# The movie called Shooter



## Flip (11 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## Jorkapp (12 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## KevinB (13 Aug 2007)

I would not be taking much from that movie seriously...
 The book rocked (Point of Impact), but like most movie adaptions failed big time.


----------



## Fusaki (13 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## Big Red (13 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## FredDaHead (13 Aug 2007)

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?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## mysteriousmind (13 Aug 2007)

common people...it was a good movie, I liked it...

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

Good entertainment


----------



## 2 Cdo (13 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## Freight_Train (13 Aug 2007)

Loved this line - "I don't think you understand - these people killed my dog."
 ;D


----------



## Pte AJB (13 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Aug 2007)

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


----------



## MikeL (13 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## simysmom99 (13 Aug 2007)

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.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Aug 2007)

Reminded me of my younger days. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





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

dileas

tess


----------



## ProPatria031 (18 Aug 2007)

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:


----------



## 1RNBR (5 Oct 2007)

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!


----------



## Teflon (5 Oct 2007)

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!



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


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Oct 2007)

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?? :


----------



## Danjanou (5 Oct 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> 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?? :



Which one? We get about 2-3 nintendo snipers a week on here on average  :



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Reminded me of my younger days.



Funny I never new you were a disgruntled and clumsy FBI agent back then.  8)




			
				ProPatria031 said:
			
		

> . it will never beat 300 thought. it's the ultimate dude flick.



Well maybe in some neighbourhoods there sailor.  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2t58CRmbU


----------



## Mike Baker (5 Oct 2007)

I liked the movie, but, its only a movie


----------



## midget-boyd91 (5 Oct 2007)

I read the book probably about two years ago... then watched the movie when it came out. There were a lot of differences between the book and movie (as is the case everytime) but even just from the previews they showed on TV I knew it was based on the book (the book was of a different title).


----------



## Bane (5 Oct 2007)

I liked the movie, but it is for pretend. What I found really valuable was the special feature documentary on Carlos Hathcock, first class!


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2007)

Book was Stephen Hunter's Point of Impact -- good book -- movie was ass.


----------



## Teflon (6 Oct 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> 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?? :



I'm Sure you're thinking of "paradice" (spelling?) I know exactly who you ae thinking of! ;D


----------



## emmiee (6 Oct 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> 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?? :



Some do live vicariously through other means, and can't separate fiction and non-fiction.  :-\ 



			
				Mike Baker said:
			
		

> I liked the movie, but, its only a movie



Ok you're the one that makes me nervous, when you say things like that. I know you are home pretending it is really you in that movie.   ;D

At least the ones that are out there saying they are I can sneak quietly away from

emma


----------



## Journeyman (7 Oct 2007)

Freight said:
			
		

> *Loved this line - "I don't think you understand - these people killed my dog." *


I liked "Welcome to Wyoming, the Patron State of Shooting Things"



			
				simysmom99 said:
			
		

> *.....some top notch eye candy... but hey, is that why I watch Mark Wahlberg?  Nope.*


Sorry, but that's a typo; the eye candy was _clearly_ divided between Kate Mara (great freckles) and Rhona Mitra (awesome cheekbones)


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Oct 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> 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.



Yes its leathal, and 200 m by a trained shot is likely for sure. Using .22LR HV ammo that is.

Don't under estimate a .22 for a second.

I have not seen this movie, but a movie is a movie, designed to entertain us.


Wes


----------



## BernDawg (7 Oct 2007)

When the guy in the movie said that they were shot by a .22 I just assumed it was a .22 Mag and let it be.

BTW Hot Springs was an awesome read and would make a wicked Walking Tall type of movie.


----------



## Flip (7 Oct 2007)

Thanks Wes!

I think you're the only one to acknowledge the question.

I used to experiment with some of the HV types of ammunition
with my Ruger 10-22.  Wayyyyy more noise than conventional
.22 LR.  Goes through much thicker trees too. Great metrics eh?

I've also read the .22 is the professional assassin's' cartridge of choice.

Personally, I haven't picked up a firearm except to clean it in a decade
or so...  

It's a fun movie - I even watched it twice.  I never do that.


----------



## spr_sldr (7 Nov 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> 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.




 :-[ thats what i do when i go to the movies, to this movie in fact at the .22 scene rofl


----------



## Thompson_JM (29 Nov 2007)

Mallard said:
			
		

> :-[ thats what i do when i go to the movies, to this movie in fact at the .22 scene rofl



Except as Wes stated, it is plausable....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Nov 2007)

My understanding is the IDF snipers uses the 10/22 for "less than seriously lethal" shots. Sort of a inbetween response from the rubber bullet and the 7.62mmx51


----------



## Sig_Des (29 Nov 2007)

Mallard said:
			
		

> :-[ thats what i do when i go to the movies, to this movie in fact at the .22 scene rofl



Right. And in your no-more than 1-2 years with a Reserve unit, how often have you studied ballisitics, specifically reference .22 caliber weapons, much less fired them?

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Flip (29 Nov 2007)

> My understanding is the IDF snipers uses the 10/22 for "less than seriously lethal" shots.



Well, I'll be jiggered! 

That's my gopher gun!
Figures - The guy who recommended it was ex-mil ex-UN. ;D

Great little gun.


P.S. to add, I wouldn't shoot it standing in a row boat in the middle of a pond at night though....


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> P.S. to add, I wouldn't shoot it standing in a row boat in the middle of a pond at night though....



with a pop bottle suppressor in worthless iron sights, into a dark boathouse 

Its not fucking plausible at all 

As Wes stated under ideal conditions it is possible, but given the fact people tend not always to like to die sometimes it take a LOT of holes in them (even the head occasionally) to kill them...


----------



## SteveB (2 Dec 2007)

The thread would be more interesting if most had read Stephen Hunter's excellent book.  The movie bears next to no resemblance to the a written work that started a good series.  It is kind of funny, as the book is well enough researched to actually discredit many scenes in the movie, including some of the points raised here.

Steve


----------



## Danjanou (2 Dec 2007)

> ...  It is kind of funny, as the book is well enough researched to actually discredit many scenes in the movie, including some of the points raised here.



Not surprising as mind the author Stephen Hunter is as much a gun nut as Wes and I6 are. Yeah he'd fit in well here.


----------

