross) is packing a pair of Kimber M1911's (which sometimes he fires so fast it nears automatic) one on each thigh. He does some perfect and frankly beautiful speedloads with them too. On the same belt he also caries the custom single action army on a quickdraw rig to his rear.
Stathams (lee christmas) main sidearm, seen mostly in the final action peice is a Beretta 92G Elite 1A which he uses in conjunction with throwing knives and if im being honest kinda steals the show.
The other real star of the movie is Terry Crews AA12, given its own into speech he even shows us the Frag 12 mini rocket out of its casing and explains to the audience just how cool the frag 12 really is, and the scenes he uses it truely do it justice, people are torn apart in a gorey wargasm.
Oh and Dolph Lundgren (Gunnar) briefly threatens Stone Cold with a shorty shotgun with a folding frong grip, much like Tubb's from miami vice, possibly a franchi but i cant be sure.
Ok there's my 50 cents, but it really did kick ass--[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 23:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Captain. The scene where he first uses the AA-12 is EPIC. I'm not normally a fan of the AA-12, but I had to respect it here. Also, many of Statham's fistfight scenes were awesome.
* As a side note, I believe the shotgun was a Serbu Super Shorty. I could easily be wrong, though.
*I think Yin was using a Steyr TMP in the back of Barney's truck. Again, don't quote me on that.
-SasquatchJim, 21:22 EST, 13 August 2010 (Not a member, but I've been told to sign my posts.)

Statham's fight scenes were cool. He messed that guy in the blue polo up with that kick to the head. --[[User:humanzie3|humanzie3]]

Suberu shorty looks like the gun, but i think it was a brugger and thompet MP9 not the TMP due to the folding stock, and its always good practise to sign your posts --[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 00:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I've never heard of the MP9. BTW, am I signing my posts right, since I'm not a user? -SasquatchJim 21:55 EST 13 August 2010

Brugger and Thommet bought out the stery tmp design an released ith with a folding stock as the MP-9, and yeah, thats fine, you dont need the date/time stamp but its always welcome --[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 01:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It was badass, just a great fun to watch action movie not loaded with preachy messages or other bullshit. They said it would be like an awesome 80s action movie, and delivered. BTW, I dont think there charles daly 1911s. Im betting their kimbers like Pheonixint said. BTW, remember when i think it was steve austin took off stallone's vest (which looked like a blackhawk strike) and said that without the kevlar hed be ripped apart or something to that effect, that the vest had no kevlar, it was just load bearing equipment, no panels or plates.

No crap...where is the evidence that these are Charles daly? Like i said, who would buy a cheap 1911 just to customize it all badass like?--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 20:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And pheonixint is in the industry, his info is usually real solid, while i dont see one shred of evidence its a bargain bin 1911.

There's only one reason I can think as to why they'd be CD 1911s: The directors wanted to save money bu using inexpensive 1911s and customizing them. E.G. Using a $600 1911 instead of a $3000 one. I don't know, though.-SasquatchJim

== The Knives ==

Does anyone know the knives that they used in the movie? I saw some links to the ones that Sly and Doph uses, but I want to know what are the ones that Jason Statham uses. He had the kunai throwing knives and the folding knife in that one scene. I really want that knife now. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
:In the end credits, it says knives provided by Gil Hibben. Tool's throwing knives in the end were definitely Hibbens. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.hibbenknives.com/expendables.htm

The first knife Tool drew from his boot and threw, was a Cold Steel Espada. Gunner313

== What gun is stallone using in the tunnels? ==

I couldn't see it good enough to ID but it looks like a MP7. Anyone else got an opinion?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure Stallone was using one of the kitted out M4A1 Carbine things, but he was holding it with one hand by the foregrip instead of at the ready because he was using it mainly for the flashlight. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]
Pretty much. I have no idea what part of that thing looks like an MP7. If you look at the main page, the Vltor rifles were all what the team was using [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know he was using a Vltor later but when he was alone in the tunnels. I don't know just had a feeling it was.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the bad dark lighting of the movie confused you [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

He was holding the vltor by the surefire light foregrip, definatly - Captain snikt

Yep, I just saw the movie again, and as the other guys said, he's carrying the Vltor by the foregrip, there's no MP7 in sight. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 22:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a noveske, vltor makes the stock and rail system.

I was looking at the front of the gun and never looked at the back so it looked like a machine pistol of somesort so I assumed a MP7. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

== New Guns SPOILERS ==

[[Image:Shorty3-1-.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Gunnar ([[Dolph Lundgren]]) pulls a [[Serbu Super Shorty]] on Monroe's Henchmen when negotiating a deal. The shotgun looks like a pistol in the hand's of the formidable actor.]]
[[Image:USP9mm.jpg‎ |thumb|none|400px|Paine ([[Steve Austin]]) reacts to this and holds his [[H&K USP]] on Gunnar.]]

Someone needs to add these guns.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

== Yin Yang's pistol? ==

Anyone recall what pistol Jet Li's character was carrying at the end battle? There was so much going on during that assault that I was just sitting and enjoying the carnage, without paying as much attention to weapon details as I normally would. And now that I'm sitting here trying to recall, my mind is blanking on me. Anyone able to refresh my memory? [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 02:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He had a pistol? There was too much for me to take in at once!--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:Yeah, he most noticeably using it when he was clearing the soldiers out of one of those tents or whatever they were. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 05:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah now I remember it, I believe it was a Beretta. I could be wrong though.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Its definaty a 'box' shaped pistol, I just watched it again, looked like a p99 to me, but the only times we see it he is moving, there are no close up either --[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 22:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall it looking like a P99 as well. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 22:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

i say it looked like a small glock, maybe a 19, not sure

I haven't seen the movie, but on a poster at my theatre, Jet Li has a SIG Pro in his holster, don't know if he has one in the movie though.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:Hmm, that could be it, actually. Fairly sure it's not a Glock, but it could definitely be a SIG Pro. Thanks for the info man. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

yep that is defintly the gun he used in the film, the pics of the slide in the film during that scene look the same

i remember a pistol, he sort of takes cover behind something and then kills the guys and shows a full shot of the gun in his hand kind of pointing down. im going to see it again tommorow so ill have a look,also found apicog Gunnars shotty, going to put itup--[[User:Smish34|Smish34]] 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Has this mystery gun been IDed yet?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The movie's been out awhile now, any chance someone with the DVD could upload a screenshot or something?

== low quality caps ==

Some of the lower quality caps will be put here until the official dvd or better quality official clips are released. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 09:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:The_expendable-ar15var.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Team members carry the Vltor / Noveske Diplomat with EOTech, flashlight, and laser sights.]]

[[Image:The_expendable-f2000.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Yang with his F2000 Tactical with Christmas's MP5K on the left.]]

[[Image:The_expendable-aa122.jpg|thumb|none|600px|"Damn that thing's loud!"]]

[[Image:The_expendable-ak.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Enemy soldiers firing their AKs.]]
[[Image:The_expendable-ak2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Enemy soldiers fire their AKs as the team takes cover.]]
==Smoke Grenade==
[[Image:The_expendable-smoke.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Smoke grenade about to go off.]]

==Demolition Man==
in the promo still of sly aiming at dolph who is thretening li, doent it lookan awful lot like some of the scenes from demolition man?--[[User:Smish34|Smish34]] 01:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:I don't recall a single scene like that from Demolition Man but if you recall a specific part feel free to point it out. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:I think he means these two shots [[Image:DemoMan_011.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]] [[Image:Expendables.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

yeah thats the one, thamks Funkychinaman.--[[User:Smish34|Smish34]] 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, he's wearing a beret in both pics, but other than that, it's just 2 shots of the same actor holding a gun, and not even in the same situation, one he's holding it directly to someone's head, the other he's standing several feet away pointing it at someone. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::Well, he said they look alike. As you pointed out, they look alike. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Well yeah, in the sense that it's the same dude holding a gun in both shots. By that reasoning, any 2 shots of Arnie holding an M16 will look alike, or any 2 shots of Chow Yun Fat holding 2 pistols, and so on. Doesn't mean End of Days looks an awful lot like Predator, does it? [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 10:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
::::He mentioned it, and I found it in two minutes, so obviously he wasn't he only one. It's like if Arnold made another movie where he held a shotgun with one arm while wearing a black leather jacket. Why are you getting worked up about this? The guy made an observation, that's all. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the pistol is different and the goatee too, but in both shots, aiming one handed, tac vest over black t-shirt and black beret, i think its similar enough --[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it too and thought it was pretty badass. DKS01 you need to chill out with these comments. Let other people have an opinion. --[[User:humanzie3|humanzie3]]
::Blow me, I wasn't aware I was somehow preventing anyone from having an opinion. If I had that capability I'd probably use it to get Rush Limbaugh off the air, but since Rush still broadcasts, I guess I don't have that power. He stated his opinion, I stated my opinion, deal with it chief. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez man, lose the attitude. And don't you ever tell me to blow you. I have never seen you write anything on this site but rude and asshole comments. --[[User:humanzie3|humanzie3]]
::You've never seen me post anything but rude and asshole comments? Guess reading isn't something you're very good at then, cause there are other comments from me on THIS VERY PAGE where I posted about the fixing the Kimbers entry, discussed what pistol Jet Li was carrying, and agreed with some other dudes that Stallone's gun in the tunnel was the Diplomat and not an MP7. Actually, wait a sec, I think I remember you now, you're that dude who thought using the Harris technique was a "Call of Duty" homage then got mad when me and some other dudes told you it probably wasn't an homage, right? [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep that's me.--[[User:humanzie3|humanzie3]]

:I think it just stands out because it's rare for a lot of movie stars to wear anything on their head at all. Off the top of my head, I think the only movies where Arnold wears anything on his head is in the Conan movies, where's he's got that weird headband thing. Not even in Predator, where it would've made sense, did he wear a hat. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually he did have a hat on in the very beginning of Predator...-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 04:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are some particular movies where the character is well-known for wearing a hat. Indiana Jones, Crocodile Dundee, Freddy Krueger, and others.
Also, I think Arnold briefly wears a hat in the Running Man (When trying to escape.) -SasquatchJim

I'll give you Indy and Dundee, but those are also parts of costumes. I can't think of any other hat wearing Harrison Ford characters though. (And looking back, I think Arnold did wear a hat in Collateral, when he was trying to infiltrate the terrorist base.)--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Harrison wore a stormtrooper helment in Star Wars. Does that count LOL? But yeah, I see what you mean though; overall, costumes with hats are rare.
:For most stars, their greatest assets are their features. Why hide them with a hat? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Except in some cases...That explains why Mickey Rourke DID wear a hat. -SasquatchJim

To be honest Mickey Rourke Needed to wear a trenchcoat and a bag over his head--[[User:Smish34|Smish34]] 16:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant but it bugged me, @DKS01 Arnie doesn't use an M16 in End of Days, is a pimped MP5.--[[User:Commando552|Commando552]] 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

While on the hat subject, the whole team wear hats in this movie both in the opening scene, and the final shootout (with the exception of stallone who loses his beret) --[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 23:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I REALLY like that Statham wore a baseball cap. It was understated and badass. -SJ

Toll Road's boonie hat never fell off, even during fights, i know from experience they come off easy if your not wearing a chin strap.

To be fair, this is sort of a "suspended-reality" movie. Take everything with a grain of salt. -SJ

Maybe he wore his boonie hat tightened on his head, as so not to lose it? And he could have straightnened the hat off-screen. [[User:T.H.M.Christensen|T.H.M.Christensen]] 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

==Gunner's 1911==

During the car chase Gunner uses a 1911 that looks alot like the one's used by Thomas Jane in The Punisher (2004). It was black with a silver compensator. Anybody else see it? [[User:humanzie3|humanzie3]]

no i noticed it i thought it was funny because Dolph Lundgren played The Punisher in the 80's--[[User:Anarchy66660|Anarchy66660]] 21:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC

Another possible punisher connection: I think the Guy riding shotgun with gunnar was one of the guys that Thomas Jane dropped in the lobby of the saint building after he made it rain money. Horace or Spoon perhaps?
5L1CK F177Y

== Guns Appearing on the "Choose Your Weapon" Poster ==

Boy, Ross fires his handgun so fast that until I read about it here I thought it might have been some kind of machine pistol!

Anyway, the poster I first saw for The Expendables was the one with the chrome skull in the center surrounded by guns and knives in the shape of wings, which some have suggested is meant to evoke the Guns & Roses poster (maybe...). I'm kinda surprised that that poster wasn't used for this article (more appropriate here than the one used currently) and I was hoping to see the guns in it identified. Could anyone do just that (The original poster would appear alongside an annotated version with a list of firearms)? Here's some pictures I found:
[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fFAqUS7IXq0/TGcN9LbltLI/AAAAAAAAAPw/o8F2vVD-LqU/s1600/expendables+poster.jpg]

And here someone even made a mockup using gun images from places like this site:
[http://www.blog.spoongraphics.co.uk/tutorials/how-to-create-the-expendables-winged-skull-poster-art How To Create The Expendables Winged Skull Poster Art]

:The very first section of this talk page is a listing of the weapons featured in that poster. This was the relevant info already posted above:"-Barrett M107 with SUSAT (?!) Scope -M16A1 -C8 with M203 -G36 with AG36 -No idea -Shorty Remington 870 / Masterkey -MP7 -Mk. 23 -Model 29 -Steyr M9A1 -Beretta M9 with front cocking serrations -SVI Infinity -Beretta 93R -Desert Eagle -A fuckload of knifes --yocapo32 03:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)". Someone later clarified that it's an ELCAN C79 scope not a SUSAT. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 08:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

::Oh, Jeez, I skimmed this page way too quick looking for a mention and to be "sure" it wasn't covered, searched for the term "poster", thinking it would be included in any discussion. Sorry.

::But anyway, I still think it would be a better poster to use on the article page and think there really should be an annotated version too. And a big bag of money would be nice.
:::You got my vote. [[User:DKS01|DKS01]] 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

==Barney's Kimber - Possible Spoilers==

Is it possible that his Kimber's used double stacked magazines? I bought it at midnight, watched it, rewatched the speed firing bit at the end several times, and it seems like everytime he empties a magazine and reloads, he's firing fourteen to fifteen times. The time he fired both, he fires twenty six times and reloades, considering it'd be bad to go off with two rounds. Consistent with a double stacked .45 magazine. I couldn't see how many times the weapon cycled, but the sound was definitely fourteen shots. I'd also feel the need to point out that on several occasions, he fired only a few rounds at a time from one pistol, but it would be possible that he reloaded off screen. Especially given the speed he shows with his reloads. Movie magic, or some realism to a typical yet totally awsome, film? - Mikey

::The Kimbers he used had single-stack magazines (the armorer who blank-converted Stallone's pistols for this movie is an IMFDB administrator). You can also check the link that appears on the page. Counting the number of times the weapons are fired is a bad way to determine their magazine capacity in movies. Actors routinely fire more rounds than their weapons can hold because reloading is done between takes, off-camera. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

== Is it Just me ==

Or is something wrong with the front sight on this thing? --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] 10:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:Exp010.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]

No, it is just a hooded sight, indicating that it is the Chinese version of the AK, the Norinco Type 56. --[[User:ZeoRanger5|ZeoRanger5]] 10:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think (even though the somali is holding the rifle not so straight) the front sight is tilted a bit on the left --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:?He's just holding the rifle itself tilted to the left. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 15:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, but the sight is still a bit off... --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] 21:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:::It's a little off center even considering he's holding the gun cocked to one side. Then again, he's a pirate with an AK. He's probably never even used the sights, so he hasn't noticed that he banged the nose of his Type 56 into the side of a boat and knocked his sights off-kilter or something. [[User:Atypicaloracle|Atypicaloracle]] 04:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

== Page correction F2000 ==

Someone has written 'An FN F2000 Tactical is used by Ross, and later by Lee, with an EO-Tech, flashlight, and laser sight during the mission to rescue hostages on the hijacked oil tanker.' The only Lee in the film is Stathams character Lee CHristmas, I assume you mean Yin Yang played by Jet LI, as shown in the photo, can someone sort this out - Captain Snikt

== Continuity error? ==

For the page, it shows shots of Jet Li's character, Yang with a P90 during the Oil Tanker scene, but then it showed another with the F2000. Did he happen to have both? or did the prop guy switched it by accident? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
::Huh. I had noticed that he started out with a F2000 (actually at first with the dim lighting in the scene, I thought all of the Expendables were carrying F2000s until I could see them better - and until Gunnar let a M576 off and blew a guy in half as a warning shot) and then didn't realize somehow that he was suddenly using a P90 in another shot. I assumed that maybe he picked up someone else's gun but... [[User:Atypicaloracle|Atypicaloracle]] 04:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

==Colt Single Action Army==

Barney's Colt with the very short barrel could be a customized U.S. Firearms "Shopkeeper" or "Sheriff." They are somewhat uncommon, but the Sheriff is a clone of Colt's "Sheriff" SAA variant, with a 3" ejectorless barrel -- they can also be had in 2”, 3.5” and 4” -- and the Shopkeeper is the same song but with 3.5" barrel and an ejector rod. [[User:Atypicaloracle|Atypicaloracle]] 05:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

==Ceasars Pistol==

Hale Ceasar (terry crews) has a beretta 92G elite 1A as his sidearm in the final ballte as seen on this massive image http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2010_The_Expendables/2010_the_expendables_015.jpg - Captain Snikt

==F2000 in the Tanker scene==

Does anyone know why Stallone fires his F2000 left-handed in the Tanker scene? He's obviously right-handed, given that he fires all his other weapons (unless counting dual wielded Kimbers :P) right-handed - especially the Quickdraw Colt...

I always assumed he was ambidextrous; in lots of movies he plays left-handed characters. Of course, he could have just taught himself to shoot that way. Dunno. -SasquatchJim.

In the movie, he's said to have damaged his left hand severely, so it's possible he doesn't want to risk using his left to steady the front of the gun when he can't hold it properly, so he instead uses it to pull the trigger while his right hand aims. As for holding the Kimbers, I'd say during those scenes he's not worried too much about accuracy.

== Barney's (Stallone) holsters ==

Anyone know the make and model of Barney Ross' thigh rigs for his Kimbers? [[User:Thursday|Thursday]] 06:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)