Talk:Lord of War

I just saw this movie again yesterday, there was no Steyr AUG in his container, it was a golden Hungarian AMD-65. - Flying Dane

Actually, it wasn't a gold AMD-65, it was a nickel-plated Chinese Type-56 with ivory furniture and a Romanian-style folding grip. It's the same gun used in Belly. I had a picture of the gun on my Belly page when it still existed (before the server crash), but the picture of that gun is here: http://www.weaponspecialists.com/insiteTemplate.php?includeWhat=propView&id=160&category=&primaryCategory=ter&refID=20&cf=bpic

Orca, it is actually a MP5A4, i can see by the trigger group. The trigger groups of the MP5A2 and the MP5A4 are different. - Flying Dane

AKS74U

I don't think it's a 74u. the barrel seems too long and it doesn't have a triangular side folding stock (though that's not exactly definite). At the same time, the front sight and the flash hider look right. Plus, not to mention it's gold plated and the furniture looks strange to me. I think it looks more like an AKMS. Ah well, anybody see any of these things or am I just tired?

It's probably a custom weapon that was assembled just for the film by the armorers. It is obviously not a 74U because that is a 7.62x39mm magazine (older style, before the ribbed versions), it has an East German-style side-folding stock, and a short barrel (AKMSU-style). You have to keep in mind that AKs can't all be classified so neatly (many countries have built their own versions, some of which are very different from the original Russian-made guns), which is one of the problems with this site. The best description I can give would be "custom-built Kalashnikov".

Poster Change

Is this poster better? - Gunmaster45

Eh, not sure. I happen to prefer the older one just because it's a more creative design. But that's just me. -MT2008

I just don't like it because it's a white poster, and the site's white background blend wierd and it looks ugly. But that's just me. - Gunmaster45

The fact that the image has a border around it cancels that out in my opinion. I think the first poster is better, the above poster is so very generic and not nearly as interesting. --MattyDienhoff 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MT, the other one is more creative and way cooler. Spartan198 04:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Micro-Uzi

On the section about the Micro-Uzi, it says that it's unrealistic since it was first introduced in 1983. As far as I know, it was actually introduced in 1982, as it says on wikipedia and most sources I can find. Also many films as far back as 1985 show their useage (Invasion USA and Commando), so I doubt they were only known about for a couple of years before being so popular in civilian culture as to be placed in films. Infact I even doubt the 1982 introduction date, as Israel and weapon secrecy seem to go hand-in-hand as well. -Tec-9

The civilian version of the Micro Uzi (which is what you see in most American movies, including this one) was introduced to the American market in 1983. So, it would not have been around in 1982. As far as their appearances in mid-80s movies, that is actually common in Hollywood. The Desert Eagle was introduced in 1984 and shown immediately afterwards in Year of the Dragon and Commando, both of which came out in 1985. A more extreme example that I documented was RoboCop 2, which features the SIG-Sauer P228 even though the P228 was introduced in 1990 (the same year that the movie came out). -MT2008

That explains it then - sorry about the edit then, feel free to revert it back. Thanks for the explanation too man - but just wondering whats the difference with the civilian version of the micro-uzi? Do you mean the semi-auto uzi pistol? Also I am getting loads of conflicting sources - when was the Micro-Uzi first made, I got another source from the manufacturers that suggest it started in the 1990's as well! Thanks. -Tec-9

Changed back the edit I done to how it was like before, saying that it is indeed unrealistic in 1982. :) -Tec-9

Maybe you should consider that Yuri's contact at the synagogue (where he obtained the guns) may not be much of a civilian at all and therefore have access to military equipment directly from Israel.

Unknow AR-15

I'd say CQBR, but thats Navy SEAL only, but on the Bourne Identity page, the M16s that the Marines are using are actually Bushmasters. I'll look up more and get back to you. The Winchester

The receiver is the wrong style for CQBR, and not all ARs with 10" barrels match that type, anyway. -MT2008

Like i said: CQBRs are only for SEALs. Its gotta be a custom piece. No forward assist or shell deflector and a 10 inch barrel. -The Winchester

It could be custom, i look in the net several images of SBR AR-15. -Dillinger

The 1911 entry looks more like a Hi-Power to me.

typo

"This particular Chinese Type 56 has the ribbed top cover of an Russian (or licensed third party) AKM - the Chinese AKs have smooth top covers."

"...of an Russian..."

Thanks for the correction, but...it's perfectly fine if you make it yourself. -MT2008 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Special Edition DVD errors

Someone want to go through the second disc of the Special Edition DVD and make a list of all the factual errors in the history/specs for the weapons? Saw it at a friends house - it lists the M16 as a belt-fed 7.62mm rifle with an effective range of 1100 meters...

-Seriously? Now I gotta see this feature Excalibur01 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Busted AR-15?

The Closeup of the AR-15 in the weapons pile looks like its missing its bolt catch and its upper reciever looks bulged, Am I right?

I do believe you might be correct. Spartan198 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is actually a rubber moulded prop gun, the catch was missing from the replica used to make the mould.

Customized Saiga

It says that the trigger was moved forward but this is normal for converting a Saiga to a pistol grip, did he somehow move it farther or is it just saying one of the results of converting a Saiga?--FIVETWOSEVEN 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving guns vs buying new ones.

In the movie, when Yuri is selling the guns in Lebanon, he says that it is cheaper for the U.S. government to buy new ones then ship the ones used back. Is this true? Seems wasteful to me. --Gunkatas 00:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing when I saw it. This can't possibly be true, can it? The History Channel did a program on Anniston Army Depot, and while most of the work they do there is on vehicles, they also refurbish small arms, and destroy whatever is too worn out to refurbish. And the thought of rebels, freedom fighters, or death squads armed with former American weapons on the nightly news would be much to embarrassing to the government. --funkychinaman 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the U.S. generally doesn't take its munitions (especially costly, high-tech systems that the U.S. doesn't want its enemies to take apart and investigate), but it is true that sometimes, given the time constraints and costs, they aren't able to bring everything back. There are hundreds of thousands of U.S. military-issue small arms floating around Southeast Asia due to the Vietnam War, many of which have been used by various insurgencies, drug trafficking groups, and pirates in the region. Also, during the 1970s and 1980s, the Vietnamese government had a working arrangement with Cuba where they would ship U.S. military weapons to South America so that leftist guerrillas (including FARC) could use them, and the communist governments could deny responsibility. -MT2008 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But Vietnam was an exception though. We left not only small arms, but tanks and aircraft, for South Vietnam, and then all that got picked up by the communists. But the list of US allies who were overrun is a very short one. --funkychinaman 02:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard from some now ex-servicemen that after exercises in Northern Australian, the US troops involved were throwing weapons over the side as they were boarding their ships.

That sounds like a tall tale (i.e. bullshit) from training. If there's any truth at all, it's likely from USN personnel tossing ARVN small arms (and choppers) off US Navy ships during the Fall of Saigon. --Maxman (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2016 (EDT)

There is some truth, but it's far from what's claimed here. The US does occasionally leave heavy equipment like MRAPs and APCs behind, which often do cost more to ship back to the US than they did to purchase. However, those are almost invariably "gifted" to local governments, not simply abandoned. --Maxman (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2016 (EDT) After Desert Storm, three ships returned filled with unused ammunition. --Maxman (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2019 (EDT)

Unidentified Handgun

Looks like a Beretta 92 Non Gun. I think it looks like a Browning BDM --Taurus96 20:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

I'm pretty certain it's a non-gun Beretta. Compare the image below to the weapon in the screenshot.

Non-gun Beretta 92FS

Notice the position of the muzzle low on the front of the slide and the stepped trigger guard, both of which match that in the screenshot. Orca1 9904 05:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I stand corrected --Taurus96 10:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

airsoft gun?

does anyone else notice the airsoft gun in the pile of m16a2's

No, but now that I take a closer look, I do see some G3s and AKs mixed in among the AR-15s/M16s. Spartan198 02:44, 9 April 2011 (CDT)

Most of the weapons in the pile are half moulded vacum formed dummies, they were no airsofts used for this scene, in fact the only airsofts were the MP5's and the MP5K. Closer to camera wrer hard rubber moulds with the occasional real weapon for extreme close ups.

The handgun used in the resturant was a Star 9mm model B, the same one used in Flight of the Phoenix, it is fully practical and is made to look like a Colt 1911.

if you look down in the bottom right corner there is a see through gun

I don't know if this is already solved ( I guess it is) but I have to say I never saw there a see-through just dusty ARs as it would be in real life when you would stash them away this way. -DAN11 (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2013 (EST)

AR-15

But on the subject of AR-15s, shouldn't the AR-15A2 in the last screencap be under its own entry rather than lumped into the M16A2 entry? Spartan198 02:44, 9 April 2011 (CDT)

AR-15/M16A2?

Given the time period, should the pile of ARs in Lebanon instead be A1-spec? --Maxman (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2016 (EDT)

They should - Though the M16A2 was introduced around that time (and thus not technically anachronistic) it wouldn't really be adopted/fielded for a few years yet. (The HBAR is anachronistic, but that's kinda another thing). StanTheMan (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

About the comment made in the film that the US military just leaves their entire arsenal in the warzones they've deployed to...how much of that is actually true? I find it kinda weird that the US military just leaves tons and tons of piles of perfectly working rifles to the local population when they leave. Excalibur01 (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

See above. StanTheMan (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

Totally false. --Maxman (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (EDT)

The Lebanese firing squad's sole M16 looks like a Changqing M311, its ribbed handguard seems to straight compared to the sample picture A2's.--Teslashark (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

Well there's two ARs used in the shot, the other is just at the other end of the squad. Anyway, that's possible, especially given the M311 appears elsewhere in the film. That said, it could also just be a rifle with the 'faux' A2 handguards. Not really sure one way or the other myself. StanTheMan (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

I think that the M16 held by the Phalange militaman in Lebanon is an -A1 with the Lone Star Ordnance replica M16A2 hand guards (also seen in movies such as Predator). It doesn't look like a Norinco 311; otherwise, the hand guards would have deep finger grooves. -MT2008 (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2018 (EDT)