I don't think people truly appreciate just how large this rifle is. Tom Selleck is a big guy (6'5) and the gun still looks absolutely huge in his hands.
reminds me of my dad.he was 6foot and according to him all hollywood stars were midgets.when they looked huge onscreen hed say yeh its all camera angles!@@alext8828
@@garyfinger294 No sir. I was merely commenting on the sound design. A real recording would blast out the higher frequencies on field audio gear. And the sequencing of the actual noises would be much different due to the discrepancy between the speeds of sound and light.
That report sound was of a 45-70 Government round, and it's the sound effect that they used for the movie as it's a popular round that has been recorded thousands of times... I've had one for almost 30 years for bear and elk hunting, but it isn't much good against humans due to severe over penetration. Don't get me wrong, a well placed shot and the person dies before their brain realizes it, but there are far more effective rounds for this such as the Creedmoor, the .308, the 6.5 Grendel, and other rounds that perform amazingly well at long distance, even in a semiauto format... the heat from a 45-70 makes for extremely poor performance in a semiautomatic platform as it begins to heat warp the rifling, burring it and damaging it. Incidentally the 45-70 is what they based Quigley's "Experimental" ammunition and rifle on... average barrel length for a 45-70 long range rifle being 34". Though, the Government DID in fact have this round created to the specific specifications to combat the growing popularity of the 30-06 that was becoming extremely popular amongst natives and criminals due to it's range and consistency. The 45-70, however, was overkill... the optics of the day could not keep up, and it's a round now used by big game hunters. It fell out of popularity very, very fast with the military, and they too swapped to the 30-06. As Optics improved in the 1930s and 40s, the round made a come back, and has grown in popularity ever since... but for almost 50 years it was dead and seen as useless. Just like the 6.5 Creedmoor, which was a custom order by an Army Captain (all Remington's personal ledger said, so we have no idea who it really was). So Remington, the man not the company, created the first 6.5 Creedmoor (now a different company takes credit due to his being dead, and it not being found in his ledgers until very very recently.) Now the 6.5 Creedmoor has returned in a massive way, as we now have optics good for it's 2000+ meter range. That same captain had Weatherby look at the round (He had returned to Remington, however Remington saw zero profit in designing and manufacturing an ammo/rifle that literally no one else would buy due to it's ballistic coefficient being vastly too high for all known optics at that time) and wanted more knock down power, as the Creedmoor had a tendency to over penetrate as opposed to kill, and thus the first 6.5 Weatherby Magnum was created... and then vanished the same way the Creedmoor did for over 100 years. Said "Army Captain" was basically Quigley. Aka he was using a round that is real, and the sound effects department used a recording OF that actually quite popular round... for large game hunting, OR home defense if you want a round that's severely overkill and doesn't work well in Semi-auto setups. At the time Quigley Down Under takes place, however, the round and its rifle would have been either BRAND new - aka almost unheard of - or not invented yet, and they were rewriting history to say that the gunsmith Quigley used to customize his rifle and ammo created the round. They were a tad vague as to when this took place, as most of the mentions of time were fairly vague. Thus no way to really be sure.
Whether or not _this_ scene actually happened in history, someone on RUclips actually bothered to replicate this exact scenario using the 782 yards distance while standing up with that same gun and sight. And he hit the target. So it’s possible, whether historic or not, to pull this off IRL.
Well, this movie is fiction, not based on any real events so, no, it is not historical. It's very cool though that somebody did it for real. Do you by any chance know what the purpose of the double triggers is? I've used a wide variety of firearms in my life and never needed more than one trigger.
Source: ruclips.net/video/eFMWZ7Wabes/видео.html Internet shows that the double trigger is called a “set trigger” configuration. The rear (first) trigger cocks the hammer and turns the front (second) trigger into a hair trigger with a spring that significantly multiplies the force of the hammer when it falls.
Yep. I've seen the movie several times and this was probably The Scene of the entire film. Reading some of the comments has been really interesting & educational. For example, I didn't know that Tom Selleck was anymore than an actor. Knowing he owned the gun & is a genuine shooter just adds to the whole thing.
He no longer owns the gun. He donated it to the gun museum (an impressive, free museum) in the Bass Pro store In Springfield MO. I saw it on display there recently.
IM AN ENGLISHMAN AND 65 and Have Fired 303 Lea Enfield BOLT Action Rifle !!!40 YRS AGO And TO HOLD IT UP is ONE THING !!!BUT to Fire it QUIET ANOTHER !!! I CAN SEE that ONE MR SELACK IS A BIG RANGY MAN & HE WOULD NEED to Be!!! He HAS USED THAT RIFLE BEFORE MANY TIMES & IS WELL VERSED WITH ITS PERSONA !!!I NOTED THE DELIBRATE SPEED THAT HE POINTED AIMED AND FIRED !!!✌BECAUSE LENGTH =WEIGHT MEANS FATIGUE & SHAKES !!!😣 HE threw The DUST IN the Air FOR Wind Direction & Speed & adjusted His Sights!!!All IN ALL TEXT BOOK STUFF !!!😊& STILL A HELL of a LONG Range 3×Shot display !!!Great ACTING & A Great FILM g
geoffrey carson I would love to fire a real Lee Enfield someday, or a Martini Henry rifle. So many great British rifles with so much history out there. Good day, sir.
@@crazyfroggie6546 true, but still... Willful suspension of disbelief only goes so far for me. Good scene, but I prefer the pie fight and final showdown from Blazing Saddles, myself.
This movie is criminally underrated. Great performances, memorable soundtrack, beautiful cinematography and the Australian twist on the Western. Saw this on laserdisc at my uncle’s more times than I can remember, ha.
Stood in for Alec Baldwin on a Capitol One commercial back in 2012. There were 100 extras in Visigoth costumes in a field. I was wearing this slick black suit and walked into the middle of them for the shot set up. They were all staring at me cause I was the odd man out. Funny awkward moment, but I rose to the challenge. Gave them the This is my Boomstick speech. It was glorious. Everyone was cracking up. The Director, Baldwin and the 1st came walking in and were like "what the heck is going on?" "Just turning these primitives into crack Chinese jet pilots. They're ready for ya."
That scene made up my mind: "I have to get one of those!" I never got a Sharps, but I did get a Winchester (Browning) High Wall in .45-70, and learned to shoot it and load ammo for it. It got me into Black Powder Cartridge Metallic Silhouette competition, which goes as far as 500 meters (547 yards). Can't say I every shot anything 782 yards away, but I have shot it in competition out as far as 600 yards. "About there'll do" pretty much sums up the dream and fantasies of anyone who shoots an old buffalo rifle. Love that movie.
@@QualityPen The US Army agrees with you and why they started building their infantry rifles to be accurate within a shorter distance, around the time of WWII. Their studies showed that the farthest distance the average soldier can tell whether a person is friend or foe is 200 yards.
Nah, the best line was when one of Marsten's crew asked him if he could ever be as good as him. Marsten says, "You mean if you practiced every day?" Guy says, "Yeah!" and Marsten says "No."
@My Dixie Wrecked I believe you are correct, I have seen one but don't recall if it was Pedersolli. It was chambered in 45-70. Shiloh Sharps made the rifle for the movie and after filming Tom Selleck bought the rifle.
Good analogy. If you ever want to see Selleck's take on Indiana Jones (a part he was originally slated to play), check out the movie "Lassiter". However, I liked him better in "High Road to China".
When it comes to movies there are many that are iconic ie.. A River Runs Through It, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Getaway, Bullitt, The French Connection and I could go on, as many could, but when I think of movies that have left a lasting cinematic impression in my mind, it’s Quigley Down Under and Jeremiah Johnson.
The shot was incredible, but am I the only one more impressed by that bucket snag from horseback? Pretty good hand eye all on its own, and from atop a moving animal to boot.😀
Just for fun, using the same load specs it would take 186 MOA of come-ups to get to 1200. The mid range sight has 200, so when he said "This one shoots a mite farther" he wasn't that far off.
His moustache acts as a mass damper. Similar to how a tall building will have a large mass located on an upper floor to act help prevent building sway Tom Selleck's moustache steadies his entire upper body with its presence.
What I love is that he follows up with two more shots. Once could be put down as pure chance, twice is still possibly just luck, but three times in a row? He didn't just have a fluke shot or two, he knew how to shoot that far.
only trouble the bullet would have taken a little longer to hit, 1/2- 1 second longer than it showed on this movie. I can be done but it wasn't accurate in what would have really happened.
@@eolsunderyou're complaining about a half second? Rifle rounds vary wildly in fps yet you're complaining it's not accurate because it should have taken a half second longer? Smh man
@@MooseTracker100 ammo was expensive AF back then. A 1000 round box of rifle ammo could cost as much as 25 dollars which was half of a months salary. Some precision ammo (like what Quigley would be shooting here. Considering that his ammo is also experimental that means it's cost would likely be even higher) could cost up to 8 dollars a round. Ammo was wayyyy more expensive back then lol
Hitting a 300 meter human size target with an acog is hard enough while prone, shooting a smaller target, standing, with iron sights, at more than twice the distance… I would pay to see this happen in real life.
You'd be able to hit it eventually by adjusting from where you saw your bullet hit. But no one, and I mean no one is hitting that shot first try, that quick lol
An acog is like a 3 MOA optic, that means at 300 yards you end up with a 9 inch group and thats if you can shoot, grab a 1 MOA optic and you will dust off the target at 300 yards all day.
The Sharps IS a lever action single shot rifle (like a Martini or Winchester high/low wall). Others, like Spencer, Henry, Winchester and Marlin are lever action repeating rifles (also sometimes called 'self loading'). The original Quigley rifle now resides at Brownell's HQ at Grinnell Iowa.
sysjls75 negative sn 8886 the rifle used in the movie was given by Selleck to the Brownell family. They may have donated to the nra museum of that I'm not sure. But Selleck did not.
@@harveynailbanger So that's what happened to it? It was put up for Auction in 2008 at Morphy's, but it doesn't list wether it was sold or not. Incidentally, it was the infamous alum barrel gun(which had a real barrel installed after filming) and was reportedly in the best condition of the 3 rifles from the film.
I noticed that, too. Great horsemanship. He was probably Australian. That's a problem with modern Westerns in America. Very few genuine riders. Not like before, when there was a rider for every horse. Now there might be 10,000 horses for each rider. Horsemanship is a lost art.
@@KrK007 I like the name and premise more than film itself. I wish it was a little more adventuristic, like Alan Quartermain in King Solomon's Temple (but without the goofy theatrics). I felt like there wasn't enough action beats and the pacing was a little off. With a few better locations, slightly more expanded cinematography, and a couple more memorable action beats, I think it would have been a much better classic. Even still, it's an enjoyable enough film.
This kind of marksmanship may seem impossible but history says it is not impossible. In1874 at the battle of Adobe Walls, TX. Buffalo hunter Billy Dixon using a Sharps rifle shot a Comanche off of his horse at a distance measured by multiple individuals at a distance exceeding 1000 yards.
It's amazing that 90% of you guys are so damn stupid, you think it can't be done... 2 clicks on YOUR mouse and YOU can see OTHERS SHOOTING 900 YARD OFF HAND SHOTS WITH A 45/70...
I love how they show that he's not just a naturally skilled shooter, but also damn smart, without ever having to explicitly say so. Too many westerns, especially nowadays, want to have the "Natural Born Shooter" and fail to utilize the awe that a skilled shooter can instill, when properly represented.
Since you're taking the time to analyze a Hollywood fiction, you're forgetting to add the time it would take for the sound of the pistol shot to reach the rider at that distance. At sea level it would take the sound of the shot more than 2 seconds to reach the rider so now you're up to 48 seconds, not 46, plus the distance it would take for a horse with rider to come to a complete stop from a full sprint.
My favorite movie scene of all time... I was 11 when I first saw it, and even 22 years later, I still get excited when I watch it... Very accurate and obviously knowledgeable weapon handling by Selleck, along with his acting capabilities, and throwing Alan Rickman right in the middle of it, makes for a totally unforgettable scene.
Love this scene. When I was out west (AZ) I had a chance to do some long range shooting. MUCH more difficult than I imagined, living and hunting in Michigan the longest shot is rarely over 100 yds. I had a hell of a time hitting steel at 800 yds at first but hit a few after getting used to how much more elevation and windage adjustments are needed. But I am hooked now!
@@bloodredmooseisntshort4478 MUCH more difficult than I expected. I knew the variables but experiencing them was eye opening, no pun intended. I had much respect for long range shooters, Snipers. That respect went up 10 fold after the first 10 rounds I shot didn't hit anything! Number 11 was my first hit.
Ive been shooting long range rifle comps a long time, i still underestimate how much wind to move with the changes lol. At 800yrds, if you can see the wind change, give it a handfull of move instead of a few clicks . Not much more rewarding in the sport than putting all in the Vbull at 800 plus My best is 9/10 in the V at 900. ( peeps, prone, no rest, just elbows and sling )
Its a lot of fun getting into long range shooting, but my experience is with a 3-18x optic and 6.5 Creedmoor cartridges making wind holds way too easy. Can't imagine the skill it takes to shoot through good irons and a projectile with a far lower ballistic coefficient, let alone off-hand which I can barely manage 250yds with the 12lb rifle.
@@bloodredmooseisntshort4478 Once you know how, anything under 1000 yards really isn't that difficult, especially with certain calibers. The problem most people have is they use crap ammunition, they have a crap optic, or they didn't break in their barrel.
the distance of 782 yards depends entirely on the chosen average speed of 35mph but a regular horse might only run 20-25mph. in that case it's more like 450-550 yards.
Shouldn't we add two seconds because that's how it takes for the rider to hear the shot? (Just like when you see lighting and sometime later the sound of the thunder arrives)
It's called suspension of disbelief, the story is that Quigley is a marksman of high caliber. This is the kind of shooting a character of legend is to be able to do, which is why his services were called upon. For an average shooter even a bucket at 500 yards with iron sights while standing up would be a challenge, but you're just going to argue a difference of 2 to 300 yards is just pointless nitpicking. It's not bragging if you can do it.
I own a custom sharps rifle. It was made in 1897 for my great great grandfather. It is champered In 55-210. I never heard of such a round but it is real. Have fired it before and holy moly. It has more kick then a barrels 50 call. Went right through a piece of 1 inch steel plate at 500 yards with a lead round. Found out the round was almost 1000 grains. Still hanging over my family's mantle. Don't fire it much.
Shooting past 2-300 yards generally involves a bit of calculation and observation even on a shooting range. Past 5-600 you have to start accounting for how warm the ground is because the bullet is in flight for so long air rising/falling due to temperature has added up enough to make you miss. Past 1500 yards you start accounting for the compass direction because of the Coriolis effect of Earth's rotation.
What about the 2 seconds (approx) it took the sound to reach the rider, his reaction time (about 0.2-0.5 sec) to pull the reins and the distance the horse covered until it stopped from 17 y/s gallop. You can easily add another 50-60 yards to that.
One thing i learned in my 46 years, is that every thing is relative. Once you think you got your hypothesis down to a tee, there's allways one factor you didn't thought matter. If you'r lucky, it's with in your set margin of error 😊🖖
I have shot a bit myself and I am fairly sure that the front sight would completely cover the bucket at 800 yards. At that distance the bucket would also tend to blend into the background making this shot exceptionally difficult even with a support bench.
A fellow I knew got his son a 303 Lee Enfield for his first rifle. His son was not impressed with the gun or the peep sights. This man had been an instructor in firearms for the canadian army during ww2 so told his son he would show him what peep sights could do. He had his son step off roughly 500 yards across the open field in front of his house and set up a 1 quart oil can. When we couldn't see the can very well, he told his son to set his red hunting cap ( first day of deer season) on top of the can. I remember he told his son he was going to set the flip up sights for 500 yrds plus a little extra. When the old fellow shot, he didn't hit the can but hit just in front of it in the dirt and sent can and hat flying. When he told his son to set it up again and put his hat on top, his son said he didn't want his hat ruined and wouldn't do it. This happened about 50 years ago and is a true story.
I remember as a poor kid in Canada in the 50's, most of the men I knew had British Lee Enfields for deer hunting. They were inexpensive. I remember a story my mum told me about her dad, my beloved grandpa. During the Depression, the only meat that went on the table was what you killed, so grandpa would go hunting with his rifle and one cartridge. He came home with either that cartridge, or a deer. When I was a kid there were many times when if we didn't eat venison, prairie chickens or rabbit, we didn't have meat with the meal. I don't recall too many meatless meals. We'd go hunting in the Willys - my mum would spot a rabbit, hang out the window and pop it with the 22. My job was to jump off the back tailgate, pick up the rabbit and lay it on newspaper on the tailgate. I was never fond of venison, but the way she cooked rabbit was delicious - in the pressure cooker on the wood stove. The local priest had ESBP - extra-sensory biscuit perception. Every time mum made baking powder biscuits, Father Leon would show up. We didn't have a phone - at that time we lived about 5 miles outside of town, with water my dad piped in from the creek, gravity fed, no electricity, a woodstove for heat and cooking (and a small firebox), and an outhouse. I remember that place with great fondness. On cold winter mornings, you got dressed in front of the open oven door. Otherwise, your buns froze off.
I saw this movie as a kid and it actually opened my eyes to many things about the world I was naive to at the time. I appreciate the difficult subject matter guised as a action film. They just don't make em like that very often anymore for fear of upsetting the masses.
i always find this line of reasoning peculiar. " They just don't make em like that very often anymore for fear of upsetting the masses." this implies either that the older generations used to be more tolerant of controversial topics, which was clearly not the case, or carlin's seven words you can't say on television wouldn't have made sense. or this implies that the younger generation is more intolerant of taboo topics, which isn't the case due to a renewed interest in atheism, socialism, and the legal status of drugs and sex. the different generations each have their prudes and deviants, and those prudes and deviants have different social contexts.
@@ethanstump That's a relativist's perspective. Carlin's cause was nothing more than the normalization and universal tolerance of vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity. He was hardly fighting for the freedom to discuss controversial topics. He, like most leftists of his time, used the fact that some municipalities had laws against vulgarity/obscenity and a nearly nationwide ban on porn as if it represented some grand oppression of free speech. This notion that drug use, promiscuity, sexual deviancy, and coercive/authoritarian redistribution are new and "progressive" causes and behaviors is as incorrect and intellectually dishonest as it was in Carlin's prime. Humanity steadily advanced away from such primitive, destructive, base behaviors over the course of history. Now, reprobates like yourself want to revisit the days of universal immorality because you're unwilling to exert the self discipline necessary to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Repent, and commit to a new life. Shrug off base urges. Live righteously and be a light to the world, instead of encouraging your fellow humans to wallow in hedonistic impulses.
@@ethanstump Movie financing is done a bit differently now aways. That's all. I wasn't speaking negatively about younger generations or anything, sorry if it came off that way.
@@GroundbreakGames i apologize as well. i jumped to conclusions due to my bad experiences. but yeah, movies as an industry at this point are either financially safe controversy free family movies, or financially safe fake controversy "edgy" films, or Oscar bait. the corporate monoculture surrounding Hollywood is so insular, even when they try to appeal to the out crowd rather than the "normative man" it's a fantasized "rebel" or a "loner" that doesn't really embody any sort of experience that people either have, or want to have. that's why a lot of good movies are foreign films like parasite, or are small horror films. and then when Hollywood actually does pretty decent, it's due to not messing up a popular book franchise.
@@merlball8520 if swearing back then was controversial, which it was, that is discussing a controversial topic. also i deny the notion that these topics are "new" so much as they are getting a renewed perspective as a reborn counter culture. as for the idea that the left's ideas further human dignity/respect/righteousness, see interracial marriage. most people nowadays would see interracial couples as being perfectly decent. also thanks for calling me intellectually dishonest. also the idea that we have progressed away from such destructive behaviors like destroying the earth we rely upon for survival is a non-empirical one. something about a beam and a mote?
By your calculations, when the gun was fired, the rider was 782 yards away. HOWEVER, the sound of the gun would take almost exactly 2 seconds to reach the rider, due to speed of sound in air being 343 meters per second (or 375 yards per second). Hence I would argue the actual distance is 816 yards.
I’ve owned guns all my life. I’ve hunted but have never been a long range enthusiast. But this movie has a especial place in my heart for two reason: I first saw this movie at the time I was working in a machine shop. The owner made long range barrels for military snipers. It was quite the learning experience. He went on to sell the business to Proof Research in Columbia Falls, MT. The opening credits show a knife. My step-brother worked in the shop that made the knife. It was just the owner of the shop and my step-brother. They made high dollar reproductions of western knives, guns, leather apparel. The owner has since passed away. My step-brother has moved on to his own work. Apparently Mr. Selleck is the owner of the knife, unless he has since sold it. Anyhow ...
The greatest accomplishment of my life as a shooter was when I was 12 years old. I hit a rabbit from 200 yards with an old lever action .22 with iron sights while standing. I probably aimed at least 12 inches high and maybe 6 inches left with the wind. Just a sheer lob.
I use to plink sparrows and starlings with a .177 pump air rifle at 75 yards. Less power, less projectile weight. Its not that hard. Now I hunt feral hogs and some shots with my pump 30.06 are taken from 400-500 yards away.
According to youtube's duration timer in all their video boxes, it seems about 5 seconds elapses between Rickman's shot and the bucket dropping. At 17 yards/second, that's an additional 85 yards. I posted that the actual distance was 867 yards but someone else noticed that Selleck stepped forward 7 yards before firing the shot, thus the distance would've actually been about 860 yards.
DeanMk1 you can't forget that the guy on the horse was riding full speed, when he got signaled to stop, you have to realize that guy had fully slow down the horse to a stop. That would have taken another 10 to 20 seconds so it wouldn't be 860 yards it would've been around 890 yards, then he took 5 step forward so that would be 885 yards that he shot from.
Justin L. Shults Too bad we can't calculate the actual rate of acceleration and de-acceleration. However, keeping in mind that we can only calculate based on what we see in the footage, we find that the duration between the stopping shot being fired and the bucket touching the ground is 5 seconds. How far the horse and rider traveled in that time period is probably undeterminable, but your calculations only extend the range another 30 yards. You also base that distance on a 10 to 20 second time duration to slow the horse down. If we average that time out to 15 seconds, we can say the horse de-accelerated at a rate of 2 yards/second. Now, using the 5 seconds we actually have available to us, that would only be an additional 10 yards, bringing the new total range out to 870 yards. The horse's de-acceleration basically negating Selleck's forward movement. I believe this is about as close as we're ever going to get to knowing the actual distance of the shot.
I think the point is that hitting that bucket with a black powder weapon is no mean feat, heck it'd take some skill and a specialist weapon to reliably take it out with smokeless powder.
haha. good point. the speed of sound being around 1000 fps, and who knows how long the horse would take to stop. even if he just dropped the bucket on the run, it's still an impressive shot. i feel pretty awesome when i can plug a hole with a sighted in scope at over 100 yards, but that is so much cheating. modern ammo, modern weapon, telescope??? that's not all that sporting. that's why i always want to use sheet metal sights if i am going out to prove anything.
The one other part of this scene, which I like is Laura's character, crazy Cora, who after delivering her lines looks right at the camera, like she's telling the audience, right.
At one time, there was great debate in this comments section on how far that shot really was and how off Rich Mullinax was in his original estimate. About 3 years ago, I decided to take all the info presented here (at that time) and any other pertinent info I could find and see if I couldn't put this debate to bed, once and for all. Unfortunately, I based my findings on an incorrect temperature reading and that threw the whole thing off. ...SO... I've recalculated everything and corrected the figures in my post. So now, here is that posting, edited with corrected figures...... Ok, so let's see if we can put this distance thing to bed. According to Rich Mullinax, the stopping shot was fired 46 seconds after the horse took off. That's 782 yards travelled, at an average speed of 35 mph. ...but how long did it take the sound of the shot to reach the rider, in order to have him stop the horse and drop the bucket? While in my lifetime I've heard a vast array of speeds given for the speed of sound, the internet is currently telling us that Mach is 761 mph, at sea level, on an "average day". One thing that comprises an "average day" is a temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit. I think we can all see that the temperature the day of this incident was a lot warmer than 59 degrees. According to The Engineering Toolbox .com, Mach increases as the temperature rises. Having a friend in Australia and knowing how hot it can get down there, I looked up the average temperature for the area and came up with an aggregate of 90 degrees Fahrenheit, during the months this sequence was shot. Again, according to The Engineering Toolbox, Mach at that temperature is 1149 ft./sec. or 383 yds./sec. The same site also showed how humidity affects the speed of sound and noticing the "desert-like" conditions, I guesstimated 33% for the relative humidity at the time the scene was shot, which also correlates to 1149 ft./sec. for the speed of sound. So that will be the speed of sound for this explanation - 1149 ft./sec. or 383 yards/sec. Given that figure, we can say that at the time the stopping shot is fired, the sound of that shot will take approx. 2.04 seconds to reach the point the rider was at WHEN THE SHOT WAS FIRED. However, since the rider was still going at full trot, he would've traveled another 34.91 yards, by the time the sound of the shot reached his location. In another thread here, someone surmised that it would take a horse about 10-20 seconds, and about 30 yards, to go from full trot to full stop. If we average that time to 15 seconds we can say the rate of deceleration was 2 yds./sec. According to what we see in the film scene (and that is the only actual info we have to go on) it takes about 5 seconds for the rider to stop. At 2 yds./sec., that's an additional 10 yards of distance BEFORE he drops the bucket. So what do we have here....782 yards before the shot. 36.47 yards for the sound of the shot to reach the rider (because it would take an additional .091 seconds for the sound of the stopping shot to reach the rider at the farther distance. In that time, the rider would travel another 1.56 yards, so I'm calling the total distance 34.91 yds. + 1.56 yds. or 36.47 yards) and an additional 10 yards for the rider to slow down and drop the bucket. Quigley takes 8 steps forward before firing the shot. According to another thread here, that's 7 yards. ....SO... The total distance of the shot would be 782 + 36.47 + 10 - 7 = 821.47 yards. This is about as close to the actual distance of the shot I believe we're ever going to be able to figure out....and regardless of what you have to say about that, you have to admit...that's an impressive shot.
The 8 steps were more like half steps for someone of Tom's height. 5-6 yards. So it comes to 820 yards give or take by your calculation. Have to mention here that Quigley picks up some dirt to see what the wind is doing....... Looks nice and interesting but didn't we just see a horse kick up a lot more dirt along the entire distance and isn't it easier to see what the wind is doing that way? BTW The revolver sound has to travel against the wind so it takes a bit longer to reach the rider but my experience with the dust down under and how it's effected by the wind is non existent. At about 12 mph headwind (judged by the clouds of dust when Quigley says 'just about there'), the speed of sound relative to the ground gets lowered from 383 to about 377 (minus 5,86 yards/sec). So the total distance ends up being 12,5 yards closer. 808 yards is a nice number to say with the zero pronounced as 'o'. Now for the error calculation: It is 808 +/- x yards and sorry, it has been more than 25 years since I last did an error-calculation like this and I can't be bothered at the moment so you have to do it yourself. ;-)
@@DreadX10 We can only go on the evidence provided. These are the conditions I based my post on, as I wrote in that post. I didn't know the wind could alter the speed of sound. First I've ever heard about that. However, after re-watching the video, I see no headwind indicated, so for the time being, I will stick by my conclusion.
@@DeanMk1 What about the elevation? I mean, isn't the bucket on higher elevation? So from the barrel of the rifle, the bullet travels to the bucket on a diagonal. That means the distance is a tad longer still, I believe? And also, remember that the horse rider has to run up the hill, travelling a longer distance than the bullet from the rifle. I think the rider similar to how you would calculate the travel path of light in space because space is curved, but the bullet travels, in theory, a straight path (of course it is curved in reality too). The same goes for the sound of the gu
Mary Lawson In the DVD in the making of part Selleck talks about how he studied the way cowboys talked and acted back then, that's why he is so believable as one
*The first shot was to show he could hit the bucket.* *The second shot was to show the first hit wasn't a fluke.* *The third shot was to give the middle finger.*
My dad got a .45-120 sharps rifle just like this show. Its sure a fun shooting rifle. We have never attempted this long of a shot, but it is a good straight case round. You can shoot a 600 gr projectile from that cartridge. What would be super difficult about this shot, is that the rifle is super heavy to shoot standing up. I know it's a movie, but this would be a shot from a remarkable marksman
That is a strangely historically accurate rifle for a cowboy western. Seeing all these 1895 colt action pistols and lever action .45s blows any realism
Assuming seamless montage, it takes the bullet less than 2 seconds to hit the bucket. With the .45-110, that means the distance is more like 600-650 yards. Btw, gotta love the fake cliche clicking sound, when Quigley's working the virtually noiseless action of a Sharps rifle.
Yes, well it would have been better if the producer or director had studied, the techniques involved in getting a round anywhere near that bucket, such as how to aim and how to breathe and how to use a sling.
This movie is one of my favorites. Tom Selleck at the peak of his game. Allan Rickman is riveting and awesome in every film I've seen him in. Laura San Giacomo is so cute and has a character arc that the "love interest" in these kinds of films don't normally get. Great memorable soundtrack. Great cinematography. The real life vistas of the Australia so much better than the CGI that George Lucas bangs out of his computer.
My dad was U.S. Air Force when I was growing up. We were stationed in Australia for 2 1/2 years. This is Aussie for sure. Loved the scenery in this one.
You never jump a gate or a fence on a horse. That simply teaches the horse it can jump out of the corral. That jump was strictly an excellent movie stunt.
@@splorgify hi, so after shooting a few rounds through the gun you get build up from the old time black powder they used, in the barrel. If you keep shooting things go bad real quickly. By breathing into the chamber and barrel a few times the moisture in your breath keeps it soft so it’s easier to clean out…
It's also to blow out any still burning embers. Black powder burns slow, but that would be more important with muzzleloading than cartridge loading. You blow it out, so you don't pour new powder and ignite it.
@@jamesb120 actually the modern pyrodex type powders burn faster. The old black powder only burned about 50% efficiency, so, it left a lot unexploded burning in the barrel, which in turn became fouling. So, the early muskets, they would blow out, to rid the barrel of burning powder left in the barrel. Smokeless powder by itself, burns slow, but creates more gas in a closed cartridge. The Sharp's he was using, for that time period would be true black powder, so there would be burning powder left in the barrel.
An easier way to calculate the distance would be to count the seconds from when Quigley fires to when the bucket gets hit. Seems to be about 2 seconds which would support a 700-800 yard distance.
@@CodaMission Yes, this an 1874 Buffalo Sharps Rifle, which shot a .45-70 round at a velocity of 1200 ft/s. 1200 feet × 2 (seconds) = 2400 feet = 800 yards.
@@CamTheKid Ah, but Quigley himself says he had it modified to shoot an experimental round, which we can safely assume uses a different grain and powder composition
@@CodaMission Well the .45-70 cartridge had come out in 1873, just a year before the rifle was made, which would make it an experimental cartridge at the time.
The math is slightly off, it doesn't account for the time it took the guy to get on the horse, and the acceleration time of the horse to get to 35 mph... so the distance is probably 700 yards, although it would still be impossible to see the bucket with iron sights at that distance. Especially considering that heat waves would distort the view at that distance also.
Palma shooters shoot micrometer iron sights (same as what he is using) at a 20" bullseye target at 1000 yards. Yes shots like are very possible. Mirage (heat waves) disappear if the wind is above 15 mph.
If the wind was above 15mph, it would've been dusty as hell, making vision even worse. And Palma shooters would have MUCH more contrast with their targets, that bucket wouldn't stand out very well at that distance. And I'm sure those shooters aren't standing unsupported at 1,000 yards.
Well to be extremely picky, we could figure out where this was filmed (if not on a set), and check a google map to see the distance from the house to that rise in the road!
Alan Rickman and his way of speaking... it's pure magic, no matter if he's supervillain, sheriff or a wizard.
Saw him in a 70s TV show as a young hotel porter. On screen for about 30 seconds. Most memorable part of the show.
Caught his voice as soon as he spoke rip
I hear hans gruber
Severus Snape
Yeah a great actor. RIP.
I defiitely heard professor Snape say "An experimental weapon with experimental ammunition, mister potter?"
Toxic9813 I heard Hans Gruber.....
So did i
"Now I have.. a Sharps lever-action... Ho-... ho-... ho."
I head, 'how do you say... Yippe ki yay mother fu#ker'.
Toxic9813 I thought that was snap front Harry potter glad I'm not going crazy
Very impressive. Lets see Paul Allens 782 yards standing up bucket shot.
The billionaire?
@@Bobdixon_Moonvarga_Dancer_III How did a nitwit like you get so tasteful
Look at that subtle off-white wood finish, the tasteful thickness of the double set triggers on it. Oh my God, it even has a watermark
@@2299arthur There are some funny vids about that card scene. Breaking it all down: font, paper, water marks by guys who make them. Funny stuff
@@Bubbles99718 yeah, there is such a huge collection. I've watched a few but there are so many more
I don't think people truly appreciate just how large this rifle is. Tom Selleck is a big guy (6'5) and the gun still looks absolutely huge in his hands.
He's not 6'5". He's 5'6". It's all done with makeup and he puts lifts in his shoes.
No…
@@alext8828
He's actually 6'.4"
reminds me of my dad.he was 6foot and according to him all hollywood stars were midgets.when they looked huge onscreen hed say yeh its all camera angles!@@alext8828
That Sharps weighs 14#.
The way he pulls it out and the sun shines off, I thought this was the coolest gun ever when I was a kid.
thats because it is the coolest gun ever
Yeah it still is!
Because it is
That’s the coolest gun even now
the first part of that sentence can be taken far out of context
Man, the sound of that gunshot is gorgeous, not to mention the Foley work.
You actually believe this was the sound? A lot can be done in the studio sound room. Remember this is a movie and a lot can be done in the studio
@@garyfinger294 ‘Foley Work’ means it was done in a studio lmao, just an amazing job of sound design
@@finwarman9887 I hope that guy is trolling 😂
@@garyfinger294 No sir. I was merely commenting on the sound design. A real recording would blast out the higher frequencies on field audio gear. And the sequencing of the actual noises would be much different due to the discrepancy between the speeds of sound and light.
That report sound was of a 45-70 Government round, and it's the sound effect that they used for the movie as it's a popular round that has been recorded thousands of times... I've had one for almost 30 years for bear and elk hunting, but it isn't much good against humans due to severe over penetration. Don't get me wrong, a well placed shot and the person dies before their brain realizes it, but there are far more effective rounds for this such as the Creedmoor, the .308, the 6.5 Grendel, and other rounds that perform amazingly well at long distance, even in a semiauto format... the heat from a 45-70 makes for extremely poor performance in a semiautomatic platform as it begins to heat warp the rifling, burring it and damaging it. Incidentally the 45-70 is what they based Quigley's "Experimental" ammunition and rifle on... average barrel length for a 45-70 long range rifle being 34". Though, the Government DID in fact have this round created to the specific specifications to combat the growing popularity of the 30-06 that was becoming extremely popular amongst natives and criminals due to it's range and consistency. The 45-70, however, was overkill... the optics of the day could not keep up, and it's a round now used by big game hunters. It fell out of popularity very, very fast with the military, and they too swapped to the 30-06. As Optics improved in the 1930s and 40s, the round made a come back, and has grown in popularity ever since... but for almost 50 years it was dead and seen as useless. Just like the 6.5 Creedmoor, which was a custom order by an Army Captain (all Remington's personal ledger said, so we have no idea who it really was). So Remington, the man not the company, created the first 6.5 Creedmoor (now a different company takes credit due to his being dead, and it not being found in his ledgers until very very recently.) Now the 6.5 Creedmoor has returned in a massive way, as we now have optics good for it's 2000+ meter range. That same captain had Weatherby look at the round (He had returned to Remington, however Remington saw zero profit in designing and manufacturing an ammo/rifle that literally no one else would buy due to it's ballistic coefficient being vastly too high for all known optics at that time) and wanted more knock down power, as the Creedmoor had a tendency to over penetrate as opposed to kill, and thus the first 6.5 Weatherby Magnum was created... and then vanished the same way the Creedmoor did for over 100 years. Said "Army Captain" was basically Quigley.
Aka he was using a round that is real, and the sound effects department used a recording OF that actually quite popular round... for large game hunting, OR home defense if you want a round that's severely overkill and doesn't work well in Semi-auto setups. At the time Quigley Down Under takes place, however, the round and its rifle would have been either BRAND new - aka almost unheard of - or not invented yet, and they were rewriting history to say that the gunsmith Quigley used to customize his rifle and ammo created the round. They were a tad vague as to when this took place, as most of the mentions of time were fairly vague. Thus no way to really be sure.
Hans Gruber: "You're hired."
Morgan Freeman: "Quigley wouldn't stay hired for very long..."
@HEY 4Q2 HO HO HO, now i have a custom 13.5 pound (6 kg), single-shot, 1874 Sharps Rifle! 😂
Shit thanks for reminding me about Hans gruber... :-) man the firt 2 die hard movies... So bad they were good
🤣🤣🤣
Come to Australia, join the party, have a few laughs....
Hahaha
Whether or not _this_ scene actually happened in history, someone on RUclips actually bothered to replicate this exact scenario using the 782 yards distance while standing up with that same gun and sight.
And he hit the target. So it’s possible, whether historic or not, to pull this off IRL.
Source
Do your own research bum
Well, this movie is fiction, not based on any real events so, no, it is not historical. It's very cool though that somebody did it for real. Do you by any chance know what the purpose of the double triggers is? I've used a wide variety of firearms in my life and never needed more than one trigger.
Source: ruclips.net/video/eFMWZ7Wabes/видео.html
Internet shows that the double trigger is called a “set trigger” configuration. The rear (first) trigger cocks the hammer and turns the front (second) trigger into a hair trigger with a spring that significantly multiplies the force of the hammer when it falls.
@@OneBiasedOpinion Ah ha, very interesting. Thank you very much.
Yep. I've seen the movie several times and this was probably The Scene of the entire film. Reading some of the comments has been really interesting & educational. For example, I didn't know that Tom Selleck was anymore than an actor. Knowing he owned the gun & is a genuine shooter just adds to the whole thing.
He no longer owns the gun. He donated it to the gun museum (an impressive, free museum) in the Bass Pro store In Springfield MO. I saw it on display there recently.
IM AN ENGLISHMAN AND 65 and Have Fired 303 Lea Enfield BOLT Action Rifle !!!40 YRS AGO And TO HOLD IT UP is ONE THING !!!BUT to Fire it QUIET ANOTHER !!! I CAN SEE that ONE MR SELACK IS A BIG RANGY MAN & HE WOULD NEED to Be!!! He HAS USED THAT RIFLE BEFORE MANY TIMES & IS WELL VERSED WITH ITS PERSONA !!!I NOTED THE DELIBRATE SPEED THAT HE POINTED AIMED AND FIRED !!!✌BECAUSE LENGTH =WEIGHT MEANS FATIGUE & SHAKES !!!😣 HE threw The DUST IN the Air FOR Wind Direction & Speed & adjusted His Sights!!!All IN ALL TEXT BOOK STUFF !!!😊& STILL A HELL of a LONG Range 3×Shot display !!!Great ACTING & A Great FILM g
geoffrey carson I would love to fire a real Lee Enfield someday, or a Martini Henry rifle. So many great British rifles with so much history out there. Good day, sir.
@@geoffreycarson2311 and I own a 303 Enfield that was passed down.
Thanks for info. I never
knew Tom was a shooter.
not surprised but impressed
Tom Sellecks moustache is the manliest thing that ever was.
Except his chest hair.
Tell that to freddy mercury
My grandfather was the spitting image of Tom Sellecks
@@patronofsaints2062 Oh, then he obviously counts as manliest ever too!
Mustache so tough, it gets in fights.
Fun fact, Selleck had nothing to do with this shot. It was done entirely by his moustache.
Chuck Norris wishes he was as tough as Quigleys mustache.
That was a fun fact!
Fun fact, Selleck obv loved moustaches, but was a bucket racist.
@HEY 4Q2 Ur a thinker mate, l like it!!
@HEY 4Q2 trust me, lm no judge!
ps. We'll settle out of court, you'll make a bucket load!
Yeah/nah!?!
I really don't CARE if it is real or not.
That is STILL one of the most epic shooting scenes ever done in a movie. RIP Alan Rickman.
It can be done... there are guys do it on youtube..RUclips...
Pff gene wilders shooting the guns out eof everyone's hands in blazing saddles, or shooting a box of dynamite from 200 yards with a pistol.
@@crazyfroggie6546 Yep, that was an epic scene. True. But not really possible.
@@dwrdwlsn5 it just says epic shooting scenes in a movie, it didnt say it had to reproducible in real life ..
@@crazyfroggie6546 true, but still... Willful suspension of disbelief only goes so far for me. Good scene, but I prefer the pie fight and final showdown from Blazing Saddles, myself.
Nobody could pull off quiet menace like Alan Rickman could.
Blasphemy lol what about Anthony Hopkins
Allan Rickman was one of the greats.
R C Nelson: Who is Quiet Menace? An undocumented Mexican gardener?
John Doe 😂😂😂😂
One of the slimiest and greatest of Hollywood bad guys you couldn't help but like.
This movie is criminally underrated. Great performances, memorable soundtrack, beautiful cinematography and the Australian twist on the Western. Saw this on laserdisc at my uncle’s more times than I can remember, ha.
what is the movie's name?
@@rdonshatalov Quigley Down Under
@@saraboom6613 thank u
Loved it the first time I saw it.
Laser Disc 😂
Quigley’s description of his rifle and ammunition reminded me of Ash’s description of his boomstick (shotgun) in Army of Darkness.
Stood in for Alec Baldwin on a Capitol One commercial back in 2012. There were 100 extras in Visigoth costumes in a field. I was wearing this slick black suit and walked into the middle of them for the shot set up. They were all staring at me cause I was the odd man out.
Funny awkward moment, but I rose to the challenge. Gave them the This is my Boomstick speech. It was glorious. Everyone was cracking up. The Director, Baldwin and the 1st came walking in and were like "what the heck is going on?"
"Just turning these primitives into crack Chinese jet pilots. They're ready for ya."
S marts top of the line
Shop smart. Shop S mart. YOU GOT THAT!?
Now. I. Swear. The next one of you _primates_ , even _touches_ me...
This is my *BOOMSTICK!!!*
That scene made up my mind: "I have to get one of those!" I never got a Sharps, but I did get a Winchester (Browning) High Wall in .45-70, and learned to shoot it and load ammo for it. It got me into Black Powder Cartridge Metallic Silhouette competition, which goes as far as 500 meters (547 yards). Can't say I every shot anything 782 yards away, but I have shot it in competition out as far as 600 yards. "About there'll do" pretty much sums up the dream and fantasies of anyone who shoots an old buffalo rifle. Love that movie.
I don’t think the average person could even see a bucket at 782 yards.
You owe it to yourself to get a Sharps 1874 reproduction.
According to Shiloh Rifles catalog, reproductions run btwn $2500-$3800 w/at least, 6-8mos backorder wait
mwaldyke - 821.47 yards. OP didn't account for the speed of sound and some other things.
@@QualityPen The US Army agrees with you and why they started building their infantry rifles to be accurate within a shorter distance, around the time of WWII.
Their studies showed that the farthest distance the average soldier can tell whether a person is friend or foe is 200 yards.
'Bout there'll do"
Spoken like a man who does not deserve an ounce of doubt upon a single word he says.
" Said I never had much use for one. Never said I couldn't use one."
Best line from the movie. Peroid.
Nah, the best line was when one of Marsten's crew asked him if he could ever be as good as him. Marsten says, "You mean if you practiced every day?" Guy says, "Yeah!" and Marsten says "No."
In context, it was cool as any line in any movie.
Best line was in this clip. "I don't know the guy. Never seen him before in my life." lol
Exact quote: "Never said I didn't know how to use it."
I always liked, "they say God created all men, and Sam Colt made then equal. "
The sounds that gun makes as its being loaded are simply ambrosial.
MCZerky only if you like custard I guess
It's great isn't it but I'm sorry to say that our sadly departed Alan's silky voice was just a little bit creamier. Ho Ho Ho Ho
@My Dixie Wrecked I believe you are correct, I have seen one but don't recall if it was Pedersolli. It was chambered in 45-70. Shiloh Sharps made the rifle for the movie and after filming Tom Selleck bought the rifle.
@My Dixie Wrecked
They did and I used to sell them a $2000+ a pop, plus $75 for the Creedmore rear sight.
@@chrisclark5204
It could be bored out to fit the .45-100, but the rounds were very expensive.
This scene cannot be understated. I love Tom Selleck. He is like a modern day paladin in Magnum PI and Quigley Down Under.
@Jeremiah Harrington I haven't seen those, so I don't know for sure.
Good analogy.
If you ever want to see Selleck's take on Indiana Jones (a part he was originally slated to play), check out the movie "Lassiter".
However, I liked him better in "High Road to China".
When it comes to movies there are many that are iconic ie.. A River Runs Through It, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Getaway, Bullitt, The French Connection and I could go on, as many could, but when I think of movies that have left a lasting cinematic impression in my mind, it’s Quigley Down Under and Jeremiah Johnson.
Jeremiah Johnson. Yeah.
Ravenous
Rio Bravo; Unforgiven
I'd put Tombstone in that category as well.
Not that it might mean a whole lot but I hunted deer where Jeremiah Johnson was filmed. Movie is priceless to me.
A great movie needs a great villain. Rickman never failed.
Rickman was a great actor. Everything he touched was Gold. Lost him way too early!
@@xxx-il9dv absolutely. One of the best ever.
Best villain of all time!
@@JamesBond-sr7fw Wouldn't go that far. :) and Spectre had a few doozies
What is the name of this movie
The shot was incredible, but am I the only one more impressed by that bucket snag from horseback? Pretty good hand eye all on its own, and from atop a moving animal to boot.😀
amazing what can be done in 34 takes!
@@TheSighphiguy LOL I was going to say - in my best directors voice - "Okay, take 132 - action!"
Living out there I was mostly thinking a good bucket might be hard to come by. One less on that ranch.
CGI....
Not to mention the one handed leap over the buckrail!!
I love the clicks on the sights, the sounds of the lever action and bullet loading in the breech.
i too love the sounds of gun clicking
Just for fun, using the same load specs it would take 186 MOA of come-ups to get to 1200. The mid range sight has 200, so when he said "This one shoots a mite farther" he wasn't that far off.
One of the best scenes ever, partly because after his long aim time, he just shoulders the rifle 3 times in a row and quickly follows up shots.
Also, totally scientifically improbable, even in 2021.
@@willmartin1033 people have made longer shots in reality.
@@zerrodefex I doubt any of them have been standing, if even verified.
@@willmartin1033 standing sure it’s possible but pretty hard, by todays standards 800yds is not really insane
@@willmartin1033 ruclips.net/video/5eHTsaCo03Q/видео.html
I’m less impressed by the range than I am the fact he did that standing up. Man must be steady as granite
Its the moustache. Keeps him aerodynamically balanced.
Also the lock time on the gun is dialed in perfect. That trigger must feel like glass breaking.
His moustache acts as a mass damper. Similar to how a tall building will have a large mass located on an upper floor to act help prevent building sway Tom Selleck's moustache steadies his entire upper body with its presence.
I'm surprised he wasnt knocked on his butt with the recoil from any one of the shots ...
@@0623kaboom it's a .45-110, not a 4-bore. Those guns are pretty hefty which soaks up a lot of the recoil.
What I love is that he follows up with two more shots. Once could be put down as pure chance, twice is still possibly just luck, but three times in a row? He didn't just have a fluke shot or two, he knew how to shoot that far.
only trouble the bullet would have taken a little longer to hit, 1/2- 1 second longer than it showed on this movie. I can be done but it wasn't accurate in what would have really happened.
@@eolsunderyou're complaining about a half second? Rifle rounds vary wildly in fps yet you're complaining it's not accurate because it should have taken a half second longer? Smh man
The days when firing ammo did not bankrupt you....
@@MooseTracker100 ammo was expensive AF back then. A 1000 round box of rifle ammo could cost as much as 25 dollars which was half of a months salary. Some precision ammo (like what Quigley would be shooting here. Considering that his ammo is also experimental that means it's cost would likely be even higher) could cost up to 8 dollars a round.
Ammo was wayyyy more expensive back then lol
Buckets don't shoot back
Hitting a 300 meter human size target with an acog is hard enough while prone, shooting a smaller target, standing, with iron sights, at more than twice the distance… I would pay to see this happen in real life.
You'd be able to hit it eventually by adjusting from where you saw your bullet hit. But no one, and I mean no one is hitting that shot first try, that quick lol
Give me the gun and enough ammo ill make this into a trickshot XD
An acog is like a 3 MOA optic, that means at 300 yards you end up with a 9 inch group and thats if you can shoot, grab a 1 MOA optic and you will dust off the target at 300 yards all day.
@@Roach_Cock I could do that with a 303 no problem.
How about hitting a balloon at 1,000 yards with a 9mm revolver and a red dot sight?
ruclips.net/video/jJ3XwizTqDw/видео.html
Tom Selleck owned the rifle from the movie. Five or more years ago he donated it to the NRA museum.
Negative. He donated it to the Brownells family. I'm pretty sure they display it at their HQ or something.
The Sharps IS a lever action single shot rifle (like a Martini or Winchester high/low wall). Others, like Spencer, Henry, Winchester and Marlin are lever action repeating rifles (also sometimes called 'self loading'). The original Quigley rifle now resides at Brownell's HQ at Grinnell Iowa.
sysjls75 negative sn 8886 the rifle used in the movie was given by Selleck to the Brownell family.
They may have donated to the nra museum of that I'm not sure. But Selleck did not.
They actually had several indentical rifles made for the movie a one kept cherry for Mr. Selleck
@@harveynailbanger So that's what happened to it? It was put up for Auction in 2008 at Morphy's, but it doesn't list wether it was sold or not. Incidentally, it was the infamous alum barrel gun(which had a real barrel installed after filming) and was reportedly in the best condition of the 3 rifles from the film.
This is child's play, heck, I used to bullseye wamprats in my T-16 back home.
Vince Lok You Sir, are a nerd. I like that.
A scruffy-looking nerd herder. LOL
Impossible those aren't much bigger than about... 2 meters
Haha, Yes!
Impossible, even with a computer
I think a whole generation of marksmans entered breech loading long range shooting sports because of this very scene! Brilliant!
supposedly every time the movie airs, the guns sell.
I've come across YT videos dedicated to this feat.
Single handedly resurrected the sharps rifle. I bought one because of this movie. No I can't make a shot like that
@@bstrdbss I don't give up on you so easy! One day you will! ;)
@ I'm going to keep trying! Thanks for the support!
Good rider. Picked up a bucket and jumped the fence in one fluid motion. Excellent riding skills.
No he didn't ... there were 2 camera angles... 🙄
I noticed that, too. Great horsemanship. He was probably Australian. That's a problem with modern Westerns in America. Very few genuine riders. Not like before, when there was a rider for every horse. Now there might be 10,000 horses for each rider. Horsemanship is a lost art.
@@williamgunnarsson I'd say Aussie too - looks just like the riders in Man From Snowy River.
Two phenomenal actors in one scene. A true golden age
As opposed to the 1930s and 1940s? Please...
Just two? The girl was the Laura San Giacomo from Just Shoot Me. She was ahead of Rickman on the Billing and Marquee.
@@buckhorncortez dafuq?
@@desertmulehunter Don't worry '91 kid, just an old guy who likes the past
Three if you count Laura San Giacomo who is a great television comic actress. Just Shoot Me is hilarious.
One of the best Tom Selleck 's films ever , brilliant in every way by all the other actors 10/10 a must to watch ! 👍
Needs a sequel.
There's a Tom Selleck movie I saw a long time ago called "High Road to China" but I'll be damned if I can find that movie anywhere. It's been forever.
@@KrK007 it’s on Amazon video. Gotta rent it thou.
@@KrK007 I like the name and premise more than film itself. I wish it was a little more adventuristic, like Alan Quartermain in King Solomon's Temple (but without the goofy theatrics). I felt like there wasn't enough action beats and the pacing was a little off. With a few better locations, slightly more expanded cinematography, and a couple more memorable action beats, I think it would have been a much better classic. Even still, it's an enjoyable enough film.
What are you talking about? 3 men and a baby was his best work!😂😉
That's a joke for anyone who might miss it....
This kind of marksmanship may seem impossible but history says it is not impossible.
In1874 at the battle of Adobe Walls, TX. Buffalo hunter Billy Dixon using a Sharps rifle shot a Comanche off of his horse at a distance measured by multiple individuals at a distance exceeding 1000 yards.
Buckets don't shoot back...
@@wanderingsage-x4z nothing shoots back in 1874 at 1000 yds
Very few people know about that event. I tip my hat to you sir!
I read that with a cowboy voice
I believe that was a meeting of 3 war chiefs discussing plans in plain sight, thinking they were well out of range.
I like how he shot it a few more times to make sure no one said it was a fluke
It's Hollywood so reality is limited!
Click on 1, Click on 2, ...
It's amazing that 90% of you guys are so damn stupid, you think it can't be done... 2 clicks on YOUR mouse and YOU can see OTHERS SHOOTING 900 YARD OFF HAND SHOTS WITH A 45/70...
@@Ihsees91 Nothing on 3, 4 is binding....
I remember seeing this in the theater, and I was in awe the whole time.
Quigley: So now that I've got the job, what do you want me to do?
Marston: "I need you to shoot those savages."
Quigley: "Nope"
BAD. *ASS.*
L
What is the name of this film?
@@خالدالسوري-ظ6م Quigley: Down Under
Quigley actually says NOPE by way of chucking Marston out his own window 😁 Love this movie ❤️
I love how they show that he's not just a naturally skilled shooter, but also damn smart, without ever having to explicitly say so. Too many westerns, especially nowadays, want to have the "Natural Born Shooter" and fail to utilize the awe that a skilled shooter can instill, when properly represented.
Since you're taking the time to analyze a Hollywood fiction, you're forgetting to add the time it would take for the sound of the pistol shot to reach the rider at that distance. At sea level it would take the sound of the shot more than 2 seconds to reach the rider so now you're up to 48 seconds, not 46, plus the distance it would take for a horse with rider to come to a complete stop from a full sprint.
THAT IS WHY IT'S CALLED
ABOUT THERE 😂😁😅😆
Weed Me
Ah, overlooked details. Love it
True, but to be fair, Quigley steps two yards forward after testing wind speed and direction
Dear @@JonRobert
👍👌👏 LOL 😁😁😁
Best regards luck and health.
Kill joy 🤩.. piss on another parade
"Are you sure you wouldn't like the bucket closer?"
"Keep the stitches small"
“Locksley “
Why a spoon, cousin? Why not a sword or an ax or something?
Because it's dull you twit, it will hurt more.
@@smeesmith8851 Another ten points from Gryffindor
What??? No Die-hard reference??? Come on man!!!
My favorite movie scene of all time... I was 11 when I first saw it, and even 22 years later, I still get excited when I watch it... Very accurate and obviously knowledgeable weapon handling by Selleck, along with his acting capabilities, and throwing Alan Rickman right in the middle of it, makes for a totally unforgettable scene.
Never saw Tremors uh
I seem to recall hearing that Tom Selleck did all his own shooting in this movie
You must have had a poor film reseme then.
@@natashaspiner42 yeah I think that one falls into the Steven Seagal truths category 😂😂
This? Is your favorite scene of all time?? Lolol haven't scene many movies have you?
Alan Rickman was a national treasure. I'm a huge fan of the man and his work. RIP Sir. 🇬🇧
He played great bad guys.
a national treasure? he was an actor. he played pretend for a living. national tresure doesnt mean much from a country that knighted elton john.
@@brunopadovani7347 Alan was a real ACTOR... I enjoyed all of his performances...
Love this scene. When I was out west (AZ) I had a chance to do some long range shooting. MUCH more difficult than I imagined, living and hunting in Michigan the longest shot is rarely over 100 yds. I had a hell of a time hitting steel at 800 yds at first but hit a few after getting used to how much more elevation and windage adjustments are needed. But I am hooked now!
Hunting down in Georgia I’ve shot up to 300 yards but I’ve seen it done up to 650. 800 must be incredibly difficult
@@bloodredmooseisntshort4478 MUCH more difficult than I expected. I knew the variables but experiencing them was eye opening, no pun intended. I had much respect for long range shooters, Snipers. That respect went up 10 fold after the first 10 rounds I shot didn't hit anything! Number 11 was my first hit.
Ive been shooting long range rifle comps a long time, i still underestimate how much wind to move with the changes lol.
At 800yrds, if you can see the wind change, give it a handfull of move instead of a few clicks .
Not much more rewarding in the sport than putting all in the Vbull at 800 plus
My best is 9/10 in the V at 900. ( peeps, prone, no rest, just elbows and sling )
Its a lot of fun getting into long range shooting, but my experience is with a 3-18x optic and 6.5 Creedmoor cartridges making wind holds way too easy. Can't imagine the skill it takes to shoot through good irons and a projectile with a far lower ballistic coefficient, let alone off-hand which I can barely manage 250yds with the 12lb rifle.
@@bloodredmooseisntshort4478 Once you know how, anything under 1000 yards really isn't that difficult, especially with certain calibers. The problem most people have is they use crap ammunition, they have a crap optic, or they didn't break in their barrel.
the distance of 782 yards depends entirely on the chosen average speed of 35mph but a regular horse might only run 20-25mph. in that case it's more like 450-550 yards.
Shouldn't we add two seconds because that's how it takes for the rider to hear the shot? (Just like when you see lighting and sometime later the sound of the thunder arrives)
Oh, so you're fact-checking a movie?! C'mon man. Here's another for ya; Tom never shot that bullet out of that gun. All were props.
@@danmulera5630 Wrong. The gun was a working replica was made by Shiloh Rifle Mfg company in Montana.
Yeah, that sounds more reasonable.
It's called suspension of disbelief, the story is that Quigley is a marksman of high caliber. This is the kind of shooting a character of legend is to be able to do, which is why his services were called upon. For an average shooter even a bucket at 500 yards with iron sights while standing up would be a challenge, but you're just going to argue a difference of 2 to 300 yards is just pointless nitpicking.
It's not bragging if you can do it.
Watched this movie when I was a kid. Still damn impressed with this scene. Powerful!
whats it called?
@@user-rx3uq9fs2m Quigley down under.
I own a custom sharps rifle. It was made in 1897 for my great great grandfather. It is champered In 55-210. I never heard of such a round but it is real. Have fired it before and holy moly. It has more kick then a barrels 50 call. Went right through a piece of 1 inch steel plate at 500 yards with a lead round. Found out the round was almost 1000 grains. Still hanging over my family's mantle. Don't fire it much.
Do you load it manually with custom cast lead?
I like how they show that he is confident he can hit the target at that range, but it's still a hard shot, so he takes time to calculate everything
Shooting past 2-300 yards generally involves a bit of calculation and observation even on a shooting range. Past 5-600 you have to start accounting for how warm the ground is because the bullet is in flight for so long air rising/falling due to temperature has added up enough to make you miss. Past 1500 yards you start accounting for the compass direction because of the Coriolis effect of Earth's rotation.
“Where’d you learn to shoot like that?”
“Seven-Eleven”
Of course you understand, if you lose, I'm takin' it back.....
Marty McFly.
What about the 2 seconds (approx) it took the sound to reach the rider, his reaction time (about 0.2-0.5 sec) to pull the reins and the distance the horse covered until it stopped from 17 y/s gallop. You can easily add another 50-60 yards to that.
I thought the same thing
One thing i learned in my 46 years, is that every thing is relative. Once you think you got your hypothesis down to a tee, there's allways one factor you didn't thought matter. If you'r lucky, it's with in your set margin of error 😊🖖
Or you could just find the movie set and study the landscape to find where that exact hill is.
And then remove some yards when Selleck steps up closer right before he aims.
If the view itself was accurate it's more in the 500 range. At 750 you can't see the bucket.
"Get 'im out of here, he's bleeding all over the rug!" We just love the way Rickman delivers his lines especially in this movie. Legendary
Not to mention that the rug really tied the room together.
I have shot a bit myself and I am fairly sure that the front sight would completely cover the bucket at 800 yards. At that distance the bucket would also tend to blend into the background making this shot exceptionally difficult even with a support bench.
"Hollywood" 🌈
3:10 From the buckets perspective does this feel 800 yards? This looks like 330 - 440 to me.
The center is always the same size.
Whomever could have made the shot would have had to have great vision.
Jerry mccoolick has done crazier s***
saw this when i was a lad in theater. was in love with long range shooting ever since.
A fellow I knew got his son a 303 Lee Enfield for his first rifle. His son was not impressed with the gun or the peep sights. This man had been an instructor in firearms for the canadian army during ww2 so told his son he would show him what peep sights could do. He had his son step off roughly 500 yards across the open field in front of his house and set up a 1 quart oil can. When we couldn't see the can very well, he told his son to set his red hunting cap ( first day of deer season) on top of the can. I remember he told his son he was going to set the flip up sights for 500 yrds plus a little extra. When the old fellow shot, he didn't hit the can but hit just in front of it in the dirt and sent can and hat flying. When he told his son to set it up again and put his hat on top, his son said he didn't want his hat ruined and wouldn't do it. This happened about 50 years ago and is a true story.
I remember as a poor kid in Canada in the 50's, most of the men I knew had British Lee Enfields for deer hunting. They were inexpensive. I remember a story my mum told me about her dad, my beloved grandpa. During the Depression, the only meat that went on the table was what you killed, so grandpa would go hunting with his rifle and one cartridge. He came home with either that cartridge, or a deer. When I was a kid there were many times when if we didn't eat venison, prairie chickens or rabbit, we didn't have meat with the meal. I don't recall too many meatless meals. We'd go hunting in the Willys - my mum would spot a rabbit, hang out the window and pop it with the 22. My job was to jump off the back tailgate, pick up the rabbit and lay it on newspaper on the tailgate. I was never fond of venison, but the way she cooked rabbit was delicious - in the pressure cooker on the wood stove. The local priest had ESBP - extra-sensory biscuit perception. Every time mum made baking powder biscuits, Father Leon would show up. We didn't have a phone - at that time we lived about 5 miles outside of town, with water my dad piped in from the creek, gravity fed, no electricity, a woodstove for heat and cooking (and a small firebox), and an outhouse. I remember that place with great fondness. On cold winter mornings, you got dressed in front of the open oven door. Otherwise, your buns froze off.
Не может быть!
You just relayed a 50 year old story about a guy who missed his target?
@@rickraber1249 I loved that biscuit perception line. Great writing.
@@Rhythmicons C'mon, Rhym. It was a good story.
Legend has it after this shot, everyone present signed up for a reverse mortgage on the spot.
By Grabthar's Hammer that was a good shot!
Now that's funny!
Not minors! Miners!!
I grinned at some of the other funny comments ... and then I read this .... Comedy gold !!!!
Never give up. Never surrender!
Sir, definitely nailed it. Kudos.
Cant believe I've never seen this, just this scene alone feels legendary.
Oh, you're missing out a lot. Find it, watch it. It's awesome.
It's indeed a must watch my friend.
Oooooh, probably never saw Jeremiah Johnson either, huh?
What's the movies title please anyone?
@@keppler629 Quigley Down Under; The title is in the description!
0.009722 miles per second multiplied by 46 seconds is 0.447212 miles. Converted in meters is 719.7344
Alan Rickman is the epitome classic of a villain... Great man!! RIP Alan...
Me: peaks a window for half a second on Hunt: Showdown
The Enemy Team: 3:08
haha i was saying dam thats a sparks for sure xD
Me with the Springfield xD
Quigley is one of those Classics! Once you see it you never forget.
And it was even made for tv.
First, it was in the movie theater.
I saw this movie as a kid and it actually opened my eyes to many things about the world I was naive to at the time. I appreciate the difficult subject matter guised as a action film. They just don't make em like that very often anymore for fear of upsetting the masses.
i always find this line of reasoning peculiar. " They just don't make em like that very often anymore for fear of upsetting the masses." this implies either that the older generations used to be more tolerant of controversial topics, which was clearly not the case, or carlin's seven words you can't say on television wouldn't have made sense. or this implies that the younger generation is more intolerant of taboo topics, which isn't the case due to a renewed interest in atheism, socialism, and the legal status of drugs and sex. the different generations each have their prudes and deviants, and those prudes and deviants have different social contexts.
@@ethanstump That's a relativist's perspective. Carlin's cause was nothing more than the normalization and universal tolerance of vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity. He was hardly fighting for the freedom to discuss controversial topics. He, like most leftists of his time, used the fact that some municipalities had laws against vulgarity/obscenity and a nearly nationwide ban on porn as if it represented some grand oppression of free speech. This notion that drug use, promiscuity, sexual deviancy, and coercive/authoritarian redistribution are new and "progressive" causes and behaviors is as incorrect and intellectually dishonest as it was in Carlin's prime. Humanity steadily advanced away from such primitive, destructive, base behaviors over the course of history. Now, reprobates like yourself want to revisit the days of universal immorality because you're unwilling to exert the self discipline necessary to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Repent, and commit to a new life. Shrug off base urges. Live righteously and be a light to the world, instead of encouraging your fellow humans to wallow in hedonistic impulses.
@@ethanstump Movie financing is done a bit differently now aways. That's all. I wasn't speaking negatively about younger generations or anything, sorry if it came off that way.
@@GroundbreakGames i apologize as well. i jumped to conclusions due to my bad experiences. but yeah, movies as an industry at this point are either financially safe controversy free family movies, or financially safe fake controversy "edgy" films, or Oscar bait. the corporate monoculture surrounding Hollywood is so insular, even when they try to appeal to the out crowd rather than the "normative man" it's a fantasized "rebel" or a "loner" that doesn't really embody any sort of experience that people either have, or want to have. that's why a lot of good movies are foreign films like parasite, or are small horror films. and then when Hollywood actually does pretty decent, it's due to not messing up a popular book franchise.
@@merlball8520 if swearing back then was controversial, which it was, that is discussing a controversial topic. also i deny the notion that these topics are "new" so much as they are getting a renewed perspective as a reborn counter culture. as for the idea that the left's ideas further human dignity/respect/righteousness, see interracial marriage. most people nowadays would see interracial couples as being perfectly decent. also thanks for calling me intellectually dishonest. also the idea that we have progressed away from such destructive behaviors like destroying the earth we rely upon for survival is a non-empirical one. something about a beam and a mote?
I could honestly watch this movie, Over & Over & Over, in a loop. It's a treasure, to be enjoyed by all...
I was like "Yes I remember Quigley Down Under!" and then the voice Alan Rickman.... and my heart sinks. I miss him.
He is truly missed. Great actor and unforgettable voice....
By your calculations, when the gun was fired, the rider was 782 yards away.
HOWEVER, the sound of the gun would take almost exactly 2 seconds to reach the rider, due to speed of sound in air being 343 meters per second (or 375 yards per second).
Hence I would argue the actual distance is 816 yards.
About right. That still within the operating range of the .45/110. Most rifle matches involving the big .45'5 are 900-1500 yards.
g-mo7130 - Agreed, but your calculations are off.
The distance I got was 821.47 yards.
“That little fella is eating like his stomach’s been rubbing a blister on his back bone.”
Classic, it'll go down in history as one of the best scenes ~
I’ve owned guns all my life. I’ve hunted but have never been a long range enthusiast.
But this movie has a especial place in my heart for two reason:
I first saw this movie at the time I was working in a machine shop. The owner made long range barrels for military snipers. It was quite the learning experience. He went on to sell the business to Proof Research in Columbia Falls, MT.
The opening credits show a knife.
My step-brother worked in the shop that made the knife. It was just the owner of the shop and my step-brother.
They made high dollar reproductions of western knives, guns, leather apparel. The owner has since passed away. My step-brother has moved on to his own work.
Apparently Mr. Selleck is the owner of the knife, unless he has since sold it.
Anyhow ...
I suppose that was your "near brush with greatness" (Letterman).
@@walterpaisley6260 …
I have had a simple life.
Hey Chris I will be sure to watch for the knife when i watch Quigley again.
The greatest accomplishment of my life as a shooter was when I was 12 years old. I hit a rabbit from 200 yards with an old lever action .22 with iron sights while standing. I probably aimed at least 12 inches high and maybe 6 inches left with the wind. Just a sheer lob.
Props to you man
Greatest feeling in the world.
I use to plink sparrows and starlings with a .177 pump air rifle at 75 yards. Less power, less projectile weight. Its not that hard. Now I hunt feral hogs and some shots with my pump 30.06 are taken from 400-500 yards away.
@@iamtheoffenderofall why would you shoot sparrows and starling?.. genuinely curious.
@@Andrew-eo2cw invasive species. Bird crap is not healthy when they are burrowing into your home and garage.
Didn't allow for the delay between the signal shot and the rider hearing it and stopping, easily an additional 20yards.
According to youtube's duration timer in all their video boxes, it seems about 5 seconds elapses between Rickman's shot and the bucket dropping. At 17 yards/second, that's an additional 85 yards. I posted that the actual distance was 867 yards but someone else noticed that Selleck stepped forward 7 yards before firing the shot, thus the distance would've actually been about 860 yards.
DeanMk1
you can't forget that the guy on the horse was riding full speed, when he got signaled to stop, you have to realize that guy had fully slow down the horse to a stop. That would have taken another 10 to 20 seconds so it wouldn't be 860 yards it would've been around 890 yards, then he took 5 step forward so that would be 885 yards that he shot from.
Justin L. Shults
Too bad we can't calculate the actual rate of acceleration and de-acceleration. However, keeping in mind that we can only calculate based on what we see in the footage, we find that the duration between the stopping shot being fired and the bucket touching the ground is 5 seconds. How far the horse and rider traveled in that time period is probably undeterminable, but your calculations only extend the range another 30 yards. You also base that distance on a 10 to 20 second time duration to slow the horse down. If we average that time out to 15 seconds, we can say the horse de-accelerated at a rate of 2 yards/second. Now, using the 5 seconds we actually have available to us, that would only be an additional 10 yards, bringing the new total range out to 870 yards. The horse's de-acceleration basically negating Selleck's forward movement. I believe this is about as close as we're ever going to get to knowing the actual distance of the shot.
I think the point is that hitting that bucket with a black powder weapon is no mean feat, heck it'd take some skill and a specialist weapon to reliably take it out with smokeless powder.
haha. good point. the speed of sound being around 1000 fps, and who knows how long the horse would take to stop. even if he just dropped the bucket on the run, it's still an impressive shot. i feel pretty awesome when i can plug a hole with a sighted in scope at over 100 yards, but that is so much cheating. modern ammo, modern weapon, telescope??? that's not all that sporting. that's why i always want to use sheet metal sights if i am going out to prove anything.
Rickman is a genius and his movies are gold. It takes a lot to be a villain.
...and it was then that Snape started believing in magic.
The one other part of this scene, which I like is Laura's character, crazy Cora, who after delivering her lines looks right at the camera, like she's telling the audience, right.
Tom Selleck's moustache was present when the declaration of independence was signed
His moustache will be preserved in a museum as a national treasure.
🤣🤣🤣
@@derrickdorsey247 no, it moves on to find its next host who it geants incedible powers.
Lol, Perhaps you are right. I can imagine it having the voice of Tom Selleck talking pure sh*t to it's host. 😂
Tom learned everything he knows about everything from Chuck Norris, who's been there done that before Tom was a thought in his Dad's wet dreams
best job interview ever.
Mann. Tom Selleck would of been perfect to play King Bradley in a live action Full Metal Alchemist
At one time, there was great debate in this comments section on how far that shot really was and how off Rich Mullinax was in his original estimate.
About 3 years ago, I decided to take all the info presented here (at that time) and any other pertinent info I could find and see if I couldn't put this debate to bed, once and for all.
Unfortunately, I based my findings on an incorrect temperature reading and that threw the whole thing off.
...SO...
I've recalculated everything and corrected the figures in my post.
So now, here is that posting, edited with corrected figures......
Ok, so let's see if we can put this distance thing to bed.
According to Rich Mullinax, the stopping shot was fired 46 seconds after the horse took off. That's 782 yards travelled, at an average speed of 35 mph.
...but how long did it take the sound of the shot to reach the rider, in order to have him stop the horse and drop the bucket?
While in my lifetime I've heard a vast array of speeds given for the speed of sound, the internet is currently telling us that Mach is 761 mph, at sea level, on an "average day".
One thing that comprises an "average day" is a temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit. I think we can all see that the temperature the day of this incident was a lot warmer than 59 degrees.
According to The Engineering Toolbox .com, Mach increases as the temperature rises.
Having a friend in Australia and knowing how hot it can get down there, I looked up the average temperature for the area and came up with an aggregate of 90 degrees Fahrenheit, during the months this sequence was shot.
Again, according to The Engineering Toolbox, Mach at that temperature is 1149 ft./sec. or 383 yds./sec.
The same site also showed how humidity affects the speed of sound and noticing the "desert-like" conditions, I guesstimated 33% for the relative humidity at the time the scene was shot, which also correlates to 1149 ft./sec. for the speed of sound.
So that will be the speed of sound for this explanation - 1149 ft./sec. or 383 yards/sec.
Given that figure, we can say that at the time the stopping shot is fired, the sound of that shot will take approx. 2.04 seconds to reach the point the rider was at WHEN THE SHOT WAS FIRED.
However, since the rider was still going at full trot, he would've traveled another 34.91 yards, by the time the sound of the shot reached his location.
In another thread here, someone surmised that it would take a horse about 10-20 seconds, and about 30 yards, to go from full trot to full stop. If we average that time to 15 seconds we can say the rate of deceleration was 2 yds./sec.
According to what we see in the film scene (and that is the only actual info we have to go on) it takes about 5 seconds for the rider to stop. At 2 yds./sec., that's an additional 10 yards of distance BEFORE he drops the bucket.
So what do we have here....782 yards before the shot. 36.47 yards for the sound of the shot to reach the rider (because it would take an additional .091 seconds for the sound of the stopping shot to reach the rider at the farther distance. In that time, the rider would travel another 1.56 yards, so I'm calling the total distance 34.91 yds. + 1.56 yds. or 36.47 yards) and an additional 10 yards for the rider to slow down and drop the bucket.
Quigley takes 8 steps forward before firing the shot. According to another thread here, that's 7 yards.
....SO...
The total distance of the shot would be 782 + 36.47 + 10 - 7 = 821.47 yards.
This is about as close to the actual distance of the shot I believe we're ever going to be able to figure out....and regardless of what you have to say about that, you have to admit...that's an impressive shot.
The 8 steps were more like half steps for someone of Tom's height. 5-6 yards.
So it comes to 820 yards give or take by your calculation.
Have to mention here that Quigley picks up some dirt to see what the wind is doing.......
Looks nice and interesting but didn't we just see a horse kick up a lot more dirt along the entire distance and isn't it easier to see what the wind is doing that way?
BTW The revolver sound has to travel against the wind so it takes a bit longer to reach the rider but my experience with the dust down under and how it's effected by the wind is non existent. At about 12 mph headwind (judged by the clouds of dust when Quigley says 'just about there'), the speed of sound relative to the ground gets lowered from 383 to about 377 (minus 5,86 yards/sec).
So the total distance ends up being 12,5 yards closer. 808 yards is a nice number to say with the zero pronounced as 'o'.
Now for the error calculation:
It is 808 +/- x yards
and sorry, it has been more than 25 years since I last did an error-calculation like this and I can't be bothered at the moment so you have to do it yourself. ;-)
@@DreadX10 We can only go on the evidence provided. These are the conditions I based my post on, as I wrote in that post.
I didn't know the wind could alter the speed of sound. First I've ever heard about that.
However, after re-watching the video, I see no headwind indicated, so for the time being, I will stick by my conclusion.
You are such a glorious nerd!
@@noelarce2713 Thank you. =)
@@DeanMk1 What about the elevation? I mean, isn't the bucket on higher elevation? So from the barrel of the rifle, the bullet travels to the bucket on a diagonal. That means the distance is a tad longer still, I believe? And also, remember that the horse rider has to run up the hill, travelling a longer distance than the bullet from the rifle. I think the rider similar to how you would calculate the travel path of light in space because space is curved, but the bullet travels, in theory, a straight path (of course it is curved in reality too).
The same goes for the sound of the gu
Loved the movie and the Jesse Stone movies. Believe Tom is a cowboy. Sure looks good in the saddle.
He was a Marlboro Man back when it cig. ads could run on tv.
Mary Lawson In the DVD in the making of part Selleck talks about how he studied the way cowboys talked and acted back then, that's why he is so believable as one
Karin Lefevre Saw Tom on the back of Readers Digest with a cigarette ad back in the late 70's. Love at first sight lol.
DestructInk Know Tom has a ranch in California. Most of us learn from someone or train for it. He still looks good on a saddle.
Karin's my wife I posted on her account, but is kinda cute LOL!!!
*The first shot was to show he could hit the bucket.*
*The second shot was to show the first hit wasn't a fluke.*
*The third shot was to give the middle finger.*
"This ain't Dodge City. And you ain't Bill Hickok."
"Some people were born in the wrong century, I believe I was born on the wrong continent."
"Oh! By the way, your fired!"
😁
Wench: "Your Man able to hit something that far away?"
Crazy Cora: "...I don't know him. I never saw him before."
LMFAO!
Laura San Giacomo is a riot
@@pauljohnson3340 and hot as hell!
Epic iconic film
That Sharps is NOT a "lever action". It's a lever operated Falling Block action. FYI
Walter Paisley A Spencer, loaded thru the stock, with a spring loaded follower, was lever action.
It's his gun. He can call it whatever he wants.
Walter Paisley that is also the same thing for the Winchester 1885 model. you can get it in a low wall or a high wall.
Gosh, that changes the whole movie.
Gary Quail
What does low wall high wall mean? Sry, I'm still new when it come to firearm.
My dad got a .45-120 sharps rifle just like this show. Its sure a fun shooting rifle. We have never attempted this long of a shot, but it is a good straight case round. You can shoot a 600 gr projectile from that cartridge. What would be super difficult about this shot, is that the rifle is super heavy to shoot standing up. I know it's a movie, but this would be a shot from a remarkable marksman
That is a strangely historically accurate rifle for a cowboy western. Seeing all these 1895 colt action pistols and lever action .45s blows any realism
uhh 1895 colt action pistol?
@@grimes558 1892 colt revolver. My bad.
@@christiannipales9937 I've yet to see a western with one of those but I imagine it taking me out of the movie a tiny bit as well lol
Most lever guns I've run across from that era were in 44-40, as were most SAA revolvers. Or .38, 32-20, 40-60, etc.
And .44 rimfire,too.
Assuming seamless montage, it takes the bullet less than 2 seconds to hit the bucket. With the .45-110, that means the distance is more like 600-650 yards. Btw, gotta love the fake cliche clicking sound, when Quigley's working the virtually noiseless action of a Sharps rifle.
Yes, well it would have been better if the producer or director had studied, the techniques involved in getting a round anywhere near that bucket, such as how to aim and how to breathe and how to use a sling.
You're that guy. 😒
Yeah, I'm sure the director wanted the sound and mechanical action of a lever action gun. Typical director.
This movie is one of my favorites. Tom Selleck at the peak of his game. Allan Rickman is riveting and awesome in every film I've seen him in. Laura San Giacomo is so cute and has a character arc that the "love interest" in these kinds of films don't normally get.
Great memorable soundtrack. Great cinematography. The real life vistas of the Australia so much better than the CGI that George Lucas bangs out of his computer.
My dad was U.S. Air Force when I was growing up. We were stationed in Australia for 2 1/2 years. This is Aussie for sure. Loved the scenery in this one.
@@pauljohnson3340 it was filmed in Nevada
@@desertmulehunter Lie. It was filmed entirely in Australia. Scenes were filmed in and around Warrnambool and Apollo Bay, Victoria.
@@pauljohnson3340 Don't listen to Andy91. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
That scene with her and the baby was the most exciting scene in the entire film. I was at the edge of my seat, scared as Hell!
An amazing movie with outstanding actors all. You have to be a gun person to appreciate this shot.
Could help convert somebody.
Evidently he trained with the folks over at the Sagebrush Longshots channel.
You never jump a gate or a fence on a horse. That simply teaches the horse it can jump out of the corral. That jump was strictly an excellent movie stunt.
True
Unless you're just trying to show off
@@EnclaveSgt sure. Then you’ll be chasing that horse all over the county. The horse will know the gate and fence aren’t real barriers.
@@rupertofhentzau920 yep. But some dumbass trying to show off might not think about it at the moment
The English do it all the time just to chase a fox.
Nice detail, breathing into the chamber to soften the fouling after his third shot…
Elaborate please.
Fouling? That the chamber where the bullet is placed before it’s pushed into the chamber?
I’m not in a pro-gun country
@@splorgify hi, so after shooting a few rounds through the gun you get build up from the old time black powder they used, in the barrel. If you keep shooting things go bad real quickly. By breathing into the chamber and barrel a few times the moisture in your breath keeps it soft so it’s easier to clean out…
It's also to blow out any still burning embers. Black powder burns slow, but that would be more important with muzzleloading than cartridge loading. You blow it out, so you don't pour new powder and ignite it.
@@Hawken707 true black powder doesn't burn slow, it explodes. Modern powder burns.
@@jamesb120 actually the modern pyrodex type powders burn faster. The old black powder only burned about 50% efficiency, so, it left a lot unexploded burning in the barrel, which in turn became fouling. So, the early muskets, they would blow out, to rid the barrel of burning powder left in the barrel. Smokeless powder by itself, burns slow, but creates more gas in a closed cartridge. The Sharp's he was using, for that time period would be true black powder, so there would be burning powder left in the barrel.
He said the sights are set to 1200 but his shoots a hair further, so he isnt even at his max range. Legend
I was on the set of the movie when this was filmed. It happened exactly how you seen it.
Complication: Nobody present understands why the town will be renamed "Nakatomi Plaza" if Quigley wins this challenge.
An easier way to calculate the distance would be to count the seconds from when Quigley fires to when the bucket gets hit. Seems to be about 2 seconds which would support a 700-800 yard distance.
This assumes you know the speed of the round, but do we?
@@CodaMission Yes, this an 1874 Buffalo Sharps Rifle, which shot a .45-70 round at a velocity of 1200 ft/s. 1200 feet × 2 (seconds) = 2400 feet = 800 yards.
@@CamTheKid Ah, but Quigley himself says he had it modified to shoot an experimental round, which we can safely assume uses a different grain and powder composition
Shotweight and roundweight are known, the case weight of the 45:110 should be standard, so we know powder weight, not composition though.
@@CodaMission Well the .45-70 cartridge had come out in 1873, just a year before the rifle was made, which would make it an experimental cartridge at the time.
One of my all time favorite cowboy movies! And, I am still in love with 'Crazy Cora'!
_"Very impressive. You'll do well in House Slytherin."_
The math is slightly off, it doesn't account for the time it took the guy to get on the horse, and the acceleration time of the horse to get to 35 mph... so the distance is probably 700 yards, although it would still be impossible to see the bucket with iron sights at that distance. Especially considering that heat waves would distort the view at that distance also.
ffjsb yea pure guess work. Guy wants to feel like a genius lol
Palma shooters shoot micrometer iron sights (same as what he is using) at a 20" bullseye target at 1000 yards. Yes shots like are very possible. Mirage (heat waves) disappear if the wind is above 15 mph.
If the wind was above 15mph, it would've been dusty as hell, making vision even worse. And Palma shooters would have MUCH more contrast with their targets, that bucket wouldn't stand out very well at that distance. And I'm sure those shooters aren't standing unsupported at 1,000 yards.
Well to be extremely picky, we could figure out where this was filmed (if not on a set), and check a google map to see the distance from the house to that rise in the road!
Not only that, but he shoulders the rifle and immediately fires, doesn't stop and hold his breath and all that stuff.
I was told there wouldn’t be any math involved in the watching of this video.
LOL
I first heard that comment in a fighter pilot briefing 38 years ago... “I was told there’d be no math...”
Yeah, well you were wrong.... 2+2 = Red fish blue fish... 1 fish 2 fish equals you're screwed
Selleck is such an underrated action.