As soon as I heard the BS line about body armor meaning a headshot - Shooter (2007) Discussion

[–] m_noble 15 years ago

I essentally agree, but you have to remember that the bullet would have lost most of its energy by the time that it reached the target. As quoted in the movie, it would still have "more energy than a 44 magnum at the muzzle" by the time it reaches the target though, so still quite lethal. BTW, I believe the cartride was a Cheytac 405, which has much better ballistic perforance than a .50 BMG.

My brother makes precision rifles for a living & used to be in the army, and he commented that there's no way a sniper sould try for a head shot at that range.

Still, I recommend you finish the movie, since it was entertaining, and acually a lot more technically accurate then the average Hollywood movie.

reply

[–] Backlot_Manager 15 years ago

Yep, a 50BMG out of a 36" barrel has about 12-14,000 ft lbs of energy at nearly 3,000 fps (variable depending on the load). It would still have a bunch of punch left after a mile.

Just because it wasn't as error-filled as Sniper (few movies are) doesn't mean that it's worth watching. The helo shootdown part earlier where he has to cycle the semi-auto action by hand, because they were too inept to figure out how to use a BFA to make it cycle with blanks was another /rolleyes moment.

reply

[–] Mandy_Whitsands 14 years ago

blanks? when were blanks used in the movie?

reply

[–] xxkinzerxx 14 years ago

blanks? when were blanks used in the movie?

Live ammunition usually isn't used during the making of a movie. That could get...messy.

reply

[–] InvaderPastulio 14 years ago

Actually, he manually reloads because during the shoot too much dust got into the gun for it to function properly with the blanks. But yeah, that annoyed me to.

reply

[–] silvergloss 12 years ago

Relax Francis

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

if you watch the DVD special features an actual sniper says at the distance the shot was made in the movie with that gun it would not matter where you shoot be it the head or be it the torso. the shot would be a fatal shot because that powerful of a gun would blown the archbishops limbs 200 feet from his body

reply

[–] fritzsmom 15 years ago

Since I know for a fact that you watched all of the movie, can you tell me if Mr. Wahlberg's dog in the movie was killed?

Thank you.

reply

[–] Luftwaffler 15 years ago

Yes, he was definitely killed... He even said "They killed my dog."

penis

reply

[–] johnslegers 15 years ago

If technical errors bother you, you shouldn't watch ANY Hollywood films at all. There is only a tiny amount of Hollywood films that don't include technical errors at all.

Like someone else already stated, this film is far more realistic (on many levels) than the majority of Hollywood films out there. On top of that, it is quite entertaining and really a must see for any paleo-conservative gun lover our there with any criticism whatsoever towards the US government. Few films dare to tell the truth about "democracy" and "capitalism". This film does!!! ;-)

reply

[–] Mandy_Whitsands 14 years ago

Few films dare to tell the truth about "democracy" and "capitalism". This film does!!! ;-)

what is the truth about democracy and capitalism according to you?

reply

[–] hvap90 9 years ago

Yeah, what the movie highlights is Cronyism. It's a potential flaw in any government and economic system.

reply

[–] ikke_for_let 12 years ago

You can watch movies about subjects on which you're not an expert. For instance I can't watch movies about musicians, because I know a lot about that. But I have no problem watching movies about snipers.

reply

[–] Lucy9596 12 years ago

Agreed. I'm no weapon expert so I just put up with it. Spielberg's War Horse however... just horrible to watch when you're around horses almost your entire life. At least I thought it to be cringe worthy.

If the idea is to stay alive, I'm driving.

reply

[–] McGavin_the_Shooter 14 years ago

Hollywood churns out movies to entertain the masses, not gun experts like yourself. If you want absolute accuracy you should read Stephen Ambrose books.

"I don't want Fop, Goddammit! I'm a Dapper Dan man!"

reply

[–] scottishnpaddy 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Ambrose#Inaccuracies

reply

[–] martin_66 14 years ago

Spot on McGavin,

if the original poster wants total accuracy he/she had better stop watching any movies or television programmes immediately.

As you quite rightly say - Hollywood churns out movies to entertain. End of story. There comes a point when watching a movie or programme when you need to be able to just switch off the part of your brain that looks for technical accuracy and just sit back and enjoy the entertainment that is on offer. If you are unable to do that then why bother watching anything at all?

reply

[–] morethanafeeling 14 years ago

You.... don't have many friends, do you?

reply

[–] MrBelette 14 years ago

His only friends are his guns I suppose. Happy man

reply

[–] ti_da_king 14 years ago

I'll be the voice of reason here for both arguments.

First, I picked up several of the inaccuracies, but as others have said: this film is MUCH less inaccurate than the majority of hollywood films.

As a filmmaker, let me tell you that often more than not, the people who are shooting a film KNOW that they aren't being accurate to real life.
What you the view don't know, is that they choose to bend small truths for several reasons. We'll look at a few for the headshot implication.

1. Most audio for a film is done AFTER the film is shot. Not during. This is a common "trick" of the film industry to provide clearer cleaner audio recorded in a studio instead of on set. So they may have already filmed the headshot scene before, realized afterwards that they were wrong, and had to pull something out of their asses for the plot to work.

2. A headshot could have been part of the plot to depict the accuracy of the character. They threw in the "body armor" line afterwards to give a reason that most people would believe. Also, consider that the order you see the movie in is NEVER the order that the movie is filmed. The last scene may have been the first thing they shot.

3. You're dead wrong about the body armor. Ever heard of Miguel Cabrillo? THEY MAKE ARMORED SUITS. What do you think the President wears? Gucci? Don't believe me, look the name up. Maybe they wouldn't have stopped a .50 but the gun they had wasn't a .50 anyways. (I'm watching this movie now... judging by the suppressor they have on it I would guess .308)

reply

[–] saintsNsins 14 years ago

the gun is actually a .408, other than that I think you are right on.

reply

[–] Public-Enemy-01 12 years ago

Maybe they wouldn't have stopped a .50 but the gun they had wasn't a .50 anyways. (I'm watching this movie now... judging by the suppressor they have on it I would guess .308)

Lol fail when the computer scope is trained on the president you can clearly see 'Barrett M82A1' on the screen. And as we all know, the M82 fires .50cal BMG.
Plus if you look past the (agreeably distracting) suppressor you can see the distinctive barrel of the M82 and working parts.

BTW the rifle he was FRAMED with was a Cheytac M200 Intervention which fires .408 Cheytac cartridge.

Too the OP who said that the .50cal would be losing its punch after one mile i doubt it and i know for a fact that the .408 Cheytac stays supersonic out to nearly a mile and a half, so thats wrong aswell...

Books and movies are apples and oranges, there both delicious but dont taste the same (Steven King)

reply

[–] mighty_frogman 12 years ago

With a bullet that size, body armor wouldn't matter. Even a level 4 ceramic plate is only designed to stop a 7.62 round. A .408 would exceed the limits of any vest. Even if the vest managed to somehow keep the round from penetrating, the individual would die from blunt force trauma.

The idea of a deliberate headshot at 1800 yards makes for good entertainment, but is a fallacy. Every US sniper school teaches you to aim for the body at any distance past 400M. The longest headshot I'm familiar with is Carlos Hathcock (documented in the book Marine Sniper) at 2400 yards. Carlos admitted this was an accident as he was aiming elsewhere on the body. Howard Wasdin (book SEAL Team Six) documented an 800 yard headshot, but again admitted it was an accident.

Guys keep in mind that while these movies may be factually inaccurate, if they were factual then you'd lose a lot of the story line and entertainment value. That would limit the box office potential and perhaps the movie never gets made at all. I'd rather a movie with some plot holes I can point out (usually to impress the lady I'm with by showing her how smart I am) than not have any movie at all.

reply

[–] Metaljeeper 12 years ago

Is the body just a better target because its a bigger target, or is there some other reason to avoid a headshot? Because I can kind of guess that from a good distance, a .50 might completely evaporate the head of the target, but it would get the job done, no?

FWIW I liked this movie.
It has a nice "this is what happens when you leave a man behind" feel to it.
Never treat your soldiers as if they were mere assets, because you need them more than they need you.

reply

[–] Darvidd 10 years ago

Simply, as you said, the torso of the body is a far larger target-hitting anything that's moving around at a distance is extremely difficult so you aim to hit the biggest bit...

'What is an Oprah?'-Teal'c.

reply

[–] michaeltrenton 10 years ago

As soon as I heard the BS line about body armor requiring a headshot, I knew the movie was crap and changed the channel.

I'm always provoked when I hear this kind of lame argument. Because getting such a fact wrong does not make a movie crap!
It's insignificant. This movie is made for the majority of people and the majority of people don't have such detailed knowledge of how weapons and armor work. Getting such a fact wrong only makes the movie crap to the occasional weapon nut who's delusional enough to think he's watching a documentary or special interest movie about weapons and armor. Reality check! It's not! It's a Hollywood movie!!! The story and characters is what decides if it's good or crap. Not petty, insignificant details. Get it?

It happens all the time. People who happen to have a lot of knowledge in a specific field will always balk at things they (and nobody else) know is not right. Historians cringe at historical epics who have taken liberty with historical facts to better suit the story, doctors and scientists cringe at watching some medical procedure and scientific babble in movies that they know is not right, police detectives probably laugh at unrealistic investigation techniques, the list goes on and on. My point however is that the majority of people don't know this and don't care! Therefore it doesn't reduce the quality of a movie when the filmmakers take some convenient liberties and shortcuts.

.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Damned well said - overdue.

reply

[–] red_skin123 10 years ago

Good post Trent.

reply

[–] murad23 9 years ago

In the case of firearms half the country owns them and a very large number of people have been in the service, and the fundamental mistakes throughout concerning long range shooting are really jarring.

The central thing in the film is his sniper skill and to watch such atrociously bad BASICS reflects a complete lack of any research.

reply