long range shooting and the movies

J

joeblow38

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Just wondering if hollywood is ever going to get long range shooting right in the movies. The latest effort is American Sniper. Once again the public is led to believe that shooting is as simple as putting the crosshair on the target and squeezing the trigger. Do technical advisors ever push for more technical detail in these movies? Clint figured it would scare off the lay people? I calculated the 2100 yard shot would require 17 stories (176 feet) of elevation with a 100 yard zero with 285 gr A max 0.778 BC bullets @ 2745 fps. In the movie, the bullet is shown to take a straight path to the target. How hard could it be asks the public? Point and shoot! Rather than the animated slow mo view of the bullet going straight into the "Syrian Olympic shooter" it should have been an artillery-style trajectory with the camera following the round 17 stories up into the air before descending during the last 3rd of its path 45 degrees into the top of buddy's head. Then the audience might have a better appreciation of the physics involved.

How about the cold bore stew can shot @ 1 mile in Shooter? More ####e. Let's not even get started with the video games representation of sniping. Lots of pudgy kids thinking they're snipers.
 
Great comments joeblow38 and, yep, I agree. I'm given to understand that most big movies have plenty of technical expertise on hand but that sometimes the director simply doesn't take it because he/she wants the audience to see a thing a certain way.

Maybe Longshot on here can chime in as he knows a thing or three about this issue.
 
To be completely honest, I thought Shooter did kind of a decent job of representing the hard work put in the art. I mean granted the 1 mile cold bore stew can shot was a bit out there; when he was traveling around he still had a kestrel with him everywhere he was scouting out; he also did explain that Coriolis came in to affect and other that there were other factors. I mean, I am not sure what level of detail you are looking for. The sniper movies, oh god I think that is probably what they are called (they're B movies). Anyways I think the general reason you don't see the level of detail you are looking for is two-fold:

1-the people making the movie generally don't know or don't care about providing that level of detail

and 2- providing the level of detail would take 2 movies, 1 to explain everything that a real long range shooter has to do and the 2nd would be the actual movie.

I guess on that note, should throw in that people get confused when you start throwing in technical jargon. I mean it's not to us, but i bet you an average movie goer would feel like a moron if you started talking about air density altitude, coriolis affect and the difference in shooting north to south or east to west. Producers generally shy away from making audiences feel like dumb ####s in order to make them want to come back for a sequel.

However I think some of the movies have done a decent job of representing the work that is done, I mean it is because of video games and movies like shooter that I actually got interested in getting in to shooting long range. I mean it really is the funnest type of shooting that I have found, I mean I have a few buddies that have restricted's and go to the range, but for me taking my bolt gun out to the middle of nowhere and going through dope to try and hit a target is way more entertaining to me then just blasting away at a target at 25 meters.

Anyways I'm sure some people will agree with me and some people will not, to each there own I guess and hope that gives you some insight in to what you are asking.
 
To the original question... NO, they won't. Anything's possible, but its extremely unlikely.

- writers today are not shooters. Nor do they care to be. They have not served time in uniform.

- "write what you know". Writers do stories about lawyers, cops, doctors, celebs, and evil CEO's. They have trouble with regular soldiers. They are mostly clueless about most professions.

- the technical side of precision shooting is... highly technical. Takes time to learn it for real. But present that to a layman just wanting to be entertained, and not actually having a rifle in hand... its less exciting than watching grass grow. Seriously. Only one in 10,000 would stay awake during those parts of the movie.

- if its too real, you run the risk of becoming a training tool for terrorists. You may laugh, but "Who Dares Wins" (The Final Option"


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sour...g4TwClAshkudnAYG5-N9EYg&bvm=bv.92189499,d.cGU

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Dares_Wins_(film)

... featured an actor who was actually an SAS reservist at the time, and some of the masked assaulters were current SAS. Well... thry had to change the script a little to use then-outdated techniques, so the Terrs wouldn't learn the secrets of 1982 cohnter terror and HRT tactics. Then the lead actor was ordered out of the SAS, with honours intact, because he was becoming too well known and publicly known as SAS. Now... imagine if "American Sniper" became a training tool...
 
LOl, most movies today don't even have a plot. If they don't have an explosion every 5 minutes the teenies get bored. Any attempt at realism in film making is very rare. The best attempt at a gunfight is still the bank robbery scene in Heat and that was back in 1995!
 
In American sniper I think they did a good job of accurate rifles and equipment.... If they try to make the process of determining the shot dope, and showing the real bullet path, you would lose the audience. Not only would most not believe the drop of the bullet, they would be bored watching the actor figure out the shot for 5 minutes.... I bet Less than 1 percent of the viewers even notice the inaccuracies you speak of... I'm a network analyst and find hacker movies hilarious too, but most have no idea.
 
Hollywood movies are created to make money and for entertainment. Some producers/writers/directors do a better job than others when it come to facts. But their goals are a "blockbuster" movie that has a huge return on investment and brings notoriety. If they have to take some "artistic license" to pull it all together, that is what will happen.

Facts, realism, life experiences is the realm of well made documentaries. Much, much less lucrative.
 
yukoncoyote said:
Really noticed it in American Sniper when the magnification adjustment on his NXS scope was clicking. Lost all interest after that.
Click to expand...

A clicking adjustment ruins a whole movie for you? Really?? Your life is so obsessed with guns that a clicking adjustment that shouldn't click ruins a perfectly good movie. Really??

There are several people on this thread that need to lighten up, relax your desire to "be offended", and have some fun.
 
rral22 said:
A clicking adjustment ruins a whole movie for you? Really?? Your life is so obsessed with guns that a clicking adjustment that shouldn't click ruins a perfectly good movie. Really??

There are several people on this thread that need to lighten up, relax your desire to "be offended", and have some fun.
Click to expand...

What you said, people need to loosen their shorts a bit. Movies are what they are, entertainment, not training films or power point lectures.
 
I guess my point is that, in general, the movies do a disservice to any technical field. The public is rarely educated on the challenge of a particular field, and this certainly includes long range shooting. What I find most annoying in "sniper movies" is the infrequency of misses. Always a cold bore hit every time. The public is led to believe it's easy. Then should a newbie decide to delve into it for real, they're taken aback by the actual challenge. Anyway, I typically take every opportunity to advise lay people on the actual challenge when movies like this come out. They're always amazed at the idea of bullet drop and wind influence. I recall mythbusters did a good job illustrating the singular influence of gravity on bullet drop, and the absence of effect of bullet velocity on drop.
 
rral22 said:
A clicking adjustment ruins a whole movie for you? Really?? Your life is so obsessed with guns that a clicking adjustment that shouldn't click ruins a perfectly good movie. Really??

There are several people on this thread that need to lighten up, relax your desire to "be offended", and have some fun.
Click to expand...

No the clicking adjustment didn't ruin the whole movie for me there bud. The American obsession with the glorification of war and the culture it creates is what ruins it for me.

By the by Bradley Cooper did an awesome job, the rest of the movie can go away though. I preferred the book.
 
Realism always loses to entertainment. Real explosions are nothing compared to the nice fiery ones found in movies.

It's not just movies. The masses of people want to be entertained. There is actually quite a bit of attention put into the accoustics of a hockey post. To make the best ring when struck by a puck.
 
Long ago, a very wise, Oscar winning rabbit said, "You can do anything in an animated cartoon." Movies are the same. Nothing is real. It's all about the story. Even gun shot sounds are put in during editing. Said to not sound "real enough".
 
That's why I don't like watching movie. The more you know, the more you are disapointed. Like the scene in saving private Brian where the soldier shoot trough the tiger opening and kill the crew...yeah there was a window.

Or that game I just bought, call of Juarez, when you are reloading your lever action like a shotgun. I stopped playing at this point. I can't imagine a company who makes a whole game based on guns not taking the time to understand the basics. Yes, reloading animation matters that much to me.
 
I agree completely. So many shooting/sniper movies are so technically wrong that it can be hard to watch sometimes. (if you know the difference)
I fell into the trap of buying sniper books hoping to find some tidbit that would help me shoot better. I bought and read maybe 10 or more (adventures of some sniper) books and found absolutely nothing useful in that regard. AND ya (before the movie) I read American sniper too... nuthin. Just a bunch of me show...
At least in Shooter they made some effort to explain the technicals, even though it was done badly - at least they eluded to an effort.
Early in the movie when he was shooting at the helicopter, he was using a semi auto with the gas system turned off, which is at least accurate. Rifles of that type are more accurate at long range if you turn the gas off. It left us to assume he was set up for a long shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom