shotgun sniper - The Last Castle (2001) Discussion

[–] meshuggahcl8on 19 years ago

It's simple. The guard was obviously american born and bred.

reply

[–] pjhopkins219 19 years ago

haha

reply

[–] MRadi0 19 years ago

Well, in case the rest of you couldn't tell, the same man that was shot with the shotgun, was up and walking in the cafeteria, saying that he has been with a real bullet and it didn't hurt as much as that rubber bullet he was shot with. So. . . it has nothing to do with any sort of incongruities. He was shot with a rubber bullet, which are far more accurate than a standard buck-shot shell. They even discuss how they have expert marksmen as guards. One can make the assumption that an expert marksman with a rubber bullet could hit a person from their post at the range presented in the movie.

reply

[–] archangel1313 12 years ago

Uuh...I'm pretty sure Aguilar died when he got shot in the head...
...and rubber bullets are not more acurate than buck-shot...buck-shot hits everything in front the barrel, as long as you're close enough...rubber bullets rarely fly straight. They're too soft. They're really only used when firing into a crowd, and at that point who cares who gets hit, as long as everyone runs away from the bang?

The tower guards were using solid slugs. That was shown by the denting in the kitchen trays the inmates used as shields during the riot. No buck-shot. Buck-shot would have just tarnished the shine at that distance. (Or maybe killed a duck...they're sort of soft that way.)

That all being said...with enough skill, it is actually possible to make that shot. A rifle would obviously be better, but it is still possible.

Personally, I was just surprised that the tower guards were even using shotguns in the first place.
At that range, precision requires a rifle.

Rubber bullet, or not.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

The tower guards were using solid slugs. That was shown by the denting in the kitchen trays the inmates used as shields during the riot. No buck-shot. Buck-shot would have just tarnished the shine at that distance. (Or maybe killed a duck...they're sort of soft that way.)

LoL! No, they were using plastic or rubber bullets. If you think a slug would only dent a cafeteria tray you are mistaken.

reply

[–] ohmyhead 16 years ago

hahaha YEAH!! \m/\m/

reply

[–] anarking 19 years ago

Unlike a normal shotgun shell the baton round is one single object therefore wouldnt spread out like the buckshot in the shell, making it alot more accurate.

reply

[–] midgee007 19 years ago

they are probably rifled slug guns anyways, with rifled barrels, quite accurate, like a rifle is.

reply

[–] The_Winchester 17 years ago

yea, a rifled barrel shotgun is actually has accuracy when firing, but as far as rubber bullets are concerned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet

I bet you read this

reply

[–] lemkie 16 years ago

Regardless of how accurate you can make a shotfun, that's be a very difficult shot, especially with rubber bullets.

reply

[–] jaffacake2k 16 years ago

Difficult but certainly not impossible.

British troops in Northern Ireland were forbidden to shoot directly at violent protesters but soon learned that they could fire their baton rounds at the road surface a given distance in front of the 'target' and have the round 'bounce' up into the 'targets' face.

Its the same principle. Familiarity with the weapon makes the improbable probable.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 14 years ago

Yes, but a crowd is easy to shoot into. During the Napoleonic wars they aimed at the MOB of a battalion. No kidding - some got hit.

Hitting a lone person - lots more difficult.

Hitting a lone person in the head... nearly impossible with a standard rifle, let alone an unrifled shotgun.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] dechaene 13 years ago

During the Napoleonic wars they aimed at the MOB of a battalion.

You're seriously comparing weapons from the late 18th and early 19th centuries with modern weapons? Really? You don't think there's been some improvements in technology since then?

Hitting a lone person in the head... nearly impossible with a standard rifle

I just don't know how to respond to that, it's so ludicrous. Obviously you don't understand the concept of a sniper or what they are capable of. Heck, even a person with a handgun can pull off a headshot if they're skilled enough.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 13 years ago

You're seriously comparing weapons from the late 18th and early 19th centuries with modern weapons? Really? You don't think there's been some improvements in technology since then?

No, I'm saying that when you are faced with a mob you fire into the mob.

Yes, weapons have improved, but certain tactics probably haven't in certain circumstances. In WWII the Japanese, and later in Vietnam the NVA used human wave tactics. In that. Ase you're not going to 'choose your target carefully' you're going to fire into the mob.

I stand by what I said about it being almost impossible to pull of a headshot. What are we talking here - open sights? I don't recall the movie specifically enough, but he DIDN'T have telescopic sights correct? So, he's relying on iron sights at best, and they are less accurate.

I'm not saying that it IS impossible, what I'm saying is that that shot is extremely hard to pull off. So hard that I would dout ANYONE would be able to reliably say 'yup, I can guarantee a headshot every time' - this guy had consistently pulled off headshots. I find that a stretch. He might be a pretty good shot, but...

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] dechaene 13 years ago

If you're saying a headshot in a combat environment with a mob of enemy soldiers rushing towards you is difficult, I totally agree, in any era. But I think this thread was more about whether it was possible in the scenario depicted in the movie (and I have an unfair advantage remembering the scene as I'm actually watching the movie right now, lol).

The target was standing still, by himself, the shooter was in an elevated position and was relaxed (I'm assuming, since he wasn't taking enemy fire) and had all the time in the world to line up his shot.

In that situation, from his distance, a headshot with a rifle would be extremely easy, even with the standard sites (for a skilled marksman). With a shotgun, I don't know, you could be absolutely right, the writers might have exaggerated a person's ability to guarantee a headshot every time. My response was more about your comment that it would be nearly impossible with a standard rifle, that's all. Sorry if I misunderstood and we were talking about two different things.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 13 years ago

Lots of things happen in movies for dramatic effect. Hell, a rubber bullet to the centre of body mass isn't guaranteed to not kill.

I remember reading up on the 'sniper shot through his telescopic site' in Saving Private Ryan. Not that I would want MY head on the receiving end, but there has been Mythbusters episodes which said that the telescopic site would have saved him. Like I said, I'd prefer something a little more substantial between my eye and mr .30-06 but be that as it may, the scene was done That way by Speilberg because it looked good. Similarly the back to back headshots was a plot device in this movie. You've corrected me on rifled shotgin barrels, so I'm less inclined to call foul. If it was a smoothbore - no way. If it was rifled... Hmmm... Well... Rubber bullets aren't exactly renowned for their flight characteristics :).

Lets just agree that the movie is just a movie and be done with it :)

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] dechaene 13 years ago

After thinking about this for awhile, I've come to the conclusion that this prison guard was some kind of super marksman. My reasoning is that if any marksman could have guaranteed a headshot in that situation, then it would have been obvious to others that he was shooting people in the head on purpose. He could only have gotten away with it if other marksmen felt it was just an accidentally lucky shot, otherwise they would have told the authorities about this guy killing people.

But since he was able to guarantee a headshot every time when others couldn't, clearly he was some kind of super soldier, descended from a long line of snipers, that had learned to shoot before he could even walk. His first toy as a baby was a chronograph, or a wind gauge, or something else that sounds funny. Obviously the evil prison warden saw his phenomenal marksman skills when he was in boot camp and recruited him right out of basic training to be his personal murderer. It all makes sense now.

So yeah, you're right, basically it was just a plot device.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SpiltPersonality 14 years ago

Rifled shotgun?

Rifled Shot GUN.

It's a gun. It doesn't have rifling.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] dechaene 13 years ago

Rifled barrels are available for practically every brand and model of shotgun, they are extremely common. Shotguns aren't just for firing buckshot, they're also for firing slugs (which is what the movie portrayed, a rubber slug).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_barrel#The_rifled_slug_barrel

Most handguns have rifled barrels, yet we still call them handGUNS. "Gun" is just a more common term for the average person, only someone familiar with the military or law enforcement would be more specific.

Which obviously you are not if you didn't even know shotguns can have rifled barrels.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 13 years ago

Actually, I spent 12 years in the military. I stand corrected if there are rifled shotgun barrels. I had never heard of such a thing.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] dechaene 13 years ago

Actually, I spent 12 years in the military.

Then I apologize for that last line in my post. I did not serve, so you are a better person than I.

(I know tone of voice doesn't come through very well in text, so please understand I'm not being sarcastic, my statement is sincerer.)

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 13 years ago

Thanks for your comment. I am not a better person, just a person like everyone else and I have my good points and bad points.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] archangel1313 12 years ago

Hi...just cutting in.
No disrespect...seriously...but you can "rifle" any barrel.

"Rifling" is just the way the barrel is cut. There's a very slight groove cut into the barrel that spins the projectile as it's fired.
This gives the bullet some gyroscopic force, which keeps it centered and more accurate as it cuts through air.

The length of the barrel is what actually determines accuracy. The longer the groove, the more spin is produced. The more spin, the more accurate the shot.

Even handguns are "rifled"...but not all of them.
I've seen a guy fire 12 rounds at a target, and not even slice paper.
I've seen another guy fire 11 holes into nothing but the first hole.

Skills make the real difference...but manufacturing certainly helps.
Ok...manufacturing helps a lot.

reply

[–] wild_cobra427 14 years ago

Here's the info on your ammo. http://www.knesekguns.com/commercial/p1136/ALS-12GA-Rubber-Rocket-Proj ectile-High-Velocity/product_info.html

If I remember right, the yard itself wasn't even 50 yards across. That means, from the tower to any location in the yard would be less than 60 yards. Also if I remember right, Aguilar was on the side of the yard closer to the shooter. So it could have been only a 25 yard shot.

UPDATE: After viewing the movie again and using Google Earth, I have determined that the shot was 34 yards. The yard where the shot occurred is 72 yards across. The distance from the flag pole to the gate between Tower #2 and #3 is 62 yards. You can still see the base of Tower #4 on Google Earth. By looking at the film, seeing where Aguilar was in relation to the center road and the paths to the Tiers, you can reasonably judge the distance from Tower #4 to Aguilar.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

[–] thechosenme 14 years ago

I wonder if while making this movie they were worried someone would be upset with the shotgun accuracy but then calmed down when they realized that fans would settle it with google maps and links to other internets.

reply

[–] kittymeloni 14 years ago

LMAO @ thechosenme

The Omerta code is not just for the mafia... Never rat on your friends and never betray confidences

reply

[–] kittymeloni 14 years ago

The men employed by Col. Winter are expert marks men they can hit the target from a long distance. That is how he got him straight in the head. It was easy for him cause the distance wasn't that long.

The Omerta code is not just for the mafia... Never rat on your friends and never betray confidences

reply

[–] pmac7902 9 years ago

If I remember correctly, Aguilar was shot while blocking the path of a bulldozer. Everyone else was on the ground. This wasn't a battle scene. It was Col. Winters flexing his muscle. There was no mob. The gaurd had time to aim, it wasn't a rush shot.

reply