Rendered at 12:28:14 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
dn3500 39 minutes ago [-]
I'm not a handgun expert at all but I've caught a few of these, like the guy who racked the slide on his revolver. The author who really impressed me, although not with his handgun knowledge, was Tom Clancy. I was in the anti-submarine warfare business in the 1970s and some of what he wrote in Red October I only knew from classified sources.
dvh 23 minutes ago [-]
Chuck Norris can rack the slide on his revolver
bombcar 35 minutes ago [-]
Didn’t he piece rumors and made intelligent guesses so well that the government freaked out wondering where the leak was?
lukan 31 minutes ago [-]
Possible he had a real source?
doikor 14 minutes ago [-]
One thing I have noticed messed up in a lot of fiction (written/tv/movies/etc) is how loud guns actually are. Scenes of multiple people without any hearing protection emptying their guns that doesn't have any kind of supressors/silencer multiple times in a closed space (usually a single room) and then just casually chatting with each 5 seconds later.
In general the sounds of guns are very bad in most movies/tv shows (Heat from 1995 comes closest for me).
rayiner 11 minutes ago [-]
I wonder if part of this is also failing to consider the acoustic effect of loud sounds in enclosed spaces. Guns don’t sound nearly as loud if you only shoot outside.
kriro 22 minutes ago [-]
I guess my pet peeve of "firing an arrow" is also a gun mistake of sorts. It can be found in many fantasy books. A bow is not a gun, there's no gunpowder involved. If a commander orders his archers to "fire" what should they do, set their bows on fire?
folbec 15 minutes ago [-]
And what about archer companies doing "volley fire" ? As in what looks like 99% of Hollywood movies.
This is a good example of movies using inaccurate depictions that audiences will easily understand instead of accurate depictions that may confuse them.
Just think of it as a translation.
defrost 16 minutes ago [-]
Dip their arrow heads in the fire braziers so the tar / pitch starts to burn, ready for the coming "pull" and "loose" commands?
alias_neo 16 minutes ago [-]
What's the correct term? Loose? I'm sure I've heard that before.
I know nothing about arrows except to identify the pointy end.
doikor 4 minutes ago [-]
It is very tiring to hold back the shot in a position like that. In real life you just wouldn’t do that. And in general your archers know their range and will/should start shooting as soon as they have a target in range without any orders.
The volley fire thing is from black powder musket/rifle days. Basically volleys were used so you can actually seen what you are shooting at (aim) and manuever (hard to move while reloading. Easier if everyone reloads at the same time). Most armies still had small groups sharpshooters/snipers running around the field and taking shots freely.
cenamus 8 minutes ago [-]
Shoot?
28 minutes ago [-]
kevdoran 8 minutes ago [-]
Kinda like when the hacker character in movies does... just about anything
n6242 20 minutes ago [-]
One mistake in non-fiction blog posts: not including a label or title for the pictures.
defrost 49 minutes ago [-]
(28th June 2021) .. and I didn't find a Mistakes: Long Gun Edition.
542458 28 minutes ago [-]
I'm not a deep-in-the-weeds expert, but if I had to put together an "obvious long rifle mistakes in fiction" article, it’d probably be:
* People pumping shotguns after every round, or unnecessarily cycling the bolt after every round
* Wrong action type for the gun
* Wrong shotgun ammo for the context
* Wrong safety type for the gun (most long guns have safeties, but they are operated in a variety of ways)
* Magazine vs clip vs chamber vs tube
* Shotgun impacts launching people across rooms, or unrealistic recoil (both too high and too low) for the weapon type
RayeEvtuch 12 minutes ago [-]
Many long guns are not semi-auto and have to have their action cycled after each round. that's super common.
defrost 25 minutes ago [-]
How about accounting for Coriolis "force" in addition to drop and wind when shooting ULR 5,000 yards?
Have you seen that in a film? Is it actually a thing, can you ignore it?
542458 17 minutes ago [-]
Surprisingly, Coriolis at extreme ranges (like 5000 feet) can be relevant enough to be corrected for, but how much and in what direction depends which way you're shooting and where on the planet you are. There's a fun calculator here: https://codingace.net/physics/coriolis_effect_shooting.html
defrost 13 minutes ago [-]
It's ignored in practice when firing long guns at 5,000 yards.
The minuscule effect is overwhelmingly dominated by everything else. Heavier, longer range shells from naval guns, yes - rifles, no.
The first complaint is "heard the snick of the revolvers safety."
I assume a lot of writers get their misinformation from Hollywood sound effects and the countless other gun related liberties.
Like the terminator asking for a phased plasma rifle in a 40W range. Everyone knows those weren't available until 1997.
nephihaha 1 hours ago [-]
Geoffrey Boothroyd wrote some letters to Ian Fleming about James Bond's armoury, which Fleming took on board. Fleming incorporated a Boothroyd character into the books who was later merged with Q.
bombcar 32 minutes ago [-]
Bond using a “top secret compact rifle” that I recognized as an AR-7 was greatly disappointing to me, especially I had just finished discovering how crappy a gun that thing is.
ghusto 38 minutes ago [-]
Jesus. Is this what _we_ sound like when talking about IT?
nottorp 32 minutes ago [-]
Probably.
But I think sometimes we're more justified than the gun nuts. Take for example the movie series favorite "we'll track him through his GPS".
skinfaxi 30 minutes ago [-]
More justified for what?
21 minutes ago [-]
bombcar 33 minutes ago [-]
Yes, it’s the flip side of Gell Mann Amnesia - nerding out!
boesboes 23 minutes ago [-]
yeap. And if you talk about trains like this, they blame vaccines ;)
8 minutes ago [-]
vova_hn2 42 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
bebe9494i4 43 minutes ago [-]
Biggest handgun myth is about dogs and self defense.
Loose aggressive dog is not a human. It is dangerous vermin that can kill you! You are absolutely allowed to play it safe, defend yourself, and shoot it (the same way you would kill mosquito).
"It just wants to play" is not an argument, you are not a "toy" for some strange dog. It was "reactive" is also not an argument, you have no obligation to suffer its "reaction" to the full end.
Dog owners will say they have a right to mangle child, for petting their dog (it was self defense). They will also insist dogs are safe around the children, two sentences latter. Do not listen to them!
adjejmxbdjdn 29 minutes ago [-]
Dogs kill about 30-50 people in the U.S. every year.
Intimate partner gun violence alone leads to about 700 women being killed every year.
So by your logic, if you’re a woman and your partner has a gun, and is walking towards you and you can’t clearly tell that they don’t have a gun on them, “they just want to give you a kiss before leaving home” isn’t an argument. They’re vermin that can kill you and you’re absolutely allowed to play it safe, defend yourself and shoot them.
duk3luk3 20 minutes ago [-]
Yes, that sounds appropriate and proportional to me, given the massive danger posed to (mostly) women by mostly (men) regarding domestic violence.
dullcrisp 26 minutes ago [-]
Cars kill 40,000 people I just shoot for the tires though.
rjsw 8 minutes ago [-]
There are cartridges specifically designed for shooting cars.
cindyllm 4 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
syrgian 26 minutes ago [-]
I am a dog owner, and I agree that a loose and aggressive dog is a liability to humanity and you are making everyone a favor if you kill it even if you could have escaped (e.g. you manage to get into your car in time). If it was attacking you, it could be a child (or another dog, too) next time. I would say that even a loose, non aggressive dog of a breed that is very statistically likely to mangle people (e.g. Bully XL) should be taken away from their owners that same day.
05 14 minutes ago [-]
I think there should be mandatory courses the owner needs to take to own these breeds (and pass the exam with satisfactory marks), loose or not if one slip of a leash can lead to a kid getting mangled then it's not safe for the owner to walk even a leashed untrained dog.
qwertytyyuu 36 minutes ago [-]
But like don't going around shooting dogs people ask your child not to pet
unpopularopp 48 minutes ago [-]
Only Americans care about this. Most of us in the rest of world never even saw a real gun, let alone holding one in hand, and know intricate details like this.
defrost 29 minutes ago [-]
There are many guns in Australia (the country that, according to the US NRA, "banned" guns) where they are tools with an application that require a licence to use (just like explosives, dangerous chemicals, lasers above a certain oomph level, cars, giant trucks, etc)
EdwardDiego 7 minutes ago [-]
Not handguns though. Well, not legally.
defrost 6 minutes ago [-]
Yes, handguns - police, military, some security, and gun clubs all have hand guns.
There are plenty of countries aside the US where citizens can and do own guns.
E.g. gun control is strict in most of Europe compared to the US, but it's entirely attainable to most people without a criminal record to own firearms.
EdwardDiego 6 minutes ago [-]
Yes, but typically not handguns, the prevalence of them in the US is unusual compared to other Western countries.
bombcar 30 minutes ago [-]
Also amusing is I see way more rifles especially in Europe than I ever do in the USA; Paris and other metros really seem to like having soldiers walking around armed.
Here we just have cops with sidearms and one or two cowboys open carrying.
boesboes 25 minutes ago [-]
yes, but nobody gives a fuck.
Perhaps the commenter shouldn't have said: only gun nuts care.
skinfaxi 30 minutes ago [-]
Not handguns though right? I think you need a justifiable need in most of Europe like being in a hunting club.
In general the sounds of guns are very bad in most movies/tv shows (Heat from 1995 comes closest for me).
https://acoup.blog/2025/05/02/collections-why-archers-didnt-...
Just think of it as a translation.
I know nothing about arrows except to identify the pointy end.
The volley fire thing is from black powder musket/rifle days. Basically volleys were used so you can actually seen what you are shooting at (aim) and manuever (hard to move while reloading. Easier if everyone reloads at the same time). Most armies still had small groups sharpshooters/snipers running around the field and taking shots freely.
* People pumping shotguns after every round, or unnecessarily cycling the bolt after every round
* Wrong action type for the gun
* Wrong shotgun ammo for the context
* Wrong safety type for the gun (most long guns have safeties, but they are operated in a variety of ways)
* Magazine vs clip vs chamber vs tube
* Shotgun impacts launching people across rooms, or unrealistic recoil (both too high and too low) for the weapon type
Have you seen that in a film? Is it actually a thing, can you ignore it?
The minuscule effect is overwhelmingly dominated by everything else. Heavier, longer range shells from naval guns, yes - rifles, no.
* Opinion of a ULR shooter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP7IKshdiiY
* Range Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE
I assume a lot of writers get their misinformation from Hollywood sound effects and the countless other gun related liberties.
Like the terminator asking for a phased plasma rifle in a 40W range. Everyone knows those weren't available until 1997.
But I think sometimes we're more justified than the gun nuts. Take for example the movie series favorite "we'll track him through his GPS".
Loose aggressive dog is not a human. It is dangerous vermin that can kill you! You are absolutely allowed to play it safe, defend yourself, and shoot it (the same way you would kill mosquito).
"It just wants to play" is not an argument, you are not a "toy" for some strange dog. It was "reactive" is also not an argument, you have no obligation to suffer its "reaction" to the full end.
Dog owners will say they have a right to mangle child, for petting their dog (it was self defense). They will also insist dogs are safe around the children, two sentences latter. Do not listen to them!
Intimate partner gun violence alone leads to about 700 women being killed every year.
So by your logic, if you’re a woman and your partner has a gun, and is walking towards you and you can’t clearly tell that they don’t have a gun on them, “they just want to give you a kiss before leaving home” isn’t an argument. They’re vermin that can kill you and you’re absolutely allowed to play it safe, defend yourself and shoot them.
Steps you need to take to legally obtain a handgun (in Australia) - https://www.ssaa.org.au/?ss_news=handgun-ownership-facts-in-...
E.g. gun control is strict in most of Europe compared to the US, but it's entirely attainable to most people without a criminal record to own firearms.
Here we just have cops with sidearms and one or two cowboys open carrying.
Perhaps the commenter shouldn't have said: only gun nuts care.