Will Hollywood ever get it right?

[tark]

Will Hollywood ever get it right? I have watched a million war movies showing a million different guys loading Ma Deuce, including FURY, which I saw today.

Raise the cover, position the belt in the feed tray, close the cover, yank the charging handle ONCE and start firing....Right? What is wrong with this picture?

Did I misunderstand a sergeant forty years ago or was I told that you have to charge an M2 TWICE to get it ready to fire?

Are the movies getting it wrong or am I just an ignoramus?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

No.

 

[Tommygunn]

Unfortunatly the subject matter is pretty eclectic. Not too many people know how to feed a belt fed machinegun of any type.
I know I don't. We don't have to go into NFA territory to wonder about Hollywierd. How many Glocks have we seen being "cocked" on TV shows? How many M-4s are shot with 30 round magazines that fire hundreds of times without reloading?>
It has been all discussed and derided before.

 

[col.lemat]

One time if loaded all of the way under the feed extractor. Twice if just laid in the feed tray under the feed pawl.

 

[strambo]

Yeah, depends on where you put the round. Just assume he positioned it correctly in the center under the extractor as an experienced soldier and it will make the movie more enjoyable!

 

[MEHavey]

Hmmmmm.....

Insert the double-loop end of the belt in the feed tray until the belt-holding pawl engages
the first round.

With the palm of your hand facing up, pull the retracting slide handle to the rear and release it.
(If the bolt latch release is up, return the retracting slide handle to the forward position then
release the bolt.)

With the palm of your hand facing up, pull the retracting slide handle to the rear a second time
and release it. When the bolt goes forward the second time, the gun is loaded.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/SMCT_CTT_Tasks/Skill_Level_1/0710220003-sl1-load-a-cal.shtml

 

[bikerdoc]

Co.Lemat got it right.

 

[MEHavey]

Do it just once, and your range instructor will give you a No-Go.

 

[Jim K]

Now that movies rarely use real guns, we are going to see a lot more odd things done with "firearms". In the old days with blanks, at least the gun had to actually fire; with digital work, it is all fakery.

Jim

 

[steveracer]

You only need to work the charging handle once if you place the round against the cartridge stop. If you side-load the M2, (never opening the top cover) you must rack it multiple times, and if you only get the links on the feed pawl, you must rack it twice. I never, EVER have needed to rack the charging handle more than once, because I always load it the same way.

 

[GoWolfpack]

Of all the things movies get wrong, that's one you're focused on?


I want to have your life.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Will Hollywood ever get it right?

If you worry about details that don't affect the story, then you can never like any Hollywood docudrama. Short of getting a time machine and going back in filming in the day, a lot of things will be wrong. Most of those things don't actually matter to the story, however.

I will say this, never go to a WWII movie with WWII re-enactors who know their stuff. They will nitpick the hell out of everything from uniform buttons to boot tread, jeep tires, radio sets, and especially weaponry. Heaven forbid a movie show a 1944 scene with a piece of gear that wasn't introduced until 1945. Oh the humanity!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

tark: You rack the charging handle once to get a cartridge in the the feedway, twice to get that cartridge in the firingchamber and the next cartridge in the feedway. You got it right, the movie got it simple and dumb.

Double-naught: I do agree that the nits should only be picked if they are critical to the plot. Authentic props are often had to obtain; that I can overlook.

Totally unrealistic action (hundreds of rounds from an AK with a 30 shot magazine w/o a reload) do kill any "willing suspension of disbelief" required to make fiction work for me. And authentic touchs do impress me. I still remember realistic reloading in a gun battle in 1965's Licensed to Kill aka Second Best Secret Agent in the Whole Wide World) an otherwise forgettable spy spoof. When authenticity in movies is mentioned, I remember that one nearly fifty years after.

I have military family and friends who indoctrinated me into the M2 Ma Deuce drill: I would expect a M2 charging handle to be racked twice after loading. Is single racking an M2 in a movie a glaring defect? Is it going to be noticed by the typical audience? Probably not. I would not be surprised if test audiences would wonder what was going on if the actor did follow proper drill and racked it twice.

 

[tark]

I have seen a movie in which Hollywood almost got it Right. The Sand Pebbles starring Steve McQueen and Richard Crenna is a very accurate portrayal of the weapons and tactics used during the Boxer Rebellion, or whatever that fracus was in China in the mid twenties. Steve McQueen was a hunter and A shooter and he insisted the guns be used realistically. And they were, It is one of the few hollywoon war movies I can watch without cringing.

 

[JRH6856]

As a producer/director, John Fasano got right, and he also wrote for Combat Tactics and American Handgunner. He knew guns, but he died this past July.

 

[Jaymo]

I cringe at all the autopistols that "click" when empty, instead of locking the slide back.
Must be a lot of broken slide stops on those Hollywood guns.

 

[JRH6856]

I cringe at all the autopistols that "click" when empty, instead of locking the slide back.
Must be a lot of broken slide stops on those Hollywood guns.

Usually 1911s that continue to click as the trigger is pulled several times.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I remember the fairly recent film "American Ganster"

In it, Russel Crow is running around an apartment complex with an Ithaca 37 or similair pump gun. He racks the slide multiple times as a threat... never once ejecting any shells. In real life all he would be doing is emptying the magazine without firing, but it's Hollyweird.

Yes this stuff irks me... but it's not so bad and you have to remember, 99% of people could care less and Hollywood is all mostly about pandering to what people want to see, and like I said most of the time accurate portrayals of gun mechanisms are last on most people's lists.

 

[Jaymo]

"Click, click, click, click, click. Throws empty pistol at nemesis."

I disagree about it being a small, unimportant thing.
The writers should research the subject matter, and at least TRY to do their jobs correctly.
It makes the entire movie/show look stupid. Just like the 100 round six-shooter.

While they're at it, the sound effects crews need to pull their heads out of their arses and breathe some fresh air, so they can use the correct sounds at the correct times.

Then, you have the gilding metal-jacketed bullets that ricochet off car doors and windows, throwing sparks.

Then, you have scenes where alcohol burns with a flame like kerosene/lamp oil/gasoline, and all the CGI fires/explosions/muzzle flashes, and the muzzle blasts that sound like a much more/less powerful round than what the gun in question fires.

There are many reasons I don't watch much in the way of movies or TV shows.
I don't watch sports, either. Not interested in watching grown men being grab-asstic with each other.

As bad as Hollywood gun gaffes are, Hong Kong action flicks are even worse.
Chow Yun-Fat gets shot in the back with 00 buck, at close range, and the buck shot ends up just under the skin.
But, at least the HK action flicks are so outlandish that you can overlook the gun-stupidity
Lucky for me, work, family, and hobbies keep me pretty busy.

 

[JRH6856]

"Click, click, click, click, click. Throws empty pistol at nemesis."

I disagree about it being a small, unimportant thing.
The writers should research the subject matter, and at least TRY to do their jobs correctly.
It makes the entire movie/show look stupid. Just like the 100 round six-shooter.

While they're at it, the sound effects crews need to pull their heads out of their arses and breathe some fresh air, so they can use the correct sounds at the correct times.

Then, you have the gilding metal-jacketed bullets that ricochet off car doors and windows, throwing sparks.

Then, you have scenes where alcohol burns with a flame like kerosene/lamp oil/gasoline, and all the CGI fires/explosions/muzzle flashes, and the muzzle blasts that sound like a much more/less powerful round than what the gun in question fires.

There are many reasons I don't watch much in the way of movies or TV shows.
I don't watch sports, either. Not interested in watching grown men being grab-asstic with each other.

As bad as Hollywood gun gaffes are, Hong Kong action flicks are even worse.
Chow Yun-Fat gets shot in the back with 00 buck, at close range, and the buck shot ends up just under the skin.
But, at least the HK action flicks are so outlandish that you can overlook the gun-stupidity
Lucky for me, work, family, and hobbies keep me pretty busy.

Well, remember that a movie is generaly not a documentary, it is a work of fiction in a highly visual medium. In a book, the narrative surrounding the dialog would describe the action taking place, would describe its affects on the characters, and in so doing, develop an emotive response in the reader. Movies do not have the benefit of detailed narrative. A visual medium has to accomplish the same thing visually. The spark of ricocheting bullet, or the whining sound and the actors reaction to it serves to show how close the person came to being hit. The sound of a shotgun being racked heightens the drama and creates anticipation of something about to happen. Same with the sound of a hammer being cocked. These are all sounds that the general viewing audience has come to expect and is conditioned to react appropriately. Instead of dialog saying "I really mean it, I am prepared to shoot." the character just cocks a hammer or racks a slide.

Same with the highly visible smoke and flame from hand grenades. Do real frag grenades really produce such highly visible explosions? This is how Hollywood creates and more importantly delivers dramatic effect to a naive audience. If they used totally realistic sounds and actions, the audience would have to be much more knowledgable of what the action being portrayed is really like.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I like movies that accurately depict the loudness of weapons, or there effect on the "listener".

Black Hawk Down where that one marine is shooting an M249 (I think) right next to the other guy and he yells because he just went deaf.

Also in the Walking Dead when Rick shoots his Python while inside an army tank. He goes deaf too!

 

[jmorris]

There are a few movies that even throw in the tinnitus ring for a few seconds after a loud noise. The fake part is that it goes away long before the end of the movie.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Artistic license....

It's called: artistic license.
Hollywood does not have to make sense or ask for your approval.

In another forum I visit, the members are debating a possible new scene of Star Wars EP7(2015) where a "light-saber", the iconic laser sword of all the series will fall through space & land on a planet's surface.
Most forum members think that would be highly unlikely. I agree but knowing it's only a movie/fiction, I'm not going to get a ulcer over it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well there is artistic license (which is intentional) and then there are mistakes. Failing to pull the handle twice may be a mistake. Showing over-glorified explosions and people flying through the air after being shot with a bullet would be artistic license.

 

[steveracer]

Did I not explain this already? YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PULL THE HANDLE TWICE.
If you load it against the cartridge stop, you need only work the charging handle ONE TIME to make the weapon condition 1.
I have been a crew-served weapons instructor for many years, and shoot the M2 a few thousand rounds a month.