Another Challenge

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

It's funny. I always get some actor or non-gun person asking me "So which is your favorite?" I always answer "The ones that fire blanks without stoppages". Hahahaha. They have no idea what I'm talking about. Since 99% of my gun experience is NOT firing live but BLANK firing on sets, I don't have a preference as far as accuracy or shot placement or functioning with live ammo.

I've heard that a lot of armorers and propmasters love the Beretta 92F because it makes for one of the best blank guns?

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

As for MT2008, nope only the RICH weapons guys have dedicated vans or trucks. (i.e. the guys who get all the work, who are 'connected' and get hired for all the big movie jobs). The rest of us are so ghetto when it comes to delivering guns to the set. Title I guns are easy. Any vehicle you can get your hands on. I once drove to the desert with a rental van filled with shotguns, pistols and sniper rifles. Title II (i.e. Class III) guns are fine as long as the vehicle is registered as being operated by an authorized person. One of the full auto "On Set armorers" (i.e. the guys who borrow from the rental houses and work on the movie set), had a beat up old PONTIAC as his Class III authorized vehicle. I remember once he was stopped by the Highway Patrol and his trunk was filled with MP5s, M16s and full auto AKs. Of course he had all his paperwork with him and they just wrote him a citation and let him go.

Interesting. But would you have to rent a truck for war movies like "We Were Soldiers" that have dozens or hundreds of weapons? Or would you just have other armorers who bring some of the weapons in their vehicle, while you take the others?

Oh, and one other thing:

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

No offense but these look weird. I mean they're pretty good when it comes to video game graphics, but the details or weird dimensions throw me off.

Since you raise this point...I understand that nowadays, some of the armorers are now working with video game developers? I've seen IMDB profiles for many games where they actually have an armorer credited, sometimes armorers who have worked on lots of big-budget movies. I'm not exactly sure what this means, but I'm guessing it means that the developers are given the chance to fire motion picture guns so they can study the action and experience what it feels like when fired, and so that they can build the in-game models with those weapons as their reference. When I used to make "Counter-Strike" and "Ghost Recon" weapons skins (many years ago now), I always used my own airsoft guns, and those of my friends, as my references. I'm guessing these game developers do the same thing with the real weapons that the armorers supply?

[Nyles]

Well, first of all CQB is an American term, and when we say CQC (close quarters combat) we're usually talking about hands, feet, bayonets and rifle butts. Urban warfare is FIBUA.

But not just FIBUA, almost all our training is done with blanks - any time you're out in the field, you're carrying your weapon, and it's with a BFA and blanks (unless you're using simunitions, but they're rare). Live rounds are for the range, period (in fact, in the CF, range by definition refers to where live firing is conducted in a controlled setting, which is not just conventional rifle ranges.)

I doubt we spend significantly less time on the range than US Army soldiers. In fact, and don't take this as a knock on the US military, but we also do alot more cross-training than they do. There are very good reasons we train the way we do and the US military trains the way they do, we're very different organizations with different priorities for training. By way of example I'm qualified on everything from the 9mm pistol to the 84mm Carl Gustav, and I'm not even an infanteer or weapons tech.

Anyways, as for the C9, like I said, it's not an unreliable weapon. Guys like it because its fairly light (espescially the new C9A2, the short barrel and folding butt are awesome inside a LAV). But by the same token, you also see alot of C6s pushed down to sections on patrol, and there's a reason for that.

[Excalibur]

Actually, I've heard the british use the term CQB.

But yeah, CQB is the term for all forms of combat relating to close quarters, with weapons and without. CQC is usually meant for fights involving martial arts in in close quarters. Hence the term

[Nyles]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Actually, I've heard the british use the term CQB.

But yeah, CQB is the term for all forms of combat relating to close quarters, with weapons and without. CQC is usually meant for fights involving martial arts in in close quarters. Hence the term

Well, yes, but I'm not a British soldier. I'm a Canadian soldier.