"Another" gun thread . . .
Oct 25, 2006 at 6:42 PM Post #31 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin
Not sure about the others, but the anti-tank rocket one was faked. It doesn't look right and would be downright dangerous to do... Not to mention the incredible aim you'd need to do that.


Actually I think it was very real. And it has nothing to do with aim really. Someone who is experienced in using a weapon like that could pretty much tell him what to shoot toward and when to hit the trigger.. It's all physics man!!
smily_headphones1.gif


Anyways, a friend of mine that was in the Marines once told me they aren't that hard to aim or shoot.
 
Oct 25, 2006 at 6:52 PM Post #32 of 45
^^ True, you'd have to think they'd be able to hit moving targets at long range.

I'm not quite sure that was his very first time firing one though, "Oh look I've never fired one of these before, just press this button here... whoosh, BOOM!".
 
Oct 25, 2006 at 7:27 PM Post #33 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by splaz
^^ True, you'd have to think they'd be able to hit moving targets at long range.

I'm not quite sure that was his very first time firing one though, "Oh look I've never fired one of these before, just press this button here... whoosh, BOOM!".



From his comments about a wide range of shotguns and his apparent facility with the weapons shown, I'd guess he's at tried a lot of different arms and isn't a virgin user, or at least had a little instruction in each before on-camera "shoot".
 
Oct 25, 2006 at 9:06 PM Post #34 of 45
True, I mean I got a reasonable 26/30 for my first time ever shooting with an F88 Steyr.

However I still think surely he must have fired one or two just to get the gist of it.
 
Oct 25, 2006 at 11:55 PM Post #35 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder
I thought machine guns and rockets were illegal?! I wonder how they got permission
confused.gif
...



Nope, machine guns have been perfectly legal to own since they were first developed. Some States put up bureaucratic barriers so that only "special" people have a realistic chance of legally owning them (like Kalifornia), but there are many states that are full of legally owned, fully automatic firearms.

Anti-tank rockets, however, are a bit different... I think.

Interesting factoid: How many legally owned machine guns have been used in a crime?

Answer: One (by a police officer, if I remember correctly)
 
Oct 26, 2006 at 12:00 AM Post #36 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nospam

Interesting factoid: How many legally owned machine guns have been used in a crime?

Answer: One (by a police officer, if I remember correctly)



From what I've read you are right. He murdered his wife.
 
Oct 26, 2006 at 6:21 AM Post #37 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08
Actually I think it was very real. And it has nothing to do with aim really. Someone who is experienced in using a weapon like that could pretty much tell him what to shoot toward and when to hit the trigger.. It's all physics man!!
smily_headphones1.gif


Anyways, a friend of mine that was in the Marines once told me they aren't that hard to aim or shoot.



It's faked. There are serious visual discreptancies between the angles they show, and the warhead supposedly launched. The cartridge he shows us is not the rocket assisted HEAT shell. But, on the shot where he's in frame and the shell is streaking towards the car, there's a rocket motor glow coming from the shell's base and a distinct black plume following the shell. That shouldn't be there. The trajectory that the rocket takes is also impossible, it curves to follow where Clarkson points the muzzle of the Gustav. Finally, the black plume can also be seen in the second camera angle. But, in the third and fourth camera angle, the smoke plume disappears...

Also check out the GPMG he's using. Cartridges and links come in, only links come out. No brass comes out. As that's not an HK G11, a gyrojet gun, muzzle loader, or a paper cartridge gun, brass should be leaving the ejection port of the gun at a fairly fast clip. It ain't.

The part with the SPAS is probably also fake. I know the SPAS is heavy and that trap loads are light recoiling, but you're going to see more recoil than that shooting from the hip. He seems to just be jerking the shotgun up and down to simulate recoil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nospam
Nope, machine guns have been perfectly legal to own since they were first developed. Some States put up bureaucratic barriers so that only "special" people have a realistic chance of legally owning them (like Kalifornia), but there are many states that are full of legally owned, fully automatic firearms.

Anti-tank rockets, however, are a bit different... I think.



Milkpowder lives in England/HK. MGs are illegal there along with most other guns.

As for antitank rockets, if you can find someone who'll sell one to you (the hard part), pay the $200 destructive device tax per rocket, and have a place to store it (another hard one), you're good to go. There are a few destructive device fanatics in the US. All of them have tons of land, lots of disposable income, and nothing better to do. (Not that that's a bad thing, but DDs are the kinds of things where accidents turn into funerals.)
 
Oct 26, 2006 at 9:03 AM Post #38 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin
It's faked. There are serious visual discreptancies between the angles they show, and the warhead supposedly launched. The cartridge he shows us is not the rocket assisted HEAT shell. But, on the shot where he's in frame and the shell is streaking towards the car, there's a rocket motor glow coming from the shell's base and a distinct black plume following the shell. That shouldn't be there. The trajectory that the rocket takes is also impossible, it curves to follow where Clarkson points the muzzle of the Gustav. Finally, the black plume can also be seen in the second camera angle. But, in the third and fourth camera angle, the smoke plume disappears...

Also check out the GPMG he's using. Cartridges and links come in, only links come out. No brass comes out. As that's not an HK G11, a gyrojet gun, muzzle loader, or a paper cartridge gun, brass should be leaving the ejection port of the gun at a fairly fast clip. It ain't.

The part with the SPAS is probably also fake. I know the SPAS is heavy and that trap loads are light recoiling, but you're going to see more recoil than that shooting from the hip. He seems to just be jerking the shotgun up and down to simulate recoil.



You may be right no this. I was surprised at the lack of recoil that the SPAS exhibited. He seemed to shoot it like Arnie did in Terminator. So what you're suggested is that there was actual a second guy who was actually doing the shooting? You seem to be like some firearms expert
tongue.gif
 
Oct 26, 2006 at 3:02 PM Post #39 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder
So what you're suggested is that there was actual a second guy who was actually doing the shooting?


Nah, the cars had pyro charges that were detonated in mid air.

Clarkson has a few other videos involving guns. In one, he uses a Volvo SUV and an MP-5 SMG in a biathalon style contest. Another featured an AK-47. He clearly used blanks in both of those videos.
 
Oct 26, 2006 at 3:11 PM Post #40 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin
Nah, the cars had pyro charges that were detonated in mid air.

Clarkson has a few other videos involving guns. In one, he uses a Volvo SUV and an MP-5 SMG in a biathalon style contest. Another featured an AK-47. He clearly used blanks in both of those videos.



How did the make all the bullet holes and the broken glass (in the shot in mid-air)?
 
Oct 26, 2006 at 3:33 PM Post #42 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder
How did the make all the bullet holes and the broken glass (in the shot in mid-air)?


Small explosive charges for the glass, preformed bullet holes. The standard movie tricks for this kind of thing.
 
Oct 26, 2006 at 9:27 PM Post #43 of 45
All the comments about typical movie setups, etc. seem about right to me. I originally commented that I thought he was amazingly accurate shooting from the hip with the "pump SPAS" and "launcher", but the preset charges, squibs, and maybe second shooter + editing makes perfect sense.

It is, after all, just entertainment.

Fun, tho'.
 
Aug 28, 2007 at 12:43 PM Post #45 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Small explosive charges for the glass, preformed bullet holes. The standard movie tricks for this kind of thing.


I am shocked! SHOCKED!! And from such a credible media production house as the BBC . . .
very_evil_smiley.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top