Handguns Grips & Trigger Discipline In Hollywood
 

I mean I know it's just a movie. Yeah, we get it, but it's gets to a point where it's just downright sad.

For example:

Jack Bauer in "24" has a backround that contains that he entered U.S. Army and eventually joined Delta Force; among the decorations accumulated during his service are the Silver Star, the Purple Heart, and the Legion of Merit. He received Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, and Special Forces training.

BUT he can't hold a damn handgun right? He's got to use a "cup and saucer" grip for like 7 seasons. Also he has awful trigger discipline. Years of military training and forgets all of it too. WOW!

The same with "Burn Notice" with the almost the same backround as Jack Bauer but "cup and saucer" grips is all the he can give, but he shows good trigger discipline sometimes.

Last but not least, The Hurt Locker. This film is inaccurate, repulsive, and just plain retarded. I'm not even going to get into to the fact that it was embarrasing for the U.S. Army to be portrayed as dumbasses in this film. How it got an oscar, only god knows. But the fact Jeremy Renner as Sergeant First Class William James "cup and saucers' his Beretta makes me puke even then the whole film itself. This film is a disgrace to the United States Army.

I think Greez Zone is one of the few with excellent trigger discipline and good form and grip on any weapon by any person in the film who was a soldier. The only that was iffy was him killed a Green Beret and getting away with it LOL. I don't know how but whatever.

Burn notice he has his finger on the trigger with hammer back, hurt locker may make sense, as many army units have only done familiarisation with the beretta, no extensive training. I see CG shooter cup and saucering the SIG. As long as they meet there qualifications each year nobody cares.

It's a disgrace to the U.S. Army because Jeremy Renner holds a Beretta with cup-and-saucer grip? LOL. Personally, I thought "Green Zone" was far more disgraceful to the U.S. Army than "The Hurt Locker" could ever have been.

We've already had a gazillion topics about this same subject, and personally, I think that the complaints about actors' gun handling are getting kind of played out. Yes, many actors hold firearms in inappropriate ways that one would expect their character to know are wrong. If that really bothers you so much, don't watch movies or TV.

It just makes it cooler when a actor uses a good grip. Its almost expected to see bad gun handling, when you see it done real well you just think "now that actor is cool"

Not once has being able to tell that actors are just miming driving motions in cars that are being towed ruined my enjoyment of a film or television show.

sillybunz13,

Wow you really hate the cup and saucer. While it doesn't give very much support to the strong hand, it does allow a steadier aim compared to one hand shooting. (not that it even matters in movies) But it is kind of dangerous. What's the only thing between your hand and several rounds of ammo. A thin piece of metal or plastic base pad.

If bad movie gun handling really bothers you, be prepared to deal with it for the rest of life. Just because an actor or actress shoots a gun on film doesn't mean they like it. Same thing applies to one who's playing a rapist or serial killer. Even though those are very different things I hope you get what I mean.

My only pet peeve with guns and movies is magazine capacity. I could give a shit about grip or stance. But it is nice when they do it properly.

I seriously don't care about the cup and saucer grip anymore. If I see it, I'll notice it, but it's not going to "ruin" a movie for me. The Hurt Locker was a great movie. So what if the man didn't hold the gun right. Army guys gets very little handgun training to begin with.

What's wrong with the "Cup and Saucer Grip" it is an official US Army approved grip...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../chap2.htm#2-1

It is a bad grip for "experts" to use.

Not "for experts" like it's the grip special forces use. It's a proper grip, meaning that you have equal pressure on the gun from the left and the right so the gun won't recoil to either side when fired. Add that with a proper high tang grip and the recoil will go straight back towards you inside of so much to the left, right or straight up.

Also there is a thing called "outdated" grips. Like for revolver style. For a time, in law enforcement in a lot of departments, they train you to aim the gun with one hand and with your reaction hand, you have a nice firm grip on your wrist for support. Then there's grips where you have you reaction hand's index finger wrap the front of the trigger guard. Those used to be established grips for training before one discovered that there can be an extra step that can go wrong.

I didn't say the only thing that ruin the movie is the cup and saucer grip. It was just the last straw. The movie was completely embarrasing as in they made the soldiers looks like retards and didn't know what the hell they were doing. I even found a video which list all these retarded mistakes because there is just too much to list for this piece of crap of a movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq2PNmCCE9w

It's outdated by years and the U.S. Army doesn't use it anymore. We're taught either the thumbs tucked grip or thumbs forward grip.

No extensive training, really? Why would they carry Berettas then if they weren't even trained with it? EOD has to be trained in the m4/m16, beretta m9, and some of them even the m14 ebr so yeah. Also the military does care how you hold a weapon to get well aimed shots. Shit if the military didn't care, I could be shooting with one hand with an m4 all the time as long as I pass qualifications, according to you. No, not in the military. Sorry buddy.

I know a U.S. Marshall who fires homie style during offhand shooting with a glock 22 since he has to use right eye to do it. Seriously, its up to whos giving instruction to care. If somebody nails dead center with cup and saucer i doubt many people will give a damn, besides, many soldiers barely touch a beretta outside boot.

Apparently in the 80s the army taught cup and saucer. On burn notice it may make sense to use this grip. Michael was army and then freelanced as a spy. So his training may have been that.

First, Green Zone executed almost perfectly because his whole team in the movie were actual Afganistan/Iraq war veterans. Perfect trigger discipline, perfect tactics, and perfect weapons handling. I know he goes rogue by himself like half of the movie and shoots a green beret, but Matt Damon played a soldier damn near perfect.

In Hurt Locker, the whole movie was a cluster fuck, not just his horrible grip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq2PNmCCE9w

Second, I'm not complaining about every movie with bad gun handling, just the police and military movies that are modern. If we had more directors like Michael Mann and Christopher McQuarrie, then maybe we'll get somewhere with these inaccuracies.

Last, it should matter because if you're going to portray a person who is trained extensively on firearms such as a cop or soldier, do it right. Yuo know how much training these people go through and get bitched at improper grip and no trigger discipline. ALOT! I should know because I was U.S. Army infantry.

I see grip as excusable but trigger discipline is just common sense. Everyone should know it, the only people in movies that should be touching the trigger are characters who have never held one before, like being given one first time, or street thugs and such. A cop should not have the finger wrapped around a glock trigger.

First of all, In the 80's, they were taught either thumbs tucked grip and the old stacked thumbs grip, so Michael Weston is still wrong lol. My father was a soldier through the 1980's.

Second of all, it does matter on the grip and the trigger discipline on every cop, federal agent, soldier, etc. If you were to go through any of the training these people go through, they bitch at you until you get it right (that's including grip and trigger discipline). I should know, I went through it.

Last, soldiers don't touch a beretta at boot camp. You get trained with it at your unit.

I know marines do familiarisation training, dont know i that means shooting or just classroom stuff, kind of assumed the army would at least do something, USCG does only pistol in basic and no rifle/shotgun/240. They care way more about muzzle and trigger discipline than grip, ive noticed a lot of female shooters doing the teacup grip.

Marines get more than familiarisation training on any weapon. They are trained for at least a week on the handgun. Plus the USCG barely has any combat jobs anyways but the people who would have a combat job would not have a teacup grip. If you saw women with teacups in pictures, it was probably during training before they got corrected by an instructor.

In The Hurt Locker's defense, Sgt. James wasn't the sanest individual out there. Still, it always annoys me when people ignore the foregrip out there.

And somehow, that makes up for the other problems? Like...

(1.) The "Green Zone" suggests that the U.S. military is in Iraq for oil (did you forget the very last scene?)

(2.) Almost every soldier in the movie who isn't in Matt Damon's platoon fits in the "bad guy" category (the SF unit led by Jason Issacs' character, the soldiers who abuse prisoners in the internment camp, etc.) Actually, pretty much every American in the movie besides Matt Damon and his men are portrayed as bad guys.

(3.) The other soldiers in the movie are portrayed as far more incompetent than those in "The Hurt Locker" (Iraqi insurgents taking out a platoon of Delta Force operators? Yeah right).

(4.) Matt Damon is a leftist loudmouth fucktard with a superiority complex on anything political. If he had his way, America would probably be some European welfare state where guns were illegal and serving in the military is frowned upon.

(5.) Almost everyone I know who likes "Green Zone" leans to the left. Whereas most people I know who are conservative and pro-military regard the movie as an insult to the troops. I have read plenty of reviews and blog posts of "The Hurt Locker" by Army veterans who have called it unrealistic, but few of them seem to think it's "disgraceful".

So when all is said and done, I consider movies like "Green Zone" - on the basis of their politics - to be far more "disgraceful" to the U.S. military than a movie like "The Hurt Locker" (a movie which does not have some bullshit left-wing message). I'm not sure how you managed to watch the "Green Zone" without feeling at least as much outrage as you did watching "The Hurt Locker".

And We're not over there because of oil?...you should watch the begining of "The Kingdom" again. What I liked about the green zone is it focuses on a soldier willing to ask questions instead of mindlessly following orders.

First of all, let me say up front that I regard the Iraq War as a mistake and wish we had not gone in retrospect. The fact that I wish we had not gone to Iraq, however, does not mean that I don't find "Green Zone" repugnant.

That being said, no, we are not in Iraq for oil. Also, instead of watching a movie made by Hollywood, I'd recommend this:

http://www.amazon.com/Plan-Attack-De...9001561&sr=8-5

Anyway, let's not focus too much on the politics. I'm just curious to understand how "The Hurt Locker" is really a worse film than "Green Zone".

1/5 of u.s. oil comes from the middle east. Thts it. If we wanted war for oil we could invade venezuela and say its due to them supporting FARC.

And fact stands sarin, mustard gas, illegal missiles, etc., were found in iraq. Before the war saddam wouldnt let inspectors into sites, trying to hide what he had. Hundreds of cargo trucks fled to syria before we rolled in. Munitions were probably buried too, the country is a bigass desert/

As to hurt locker, it was unrealistic but showed american soldiers as brave and heroic, ready to risk their lives to save others. There are too many left wing movies out there where soldiers go crazy and commit murder, are rapeists, and other discraceful acts.

What?!...how would you get any "truth" from this type of book when your counterbalanced comes from Colin Powell. I always liked Bush but i wouldn't trust his administration as far as i could throw them...and im not that strong.

Exactly.

I mostly just suggested this book as an alternative to a movie. Plus, it's Bob Woodward. It's a little more credible, no?

Oh, yeah, and I haven't seen all of "The Kingdom", but you know it takes place in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, right?

Eh, how does this thread jump from pointing out faulty grip techniques to why Green Zone is a worse movie than Hurt Locker because of intense underlying leftism it conveys? I'm sure you're right in some way about Green Zone, Matt, but the newbie was just trying to point out that technically, the movie had better coordinated actors when it came to firearms handling, not necessarily that the movie was better as a whole (or maybe he was, in which case I'd disagree, but I don't think he was consciously going about doing that if doing it at all). The thread isn't even about arguing about the movies as a whole or their messages or their thematic aspects, it's about one single technical aspect, so you kinda jumped your gun pointing out everything you did. Whether it's correct or appropriate analysis of the films or not, I have no idea, but it wasn't exactly necessary here.

The Hurt Locker makes the EOD team seem like they're completely retard.

For example:

The beginning of the movie, they have a robot which helps them dismantle IEDs. The wheel comes apart and they're like "Damn, I'm not going to fix and be safe from the bomb, I'm just going to mess with the damn thing." And what happens, he gets blown the hell up. This is one of the reasons.

They failed to detect an IED take killed a LT. COLONEL, abandoned their mission, went everywhere with no escort vehicles, went on a sniper's duel for no apparent reason, and shot his own teammate who was following his illegal orders. He was just plain fucking retard this guy. If there was a sergeant like that in the U.S. Army, they would rip apart his career.

Unlike Green Zone, Matt Damon's character was in a WMB unit who wanted answers becuase they were never finding anything during their searches. All he wanted to do is find out the truth so maybe he'll find something out that would keep soldiers from dying in a war that should have never happened in the first place. That seems intelligent to me unlike Sergeant Douchebag in Hurt Locker, everyone was incompetent in doing their job even though they thought they were doing the right thing to, but in a more retarded imbecile like way.

So in Green Zone, you understand why Matt Damon's character was doing all this shit. In Hurt Locker, I was confused on why they did have the things in the movie like: a sniper duel, a blown up O-5, shooting his own teammate, the list just goes on with lots of stupidity.

AMEN.
the first time i saw this i thought, hmm nice movie. but it was all wrong, then i realised what a load of bullshit it was. now every time i watch it i laugh at it!

Seriously, this thread started out as what seems to be a bad grip and trigger discipline thing and then it's all about how The Hurt Locker is bad and why the Green Zone is better?

The Green Zone to me is too much like the Bourne Identity with Matt Damen again

Well in my original argument was that Jeremy Renner cup and saucers his beretta in the movie as a soldier. I also said that the movie was repulsive and retard, and that I said Green Zone was better because they had excellent grips and trigger discipline. People decided to defend The Hurt Locker.

Trigger discipline aside, The Green Zone was too political a movie. It was trying to tell us a message about government lies and why we are over there than Hurt Locker which focused on just the soldiers. These average guys.

Thats what i liked about the hurt locker, the fact it was the average soldier and shown as good people, not the other crap out there that vilifies the average soldier.

But Hurt Locker doesn't portray the soldiers accurately at all. They didn't use common sense at all even though they thought they were doing the right thing. Green Zone portrays actual soldiers and actual thoughts that goes through a soldier's mind in that type of situation unlike Hurt Locker which was just pure stupidity on their part like shooting their own teammates, letting a LT. Colonel die, burning great intel for military intelligence, teaming up with random people, and random sniper duels. This is not a portrayl of real soldiers. It's a portrayl of morons who can't do their job right at all and should be dishonorably discharged being sent to Fort Leavenworth for attempted murder. At least in Green Zone, Matt Damon's character was productive towards his goal which was finding out the truth. In Hurt Locker, he didn't solve shit nor did he get anywhere besides letting two people die with their blood on his hands. He wanted to be a vigilante, well he really sucked at it. The whole plot was mindless and went nowhere. Besides the plots in the movies, Green Zone had better concept on how soldiers are unlike Hurt Locker which was directed by a damn woman who directed corny military & cop movies before like point break LOL.

And if Green Zone is such a disgrace to the military, then why was his whole unit in the movie, real Afghanistan/Iraqi War veterans?

Green zone showed any troops besides damon's as assholes who torture prisoners and such. Seriously, that movie was shit.

Well that's how shit runs down there. What, you think everyone is fucking happy to be there? This shit is damn near the truth. You need intel fast, you gotta do what you gotta do. No asking questions. You think it's a happy war with smiles and flowers? I've been there and done that down there and shit is ugly all over. It's kind of an asshole thing to put it in a movie but it's true.

I know a ton of vets and none are sadistic, brutal, cruel, murdering rapists like all these left wing iraq movies show.

Because the people who do this type of work are the interrogators not infantry (maybe SF, not sure) or other shit like that. Not even the enlisted ones either. The interrogation officers were widely known to torture captives in sick, twisted ways like the water torture for 48 to 72 hours or beatings,etc. Shit like this happens whether you believe it or not.

When I considered joining the Army a few years ago, one of the recruiters told me that if I went into intel they'd teach me how to torture people. I didn't even ask, he just volunteered that information.

It was a political movie trying to say the government lied about the war and there was no WMDS, even though fact stands there was.