MovieChat Forums > MaximRecoil > Replies
MaximRecoil's Replies
"Actually, guns would be very effective on "swarming" birds. A 12-gauge shotgun would drop several with one shot."
Only within a certain distance range. If they are swarming so close to you that they're actually landing all over you, a gun of any type is next to useless.
On top of that, 12-gauge shells are quite large and therefore ammunition capacity is quite low. A typical pump-action or semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun holds 4 or 5 rounds (2¾" shells) in the magazine plus one in the chamber. There are combat/riot type shotguns that have extended-length magazine tubes so they can hold a few more (7+1 or 8+1 usually), but that's still not a lot, and I'm not sure if any of those even existed in 1963. I know they were around in the 1980s at least, but I don't know when they first became a thing. Even the old US military shotguns like the Winchester model 1897 trench gun, Winchester Model 12 trench gun, Ithaca Model 37 trench gun, etc., all had the typical 4+1 or 5+1 capacity that sporting-type shotguns have.
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.
"Yes, thinking of other people or the "general good" is a real blind spot for Republicans
I think its the main difference between the two factions"
That's comically ironic, coming from the pro-abortion side, you know, the side that literally believes that killing certain humans should be perfectly legal (on a whim no less, rather than only for a logically justified reason such as self-defense), and is in accordance with the "general good."
It's how some weight lifters / circus strongmen dressed way back when, like this guy:
https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/443041682063901431/
And this guy:
https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/255086766380587255/
And in this old drawing:
https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/669910513335188591/
And they're not underwear, they're wrestling trunks, like these guys are wearing:
https://64.media.tumblr.com/0509cd4487d9828ef76fc7d9b28f0ca2/tumblr_phwqrv2NjD1ru3vzto1_640.jpg
And these guys:
https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Al-Marlow-with-his-trainer-Joe-Malcewicz-courtesy-Ogdensburg-journal.png
Superman and Batman were created in the 1930s and their costumes were most likely inspired by circus strongmen and pro wrestlers of the day.
"14 year old preteen"
Is that meant to be a joke?
And now for a long-winded anecdote:
One night in 1987 or 1988 when my friends Corey (R.I.P. 1974-2015) and Tom were spending the weekend at my house (we were 12 or 13) the subject of coffee came up. I'd never tried it and Corey and Tom both made out like they were coffee-drinking veterans. They told stories of getting up at 4 AM to go hunting, and drinking the strongest, blackest coffee you could imagine, and liking it. So I wanted to try some. I said, "I think we have some coffee in the cupboard; do you guys know how to make it?" Well of course they did. I dug around in the cupboard to find a dusty old jar of instant coffee that had been there since about 1982, and Tom tried to find something to boil water in. There wasn't much clean, so he used a 9" skillet, missing its handle. There were no clean coffee mugs, so we used Mason jars. There were no clean spoons either (and of course, we weren't going to do the dishes; that was completely out of the question), so after Tom spilled half of the boiling water trying to pour it from a handleless 9" skillet into Mason jars, he had to use his fingers to pinch instant coffee out of the jar into our cups.
I wasn't the one who had claimed to love strong, black coffee, so he went light on mine, and I also flooded it with milk and sugar. Corey and Tom on the other hand, had already consigned themselves to drinking it strong and black, due to their earlier boasting. Tom kept scooping and scooping the instant coffee with his fingers into Corey's Mason jar. It was like tar. You probably could have stood a spoon up in it, not that we had a spoon to try. And they drank it, giving nods of approval, saying, "This is good coffee."
The next morning when we woke up, Corey was gone, and Mom got a phone call from Corey's mother, wanting to know what "those boys were doing last night." She said, "Corey's awful sick, I think he's been drinking!" He was sick for three days, and he told me years later that he never touched coffee again, and if anyone asked him why, he would tell the story of "Tom's Coffee."
The coffee I make doesn't taste bitter to me, it just tastes like coffee (no nut flavor), and it tastes good to me. I use run-of-the-mill Folgers Classic Roast brewed in a vintage Jet-O-Matic, and it's neither bitter nor acidic/sour tasting.
Just to make sure the bitterness you're talking about isn't a result of the particular coffee you're drinking or brewing method you use, you could try Folgers Singles, which doesn't have any off-flavors that I can detect, but it's not as flavorful as regular Folgers coffee grounds with a good brewing method in my opinion. They are like tea bags, but have coffee in the bags. Make sure you only use a maximum of 6 oz. of boiling water for one bag, which is the standard "cup" size for coffee. If you use more water than that it will be weak/watery. If you find that to be bitter then you have a different idea of what constitutes bitter than I do.
"But talking about prices, wasn't that drink price of one dollar a bit high later in the movie?"
Outrageously high. According to this site - https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1746 - the average annual salary in the US in 1880 was $545 dollars. Assuming 2,000 hours of work per year (40-hour work week, 50 work weeks per year), that's about $0.27 per hour, so it would take nearly half a day's work to pay for that one drink.
Google says that the average annual salary in the US today is $63,795, which is about $31.90 per hour for a 2,000-hour work year. So that one drink would translate to about $118 today.
A nickel would have been a far more realistic price for the time period.
I'm from Maine which is already as eastern as you can get in the US, so maybe from one of the other cardinal directions.
It was a dying tree (as far back as I can remember, which is about 1978, its trunk was already largely hollow with about an 8" diameter hole on one side, just under the crotch of its biggest/lowest branch), so I don't know if it would still be alive today, but it definitely would have lived for many years past 1992, since it was still bearing fruit on all of its branches at the time. I'm sure it would have lived for at least long enough for me to learn that it needed to be cloned, and find someone who knows how to do it (I learned that when I first got a PC and internet access in the early 2000s).
The old bat also destroyed an old Red Delicious apple tree at the same time, but I didn't care all that much about that one because those are my least favorite type of apple, and in green apple form before they are ripe, they aren't worth eating at all.
It's supposed to be one of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrailleuse
But it was just a fake, and not particularly accurate, mockup/prop.
LOL