Do stunt men really hold guns sideways in films because then the spent cartridges are easier to pick up afterwards
No.
Jeffery
that is sooo lame! you can’t hit anything like that. but some asshole thought it looked sexy & now everyone is doing it. hopefully the goofus kids who want to shoot up stuff on some new idiotic spree will follow suit. they would do practically no damage that way.
I’ve heard some say that it reduces any “kick”. I’m skeptical. Then again, I’ve not found a handgun that really kicked hard yet, and I’ve fired quite a few.
Supposedly the sideways hold is a ‘gangsta’ thing but no one knows if Hollywood was copying real gang bangers or the other way around. Aside from making it impossible to hit a sideways hold would possibly eject the spent cases in the shooter’s face.
Hollywood is phenominally bad about portraying guns or gun handling with any kind of accuracy. With exceptions such as Saving Private Ryan (mostly) HW portrays firearms as realistically as tires squaling on a dirt road.
padeye, you are soo on target.
WAG: Maybe the sideways grip is a gov’t-sanctioned request to Hollywood to mis-inform new illegal gun users.
Maybe when a gun is fired sideways, it recoils back into the shooters face, discouraging them from using a gun again.
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
-
-
- I saw an interesting article about a reporter who tried to pin down the chicken/egg situation with Beretta 9mm pistols and Lethal Weapon. For those who came in late, Beretta pistols were typical auto pistols; not particularly notable for anything. There were lower-priced guns that worked less well and more-expensive guns that worked much better. About the same time that Lethal Weapon(the first one) was released, interest in the guns, particularly among street gangs, seems to have risen. The story noted that there was an increase in gun media about the Beretta pistols in the few months previous to the movie’s release, but how much of an influence that was on the target group (pun intended) was questionable. - Beretta later chose to capitalize on the “niche interest” by later offering pistols in not only black, aluminum and matt gray, but also matt silver, matt gold, mirror silver, and (who could forget) mirror gold. - MC
-
MC, the Beretta 92 as seen in the Lethal Weapon movies gained popularity after the military adopted it in '84 to replace the old Colt 1911A1. I’m sure the movies helped but there were already plenty of rambo wannabes buying web belts and the official Bianchi UM84 holster. The 92 had been around long before that and many shooters prefer the models made before the army mandated change to the safety mechanism.
The model 92 has become less popular since new large capacity magazines were banned in the '92 crime bill. Legal pre-ban large capacity magazines are still around but extremely expensive.
Special, wanna come to the Ben Avery range with us Saturday morning and be on target? I’ll be bringing my '43 vintage M1 Garand and a few other toys.
You’ve got a Garand??? I’m sooooo jealous…
Glad to know I’m not the only one who uses that technical terminology!!
Right now the only handgun I have is a Sig Pro 2340. I have both the .40 S&W and the .357 SIG barrels for it, so it does have some flexibility. However, I’d like to get a 9mm for target practice and concealability (gonna get the concealed-carry license sometime this spring). Recommendations, anyone? There’s a gun show in town this weekend, so I’ll have a chance to poke around for a good deal.
Linney, I got my Garand from the CMP a few years ago. It was arsenal rebuilt during the Korean war so there are no matching serial number. On the plus side I won’t lose any collector value by putting a match barrel in 7.62mm on it. It weighs a ton but is a pussycat to shoot and more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Laura, my toys are very technical 
MaxT, I don’t know what your preferences are but the Taurus PT-908 might be worth a look. It’s a cross between the trigger of a Tuarus 92 with a somewhat skinnier frame and lockup similar to a Sig. The safety is frame mounted so you can carry in condition 1 but also works as a decocking lever if you prefer double action on the first shot. I’m in the same boat but after I get my CCW I’ll probably go with a compact 1911 type.
I’ve tried the shooting sideways thing at the range with my Walther P-99 and it IS near impossible to hit what you’re aiming at. (We were jokingly mimicking some other shooters who had recently left the range. They were also doing nothing but rapid firing) And whoever said that the spent casings would probably hit them in the face was right, either that or they land right on top of your head.
The reason for holding the gun sideways- from what I’ve heard from friends who know more about guns than I- is to reduce the risk of jams.
JMCJ
I would never amend my sig line as a way of reminding people to nominate or vote for me in any way. That would be just tacky.
I’ll see if I can locate one to get the feel of, Pad…thanks for the advice.
I was leaning toward a compact Glock (the 26, I believe) or a Walther P99. The Walther felt good, last time I got my paws on one. I know it’s not highly concealable, but I need something that fits my hand…
oooooh, padeye, yeah! i love to play w/ dangerous toys. call me or e-mail me later.
That’s the cool thing about the P-99, it comes with 3 interchangable back straps for small, medium, or large hands. The medium is perfect for me.
Padeye was on the mark throughout his first post. Accuracy would suffer, and the shooter would sooner or later get a hot casing down the front of his/her shirt – NOT a pleasant thing! As to the later post that claimed such a hold would reduce the risk of jams – hogwash! All these situations go back to the fact that any semi-automatic pistol is designed to be fired in the upright position. The sights are oriented for accuracy in that position; the ejector is designed to throw the empty casings away from the shooter and the action of the weapon in that position.
As for accuracy and realism in the movies? I can’t tell you how many Colt M1873 SAA’s I’ve seen in Westerns that could magically fire 8 or 11 or 16 rounds without reloading. One of my favorites is the handgun shot that literally picks a man up off his feet and throws him backward. Yeah, right. Does it ever occur to anyone that the shooter – who, according to the laws of physics, must absorb at least that much energy in the form of recoil – would suffer, at a minimum, a broken arm?
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
T
of course, tbone, you are referring to a post by john corrado, as padeye did not say that. & ftr john admitted not knowing ordnance & only relying on what friends said.
when i was a kid, cowboy movies were extremely popular, must have been 30% of the output of both hollywood & tv. even then it seemed hilarious that every revolver could hold dozens of bullets & then, of course, i didn’t know that they would have been single action. too much.