Talk:Act of Valor

Thoughts?

Saw the trailer when I went to see Courageous. I thought it looked pretty sweet. What do you guys think? - User:1morey October 14, 2011 9:38 PM (EST)

I'm seeing first showing on opening day. Spartan198 21:37, 14 November 2011 (CST)

It looks pretty impressive, even moreso in that actual SEALs were involved on-screen, not just in a behind-the-scenes consulting role like in most war films. I heard parts of this were actually retained for training purposes due to the degree of realism in the tactics and methods used in the film. Orca1 9904 22:26, 14 November 2011 (CST)

Overall, I thought the movie was lame, but that's the Marine combat vet side of me speaking, so I'm biased. On the plus side the violence and body count side of the movie is nice, and they don't try to gloss over the bloodier parts of it. But, couldn't they have put an M-14 or two in there somewhere, for old-time's sake? Maybe just for the sniper dude or something? The SEALs I know love their M-14s and I know they still carry them on some missions, just wish they would have thrown one in there. Travestytrav 01:18, 29 February 2012 (CST)

Apparently none of the SEALs in this one opted for M14s and I doubt the filmmakers had any leeway in what they used either. Besides, by this time they would have replaced their M14s with Mark 14s. Spartan198 01:40, 1 March 2012 (CST)

Personaly, I thoguht they were underarmed. The whole 8-man team had M4s, exept for the sniper. None of them had M203s, M249s, or M60 variants. I've always gotten the impression the SEALS, like most special forces units, tend to be over-armed. Yet in the movie, the squad would be outgunned by any infantry squad in the world. --Mandolin 15:39, 1 March 2012 (CST)

No, SEALs, as with most Special Operations Units, tend to be armed with as much as they need. The only time their ever over-armed is if their mission is expected to exceed a specific time set or they feel as though they need more than usual. SOU's choose their own armaments based on what they feel they may need to complete the mission. Puppet.of.fate 16:47, 1 March 2012 (CST)

You're never over-armed. You might not need a machinegun or grenade launcher but, as the saying goes, better to have and not need than to need and not have.--Mandolin 21:33, 1 March 2012 (CST)

Agreed. The first rule of battle is: Never fight fair. They had to know they'd be going up against guys with assault rifles in every operation, which means you always bring more than just assault rifles. They should have had at least one belt-fed weapon (more likely 2), and at least one (more likely 2) M203 if for no other reason than to shoot non-lethal and/or pyro rounds. I imagine everyone was carrying M4s to make production easier, especially since some of it was apparently live-fire. Travestytrav 03:37, 2 March 2012 (CST)

True, but you're talking about Special Operations Units, they only carry what is necessary to get the job done. And you don't always bring more than assault rifles, sometimes they run only SMG's and pistol's. And they may know everything possible about a mission but in a second things can change but they do their best to play it in their favor. And as I stated before they choose their armaments, if they didn't think it necessary they wouldn't take it. If they need to move quick their not going to carry a belt-fed, they want light equipment to make the job easier. Puppet.of.fate 14:19, 2 March 2012 (CST)

It's SOF/SF (Special Operations Forces/Special Forces), not SOU. Also, for what it's worth, the novelization has a Mk.46 and Mk. 12 being used on the resque mission. On the other hand, the novelization is sufficiently bad that it's best to ignore it. For a work associated with Tom Clancy, it's both over-descriptive and wrong about guns. And you ALWAYS need more firepower. You are NEVER over-armed. And why on earth did they leave the machine gunners behind for the last mission? There were 3 SEALs with SAWs, and they got left behind on the mission they were realy needed on.--Mandolin 16:06, 4 March 2012 (CST)

Frst, they go by either. People need to stop reading wiki, most of the info there is pretty faulty. Second you were the first to say "SOU's" were usually over-armed, so don't try and act like someone else threw it out there. You don't alwas need more fire power, if you trully need knew anything about Special Operations they almost always never carry more than they need unless they feel it necessary. What they do is ment to be done quick and their gear is always ment to be light, hence why they run the "newest of the new" equipment. One of the many reasons they are the best of the best is because they can get the job done with as little as possible. You have to remember it's still a movie, no matter how realistic they make it, things always change from novel to movie. The SEALs had a big say in how things were done, it may have been their choice to leave the three back. Puppet.of.fate 21:18, 4 March 2012 (CST)

I've never seen them refered to as "SOU", and I read a lot (not much wikipedia either). I do know a good bit about various special-ops stuff. And when did I pretend that someone else claimed they were over-armed? A 9-man sqaud in the US army has 2x M249s and 2x M203s, every other country's squads are the same or heavier. The squad in the movie went in underarmed, "Newest of the new" has more to do with better than lighter. "Light and move fast" is nice, until a bunch of bad guys come after you and you don't have any way of stoping them. An M203 round or couple of bursts from an M249 would have realy slowed down the pursuers. I know it's a movie, that's why the machine gunners got left behind, they're not main characters.--Mandolin 13:08, 5 March 2012 (CST)

You continually keep replying "You are never over-armed", and making it sound like someone else said they were. I've already said this before, if you actually "do" know anything about Special Operations you would know they don't function nor run the same equipment, tactics, and missions as regular troops. Oh and read a bit more, you'll find them referred to as "SOU". And if you knew the answer to your own question, why ask it? Puppet.of.fate 13:39, 5 March 2012 (CST)

SEALs don't go by "Special Forces" because they aren't Special Forces, Special Forces are Special Forces. SF isn't a generic term in the US military, it refers to a specific unit, that being the US Army Special Forces. Spartan198 22:00, 5 March 2012 (CST)

Just throwing in my two cents here, don't take this as an indication of taking sides or anything. I've read a lot of military non-fiction from the Vietnam War onwards and I've gotten the distinct impression that most teams within the special operations community usually carry a variety of weapons rather than just assault rifles. Granted, I mostly read up on the regular troops in the US Marine Corps and US Army but the books I have read on Delta Force, the Green Berets, the SAS and SASR (usually by former members) specifically mention that grenade launchers such as the M203 and LMGs such as the FN Minimi and M249 are carried into battle by said special operations units as sort of a force multiplier if required. Like the saying goes, "better safe than sorry!" Arguably, I haven't read any books by SEALs or on SEALs but most SF teams tend to work in the same general way. GunEnthusiast 03:50, 6 March 2012 (CST)

Just saw this and although the acting is wooden in parts (hey these guys are SEALs!) I found the action sequences entirely realistic. Sure there is some rock and roll but the weapons fire seems limited to all it needs to be (even including the suppressive fire laid down by the SOC-Rs). About the only thing that bugged me I suppose was the markings on the RPG warheads. They seemed to have the yellow/black markings indicating "watch it...I go boom". As a side note...out of all the characters in the film the only one I would not want pissed at me was Senior Chief Otto...you get the feeling the man has really been there and done that. --Charon68 18:21, 20 May 2012 (CDT)

It's funny how people complain about the SEALs' acting skills when they obviously aren't acting. You wouldn't complain about cops' "bad acting" while watching Cops, would you? Spartan198 16:44, 7 June 2012 (CDT)

Its funny cause during the scenes where they're just talking, or like when the guy says goodbye to his wife, I was thinking "wow, these guys are such bad actors".... But then when you see them in Costa Rica shooting out of the back of the truck, I'm thinking, wow, everyone else is such a bad actor... I mean compare this to Bruce Willis in Tears of the Sun... These guys are WAY more bad ass... No they can't act but thats the best part. THEY'RE NOT ACTING! --Zackmann08 16:57, 7 June 2012 (CDT)

Precisely, they aren't acting. I would think these guys have said such goodbyes to their families before and know how it all plays out much better than a majority of us do. Don't knock it 'till you know it. Spartan198 17:07, 7 June 2012 (CDT)

I recently watched the movie, and despite few critics complained about the acting of the SEALs (yes I know, they're NOT really acting), I found this film not just interesting, but indeed very awesome and if I may also add - very rare. Recommended!!! --RaNgeR 14:39, 10 June 2012 (CDT)

I enjoyed it quite a bit, I'd have to thank Spartan198 for recommending it to me, one slight complaint though, shouldn't they have used suppressors during the beginning rescue mission, and the ending fight to protect their hearing in doors?Kornflakes89 04:28, 9 July 2012 (CDT)

Extended Trailer

I've got some additional pics from the extended trailer that I'm going to upload. Pics show a strange carbine-length sniper rifle that I can't ID (fore-end is that of an M4 with fixed FSP and KAC RIS, but it appears to have a 7.62 magazine), a Mark 11 variant (can't see the fore-end to ID which one exactly), FN Mags, FN Minimis, a possible M60D, and a handheld M60 (can't tell which variant because I can't see all of it). There's probably more, but I'll go over the trailer with a fine tooth comb later. Spartan198 22:38, 14 November 2011 (CST)

Upon closer examination, the handheld M60 is just another M240G. Spartan198 02:57, 15 November 2011 (CST)

Unknown Sniper Rifle

Take a look.

???

???

M4 fore-end with a 7.62 mag. Any ideas as to what it is? Spartan198 23:06, 14 November 2011 (CST)

Possably a SEAL Recon Rifle? See: http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5515/sealsnipers6uy1.jpg (Wrong photo)scarecrow 00:04, 24 December 2011 (CST)

That's a Mark 12 Mod 1, not a RECCE Rifle. RECCEs are a 16" breed, in addition to being 5.56. The rifle above has a 7.62 mag. Spartan198 09:02, 24 December 2011 (CST)

Ah, sorry, theres a RECCE rifle on the same page i got the photo from which i can't seem to find now :(, that said it could still be a 5.56 with a 20rnd mag, films do a have a history of making things look larger than they actually are *cough* preditor M134 anyone? scarecrow 00:16, 25 December 2011 (CST)

Mag still looks too big to be 5.56 to me. But whatever it is, I'm pulling that screencap from the SR-25 entry on the main page since it's clearly not an SR-25 by the short barrel and fixed front sight. Spartan198 17:20, 26 December 2011 (CST)

Okay, I just got back from the movie and this rifle is definitely a 7.62. It's the same rifle that's in the screencap under the SR-25 entry (which I removed and placed here). I'm thinking maybe an AR-10 carbine? Spartan198 16:10, 24 February 2012 (CST)

Hmm, what do we know?

-its 7.62 - it has a solid M16 style stock - it has a fixed front sight and has a somewhat weird foregrip, it kinda looks like a rail but isnt... couldn't find many AR-10's (3-4 out of 50 i found) with a front fixed sight (not that it means much) unfortunatly i don't think it's even getting a release in my country (nor are there any other ways to get it) so i'll leave this to you to decide. scarecrow 07:42, 6 March 2012 (CST)

I have a feeling it may be an Armalite AR-10 1913 carbine.Recon

Looks like a LaRue Tactical Stealth OSR to me. Anyone Else?andrewe02000

That doesn't explain the barrel and fore-end that's virtually the same as an M4, though. I spoke to a friend of mine who knows one of the SEALs involved with production and the only response she's gotten is that it's "some kind of SR-25 variant". Spartan198 10:28, 9 March 2012 (CST)

Could it possibly be the SEAL's personally built rifle? Its not completely impossible for him to not have built a custom rifle for marksmanship duty. Afterfall, he is a SEAL and he would want a gun he would be comfortable. -The Winchester

It isn't at all unlikely that it is a rifle he put together himself. It's not uncommon for anyone is Special Operations to take different parts from multiple weapons and put them together to make one complete weapon. Puppet.of.fate 21:53, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Watched the movie last night and the sniper rifle appears to be... KNIGHT'S ARMAMENT M-110 SASS (Semi-Automatic Sniper System) [1]- nice piece of kit...but had its issues in the field. --The Rapscallion 14:22, 2 April 2012 (CDT)

No, it's not an M110. Spartan198 18:10, 2 April 2012 (CDT)

-> I think I found it: = its 7.62/.308 = it has a solid M16 style stock = it has a fixed front sight = and has rail foregrip. As per mi findings, it matches with the "Panther™ .308 Classic / Model: RFLR-C with 4 rail free float handguard upgrade". Pictures here [2]. What do you think?-JavierMdR

I'm thinking we might have a winner. The vent holes in the rail systems definitely match. Spartan198 16:24, 10 April 2012 (CDT)

-> Here [3] another picture with a better look. It is also coded as "380 TAC20".

-> Im sorry, but this is a normal SR-25 with an 4-side attachable picatinny rail, 20rnd magazine, bipod, a 12x Scope and a 7,62x51mm (.300 Remington)Silencer

Its not a SR-25. SR-25s do not come with a fixed front sight or a carry handle.

Actually, just as an FYI, KAC does (or at least did at one point) make a carry handle/rear sight unit for the SR-25.[4] Doesn't change the ID of the rifle, though. Spartan198 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

Live Fire

Apparently this film is gonna use live fire,which is an extreme rarity for films. Gonna be interesting to see though

I don't believe this for a second as live ammunition is pretty much prohibited from a film set unless it's in a 100% locked down and closed environment. --cool-breeze 20:52, 23 December 2011 (CST)

I wouldn't be so sure, if you watch the trailer the miniguns on the boats are spewing out regular empty brass rather than fired blanks. --commando552 21:11, 23 December 2011 (CST)

See those look like blanks to me, and that one shot is a close up so it could have been shot on a locked down location, film editing is a clever thing ;)--cool-breeze 22:18, 23 December 2011 (CST)

According to BLACKFIVE.net, it's nearly all live ammo. He saw a screening of it, talks about it here ( http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/10/update-act-of-valor.html ). RC 5213

Nearly all being the key word, i doubt any of the shots with anything other than the actual seals in the film where live fire and I doubt any of the actors used live fire. scarecrow 00:33, 25 December 2011 (CST)

I still doubt that it was live ammo, it just seems so implausible that it would be allowed, what if one of the bullets ricocheted, missed the target, etc. It seems like an absolutely unnecessary risk to use live ammo. --cool-breeze 04:16, 25 December 2011 (CST)

thats the whole idea of franagle ammunation scarecrow 23:32, 3 January 2012 (CST)

Pretty sure it would just be the SEALs using live ammo, the actors are probably using blanks. Yes it is dangerous, but the SEALs are trained to be excellent shooters so I can believe it. Bristow8411 14:30, 25 December 2011 (CST)

But like you say it's dangerous and seems like a stupid risk to me. --cool-breeze 18:09, 25 December 2011 (CST)

The film was shot during various SEAL training exercises and uses them as action set pieces, so it is possible that is what the article is referring to. --Markit 22:20, 26 December 2011 (CST)

Yea, if i remember correctly this was originaly made to be a recruiting video for the SEAL's that turned into a film.scarecrow 23:33, 3 January 2012 (CST)

My understanding from this featurette is that the live fire was done how the live fire in Miami Vice (2006) was done. Shoot the shit out of whatever you want shot, then add any people you need in the scene after. --Crazycrankle 06:58, 14 January 2012 (CST)

[5] The making of video shows that they used both blanks and Live Fire.

Just my two cents, I thought the movie was lame, but one thing I did notice was how realistic some of the weapons' firing sounded, so it doesn't surprise me that some of the shooting was live-fire. I would say any live-fire shooting was being done by the SEALs since it was only the M4s firing that sounded real. Most of the pistol shooting and ALL of the AK-47 shooting sounded fake. Travestytrav 01:09, 29 February 2012 (CST)

Live fire was definitely used in some (or all) the miniguns on the river boats. In a flyover shot, you can see the barrels get red hot on the miniguns, I doubt that can happen with blanks, as it is the friction of the bullets going down the barrels that causes the barrels to get red hot. I'm pretty sure if it was just blanks, the gases don't hang around long enough to warm up the barrel that much.

Not only that, but the tracers are visible. Filmmakers did themselves a treat using the live-firing opportunity to get good daylight tracer shots. --Joffeloff (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

The sound effects were added in post production, those were not recorded live. --cool-breeze 16:21, 23 April 2012 (CDT)

Something clearly wrong with the front sight.

[[6]] Is it just me or there is some kind of "solid" front sight? Or,could it be just water? Littlesoldier1 18:03, 26 February 2012 (CST)

Looks like just water to me. Spartan198 18:29, 26 February 2012 (CST)

Something looks wrong to me. The front sight would block out anything you would see through the scope. Survivalkid21

Well, you've gotta remember he just emerged river water. It's very possible a bit of floating mud or debris could have lodged in there. Still, looks like just water to me. Spartan198 07:15, 22 August 2012 (CDT)

Actually, I meant the front iron sight. Looks like it would block and view through the scope. Suvivalkid21

No, the reticle in an optic is typically adjusted to sit just above the FSB's sight needle (or whatever that little post that serves as the actual front sight is called, I can't remember) like this[7], although some will co-witness them exactly[8] out of personal preference. I myself prefer the former. Spartan198 (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

Guns

I think I saw a M933 or Mk18 on the yacht, though it may have just been a M4. Also, a gunman in one of the trucks seemed to have a Beretta M12 or Walther MPL/MPK, any ideas? A few bad guys had pistols, but I couldb't see them well.--Mandolin 20:32, 28 February 2012 (CST)

I've seen that MPL and I'm going to screencap it tomorrow.Rockwolf66 (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

I thought I'd saw a Mark 18, too, but it didn't appear anywhere else, so I presumed it to be just another M4. Spartan198 01:34, 1 March 2012 (CST)

This website as a photo of SEALs with Mark 18s and as far as I can tell this is the only time they are used in the movie.

http://www.filmofilia.com/act-of-valor-tv-spot-87064/

Likely an M4A1 CQBR rather than a Mark 18 (contrary to popular belief, they aren't the same thing). The Mark 18 is built on an M16A1 lower, while the lower on at least 1 of these carbines appears to be A2-style. Spartan198 18:16, 2 April 2012 (CDT)

Um, I doubt the intel is right Spartan. According to Wikipedia the the M4 CQBR is a M4 Close Quarter Battle upper Receiver, so you could put it on a just about any AR-15 patterned lower reciever. - Wantabe_Warrior38

I think he is mostly correct. A CQBR rifle will be built by swapping out the current upper for the short one, and in most cases the donor rifle will have an A2 lower (for example an M4A1). Mk. 18s that are assembled as complete rifles by NSWC Crane where they have tended to use A1 lower receivers (although I don't know if 100% of them are A1 lowers). I always assumed that the source of these A1 lowers was from the old M16A2E3/M16A3s that the Navy had before being replaced with the new M16A3, which were an M16A2 upper on an A1 lower receiver. It is true that you could put a CQBR on an A1 lower, but in real life you would generally only see it on an A2 lower. --commando552 19:09, 25 May 2012 (CDT)

I think I was confusing M16s with M16a1s (thinking of mag release fencing, etc, and by accident, lack of forward assist and brass deflector. I know, I know, the last 2 are on the replaced upper, but my mind jumped and left knowledge behind) so I was a little shocked when I read Spartan's comment, but now that I think about it; and could somebody confirm or deny this, the only difference between an a1 and a2 lower receiver is the trigger group/fire modes, so it shouldn't be odd to use an a1 lower for a Mk.18. - Wantabe_Warrior38

I haven't seen the movie and there are no screen caps of the gun in question so I can't say what lowers they actually are, but there is a difference between a full auto A2 lower (as in M4A1) and a full auto A1 lower.

A1 lower

A2 lower

If you compare the two pictures above you can see that there are a couple of structural differences, such as the reinforcing around the picot pin making the top of the front of the mag well curved rather than square, and the reinforcement at the rear push pin. Generally you would also have selector markings on the right side of a Colt A2 lower, but the one in this picture is made by another company. The pistol grip design will also be different if it is an A1 lower, but don't know if this is changed during the Mk. 18 upgrade. I think for the new Mk. 18 mod 0 they use a new M4A1 type lower, only reason they used A1 lowers on the original Mk. 18 is that they had them laying around and wanted to use them rather than buying new. --commando552 04:54, 26 May 2012 (CDT)

Thanks, for showing that to me, I had no Idea of the reinforcing at those areas, and going from MY SMALL pool of knowledge (ie. reading an airsoft forum full of people who have done, from what I can tell, lots of research into this stuff. It's their research and the knowledge I've gained from it) Mk.18 Mod.0 don't have the finger shelf (like on the grip in the picture of the a2 lower), but the Mod.1/SOPMOD block II (sorry if they are different things) might of added different options for the rifles, like the Magpul MIAD pistol grip. - Wantabe_Warrior38

Pistol grips can be easily swapped out, Warrior. But as far as I can find out, the "Mark 18 Mod 1" designation stems from misidentifying Block II M4A1 CQBRs (KAC rails replaced with DD rails, among other small changes) as Mark 18s. I haven't so far found anything to indicate any of the units that use Mark 18s are having their rail systems swapped out or otherwise being upgraded to a supposed Mod 1 standard. Not saying it isn't necessarily happening, just that I haven't heard or read anything about it. Spartan198 02:13, 27 May 2012 (CDT)

Mk 24 Mod 0

Isn't the P226 used by the Navy SEALs actually designated the Mk 25 Mod 0, or is this just a marketing ploy by SIG to have a Navy like designation for their civilian version, [[9]]. --SmithandWesson36 15:43, 3 June 2012 (CDT)

I'm pretty sure the actual issued weapon is the Mk.24, and the Mk25 name is just something SIG made up. Note that the page never actually says the Mk.25 is the Navy issue pistol. The Wierd It 15:54, 3 June 2012 (CDT)

Okay thanks, I thought that might be the case, but this is what actually made me question the designation:[[10]]. --SmithandWesson36 19:00, 3 June 2012 (CDT)

If any pistol has the Mark 25 designation, it's probably the HK45C, since it would have been procured (back in 09 or 10, I believe) before these new SIGs. I'm not 100% sure, though. I'll probably do a little sleuthing on the matter out of my own general interest. Spartan198 05:00, 25 August 2012 (CDT)

Regardless of what the Navy designates its weapons in real life, the prop weapon seen in the movie is an older-model civilian 226 (one of the German-manufactured pistols with a mandrel-stamped slide). We should not use the Mark 24 Mod 0 designation on this page since it does not reflect what type of weapon was used on-set and appears in the film (kinda like the way that all "Beretta M9s" used in Hollywood are actually civilian 92Fs standing in for the M9). -MT2008 14:02, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

Good call MT! Should we perhaps mention this discrepancy on the main page itself? I think it is particularly interesting since these are active duty SEALs. --Zackmann08 16:18, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

Bear in mind that theatrical guns are specially modified to cycle blanks, so the majority of the guns in the film will not be actual SEAL weapons but rather guns provided by a movie armourer. --commando552 17:09, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

They used live ammo for the movie. However, it is still doubtful that the SEALs would use their personal firearms.----JazzBlackBelt-- 17:26, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

Except that as has been discussed, many of the scenes used live ammo... --Zackmann08 17:28, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

I haven't seen it yet, but I highly doubt that any scenes involving CQB will be using live ammunition so there will have still been blank firearms used for a lot of the film. I think the majority of live firing is for stuff like the miniguns. For example, I'm pretty sure Navy SEALs wouldn't be using a civilian DPMS rifle in real life, but that is in the film. --commando552 17:44, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

Majority? From what I could tell the only scene with live fire in was the scene with the mini guns on the boat. Everything else looks like blanks to me. I do not believe for one second they used live fire in the CQB scenes, and if they did then they are absolute idiots. --cool-breeze 18:55, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

That was the entire point of the movie... They're not idiots. They are actual Navy SEALs. The SEALs train with live ammo so this was basically a documentary. In the articles and Behind the Scenes footage they say that its all live ammo. The NON-SEALs use blanks and for a scene where one guy shoots another in the same camera shot its a blank. But you have to remember, with editing you don't know what they were actually shooting at. You see them fire a shot, then cut to a different angle of the guy getting hit... --Zackmann08 19:00, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

You are correct that SEALs train with live ammunition, but what they are very unlikely to do is fire live ammunition from small arms in a tight environment when there are large numbers of civillian actors and film crew running around. The SEALs can trust themselves when they are doing live fire excercise, but I doubt they will trust untrained civilians not to get in the way. If nothing else I'm pretty sure there would be insurance issues. There was live firing in the film, but it would have only been for tightly controlled "set pieces" like the miniguns on the boats. There is a featurette about the live firing in this film and the only scene they show with live fire is the minigun scene. --commando552 19:29, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

Actually, they showed quite a number of other scenes in that documentary that had live fire. The crew isn't going to be stupid enough to stand in front of live firing, but they might position a camera there. The SEALs run training exercises with live ammo, so CQB scenarios with live ammo would be nothing new for them. Obviously they aren't going to give an actor a live firing weapon, but the SEALs know what they are doing.----JazzBlackBelt-- 20:03, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

My point is not that CQB live firing would be new for the SEALs, but it would not be a situation where they would put a whole film crew in the middle of it. Which other scenes do you think were in that feature where they were using live fire? The only "behind the scenes" stuff that wasn't just random clips from the film was the guy shooting from next to the car, and I doubt that is live fire as if nothing else both the actual cameraman and particularly the behind the scenes cameraman are in unsafe positions and nobody is wearing any form of ballistic protection (I think the sheet and face mask on the cameraman will be to protect him from cases, debris and muzzle flash only). If nothing else, what benefit do you think they are getting of filming live fire with M4s? They aren't using tracers, the report of the gun will be dubbed, and you can't show the effect on target as the target is a man so as far as I can tell there would be no benefit for ridiculously more risk. This isn't a documentary where there is a crew of a few guys who have signed a waiver, this is a professional film crew with dozens of people on set (if nothing else the unions would probably throw a fit). --commando552 20:18, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

Anyone believing that the SEALs used live ammo in every sequence in this film is seriously dumb, I'm sorry but when you are seeing them in close quarters shooting towards people they are not going to be using live ammo, SEALs are not trained to miss they are trained to instinctively shoot to kill, so what if by accident a SEALs instinct takes over and he puts a round through an actor's head? --cool-breeze 05:52, 12 June 2012 (CDT)

Through the magic of film editing, they are NOT actually shooting at people. I don't know what place the CQB scenes take place in (i.e. wood walls, drywall, cement) but if they could pull it off without fear of ricochets they probably used live ammo. I'm not saying that every scene used live ammo, but the vast majority did. I read an article that talked about then using live ammo throughout the entire San Clemente Island sequence in addition to the minigun sequence, but as I haven't seen the movie yet I don't know what that entails.----JazzBlackBelt-- 12:28, 12 June 2012 (CDT)

I have no idea where you guys read that EVERY scene using the SEALs uses live ammo, but I doubt it's true of the CQB scenes. You can tell by observing the M4s themselves: The M4s used in the scene have (1.) M16A1-style flash hiders (as we have explained on the M16 page, this is something that movie armorers tend to do because cinematographers prefer the "starburst" flash pattern of the A1 flash hider to that generated by the current generation flash hiders), and (2.) they generate huge muzzle flashes (something you'll see with Hollywood blanks, but not live ammo). These observations suggest that the M4s are blank-adapted movie guns, not unconverted weapons firing live ammo. And logically, CQB seems far too dangerous to use live ammo, even for trained SEALs. It would be one thing for them to do it if they were in an exercise, but we're talking about a movie set, where there are too many civilians (including the cameramen) around. Also, any shot where you see them firing and the camera is ahead of them will definitely NOT use live ammo (and there are many such shots during the final scene). -MT2008 13:36, 12 June 2012 (CDT)

Salute

The gunfire salute at the funeral is a 3-volley salute, not 21-gun. Only the President of the United States gets 21 guns. Military funerals have 3 volleys, with any number of weapons. --Mandolin 23:16, 4 June 2012 (CDT)

That was my mistake. I accidentally reverted that edit when I added all the images. Long story short I was editing the text in an external editor and then just copied and pasted it over. You are, of course, correct. --Zackmann08 23:52, 4 June 2012 (CDT)

Sniper rifle in the helicopter going to Mexico

Did anyone see this one? There's a brief scene of Weimy sitting behind an FDE-colored sniper rifle in the helo on their way to Mexico. Profile, to me, suggests an M110 or Mark 11 Mod 2 (both basically the same rifle except for receiver markings), but I can't quite make it out. It's only seen in that one scene. Spartan198 07:13, 22 August 2012 (CDT)

I think the rifle might actually be a McMillan Tac-50 judging by the size of the bore which you can see for a spit second and it would make sense because the SEALs use the Tac-50.

No, I don't think it's a TAC-50. It had a quad rail handguard and what appeared to be a railed gas block, which aren't features of the TAC-50. Spartan198 04:35, 27 August 2012 (CDT)

Okay, it's been way too long since I brought this up. There's now a screencap of the rifle in question on the page and I'm fairly sure it's an M110 or Mk 11 Mod 2 (as I said above, both are basically the same rifle aside from receiver markings). Question is, what should I label it, M110 or Mk 11 Mod 2? It's M110 for right now, but I'm leaning toward changing it to Mk 11 Mod 2 due to these guys being SEALs. Spartan198 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

Are you sure those are HK91s?

I think I see the paddle release in those pictures.

P226 Rails

I guess I'd better qualify what I said about not all NSWC issue SIGs having rails before some mall ninja jumps down my throat saying they do because SpecOps always have the most tacticool kit possible. To prove my point, here's a real SEAL with his SIG drawn in 2012. See anything missing from the pistol? The Wierd It (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

RPG Warhead Markings

With all the realism in this movie, weapons wise at any rate, the only thing that has bugged me was the markings on the RPG warheads. It was like the guys making the movie wanted to emphasize that..."hey...these things are dangerous". --Charon68 (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2015 (EDT)