MovieChat Forums > MaximRecoil
MaximRecoil (4597)
Posts
How is it that deer hunting is so popular?
I wonder if that guy quit his day job to pursue his beatings-for-hire career
Pears are just bland, deformed apples
After almost 34 years, I finally got the grips for my pistol...
No, it's not a La-Z-Boy.
Why did they make a point of having Sam say he favors the "1911"...
Humans are very much out of place here
"Verifying you are human"
Why make egg salad sandwiches...
Who played the blonde woman at the beginning of the movie?
View all posts >
Replies
I love tacos. In my book they're one of the best food inventions of all time, perhaps even better than pizza. But the tacos I love aren't a Mexican invention (I've had authentic tacos from a Mexican street vendor in Tucson, AZ and I wasn't overly impressed), but rather, they are an American modification of a Mexican invention, i.e., standard grocery store taco kits from e.g. Old El Paso (my favorite) and Ortega made with ground beef or ground chuck. And they definitely have to be the hard-shell version (which is the only version I ever knew about when I was a kid); that's absolutely critical. Otherwise it might as well be a burrito, which isn't anywhere near as good IMO.
I fill them a little over halfway with the ground beef mixture then add shredded sharp cheddar cheese, shredded iceberg lettuce, diced tomatoes, and taco sauce. But as much as I like them I don't eat them very often because the only way to get exactly what I want is to make them myself, and they are a pain to make, very messy to eat, and shards of the hard shells jab up the interior of my mouth as I'm chewing.
If I only ate a couple/few of them that would be one thing, but it takes the whole package of 12 (which includes the pound of ground beef) to fill me up. A few years ago I bought some of those taco holder things which makes things a little easier. I can make 4 tacos at a time with one of those without any of them falling over. That beats my old method of making 2 at a time and trying to keep them propped up against each other, and having to do that 6 times before I was done eating.
From my perspective there's no such thing as a future Hollywood star. The only ones I view as stars are the ones who were already a star or became a star when I was young and impressionable. People like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicholson, Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, and so on, seemed larger than life to me when I was a kid.
Today's young Hollywood actors are just dumbass kids to me, no different than any random dumbass kid on the street, and I could never view any of them as "stars."
I started watching them around 1987 when I was 12, on Friday nights during the school year and most nights during summer vacation. I thought Johnny Carson was boring but David Letterman was hilarious. Back then Letterman came on after Carson on the same network.
Letterman's show wasn't as good when he moved from NBC to CBS in 1993, and I thought Conan O'Brien was annoying (and his sidekick Andy Richter was even more annoying). Jay Leno's "humor" was as generic and unfunny as Johnny Carson's was, and since Letterman's new CBS show was running in the same time slot as Leno's, I always watched Letterman's show. Even with it not being as good as when he was on NBC, it was still far better than Leno's show.
For the most part I stopped watching TV in the late 1990s so I don't know what's been going on with late night talk shows for the past quarter century, nor do I care.
They have a few songs that I like well enough to have in my music folder (though none of them are among my all-time favorite songs), but I find most of their songs to be overly long and tedious. Also, unlike Dave Mustaine's vocals, I don't think James Hetfield's vocals are particularly good and/or interesting in any way. He's one of the most generic sounding rock or metal vocalists I can think of.
.475 Wildey Magnum is bigger and a lot more powerful than a .44 Magnum.
Its bullet is .475" diameter vs. .429" diameter for the .44 Magnum.
Their case capacities are almost identical, but the .475 has slightly more (38 grains of water vs. 37.9).
The .475's pressure limit is quite a bit higher at 50,000 CUP vs. 40,000 CUP (the old SAAMI .44 Magnum pressure limit was a little higher at 43,500 CUP, but still well below the .475's).
A typical older .44 Magnum load could push a 240-grain bullet at about 1,450 FPS from a ~6" barrel (1,120 ft-lbs of muzzle energy), while .475 Wildey Magnum can push a 250-grain bullet to 1,850 FPS (1,900 ft-lbs of muzzle energy).
Pain & Gain (2013) is one of the funniest black comedies I've ever seen.
"Harry's regular .44 Magnum. It was not before 2002, that another one turned up, who is more powerful:
Smith & Wesson Model 500"
There were handgun cartridges that were more powerful than the .44 Magnum long before 2002.
The .454 Casull was released commercially in 1983, and it exceeds the .44 Magnum by about 500 FPS (that's a lot) for any given bullet weight and barrel length. As a wildcat cartridge it dates back to 1959, which means that when the first Dirty Harry movie was released in 1971, the .44 Magnum was only the most powerful <i>commercial</i> handgun cartridge on the market.
The .50 Action Express has been around since 1988 and is substantially more powerful than the .44 Magnum.
.475 Wildey Magnum was released commercially in 1984 and is also substantially more powerful than the .44 Magnum. A Wildey Hunter pistol (which looks somewhat similar to the Auto Mag pistol that Clint Eastwood's character used in Sudden Impact) chambered for .475 Wildey Magnum was used by Charles Bronson's character in Death Wish 3 (1985).
There are others too, especially if you include wildcats (.500 Linebaugh and .475 Linebaugh to name a couple more examples).
In a survival scenario (SHTF type thing), way too many people will all have the same idea, and the deer and other edible critters won't last long unless you happen to be in, or are able to get to, a very remote location where few, if any, other people decide to go to as well.
<blockquote>But at the end, he sets the timer on the bomb and tosses it into the backseat of the car, killing Hal Holbrook when it explodes.
But there was no reason for him to kill Holbrook's character, other than vigilantism, which he was opposed to.
At that point Harry wasn't in any danger.</blockquote>
Harry didn't kill Briggs. Briggs got himself killed by deciding to steal a car and flee from justice. That car he stole happened to have a bomb in it; tough shit for him. Harry obviously didn't hold a gun to his head and make him get in that car; quite the opposite in fact (i.e., Briggs was holding a gun on Harry when he stole the car). If he'd submitted to arrest for the major crimes he'd already admitted to, rather than steal a car, he wouldn't have been killed.
On top of all that, even if Harry had directly killed Briggs as he was fleeing from justice (for example, if, instead of a bomb being in the car, Harry had found a gun and shot Briggs as he was driving off), it would have been justified anyway. A cop can legally shoot an armed and fleeing criminal suspect in order to protect society. In that situation it doesn't matter whether the cop himself is in any danger.
"Harry's giant handgun rather resembled a Western six shooter"
Not even close. The stereotypical "Western six shooter" is a Colt Single Action Army and Dirty Harry's gun was a Smith & Wesson Model 29. The former is a single-action revolver with a fixed cylinder and the latter is a double-action revolver with a swing-out cylinder. Here's a comparison picture (the two guns are approximately to scale with each other):
https://i.imgur.com/bhs6syD.png
The shape of the grips, hammer, trigger, trigger guard, and sights are all completely different.
The curve at the back of the frame where the hammer rests curves outward for the SAA and curves inward for the M29.
The M29 has a cylinder latch that you slide forward to swing out the cylinder which the SAA doesn't have because it has a fixed cylinder.
The M29's trigger is positioned toward the center of the trigger guard because it's double-action and therefore needs room for about an inch of rearward travel, while the SAA's trigger is positioned toward the rear of the trigger guard, because it's single-action and only ever needs a short pull of the trigger.
The M29 has a substantially bigger frame and thicker-walled barrel, which is why it weighs 10 or 12 ounces more than an SAA.
One of the most distinctive visual characteristics of the SAA is its ejector rod housing, which is offset to the side (it would be in about the 8 o'clock position relative to the barrel, if you were facing the muzzle). The M29 doesn't have an ejector rod housing. It has an ejector shroud but it's shaped completely differently; it's integrated into the barrel rather than screwed on, and it's not offset (i.e., it's in the 6 o'clock position).
There are other visual differences too, but those are the main ones. A Smith & Wesson M29 would look blatantly anachronistic in a Western movie or TV show.
View all replies >