I can help with that! During my brief but enjoyable time causing things to blow up for the movie biz I brought up that same thing with my boss. You see, when I got into it I assumed that a good explosives tech can blow something up, leave unharmed everything around it, and tell you how many pieces there will be after the bang. He agreed that this is true, but the movies do not want good explosives techs. They want dirty, inefficient, nasty explosions. If you work in this field you will regularly dump lots of phenalthalene (sp?) into your bomb mixes. The stuff is essentially mothball mix and it stinks something awful. But it does produce a lot of black smoke, which makes the producers clap their little pink paws in childlike glee.
A lot of revolvers have a “half-cock”, which is not very safe, but a lot better than nothing.
Re: holding it sideways, gangsta style?
If you were aiming a pistol at a group of people, would it be easier to hit something by emptying the clip holding it sideways than holding it upright?
After all, if a pistol is gonna stray in a direction after you shoot it due to the backward momentum, it’s gonna be upwards due to the torques involved.
If you hold it sideways, will it not deviate left/right instead, thus keeping your fire in the plane of the ground and keeping you from having to re-aim your other shots as much if you are just trying to empty your clip as soon as possible?
Not to mention the fact that if you hold it with the discharge facing downward, the brass will fall on the ground rather than to the right.
So, would it not make sense that a densely-packed group of people with pistols firing at another densely-packed group of people would fire gangsta-style, both for the sideways deviance and not hitting their friends with brass?
(I’m not saying these are the reasons nor that people actually fire weapons at live people this way, just that if there were any situation in which I’d fire my weapon that way, that situation would be it.)
This is one thing I loved about the final combat scene in Proof of Life. Realistic grenade and Claymore explosions.
No, no, no, and no. To get the proper sight radius and to use the sights on the pistol as they were intended, it must be held in the conventional manner. To hold a pistol sideways, and then pull the trigger makes the gun pull down and to the right when firing. In other words, you’ll hit the dirt and thats about it. Also the recoil is much more managable in a vertical movement than a horizontal movement.
As far as where the brass goes. As long as it doesn’t fly in the shooters face, it really doesn’t matter what direction it travels. It will hit the ground soon enough.
Nope. I’ve been watching Law and Order for the entire run, and it’s rare to see any police officer on that version using a gun. They use them about as often as the CSI’s on the various versions of that franchise.
I’d like to nominate Lost. In the second episode, a group is exploring the jungle when they’re charged by a polar bear. Redneck guy kills the bear with a gun he found in the plane wreckage. In the argument that ensues, cute spunky girl manages to take the gun from him while he’s distracted. Honorable Iraqi guy, advising her to be very careful the whole time, has her first eject the clip, then tells her there’s still a round in the chamber and has her eject that. The whole time it’s clear that he’s quite nervous about having someone not trained in handling firearms holding a loaded, cocked weapon.
[QUOTE=Padeye]
[li]Single action revolver - Colt SAA, Walker - The hammer must be manually cocked before each shot. Original Colt revolvers and most reproductions have only one safety feature, an empty chamber under the hammer. This does not prevent fast shooting as cocking the hammer on a revolver also rotates the cylinder so that the next chamber, presumably a loaded one, is under the hammer.[/li][/QUOTE]
This leads me to my beef with about 90% of all Hollywood westerns ever made.
It’s practically a convention that somebody will be holding somebody else at gunpoint with a single-action (almost always a SAA, even in films set before 1873) with the hammer cocked. Then the situation defuses, and the gun holder lowers the hammer and holsters the gun.
Congratulations genius, you’re now hammer-down on a loaded chamber.
Ummm… no. JXJohns already addressed this and is quite likely much more of a firearms expert than I am (I’m not). All I can say is that it seems like firing “gangsta” would cause several problems. First, every time I see this in a movie, they are firing one handed. This is not as easy or as accurate as firing with both hands. Second, it seems that it would mess up your sight picture if you are doing more that just pointing with the barrel. If you want to hear more about this, I’ll talk to a friend of mine that’s into shooting and see if he has some web sites to reference. I also concur with JXJohns that the brass is pretty much irrelevant. Personally, I would guess firing “gangsta” is done to look cool.
Yes! I also liked the communications in this scene.
I worked with explosives while in the military. We did some shots with over a ton of raw explosives. Since I’ve seen the real thing many times, the Hollywood fuel explosions just don’t look right.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the “gangsta” style pistol hold was invented for the movies, as it allows a frontal camera shot to see the actor’s whole face AND see right down the bore of the handgun.
Phenolphthalein would, I suppose, enable you to tell whether or not the bad guys that just blew up were acidic! 
Nah, that’s just how it looked when the prop man opened the box, so they all thought that’s how you were supposed to hold the gun. 
I seem to remember a Soprano’s episode in which a low-level mob grunt was taken to task for holding his pistol in the approved “gangsta” manner.
Wait. They’ve crash landed on a tropical island and they’re attacked by a POLAR bear???
Yep…
Not that we know much more, but you’d have to watch the show for… uh… sort of context.
I recall Eric Bana being interviewed after making Black Hawk Down and he explained that the army instructors that the cast had had stressed the importance of looking “like men who live with guns”. I think they trained at Fort Bragg. He said that with the knowledge he gained he finds most gun handling in movies unconvincing and it looks like actors following instuctions. Well that was the gist of it anyway, so I’d be interested in an expert opinion of Black Hawk Down.
BHD had excellent technical realism. One of the most realistic war movies ever made.
BHD was an excellent example of proper firearms use. From changing magazines often, safe handling of the guns (not pointing them at your buddies) to even proper trigger finger discipline, the movie was A+ in my opinion. Sure there may have been a mistake or two, but for the most part I would say that someone did their gun related homework for that film.
One nitpick, when Michael Durant, the chopper pilot who was captured, was defending himself. His H&K mp5 variant in the movie was being fired in full auto mode. In reality, the crash casued his H&K some damage that required him to eject each shot manually after firing by cycling the bolt. This was not shown in the movie accurately, but I’ll give them a pass…
Well, considering that many of the advisors for the film were actually there during the events being chronicled, I’d be surprised if the film turned out any other way.
But wouldn’t the guy presumably be carrying it with a full load anyway? He’d have had a hammer down on an unfired bullet before, too, right? Or would he have it half cocked or something?