MovieChat Forums > Shooter (2016) Discussion > The Firing Pin (Spoilers)

The Firing Pin (Spoilers)

posted 7 years ago by Underdog_73
8 replies | jump to latest

I saw the movie, and had no problem understanding why the rifle didn't fire at the end.

Here though, unless I missed something, it made no sense. Why would he shave down the firing pin? They already made it clear the set up caught him completely off guard, so he in no way assumed his rifle would be used, and even if that's where they were going, it makes no sense.

I kept falling asleep watching it, and then i deleted it out of habit before going back and watching the end again, so I may have misunderstood, so if anyone can provide an explanation that makes sense, it would be appreciated.

[–] Ford_Chase 7 years ago

It's been a long time since I read it, but the firing pin was a big deal in the book, IIRC. Bob Lee started getting suspicious about the whole thing, so he disabled his rifle before the presidential visit by filing down the firing pin. It was not revealed to the reader until the end of the book when he was on trial. I remember it being a really cool twist.

[–] Underdog_73 7 years ago

They did a horrible job of addressing it in the series. As a matter of fact, it wasn't addressed at all. They just stated it was done, then did a flashback of him looking at the rifle in his shed. For such an important part they completely missed the mark on that one. Even the movie did a better job. Thanks for the reply.

[–] aGuiltySoul 7 years ago

You may think so, but I think it was perfect. The quiet look he gives Memphis says it all. He was never such a patsy as the conspirators thought, although he misjudged the depth of their villainy. The truth is that he could have been vindicated from the very beginning but no attempt was made to do so because those who had the proof suppressed it.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

[–] Underdog_73 7 years ago

Just because they threw that look in at the end, it doesn't make the rest of the season disappear. His character showed he was completely caught off guard when the shooting happened at a different location. Anyone believing this could be a set up wouldn't have been so surprised the shooting didn't go as he predicted.

His complete surprise to many things, as he was alone on the screen, didn't jive with a man who was shrewd enough to know it could be a set up. Maybe it was bad acting, directing, or writing, but it didn't work.

Like you said though, we'll probably disagree.

[–] aGuiltySoul 7 years ago

You may speak for yourself, certainly. But I don't agree and I am with the majority I believe. He was caught up in the system, arrested, jailed, set up for a quick kill but he always seemed to be one step ahead. One man alone, determined to survive.

BTW: from the show's writers

Swagger faced down a rifle barrel when Gregson questioned him. But it paid off, because it turns out the firing pin had been shaved two millimeters. The weapon implicating Swagger in the assassination attempt can't even fire! Swagger did it back when he saw his gun shed broken into. So he always knew he'd be exonerated.

I'd add he always knew, if he could but get to that point.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

[–] Underdog_73 7 years ago

I don't know what makes you believe you're with the majority, but that's neither here nor there.

You seem to think I have a problem with the existence of the plot device and subtle twist. Nowhere did I ever say that. We're talking about two different things.

You're debating the believability of him shaving down the pin. There's no point in debating it. I don't disagree. I think the writers handled in a way that was completely unclear, and I haven't yet met a person who didn't think the same thing. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that I'm in the majority though.

The episode simply showed a quick clip of him in his shed, looking at the rifle. They didn't even make it clear it was after it was broken into. The quote posted stated that, and if it had been clear in the first place, they wouldn't have had to further explain.

I'm fine, storywise, with the fact he had the foresight to try to protect himself. I don't like the lack of explanation in the show. Had I not seen the movie, I'd have no idea what a 2 second clip of him looking at a rifle meant.

I typed too much to see it all on my phone's screen, and the app makes it hard to scroll, so if there are any glaring spelling or grammar mistakes, I apologize in advance.

[–] NovakGrey 7 years ago

The fact you mentioned that you kept falling asleep while watching it makes hard to believe you paid enough attention to all the details. So yeah the majority didn't need more explanation because it was set from episode 1.

In the beginning of the season we see a longer scene where he notice that someone broke inside the shed, for someone who lives so isolated in the mountains, it is very suspicious.

But even with that proof he was so deep in a conspiracy the rifle wouldn't have been enough to make sure his family was going to be safe or even his life. They had Payne killing witnesses, Isaac framing him, Grigory Krukov searching for NSB.

They were never going to wait until the trial to kill him so the rifle was irrelevant until he had something to bargain with.

[–] gveronica 7 years ago

It made perfect sense to me to as well. He may have known the rifle would exonerate him but he also knew that the NSA or CIA could very well suppress the evidence. He knew he needed actual proof that the NSA/CIA couldn't mess with.