Shoot-Out -- Realism


Probably one of the most accurately portrayed shootouts in any Western.

Aside from the very first shot, they almost all missed the whole time, even when they were 10-15 feet away and they were just running around and firing and hitting nothing and being confused. That's so much more likely than every other western in the last 80 years having at least one good guy and one bad guy who are dead shots hitting everything they aim at -- from the hip no less!

Very refreshing to see it this way. Kinda reminiscent of the scene in Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain" - no spoilers, but if you've seen it, you know what I mean.

reply

[deleted]

I agree too. Has to be my favorite western shootout.

I dont know how people were flying through the air from a shotgun/pistol blast though. But hey it sure helped add that "holly-sheit" moment to those scenes.

"Can you fly Bobby?"

reply

Yes and no. I agree with you're comments completely, but the physics of the guys getting shot and flying around the town, bouncing off walls, and sliding through the mud because of bullet impacts is completely unrealistic. Heck, mythbusters even did an episode based on that shotgun blast through a wall that flung the guy against an opposing wall. There just isn't enough power to move an adult with an impact of a bullet (or scattergun).

Makes for a great movie, though.

reply

Well, we don't know the kind of shot and gauge used in Duval's shotgun. Shotgun blasts are significantly more forceful than bullets, especially at close range.

But I agree there was bit much of that, but it's not like it was a John Woo film or anything with folks flying everywhere, more of like an embellishment but still mostly realistic...

reply

Well, we don't know the kind of shot and gauge used in Duval's shotgun. Shotgun blasts are significantly more forceful than bullets, especially at close range.


However, the laws of physics still apply. The only way someone flies across the alley is if the shooter flies the other way. But it does look cool...



The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.

reply

But at the beginning of the fight, didn't Costner shoot someone about ten times in a row with a sixgun?! Not what I would call realistic. well-staged though.

reply

That was a deliberate homage' to westerns of the '50's.

The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.

reply

I kinda like those 'Hollywood' seventeen-shot sixguns.

"Everybody in the WORLD, is bent"

reply

Sorry but this is oft-repeated BS from folks who know very little about ballistics but just enough about physics to get into trouble. This simplified application of physics does not take into account that the human body is not solid, not immobile and that projectiles accelerate down the bore of a firearm and tend to exit on humans.

But it is true that strictly speaking, people don't go flying around when shot. It's just not for the reasons believed.

reply

I have been reading with some amusement, everybodys comments on here about how the impact of a bullet wouldn't affect a human body like portrayed in the movie. Now I agree, that two barrels of 00 buck with most of the energy spent going through a wall wouldn't lift a a guy off his feet and slam him into the other side of the alley. But, let me say this. Having participated in, and witnessed scenarios where projectiles were flying, the human body getting hit by a bullet or several, will often react in ways you couldn't imagine. Consider this: a person getting hit by a charging bull going 15 miles an hour, gets thrown in the air. (watch jackass).... Getting hit by a car going 40 or 50 will often throw the victim many feet from the scene of the accident. So, what happens when the human body is struck by a projectile going 950 FPS? (velocity of a colt .45 round) You tell me....

reply

Did you just compare the force of a charging bull to a bullet?

reply

Those numbers are measurements of velocity, not force. According to Newtons Third Law of Inertia, an object must meet an equal opposing force in order to be put into motion. The force of a charging bull does not compare to the force of an idiot standing still in an arena. I don't need numbers to explain that the impact of a bull or car is much more forcefull than a human standing still. The surface area of the impact is also rather important because focusing all of the energy into one small space allows the projectile to cut or tear, rather than push

reply

So you can't see the difference between the effects of a roughly .5 ounce object traveling at 950 fps and a 3500 lb object traveling at 40 MPH?

I am guessing the difference is on an order of magnitude.

reply

[deleted]

This is one of my pet peeves, even in the real world. I've seen many moose, who might weigh 10 times the shooter, 'knocked down' by a hand held rifle, and try and point out to the shooter that it just looks that way. Unless said moose is right at the muzzle, less energy went into the moose than the human holding the gun, (because part of the energy is dissipated to the air through friction). According to Newton, exactly the same force was applied to the human as the bullet (opposite and equal). The moose drops because of shock to his system, not because he was 'knocked down'. It doesn't matter how heavy or fast the projectile is, if it knocks down a moose, it's virtually guaranteed to knock down the shooter.

The only way to compare a bullet from a hand held weapon to a bull or car, would be if a human threw the bull or car without being propelled backward LOL (see superman whose mass is obviously thousands of tons).

Of course the movie that doesn't show the laws of physics being violated is very rare....

reply

Except that it really doesn't. I'm not saying that that there is no movement or reaction at all, I'm saying that the flying-across-the-alley just doesn't happen.

The amount of energy that a rifle or shotgun transfers to a target is much much greater than what a handgun transfers. The following numbers are just for comparison.

.22=117 foot/pounds
9mm=383 foot/pounds
.45ACP=416 foot/pounds
12ga 00 buckshot=1590 foot/pounds
12ga 1oz slug=2361 foot/pounds
.308 rifle=2802 foot/pounds

What this energy does is not cause movement, it's not like getting hit by a car, it causes 'hydrostatic shock'. You know how getting hit in the head by a punch is 'getting your bell rung'? Taking all that hydrostatic shock rings the entire body's bell. The nervous system is completely overwhelmed. You don't do much of anything except hit the ground.

Want further proof? Watch footage of the D-Day landings. You see guys get shot constantly, often by machine guns. That's in the near 3000 foot/pound range for each round (but yes, as the range increases energy drops off some), and all you see is the men drop like sacks of potatoes.



The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.

reply

Good observation - though, I have never been in a gunfight, I have seen shoot-outs on Youtube and it is quite obvious that most people miss their target (unless they are shooting point blank). I have heard from people who have been in firefights that adrenaline makes it extremely hard to aim and most people miss their targets. It is one thing to to hit a still target, another thing to hit something that is shooting back at you.

reply

You are spot on. There is a is a principle in self defensive shooting called 'the 50% rule'. This means that in a defensive situation, with the adrenalin flowing as you point out, you shoot at only half of your skill level. Now, if you are a practiced shooter, you are still going to be light years ahead of the Joe Dirtbag you're up against.

So, the lesson is, learn a correct skill set and practice.

The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.

reply

Like Bat Masterson said, "take your time in a hurry." It's not always the fastest or quickest gunfighter that wins in a gunfight. Look at the documented famous gunfights in history. Wyatt Earp vs. Curly Bill Brocious and the Cowboy faction: He faced off agasint Brocious and a couple other Cowboys who had shotguns, and Wyatt Earp came out the victor, and even more amazing, he came out unscathed. Look at Dallas Stoudenmire, who killed 4 men in 5 seconds in an infamous gunfight in 1881. He kept his cool under fire. Which is why I love how in this film, the showdown between Costner's character and Kim Coates's character is made to seem like it'll be a huge fight between two extremely good gunfighters, and yet Coates falls hard and fast. I need to see this film again, it's been a few years. Great movie, in my opinion.

"I'm talking about God, the Devil, Hell, Heaven! Do you understand?! Finally?!"

reply

I would say overall it was more realistic than most...and I'm not,for one second,interested in wasting my time over-analyzing the enjoyment out of it. : )

reply

My favorite part was when Kostner fanned his Single action army and shot off 16 rounds simultaneously.

I kid, I really liked the shoot out, I think what makes it feel so realistic (when lets face it, movie magic is heavily in play the entire time) is the quick brutality of things. Most films (especially Westerns) like to pepper shootouts throughout the film in order to keep the audience paying attention. Personally I grew tired of that a long long time ago. So I think placing the shootout so near the end kept my attention going throughout things, who knew what was going to happen? And while I think it may have drug on a little bit too long near the end I was quite impressed with how things played out. Made it feel more real, at least to me.


Now, I came into the film as a Kostner fan (Part of me likes him simply because I know so many people that simply don't like him at all) but after watching it, I liked it on its own. I also really loved Duvall's performance. Maybe not the best film made, but it's one I'm proud to own.

reply

I was pretty impressed with the sequence. Yes, they got the body physics wrong, but the way the gun fights (there were two major ones) started seemed pretty real to me.

First, Charley decides to take out his past counterpart because he knows the gunslinger is the most dangerous man in the lineup. The fight rapidly goes chaotic from there until both sides settle into easy to defend positions.

That the second shootout was instigated by Button was a bit of a surprise; what wasn't was the free-for-all that erupted after Button attempted to take out Denton Baxter. Button hits the man a few times, but nothing particularly fatal. Within s split-second of those first shots everyone is firing wildly.

It also helped the credibility of the shootouts that both Boss Spearman and Charley were pretty well convinced they weren't going to make it out alive. Reflected by Charleys talk with Sue and Boss's insistence on buying the best chocolate and cigars in the general store.

Another level of reality was the number of people involved. This was a static number of people on Denton Baxter's side, but that the town began rallying against Baxter as the gun-fight evolved was realistic and an inspired plot point. Excellent, just excellent.


Watta ya lookn here for?

reply

Costner trying to hit Baxter but failing like six times was pretty good. Killing Baxter was the most important thing. That headshot was also a surprise but makes perfect sense in hindsight, kill the strongest shooter first when he's overconfident of his numbers.

reply

Have watched the shoot-out twice this week. Movie played on two different channels. At the beginning of the shoot-out, Charlie shoots Butler in the head with his pistol. Then he starts shooting at another of Baxter's men over by the stable. However, I counted and he was using one the Hollywood magic six-shooters. He fired a total of 16 shots without reloading.
For me this does not realy take away from the whole gunfight as the rest is pretty accurate. Lots of shots, few hits. Love the way the townspeople turn out to help at the end.
What I truly like about the movie is that it is a love story, too. Annette Benning gives an outstanding performance as a lonely woman who finds love.
I have watched this movie every opportunity I have. Really should buy it.

reply

I won't bother with a spoiler warning because by the time someone reads this far, it's too late.

IMO, that sequence where Boss blasts the guy in the alley through the wall is absolutely outstanding. It got to me on an emotional level -- good guy shoots bad guy in a rather spectacular maneuver.

The fact that Duvall did it made it even better. I actually cheered out loud when it happened, and the physics of it never entered my head.

I think the entire shootout is great. I particularly like that the gunshots are really loud, the way I imagine real gunshots would be.

reply

I think Costner overdid it, though. I'm watching it now, and I'm dumbfounded how Costner (Charlie), supposedly a master shootist, waves his pistols like fly-swatters, without any effort at even a steady shot, let alone a well-aimed one. I'm not sure how realistic that is for a seasoned gunman.

reply

... or how he refuses to use the ejector rod on his Peacemaker and instead shakes the gun around until the brass comes falling out of the cylinder.

And I don't get why he would do that.

- it doesn't make sense for the character (a seasoned gunfighter/shooter) to do it.
- it doesn't look "cool".
- it's more time-consuming and less reliable than simply using the ejector rod. Wouldn't you want to be ready to fire again ASAP in a situation where people are shooting back at you?

Oh well.. it's still a pretty great gunfight overall. Even though there probably never was an all-out shootout involving this many people and shots fired in the RL Old West. Even OK Corral was over in roughly 30 seconds.

And as far as aiming is concerned: If you check it again, you will see people *are* using their sights. Not a whole lot of shooting from the hip in this movie. When Costner tries to hit Baxter with his Winchester, he's using his sights for almost every single shot.





reply

..and where is it done right? Please enlighten me?

..from an Open Range fan boy (europe)

reply

Using the ejector rod requires rotating the cylinder with one hand and plunging the rod down each chamber with the other, a time-consuming operation under calm circumstances when your hands aren't shaking and you're not running around and ducking. Shaking the brass out is an expedient technique that would probably be faster and easier under the circumstances. Charley has probably done it before, so he knows it works.

reply