Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

The Gun Nut Takes Aim At Shooter

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

April 05, 2007

The Gun Nut Takes Aim At Shooter

By David E. Petzal and Phil Bourjaily

The movie, that is. Starring Mark Wahlberg as retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant and scout/sniper Bob Lee Swagger.  Since the non-shooting public gets most of its information on guns from films like this, I figured why not go see it and look for all its little glitches and miscues.

Before Shooter came onscreen, I was forced to sit through trailers for six new films that seemed to consist mostly of car crashes. I remember a time when trailers were mostly Indians being shot off horses, or closeups of Clark Gable trying to get his tongue around Lana Turner’s tonsils. But now it’s car crashes. Anyway…

*In the first scene, Gunny Swagger and his spotter are about to shoot at bad guys and the spotter is calling off distances in yards. The military has been metric since the 1960s.

*A few minutes later, Gunny Swagger shoots down a helicopter with a .50 BMG rifle, cranking off a dozen shots or so with no hearing protection. In real life, he would never hear anything again. Ever.

*Gunny Bob Lee (now Ret.) takes a shot at a can of Dinty Moore Beef Stew at 2000 yards with his .50 BMG bolt-action. He is now wearing earmuffs, but his massive, beer-drinking dog is lying alongside the rifle only a few yards away. In real life, at the pull of the trigger, the dog would run off in 50-foot bounds, emitting howls of agony at every leap. What the Gunny has against Dinty Moore is not explained.

* To save the life of an FBI agent, the Gunny shoots four bad guys in the head with a .22 rimfire at 200 yards from offhand while standing in a rowboat on a river.

* The FBI agent had been fitted with a prosthetic device—an arm brace--designed to force him to shoot himself in the head. There might be a market for something like this in the real world.

* Kate Mara, an extremely hot babe who plays Sarah Fenn, the heroine of the film, shoots one of the bad guys with a Beretta M92 which has been taken, unfired, from another villain. The slide locks open after only 4 shots. Why did the bad guy load only 4 rounds in a magazine that holds 17?

* At the end of the film, Ret. Gunny Bob Lee proves his innocence by revealing that he has swapped the firing pins in all his rifles, rendering them inert. Do I have to comment on this?

Best line in the film: Bob Lee says, “I’m just a redneck peckerwood who lives alone with too many guns.”

Go see it.  It’s a lot of fun and, as I said, Kate Mara is some hottie.

Comments (35)

Top Rated
All Comments
from 60sdude wrote 6 years 16 weeks ago

The rifle swagger shot down the helicopter down in etheopia with was a 50 caliber barrett m107. The rifle has a muzzle break which reduces the sound substantially. Normally a sniper would have ear plugs in the are not visible because of the ghillie suit he is wearing.The bottle silencer would have silenced the 22 rifle for the first shot but after that the bullet would go through the same hole as the shot before. The blet would slow down but may stil be supersonic thus making a sound.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Blueridge wrote 6 years 21 weeks ago

This movie, like all movies, is meant to be entertainment for normal people (read: "non-gun-geeks).You forgot to point out the two most glaring breaks with reality in this film: That the redneck, peckerwood, gun-queer actually gets laid; and that the peckerwood's girlfriend is a non-smoking, childless, tattoo-less, home-owning hottie.Now THAT'S unbelievable.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brandon wrote 6 years 44 weeks ago

hmmm, it sure looks like a barrett m82a1, in .50 bmg. If the movie wanted to stay accruate at all the screen on the remote system displayed the name m82a1 for the gun that took the shot "at the president". The big bore rifle from the opening scene is a Barrett model 99 it comes in barret .416 or .50 bmg. I have shot a rifle like this in .50 bmg and with the new muzzle break the noise to the shooter is minimal, similar to a 16" AR. Granted you wouldn't want to shoot either without proper hearing protection.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ED wrote 6 years 44 weeks ago

Does anyone know what kind of rifle Swaggert was using with the silencer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg wrote 6 years 44 weeks ago

I would also love to have the scope that would make the can he shot at, appear that big at a distance of 1700 meters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joe Berger wrote 6 years 45 weeks ago

Olli is correct, it is a CheyTac Intervention and is part of the M200 weapon system in .408. This is probably the most sophisticated Long Range Rifle System in the world. It has Balanced FlightTM technology allowing the bullet to remain accurate while traveling from supersonic to transsonic to subsonic speeds. The individual rounds are CNC machined and from 400 yards outward have higher kinetic energy than the .50. Also due to bullet flight stability the weapon is accurate to 2500 yards when used with the computer software for calculating the variables (the whole system even has a wind speed device). By comparison the standard .50 is only accurate to about 1700 yards when the bullet slows to transsonic speeds and loses stability and accuracy. This weapon also has advanced muzzle break that reduces the noise and with full suppression can be fired without hearing protection - though I have to agree that no dog would lie next to its master while it is fired (unless its a deaf pooch from too many previous shots).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Olli wrote 6 years 49 weeks ago

"Gunny Bob Lee (now Ret.) takes a shot at a can of Dinty Moore Beef Stew at 2000 yards with his .50BMG bolt-action. He is now wearing earmuffs, but his massive, beer-drinking dog is lying alongside the rifle only a few yards away".It's .408 CheyTac not .50BMG

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joe Berger wrote 6 years 49 weeks ago

There are a number of other inaccuracies such as flight times of bullets and I give you this quote:The current record for longest range sniper kill is held by Corporal Rob Furlong - a Canadian sniper belonging to the 3rd Battalion Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI). He made a kill at a range of 2430m during the "intervention" in Afghanistan 2002 with a .50 McMillan bolt action rifle. The bullet dropped 46 meters and had a flight time of ~4 seconds.For more analysis of Shooter movie errors see project-sniper.blogspot.com

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Mark Wahlberg isn't the first actor to be anti-gun while profiting from a gun movie. Sly Stallone was there earlier, and the stars of the "Lethal Weapon" series came later. Lethal Weapon is so antigun it could have been made by Walt Disney himself, and yet the series raked in money by the ton.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Eric at Gunsite wrote 7 years 1 week ago

Dave,The film started me smiling when someone--it might have been the former Calvin Klein underwear model--picked up a radio and said "Do you read? Repeat: Do you read?"I liked the chick, though. Beautiful brown eyes, and very well set-up upstairs. Certainly wouldn't boot her out of bed for eating Saltines. Plus, I suspect she can shoot a scattergun at least as effectively as Phil Bourjailly. Up close, anyway.As for the public, I'm thinking the less they know, the better.Terrible things are coming. Let's all relax for a bit in the meantime.E.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from josh wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Dave,WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE HARDWARE STORE SHOPPING SPREE THAT SWAGGER GOES ON TO MAKE HIS BOMBS? ONE FLAW YOU FORGOT TO MENTION IS THE POP BOTTLE SILENCER THEY KEPT USING. SURE THEY WORK BUT NOT AS WELL AS WAS DEPICTED IN THE MOVIE.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JA Demko wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

The movie isn't about guns and shooting. The movie, from what I've read about the plot, is a fairly standard paranoid thriller. The main character could just as easily be a code breaker, or a computer expert, or other technoid and_with only minor tweaking of the script_ get caught up in the exact same series of conspiracy-driven events. Truckloads of similar crappy novels and scripts are written every year. The main character's mad skillz are no more than a reasonably plausible way to put him afoul of the conspirators.Have you noted how the more the hardware becomes the focus, the more sucktastic the movie gets? Look at the Dirty Harry movies. The first is a simply outstanding movie and the fabled .44 magnum is actually of pretty minor importance. Each sequel focused more on Harry's weaponry and each sucked more than the last. The Death Wish series is an even more egregious example.Skip the gunporn. Look for movies that develop characters through something more than what a big gun he carries.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NobodySpecial wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

To JA: But if the movie is expressly ABOUT guns and shooting, shouldn't they get the facts right? I haven't seen too many movies about entomology in which the directors get their bugs wrong ....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JA Demko wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I think I'll pass on this flick. Hardware porn bores me, whether it's gunporn like this movie, or carporn like the Fast and Furious movies or jetporn or ...well, you get the idea.No matter what a given movie is about, if it has anything of a technical nature in it, people who know about that field will immediately start carping about the errors. The readers of this blog are gun enthusiasts so you key in on gun errors. Movies are laden with plenty of other errors you don't notice because you aren't an entomologist or an Egyptologist or an electrical engineer. Script writers can't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every field and, though they can and should do some fact checking, their primary goal is to write a commercially viable and entertaining script. Even if the script started out technically perfect, by the time it went through umpteen re-writes and several committees of writers, errors would surely creep in. Expecting realism in a Mark Wahlberg action movie is like expecting realism in a Peter North action movie.So, I avoid movies where the hero's gun becomes the focus.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ford wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

that was surprisingly kind for a petzal review

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BIRDdwn wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Lets not forget the greasted exception to the all actors are commies list. Reagan!!! It just doesnt get any better and dave are you saying you cant hit four targets with a .22 rimfire at 200 yards from offhand while standing in a rowboat on a river? ive must have done that atleast 15 times.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roger Reeves wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Who has time to go to the Movie these days with so much good hollywood stuff on this Blog. Tis a shame no good Wester movies such as Open Range being produced in Hollywood these stressful days. Appears we to busy bashing what some writers think, or comment about a certain gun . Sure not a free-press world now. If all don;t agree with your comments, you dead meat.RER

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ed wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Well if he shot a dinty moore can at 1800 meters, he must have been using HE ammo

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Another bogus Hollywood sniper movie..I can't wait to see it!"Enemy at the Gates" was one movie done right for a change;including the hot babe; you know she's hot when she looks good a WWII soviet uniform!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim Kiser wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Read this while watching Mythbusters on the discovery channel show how fake hooeywood is when it comes to Firearms. Using all varieties including high powered hunting guns they could not get the dummy to move more than sevral inches and that when shot at point blank range. Considering that some of the best politicians were actors tells us alot about how they "sell their". Jim

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike O. wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Hollywood is the business of make believe period. Unfortunately most of the actors that work there have been in the business for so long that their "real life" views can be as dillusional as some of the plots in their movies. Actors are paid to lie. So why should we believe a single thing that comes out of their mouths. Most have a hidden agenda and are trying to pawn it off on the American public. They don't care if they make anti gun comments one day and then turn around and blow away countless bad dudes on the big screen the next, all the while using the same guns they so fervently oppose. The sad part is that a lot of these movies are seen by kids with lazy parents that leave teaching gun safety to characters in movies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ishawooa wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I agree with Dave concerning the movie but would like to add that all of Stephen Hunter's books make for excellent reading plus you get to meet the entire Swagger family. Almost as good as Dave's rantings...I mean writings.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Peter C wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Hollywood has always been fantasyland. Remember the old Westerns with the 20-shot Colt Single Action revolvers? It might be interesting to put together a list of screen actors who have made a living portraying gun-toting characters, but support anti-gun causes in real life (if you can call their existence real life).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from George wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Gary Busey was quoted as saying "Why listen to us actors, we lie for a living" during a recent interview. There are of course exceptions to every rule(i.e. Heston, and Seleck come to mind). Just as Wahlberg now disowns his "Mark Mark" days because he's now a "serious actor" which really means seriously overpaid. Maybe its time the Democrats in Congress should hold hearings on the pay of its Hollywood buddies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Derrek wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I just remember Wahlberg saying that Charlton Heston was evil for being the voice of the NRA because guns were destroying American society. Funny that he now did a movie about them.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dave Petzal wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

To Charles Henderson: An honor to have you on this blog, and eternal thanks for the book on Gunny Hathcock, whose bravery is almost beyond comprehension.And yes, I worry constantly about being too kind.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Skip Rood wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Dave - Got the first belly laugh of the week over your comment re the prosthetic arm. You may be right re their being a market for it. Good comments re the movie - haven;t seen it but will. I'm a big Hunter fan and have read all his stuff and understand that Lollywood (the "L" is for Liberal) has to do their thing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from A.J. wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

these guys are pretty much right dave, hollywood people don't know anything about the real world.they just make it up as they go. It's cheap entertainment for the uninformed public. "HW" doesn't understand,that to take a human life is the ultimate. I can't imange that feeling but these men and women are doing what needs to be done to ensure our freedom.I salute each and every one,and pray they come home soon.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DINFOS wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

The movie is based on the Stephen Hunter book "Point of Impact", which is much more technically correct (the author went to pretty good lengths to get the shooting science and firearm technical stuff right) than the movie. As you can imagine most of the book's plot has been dramatically changed in the film. If you are a firearms aficianado, this book and the rest in the series are great reads.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I remember one of two military comics growing up. One title I definitely recall, "Sarg'nt Fury and his Howling Commandos". These guys could shoot the prop off a German M109 with a 45 Auto. :-)Ya gotta love this stuff.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Lee Woiteshek wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Did they do the book justice? I hate to go if Hollywood destroyed this the way they've destroyed Clancy's novels.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dave M wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I saw "Shooter" this weekend with my son David, a disabled vet who served as a scout/sniper in Iraq with the 3rd Infantry in 2003. Afterward, we compared our own "glitch and miscue" lists over hot wings and a libation. My list was a bit shorter than Dave P's; David's was about 3 times as long and included tactical as well as weapons related items. Our conclusion? Hot babes, neat weapons, and lots of shooting action scenes trump details everytime. My son's only real complaint was that none of the army nurses that took care of him bore the slightest resemblance to Kate Mara.See the movie-3 gun nuts named Dave can't be wrong.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Charles Henderson wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

David, you are too kind. When I see films that make me cringe at the errors, such as those you pointed out in Shooter, I remind myself, "It's Hollywood!" What they know about real Scout Snipers, marksmanship and firearms could fill a thimble, possibly and possibly not. So I try my best to cut them some slack and enjoy the carnage. Glad you like Shooter, because when the DVD comes out, there are a bunch of us Marine Corps trigger pullers who appear in a documentary on Scout Snipers and Bob Lee Swagger's inspiration, Carlos Hathcock, that is included as "Bonus Material" with the movie. Many Marines will be buying the DVD not so much for the movie, but for the bonus documentary that includes interviews with yours truly as well as Carlos Hathcock III, Jim Land, Jack Cuddy and a few other notable folks from the real Scout Sniper world. Semper Fi, Charles Henderson, Author of Marine Sniper

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from George wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Watched "Open Range" last night for about the tenth time. Love the scene where Robert Duvall, with his back against the wall fires his double-barreled shotgun through a building at a bad guy who files across the street and crumples up against the side of the building...all without that pesky recoil problem!Let's face it, its a movie.Take it for what its worth (hot babes and guns).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Slim wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Is there much difference between a 17 rnd mag that has 4 rnds loaded and a 6 shot peacemaker that fires 9 or 10 rnds between reloads? I too remember the classic westerns of yesteryear!

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Blueridge wrote 6 years 21 weeks ago

This movie, like all movies, is meant to be entertainment for normal people (read: "non-gun-geeks).You forgot to point out the two most glaring breaks with reality in this film: That the redneck, peckerwood, gun-queer actually gets laid; and that the peckerwood's girlfriend is a non-smoking, childless, tattoo-less, home-owning hottie.Now THAT'S unbelievable.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brandon wrote 6 years 44 weeks ago

hmmm, it sure looks like a barrett m82a1, in .50 bmg. If the movie wanted to stay accruate at all the screen on the remote system displayed the name m82a1 for the gun that took the shot "at the president". The big bore rifle from the opening scene is a Barrett model 99 it comes in barret .416 or .50 bmg. I have shot a rifle like this in .50 bmg and with the new muzzle break the noise to the shooter is minimal, similar to a 16" AR. Granted you wouldn't want to shoot either without proper hearing protection.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ED wrote 6 years 44 weeks ago

Does anyone know what kind of rifle Swaggert was using with the silencer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg wrote 6 years 44 weeks ago

I would also love to have the scope that would make the can he shot at, appear that big at a distance of 1700 meters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joe Berger wrote 6 years 45 weeks ago

Olli is correct, it is a CheyTac Intervention and is part of the M200 weapon system in .408. This is probably the most sophisticated Long Range Rifle System in the world. It has Balanced FlightTM technology allowing the bullet to remain accurate while traveling from supersonic to transsonic to subsonic speeds. The individual rounds are CNC machined and from 400 yards outward have higher kinetic energy than the .50. Also due to bullet flight stability the weapon is accurate to 2500 yards when used with the computer software for calculating the variables (the whole system even has a wind speed device). By comparison the standard .50 is only accurate to about 1700 yards when the bullet slows to transsonic speeds and loses stability and accuracy. This weapon also has advanced muzzle break that reduces the noise and with full suppression can be fired without hearing protection - though I have to agree that no dog would lie next to its master while it is fired (unless its a deaf pooch from too many previous shots).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Olli wrote 6 years 49 weeks ago

"Gunny Bob Lee (now Ret.) takes a shot at a can of Dinty Moore Beef Stew at 2000 yards with his .50BMG bolt-action. He is now wearing earmuffs, but his massive, beer-drinking dog is lying alongside the rifle only a few yards away".It's .408 CheyTac not .50BMG

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joe Berger wrote 6 years 49 weeks ago

There are a number of other inaccuracies such as flight times of bullets and I give you this quote:The current record for longest range sniper kill is held by Corporal Rob Furlong - a Canadian sniper belonging to the 3rd Battalion Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI). He made a kill at a range of 2430m during the "intervention" in Afghanistan 2002 with a .50 McMillan bolt action rifle. The bullet dropped 46 meters and had a flight time of ~4 seconds.For more analysis of Shooter movie errors see project-sniper.blogspot.com

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Mark Wahlberg isn't the first actor to be anti-gun while profiting from a gun movie. Sly Stallone was there earlier, and the stars of the "Lethal Weapon" series came later. Lethal Weapon is so antigun it could have been made by Walt Disney himself, and yet the series raked in money by the ton.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Eric at Gunsite wrote 7 years 1 week ago

Dave,The film started me smiling when someone--it might have been the former Calvin Klein underwear model--picked up a radio and said "Do you read? Repeat: Do you read?"I liked the chick, though. Beautiful brown eyes, and very well set-up upstairs. Certainly wouldn't boot her out of bed for eating Saltines. Plus, I suspect she can shoot a scattergun at least as effectively as Phil Bourjailly. Up close, anyway.As for the public, I'm thinking the less they know, the better.Terrible things are coming. Let's all relax for a bit in the meantime.E.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from josh wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Dave,WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE HARDWARE STORE SHOPPING SPREE THAT SWAGGER GOES ON TO MAKE HIS BOMBS? ONE FLAW YOU FORGOT TO MENTION IS THE POP BOTTLE SILENCER THEY KEPT USING. SURE THEY WORK BUT NOT AS WELL AS WAS DEPICTED IN THE MOVIE.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JA Demko wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

The movie isn't about guns and shooting. The movie, from what I've read about the plot, is a fairly standard paranoid thriller. The main character could just as easily be a code breaker, or a computer expert, or other technoid and_with only minor tweaking of the script_ get caught up in the exact same series of conspiracy-driven events. Truckloads of similar crappy novels and scripts are written every year. The main character's mad skillz are no more than a reasonably plausible way to put him afoul of the conspirators.Have you noted how the more the hardware becomes the focus, the more sucktastic the movie gets? Look at the Dirty Harry movies. The first is a simply outstanding movie and the fabled .44 magnum is actually of pretty minor importance. Each sequel focused more on Harry's weaponry and each sucked more than the last. The Death Wish series is an even more egregious example.Skip the gunporn. Look for movies that develop characters through something more than what a big gun he carries.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NobodySpecial wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

To JA: But if the movie is expressly ABOUT guns and shooting, shouldn't they get the facts right? I haven't seen too many movies about entomology in which the directors get their bugs wrong ....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JA Demko wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I think I'll pass on this flick. Hardware porn bores me, whether it's gunporn like this movie, or carporn like the Fast and Furious movies or jetporn or ...well, you get the idea.No matter what a given movie is about, if it has anything of a technical nature in it, people who know about that field will immediately start carping about the errors. The readers of this blog are gun enthusiasts so you key in on gun errors. Movies are laden with plenty of other errors you don't notice because you aren't an entomologist or an Egyptologist or an electrical engineer. Script writers can't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every field and, though they can and should do some fact checking, their primary goal is to write a commercially viable and entertaining script. Even if the script started out technically perfect, by the time it went through umpteen re-writes and several committees of writers, errors would surely creep in. Expecting realism in a Mark Wahlberg action movie is like expecting realism in a Peter North action movie.So, I avoid movies where the hero's gun becomes the focus.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ford wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

that was surprisingly kind for a petzal review

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BIRDdwn wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Lets not forget the greasted exception to the all actors are commies list. Reagan!!! It just doesnt get any better and dave are you saying you cant hit four targets with a .22 rimfire at 200 yards from offhand while standing in a rowboat on a river? ive must have done that atleast 15 times.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roger Reeves wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Who has time to go to the Movie these days with so much good hollywood stuff on this Blog. Tis a shame no good Wester movies such as Open Range being produced in Hollywood these stressful days. Appears we to busy bashing what some writers think, or comment about a certain gun . Sure not a free-press world now. If all don;t agree with your comments, you dead meat.RER

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ed wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Well if he shot a dinty moore can at 1800 meters, he must have been using HE ammo

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Another bogus Hollywood sniper movie..I can't wait to see it!"Enemy at the Gates" was one movie done right for a change;including the hot babe; you know she's hot when she looks good a WWII soviet uniform!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim Kiser wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Read this while watching Mythbusters on the discovery channel show how fake hooeywood is when it comes to Firearms. Using all varieties including high powered hunting guns they could not get the dummy to move more than sevral inches and that when shot at point blank range. Considering that some of the best politicians were actors tells us alot about how they "sell their". Jim

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike O. wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Hollywood is the business of make believe period. Unfortunately most of the actors that work there have been in the business for so long that their "real life" views can be as dillusional as some of the plots in their movies. Actors are paid to lie. So why should we believe a single thing that comes out of their mouths. Most have a hidden agenda and are trying to pawn it off on the American public. They don't care if they make anti gun comments one day and then turn around and blow away countless bad dudes on the big screen the next, all the while using the same guns they so fervently oppose. The sad part is that a lot of these movies are seen by kids with lazy parents that leave teaching gun safety to characters in movies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ishawooa wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I agree with Dave concerning the movie but would like to add that all of Stephen Hunter's books make for excellent reading plus you get to meet the entire Swagger family. Almost as good as Dave's rantings...I mean writings.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Peter C wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Hollywood has always been fantasyland. Remember the old Westerns with the 20-shot Colt Single Action revolvers? It might be interesting to put together a list of screen actors who have made a living portraying gun-toting characters, but support anti-gun causes in real life (if you can call their existence real life).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from George wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Gary Busey was quoted as saying "Why listen to us actors, we lie for a living" during a recent interview. There are of course exceptions to every rule(i.e. Heston, and Seleck come to mind). Just as Wahlberg now disowns his "Mark Mark" days because he's now a "serious actor" which really means seriously overpaid. Maybe its time the Democrats in Congress should hold hearings on the pay of its Hollywood buddies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Derrek wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I just remember Wahlberg saying that Charlton Heston was evil for being the voice of the NRA because guns were destroying American society. Funny that he now did a movie about them.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dave Petzal wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

To Charles Henderson: An honor to have you on this blog, and eternal thanks for the book on Gunny Hathcock, whose bravery is almost beyond comprehension.And yes, I worry constantly about being too kind.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Skip Rood wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Dave - Got the first belly laugh of the week over your comment re the prosthetic arm. You may be right re their being a market for it. Good comments re the movie - haven;t seen it but will. I'm a big Hunter fan and have read all his stuff and understand that Lollywood (the "L" is for Liberal) has to do their thing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from A.J. wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

these guys are pretty much right dave, hollywood people don't know anything about the real world.they just make it up as they go. It's cheap entertainment for the uninformed public. "HW" doesn't understand,that to take a human life is the ultimate. I can't imange that feeling but these men and women are doing what needs to be done to ensure our freedom.I salute each and every one,and pray they come home soon.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DINFOS wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

The movie is based on the Stephen Hunter book "Point of Impact", which is much more technically correct (the author went to pretty good lengths to get the shooting science and firearm technical stuff right) than the movie. As you can imagine most of the book's plot has been dramatically changed in the film. If you are a firearms aficianado, this book and the rest in the series are great reads.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I remember one of two military comics growing up. One title I definitely recall, "Sarg'nt Fury and his Howling Commandos". These guys could shoot the prop off a German M109 with a 45 Auto. :-)Ya gotta love this stuff.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Lee Woiteshek wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Did they do the book justice? I hate to go if Hollywood destroyed this the way they've destroyed Clancy's novels.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dave M wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

I saw "Shooter" this weekend with my son David, a disabled vet who served as a scout/sniper in Iraq with the 3rd Infantry in 2003. Afterward, we compared our own "glitch and miscue" lists over hot wings and a libation. My list was a bit shorter than Dave P's; David's was about 3 times as long and included tactical as well as weapons related items. Our conclusion? Hot babes, neat weapons, and lots of shooting action scenes trump details everytime. My son's only real complaint was that none of the army nurses that took care of him bore the slightest resemblance to Kate Mara.See the movie-3 gun nuts named Dave can't be wrong.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Charles Henderson wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

David, you are too kind. When I see films that make me cringe at the errors, such as those you pointed out in Shooter, I remind myself, "It's Hollywood!" What they know about real Scout Snipers, marksmanship and firearms could fill a thimble, possibly and possibly not. So I try my best to cut them some slack and enjoy the carnage. Glad you like Shooter, because when the DVD comes out, there are a bunch of us Marine Corps trigger pullers who appear in a documentary on Scout Snipers and Bob Lee Swagger's inspiration, Carlos Hathcock, that is included as "Bonus Material" with the movie. Many Marines will be buying the DVD not so much for the movie, but for the bonus documentary that includes interviews with yours truly as well as Carlos Hathcock III, Jim Land, Jack Cuddy and a few other notable folks from the real Scout Sniper world. Semper Fi, Charles Henderson, Author of Marine Sniper

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from George wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Watched "Open Range" last night for about the tenth time. Love the scene where Robert Duvall, with his back against the wall fires his double-barreled shotgun through a building at a bad guy who files across the street and crumples up against the side of the building...all without that pesky recoil problem!Let's face it, its a movie.Take it for what its worth (hot babes and guns).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Slim wrote 7 years 2 weeks ago

Is there much difference between a 17 rnd mag that has 4 rnds loaded and a 6 shot peacemaker that fires 9 or 10 rnds between reloads? I too remember the classic westerns of yesteryear!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60sdude wrote 6 years 16 weeks ago

The rifle swagger shot down the helicopter down in etheopia with was a 50 caliber barrett m107. The rifle has a muzzle break which reduces the sound substantially. Normally a sniper would have ear plugs in the are not visible because of the ghillie suit he is wearing.The bottle silencer would have silenced the 22 rifle for the first shot but after that the bullet would go through the same hole as the shot before. The blet would slow down but may stil be supersonic thus making a sound.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs