Making false assumptions

[MoviePropMaster2008]

We all make assumptions that are either wrong or proven later to be wrong. I've done tons in my lifetime so I'm not gonna rip people apart for doing it.

But over the years I've removed or edited comments which were technically NOT true.

"This rifle must be a Daewoo DR200 because it is cheaper to buy than a Daewoo K2" Huh? So what? The armorers had real Daewoos for years before the import ban. That has nothing to do with what is visible in a movie or tv show.

This rifle must be an HK93 because they are more common than HK33s. Again, not necessarily true. Not that it's false, but you can't make that assumption unless you know for sure. There are tons of full auto guns in Movie armories and what is available in American gun stores is NOT a good indicator of what is available in movies. Always default to the original PARENT weapon, unless there is actual proof in the movie otherwise.

"The pistol must be a Walther P1 instead of a Walther P38 because P38s are so rare now" Huh? Especially if the movie was made years ago, the P38 was NOT rare nor expensive at the time. Movie armories have tons of P38s from all those WW2 movies they made from the 1940s to the 1970s.

"the finger bulges on the forearms of the AKM are exclusive to that weapon" Huh? There are many AKM variants that have NO finger bulges in the forearms, even through the original Soviet ones did. And there were Norinco Chinese AKs that had Bulged foregrips put on them (I have one). Go by the front sight, the stamped receiver and the gas block BEFORE you use the wooden furniture as an identifier clue. Only use wooden furniture as an identifier if OTHER details of the weapon aren't visible.

"This launcher is a non firing prop because the actor is not seen loading it" Whoa there cowboy. There are many reasons to describe a launcher or RPG or missile as a non firing prop, but not seeing the actor loading it on screen is NOT one of them. Most destructive devices are props in that they are not the real deal which fires real ordnance, but they still fire pyrotechnical charges, so they are still 'operational' as far as the movies are concerned. Only if it looks completely fake AND it is never seen firing in the film, can one make the comment that it is 'probably a non firing prop'.

Just a rant to let people know that some assumptions just aren't correct. And yes, I've made some big mistakes in the past (MT2008 has corrected me MANY TIMES) LOL. It is best not to add unnecessary hypothesizing unless you know for sure what you're saying is actually correct.