Gun mistake

Jules Gaspard d'Estaing was wearing a holster belt that had cartridge loops and cartridges on the belt, but the gun he wore was clearly a cap and ball revolver that required each cylinder have a charge of black powder pored in and a lead ball forced into each cylinder with a percussion cap inserted into the rear of each cylinder


Many cap and ball revolvers were converted to cartridge ammuntion right after the Civil War.


Hey folks,

I think Silver makes a very good point. The film takes place in 1865, at the very end of the Civil War, and it is not very likely that Jules would have had a converted cap & ball at that time. His pistol appears to be a Colt model, and these pistols were not converted until nearly five years after the war.

Also, Matt Weaver, a Confederate soldier, is shown returning from the war in 1865 with a Springfield Trapdoor model breach loading carbine rifle. There are a couple of problems with this choice of weapon for Weaver. First, the Springfield Trapdoor was a US Army rifle - not a Confederate rifle. Secondly, the infantry on both sides of the Civil War all used muzzle loading rifles - not breach loaders. Most importantly, the Trapdoor Springfield was a US Army rifle that did not appear until 1873. There simply is no way a Confederate soldier returning from war in 1865 would have a Springfield Trapdoor model rifle.

Someone simply made some un-informed decisions when choosing the weapons for this film.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile


Hey, don't forget about the remington derringer that Matt weaver shows to the girl and says that Medford pulled it on him. It was first made in 1866, a year after this story takes place.


I'm replying to my own post with a correction. The war ended in '65, but it might have taken Matt weaver a year or two to reach new Mexico on foot. Maybe even more. After all, he would have had to stop for awhile in this town and that to work and earn his food. And the battlefield of the east was a long way from the southwest. So by the time he came home, cartridge conversion guns weren't out of the range of possibility. Also, a man like Jul Gaspard, would have the know-how and the wherewithal to obtain one.


I'm sorry. Was this a documentary or a Hollywood movie (created solely for entertainment)?

Have ANY of you ever tried to even FIND (out how many Civil-War-era and soon-after pistols still exist - in WORKING order) - much less rent - ESP. for a movie production - antique guns 100 years old?

So yes, please tell me how incredibly EASY it is to use nothing but the correct, fully-working, WWII-vintage aircraft, tanks, and uniforms - on BOTH Allied & Axis sides - in movie productions 20 years later - much less guns & cannons from the Civil War 100 years later!

When was the last time ANY of you produced/ directed a Hollywood film given its many, many, many monetary, time, office-political, human, & physical restrictions?

Have ANY of you ever even taken ONE course on film-making (in college or elsewhere)?

Please enlighten us all!


Hey Jbuckets,

Yes, this was a western film made to entertain - not a documentary. And, yes, I realize the difficulties of obtaining large period correct props for World War II such as aircraft, tanks, and vehicles. However, it is quite easy to obtain 19th century reproduction firearms which would be period correct. It is also quite easy to obtain original (not reproduction) World War II firearms for film use.

No, I have never produced or directed any entertainment films, commercial or otherwise, and I never studied film making. That really is not the issue raised in this thread, however. The issue simply concerned the use of firearms in the film which were not correct to the time period depicted in the film.

The old TV show from 1962,Combat!, has always been my favorite show. I purchased the complete series of 152 episodes on DVD, and I continue to re-watch and enjoy a few episodes every week. In spite of the fact the series never used a real World War II tank, it did not stop me from enjoying the shows. I realize Sherman and Tiger tanks are not easy to obtain, and I accept the substitution of a Walker Bulldog tank as I suspend my disbelief and enjoy the show.

When it comes to using period correct firearms, however, that is completely different. The correct weapons are readily available, and the only excuse for using wrong ones is either ignorance or lack of interest in getting things right.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile



thanks for your very polite, informative reply! :-)

I had completely forgotten about obtaining replicas.

However, as I stated before, IMHO, there ARE a myriad of considerations, constraints, & restrictions - that even I - an engineer, having never taken one film class anywhere - realize that are perfectly understandable and FEASIBLE for not using the correct firearm replicas - and many other items: money, time, studio demands, & lack of concern by the director/ producers esp. when the accurate representation of those firearms are not germane to the storyline.

Acquiring replicas takes time & costs money to procure (instead of easily, quickly, cheaply using whatever's available from the prop room) plus every day of postponing/ extending a film shoot too costs money for salaries, equipment rental, etc. --> more costs = less profits....

At you own job, do you ALWAYS have sufficient time, manpower, equipment, & money (for other resources as needed) to accomplish your tasks 100% - or are you forced to often times take shortcuts?

If the former, then nothing would ever get done. I've never had the luxury of 100% resources in my jobs.... :-(




P.S. Love COMBAT! too!