MovieChat Forums > World Without End (1956) Discussion > These poor old fashioned shooting irons.

These poor old fashioned shooting irons.

posted 9 years ago by mousalope
17 replies | jump to latest

Rod Taylor referring to their six-shooter .38 cal (police specials?) pistols. I understand these are cheap and readily available movie props but it occurs to me they are the wrong sidearms to have been carried by such a 1950s expedition. The 38s would be poor hunting weapons.

When the film was made the USAF was issuing its pilots a survival bundle that included a kit pistol and attachments that assembled into a small carbine. The .22 cal Ar-7 survival rifle shown at link, the components compactly stored in the weapon's stock itself. Since this space mission was only a flyby of Mars, nobody would see the need of equipping them with anything more then what they might need for small-game hunting weapons should they crash land in the jungles of Guatemala.

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Henry-US-Survival-AR-7-Rifle-2.jpg

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

You know, mousalope, you just hit on something I don't think anyone ever has.

Many people have criticized some 1950s sci-fi pics (not just this one) for having their astronauts armed even though there is no logical reason they'd need guns on the Moon or Mars or wherever. (They just become useful for the plot.)

But your surmise, that they're issued guns (of the right caliber or not) to defend themselves or hunt game in case they crash-land in some remote area back on Earth, is a good one. In reality, it's a stretch to think they'd be given guns under any circumstances, but at least the idea that they'd be useful if they fell to Earth in the wrong place would have been a credible reason for them to even have guns in the first place.

[–] mousalope 9 years ago

In reality, it's a stretch to think they'd be given guns under any circumstances

The Russians disagreed with you.

Russian cosmonauts regularly traveled to space with the gun in tow. But calling it a pistol is slightly misleading—the TP-82 more like a small shotgun.

The Soviet Union included the weapon in Granat-6 survival kits stashed inside Soyuz capsules between 1982 and 2006. The odd weapons also found their way into military aircraft survival kits.

In March 1965, cosmonaut Alexey Leonov landed a mechanically-faulty Voskhod space capsule in the snowy forests of the western Urals … 600 miles from his planned landing site.

For protection, Leonov had a nine-millimeter pistol. He feared the bears and wolves that prowled the forest—though he never encountered any. But the fear stayed with him. Later in his career, he made sure the Soviet military provided all its cosmonauts with a survival weapon.

Leonov’s lobbying efforts culminated in the TP-82. It was essentially a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun with a short-barreled rifle added onto it.

The upper two smoothbore barrels used 12.5×70 mm ammunition, or approximately 40 gauge, and the lower rifled barrel used 5.45×39mm ammunition. The pistol could be used for hunting, to defend against predators and for visible and audible distress signals. The detachable buttstock was also a machete that came with a canvas sheath.

The Granat-6 portable survival kit came with a belt, a holster for the weapon and three kinds of ammunition. The belt contained 11 rounds of SP-P 5.45 x 39 ammunition for the rifle barrel. Although the same caliber as the AK-74, SP-P rounds contained soft points. For the shotgun barrels, the Soviet designers gave the cosmonauts 10 cartridges each of SP-D bird shot and SP-S red signal flare. This meant a crashed pilot could hunt small game and call for help.

In 2007, the media reported that the remaining ammunition for the TP-82 had become unusable and that a regular semi-automatic pistol would be used on future missions.

http://www.yuri-gagarin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/space_gun.jpg

But note, like the earlier USAF AR-7, the preferred real-world solution again was a carbine variant. Something giving the user an option for steady aim. Not the cheap pistols Rod and later Leonov complained of.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

I know about the Soviets arming their cosmonauts. My point has nothing to do with the details of the weapons the crew in this movie carried, let alone what weapons any real space travelers may have been armed with.

The only issue is why they'd equip a crew on an orbital flight of Mars with weapons of any kind in the first place. This has been a frequent criticism of such films -- how the crews suddenly have guns with them for no realistic reason, other than for plot purposes. You pointed out that having guns would be useful if they crash-landed in some inhospitable place on Earth. (Or to use on oneself as a last resort.) That makes sense, and is also a rationale for why the astronauts in World Without End, or any other space movie, would so conveniently have guns with them on trips to other planets...especially planets they weren't even supposed to land on.

That's all. All the stuff about various types and calibers of guns may be interesting but it's mostly beside the point, other than pointing out that a pistol, say, would be of limited utility against a bear or a tiger, or probably most monsters in outer space.

[–] escalera-2 9 years ago

The handgun? That's obviously a Webley-Vickers 50.80.

"Please use elevator, stairs stuck between floors."

[–] gary_overman 9 years ago

This film was pre-NASA (more likely, it was NACA) but my understanding is astronauts were equipped with handguns as part of their survival gear just like Air Force pilots and other aircrew members were. I honestly don't know why people find this idea so far-fetched.

And since most space flights were Air Force, (and in the 1950's, the 38 Special revolver in either Colt or Smith & Wesson flavor was commonly issued by the US Air Force) it follows that they would be issued a 38 revolver.

They were merely part of the survival gear. Granted, the likelihood of there ever being used was remote, but since they did not take up all that much space, I'd think it more logical to include them as part of the craft's survival equipment than not.

In short, the thinking might have been that it was better to have it and not need it. than to need it and not have it.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Agreed, gary. The problem is that none of the movies in which the space crew emerges from their spaceships carrying guns bothers to explain why they'd take guns along on a trip to Mars, Venus, the Moon, etc., let alone an orbital journey where they're not even going to land.

Let's face it, when the crew climbs out of their papier-maché rocket in Missile to the Moon carrying Saturday Night specials and shotguns, we just accept it without bothering to wonder why they thought they'd need such stuff on the Moon in the first place. Luckily for them there were Gumby-shaped Rock Men, otherwise they'd have really looked like a bunch of saps. Plus one of the crew was an escaped J.D. who tries to shoot his way out while lugging a sack of stolen diamonds, so a gun was needed there.

And so it is with the crews in such disparate films as Rocketship X-M, Cat-Women of the Moon, Conquest of Space and others. I don't count films where they're toting ray guns (Forbidden Planet, The Angry Red Planet, Journey to the Seventh Planet, and so forth), since those are so futuristic having weapons appears to make sense.

Curiously, one film where it would seem entirely natural for the space traveler to have had a gun with him is Robinson Crusoe on Mars, yet as I recall he had no weapon. Considering that the story is about survival on a hostile world, the idea of equipping an astronaut with a gun -- even, grimly, to end it all as a last resort, if rescue or survival looked impossible -- would seem a natural and logical precaution, and in line with what has apparently been actual practice in space programs...as opposed to space movies.

[–] gary_overman 9 years ago

At least you see the rationale for it in real life, hob, even if it could (and probably should) be explained a bit better in the movies. I didn't see MTTM so I can't really comment on that film.

Hey, hob, in one of the other boards, I asked you a question and did not get an answer, so I presume you must have missed it. Does your copy of The World, the Flesh and the Devil, have English or English SDH subtitles? I'd get the DVD, but due to my hearing, without the subtitles, there is no point in ordering it until I know. Do me a favor and check that out, would you please? My DVD player has the HDMI connection to my TV, and so does not display Closed Captioning.

Thanks.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Well, I had heard the rumor/fact that at least some astronauts and cosmonauts had gone up with a gun or guns of some sort aboard. I never thought about the reason for this, i.e., to aid in survival if they returned to some inhospitable part of Earth. If I thought anything about it it would probably have been for suicide in case they were unable to return or in peril of some horrible death. So for those reasons it makes sense, although when you think about it it really does sound a little weird. Logical, perhaps, but disconcerting.

But as I said this would have constituted a credible reason for having all those movie rocket crews equipped with an array of firearms. I'm sure audiences either didn't give the sudden appearance of guns in such odd situations a second thought (being caught up in the narrative), or else dismissed the presence of guns as a ridiculous plot point. But I'm not sure explaining the guns logically could have been smoothly done in any of those movies.

You've never seen Missile to the Moon? Oh, it's a must. Believe it or not, it's a remake of Cat-Women of the Moon! If you haven't seen that either, well, there's a worthy double feature for you.

I'm sorry, no, I never did receive a notice that you had posted on the The World, the Flesh and the Devil board. (This seems to happen every so often; about a month ago I got notice of a reply to one of my posts that had been made seven or eight months earlier!) To your question, I don't know off hand if that film's DVD has subtitles (or even whether it's closed-captioned). Before answering here I checked the Warner Archives website and there was no mention of either. Right now I'm not at home and so can't check my own copy but will do so as soon as I can, though that may be a few days. Frankly I'm about 95% certain the disc does not have subtitles -- I don't think any of the WA discs do -- but I'm happy to check it out to make certain, and will get back to you. PM me if I'm taking too long!

[–] gary_overman 9 years ago

Well, I had heard the rumor/fact that at least some astronauts and cosmonauts had gone up with a gun or guns of some sort aboard. I never thought about the reason for this, i.e., to aid in survival if they returned to some inhospitable part of Earth. If I thought anything about it it would probably have been for suicide in case they were unable to return or in peril of some horrible death. So for those reasons it makes sense, although when you think about it it really does sound a little weird. Logical, perhaps, but disconcerting.

But as I said this would have constituted a credible reason for having all those movie rocket crews equipped with an array of firearms. I'm sure audiences either didn't give the sudden appearance of guns in such odd situations a second thought (being caught up in the narrative), or else dismissed the presence of guns as a ridiculous plot point. But I'm not sure explaining the guns logically could have been smoothly done in any of those movies.

You've never seen Missile to the Moon? Oh, it's a must. Believe it or not, it's a remake of Cat-Women of the Moon! If you haven't seen that either, well, there's a worthy double feature for you.

I'm sorry, no, I never did receive a notice that you had posted on the The World, the Flesh and the Devil board. (This seems to happen every so often; about a month ago I got notice of a reply to one of my posts that had been made seven or eight months earlier!) To your question, I don't know off hand if that film's DVD has subtitles (or even whether it's closed-captioned). Before answering here I checked the Warner Archives website and there was no mention of either. Right now I'm not at home and so can't check my own copy but will do so as soon as I can, though that may be a few days. Frankly I'm about 95% certain the disc does not have subtitles -- I don't think any of the WA discs do -- but I'm happy to check it out to make certain, and will get back to you. PM me if I'm taking too long!

Yes; I understand that they did have firearms included as part of the survival gear. Being as how astronauts were military people for the most part, especially the earlier ones, this does not really surprise me.

I had never even heard of Missile to the Moon before you mentioned it but it sounds like it might be worthwhile. As for CWOTM, I have at least heard the title, but have not seen it either. I'll have to check them both out.

And while I did leave a thread on the board for TWTFATD, the post I was referring to was the board for On the Beach. The thread, IIRC, was called Safe Habitats. You and I were discussing, among other things, the movie The Land Unknown. Included in the cast for TLU.was none other than Elaine, of WWE. See? I kept it on topic (WWE) after all.

Warner is usually quite good when it comes to accommodating the needs of the hearing impaired, (actually, all of the major studios are, especially nowadays), so I find it surprising that they might not in this case. CC used to suffice but like I said, the HDMI connection to my TV does not allow CC from the DVD to be displayed, so now I am completely dependent on English or English SDH subtitles to follow the story. This is frustrating, because OTB and The Day After, are CC but have no English subtitles, so I miss much if not most of the dialogue.

Anyway, please do check it out for me.

Thanks.

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

there is no logical reason they'd need guns on the Moon or Mars or wherever

Was it not until the guns that you started questioning the logic in this film? Nothing about the rocket with no airlock, or even seatbelts, being flown by astronauts wearing zero protective gear? Who neglected to put on said gear when exploring an unknown planet based on gravity and oxygen readings alone (radiation not tested until outside)?

This is a military operation - guns are just a given. Not a smart idea in actual space travel, but as pointed out elsewhere in this thread it has happened. The only reason the American space program didn't have non-critical gear like guns was to keep the weight as low as possible at launch, which itself led to other disastrous decisions like flooding the capsule with pure oxygen at takeoff.

Obviously weight was not considered for the mission in the movie, what with all of their army surplus supplies. Field glasses in a thick leather case? Backpacks that wouldn't fit over space suits? Hats? Seriously - hats?

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Was it not until the guns that you started questioning the logic in this film?

Yeah, not quite. Obviously a lot of aspects of WWE don't stand up to logical scrutiny...something that's true of most 50s sci-fi, and for that matter, most sci-fi films of any era -- heck, basically all movies. That's the reason they invented the notion of "suspension of disbelief".

Still, the fact is when we watch movies we usually just roll with them, accepting whatever happens, and only later if at all do we start picking them apart. When I first saw this film I was about 10 and pretty much didn't question most of its plot points or logic. By now I'm long past the time of mere acceptance...but that still doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the film, or of talking about its problems -- in an affectionate way, of course.

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

in an affectionate way, of course.

Of course! A lot of this can be forgiven, even charming, considering how new the technology was along with the notion that it would never fail. As opposed to making all the same mistakes in a modern film like Prometheus, but that's a discussion for another board.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Yes, 50s sic-fi films could usually tell their stories perfectly well and convincingly on what were normally limited budgets. But whether somewhat costly, inexpensive, or downright cheap, they proved you don't need to spend $150,000,000 on an over-produced, vacuous, uninvolving piece of eye trash to engage an audience. Good, bad or indifferent, those movies aren't remembered this well today for nothing, and they continue to provide us with something too many of their descendants, for all their effects and bland stars, mostly don't: fun.

[–] Axholio 9 years ago

You guys saying there is no reason, logical or not, are way off on this one. In this alternate science fiction world there are giant spiders, rock men, dinosaurs, planets occupied by Amazons, etc... Not taking guns along would be foolish. The only storyline that I remember where they didn't need guns was "Destination Moon".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make me a sergeant and charge the booze!

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

True, true. But they didn't take guns along in Flight to Mars, and the first thing they ran into were...Martians! Who were intent on stealing their spaceship, on the bizarre premise that with it they could conquer the Earth before their corium runs out. If ever a poor old fashioned shootin' iron would have come in handy....

[–] Axholio 9 years ago

I forgot that they didn't take guns in Flight To Mars. And as you said, they sure needed them.

Did they take guns in The Wizard Of Mars? They needed them there too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make me a sergeant and charge the booze!

[–] gary_overman 9 years ago

I forgot that they didn't take guns in Flight To Mars. And as you said, they sure needed them.

Good point!! 