The Gun thread

Not in the Republic of Texas, at least. :p
 
I quit counting around 30 or so.

Most of them are 'investment grade' guns - working, but I don't dare fire them or I'll ruin their value. For example, I have a pair of these with sequential serial numbers:

RenaissanceHP.jpg


That's the Browning/FN High Power Renaissance. They're worth at least $3000 apiece in unfired condition. I got them for a lot less a number of years ago; they live in a safe and I don't take them to the range. I do, however, take them out and admire the hand craftsmanship and artistry on occasion. I also have various Beretta and Colt collectible/museum pieces - these are the investment guns.

Now, as for 'working' (as in 'working for a living') or 'combat/defense' guns (all my guns are functional, there is no point in owning a non-functional gun and if the world goes to hell I could use the collection/investment pieces for self-defense), I only have about 20 in various stages of build/assembly/use.
 
Last edited:
I quit counting around 30 or so.

Most of them are 'investment grade' guns - working, but I don't dare fire them or I'll ruin their value. For example, I have a pair of these with sequential serial numbers:

RenaissanceHP.jpg


That's the Browning/FN High Power Renaissance. They're worth at least $3000 apiece in unfired condition. I got them for a lot less a number of years ago; they live in a safe and I don't take them to the range. I do, however, take them out and admire the hand craftsmanship and artistry on occasion. I also have various Beretta and Colt collectible/museum pieces - these are the investment guns.

Now, as for 'working' or 'combat/defense' guns (all my guns are functional, there is no point in owning a non-functional gun and if the world goes to hell I could use the collection/investment pieces for self-defense), I only have about 20 in various stages of build/assembly/use.

Oh god that is a beautiful gun.
 
Guns can make fantastic displays of the engraver's art - and it's an ancient tradition that's made somewhat of a return lately. None of these are mine, but here's some examples that are on the market today:

cz_engraving_PI-30.png


cz_engraving_PI-26.png


Pair%20of%20gold%20and%20silver%20Colts%20with%20ivoriesengraved%20by%20Barry%20lee%20Hands%20copyright%202008.jpg


tn_winchester-Grand-Royal-21.jpg


Phil%20Coggan%20engraved%20nelson%20sidelever%20copyright%202004%20by%20Barry%20Lee%20Hands.jpg


pm-3.jpg


Glorious examples of the art.
 
Personally, I don?t like it. The craftsmanship, on the other hand, is undeniable.
 
Yeah, for a gun I'd actually use or carry, I wouldn't want an ornate piece like those. But as 'objet d'art,' well.. they are glorious IMHO.

My "work" guns are all black, no artistic engraving, and all business. :D
 
My drill for "Man approaches with knife or gun, demands money" is pretty much what Tom Cruise did in this scene from Collateral.

[youtube]YAdibdxZ9zg[/youtube]

That movie had some stunningly good firearms advisors and they even got Tom Cruise to do it right. Of course, law abiding citizens can't shoot someone lying on the ground unresisting, but other than that, that 'shoot' is absolutely by the training book.

Really? That first two shots from the hip look somewhat strange.
Also, why would the second guy have all that trouble pulling his gun out with his hand already touching it? Surprise?
That scene show something that makes me upset about guns in movies: what is the point of having a firearm if you are close enough to have it taken from you, DUMBASS?
 
It's a retention hold - intended to put rounds on target at extremely short range at high speed. The idea is to give your assailant the least amount of time to register/react to the fact that you've knocked his gun out of line while also ensuring that he can't pull the same trick on you. It is strictly to be used at that arm's length range, no more, and is generally used to clear your immediate arms'-reach to get you room to use your pistol properly.

Surprise and shock plus possibly snagging his gun on his clothing delayed the other one. This is realistic; numerous after action reports show that it takes a measurable amount of time for an assailant who thinks he has you cowed to realize that you're not a compliant victim obeying his (or his buddy's) orders. The inversion of this scenario is what gets a lot of cops killed every year - cop pulls someone over, the guy in the car complies and seems cooperative, the cop relaxes a bit, and BAM, the guy's shot the cop. Humans do not react well or swiftly to unexpected shocks and surprises.

Also, in typical gangbanger fashion, the second guy did not have his pistol in a holster, instead preferring to simply stick it in his waistband. This is called the "Mexican carry" as it used to be popular with Mexican bandits around the time of Pancho Villa. It is a bad idea because it (as you can see, and obviously the scene was written this way) often results in the gun's sights, levers, or other protruding parts snagging on the belt, the shirt, or other pieces of clothing. Even if it doesn't snag, a draw from Mexican carry is slow to begin with. Plus it is just unsafe for obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the scene: Yeah, Tom Cruise's character is very impressive there, but the two thugs are, as you said, hopelessly incompetent. They shouldn't have approached to arm's length, and the second guy should have had his gun out and pointed the whole time, too. I guess that's the difference between a professional killer and and a street thug. ;)
 
It's a retention hold - intended to put rounds on target at extremely short range at high speed. The idea is to give your assailant the least amount of time to register/react to the fact that you've knocked his gun out of line while also ensuring that he can't pull the same trick on you. It is strictly to be used at that arm's length range, no more, and is generally used to clear your immediate arms'-reach to get you room to use your pistol properly.

Surprise and shock plus possibly snagging his gun on his clothing delayed the other one. This is realistic; numerous after action reports show that it takes a measurable amount of time for an assailant who thinks he has you cowed to realize that you're not a compliant victim obeying his (or his buddy's) orders. The inversion of this scenario is what gets a lot of cops killed every year - cop pulls someone over, the guy in the car complies and seems cooperative, the cop relaxes a bit, and BAM, the guy's shot the cop. Humans do not react well or swiftly to unexpected shocks and surprises.

Also, in typical gangbanger fashion, the second guy did not have his pistol in a holster, instead preferring to simply stick it in his waistband. This is called the "Mexican carry" as it used to be popular with Mexican bandits around the time of Pancho Villa. It is a bad idea because it (as you can see, and obviously the scene was written this way) often results in the gun's sights, levers, or other protruding parts snagging on the belt, the shirt, or other pieces of clothing. Even if it doesn't snag, a draw from Mexican carry is slow to begin with. Plus it is just unsafe for obvious reasons.

Never heard of a retention hold before. Thanks for the explanation!
Also, I knew a guy that shot off one of his testicles because of that stupid "mexican carry". <_<
 
Any Michael Mann movie involving guns is bound to have realistic depictions of gun play. Just watch Heat, Collateral, or Public Enemies. I love them because they use no special effects. The rounds are blanks, but they are full-charge blanks so the gunfire is 100% real. Check this scene out if (somehow) you've never seen it.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9fnVtz_lc[/YOUTUBE]

Again proper shooting (notice how most of them leave both eyes open for proper combat shooting) Val Kilmer's reloading part is especially good.
 
Regarding the scene: Yeah, Tom Cruise's character is very impressive there, but the two thugs are, as you said, hopelessly incompetent. They shouldn't have approached to arm's length, and the second guy should have had his gun out and pointed the whole time, too. I guess that's the difference between a professional killer and and a street thug. ;)

Correct! But that's how something like 99% of street crime goes in the US - they get too close, only one guy has his gun out (so as to attract less attention) and they don't use holsters. And they never seem to learn, per studies, interviews with both perps and victims and police reports.

Plus in my state, Texas, if they do manage to pull it off correctly yet leave you alive afterwards, you can legally shoot them in the back as they leave to get your stuff back. It is very unlikely that they would execute a proper fighting retreat once they have 'the goods'.

Any Michael Mann movie involving guns is bound to have realistic depictions of gun play. Just watch Heat, Collateral, or Public Enemies. I love them because they use no special effects. The rounds are blanks, but they are full-charge blanks so the gunfire is 100% real. Check this scene out if (somehow) you've never seen it.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9fnVtz_lc[/YOUTUBE]

Again proper shooting (notice how most of them leave both eyes open for proper combat shooting) Val Kilmer's reloading part is especially good.

Yeah, rumor has it that that reloading scene has been shown to American soldiers by their instructors as an example of how to do it right.

Mann is one of the few directors in Hollywood that takes the time to get firearms use right. Some of his peers criticize this as 'not being flashy enough', but the air of authenticity plus the realism more than makes up for it - especially when people who do use firearms 'for real' watch his movies.

Never heard of a retention hold before. Thanks for the explanation!
Also, I knew a guy that shot off one of his testicles because of that stupid "mexican carry". <_<

Yeah, that would be why it's not recommended. :p If you have to stick a gun in your waistband, stick it around back or to the side. Better yet, don't stick it in your waistband at all! :p

In the Collateral clip, you see Tom Cruise deflect the guy's gun arm in towards the thug's body then fire into him from about where he stood. Just FYI, there are some schools of thought that say another option would be to knock the gun arm away from the thug's body then step into him while firing from that retention hold, to maximize the chance of getting a critical hit while getting inside the thug's pistol's arc - i.e, the thug's gun would be behind your back and over your shoulder if you didn't knock it free and therefore would still be useless against you. This would only be used against a single assailant, though, as you wouldn't then have room to clear your pistol for use against other threats, so once again Mann got it right.
 
Last edited:
My good friend, Saman, went to Chris Costa's class. This is how Costa trains to reload in a firefight. You see Saman at 5:58.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khqxDNc-mbI[/youtube]
 
Sorry for the stupid question, but what is so special about the reloading?
EDIT: I wanna move to a country where rifles are allowed....:(
 
Last edited:
Mann is one of the few directors in Hollywood that takes the time to get firearms use right.
The bank robbery and the following shoot-out is one of my favourite movie sequences ever.
But when I just watched it again, I noticed that the runaway car has to be veeeeeeery slow. Watch where the two cops on the other side of the street stand and where Pacino stands - in relation to the robbers' car - when the shooting starts, then how close Pacino and his colleagues are after the car has driven off. Something's not right there.
Some of his peers criticize this as 'not being flashy enough', but the air of authenticity plus the realism more than makes up for it - especially when people who do use firearms 'for real' watch his movies.
I've never shot a gun outside a shooting range, but I love realism too. The best action scenes are spectacular but lead the viewer to think that it could actually happen this way. That Heat scene beats the famous Matrix lobby shoot-out any day. I feel the same about car chases.
 
Last edited:
My good friend, Saman, went to Chris Costa's class. This is how Costa trains to reload in a firefight. You see Saman at 5:58.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khqxDNc-mbI[/youtube]

Nice. Interesting technique, I'll have to study that. People are always coming up with new techniques - the art of the firearm is continually changing.

Sorry for the stupid question, but what is so special about the reloading?
EDIT: I wanna move to a country where rifles are allowed....:(

Which, the one in Chris Costa's vid, or in Heat?

The bank robbery and the following shoot-out is one of my favourite movie sequences ever.
But when I just watched it again, I noticed that the runaway car has to be veeeeeeery slow. Watch where the two cops on the other side of the street stand and where Pacino stands - in relation to the robbers' car - when the shooting starts, then how close Pacino and his colleagues are after the car has driven off. Something's not right there.
I've never shot a gun outside a shooting range, but I love realism too. The best action scenes are spectacular but lead the viewer to think that it could actually happen this way. That Heat scene beats the famous Matrix lobby shoot-out any day. I feel the same about car chases.

The driver gets hit fairly early on in the sequence, plus that particular car is very slow in real life and god only knows what else it's loaded down with besides four guys, a bunch of money and an arsenal. Also, they showed there was traffic in the area (it was Downtown Los Angeles), so they couldn't have sped off in any case.

Plus there were some editing mistakes. :D
 
The one in Heat.
They seem to actually aim at things, which is good.
 
Here's the sequence of events:

1. Gun stops working.
2. Tilts gun up slightly to see that bolt is locked open on empty chamber.
3. While dropping back into concealment (cars are not cover, not to someone with a rifle or even a higher powered pistol), he trips the magazine release with his left thumb and rips the magazine out of the gun with the rest of his hand. This is the first important difference from standard training - at the time, standard-level military and police training for the AR-type weapons system often had the shooter just trip the magazine release and let the magazine fall out. Which, as you might guess, didn't always happen. He also combined movements - ripping the mag out while dropping into concealment, which saves time. He is also holding on to the magazine all the way down to the ground, so that the bouncing empty magazine doesn't reveal to his opponents that he's out of ammo; this is less of an issue if you don't have concealment. Controlling the magazine like that is not something that was normally done with the AR system, though armies which use weapons with 'rock-and-lock' magazines or which don't follow the philosophy that magazines are disposable do emphasize this (but that's another story).
4. Since his teammates are providing cover fire and he is behind concealment he can look at his weapon to quickly reload it instead of fumbling to insert a new magazine. Again, different from much standard training of the day; which taught to reload by rote and feel and nothing else.
5. Finally, instead of pulling the charging handle (the T-shaped thing at the back of the receiver, behind the carry handle/sight on top and above the tube for the shoulder stock), which requires that you extend the weapon at arm's length to pull it (more or less) and was standard doctrine at the time, he slaps or 'ping-pongs' the bolt release on the side of the weapon while watching it to make sure the bolt goes forward and that he doesn't need to tap the forward assist button. This takes less time and a lot less room.
6. Only when the weapon is ready does he pop back up - and at no time has the shoulder stock been far from a firing position.
 
Last edited:
I must spread more reputation etc etc etc...
Thank you very much for the explanation. To my untrained eyes, there was nothing special about it, but now I see the little details.
Now I know why sometimes I see people slapping their rifles after reloading. :lol:
 
Top