Films with realistic depiction's of firefights and shoot-outs

[predator20]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Likewise. I saw it first about 5 years ago and didn't care much for it (thought it ripped off Tarantino too much). But I watched it again recently, and now I have to admit that I enjoy it more than I used to.

I didn't really see it as a Tarantino rip-off when I first watched it, with Tarantino's dialogue being the way it is.

Originally Posted by MT2008

That being said, I still don't think it's quite as realistic as some gun guys claim it is (even though the CQB tactics are used quite well).

The film might cheat in some places, but it's better than 95% of the action films out there. Back when I first watched it I wasn't into guns, but now that I am, I have a lot more respect for the film.

Another thing I liked is you didn't see guys flying through the air when shot. Back when I was younger I thought it was cool, now it will ruin a movie for me.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by predator20

I never understood that part when Longbaugh spends 2 mags trying to hit Jeffers. I guess you can say he was laying down suppressing fire.

Initially, yeah, but once he and Parker were behind cover, he was still firing way too much. Suppressive fire is used to advance or cover a retreat. He was basically just emptying his mags into the walls and hoping that if he fired enough rounds, one might hit the target. That's the sort of thing that nobody with his (apparent) level of military training would do.

Speaking of which, another thing that I thought ridiculous was that he was using the Galil indoors at all. A .308 rifle (especially with the Galil's barrel length) is a poor CQB choice. Plus, he knew that they were going to be facing Joe Sarno later (even though they didn't know how many other guys he was going to have with him). Since Longbaugh had only two Galil mags, wouldn't it have made more sense to stick with the 1911 while he was indoors? Then, later on, he could have set up his Galil in a window and covered Parker while he went outside to get the money. If I were in their situation, with their equipment, that's what I would probably do.

Originally Posted by predator20

In terms of true capacity for their 9mm 1911s. 10 rounds for the gun itself (9 + 1 in chamber). Quad mag holders 4x9 = 36, 46 total rounds apiece. They could have also been carrying some in their pockets. So you're looking at maybe 60 to 70 at the most.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Parker went through 60 rounds in the fountain alone. Too bad this movie was made in the days before PALS web gear became popular; then they could have probably carried way more mags on their vests.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Swordfish941

That joke's kind of gotten old.

Granted.

Originally Posted by predator20

I didn't really see it as a Tarantino rip-off when I first watched it, with Tarantino's dialogue being the way it is.

It's not so much the dialogue as the atmosphere and the way the movie mixes humor with violence that made me think of Tarantino. But I admit, even if this movie has some Tarantino influences, it still stands apart in other ways.

Originally Posted by predator20

The film might cheat in some places, but it's better than 95% of the action films out there. Back when I first watched it I wasn't into guns, but now that I am, I have a lot more respect for the film.

Another thing I liked is you didn't see guys flying through the air when shot. Back when I was younger I thought it was cool, now it will ruin a movie for me.

I was pretty big into guns when I first watched it, but this was back in the days when I couldn't enjoy any movie that didn't have huge shootouts with M4s, G36s, or any high-tech military weapons being fired on full-auto. Since this movie only has a few "tacticool" weapons (the Galil and the USPs), it didn't appeal much to me then. What can I say. I have since wisened up.

[k9870]

Look at the AK dude, he has enough pistol mags

[Swordfish941]

Originally Posted by k9870

Look at the AK dude, he has enough pistol mags

Something looks off in that picture.

[k9870]

a lot is off

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by k9870

a lot is off

Like how using a teal and yellow backpack negates the value of wearing head-to-toe camouflage?

[Swordfish941]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Like how using a teal and yellow backpack negates the value of wearing head-to-toe camouflage?

And why does the ski-mask guy have a plastic water bottle on his chest rig?

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Swordfish941

And why does the ski-mask guy have a plastic water bottle on his chest rig?

The man is wearing all black (including a balaclava) in what I can assume is a tropical environment. I'd want water wherever I can get it.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Like how using a teal and yellow backpack negates the value of wearing head-to-toe camouflage?

You don't need camo in an urban environment, so it's irrelevant.