# Hollywood Gun Myths... Debunked.



## MA-Caver (Oct 28, 2011)

Some (comedy) websites are basically useless drivel... sometimes however they can be informative. 

http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html


Or maybe not... :idunno:


----------



## MaxiMe (Oct 28, 2011)

And I think they missed one.. No mater how many baddies you kill..you always leave their functioal-loaded weapons lying around and they run yours dry ala Jack Bauer in 24.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 28, 2011)

Very pleasing to see at least some attempt to put the genie of at least some gun myths back in the bottle :tup:.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 28, 2011)

A short video of one of the most famous 'silenced' weapons, the Sten variant that was designed for Commando use:

[yt]SKkKlWWmEbM[/yt]

I was, in a way, quite surprised that it was as noisy as it was as I have been lead to believe, from what I have read, that the only thing you could hear, even at relatively close range, was the cycling of the bolt.

Another example:

[yt]IfPL12BW3Og[/yt]


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 28, 2011)

A fabulous but non-English language video of the silenced version of one of my favourite 'historical' firearms, the Sterling SMG:

[yt]ZRLcEHD2K5E[/yt]

I would guess from just how quiet it is that this was using the special sub-sonic ammunition that you are supposed to use with a 'serious' silenced weapon (tho' some of the commenters suggest that this is actually not the case and that the barrel venting slows the rounds to sub-sonic exit velocities without affecting the cyclic action).

And a clip that altho' not marvellous in itself (I do wish the shooters would stop holding the magazine!), does have a very good write-up text with it:

[yt]63N3PHBxoDU[/yt]

As to my magazine comment, I wonder if any of our Australian members can confirm that the Aussie version had the magazine top mounted (rather than side mounted) not only to make it more handy in dense undergrowth but also to stop people using it as a handle and causing feed problems?  EDIT:  Actually, I think what I'm on about there was a gun called the Austen that was a Sten variant?  The Owen, another top mounted verticle mag SMG, was likewise derived from the Sten and much more common in Antipodean forces.

And a nice 'to camera' chat about the Sterling:

[yt]mz2_SQB-Zfc[/yt]


----------



## lklawson (Oct 31, 2011)

OK, I love Cracked.  A lot of it is seriously entertaining.  They do tend to have a somewhat left-of-center slant sometimes (which bugs me).

While this particular article makes some good points, like many of the Cracked entries, occasionally there is some small point they miss (deliberately?).

On most semi-auto handguns there's a perfectly valid reason why someone might want to cock back the hammer, despite the fact that you can DA it.  A cocked hammer is in Single Action mode and most times SA is a smoother, shorter, pull which means a more accurate shot.  Some, like Glock, it is irrelevant.  They're semi-cocked and striker fired.  Some, like the classic 1911, are SA only.  But there are a crapload that are SA/DA and on an important fraction of them the difference between their SA trigger pull and their DA trigger pull is significant.  Take the P64, for instance.  In a stock, unmodified, P64 the trigger pull in DA is well over 20 pounds.  Read that again: TWENTY POUNDS.  The SA was something like 6.  You bet your sweet bippy that I thumb-cock that puppy when I want an accurate shot from first-in-the-pipe if I'm shooting at a target farther away that 10 feet.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## tkd1964 (Nov 2, 2011)

It cracks me up when you see a guy pull out a Glock and you hear him Cock the hammer on it. Only in hollywood.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 3, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> And I think they missed one.. No mater how many baddies you kill..you always leave their functioal-loaded weapons lying around and they run yours dry ala Jack Bauer in 24.


How about this one too... All those bullets flying at the good guy and he might get hit once in the shoulder but his aim is just dead-on perfection.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 3, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> How about this one too... All those bullets flying at the good guy and he might get hit once in the shoulder but his aim is just dead-on perfection.


Actually, I think that's pretty close.  Stats seem to show that self defense folks tend to be decent shots.  But the return fire has to go SOMEWHERE.  And not always with happy endings.

That's the one they missed: Bullets go somewhere.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Nov 3, 2011)

My biggest laugh from Hollywood, as it refers to firearms - the good guy, when he is about to use his revolver, checks to see if it's loaded.


----------



## chinto (Nov 14, 2011)

the only weapon I know of that will fire and you hear the mechanism more then the report is the...
..De Lisle carbine.  
it is basically an old SMLE converted to fire the .45 ACP round with a huge integral suppressor built into it.  It was designed to be used by British commando's in raids for truly silent removal of sentry's that you could not get close enough to use a knife on.


----------



## David43515 (Nov 14, 2011)

I remember reading the Cracked article last year, but I can`t open the link while I`m here at school. If I remember Correctly, they forgot my 2 pet peeves about guns in movies. 1)* bullets go somewhere: *so when the bad guys shoot the bottle the hero is drinking from the bullet shouldn`t evaporate into thin air after hitting the bottle. It aught to break something behind the bar or hit somone in the crowd. 2) *firearms make LOUD noises in confined spaces: *so when the hero and his partner both empty their mags in a hallway they shouldn`t stop to whisper to each other about who goes which way next. Imagine going to a great heavy metal concert with seats near the speakers....on the way out to the car do you whisper to your friends? Do you even speak in a normal voice? Of course not, you can`t hear squat.

There`s one more thing that bugs me, but it`s about bulletproof vests, not so much about guns themselves. Body armour stops penetration, but it doesn`t stop the force of the bullet passing into you unless there`s a big trauma plate sewn in. Under the vest you should have dark, dark bruises like you`ve been hit with a hammer.....and it should still hurt like a bear.


----------



## chinto (Nov 20, 2011)

yep!! I agree!  and I do not know of any body armor that will stop a full sized rifle round like a .308 or 30-06.  those just kinda  tend to punch through.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 26, 2011)

chinto said:


> yep!! I agree!  and I do not know of any body armor that will stop a full sized rifle round like a .308 or 30-06.  those just kinda  tend to punch through.



Actually, Level III body armor is rated as being able to stop 7.62 mm NATO 147 grain rounds that travel at 2780 fps.  

Level IV armor can stop the .30-06 armor piercing rounds as well, but I'm not sure if this is due to the ceramic trauma plate or the armor itself.  

IIIA or less, though really doesn't help against centerfire rifle rounds.  
As for


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 26, 2011)

David43515 said:


> I remember reading the Cracked article last year, but I can`t open the link while I`m here at school. If I remember Correctly, they forgot my 2 pet peeves about guns in movies. 1)* bullets go somewhere: *so when the bad guys shoot the bottle the hero is drinking from the bullet shouldn`t evaporate into thin air after hitting the bottle. It aught to break something behind the bar or hit someone in the crowd. 2) *firearms make LOUD noises in confined spaces: *so when the hero and his partner both empty their mags in a hallway they shouldn`t stop to whisper to each other about who goes which way next. Imagine going to a great heavy metal concert with seats near the speakers....on the way out to the car do you whisper to your friends? Do you even speak in a normal voice? Of course not, you can`t hear squat.
> 
> There`s one more thing that bugs me, but it`s about bulletproof vests, not so much about guns themselves. Body armor stops penetration, but it doesn`t stop the force of the bullet passing into you unless there`s a big trauma plate sewn in. Under the vest you should have dark, dark bruises like you`ve been hit with a hammer.....and it should still hurt like a bear.



True all that. Yet some films I've seen (lately) have started to make up for those glaring errors that everyone tends to (pretend) to ignore. That's part of the magic in films. 
I've seen where bullets are being shown hitting something if it misses the good guy. or that in one instance a guy fired a round inside of a tank and was dazed by it and they replicated the ringing you hear in your head... especially after a nice concussion like that. Also seen where the "hero" or at least good guy is taking off his vest and showing dark bruises under the skin. So make up is getting much better.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 26, 2011)

Sometimes, Hollywood deliberately skews things.  For example,  the director, Richard Donner, a staunch supporter of the Brady Campaign, purposefully uses false portrayals in his movies.  

I remember in Lethal Weapon 3,  he shows Mel Gibson firing 9 mm "armor piercing" bullets that can easily pass  through a 1/2" thick steel bulldozer blade (impossible),  yet those same bullets were easily stopped by two layers of body armor.


----------



## ddurden (Feb 16, 2012)

Excellent points all.

One thing that should be said about bullet resistant armor has been touched on somewhat, but maybe a little expansion is due.  Depending upon the type of armor one has on, getting hit with something like a 9mm may feel anywhere between a punch or a tap.  There is lots of footage you can look up and see people being shot in their vests, and the reactions are pretty mixed.  For really assualt gear, it may not phase the person being shot at all if the vest is up to par.

The best example I've seen of how much power a bullet has was at a range near my home.  After some discussion, one of the rangemasters shot a 30 pound sandbag with a .45 ACP.  It didn't move much.  We shot some steel targets that were free standing, and they didn't move much.  Basically, the bullet has a tad less energy (depending on range) than the recoil of the weapon.  Yeah, there are some mechanical and thermodynamic losses, and physists and engineers can nit pick it for days, but generally most conventional handgun rounds if fired into a GOOD bullet resistant vest aren't going to cause any kind of internal injuries.  

As for a centerfire rifle, sure, there's way more power, BUT, again, any vest that CAN stop a 7.62 NATO round is most likely designed to absorb the vast majority of the energy, anyway.  That's how Kevlar and other bullet resistant fabrics work.


----------



## chinto (Feb 20, 2012)

hmm never heard of any vest that would stop a 30-06 AP round doing its standered velocity. I could see possibly the best heavy duty trauma plate stopping one round ...maybe but not more!

I guarantee you that you will have one hell of a bruise where the round hit the plate!  its like that stupidity the cops did in that Hollywood bank robbery. all they had to do was use slugs and or buck on the feet.. suspect down! feet shot to pieces and if the armor had stopped a slugs penetration then the impact would have broken ribs...  I saw a vid of a clay dummy with the big IV class vest on take a hit on the plate with a one oz. rifled slug, huge crater in the clay!! no way the ribs survived that one.


----------



## ddurden (Feb 21, 2012)

chinto said:


> hmm never heard of any vest that would stop a 30-06 AP round doing its standered velocity. I could see possibly the best heavy duty trauma plate stopping one round ...maybe but not more!


Some level IV and most level V I've seen tested will stop them and without trauma plates.  Now, these aren't "under the t-shirt" type vests, of course.  These are big, bulky, and heavy pieces that ADA guys would normally wear.  A variant of "dragonskin" can defeat a direct shot from an M-67 grenade with zero penetration.  It isn't pretty, but there's ZERO penetration.

Most of these items are thick and defeat projectiles by flattening them initially which spreads out the force of the bullet and then slowing it down as the garment compresses.  This minimizes ablation of the suit.

There are some theories that they work well on AP rounds by turning the bullet sideways as it is "caught", and that drastically increases the penetration surface area.


> I guarantee you that you will have one hell of a bruise where the round hit the plate!


Maybe . . . maybe not.  It depends on where the plate was and how the suit works.  It also depends on the size of the plate.  Where the plate is bad is that it stops the bullet instantaneously transferring ALL the energy to the person instantaneously.  The GOOD thing is that it spreads that force out over the surface area of the plate i.e. the bigger the plate, the less the concentrated impact.  So, depending on the plate size, it could be a significant impact or it may not phase the subject in the least.

Most level IV's and V's I've worked with don't use plates per se as the main stopping component.  There's going to be several layers of material slowing that projectile down over time as well as spreading that force out.

Bullets don't have this amazing destructive force through a vest like people might think . . . not a GOOD vest, at least.  Think about the recoil of the average handgun.  More or less, the bullet has the same force as the recoil that launched it (basic physics).  One can argue losses, BUT, the bullet will suffer more losses than the firearm by far (depending on range).  So, if a bullet has the ability to crush bones, rupture organs, and cause the heart to stop, then so would the recoil of the gun, right?

If you want to see a great example, check out the video of the two bank robbers in California who were in extensive body armor.  It's pretty telling.  They're standing up against round after round of handgun and shotgun vollies.  You can see them being hit as they walk around, return fire, reload, and operate like nothing much was going on.  They're NOT being knocked unconcious, suffering massive internal injuries, and all the things we're told will happen even with a vest.  There's some footage of one of them being shot from behind while he's firing to the front, and it doesn't even look like he noticed the hits.  And those suits weren't as sophisticated as something like DA or other reactive plate armor.

The "Box o' Truth" has a level III vest getting shot.  It's pretty good.  It shows modeling clay behind the vest to see what happens.  While the cavities are fairly dramatic, one must keep in mind that . . . it's modeling clay i.e. VERY soft.  I'm not sure how to simulate modeling clay v.s. flesh.  Of course, level III is against handgun and shotgun only, and is considered an "emergency" vest i.e. "we might need it . . . one day".  When you get into level IV and level V suits, those are "most likely I'm going to need this" things.


> its like that stupidity the cops did in that Hollywood bank robbery. all they had to do was use slugs and or buck on the feet.. suspect down! feet shot to pieces and if the armor had stopped a slugs penetration then the impact would have broken ribs... I saw a vid of a clay dummy with the big IV class vest on take a hit on the plate with a one oz. rifled slug, huge crater in the clay!! no way the ribs survived that one.


Actually, if memory serves me correctly, they had coverings on their feet.

As for a class IV vest not protecting against a slug, I'd question the vest.  Here's a modeling clay shot of a 12 guage slug against a threat III vest. It's not particularly impressive:







Actually, a slug is more conducive to being stopped as it is a low velocity "fat" projectile.  That's ideal for a vest to stop, really.

Think about it this way.  Get a GOOD threat III or threat IV vest.  Put the butt of the shotgun against the vest.  Pull the trigger.  Did it rupture your spleen or break your ribs?  If not, why would the slug?  Energies would be very close to each other one would think.  Granted the butt is significantly bigger in area, but you could just put the edge of the butt against the vest for accuracy.


----------



## chinto (Feb 28, 2012)

well an AP round that is military like the 30-06 M2 AP is going to go through more then most things. I have seen film of it shooting through 8 inches of concrete and tarring holes in it. the rounds were fired out of a BAR.  ( film was Military training film made in Ft. Benning GA by the US Army. as part of the training for BAR men in WW2 and Korea )


----------



## ddurden (Mar 1, 2012)

Right, hence the term "AP".  Typically, those are steel case / steel core bullets instead of steel case / lead core.  The rounds aren't more powerful, per se, they're just "harder".  They don't deform and maintain their shape better for penetration.  Tungsten and similar components are also used for better AP rounds.

Concrete is a funny material and makes a poor testbed.  It's non-homogeneous and brittle (generally).  Much of it depends on who made and laid it.  BUT, your point is well taken.  The .30 cal US AP rounds can be pretty impressive.


----------



## chinto (Nov 26, 2012)

I saw a picture of a level V vest with a hole in it from a .30 or so AP round. my guess is .308 AP but could have been any close to that size.  Black tip rounds make holes, and most vests even level V I would question if they could stop more then one round of ball 30-06.  It is just not a threat they were really developed to face.


----------

