• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The movie called Shooter

Flip

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
OK - this is probably a stupid question but I'm not sure............

I like to be sure... ;D

The hero of the piece stages a rescue of his buddy by bagging three
bad guys with a .22 rifle.

Never mind the unlikelyness of a hit - Could a .22 be lethal at 200 yards!?!
I've only shot at gophers and, seldom further out than about 50 yards.

Sure it's only a movie, but I had to go Hmmm. 
Except for that one line,(which I might have heard wrong) It was fun movie to watch.



 
Taken from Wikipedia (and with a grain of salt):
The .22 LR is effective within 150 meters (490 ft) (after 150 meters the ballistics of the round are such that the large "drop" will be difficult to compensate). The relatively short effective range, low report, and light recoil has made it a favorite for use as a target practice cartridge. The accuracy of the cartridge is good, but not exceptional; various cartridges are capable of the same or better accuracy. Still, the effectiveness of this cartridge is often underestimated. The trajectory of the .22 LR "has a 2.7 inch rise at 50 yards and 10.8 inch drop at 150 yards when zeroed at 100 yards."[1] "Practically speaking, a .22 LR rifle needs to be zeroed at about 75 yards to avoid over-shooting small animals like squirrels at intermediate distances." [2]

The newest commercial rimfire, the .17 Mach 2, is based on the .22 LR case, but is slightly stretched in length (case length is similar to the CCI Stinger) and necked down. The light, aerodynamic .17 caliber (4.5 mm) bullet gives a much higher velocity than the .22 LR, for similar energy and a much flatter trajectory, but at the expense of increased cost and noise.

As a hunting cartridge, the .22 LR is mainly used to kill small vermin such as rats and squirrels. It is also highly effective on rabbits at distances closer than 150 yards and on ground hogs, marmots, and foxes closer than 80 yards. It has been successfully used on large creatures such as coyotes, but range should be limited to no farther than 65 yards, head and chest shots are mandatory with the most powerful .22 cartridge the hunter can use accurately. The hunter would best find what cartridge out of the various high velocity and hyper velocity shoots well for him by preliminary testing. For greater range or larger game, a more powerful cartridge should be used to ensure a clean kill. Examples include larger rimfire rounds such as the .22 WMR, .17 HMR, or any centerfire cartridge. Like any bullet, the .22 LR is nonetheless dangerous and capable of killing humans and large animals at close range.
 
I would not be taking much from that movie seriously...
The book rocked (Point of Impact), but like most movie adaptions failed big time.
 
Man, the movie version had so many holes!

I'm not usually one of those army dinks who loves to armchair action flicks and exclaim "Thats totally unrealistic!!" (usually to try and impress high school girls), but with Shooter I'll have to make an exception.

I have a hard time believing the book is any better... unless the entire plot was changed.
 
Wonderbread said:
I have a hard time believing the book is any better... unless the entire plot was changed.

The book is excellent, as are all of the Stephen Hunter novels.  He's one of the few authors who actually puts an effort into researching the weapons and terminology used in his books.
 
Big Red said:
The book is excellent, as are all of the Stephen Hunter novels.  He's one of the few authors who actually puts an effort into researching the weapons and terminology used in his books.

You mean he writes technical manuals with fiction bits linking the various elements together, like Tom Clancy?
 
Ah lighten up guys. I really enjoyed the movie. It was a mindless action flick with a high body count and lots of explosions and chases....it's a tried and true formula...along with all the flag waving and conspiracy theory stuff. We watched it on DVD.....yeah my wife like's stuff like that too ,which is awesome...and the extra stuff showed the USMC sniper they used as a technical consultant. That stuff was interesting but yeah the plot was kinda out there....taken with a grain it was a fairly good Saturday evening's entertainment.
 
common people...it was a good movie, I liked it...

Do not take it as a reference...otherwise, you will be disappointed....

Good entertainment
 
Infidel-6 said:
I would not be taking much from that movie seriously...
The book rocked (Point of Impact), but like most movie adaptions failed big time.

My thoughts exactly!

I have a hard time believing the book is any better... unless the entire plot was changed.

The movie had very little in common plot wise with the book.
 
The movie wasn't too bad the big gaping holes that we notice aside. Mind having read all of the Stephen Hunter Books on Bob Lee Swagger and his Pappy Earl Swagger I was pres set for some disappointment.

Rumour is they may do some more of the Bob Lee novels as films. Personal\ly I'd ratehr see the 3 ( so far) Earl Swagger novels done as films, I think they could do a better job.
 
Danjanou said:
Rumour is they may do some more of the Bob Lee novels as films. Personal\ly I'd ratehr see the 3 ( so far) Earl Swagger novels done as films, I think they could do a better job.

I'd love to see a film adaptation of "Hot Springs", I think it would make the best movie out of any of his books. 
 
Freight said:
Loved this line - "I don't think you understand - these people killed my dog."
;D

A better line later on is when they are driving together and the FBI guy says "So they killed your dog and now they got your woman?"
"Yeah these people never learn do they?" or words to that effect. Maybe they should have blown up his pick up truck too and then it would be all great fodder for a country and western song which they could then play in the background while he heads out looking for revenge! ;D

 
Was enertaining, kinda liked how they went into a little detail for the long shooting.. better than just  the point an shoot sorta thing they do in most others.


Kinda weird that they had USMC Scout/Snipers wearing US Army ACU uniforms as the base for their ghillie suit though.
 
From a purely girl perspective, it was a good flick with some top notch eye candy.
Dh did blow some holes in the reality, but hey, is that why I watch Mark Wahlberg?  Nope.
 
Reminded me of my younger days.
dreamy.gif


I enjoyed it, watched on a flight to LA, and watched it again on the way back.

dileas

tess
 
good flick. it's like the Bourne series of movies but with a sniper instead :sniper: , YA ya we've all heard "oh that's unrealistic" but the movies got to be entertaining to. it will never beat 300 thought. it's the ultimate dude flick.

:cheers:
 
This is just a movie therefore made for the enjoyment of viewers if you want something realistic watch either a documentry or shindler's list! never read the book but most movies are made for the pure enjoyment of the viewers and not made to be realistic. just my .02 cents, but with that said i thought it was a great movie! :cdn:
 
1RNBR said:
This is just a movie therefore made for the enjoyment of viewers if you want something realistic watch either a documentry or shindler's list! never read the book but most movies are made for the pure enjoyment of the viewers and not made to be realistic. just my .02 cents, but with that said i thought it was a great movie! :cdn:

Yup, I have to agree, it's a movie, made to entertain. It's a training vid for budding snipers.

I never have to wait long for a reminder why I don't watch movies with my military buddies  :)
 
Hey who's that guy who the Mods were upset with the other day who was on here wanting to be a sniper?? Maybe he watched this film and got all inspired eh?? ::)
 
Back
Top