Eastwood is not a stickler for accuracy

[Gary7]

I watched Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" this afternoon. It's too bad Eastwood isn't a stickler for accuracy the way Tom Selleck is in his westerns. "Unforgiven" takes place in 1881, so why are some of the characters carrying Winchester 1892s? And why is one character complaining that the store won't sell them any more "30-30" shells when the 30 WCF wasn't introduced until 1895?

[J Miller]

Cos it's Hollyweird and not to be taken seriously.

Joe

[Gary7]

Cos it's Hollyweird and not to be taken seriously.

Maybe not, but just because you're telling a story for entertainment purposes doesn't mean you can't get the historical details correct.

[markinalpine]

I watched Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" this afternoon. It's too bad Eastwood isn't a stickler for accuracy the way Tom Selleck is in his westerns. "Unforgiven" takes place in 1881, so why are some of the characters carrying Winchester 1892s? And why is one character complaining that the store won't sell them any more "30-30" shells when the 30 WCF wasn't introduced until 1894?

HOO Ray for HOLLYWOOD.

I liked an old oater with Roy Rogers that featured pre-Civil War action using lever guns with side loading gates. I'm not enough of an expert to recognize the actual models, but they looked like 1992 or 1894 Winchesters to my untrained eye.

Also, six shot revolvers that they never took time to reload while firing 15-20 times.

I like those corny old, innacurate movies anyway. Life's too short.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Mark

[J Miller]

Cos it's Hollyweird and not to be taken seriously.

Maybe not, but just because you're telling a story for entertainment purposes doesn't mean you can't get the historical details correct.

Ah Gary, you're expecting too much. 99.9999999% of movie goers don't know these details so 99.9999999% of Hollyweird writers, directors and producers don't care.
Tom Selleck is in the .0000001% that do care.

Joe

[Chas.]

From another thread about this:

OK, we both know they screwed up and really meant the .30-30 WCF. But for the sake of being a cross-grained old cuss I have to point out there really was a .30-30 cartridge on the market as early as 1880, according to Cartridges of the World.

It was the .30-30 Wesson developed by Frank Wesson and introduced in 1880. Several companies made components and loaded ammo, and I believe more than one company made rifles chambered for it. CotW listed it as being loaded with a 165 gr. lead bullet and 30 grains Fg powder for a velocity of 1250 fps. The .30-30 Wesson and the .30-30 WCF are in no way interchangeable.

[O.S.O.K.]

You know, I didn't notice those things in the movie. I did notice his Star cap and ball and shotgun looked right. The kid's Smith & Wesson was OK too I think. And the Spencer was great. But 92 Winchesters and 30-30 would definately be wrong.

I guess I just enjoyed the gritty portrayal and story line too much to worry with the small things.

Clint is probably my favorite actor - if I have one.

Jeff Bridges is getting there too.

[Gary7]

From another thread about this:

OK, we both know they screwed up and really meant the .30-30 WCF. But for the sake of being a cross-grained old cuss I have to point out there really was a .30-30 cartridge on the market as early as 1880, according to Cartridges of the World.

It was the .30-30 Wesson developed by Frank Wesson and introduced in 1880. Several companies made components and loaded ammo, and I believe more than one company made rifles chambered for it. CotW listed it as being loaded with a 165 gr. lead bullet and 30 grains Fg powder for a velocity of 1250 fps. The .30-30 Wesson and the .30-30 WCF are in no way interchangeable.

Yes, given the other firearm anachronisms in that film, I seriously doubt the writer was thinking about the 30-30 Wesson when he wrote that line in the script.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

I watched Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" this afternoon. It's too bad Eastwood isn't a stickler for accuracy the way Tom Selleck is in his westerns. "Unforgiven" takes place in 1881, so why are some of the characters carrying Winchester 1892s? And why is one character complaining that the store won't sell them any more "30-30" shells when the 30 WCF wasn't introduced until 1894?

HOO Ray for HOLLYWOOD.

I liked an old oater with Roy Rogers that featured pre-Civil War action using lever guns with side loading gates. I'm not enough of an expert to recognize the actual models, but they looked like 1992 or 1894 Winchesters to my untrained eye.

Also, six shot revolvers that they never took time to reload while firing 15-20 times.

I like those corny old, innacurate movies anyway. Life's too short.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Mark

Most all of the old westerns use some form of Win 92's. that is because the most readily available blank ammo of the era was the 5 in 1 blanks. These blanks worked in the 44-40 cal rifles and 45 and 44-40 SAA's. You would see a few 73's used but production of the 73's ended in 192 where the 92's went up to WWII. Plus the 92 runs the blanks better than the 73.

I've seen many 92's made up to look like henry's by leaving the forewood off and some even had gold plated receivers. I have done a few like that for the CAS shooters that shoot the "B" western catagory. They have to use Win 92's, 94's or 1894 Marlins.

[Griff]

Far better than some of his wearlier work!

[Kansas Ed]

I re watched the Cheyenne Social club the other day, and was pleased to note that at least Jimmy Stewart carried a '73.

Ed

[Ysabel Kid]

I doubt any actor comes close to Selleck's desire for historical accuracy.

[Gary7]

I doubt any actor comes close to Selleck's desire for historical accuracy.

Yeah, but what about "Monty Walsh"? That story was set in 1893 and the 1886 he carries was chambered in 50-110. Wasn't the 50-110 introduced later than 1893?

[El Chivo]

how about that the guns all look 100 years old?

[MrMurphy]

The fact that they used an actual period Starr and Colt? shotgun and Spencer......high marks for me.

The Winchesters? eh, i'll let it slide.

[winchester1886]

Give me Burt Lancaster's The Unforgiven anytime over Clint Eastwoods Unforgiven, could never sit through that movie always get up and leave.

[Gary7]

The fact that they used an actual period Starr and Colt? shotgun and Spencer......high marks for me.

Not me. That just make the errors with the Winchester doubly egregious.

[Bluehawk]

1895

[Gary7]

1895

???

[Old Savage]

The problem with Shakespeare is that everybody talks like Shakespeare.

[gunner69]

One of the best movies for period accuracy of both equipment and weapons has to be "The Wind and the Lion."

[olyinaz]

how about that the guns all look 100 years old?

In general the movies gets that wrong - thing either look too old or too new. But in the case of Civil War era guns still in service in the 1880s out on the open range? I'd have to bet they looked like ca ca after 20 years in open elements and shooting the Holy Black.

Cheers,
Oly

[Rusty]

Rule #1 Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

[Bruce Scott]

I don't know if a timeline was established in the movie but a lot of the blurb written about Quigley Down Under has him arriving in Australia in the 1860s (complete with a rifle that hasn't been made yet).

"Rousing western with Tom Selleck as american sharpshooter Matthew Quigley, who comes to Australia in the 1860's under the false pretense of hunting wild dogs for bad guy Alan Rickman. But once Quigley realizes he was brought in to kill aborigines, he decides to fight back against Rickman and his desperadoes........"

The rifle, of course, puts the movie somewhere after 1874, but there are mounted redcoats patrolling the outback. The British garrison was withdrawn from Western Australia in 1861 and there had never been any British cavalry here. The WA volunteer defence force at the time of the movie consisted of a part-time milita in the main population centres.

Enjoyed the movie just the same.

[Jayhawker]

Well, they did make mention of the fact that it was an "experimental" weapon. Must have been a prototype model.

[MrMurphy]

That and the Sharps, in paper cartridge form existed back into the mid 1850s i believe.

[Lawyer Daggit]

Most of the old westerns used the South American model 92's because they were relatively cheap.

[C. Cash]

Hey I'm just happy when I get to see a Spencer in a Western.

[Bluehawk]

3030 was introduced in 1895

[Gary7]

3030 was introduced in 1895

Typo.

[Old Savage]

If inaccuracy bothers you better not watch too many westerns. I recall one with contrails in the background.

[Bluehawk]

NOT nit-picking just making your point even more

[rangerider7]

Now days I'm happy any western is made.

[Gary7]

Now days I'm happy any western is made.

Me too. Looking forward to the new "True Grit."

[J Miller]

Now adays things like contrails, power lines, pavement, modern cities, etc can be edited out digitally. No excuse for them.

What bugs the stuff out of me is when they edit in muzzle flashes when it's obvious the character never fired the darn gun.

Joe

[Old Savage]

If he said thirty thirty and a thirty thirty existed then that is OK.

[KCSO]

What you don't realize until you are actually there is what it takes to make a movie safely and what the prop department goes through. First off until recently there simply wern't replica's. I remember buying the FIRST replica 1851 Navy that anyone had ever seen. The porp departments up until the big replica boom simply couldn't afford to use Henry's and Spencers and there was NO ammunition for them let alone 5 in 1 blanks. Also if it's in the backround you have to cheap out, in fact rubber guns are all a lot of the guys in the backround ever get. If you watch one John Wayne flick close you can see Jack Elam bend a rubber gun on Stuart Whitman's head. Also most actors are ACTORS and not gun people so they read the line like they were written and do what they are told to get the paycheck.

I was on the set of Dances With Wolves and spent time with Andy Cannon who supplied a lot of the props. You ever notice the Sharps Carbines are all ctg guns? The prop department insisted as this complied with safety rules. All the gun fire was dubbed in from taped firing sessions in a special safe area. We got inspected every day to make sure NO ONE actually could load any of the muzzleloaders used as props. And those M/L were a real headache for the prop department I bet they wished they were M92's with plugs in the muzzle and 5 in 1's.

The last and most important point is that most folks don't care! The fact that Jerimiah had adjustable sights on his T/C Hawken??? doesn't detract from the story and when I point it out to my wife it just pi$$es her off. Only people like us ever notice that so and so fired his 6 shooter 7 times or that J/W used a M92 from 1865 to 1940.

[Winnetou]

During the peak era of the Western, the 1950s, original firearms were not very expensive. A Henry rifle might sell from $75 to $100. Adjusting for inflation and the consequent devaluation of the dollar, that is about $600 to $800 to-day, and actually less than replicas.

At that time, the reason rim-fire rifles like the Henry, Winchester 1866, and Spencer were not much employed in Westerns was, as pointed out above, the lack of suitable blank cartridges. However, actual Henry rifles (as opposed to converted Winchester 1892 rifles) can be seen fairly often in Westerns of the 1950s; they are simply not shown firing, or the shot takes place off-screen (as when Aline McMahon fires a Henry in The Man From Laramie). In one film, the title of which I can not recall, a Henry was shown being loaded by a female character, and correctly—by pulling up the cartridge follower and turning the barrel shroud.

[KCSO]

Wait a minute, originals not expensive? In 1950 my Dad was a homicide investigator and made the princely sum of $4500 a year! He scrimped and saved to by a $35 dollar rifle. It's nice to look in the old books and see what they cost , but you still have to take into account what wages were. And who was going to suppply the rimfire blanks? There were none.

As to Quigley and his Sharps "The falling block action lent itself to conversion to the new metallic cartridges developed in the late 1860s, and many of these converted carbines in .50-70 Government" I seem to remember a Gemmer Sharps in 56-50 in about 1866 or so and I think the 44-77 was late 1860's too so they aren't too far off, at least they used cap and ball six shooters.

[Winnetou]

Please note that I provided the adjustment for the devaluation of the dollar.

The $100 price for a Henry rifle in 1955 would be $800 to-day. $800 for an original Henry, to-day, would be a great bargain—considering that an example in typical condition would normally fetch $15,000 or more! And the $100 Henry in 1955 would have been in top condition.

What I meant was that the cost of good antique firearms has risen much higher than that of new guns, or other goods, since the 1950s—in constant dollars. This is in part because the collecting of such firearms was not as widespread, and the demand far less.

[Birdman]

I just watched Reo Lobo. Same thing but it is Hollywood and that is a great movie.