Writer Question

Piliger

Hi all, writer question here.

With a handgun, I saw on some TV program that using a big plastic bottle to shoot though stopped the shooter from getting gun residue on him. Is this likely ?

Cass

Without having ever tried it, obviously, i say NO.

The residue from firing a round not only comes out the muzzle (end of the barrel) but back from the cylinder (on a revolver) and from the breech (on a semi auto). It may be more prolific from a semi auto than a revolver but there is no way you do not get some on you.

Having a bottle on the end is pure Hollywood. It does not silence, or protect you from Residue. Hollywood has a lot to answer for when it comes to most people's beliefs of what can and cannot be done with a gun not to mention what happens on screen to what actually happens IRL. Even if you were to dress from head to toe, fire the gun and then undress some of the particles will transfer to the clothing/skin during undress.

Piliger

Thanks for that, I understand exact what you're saying. On Hollywood .... Being credible is often more important than being true

Cass

Well in fairness if they showed what actually happened nobody would watch. I wouldn't. It's chewing gum for the brain.

meathstevie

It is possible to fire a gun and make residue disappear by means of destroying clothing and thorough washing and scrubbing but preventing is near on impossible unless you fire an air rifle or pistol but I can't see Hollywood being too interested in that type of gun.

Sparks

meathstevie wrote: »

I can't see Hollywood being too interested in that type of gun.

Not deliberately anyway. There's a famous movie poster where the prop manager didn't get the character's iconic PPK to the photo shoot and they used the photographer's Walther LP53 air pistol instead...

Grizzly 45

Actually it was because Pinewood studios at the time didnt have very many prop guns to hand, least of all the PPK and even in the 1960s Britan it was still impossible to get one at short notice .Hence the Walther air pistol.:)

Ironic then that yet again films decided armament policy in the really real world as suddenly many organisations in the UK that required discreet firearms,post Dr No and from Russia with love Bond films were suddenly being issued PPKs in the 1960s.:eek::).Same as our ERU suddenly aquired the SPAS12 shotgun around 1984 when Arnie Schwarzenegger had made it famous that Summer in the film "the Terminator".Just Coincidence of course..;):P

The plastic bottle,well actually it is supposed to be an improvised one shot disposable silencer,taken from many books and websites on improvised silencers ,mostly written by people who don't have a clue about the subject and in the myth there is a little bit of truth provided you are using a lowly .22 subsonic and your target is all of within phone booth range . As how you are going to aim this thing without drastically altering the sights is beyond me.
It does work up to a point,but it certainly will not prevent powder residue being blown onto your body or clothes.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Actually it was because Pinewood studios at the time didnt have very many prop guns to hand, least of all the PPK and even in the 1960s Britan it was still impossible to get one at short notice .Hence the Walther air pistol.:)

Seems that it depends on where you heard about it. The photographer who ran the photoshoot says it was because they forgot to bring the prop (which Pinewood had on set at the time) on the day and they didn't have time to wait for it to be brought over to the photography studio:

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/collecting_auction_walther_air_pistol_from_russia_with_love.php3

Incidentally, that air pistol is now incredibly valuable, selling for almost a half-million dollars, more than twice the almost-$200,000 price of the PPK prop: http://www.bornrich.com/james-bonds-walther-air-pistol-russia-love-sale-007s-licence-kill.html

It's a nice little bit of irony, that...

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Seems that it depends on where you heard about it. The photographer who ran the photoshoot says it was because they forgot to bring the prop (which Pinewood had on set at the time) on the day and they didn't have time to wait for it to be brought over to the photography studio:

Hmmmm..Thats an intresting one:cool:.Read someplace in a German mag on the Bond guns,around the time our Pierce Brosnan took over the roll,that it was due to lack of the PPK as an actual prop.......Maybe it got lost in translation to German that bit??

While we are on about Bonds guns.An intresting link to the real "Q" who was appointed by Ian Fleming to the personal armourer of James Bond.
He certainly wasnt the bumbling inventor in the basement as portrayed in the films.:pac:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Boothroyd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuO34MDezzU

pedroeibar1

‘Thanks to the movies, real gunfire has always sounded unreal to me, even when being fired at.’
Peter Ustinov.

meathstevie

How another discussion in the shooting forum drifts into quirky little corners...have to love it.

Sparks

At least that was one of the nice little corners
As a postscript to the quirky bit, that's actually the one and only time you ever see Bond hold a real gun (all the rest are props). So the only real gun in the entire Bond francise is a lowly air pistol :P

Grizzly 45

Wonder why Walther didnt do a commerative issue for the 50 years of bond films? It really has nice lines.

Postscript to the quirky postscript:).It is now the second real gun to be used in a Bond film. The double rifle carried by Daniel Craig in Skyfall is a real bespoke piece made by Anderson Wheeler London.

http://www.jamesbondlifestyle.com/product/anderson-wheeler-500-nitro-express-double-rifle
Although we could now argue,is Sky Fall a "real" Bond film,as Fleming never wrote it.:D

pedroeibar1

And another bit of quirky Bondiana (don't mind that it's a .22, just look at the cars, one of which resides or resided in Ireland) and 'Soufriere' from Casino Royale sails in Dublin Bay

Nekarsulm

Seem to remember reading a novel where the assailant wore a plastic glove to hold his browning (I think) .22 auto pistol, and then placed a strong plastic bag over the gun and sealed that bag to his wrist with tape. the idea was to contain GFR and, as the muzzle gasses inflated the bag, also collected spent brass, thus reducing incriminating evidence.

Sparks

That's used in the Kevin Costner film Mr.Brooks (but I don't think that's based on a novel).

Piliger

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Seem to remember reading a novel where the assailant wore a plastic glove to hold his browning (I think) .22 auto pistol, and then placed a strong plastic bag over the gun and sealed that bag to his wrist with tape. the idea was to contain GFR and, as the muzzle gasses inflated the bag, also collected spent brass, thus reducing incriminating evidence.

Interesting. of course plausibility is what really matters, not authenticity.

Nekarsulm

Sparks wrote: »

That's used in the Kevin Costner film Mr.Brooks (but I don't think that's based on a novel).

Thanks Sparks, deffo a book, as I don't really get to watch films. Could have been by Robert Crais, but I read a lot so can't remember.

Sparks

Piliger wrote: »

Interesting. of course plausibility is what really matters, not authenticity.

I doubt any of it is plausible. Hollywood and most fiction is generally a very long way away from reality.

Piliger

Sparks wrote: »

I doubt any of it is plausible. Hollywood and most fiction is generally a very long way away from reality.

Oh I don't know. When I asked a few friends the Q I asked here, every single one of them thought the bottle trick was genuine ...

Grizzly 45

It's precived reality.If,say you knew nothing about aircraft and only watched or were shown air disaster films and documentaries on air crashes.You would be only able to belive that flying was a dangerous busisness hazardous to your health.
Same with shooting and Hollywood. Ever since the silent movies Hollywood has been giving us utter fiction related to firearms.

All good harmless bubble gum for the brain ,until people that should know better start basing laws and policy and start issueing firearms that peoples lives might depend on because they saw it on the Telly and it looked very sinister so as TV is reality for many out there,these must be the guns the bad guy /good guy uses.Therefore ban certain types or features as only a bad guy would want one...
Crazy but true.

Sparks

Piliger wrote: »

Oh I don't know. When I asked a few friends the Q I asked here, every single one of them thought the bottle trick was genuine ...

Pretty good rule of thumb: If Mark Wahlberg's done it with a firearm in a movie, it ain't plausible

In fact, with very very few exceptions like the Mythbusters crew, pretty much everything you see on the big screen or the little one is fake and won't work in real life.

The upside is, the Mythbusters lot have done some pretty cool things with firearms over the years. This one's my personal favorite - if you fire a bullet from a gun and drop a bullet from the height of the chamber at the same time, which bullet hits the ground first? Physics tells us that they hit the ground at the same time, and they went off and filmed it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9wQVIEdKh8

That beats stupid gunplay crap in films for me every time (but I may be somewhat boring).

Cass

You would imagine the fact that the Mythbusters show exists would answer this question without a word being said. A show dedicated to busting the myths of not only real life but Hollywood. The one i thought was cool was the one about firing a gun into water. In the movies the bullets go for yards and you see people being shot when they are 10, 15, 20 feet under water. Mythbusters proved that even with the biggest caliber rifle (at least here) after 3 feet (and in some cases 14 inches) you are perfectly safe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvSTuLIjRm8

On the flip side you have Mark Walhberg (the film shooter) shooting a rifle with a homemade "silencer", and apparently toy scope, from a moving/rocking boat at nearly 200 yards and making three perfect shots. Hard enough in a stable/stationary position. No one wants to know the truth. They want entertainment.

Then you have a subtle dose of the "CSI effect". IOW if shown something on TV long enough people begin to believe it can be done.


The point is if TV or the movies were to reflect every day occurrences it would make for some pretty boring TV. Even shows like Sons of Guns, American Guns, etc. that deal with the actual building of guns that may appeal to the gun enthusiast are not that "real". I've seen guns being built and it's boring. However no one wants to watch a master gunsmith build a perfect target rifle. They want to see bazookas on Quads, and caravans being blown up.

Piliger

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It's precived reality.

Exactly. All it needs is to be is plausible.

Piliger

Cass wrote: »

You would imagine the fact that the Mythbusters show exists would answer this question without a word being said.

Does ANYone actually watch those shows ?

Sparks

Piliger wrote: »

Does ANYone actually watch those shows ?

About 2.3 million in their best season. Compared to 37.7 million for american idol. I guess brain-free drivel's more popular than learning stuff. Though mythbusters' crew do get around more than that'd suggest.