Gunfire as it used to be

Tools    





Mig
Registered User
I don't know how to describe this, but back in the day, remember how gunfire used to look on the screen?

If you watch one of the old Sean Connery era Bond movies or something like that, chances are you'll see what I'm talking about.

Firesparks would come out of the guns.

Since, this representation of gunfire has been dropped pretty much completely.

Know what I'm talking about?

I'm kinda curious about who invented the phenomenon and why it was put to an end.



I'm not sure who 'invented' it, but it was probably the most realistic and/ or cost effective way to make a gun 'fire'. The Connery era Bond movies are from a while ago (yet they are still among the best ) so special effects weren't all that mind-blowing especially compared to what we have today (at the time the FX were good though). As to why it was dropped, who can say really? (I just know now that I said this, someone is going to come here and they are going to know) maybe it was too expensive or better FX came out that was used instead.
__________________
One day you will ask me, what's more important...me or your life. I will answer my life and you will walk away not knowing that you are my life



I remember gun fire further back. The westerns of the fifties had a particular noise to revolvers being fired and the gunmen shoved their gun forwards as they fired as though to give more impetus to the bullets. Now you have clowns holding revolvers at all sorts of odd angles as they threaten to fire. Whatever happened to looking down the barrel for accuracy?
__________________
All secrets are safe with this man, because none are as deadly to him as his own. His secret is that he is Richard Kimble. (The Fugitive - Conspiracy of Silence)



Mig
Registered User
When I saw this stuff as a kid, grew up in the 90's, but saw this quite often on TV back then still (though mostly because TV would air old movies and tv series), I thought it looked really cool.

I kinda miss that visual of fire spark firing out of a gun, it kills the realism for me, but damn if it aint fun.



As I have never first hand seen real gunfire I can't say for sure, but I thought those old movies were LESS realistic and that's why they changed it. Even though now they still (I am told) are made unrealistic, just in a different way. It'd be interesting to know for sure though.



Well the most realistic, and intense gunfire scene i have seen in a movie is the bank robbery from Heat, i especially like the sound it just sounds amazing. No other movie i have seen some close to that level of intensity in a gunfight, even counting war movies. And im saying that being that Blawk hawk down is my favorite movie.



All good people are asleep and dreaming.
I remember gun fire further back. The westerns of the fifties had a particular noise to revolvers being fired and the gunmen shoved their gun forwards as they fired as though to give more impetus to the bullets. Now you have clowns holding revolvers at all sorts of odd angles as they threaten to fire. Whatever happened to looking down the barrel for accuracy?
Shooting for accuracy doesn't look cool.



Shooting for accuracy doesn't look cool.
If its done correctly it does, the scene with the muggers in collateral were Vincent kills both of them was awesome, and efficient. But most action films seem to think Matrix shooting is cool.



Gunfire can be fairly realistic if one uses blanks in a revolver because the cocking mechanism (drawing the hammer back) rotates the chamber to the next bullet.

One thing that has always puzzled me: When I was in basic training in 1961 and later on war game manuvers in 1964, we'd fire blanks in the World War II era M-1 rifles that we trained with in basic and later the more modern M-14-M-16 rifles, all operated on gas compression so that when firing live ammo, the gases of the previous exploding round blows back the chamber door, allowing another round to be automatically loaded, at which time the chamber then closes and the rifle is ready to fire. But blanks were loaded with a lesser charge so that the chamber blew back, but then had to be closed by hand so that the next blank cartridge would load and be ready to fire. The result was something like firing a bolt action rifle with a manual fire, eject and load action. It was impossible to get even a semi-automatic weapon effect where one has only to pull the trigger 1-2-3 and the gun goes blam, blam, blam. Which means it also was impossible to get the machine gun rat-tat-tat effect from firing automatic weapons. Point being, I've always wondered how they got that effect when firing machine-guns in films. No one has ever been able to explain how to do that with blanks, although it's certainly possible with live ammo, although extremely dangerous especially on a studio set.



I remember gun fire further back. The westerns of the fifties had a particular noise to revolvers being fired and the gunmen shoved their gun forwards as they fired as though to give more impetus to the bullets. Now you have clowns holding revolvers at all sorts of odd angles as they threaten to fire. Whatever happened to looking down the barrel for accuracy?
The cowboy hero who used to drive me nuts the way he'd shoot was "Wild" Bill Elliott. First of all, he wore his six-gun (either one or two) facing butt forward, which is about the most awkward position possible if you're pulling a piston from your right holster with your right hand because you have to twist your hand at the wrist to grasp the forward facing pistol butt. Now it makes more sense if one is wearing one's gun in a belly holster, situated at a near-horizontal level over one's belly-button as Lee Marvin carries his in The Comancheros. Marvin carried two guns accessible to a right-hand draw--one worn in a holster on his right side that allows for a fast draw while standing, and a second in a belly holster that is more accessible if one is drawing while in the saddle or seated in a chair. (Cavalry soldiers carrried pistols in holsters designed for across the body draws while in the saddle, but those holsters weren't designed for speed, having a flap that buttoned over the pistol to help hold it in the holster while at a gallop.

Real-life gunman James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok stuck two pistols in a silk sash around his waist for a cross-body draw, being equally fast and deadly accurate with either hand. Famed Texas gunman John Wesley Hardin carried two guns facing butt-forward in shoulder hosters for cross-body draw. But I don't think anyone in real life ever carried a pistol facing butt forward on the same side as the hand he'd draw with.

The icing on the cake with Bill Elliot was that after drawing his pistol, he'd raise until it was pointing up and a little behind his shoulder and then would snap it down to where it was at waist level and pointing forward as he fired. I suppose the snapping effect would help in cocking the pistol prior to firing, but it looke as though he was sort of flinging the bullets out of the barrel of the gun. Of course, there was no need to cock the later model pistols that were desgined to cock and fire with a single pull of the trigger.

Another thing that always drove me crazy in cowboy and gangster films was someone is inside a house preparing to fight someone who is attacking from the outside, and the first thing they do is take their gun barrels and break the glass out of the window. Of course, in real life, the first shot would shattered the window pane without tipping off your position in advance. But if one is firing blanks in a movie, the audience will see the window pane still intact after firing 4-5-10 times.



Well the most realistic, and intense gunfire scene i have seen in a movie is the bank robbery from Heat, i especially like the sound it just sounds amazing. No other movie i have seen some close to that level of intensity in a gunfight, even counting war movies. And im saying that being that Blawk hawk down is my favorite movie.
Sorry, Heat was nothing like real gunfire. It shows rounds apparently penetrating the metal in autos, going in one side and out the other--so far, so good. But then the bullets apparently disappear when they exit the other side without ever breaking up any of the concrete or marble surfaces or asphalt on the other side. Automatic fire like that would be chewing up all the scenary in the background, bringing down distant bystanders, and ricocheting around. Way too much muzzle flash, I think, too. Reminds me of those cheap tin toy machineguns when I was a kid that had a friction device that made sparks fly out the barrel when you pulled the trigger.

Plus firing that many rounds from a handheld automatic weapon would about beat the shooter to death via the recoil--accuracy goes to hell as the shooter becomes so exhausted he can hardly lift his arms shoulder high and starts shooting from the hip. Not to mention the impact on "bulletproof" vests. The vests halt or show penetration but the impact of the bullets leave big greenish purple bruises under the vest, like someone who has been beaten with a ball bat.

Also the heat and smell of cordite and gunpowder dries out your throat and inside your nose and your mouth gets so dry you're spitting cotton and would sell your soul for a drink of water.

Another thing in films set in earlier times essentially through all of the 19th century and to some extent even during WWI before smokeless powder became more available, shoot outs generated so much smoke that after the first few minutes it was almost impossible to see one's opponent. To get an idea, go watch reenactors stage battles of the American Revolution or the Civil War with period-correct firearms and just look at the smoke they generate. They come out of the shootouts with faces blackened with the grime of gunsmoke. It was generally accepted back then that major battles always generated major rainstorms immediately afterward because of all the gunsmoke rising into the air and providing airborne particiles around which raindrops would form, precipitating precipitation. Reenactors say they often get the same effect with the black powder they use in blanks fired at major reenactments like Gettysburg.



Sorry, Heat was nothing like real gunfire.
You are very correct in saying it was not so realistic, what i meant to say it was the most intense and action pact gun fight i have seen on film and the most believable (see hollywood shootout), topping that of movies like Black hawk down and saving private Ryan IMO no film will ever come close to what its like in a real life battlefield. But when you are seeing the movie Heat for the first time and you hear that music and you see deniro, pacino, val kilmer, Sizemore, and you have surround sound, it gets your heart pummping and your adrenaline going, thats one of the only films that has done that for me in an action scene. Of course if you go to a frame by frame analysis you can see all the details of bullet impact not being accurate. The full auto fire also bothered me but i don't think the thiefs where going for accuracy to be hitting targets but they were trying to overwhelm the police with firepower. Also LAPD squad cars have kevlar plates in the doors.

Point being, I've always wondered how they got that effect when firing machine-guns in films
This is just a shot in the dark (no pun intended) but maybe they made blank cartriges more powerful enough to cycle the next round, seems unsafe but maybe they found a safe way to do it.