Talk:Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to: navigation, search

I was going to upload The Quick and the Dead but I'll wait till tommorow so I don't steal your thunder. Good work so far. -GM

Finished, how does it look now?--Alienqueen11 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, I love the armorer specials. I find it kind of cool how Al gets to have these little cameos in movies. I'll have TQATD done tommorow. I just finished watching Hotel Rwanda, damn that movie is depressing. I'll have that screencapped too soon. -GM

Thanks, and I can't wait to see your newest articles. Yea, I heard that's one thing Hotel Rawanda is infamous for, and want to know something else. A teacher in my school had her class watch that movie just before Christmas break, Wierd.--Alienqueen11 06:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Sig Sauer P226

Hmmm, this makes me wish I hadn't deleted the old picture of the two-tone P226. The one in the movie is a newer production P226 with a milled slide, whereas the one we have now is the older production model with the stamped slide.

I see what you mean, oh well. It shouldn't make too much of a difference, it's still the same gun overall.

Yeah, I guess. Also, it's pretty rare to see the milled ones in movies. Even though the stamped-slide P226s have not been produced for over 10 years, most of the movies being made even today still use them, just because armorers don't rush out to replace something they already have in inventory when the difference between old and new versions amounts to minor design changes. That's also why you see older-model Taurus PT92s, Gen 2 Glocks, etc. in many movies.
Also, seems like he filed down the top of the barrel a bit too much; it looks almost like it was ground straight into the chamber.

I see, that makes sense, and there's nothing like the classic versions. That's how they modify guns to fire Blanks? I'll have to look for that in other movies, and yea it looks like he did overdo the filing, it looks like a good amount of the top of the chamber is gone.

Yeah, some pistols need to have the top of the barrel filed down in order to function reliably with blanks. Most of the P220 series do, and so do H&K USPs, I believe.

M4A1

That's not an M4, its a Colt Commando of some type, look at the permanent carryhandle. User:AdAstra2009

The M4 Carbine had an integral carrying handle, the M4A1 has a removable carrying handle.

I dont know who wrote that, but you're way wrong. The ENTIRE M4 generation has removable hand railsThe Winchester
You'r both wrong. M4s made in 1994 and 1995 were fitted with non-removable carry handles. After 1995, the Department of Defense asked Colt to outfit both the M4s AND the M4A1s with Picatinny rails. Today(As in, 2009) all M4s and M4A1s that are being issued to US Military and US Police have Removeble Carry Handles. I not sure about the AR-15s that are being sold at gun stores. I think we will need MPM on this one.-Oliveira 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
My understanding (after doing some reading) is this: The original M4 that was purchased by the military was called the Model 777 in Colt's AR-15 catalog. It had an M16A2-style receiver (meaning, NO detachable carry handle) and it fired semi or burst, like the M16A2. The full-auto version of the Model 777 was the earlier Model 727, which was originally designed for the armed forces of the U.A.E. This is the gun that the DoD originally designated as simply "the M4 Carbine". However, around the time that the original M4 (the Model 777) was coming into service, Colt introduced the flat-top receivers with detachable carry handles. The DoD quickly decided that this feature was desirable and stopped buying the Model 777; they switched instead to buying the Model 920 (semi or burst) and the Model 921 (semi or auto), which are the guns that are known today as the "M4" and the "M4A1", respectively. But the Model 920 was still called "the M4" even though it had a different receiver style than the Model 777. So, basically, the military bought two different guns that were both given the designation "M4", even though they were different models with different receivers.
Also, I should point out that the USAF, who are extremely stingy when it comes to buying new small arms (any time we attempt to upgrade or standardize a new platform, they're the branch who bitch the loudest about the cost), initially didn't buy very many M4s or M4A1s at all. Instead, they simply upgraded some of their existing M16 carbines - including their XM177s (which they called GAU-5s), Model 653s, etc. by replacing the barrels with the M4-style stepped barrel. So, until about the early-2000s, it was possible to see carbines which had M4 barrels, but A2, A1, or even SP1-style receivers. Franken-carbines, in other words. -MT2008 20:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The USAF does bitch about everything. Why do they bitch about Small Arms anyway? I know they don't really need Small Arms but why bitch?-Oliveira 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Because they'd rather spend the money on something else, like more B-2s. -MT2008 22:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, should we really be calling it an M4 because M4s today have removable carrying handles. It looks like the M727 or one of the other shorty M16 variants. Looking at the M727s in Black Hawk Down, they look exactly the same as this "M4", so I don't think it should be called an M4 Excalibur01 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess we should change it, since we called all of the other ones "Model 727s". -MT2008 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I still prefer the 1976 version

I know what the hell does that have to do with firearms. This remake had a great arsenal but I like the original version. Showing my age. --Jcordell 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No I agree and I'm only 23. The original is a marvel of what you can do with very little money. It has a great atmosphere and Napoleon Wilson is so much better than Lawrence Fishburne's character. John Carpenter did some really cracking films back in the day. They Live was his last great film. --cool-breeze 16:28, 9 March 2011 (MSK)

You're right. Six years after your response, but better late than never. --Jcordell (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
It's OK :) my response was nearly 2 years after yours anyway. --cool-breeze (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

Girl knows how to handle a Tommy-Gun?

There are many films, in which an absolute beginner suddenly knows how to handle a gun. That might be ok for DA-revolvers, but it gets dubious when it comes to pistols (especially SA-pistols) or even more complicated guns like machine-guns of all kind. Here the little lady knows how to handle a Tommy-Gun instantly.

I never fired one myself, but I got my hands on a PPSch-41 a few years ago. That was somewhat different from other guns. First of, you've got to wind up these drum-magazines before loading the gun with them. Do we have to believe, the Tommy-Gun has been stored cocked and loaded for years in the evidence room?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of guy, who always has to yell "unrealistic". That way, I could never ever enjoy movies like this one. And I really enjoyed tis one. And I know, the girl with the Tommy-Gun was meant as "comic relief". But I thing it was uncalled for and highly ridiculous. What do you guys think? --Lastgunslinger 09:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

- If I recall correctly, the woman in question, though self-proclaimed as someone who 'never did anything wrong in her life' was obviously filling a 'gangsta' stereotype. As such, she might have had some general knowledge or familiarity with weapons, including automatic machine guns.

That's oversimplifying by a fair extent, but that's what I got and it is plausible enough. That said I think saying 'uncalled for' may be a bit much, but I agree it is a bit ridiculous. Then again almost all fictional action movies are in some way or other.

I myself still thought it was neat to see a Tommy Gun used outside of a WWII or Roarin' Twenties/Gangster-Era representative film. StanTheMan 04:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Shortcomings in logic

While I greatly enjoy this movie there were two points that always left me scratching my head.

First is the issue of the Thompson SMG. Is it standard police procedure to leave confiscated weapons in loaded condition when stored in evidence lockup?

Secondly we know that the guards on the prison transport bus were armed with shotguns, those shotguns were brought inside the precinct building when the guards came in, but after a certain point we never see them again. Even when the building comes under attack we never see the crew inside break them out to return fire. It's as if they suddenly just disappear from existence. Why is that?

Ethan Hawke's Para-Ordnance

Is it noteworthy that, during the scene pictured in this article, that the slide doesn't move an inch while he's firing?

When you screencap a muzzle flash, the slide does NOT move. The slide always moves the frame AFTER the flash due to the split second delay in the action from firing to reloading. If the slide didn't lockup when the round fired, the extractor would rip the rim off the rounds and cause immediate casing separation.  :)~~
If you notice as well, the hammer does move, and I don't believe that happens on flashpaper replicas. The previous poster is correct, the slide moves after the flash. Bristow8411 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2016 (EDT)

Additional

Note the muzzle flash when a killer falls.



Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Categories
Special
Social Media
Toolbox