What happened is that RUclips has aggressively deprioritized not just firearms content, but most long-form content in general (unless it involves deliberately making people angry at other people). I have experimented with several replacement revenue sources, and I think this is the best one. It lets me give a really cool piece to someone each time (I send them out myself) and I don't have to make awkward pitches for products I don't actually have an interest in.
I interpreted his bolt technique the exact same way; he's a sniper because he's a country boy so he can shoot, but he has a weird self-taught way to operate the bolt. It's actually a nice touch.
@@fredbecker607 i learned to shoot with a sling and i shoot right handed bolt rifles that same way as demonstrated - its a pain and i prefer to shoot semi auto rifles or actual left handed bolt rifles instead. Try doing that in a rapid string when you used too much resin and effectively glued the stock to your shoulder pad and cant get the rifle out of the shoulder. i almost put the muzzle into the dirt while operating the bolt because of that in one match.
Country shooting makes you "at best" a marksman. Sniping is absolutely a trained discipline as it is VERY specific shooting and requires more than simply hitting well over distance (like camouflaging and techniques to crawl unnoticed through enemy lines)
@@Ugly_German_Truthstoday that is true. But not at the beginning of the sniper programs. They simply took particularly well made rifles and scopes then stuck them in the hands of particularly good shooters and dedicated them the sniper.
I find shooting southpaw way more interesting because so many traditional guns had their controls on the right side, which makes nearly no sense for righties. Only the AR and its plastic descendents started making controls for the right hand only
when you learn to shoot as a leftie, would it not be easier to just learn to use the right hand as a trigger hand? Or is that very hard? I know I right handed guy who got blind on his right eye, and he had to learn to shoot on his "wrong" side. Now he shoots just as well on his left. I guess now a days you would just get a rifle with the bolt handle on the left side, but back then?
@@theredrat69 A very good point..... as father of a son who shoots left handed and "left eyed" I concur... mind you I believe that at least one of his (right handed) guns has a special bolt handle to compensate for the difficulties mentioned above...... Interestingly , when he played cricket he batted left and bowled right.... he exhibits some cross-laterality.
I am a lefty too. If I ever got another bolt action rifle, I would get a left handed version. That is one thing that I would not stand for is cycling a bolt on the right of the action.
It might seem strange that there were no marines at D-Day, but there is one sensible reason, and one unfortunate one. The sensible reason is that there just weren’t enough marines. During World War II, the marine corps grew to a force comprising just 6 divisions, whereas the Army expanded to 89 divisions. There was more than enough work in the Pacific theater to keep those 6 marine divisions occupied. Also, since so much of the Pacific war was a naval operation, and the marines fell under navy command, it made sense to keep them consolidated in the Pacific theater. The unfortunate reason was interservice rivalry. The army was still pretty bitter about that during WWII, because during WWI, the press gave the marine corps the lion’s share of the credit at the Battle of Belleau Wood, _even when referring to actions in which marines did not participate, and where the army should have been credited._ At Chateau-Thierry (a few days prior to the Battle of Belleau Wood) U.S. papers published headlines that read “Germans stopped at Chateau-Thierry with help of God and a few Marines.” The army was (quite justifiably to be honest) outraged, since the Germans had in fact been stopped at Chateau-Thierry by the U.S. army’s 7th machine gun battalion. Senior army brass, including Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley, were unanimous in agreeing that the army was _not_ going to be upstaged by the marine corps this time around, and the marines were deliberately excluded from any large-scale participation in the ETO.
Nobody's getting past THAT much brass! ** Popular lies sells newspapers fast, but they have real consequences down the road. (Struggles to stifle political ranting instincts... fight-fight-fight... OK.)
My father shot bolt action rifles left handed and used the reach-over technique because he often used a military or Whelan sling on his right arm. He was naturally right handed but lost his right eye at age 9. He had all of his bolt knobs checkered or knurled and would catch it with his pinky finger. With considerable practice in his spare time (and using that practice to lap his actions), he could get off follow-up shots as quickly as many right handers.
I wonder why they didn't have left handed actions, but maybe that's asking too much. I'm a lefty & I use the same technique on my 3 BA rifles. 2 things that I wondered about: this squad behind enemy lines highlighting themselves while strolling on a ridgeline & the waterline seemed way closer to the cliffs than I recall from pic's. Still a great & classic movie. The action scenes with the 20 mm gun were memorable & horrific.
You ever wonder why a "left handed" rifle costs more than a right handed rifle? I've asked a couple of Fire Arms dealers(Remington, Winchester) why this is and both gave me the same answer. Their answers were, "these rifles are manufactured more or less on an assembly line, and to manufacture a left-handed rifle, the assembly process is either stopped and the rifle is manufactured, or the left handed rifle is assembled by hand, thus requiring more of a manufacturing process and time loss on our assembly schedule". I gave them both the same rebuttal... "don't you think that's showing prejudice against left handed people, charging them more for basically the same product?" Neither would answer. I'm guessing they both have parts for left handed models "pre-machined" on shelves waiting to be ordered and the assembly process doesn't take any longer than a right handed model. Total BS is you ask me. I own a .308 PS(Rem), 30.06(Win), .270(both), .300 MAG(Win), all left handed models, on average they cost me $120(+/-) more than the right handed models.
The Army like The USMC did not approve of left handed Sharp Shooter's, Snipers in fact they allowed very few, The rifles were designed to be used by right handed shooters, it was seen as a problem to allow lefties to become sniper's the only way they would allow it if the Marine or Soldier was an exceptional shot, displaying expertise in his sniper skills, and proving it would not be a problem they would allow it, using a bolt action rifle while being left handed creates a multitude of issues and problems, they did not want their Snipers reaching over to manipulate the bolt of the rifle as shown in the movie, in fact they were told to not do this, the proper way to facilitate the bolt shooting left handed was demonstrated by Ian in the video, reaching over the rifle like as shown in the movie, would not of been allowed in training or qualification, and the scopes shown in the movie are incorrect as well, toward the end of the war all Scopes were standardized USMC and ARMY, most of them did not carry additional scopes, The USMC Kept sights on their Sniper Rifles, in the event the scope became damaged it could be simply removed and the rifle still used normally, The Army made the mistake of removing the rifles sights, thus a damaged scope, was the end of the rifle, it would be impossible to fire the rifle accurately with no front sights.
I think your father and I have abit in common. Im right hand naturally. Like as if I need to hand write something. But Im left eye dominant. So any rifle sized and bigger in weapons, like weapons where I need to hold to hands to have control, is with my left hand on the trigger. The only different is for pistols. I can and will use my right hand for that, but for some odd reason, I either move my head or the pistol so I would said with my left eye instead
I want to know the good little details people don’t notice that he picked up on. The only one I can think of would be the Czech soldier who tried to surrender
I saw this one movie where the guy portraying a Lieutenant Colonel talk about AR15s having 30 magazine clips, fully semi-automatic firing and a bullet button. I want to see how that compares to real life as my civilian AR has none of those.
Just as a correction, the USMC was present at D-Day, not as ground force, but as the crew of the USS Texas. It not only fired all of its ammo, it went back for more. when it returned, the fighting had progressed too far inland for the guns to be effective so Captain Charles Adams Baker had the starboard torpedo tube flooded, tilting the ship 2 degrees providing the needed firing angle.
Aside from those obvious points, if you change scopes, you have to re-zero the center by shooting target. If you change scopes, they will never be dead nuts center after the change, especially for a long shot like 400 yds or more.
That was what I thought the first time watching the movie..🤔 How's he gonna recalibrate the new scope, specially them older types without actually taking 1-2 test shots first😄His faith took care of the miraculous zeroing for him I guess
Can’t remember the timeline but you can see at one point in the movie they show a pov of Pvt Jackson. His bullet impact is off from zero. I would assume they did that on purpose but you’re right about the cold bore shot to the bell tower.
I was stationed in France early 1950s. We cleaned the beaches and inspected the bunkers once a week. It was an eerie feeling entering the bunkers. I'll never forget it and I'm near 90 now.
Wow, thanks for sharing. I have so much respect for people with your historical experience and wisdom. Would you care to share any other details? Hearing first hand accounts of this time period is gold for me.
As a lefty I cycle bolts the same way Jakcson does vs the way Ian does. The reach over method allows the rifle to stay on target more IMO. As a lefty in life you just kind of learn how to manage things with the bias the world gives you. No wrong answers, just solutions.
AS A Lefty... A Life Long Lefty.. Goose Bolt Guns For Squirrels, A 700BDL In '06.. 98s in 8mm.. My First Bolt Was A Spanish 1917 In 7mm.. I Still Run '17 in 7.62x39.. Actually, A Beautiful Century Arms Conversion... I Have Tried To Use A Left Bolt... I Am Too Just Muscle Memory-ed to Re-Train And Convert To Left Handed Bolts, Tho They ARE Widely Available
Also a lefty, I had a bolt action .22 just for plinking. The store did not have pump action low calibur rifles and had to settle with bolt. Other people wondered how come my arm got tired from shooting and why don't I shoot "correctly". I reply "if I cannot find a left handed baseball mitt then have the same problem-catch the ball, take off the mitt, throw the ball. The world is right handed. (scissors, school desks, keyboards, computer mouses, etc)
I shoot left and right with rifle and pistol… on left I just use my right hand to cycle my M91/30 sniper rifle and other M91/30 without scope. And my AKM-47…
I shoot lefty. Unless you have a particularly slick bolt, there's no way you're reaching over the top to cycle it. Marlin 22s,Enfield's, Mausers, even the newer savages I can make it work. My Remington in 270, there isn't enough leverage in the world to make it work
That's what I was thinking. For a high-magnification scope you can keep the rifle pointing in roughly the same area if you stabilise using using your offhand and cycle with you left.
My uncle, who served as a Marine in the Pacific during WWII, had to walk out of Saving Private Ryan because the sound and the chaotic presentation of the Omaha Beach landing were so realistic that it brought up memories of his own landings under fire. Normally he never showed any symptoms of PTSD, but that sequence did it for him. Note that the incoming artillery scenes in Patton were declared by my Kesanh veteran cousin as equally realistic.
A friend was a veteran of the Tet Offensive battles. After he saw "Apocalypse Now" I asked him what he thought of it. He said he had nightmares for some time after seeing it.
Apocalypse Now is one of the most unrealistic and ridiculous military movies ever made. Highly doubt a real Vietnam vet could have suffered through that utter tripe.
@@michaeldelaney7271When Apocalypse Now came out I asked a Vietnam vet friend if he was going to go see it. He said "I was in the Apocalypse Then, I don't need one Now."
@@michaeldelaney7271 Has he seen Jacob's Ladder. If not and my memory isn't fubar then it would probably be better if he didn't. It was almost as bad as Brazil for messing with your mind.
People should be glad for families like yours. My wife's father was also there. As were 3 of his brothers, 1 in the Pacific theatre. The Rickard boys. Mack described being a POW in Germany, and he was looking out a window, when a P-38 dropped a bomb. AND he was broken out by one of his (a few) brothers. And he came home on the USS Texas. AND where his future brother-in-law was a Boiler Tech. That's what you call active duty.
Holy shit, only 01:15 into the video and the still shot of Pvt. Jackson shows that he has a Garand Thumb bruise under his thumbnail that I never noticed. Video proves Ian's point about "tiny little details that nobody would normally notice" in the first minute or so , and then goes on to explain how they got so much else wrong "for cinema". More fantastic work from Ian, great stuff.
And if you go to 3:29 of the video. You can see the finger nail has a larger black spot on it because the nail is growing out. I would expect that to be a true black nail, not just makeup. I wonder if he gave himself a “Garand Thumb” while practicing with the rifle when they first started filming.
I'm naturally a lefty as well. I always cycled my M-24 with my left hand using the same technique. The sling was usually tight around my right arm, as you can use the sling to help with those longer shots.
When I worked with Barry Pepper on the set of We Were Soldiers, we had some down time one day and I asked him why he cycled the bolt like that. He said he’s left handed and that’s the way he fires right handed bolt action rifles. He also said he was prepared to shoot right handed if his shooting position made it awkward to shoot left handed. The situation just never came up. I was an Army sniper at the time so he was curious about the M24 and all gear that came with the system. We had a great chat about guns, hunting, and politics, especially about the direction Canada was headed at the time. Super nice guy.
@@dr.vonslifeinvesting6485 In the combat history of modern wars, both Canadian and USA snipers have been incredible and deserve unreserved respect. And they have fought the same enemy. Call them Brothers.Include the Ozzies. IMO, lets not corrupt this discussion with talk of current government,USA or Canada. The Snipers deserve Respect. The politicians ? I'll say "Unrelated topic" and let it go.
We were talking about gun ownership. I was curious about what Canadians had to go through and what kind of guns you could have in Canada. If I remember right, he said the government made it difficult and it was getting worse. I complained about California laws never imagining things would be this bad in CA in 2023.
Those were great observations, but Private Jackson was given the Lyman Alaskan scope by the commander of his sniper training class as a reward for winning the Hawkeye competition. Later on, Private Jackson “won” the Marine Unertl scope and the weather tube in a poker game with a Navy supply chief on their ship, just three days before the D-day landing. Private Jackson later admitted that he had cheated in order to win that scope, and he felt so guilty about it, that on the way to board the landing craft, Private Jackson handed an envelope to the supply chief which contained the money he had won during that poker game. Jackson figured, paying for the scope made up for the fact that he had cheated to win it.
In other words: "We want our sniper to have that iconic sniper picture appeal" "that was a marine, there were no marines in France then" "yeah, but what if... We make up a story how he won that and all?"
One of the largest issues is the lack of zeroing the scope. You can't just slap a scope on a rifle and expect the bullets to hit where you aim. In fact I would say this may be the most unrealistic part of that scene next to the fake rings.
The only system that would allow a previously zeroed scope to be removed, then reattached and maintain zero, is the "Conetrol" ring and base system. This had not been invented until the 1960s, 1964 IIRC. When I saw the movie, this stood out as a major technical error for me as well.
I think of how much time I spend zeroing my hunting rifle, and to slap a new scope on and just hit someone at 400+ yards in bad weather and war conditions is very unrealistic.
While I don't know about the mounts on the O3A3 I do know that some scope mounts are very repeatable. In the precision optics industry it is known as a "kinematic mount" (Look up 'kinematic coupling') Some mounts I have used personally are very very good at returning to zero are the original scope mounts on the AR-15/M16 (I believe it is the -a2 model with the integral carrying handle) and the claw mounts on the GK-91/G3. The scope mounts for the Steyr SSG are also very good and may be the best I have seen and used. I have never used the "Conetrol" brand mounts. Naturally all these mounts have to be handled with care and kept clean. Slapping one on in the mud is not going to work well.
My shooting partner is a guy who is a lefty. Using right hand rifles most of his life. I satrted him in long range, he was a hunter all his life 46 and only shot to 2 to 300 yards. His first rifle was a right hand and made things odd. He since built a custom with a left hand action. At first hesitant as he had never tried a lefty. Today after working with him, he reloads and shoots to 1500 yards with very good precision. Left hand weapons usually cost more and are not as available. Also worked with a guy who was a right hand shooter up until 26 years old. Lost his right eye in a motorcycle accident. Changing to left hand for him was tough but practice and sheer stubbornness got him shooting spot on. Enough so he used a 7mm Mag. that hunting season. Cross eye dominate, you can use a patch over the dominate eye to train the weaker. Outstanding content. Keep'em coming sir!
My son is a lefty... and you should see him shooting in vintage rifle matches. Watching him operate an Arisaka Type 99, working his left arm over the action to operate the bolt is absolutely mesmerizing!!! He operates the Arisaka, Krag and 1903 rifles just as easily left handed as I do right handed!!!
2 things Ian missed that are kind of big things: 1. The Unertl in the movie wasn’t a Unertl. It was a Lyman Target Spot. Very similar but not the same. 2. The reason the safety flag was up for the close ups in the bell tower was because when the safety is set like that, the firing pin spring is cocked and captured so the bolt is super easy to use. This makes it easier for Jackson to appear to perform rapid fire firing left handed, it is much easier if you don’t have to actually cock the rifle.
Respectfully I don’t think Ian missed anything regarding that. In the scene in the bell tower every shot he takes you can see the cocking handle going forward and an empty brass being ejected. This could not be achieved with the safety in the middle/facing up position. Further more if the gun didn’t have cartridges in it(live,blank,empty brass) then the magazine cut off would have to be turned on or else the bolt would hang up on the follower.
And by “magazine cut off turned on” I actually meant that it would need to be in the down position and it would say off meaning the gun wouldn’t feed from the magazine
No argument that that is possible, but that seems like a lot of extra editing. Empty brass edited in, cocking handle moving forward edited in, safety being off edited in except the last part right before the tower is hit, magazine cut off edited to be in a different position, and the recoil. Personally I think they just goofed on that last part of the scene and had the safety in the half way position.
@@truckinbugs3044 Maybe it was more of an "on the set" safety situation. Since they finished filming what they needed to when using the firearm and it wasn't going to be in use, they simply kept it in full safety for the remainder of the scene takes.
Another thing that Ian didnt mention: Isnt swapping a scope mid battle without zeroing it complete bs especially with making such a precise shot right after?
There are mounts that allow detaching the scope reattaching it without rezeroing. You can have more than one mount with a zeroed scope for one rifle. I have a rifle with the hand fitted Suhler system. The scope can be detached and reattached and holds its zero. You just need to make sure the parts are clean before mounting.
@@Unus_Annus_ For the springfield and featured scopes it is true. I have hunting riffle based on an original Mauser 98 system. The build was done shortly after WW2. They did have the means and skill back then. So it´s not complete BS. It´s just not accurate for the featured rifle.
Im glad someone brought this up because u can see some of Jackson's shots in the bell tower where he's aiming and the impacts are way off from it probably not being zero
@@maxlutz3674 you are correct, there exist such mounts and most do even function most of the time. We're talking aobut 1944 though, with equipment, most likely made in 43 during the collection of the Invasion equipment... i doubt reliable solutions for multiscope mounts of that sort did exist back then. It would have been a very pricey piece of gear with the required precision and probably also needing tougher steel than normal to prevent shifts from surface abrasion when using it...
When I saw the title of the video, I thought you were going to talk about the fact that he shot more than 5 rounds. Then I figured you were probably smart enough to recognize it was more of an edit issue/trope instead of an actual inaccuracy. You didn't disappoint.
Charles Aksins was a lefty and he spoke having to shoot off his right shoulder during WW2 basic training. But as soon as he got out in the field he switched back to his left shoulder and reached over the action to work the bolt. His book Unrepentant Sinner is worth a read if you can find it. Thanks for all you do. And yes, details do matter and thanks for pointing them out.
Thanks for the book reference. My grandad in the Marine Corps said the solution to left-handed shooters was over the tannoy: "Now hear this: All left-handed recruits, you are now right-handed. That is all."
Being a lefty shooting right for many years I finally bought a left handed bolt action. The motion was so foreign I decided to go back to right handed guns
Dad was raised by folk that beat him if he used his left hand. A drill sergeant recognized that he was naturally left-handed when he was in basic training in 1943. Most marksmanship training at Camp Roberts was done with M1903 and the Drill taught Dad the overhand method. After the war, Dad had a Mauser action converted to a gear drive left-hand bolt operation. Dad taught me to run his rifle that same way. Under his tutelage, I had to run his left-handed .270 as fast at the right-handed sporterized 1903. You know, because reasons...Cold War...Cubans...Russians...shit like that.
I was at the NRA National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio, a few times, late 70's, early 80's, and once saw left handed Gary Anderson, multiple World and Olympic Champion, doing a rapid fire demo, overhand, with a r/h Win. M70. It was pretty to watch, he got a round of applause at the end.
Strange how they used to beat kids for using their left hand, my uncle was left handed and the nuns who taught him at school used to tie his left arm behind his back so he didn’t use it, that was in Scotland in the 1950’s.
A lot of information about scopes - WOW & thanks. I have the honor to have been a USMC Scout Sniper in Vietnam. I attended the 1st MarDiv Scout Sniper School "in country" at Da Nang. I am a lefty. At school I was required to shot Right-Handed. Initially I did not want to, but did realize that learning to shot Right-Handed would give me the ability to shot both ways (left or right). After school, when I returned to the Scout Sniper Platoon, I shot Left-Handed; I used the Reach-Over Method. In a short time, I believe, I was just as fast as a Right-Handed shooter. Disclaimer: I am proud to report I served in the USMC for one enlistment and then returned to the civilian-world. Over the years, I thought about retuning to active duty. When I talked to the Marines, but they wanted me to return as a Infantryman (MOS 0311) and/or Scout Sniper (MOS 8541; they now identify it as O317). During my break-in-service, I learned that these two skills were not very employable. That being the case, I enlisted into the Army and served there until I retired. That is why my title notes the comment is coming from a CSM Retired.
As a fellow wrong handed person in a right handed world, I had to learn to shoot a right handed bolt gun the way as well. On my mauser, enfield, and M1903, after firing I’d come over top of the comb of the stock and hook my thumb under the bolt to lift and pull back and then push forward and down with my fingers. I didn’t have a scope on the rifles tho, I could see that being more in the way.
Jackson might have gotten the Unertyl scope on his own. I can imagine him reading about the guns and scopes that other snipers use, discovering the Marines' Unertyl scope, and finding a way to buy one through back-channels (maybe a friend or family member back in the U.S. bought one for him and mailed it to him while he was in England waiting for D-Day). Also, another plot hole in Saving Private Ryan might be Tom Hanks not tasking Jackson with killing the three-man machine gun crew during the radar station scene. Instead, he just charges forward across an open field with the rest of the squad. A smarter tactic would have been to have Jackson hide in the bushes and snipe the machine gun crew while the rest of the squad distracted them by shooting at them from a different location, and from behind heavy cover. There would have been a guaranteed kill right off the bat as Jackson's first bullet hit the guy manning the machine gun, and the remaining two Germans wouldn't have been able to tell where exactly the gunfire was coming from or how many Americans were attacking them.
As Ian pointed out, fitting the Unertl scope required some serious modifications, and it's not clear if the mounts for both scopes can co-exist on the rifle.
I always felt like Pvt. Jackson was Saving Private Ryan's weak link in terms of historical accuracy. You brought up most of the issues with his rifle but I think there are more issues with his tactics in this film. First off on D-Day he is used to make some, what appears to be close range shots on a sandbagged position that looks like any soldier with a M1 rifle can make. He also constantly switches between the lower and high magnification scopes without re-zeroing his rifle, which would not be good for accuracy. The scene where he shoots through a snipers scope is a nice homage to Carlos Hathcock but not possible since the German scopes had numerous lenses that would cause the bullet to exit out the side of the scope body. I don't understand why Tom Hank's squad had a sniper in their unit but in the scene where Wade dies, Jackson is not utilized to take out the machine gun position and they decide to try and bum rush it instead. Lastly, I don't think that a sniper in a bell tower would want a machine gun next to them giving away their position, but then again they was pretty desperate.
That whole emplaced MG position assault was the worst part of what is otherwise a very good film overall, in my opinion. A well entrenched MG nest surrounded by open fields and woods, so NATURALLY the experienced captain decides to charge the position with his entire squad across open ground from the direction the gun's already set up facing in, not even leaving anyone to give suppressing cover fire, and even going so far as to make his sniper remove his scope and charge too. I mean... what? All Hollywood war films have bits that require the suspension of disbelief (Some far more than others), but that was just too much.
The movie has in general some historical inaccuracies. The one that triggers me the most is the soldier, that shoots through the Tigers viewport. There should be a 10cm hardened glassblock, it wouldn't accomplish anything. But there wouldn't even be Tigers in the area where the film takes places.
Yeah, there was a lot more historical accuracy weak links. I mean, there was a freaking TIGER TANK included because it can't be a Hollywood movie without a FREAKING TIGER. Even though the US in the ETO encountered Tiger's on only THREE occasions.
@@giklab Not that. When they are in the process of disabling the first Tiger, Cpt. Miller (Hanks) fires through the tank's port with his Thompson. Another flaw that I saw was the tank's machine gun only firing once in the whole ending battle, with soldiers running in front of it quite a few times.
Great video. Always enjoy watching Forgotten Weapons. Thank you, Ian! Another ooops moment for me was the .30 cal ammo belt around Sgt. Upham's neck, where all rounds were intert, all punched primers exposed.
A friend of mine worked on TV and movies as a production assistant. After Lord of the Rings came out I asked her about props and she said that it was up to the propmaster and their staff to search out appropriate props. Some things that were historically accurate were not used because the audience would have not been familiar with the real stuff but be more "comfortable" with a newer iteration. Having the audience immediately recognize something means less "wait, that didn't look right" in the backs of their minds. When Ian first showed the Weaver scope, my mind's reaction while he was talking was "that's a weird place for adjustment knobs" and I really didn't fully take in what he was saying. In a fast paced scene, that would mean I lose a little bit of the action and story. So, yes, inaccuracies are made to keep the story moving in the viewers minds. Another aspect in going a little loose with accuracy is to build not only tension, but solution into a scene. Jackson says his standard scope isn't going to do the job, so he takes out a bigger scope that will do the job, ie, a solution to the problem. He also adjusts the scope adding to a sense of solution. About his line about adjusting windage while he's adjusting parallax, this is about visuals. Important solutions require visuals that match. His adjustment of the scope bell provides that visual, much more so than adjusting the small windage knobs (this is a visual medium first and foremost). Saying "windage" instead of parallax could be because parallax is a rather unfamiliar term, while windage is relatively well known. Jackson's action - adjusting the large bell - combined with the "windage" line cements in the viewers mind his confidence and competence; the man knows his business. Another oft complaint is the lack of recoil. Even a 22 has some motion while firing, so much more with a 30-06 or 45 Colt. Blanks have almost no recoil, so it's up to the actor to make the recoil motion. Most of the time that it's done that way it looks "off": the timing isn't right, not enough or too much flip, it just looks made up. Those things nag the back of the mind of viewers, even those who are not shooters. So directors just ignore the recoil to keep the viewers mind on the movie and not on the little "off" bits.
I appreciate this comment and wish that historians would consider the ins and outs of filmmaking when making their criticisms. I think it's good both to acknowledge and explain inaccuracies on the one hand, and understand why those inaccuracies were a part of the production. From there we can then determine whether a particular inaccuracy was best for the story, understandable but could have been avoided, simply ignorant, etc.
@@two_owls I mean I understand the Idea but I guess I would prefer the movie to be as accurate as it possibly can because using the actual solutions they would have used and struggling with the equipment the way they did adds a lot more layers to how things were in that time and place thus giving us a stronger understanding of what those men went through. Sacrificing Realism for the sake of a "Good Movie Experience" really kind of pulls some people like me out and misinforms others about the reality so I'd prefer realism and clever writing to interact with that realism in my movies.
How does one approach inaccuracies in fiction? Want to alk about inaccuracy? Let's talk about how the 2nd Rangers assaulted Pointe Du-Hoc and didn't land on Omaha beach. Let's talk about how the captain of the second Rangers wasn't John Miller. His name was Ralph E. Goranson. The movie was loaded with inaccuracies but, then..it's a fictional story. Not a play by play documentary. It's a story. Nothing more. Treat it as such. Ther movie refers to the Sullivan Brother's incident, which really happened but, there never was a 5 man Ryan clan in WWII in which the Army sent the captain of the 2nd Rangers to save the last member of.
Of course, Hollywood and TV MADE those errors that caused audiences to see certain things as period appropriate when they're not; usually as a cost-cutting measure, or even out of pure laziness.
As a lefty having to live in a right hand world, I'm impressed with his ability to shoot. I was able to fire the M-16 while on active duty. My Grandson is a USMC with Expert Medal.
I am very right handed but I shoot ambidextrously. Is there really that big of a difference? It's not really a fine motor action like writing, and my preference really lies with whichever eye is less near-sighted
See this is great, you can tell Ian is a huge fan of the movie and possibly that is something that influenced his journey in life. He's not knocking the movie, he's discussing it!
I mean, it was a groundbreaking movie that spawned a whole movement of gritty realism in war movies. Spielberg led to Band of Brothers, Dunkirk, 1917, Jarhead, Hacksaw Ridge, I could go on all day. You don't even have to like it to accept its influence in the genre (although who doesn't like it?).
As a former Infantry soldier the detail spot on that I noticed was when they stepped into command center at the beginning and all the radio ops and remfs are eating big thick sandwiches and drinking hot coffee after the Rangers have been eating field rations for some time. Totally accurate. Lol
My favorite historical detail in the movie, which takes the scene from already shocking and uncomfortable to tragic, is when the two "German" troops try to surrender (and get executed on the spot), they're speaking Czech, meaning they were most likely pressed into service against their will and didn't want to fight in the first place.
It's worth bearing in mind that although you do get technical advisors on movies, their advice is not always taken. Some very knowledgeable people employed in the advisor role have expressed dismay at their knowledge or suggestions being ignored and stopped working as advisors, with others being pragmatic enough to know that there can be plenty of production and artistic reasons which override the adherence to accuracy on occasion. A good example of such a choice is the shots of troops being hit underwater by German fire; aside from the trajectory of the bullets being a bit suspect, it's a fact that two or three feet of water will slow those rounds right down, but of course it looks frightening and deadly, so it's a good dramatic choice regardless of it not being partiularly physically accurate, as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of guns, let alone a technical advisor, would know. But as such with movie production, we've got boat inaccuracies, with US-crewed LCVPs ferrying the troops when they would of course have been RN-crewed LCAs. This might have been a case of availability of suitable vehicles as well as being an artistic choice too, since it was a scene with American troops being deployed. The landing assault scene itself has a number of inaccuracies, such as the position of the tide, the distance from the water's edge to the inland cover, the type of bunkers and emplacements in the defences and the beach obstacles. One glaring mistake here, is that the obstacles are in fact placed the wrong way around; this last one is something where a technical advisor would really have been useful to have on hand to supervise the placement of these for the set design, because whilst it might seem like you'd want the jagged bit facing an incoming landing craft, which is probably why the set builders put them that way, in fact this type of obstacle was designed with the intention to have landing craft ride up over the thing in the hopes that it would flip the boats over. Similarly, we have numerous aircraft mistakes too. We hear a soldier saying that his glider crashed, killing 22 men because of the weight of a Jeep on board it. This is not possible because the glider depicted is a Waco CG-4A. Whilst this is the correct type used at Normandy, the CG-4A carried 13 troops maximum and certainly not a Jeep in addition to that loadout. They were either ignoring this for dramatic scripting purposes, or confusing this with either the Waco CG-13A, which was larger, but was not used in the Normandy invasion, or possibly the British Airspeed Horsa, which did have the necessary capacity to carry such a load. Similarly, we see North American P-51 Mustangs in a ground attack role dropping bombs. There were indeed some P-51s used in ground attacks and there was even a specific P-51 variant designed for that role (the A-36 Apache), but the standard fighter variants did not typically carry bombs and would have used their machine guns to strafe targets instead. However, the ones we see in the movie have no bomb racks and have incorrect markings too, being depicted as from the 78th fighter Group (checkerboard markings). The 78th did indeed perform ground attacks at Normandy, but they were flying P-47 Thunderbolts and would not be equipped with P-51s until December of '44. Interestingly for the real plane nerds and historians out there, the P-51 replaced the P-47 not because it was better, as most people might suppose would be the reason, but because it was in fact much cheaper to build than a P-47. Back with guns in the movie, we see a number of shots where Thompson sub machine gun variants flip between being the correct versions in one shot, to the earlier 1928 variants with different sights and the cocking lever located on the top as opposed to on the side where it was on the kind which troops would have had at Normandy. Of course most people are not nerdy enough to be bothered about all these things, and it's still a great movie even if everything from the initial premise to a bunch of 'mistakes' appear through it. But it's fun for the sticklers for accuracy to see how many things they can bore people with in this regard!
Overall, I like SPR. There are many things they got at least reasonably correct, but also a long list of problems with it, some so glaring that they stretch my ability to suspend disbelief to the point of taking me out of the movie and reminding me that it's just a bunch of actors playing dress up and pretend. You mentioned some of them. For example, anyone who's been to Normandy and extensively walked Omaha Beach, or even just looked at photos of the actual landings, the glaring inaccuracies of the landing sequence in SPR are hard to ignore. Neither the tide, the beach itself, the type and arrangement of the defense emplacements, nor the German strategy for defending against a landing are accurately portrayed. What's shown in the movie is very theatrical, but in real life, the defenses were much more difficult and time consuming to overcome than the single wave landing and breakout that is implied in SPR.
At one end of the scale, we were changing number plates on vehicles to represent different German units at different points in the chronology of events. At the other end, there are the "P51 tankbusters".
Yes there are some very knowledgeable people who take on advisory roles on movies, thinking that they are going to correct all the inaccuracies they've seen in other films, only to quit in frustration as their advice and suggestions are continually ignored. They don't seem to grasp that it's a MOVIE and not a DOCUMENTARY, and only as long as accuracy does not get in the way of the cameras, slow down the action, increase the budget, cost more time (films are also budgeted on time and not just money), or most important of all, interfere with the director's "vision", will their advice be taken. Take for instance the speed at which the troops moved up the beach, we all know that it took hours, but showing that it took hours would slow down the action and was really irrelevant to the story being told; the movie was not about the D-Day landing itself. Also, who besides someone that was there, a military historian or a gun nerd is even going to recognize an incorrect scope? Other than someone who was there or a historian is really going to notice (or care) that the traps were the wrong way round? Most people today only have a nodding acquaintance with WWII anyway; in my old high school textbook, WWII started on December 7, 1941 with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we fought Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Facist Italy, D-Day occurred on June 6, 1944, Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, Japan surrendered on Sep 2, 1945 and that's pretty much it.
I appreciate the information but this is still the best sniper scene in all war movies to me. This movie alone got me into collecting old school guns from the Ww2 era or before. The movie still makes me shed a tear. Especially the cemetery scene.
Do you have an MG42? Hitler's bone/buzz saw? Those things were just plain scary. If I remember correctly they had an effective range of over 1,000 yards but the rate if fire is conflicting. I've read anywhere between 1,400-1,800 rounds per minute. Of which either is exceptional for a single barrel that can be changed out in under half a minute. I have asked myself if I could have stepped out of those boats knowing those things are pointed at me and I don't like the answer I come up with.
I just so happen to have a rifle that if you don't already have, you would give your right arm for. But it's a family eirloom. A Lee Enfield Mark V jungle carbine with the flash suppresser. Right along with it's all original. Floating zero! I'm sure you know the history of this weapon.
@@jamesstreet228the danish army used/are using a modified version of the mg42, called LMG62 machinegun. It shoots around 1200 rounds per minut. It was used to shoot Talibans 😆😅
Hey Ian, in your video about "What's Wrong with Private Jackson''s Sniper Rifle". it was stated "there weren't any Marines at D-Day". Marines were there. though they did not go ashore, they adopted the duties of the Marines of past centuries, of perching in the upper superstructure of the ship looking for and shooting mines, or anything in the water that would pose a danger to the ship, during the landings. A Marine from my home town, who served from '43-'46 in Europe told me, in '81, that the D-Day landing was the only action he saw of war. Regretfully I didn't have the presence of mind to ask which ship he was on, or if he used a 1903, or m1. I definitely did not think to ask if they had optics... Hell he could have used an M1917.... But if they did have optics, my guess would be the Weaver. That would be available in Theater. I hope this was informative, James.
Also there were a lot marines on D-Day on the beach, just not US Marines. For example No. 47 (Royal Marine) Commando landed on Juno beach. I know thsi was about US military weapons, but it is worth reminding there was a lot going on that day up and down the coast with men from all the allies armies
If you read American history books in schools here, they downplay the contributions of other nations on D-Day to the point you'd think the US were the only people to fight against the entire Axis. Heck, they state WWII lasted from 1941-1945.
@@johnalbers6422 Yeah they probably should talk more about the allies. But they do mention them. They talked about the Battle of Britain and Stalingrad among others. I figure they talk more about what they know most, not unreasonable.
As a technical advisor for surgical/trauma scenes in TV and movies, I get the struggle the advisor for this movie must have had. Directors and screenwriters typically care about accuracy right up to the point that it starts to interfere with their vision or storytelling. At that point their question tends to be, "Will the average viewer notice or care if we do X or substitute Y?" A good advisor must know what battles to fight and which to let go. You learn quickly which people want true accuracy (usually directors and actors) and which simply want validation (usually screenwriters). A stubborn advisor is often labelled as "difficult" and doesn't get asked back to subsequent productions, so it's a definitely a compromise sometimes. Even as an expert, you must check your ego at the stage door.
As my friend found out though it is almost impossible to do anything when neither of the two groups you mention, wanted him there. He even talked to the director after it all finished, and asked why he was there, and the director basically admitted just so his name was in the credits as an advisor.
@abdulkarimelnaas7595 I couldn't agree more about Sheridan and writing what you know. Most of the writers I have worked with understandably knew little about the medical field and were usually very defensive about the accuracy of their creations. Unfortunately, my involvement tended to be on the day rather than during the writing process, so corrections of flagrant inaccuracies were sometimes difficult to affect without significant disruption in shooting. I once had to listen to a major star give a very inaccurate monologue in a scene about a procedure he had just performed. I immediately informed the writer and was forbidden by them to tell the star (who was a big stickler for accuracy) as he would "lose faith in the writers".
@@georgeadcock2347 Yeah, that always makes me twitch, too, especially chest views. The time they did it in the 'Scrubs' intro for a season or so I think was supposed to be ironic, but I don't know that for a fact.
I’m under the weather on a Saturday afternoon, watching this on tv while I have zero energy. All I want is hours and hours of this kind of analysis of movies. This is remarkable!
Fun fact- Marines actually did participate in D-Day, as well as every other amphibious landing in Europe. They were instructors to Army personnel who went ashore, and were posted on the warships supporting the landing as marksmen in order to destroy anti-ship mines with rifle fire. Mark Felton did an excellent video on this, and I would absolutely love to see a Forgotten Weapons/Mark Felton Productions collaboration sometime! ruclips.net/video/_1XH-nfJc3Y/видео.html
Fascinating, and makes sense too. Marines are always a smaller force. They sped a lot of time gaining experience with nautical and littoral stuff, and the Army only needs that for one day.
While I enjoy range shenanigans & ADD breaks I have mad respect for Ian’s approach & attention to detail. This man has clearly done his homework. Well done.
An interesting side note. I found a book written in 39 by Hans Hobb, he was a novelist that escaped Warsaw or so. In his story there's a French officer that his soldiers under him have a bet going on what he did prior to the nazi invasion of France, he is portrayed as a real pro soldier and along the way of the prison camp experience he gives up that he was a school teacher. Something like that. Spielberg really did tell "everyone's" story. I always considered finding this book at a thrift store a real cool miracle. The reason i picked it up was because the title "A Thousand Shall Fall" is a reference to Psalms 91
During his escape time he and the other expert hid in a lot of places. He was eating a pastry while hiding in a wall and wrote " men can be made to carry stones and sell trousers but the application of icing lines" I dont have the rest memorized, I'm sure Steven Spielberg does though
As a left handed shooter I've used bolt action rifles. I usually used my right hand to cycle the action. However I did occasionally use a strap to hold the rifle for longer distances and so had to use my left hand, I found that if I twisted the rifle through 90 degrees I could easily use my left hand.
As many of us south paws are, being ambidextrous, I have routinely ALWAYS operated regular bolt action rifles (like my 1903/A3) like a righty. My theory being that it's more about which eye you are. As a lefty, I would rather have my stronger hand and arm SUPPORTING the rifle up front and leave the minor things like trigger work to the right hand. Operating the bolt is simple for any real lefty. We learned early on how to be ambidextrous!
My dad was in the USMC - twice actually, being recalled for Korea. He's always said that in USMC boot camp when they were taught to shoot, or at least taught to shoot "the USMC way" (like many in those days, my dad came from a farm in KY, so could already shoot when he went in), they only taught you/allowed you to shoot right-handed. If he's watching a war movie, or any movie for that matter that involves a person shooting that supposedly came from the military and shoots left handed, he'll make that comment. He's 95 now, so what he would say today I would take with a large grain of salt; however, like I said, he's made that comment forever. Then the subject would arise if the military changed at some point to allow people to shoot left-handed. I admit I have always wondered about it. At a minimum I figured Hollywood didn't care that much, and if there was a left-handed actor, they'd let them shoot left-handed - especially if they looked silly trying to do it right handed.
certainly people were made to write left handed in school back then, so stands to reason they'd make people shoot that way. i think snipers are different though. idk about specifically US policy during WWII but it stands to reason that you wouldn't pick out the precise shooters and then make them shoot in a less precise way.
Thank you for bringing up that point. I’ve always wondered if the military during that time period allowed soldiers and marines to operate their weapons left-handed, and supposed that they did not, given my military experience concerning how military training is conducted. Now I have a first-hand account from your father.
@@dextrodemon I assume you meant to say "people were made to write right handed in school back then". Interestingly, my dad does most things right-handed, but writes left-handed...
I did Army BCT in the mid-80s and I remember the plastic brass deflectors that snapped onto the carrying handle (a term that always cracked me up - just go ahead and try carrying your weapon like that as a BCT E-Nuthin - you will bring down the Wrath of God in the form Drill Sgt directed Corrective PT) of our shot out M16A1s. So there were lefty shooters at least that far back. When my dad (left handed) learned how to shoot in the 50s, he was taught to just learn how to shoot right handed "it'll be way easier for you". I think that was a fairly common mindset then.
I love that there are people alive in this world who care about these concerns and have taken the time to develop a curated body of knowledge. Brilliant.
Jackson was using a Lyman scope which did exist at the time. From what I have read, the springs were removed from the 8x Unertl so the glass wouldn’t shatter on larger caliber rifles trying to keep the scope in place. Also noticed they rolled the windage knob up and the elevation knob was on the left in the bell tower scene at end of the movie. Probably so he could rapid fire without catching his sleeve on the knob doing the whole reach over the top reload thing. On my 16x Unertl Target, the adjustment at the end of the scope is not for parallax, it is for focus in yards. You can adjust it from 50 yards to infinity 250yd. At say 100 yard setting anything further is blurry. It’s labeled in increments so you can adjust the focus accordingly to however far you are shooting. I had it mounted on a 1903a3 and the rifle is a 1000yd tack driver with hand loads. Jackson’s rifle was a Hollywood setup for the movie. Someone must have read a Carlos Hathcock book and tried to tip a hat in acknowledgment to him. That’s my option.
Bit of a stretch here, but snipers are famous for going to great lengths in modifying their equipment to suit themselves and their physical characteristics. I'd prefer to think of Jackson as a great scrounger and resourceful pilferer in putting together the "unobtainium" equipment that would work for him. Not army standard issue, not ordinary channels of procurement for our boy Jackson!
"Also noticed they rolled the windage knob up and the elevation knob was on the left in the bell tower scene at end of the movie" It seems like it would still work, just use the elevation knob to adjust windage
This is well timed. Just about the time you had made your video on the rifle in the first place I had recently rewatched SPR in memory of D-Day and I noticed these issues with the scope! Didn't know enough about these rifles to say for myself but after seeing your vid (and you even mentioned SPRs Pvt. Jackson in that one) I realized that the film makers made some mistakes. Nice to see some clarity on the issues. Now, all that said, next time I watch the films I'm not going to be able to unsee these oversights XD SPRs such a great movie. From the very first scene the entire film makes an effort to compare and contrast the impact and the difference one man can make vs. many. Beautifully and respectfully done the whole way.
Excellent information and well presented. One other thing I will add is this: Whenever I change a scope on a rifle, or take it off for maintenance, or whatever, I have to re-zero it after I mount it back on the rifle. That did not happen in the movie...of course how could it in a combat situation?
Rezeroing has to be done after each remounting. lol that was one of my "BULLSHIT!" moments. If you have a dope card or know your dope, you can rezero down range. Sure as hell isn't automatic zeroed.
@@ScrappyXFL When I first saw the movie, I couldn't figure out how he didn't screw up his zero when changing out scopes. I shot high powered rifles with optics as a kid with my grandpa, and I remembered changing out a scope being a small project, not something you would do on the fly. I couldn't figure out what the hell he was doing. I assumed the technical advisors knew something I didn't, lol.
I looked at this video and was like “How am I Not Subscribed to Forgotten Weapons?!?” I love this kinda content, Ian please do more breakdowns. Awesome
Ian there's a problem with this video to me. The audio and the video are out of sync and for whatever reason, the video is 13:12 minutes long, but the video cuts off (ends) at 11:14
Good video, especially explaining how a left handed shooter would manipulate the bolt when firing the Springfield. Given how fast Jackson was able fire his weapon, he had the bolt portion down pat!
first video ive ever seen from you. I was captivated, really enjoyed your explanations. I specifically liked how you explained how the scope should've shifted backwards, such a cool note.
Soldiers in Europe often brought, or had sent, items they wanted from home. Rank and file with 1911s is the standard example. A good sniper could well be expected to acquire a non-standard scope and finagle it to fit the existing mounting brackets, including the lack of a slide mount. Bigger issue is field-mounting a scope in combat with no zeroing...
I'll disagree about scopes, which were rarities at home except for long-distance target shooters and certain western hunters who were after small distant targets. They were costly items and we really hadn't cleared the depression fully before we w3ere drawn into the war. Other items from home yes, but not scopes.
@@P_RO_ - We really have no knowledge of his background. I was just positing a rational explanation for the on-screen choices. Complete failure of the movie's technical department of this singular detail is certainly another...
The Lyman Alaskan seems somewhat possible that way but the target scope flat wouldn't work the way it is depicted. Even if it didn't break, the way it's shown mounted wouldn't allow for any adjustment or zeroing. Side note, unlike personally supplied sidearms, Jackson theoretically would be modifying government property and might have to answer to supply officers about that.
Ever since I was a kid I noticed so many of these issues! It drove me crazy haha Like the “Tiger” in the film though, I’m willing to overlook it all just because of the sheer effort put into and believability most of the the rest of film had. Tom Hanks and the others leads knocked it out of the park.
I haven't seen it in years, but Saving Private Ryan is one of my favorite WW2 movies. Though he didn't see battle my grandfather served for the navy during WW2. I asked my grandmother why he never spoke about his experiences while serving. She said that my grandfather just saw it as a job. He wanted to help and when he was done and returned home he never said anything. As far as WW2 films go the last time I visited with him about 5 or so years ago he was watching FURY on tv. When it came to the scene with the US troops talking to the German women he said "If you pulled something like that when I was serving you'd be court-martialed." I told him it was a movie. They have to add crap like that for suspense.
Am I the only one seeing an audio desync after 0:49? It's like the video portion goes straight into the analysis, while the audio is still talking about the contest to win the rifle. It's so uncanny, I actually duplicated the tab and started one video with audio around that time and then muted the first video so I could watch it in a more or less synced up manner.
I think the reason why he was cycling with his left hand was because he was supporting himself against the window with his right arm and didn't want to have to readjust each time he cycled with his right hand.
It is more what he was used to. I had never seen anyone outside of benchrest shooters do it the way Ian did. As a kid in the 60's, I always cycled the bolt from over the top.
Very good video! When I first watched Saving Private Ryan, I was taken aback by Jackson's operation of the bolt on the Springfield because my Dad worked a Springfield bolt in the exact same way. He got his Army Commission in 1939. By the time WW2 started he had lots of practice on Springfields. As a left eye predominant shooter, he always sholdered the rifle on his left and used his left hand/little finger over the top of the rifle to access the bolt. Cycling was a fluid operation for him, but as you said he did not have to contend with a scope. I'll bet he would have made it work. Also, I have a picture of him firing a BAR during the 1942 Lousiana maneouvers, off his left shoulder, with a towel tied around his head as a pad for the ejecting brass. The Army really doesn't do left handed...
So I watched the presentation and was impressed with the technical knowledge and the way you explained things. I do have one observation to make though. I was a soldier, Australian army and note that anyone in the army in a specialist position is likely to personalise their equipment. So what is military and official issue is not what any given soldier might be carrying. I was barely in 6 months and got a hold of extra pouches for my webbing. A small thing but it meant more food for me. Now a dedicated sniper who knows the Lyman Alaskan scope is better, he could well have acquired one, as soldiers do, and it would not be official record. So is it safe to say that none existed at Normandy?
Everything was in short supply even on/in the states. The ability to barter and trade for something high end (for the day) is possible but very unlikely, and especially for a Marine Corps scope that would never cross into the EU theater at all. If this movie was based in the Pacific theater, I would agree with you.
The majority of movies portray aiming down a scope left-handed because it's deemed that the right side of the face is the dominant side for closeups. Not sure if that's a mental predisposition to favor the right, or it's a mirror effect for the viewer, or what else, but that's something I've explicitly been taught in the industry-always film shooters up close with a lefty stance. For context, the actor is right-dominant and the person portrayed was also right-dominant. This is a conscious cinematic choice.
interesting, cause even a lefty with a right handed bolt has serious hurdles to overcome and not fumble, granted the ones ive had to use because left handed bolts are a pain to find (yes they make them, good luck finding one) had a much bigger scope
I believe ret. USMC Col. Dale Dye ran the boot camp for the actors of "Saving Private Ryan" USMC shooting doctrine has been for many years that when operating a rifle , The foreward sling hand you do not move, to perform operations on the weapon. So there may have been just a bit of bleed over from ingrained USMC training. "Always have positive control of your rifle" Just my opinion, Ret. USMC Recon Marine.
Dale Dye was responsible for the incomprehensible hand and arm signals in Band of Brothers and SPR. Nothing remotely like what would have been used during WW2.
To all your points: perhaps. By this time in WW2, the US was low in all equipment and I'm believing that substitutions of just about anything and sharing between the individual forces was likely. That the movie picked up on that isn't all that likely. The substitution of the Alaskan for the Weaver - that for me was a real possibilty. I have one of the alaskan scopes from that era, which doesn't say much, but I certainly can see it on that gun in that location at that time. My scope is on a gun with a mauser action and it works with the bolt just fine - no issues. The bolt issue isn't. Every guy will cycle his gun the way he does it. BTW did anyone else see the clear plastic bag covering the gun in the landing craft-unloading scene in that movie? Now there's a real out-of-era mistake.
Fascinating! I’ve always wondered about the way he left handed cycles the bolt. And I always laughed about the number of shots he took in the last battle. 😳 “Parker get outtt!!!”💥
I’m a righty but I can do just about everything ambidextrous, I know not everyone is capable of that but if I had a left handed rifle I would shoot it lefty and same for a right handed rifle. When I started training I made a point to switch hands a lot and get good with Both. Same thing with welding. I can lay a bead just as good with my left because I trained to do so. So whatever position is going to yield the best result I go with it. I still can’t hardly write my name left handed but by god I can throw a knife 20 feet with it,
@@wilfredmacdonald8245 That's a better method than depicted in the movie but still inferior to the method Ian demonstrated for a couple of reasons. One of them is ejection issues. Another is quicker target acquisition. I have been shooting ambidextrously since 1968 and have extensively tested many methods of left-handed operation for every weapon I have handled. The method Ian demonstrated is far superior to any method involving left-handed operation of the bolt.
I think that it might depend on the rifle model. I have never had to use a bolt action in combat. I have only used an 8mm, an early model 70 Winchester, a model 67 Winchester 22 .And a 1905 Mannlicher.
Being a left-hander, and having only ever used bolt-action rifles, I can understand how much of a pain it would be to have your reloading hand wrapped in a strap. I always operated the bolt with my right hand and fired with my left, and used my left eye to sight. I'm Australian, so my use of rifles was curtailed many years ago. However, I did use a rifle back in the day. Left-handed, and with a right eye that has retina damage made for interesting adjustments in the way I used a rifle and sights. Yep, never used a scope on a rifle. Oh, and I need to thank you. This was one of the most interesting videos on this subject that I've seen. It was a brilliant, geeky critique of movie accuracy that both entertained and educated me. Cheers, mate.
@@cannibalcorpse75 No. It is relatively easy to get a firearms license in Australia, as long as you pass relevant security checks and have a bona fide reason to have a rifle, either for sport shooting at a club, stock control on a property, or as a licensed feral animal hunter. But hey, look at our mass-shooting record compared to the US. Well-implemented firearms ownership laws work. It's too late for the US though. That place has become a gun lover's utopia. Better to have open gun laws and children dying every day from gun violence than to hinder that 2nd Amendment bull-kaka.
If your government suddenly tells you your right to speak was "bull-kaka", I'm sure you'd be fine with that to and shut on up right? Because what are you going to do about it? Nothing.
So, given a lot of the small details included in this movie, and the attention to detail paid, I have a headcanon resolving the scope issues. Jackson is one of, if not the only unit members to be shown with the telltale "grand thumb" bruise, meaning he was doing things before D-Day on his own, such as practicing with a garand "just in case" and him getting the garand thumb makes sense because he would be less used to avoiding it as the people who used them exclusively. On to the scopes. Given that the Alaskan became publicly available in 1939, and D-Day was in 1944, I say Jackson acquired it on his own, thinking, since the military preferred them, it was a better scope. Given having the Alaskan, and the garand thumb, this is a soldier who likes to be prepared for as many possibilities as possible. So, to cover his second scope, I believe private Jackson, when back on base in the U.S., whether through his company armorer, or range time with marine snipers, requested, bartered or outright bought his own unertl scope, and because they were able to cludge together a scope mount that worked on his rifle for the movie, there is no reason to think that wasn't his own idea and tinkering.
-- Your first point is wrong. The Lyman Alaskan scope were on tier 1 shooters rifles. One of my grandfathers had one on his Springfield in WWII, carried it through training and onto downrange. They were also gifted from families, much like the civilian Thompson that could take the box and drum, where the military version could not. How do I know. Pictures, stories from gran, and I have his rifle. Your remaining points are correct, all of them. Note as a left handed shooter myself I'd be remise if I didn't mention they tried to play this on Kyle Rittenhouse in a round-about way. And also as a lefty with a right handed bolt, no, you don't reach over and cycle. You cycle with your right, keep your left on fire control. From a rested position, it's a real advantage, a lefty with a right handed action. I learned with a sling and a scope. Found it easy to outpace lever actions easily with that technique. Thumbs up.
its fascinating to hear names in historical context like weaver and lyman that we kinda overlook today as the people that pioneered the ability to put a scope on just about anything
Hey Ian, I’ve been doing my own research into this topic, and I think I figured out why they used a Lyman Alaskan instead of a Weaver. If you look closely at the scope in the bell tower scene, you may notice that the scope isn’t actually a Unertl USMC scope. It looks very similar, but the adjustment knobs on it don’t correspond to what the Marines used. After some further digging, I’ve come to find out that the scope used is actually a Lyman Supertarget, which does look similar to a Unertl and WAS procured by the US military for competition shooting purposes. It’s possible that the scope mounting rings for the Lyman Alaskan would fit onto the Supertarget, so they just used that as a stand-in for the Unertl.
@@ForgottenWeapons thanks for the speedy reply. However, I still think the scope is a Lyman Super Targetspot. On the IMFDB discussion page for the movie, somebody points out that the parallax adjustment sleeve is different between the two and it more closely resembles the Lyman Super Targetspot. Also, the adjustment knobs on the scope when he has the Targetspot mounted don’t look the same as the USMC Unertl ones.
The scope is a Lyman, the AO is different on the 2, most Unertls had a double locking ring for the AO, pushing and pulling the lenses back and forth, but the big give away is the markings, Unertls are fewer (10) and more separated where the Lyman had more, 50 I believe. The Lyman objective has an overall tapered shape where the Unertl is straight.
If the scope were a Lyman Alaskan, then his activity at the bell tower may have been adding on a Litschert power booster making the scope roughly 8x. I believe both were available during the period. Made sense to me....
Being a Marine left handed shooter ( 1968 ) i to struggled with reaching over the scope to work the bolt - in fact i still have that very problem even now 😀
Always thought Jackson firing left handed was the most unique aspect of Saving Private Ryan. Pepper supposedly being left/left takes a little of the magic away, but them adapting the role to the actor is pretty cool as well. Being left handed but right eye dominant, I actually prefer shooting rested bolts with left hand actions like Ian shows as I maintain consistent control of the grip.
I think in filmmaking, there’s a desire to ride the middle between accuracy and film-presence or gravitas. The detail of him switching scopes is supremely cool in theory and executes a Chekov’s gun (by explaining why he was carrying that weird tube the whole movie) even though it’s not realistic. That said, depending on the project, I think filmmakers should prioritize accuracy over gravitas. That extra level of attention to detail really takes action scenes to the next level for me.
I think filmmakers rarely bother with historical accuracy, especially where weapons are concerned. I remember when I was growing up people talking about the movie El Cid, and I was anxious to see it. Since we didn't even have VHS back then, it was years before I had a chance to satisfy my wish. By then I'd become somewhat knowledgeable about the history of weapons development, so I could tell what kinds of swords and armour were worn in which periods. El Cid was a DISASTER in this aspect! All the weapons were completely wrong for the period, even El Cid's famous sword was at least 200 years off, not to mention some pretty silly choices in shields and other details. That ruined the film for me(even more than the excessive screentime given to Sophia Loren's tedious character...) Ignorance is bliss.
@@psychonaut5921S'truth! The same for the movie 'Excalibur' showing men with full plate armor for a period where the best you could hope for was chain mail or segmented armor.
I own a J.W. Fecker version (the original) competition scope. It's a wonderful optical and mechanical device, and is one of my cherished possessions, along with a pair of (highly modified) model 1922 M2 Springfield target rifles. These were passed down to me by my maternal grandmother, who was a southeast regional target shooting champion in the 50's. Ian, you might want to explore the history of J.W. Fecker/Unertl. J.W. Fecker was an optics giant in the pre-WWII era, the firm producing huge astronomical telescopes and sophisticated optical instruments. Rifle scopes were just a component of their business. Unertl worked at J.W. Fecker, and in 1928 started his own business or spun off to become "Unertl". My scope is a later one as it has coated optics. Optical coating technology was not available until after WWII, however, it is possible that my grandma had the scope rebuilt and upgraded by J.W. Fecker or Unertl, she was a serious competitor. I'm not aware of any Fecker spotting scopes so I think Unertl developed those products. As far as I know the Unertl rifle scopes are essentially Fecker designs, both are known for excellence. J.W. Fecker the company went on with the core optical business for many years, eventually being bought and incorporated into a succession of optical firms.
I love surplus firearms and also have an eye problem that requires me to shoot lefty. One of the best things that happend for me was the popularity of scoped pistols finally causing decent long eye relief scopes to become common. It's so much easier to reach over the action and to load from stripper clips with the scope in a foward mount. An added bonus is the availability of forward mounts that use the original front sight base without modification.
This is very cool to see; as when I first saw the movie, and being a left handed shooter myself; I wondered why Pvt. Jackson was reaching over the rifle with his left hand to operate the bolt (I always used my right hand to cycle the bolt); interesting that you’ve done this video all these years later and mentioned this. Thanks for all you do, Ian!
I’m a lefty shooter, 45 years, and have manipulate right handed rifles both ways shown. Just kind of depends on how the rifle is configured and to probably some degree the weight.
The 1917 sling isn't just for carting the rifle around. It's a shooting aid, and pretty much all military training was done with the sling. In The Art of the Rifle, Cooper talks about Marines slinging up and taking seated shooting positions to shoot Japanese soldiers retreating across a river. I can't imaging NOT using a sling for a distant target, in which case, your hand simply isn't free to operate the bolt.
When the Rangers where delayed at Point Du Hoc one of the OICs of the the Marine advisor teams offered to go ashore but it was quickly shot down as the news papers would have likely read “Marines save Rangers at Normandy” like when 5th and 6th Marines stole the spotlight from 2ID and 3ID in 1918.
@jackncoke8527 makes sense. I heard they offered to help in the planning stages, too. I heard the Rangers landed at Point Du Hoc first, then tried to get more people to land there, but their comms wouldn't work.
Guys let me share a story from Afghanistan. A group of friends I knew captured a No. 1 Mk3 Enfield and took it upon them selves to mount a scope on it. From what I understand this was just a standard iron sight rifle that they devised scope mounts for. They used it repeatedly during their deployment in Afghanistan, apparently to good effect. They destroyed it when they rotated back to the States. The point is, did soldiers do in field modifications to their weapons? They sure did, and still do. Was this a common practice? No. But it wasn’t, and isn’t unheard of. I think there is a saying used by Ian in an earlier post. “Soldiers will be soldiers” If there is a way to make things happen ( both good or bad) soldiers will find a way to do it.
As usual a great analysis from Ian! As a former movie student and movie armorer here is my thoughts on "Saving private Ryan": Movies have to find the balance beetween accuracy and "realism", this last notion being relative in movies and can be best translated to : "what the average spectator might perceive as realistic, given what they might know about weapons, war and history in the context of this movie". As such the free floating scope in that instance, while accurate, would have been seen as a "distracting error" for modern audiences used to fixed scopes. -Film editors are not the most aware of guns and weapons which might explain the tendancy of movies to have guns that fire more rounds than their magazine capacity or not to show reloads unless it is relevant for tension built up. FYI : there is an other "gun error" at the end of the movie. When Miller shoot at the Tiger with his 1911, the slide does not actually open on an empty magazine. If you look closely at the slide it is halfway back with the recoil plug still forward of the grip assembly, meaning he had a failure to feed. Most probably because of the profile of the blanks used in that scene. (i had many instances during movie shooting, some guns just HATE blanks!). "Saving private Ryan" tell a story and is not as a whole a war documentary. It has many innacuracies and "errors". The funny one is that according to the book "the longest day", there was a Ryan who turned 20 on D-Day who was part of the 2nd Rangers bataillon (Miller's unit) and survived, at least, the day. Given that Miller's platoon links up with the 101st in Carentan before the battle of Hill 30 we can set the date at June 13th BEFORE Utah and Omaha beach heads were linked. Then it made no sense to send a Platoon from Omaha when it would have been far simplier to send one from Utah which had linked up with the 101st and 82nd by the end of june 6th! There is no village across the Mederet river, the village of "Ramelle" is made up and is supposed to represent the bloodly battle of "La Fiere", which is 3miles west of Sainte-mère-église, fought by the 82nd during that time. Even then that movie raise the bar on "realism" closer to accuracy than any WW2 movie or war movie before it.
Coming from a Mexican neighborhood where almost everyone had a war hero Dad we didn't like the phony death scenes of the WWII movies. SPR helped lots of grandkids appreciate what our Dads and Uncles suffered for freedom. My Dad was the hero of our war hero family, he had 3 younger cousins that did multiple jumps in Korea and 2 nephews that were Navy corpsmen in Vietnam
Ian you have taught us all for a long time now but today you answered a question that has been at the back of my mind for 35 years. Ages ago, I used to shoot at a rifle range quite often and got to know the RSO quite well. He would ask for my spent 30-30 brass, but only if it was Winchester brand. He reloaded for and shot a wildcat round (I think it was .18 cal?) using those casings which he necked down. He competed in bench rest events. One day he brought his rifle out and let me shoot it. That was the first and last time, until today, that I saw a scope with a spring on it. I guess he had a Unertyl scope. Maybe there were other models with springs ...who knows? That rifle shot like a laser beam and drove tacks a long way out.
Ian, you have to remember that in many cases, historical errors in movies are done deliberately for some reason, often aesthetics etc. Given that SPR is somewhat fictional, giving Jckson the scope the US Army wanted, but didn't get in reality, makes sense.
The main thing I saw the first time I watched it was the scope change out when he was shooting the German sniper. That scope can't be swapped out and the scope he changed too wasn't used by the Army that was a Marine Corp scope used on the 1903 not the 1903A4 used in the move I know i own one.
When I first saw the movie I also caught the scope issue, much to the pleasure of my wife, who just loves me to comment on all the mistakes in movies. Like you, I found it interesting that Spielberg/Hanks would allow such a slip up. Might as well call an 88mm a 105mm. Given the small diameter of the objective lenses and 2 1/2X power, a guy would have to be pretty skilled to hit running targets.
I recall the last point coming up in a video Ian did some years ago where he cycled a bolt-action with his right hand. I commented that this seemed an easier way to do it. So it's interesting to hear that addressed. Barry Pepper is apparently left-handed IRL, all that remains would be to hear his thoughts on the matter.
@ Ian - Forgotten Weapons - Great analysis, Ian, thanks for doing it. A few comments, if you don't mind... Regarding the presence - or lack thereof - of the U.S. Marine Corps in the ETO generally and at the invasion of Normandy specifically, the decision was taken very early on in the war that the conflict in the Pacific was to be "their" war and that the Army would do the fighting on land in North Africa, the Med, and Europe. Technically, there were Marines in those theaters, but only token forces - mostly afloat aboard men of war of the U.S. Navy, embassy guards, and things of that nature. U.S. Marines also participated to an extent in a few small operations on Greenland and Iceland. Navy beach-masters were ashore at Normandy as well, the Navy and USMC both being a part of the Dept. of the Navy (in those days the Corps was not as independent as it became later after the Key West Agreement of 1948). Great breakdown of the numerous errors in the sniper rifles shown being used by Private Jackson. Many fans have known about the switch in size/power of the scopes from early in the film to later in the film when he is obviously using an 8x Unertl and not a low-power 2 or 2.5x Lyman or Weaver. For too many reasons to mention here, "Saving Private Ryan" was a watershed WW2 film. Perhaps most-importantly, Director Steven Spielberg and his technical advisors took the time to recreate the landing at Ohama and subsequent battles in such a way as to immediately raise the bar for all films that came after in terms of their technical and historical accuracy. However great the film was/is, however, it is filled with historical errors. There is an expert on the 101st A/B Division who wrote a series of lengthy articles on the errors just about the paratroopers depicted, I am sorry I don't recall his name - but it can probably be found on the web. The Tiger tank is actually a cleverly-disguised T34-85 mocked up and modified to resemble a Tiger I. Honestly, only someone who is a WW2 history nerd would even notice that the road wheels and suspension on tank are those of a T34 and not a Tiger. Likewise, the scene in the climatic battle where the Germans fire their "20mm cannon" against the American troops - that is actually a British Boys .55-caliber AT rifle, heavily-modified to resemble a 20mm cannon. Again, not many folks in a general audience know that. One of the biggest flaws, historically-speaking, in the film - was pointed out early on by Dr. Stephen E. Ambrose, upon whose books the film was based. Namely, that the soldiers depicted in the various American units were often too old to have held that rank or been in combat, or even in uniform at all. Age and time in grade requirements existed then. You'd need a waiver to be a captain in the Rangers as old as Tom Hanks, and it is highly doubtful a man in his forties (as Hanks was at the time) would have been leading a squad in combat. Captains command companies, they don't act as squad leaders. The script explains it away as a "special mission," but whatever. The criticism of Ambrose was shot down by Spielberg and Hanks and that was that. Hollywood likes to cast somewhat older men as younger men in war films; they've been doing it for a long time. "Band of Brothers" - which came a few years later from the same production team - was better in this regard, but still did it. The last problem in the film isn't an just an error per se, but a criticism of an unnecessary part of the film. The whole "mutiny scene" is unnecessary and detracts from otherwise good story. It is also bogus in the sense that no U.S.Army Ranger unit during WW2 engaged in mutiny or failed to follow orders. Rangers were an elite, and half-steppers and malcontents didn't get into the unit in the first place to any great extent, and those that did were ruthlessly weeded out. The stakes on D-Day were too high for the Rangers for anything but the best officers and enlisted men to be there. But I digress.... thanks for an interesting video.
There were a couple more glitches in the SPR movie. One being, if I recall correctly, the motorcycle Tom Hanks took cover behind was actually a postwar model. But, going back to the sniper position in the bell tower ... the German Marder was far too close to the tower to be able to take out the sniper position. The cannon in the Marder had a maximum elevation of 16⁰ above horizonal. That means the Marder would have had to be at least 90-100 feet from the base of the tower - all the way across the square. Not directly below the tower as shown in the movie.
Actually , the glaring error in Saving Private Ryan is that the US never encountered Panzer divisions equipped with tiger tanks during the Normandy Campaign . It was the British and Canadian divisions who faced nearly all the Panzer divisions around Caen . The one exception , as shown in Band of Brothers , is the 101st and 82nd airborne faced the 17th Panzer Grenadiers . By June 30th , The US 2nd div may have faced the 2nd Panzer div equipped with Panther tanks .
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO WIN!
go.getenteredtowin.com/forgottenweapons
DEADLINE to ENTER is TONIGHT 06/30/23 @ 11:59pm (PST).
This portion of each video is weird. It feels like someone is deepfaking Ian to scam us. And then includes accompanying spam in the comments.
The link on its' own is already so iffy looking. Kinda weird to see you do something like this.
Ian. What happened? What happened to us?
What happened is that RUclips has aggressively deprioritized not just firearms content, but most long-form content in general (unless it involves deliberately making people angry at other people). I have experimented with several replacement revenue sources, and I think this is the best one. It lets me give a really cool piece to someone each time (I send them out myself) and I don't have to make awkward pitches for products I don't actually have an interest in.
@@bunceràààq❤😂❤ AZ and CA
I interpreted his bolt technique the exact same way; he's a sniper because he's a country boy so he can shoot, but he has a weird self-taught way to operate the bolt. It's actually a nice touch.
That is how I always operated the bolt as a lefty. Have tried the way Ian did it and never felt comfortable.
@@fredbecker607 i learned to shoot with a sling and i shoot right handed bolt rifles that same way as demonstrated - its a pain and i prefer to shoot semi auto rifles or actual left handed bolt rifles instead. Try doing that in a rapid string when you used too much resin and effectively glued the stock to your shoulder pad and cant get the rifle out of the shoulder. i almost put the muzzle into the dirt while operating the bolt because of that in one match.
@@fredbecker607I shoot lefty and I've always shot the way Ian demonstrates, never had too much of an issue
Country shooting makes you "at best" a marksman. Sniping is absolutely a trained discipline as it is VERY specific shooting and requires more than simply hitting well over distance (like camouflaging and techniques to crawl unnoticed through enemy lines)
@@Ugly_German_Truthstoday that is true.
But not at the beginning of the sniper programs.
They simply took particularly well made rifles and scopes then stuck them in the hands of particularly good shooters and dedicated them the sniper.
As a lefty myself, I was happy to see a left handed shooter in a film. It portraied the struggle we all have with some rifles. And how we overcome.
I find shooting southpaw way more interesting because so many traditional guns had their controls on the right side, which makes nearly no sense for righties. Only the AR and its plastic descendents started making controls for the right hand only
when you learn to shoot as a leftie, would it not be easier to just learn to use the right hand as a trigger hand? Or is that very hard? I know I right handed guy who got blind on his right eye, and he had to learn to shoot on his "wrong" side. Now he shoots just as well on his left. I guess now a days you would just get a rifle with the bolt handle on the left side, but back then?
@fukingmagnets
Most left handed fires are also left eye dominant. So no.
@@theredrat69 A very good point..... as father of a son who shoots left handed and "left eyed" I concur... mind you I believe that at least one of his (right handed) guns has a special bolt handle to compensate for the difficulties mentioned above...... Interestingly , when he played cricket he batted left and bowled right.... he exhibits some cross-laterality.
I am a lefty too. If I ever got another bolt action rifle, I would get a left handed version. That is one thing that I would not stand for is cycling a bolt on the right of the action.
It might seem strange that there were no marines at D-Day, but there is one sensible reason, and one unfortunate one. The sensible reason is that there just weren’t enough marines. During World War II, the marine corps grew to a force comprising just 6 divisions, whereas the Army expanded to 89 divisions. There was more than enough work in the Pacific theater to keep those 6 marine divisions occupied. Also, since so much of the Pacific war was a naval operation, and the marines fell under navy command, it made sense to keep them consolidated in the Pacific theater.
The unfortunate reason was interservice rivalry. The army was still pretty bitter about that during WWII, because during WWI, the press gave the marine corps the lion’s share of the credit at the Battle of Belleau Wood, _even when referring to actions in which marines did not participate, and where the army should have been credited._ At Chateau-Thierry (a few days prior to the Battle of Belleau Wood) U.S. papers published headlines that read “Germans stopped at Chateau-Thierry with help of God and a few Marines.” The army was (quite justifiably to be honest) outraged, since the Germans had in fact been stopped at Chateau-Thierry by the U.S. army’s 7th machine gun battalion.
Senior army brass, including Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley, were unanimous in agreeing that the army was _not_ going to be upstaged by the marine corps this time around, and the marines were deliberately excluded from any large-scale participation in the ETO.
Nobody's getting past THAT much brass! ** Popular lies sells newspapers fast, but they have real consequences down the road.
(Struggles to stifle political ranting instincts... fight-fight-fight... OK.)
Equally there weren't enough Canadians, so their force was made up with British etc
@@LD-Orbseat a Kelloggs cereal bar. You’ll feel better.
@@fnc5369 I really should! 🤣
I'm often perplexed at how the USMC is used. More recently, they've been deployed in Afghanistan, a landlocked and mountainous country.
My father shot bolt action rifles left handed and used the reach-over technique because he often used a military or Whelan sling on his right arm. He was naturally right handed but lost his right eye at age 9. He had all of his bolt knobs checkered or knurled and would catch it with his pinky finger. With considerable practice in his spare time (and using that practice to lap his actions), he could get off follow-up shots as quickly as many right handers.
I didn't lost my right eye and didn't fire any gun at all. But I am right handed with left dominant eye.
Sounds like a terrible setup as a shooter.
I wonder why they didn't have left handed actions, but maybe that's asking too much. I'm a lefty & I use the same technique on my 3 BA rifles. 2 things that I wondered about: this squad behind enemy lines highlighting themselves while strolling on a ridgeline & the waterline seemed way closer to the cliffs than I recall from pic's. Still a great & classic movie. The action scenes with the 20 mm gun were memorable & horrific.
You ever wonder why a "left handed" rifle costs more than a right handed rifle? I've asked a couple of Fire Arms dealers(Remington, Winchester) why this is and both gave me the same answer. Their answers were, "these rifles are manufactured more or less on an assembly line, and to manufacture a left-handed rifle, the assembly process is either stopped and the rifle is manufactured, or the left handed rifle is assembled by hand, thus requiring more of a manufacturing process and time loss on our assembly schedule". I gave them both the same rebuttal... "don't you think that's showing prejudice against left handed people, charging them more for basically the same product?" Neither would answer. I'm guessing they both have parts for left handed models "pre-machined" on shelves waiting to be ordered and the assembly process doesn't take any longer than a right handed model. Total BS is you ask me. I own a .308 PS(Rem), 30.06(Win), .270(both), .300 MAG(Win), all left handed models, on average they cost me $120(+/-) more than the right handed models.
The Army like The USMC did not approve of left handed Sharp Shooter's, Snipers in fact they allowed very few, The rifles were designed to be used by right handed shooters, it was seen as a problem to allow lefties to become sniper's the only way they would allow it if the Marine or Soldier was an exceptional shot, displaying expertise in his sniper skills, and proving it would not be a problem they would allow it, using a bolt action rifle while being left handed creates a multitude of issues and problems, they did not want their Snipers reaching over to manipulate the bolt of the rifle as shown in the movie, in fact they were told to not do this, the proper way to facilitate the bolt shooting left handed was demonstrated by Ian in the video, reaching over the rifle like as shown in the movie, would not of been allowed in training or qualification, and the scopes shown in the movie are incorrect as well, toward the end of the war all Scopes were standardized USMC and ARMY, most of them did not carry additional scopes, The USMC Kept sights on their Sniper Rifles, in the event the scope became damaged it could be simply removed and the rifle still used normally, The Army made the mistake of removing the rifles sights, thus a damaged scope, was the end of the rifle, it would be impossible to fire the rifle accurately with no front sights.
I think your father and I have abit in common. Im right hand naturally. Like as if I need to hand write something. But Im left eye dominant. So any rifle sized and bigger in weapons, like weapons where I need to hold to hands to have control, is with my left hand on the trigger. The only different is for pistols. I can and will use my right hand for that, but for some odd reason, I either move my head or the pistol so I would said with my left eye instead
I would love to see more of Ian analyzing and decomposing the portrayal of guns in media.
I want to know the good little details people don’t notice that he picked up on. The only one I can think of would be the Czech soldier who tried to surrender
Interesting use of decomposing there! I support the use of words in ways not commonly seen or heard.
This is a thing that needs to be.
Handheld M-134 episode when?
I saw this one movie where the guy portraying a Lieutenant Colonel talk about AR15s having 30 magazine clips, fully semi-automatic firing and a bullet button. I want to see how that compares to real life as my civilian AR has none of those.
Just as a correction, the USMC was present at D-Day, not as ground force, but as the crew of the USS Texas. It not only fired all of its ammo, it went back for more. when it returned, the fighting had progressed too far inland for the guns to be effective so Captain Charles Adams Baker had the starboard torpedo tube flooded, tilting the ship 2 degrees providing the needed firing angle.
Really I didn’t know that
Give the usmc a ship interesting shit happens
Torpedo blister, part of the hull
I doubt those were all Marines, though. The capital ships had marine Detachments en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Detachment
That's a cool story more ppl should hear
Aside from those obvious points, if you change scopes, you have to re-zero the center by shooting target. If you change scopes, they will never be dead nuts center after the change, especially for a long shot like 400 yds or more.
🤣"dead nuts" have not heard that in a LOOOOOOONG time 👍Yea, you remount, you rezero
Exactly what I was thinking.
That was what I thought the first time watching the movie..🤔 How's he gonna recalibrate the new scope, specially them older types without actually taking 1-2 test shots first😄His faith took care of the miraculous zeroing for him I guess
Can’t remember the timeline but you can see at one point in the movie they show a pov of Pvt Jackson. His bullet impact is off from zero. I would assume they did that on purpose but you’re right about the cold bore shot to the bell tower.
Exactly. And I was expecting the presenter to mention it as the most obvious problem of all, but he didn't. That is weirdly weird.
I was stationed in France early 1950s. We cleaned the beaches and inspected the bunkers once a week. It was an eerie feeling entering the bunkers. I'll never forget it and I'm near 90 now.
Respect sir
Thank you sir. God bless you.
Wow, thanks for sharing. I have so much respect for people with your historical experience and wisdom. Would you care to share any other details? Hearing first hand accounts of this time period is gold for me.
Jesus man that was probably horrific to clean up 🤦♂️
As a lefty I cycle bolts the same way Jakcson does vs the way Ian does. The reach over method allows the rifle to stay on target more IMO. As a lefty in life you just kind of learn how to manage things with the bias the world gives you. No wrong answers, just solutions.
AS A Lefty... A Life Long Lefty.. Goose Bolt Guns For Squirrels, A 700BDL In '06.. 98s in 8mm.. My First Bolt Was A Spanish 1917 In 7mm.. I Still Run '17 in 7.62x39.. Actually, A Beautiful Century Arms Conversion... I Have Tried To Use A Left Bolt... I Am Too Just Muscle Memory-ed to Re-Train And Convert To Left Handed Bolts, Tho They ARE Widely Available
Also a lefty, I had a bolt action .22 just for plinking. The store did not have pump action low calibur rifles and had to settle with bolt. Other people wondered how come my arm got tired from shooting and why don't I shoot "correctly". I reply "if I cannot find a left handed baseball mitt then have the same problem-catch the ball, take off the mitt, throw the ball. The world is right handed. (scissors, school desks, keyboards, computer mouses, etc)
I shoot left and right with rifle and pistol… on left I just use my right hand to cycle my M91/30 sniper rifle and other M91/30 without scope. And my AKM-47…
I shoot lefty. Unless you have a particularly slick bolt, there's no way you're reaching over the top to cycle it. Marlin 22s,Enfield's, Mausers, even the newer savages I can make it work. My Remington in 270, there isn't enough leverage in the world to make it work
That's what I was thinking. For a high-magnification scope you can keep the rifle pointing in roughly the same area if you stabilise using using your offhand and cycle with you left.
My uncle, who served as a Marine in the Pacific during WWII, had to walk out of Saving Private Ryan because the sound and the chaotic presentation of the Omaha Beach landing were so realistic that it brought up memories of his own landings under fire. Normally he never showed any symptoms of PTSD, but that sequence did it for him.
Note that the incoming artillery scenes in Patton were declared by my Kesanh veteran cousin as equally realistic.
A friend was a veteran of the Tet Offensive battles. After he saw "Apocalypse Now" I asked him what he thought of it. He said he had nightmares for some time after seeing it.
Apocalypse Now is one of the most unrealistic and ridiculous military movies ever made. Highly doubt a real Vietnam vet could have suffered through that utter tripe.
@@michaeldelaney7271When Apocalypse Now came out I asked a Vietnam vet friend if he was going to go see it. He said "I was in the Apocalypse Then, I don't need one Now."
@@michaeldelaney7271
Has he seen Jacob's Ladder. If not and my memory isn't fubar then it would probably be better if he didn't. It was almost as bad as Brazil for messing with your mind.
People should be glad for families like yours. My wife's father was also there. As were 3 of his brothers, 1 in the Pacific theatre. The Rickard boys. Mack described being a POW in Germany, and he was looking out a window, when a P-38 dropped a bomb. AND he was broken out by one of his (a few) brothers. And he came home on the USS Texas. AND where his future brother-in-law was a Boiler Tech. That's what you call active duty.
Holy shit, only 01:15 into the video and the still shot of Pvt. Jackson shows that he has a Garand Thumb bruise under his thumbnail that I never noticed.
Video proves Ian's point about "tiny little details that nobody would normally notice" in the first minute or so , and then goes on to explain how they got so much else wrong "for cinema".
More fantastic work from Ian, great stuff.
And if you go to 3:29 of the video. You can see the finger nail has a larger black spot on it because the nail is growing out. I would expect that to be a true black nail, not just makeup.
I wonder if he gave himself a “Garand Thumb” while practicing with the rifle when they first started filming.
I'm naturally a lefty as well. I always cycled my M-24 with my left hand using the same technique. The sling was usually tight around my right arm, as you can use the sling to help with those longer shots.
When I worked with Barry Pepper on the set of We Were Soldiers, we had some down time one day and I asked him why he cycled the bolt like that. He said he’s left handed and that’s the way he fires right handed bolt action rifles. He also said he was prepared to shoot right handed if his shooting position made it awkward to shoot left handed. The situation just never came up. I was an Army sniper at the time so he was curious about the M24 and all gear that came with the system. We had a great chat about guns, hunting, and politics, especially about the direction Canada was headed at the time. Super nice guy.
What did he say about the direction of Canada? I’m from close to west he’s from and in my opinion it’s going down the drain.
@@dr.vonslifeinvesting6485 In the combat history of modern wars, both Canadian and USA snipers have been incredible and deserve unreserved respect. And they have fought the same enemy. Call them Brothers.Include the Ozzies.
IMO, lets not corrupt this discussion with talk of current government,USA or Canada.
The Snipers deserve Respect. The politicians ? I'll say "Unrelated topic" and let it go.
And he played Dale
We were talking about gun ownership. I was curious about what Canadians had to go through and what kind of guns you could have in Canada. If I remember right, he said the government made it difficult and it was getting worse. I complained about California laws never imagining things would be this bad in CA in 2023.
Those were great observations, but Private Jackson was given the Lyman Alaskan scope by the commander of his sniper training class as a reward for winning the Hawkeye competition.
Later on, Private Jackson “won” the Marine Unertl scope and the weather tube in a poker game with a Navy supply chief on their ship, just three days before the D-day landing.
Private Jackson later admitted that he had cheated in order to win that scope, and he felt so guilty about it, that on the way to board the landing craft, Private Jackson handed an envelope to the supply chief which contained the money he had won during that poker game. Jackson figured, paying for the scope made up for the fact that he had cheated to win it.
And... Where did you get all this information?
It's in the extended Directors cut version...😂
Yes, all this is true.
That settles it then, now i can sleep after over 25 years of not being able to ...
In other words:
"We want our sniper to have that iconic sniper picture appeal"
"that was a marine, there were no marines in France then"
"yeah, but what if... We make up a story how he won that and all?"
One of the largest issues is the lack of zeroing the scope. You can't just slap a scope on a rifle and expect the bullets to hit where you aim. In fact I would say this may be the most unrealistic part of that scene next to the fake rings.
Exactly
The only system that would allow a previously zeroed scope to be removed, then reattached and maintain zero, is the "Conetrol" ring and base system. This had not been invented until the 1960s, 1964 IIRC. When I saw the movie, this stood out as a major technical error for me as well.
I think of how much time I spend zeroing my hunting rifle, and to slap a new scope on and just hit someone at 400+ yards in bad weather and war conditions is very unrealistic.
A real German sniper whom would have been well trained would not foolishly stay in one spot more than 2 shots.
While I don't know about the mounts on the O3A3 I do know that some scope mounts are very repeatable. In the precision optics industry it is known as a "kinematic mount" (Look up 'kinematic coupling') Some mounts I have used personally are very very good at returning to zero are the original scope mounts on the AR-15/M16 (I believe it is the -a2 model with the integral carrying handle) and the claw mounts on the GK-91/G3. The scope mounts for the Steyr SSG are also very good and may be the best I have seen and used. I have never used the "Conetrol" brand mounts. Naturally all these mounts have to be handled with care and kept clean. Slapping one on in the mud is not going to work well.
My shooting partner is a guy who is a lefty. Using right hand rifles most of his life. I satrted him in long range, he was a hunter all his life 46 and only shot to 2 to 300 yards. His first rifle was a right hand and made things odd. He since built a custom with a left hand action. At first hesitant as he had never tried a lefty. Today after working with him, he reloads and shoots to 1500 yards with very good precision. Left hand weapons usually cost more and are not as available.
Also worked with a guy who was a right hand shooter up until 26 years old. Lost his right eye in a motorcycle accident. Changing to left hand for him was tough but practice and sheer stubbornness got him shooting spot on. Enough so he used a 7mm Mag. that hunting season.
Cross eye dominate, you can use a patch over the dominate eye to train the weaker.
Outstanding content.
Keep'em coming sir!
My son is a lefty... and you should see him shooting in vintage rifle matches. Watching him operate an Arisaka Type 99, working his left arm over the action to operate the bolt is absolutely mesmerizing!!! He operates the Arisaka, Krag and 1903 rifles just as easily left handed as I do right handed!!!
2 things Ian missed that are kind of big things: 1. The Unertl in the movie wasn’t a Unertl. It was a Lyman Target Spot. Very similar but not the same. 2. The reason the safety flag was up for the close ups in the bell tower was because when the safety is set like that, the firing pin spring is cocked and captured so the bolt is super easy to use. This makes it easier for Jackson to appear to perform rapid fire firing left handed, it is much easier if you don’t have to actually cock the rifle.
Respectfully I don’t think Ian missed anything regarding that. In the scene in the bell tower every shot he takes you can see the cocking handle going forward and an empty brass being ejected. This could not be achieved with the safety in the middle/facing up position. Further more if the gun didn’t have cartridges in it(live,blank,empty brass) then the magazine cut off would have to be turned on or else the bolt would hang up on the follower.
And by “magazine cut off turned on” I actually meant that it would need to be in the down position and it would say off meaning the gun wouldn’t feed from the magazine
@@truckinbugs3044 it could be achieved through creative editing.
No argument that that is possible, but that seems like a lot of extra editing. Empty brass edited in, cocking handle moving forward edited in, safety being off edited in except the last part right before the tower is hit, magazine cut off edited to be in a different position, and the recoil. Personally I think they just goofed on that last part of the scene and had the safety in the half way position.
@@truckinbugs3044 Maybe it was more of an "on the set" safety situation. Since they finished filming what they needed to when using the firearm and it wasn't going to be in use, they simply kept it in full safety for the remainder of the scene takes.
Another thing that Ian didnt mention: Isnt swapping a scope mid battle without zeroing it complete bs especially with making such a precise shot right after?
There are mounts that allow detaching the scope reattaching it without rezeroing. You can have more than one mount with a zeroed scope for one rifle.
I have a rifle with the hand fitted Suhler system. The scope can be detached and reattached and holds its zero. You just need to make sure the parts are clean before mounting.
@@maxlutz3674 my HK91 and HK93 can do this, but the Springfield In the movie definitely couldn’t
@@Unus_Annus_ For the springfield and featured scopes it is true. I have hunting riffle based on an original Mauser 98 system. The build was done shortly after WW2. They did have the means and skill back then. So it´s not complete BS. It´s just not accurate for the featured rifle.
Im glad someone brought this up because u can see some of Jackson's shots in the bell tower where he's aiming and the impacts are way off from it probably not being zero
@@maxlutz3674 you are correct, there exist such mounts and most do even function most of the time.
We're talking aobut 1944 though, with equipment, most likely made in 43 during the collection of the Invasion equipment... i doubt reliable solutions for multiscope mounts of that sort did exist back then. It would have been a very pricey piece of gear with the required precision and probably also needing tougher steel than normal to prevent shifts from surface abrasion when using it...
When I saw the title of the video, I thought you were going to talk about the fact that he shot more than 5 rounds. Then I figured you were probably smart enough to recognize it was more of an edit issue/trope instead of an actual inaccuracy. You didn't disappoint.
Charles Aksins was a lefty and he spoke having to shoot off his right shoulder during WW2 basic training. But as soon as he got out in the field he switched back to his left shoulder and reached over the action to work the bolt. His book Unrepentant Sinner is worth a read if you can find it.
Thanks for all you do.
And yes, details do matter and thanks for pointing them out.
Thanks for the book reference. My grandad in the Marine Corps said the solution to left-handed shooters was over the tannoy: "Now hear this: All left-handed recruits, you are now right-handed. That is all."
Being a lefty shooting right for many years I finally bought a left handed bolt action. The motion was so foreign I decided to go back to right handed guns
Dad was raised by folk that beat him if he used his left hand. A drill sergeant recognized that he was naturally left-handed when he was in basic training in 1943. Most marksmanship training at Camp Roberts was done with M1903 and the Drill taught Dad the overhand method. After the war, Dad had a Mauser action converted to a gear drive left-hand bolt operation. Dad taught me to run his rifle that same way. Under his tutelage, I had to run his left-handed .270 as fast at the right-handed sporterized 1903. You know, because reasons...Cold War...Cubans...Russians...shit like that.
I was at the NRA National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio, a few times, late 70's, early 80's, and once saw left handed Gary Anderson, multiple World and Olympic Champion, doing a rapid fire demo, overhand, with a r/h Win. M70. It was pretty to watch, he got a round of applause at the end.
My father's grandmother did that. Pennsylvania German.
@@sixstringedthing "so it's not for me to judge how you go about that." Pretty sure you just did.
Strange how they used to beat kids for using their left hand, my uncle was left handed and the nuns who taught him at school used to tie his left arm behind his back so he didn’t use it, that was in Scotland in the 1950’s.
@@sixstringedthingPeople like you are the reason our firearms laws in Australia are ridiculous, I wouldn’t trust our government for quids.
This video was more fun than I though it would be. More, please!
A lot of information about scopes - WOW & thanks. I have the honor to have been a USMC Scout Sniper in Vietnam. I attended the 1st MarDiv Scout Sniper School "in country" at Da Nang. I am a lefty. At school I was required to shot Right-Handed. Initially I did not want to, but did realize that learning to shot Right-Handed would give me the ability to shot both ways (left or right). After school, when I returned to the Scout Sniper Platoon, I shot Left-Handed; I used the Reach-Over Method. In a short time, I believe, I was just as fast as a Right-Handed shooter.
Disclaimer: I am proud to report I served in the USMC for one enlistment and then returned to the civilian-world. Over the years, I thought about retuning to active duty. When I talked to the Marines, but they wanted me to return as a Infantryman (MOS 0311) and/or Scout Sniper (MOS 8541; they now identify it as O317). During my break-in-service, I learned that these two skills were not very employable. That being the case, I enlisted into the Army and served there until I retired. That is why my title notes the comment is coming from a CSM Retired.
As a fellow wrong handed person in a right handed world, I had to learn to shoot a right handed bolt gun the way as well. On my mauser, enfield, and M1903, after firing I’d come over top of the comb of the stock and hook my thumb under the bolt to lift and pull back and then push forward and down with my fingers. I didn’t have a scope on the rifles tho, I could see that being more in the way.
Jackson might have gotten the Unertyl scope on his own. I can imagine him reading about the guns and scopes that other snipers use, discovering the Marines' Unertyl scope, and finding a way to buy one through back-channels (maybe a friend or family member back in the U.S. bought one for him and mailed it to him while he was in England waiting for D-Day).
Also, another plot hole in Saving Private Ryan might be Tom Hanks not tasking Jackson with killing the three-man machine gun crew during the radar station scene. Instead, he just charges forward across an open field with the rest of the squad. A smarter tactic would have been to have Jackson hide in the bushes and snipe the machine gun crew while the rest of the squad distracted them by shooting at them from a different location, and from behind heavy cover. There would have been a guaranteed kill right off the bat as Jackson's first bullet hit the guy manning the machine gun, and the remaining two Germans wouldn't have been able to tell where exactly the gunfire was coming from or how many Americans were attacking them.
Agreed
Or "acquired" it from someone.
Yeah not using him against the MG nest mad me so mad
As Ian pointed out, fitting the Unertl scope required some serious modifications, and it's not clear if the mounts for both scopes can co-exist on the rifle.
I'd imagine making weird and sub optimal tactical decisions happened plenty of times during that operation
I always felt like Pvt. Jackson was Saving Private Ryan's weak link in terms of historical accuracy. You brought up most of the issues with his rifle but I think there are more issues with his tactics in this film. First off on D-Day he is used to make some, what appears to be close range shots on a sandbagged position that looks like any soldier with a M1 rifle can make. He also constantly switches between the lower and high magnification scopes without re-zeroing his rifle, which would not be good for accuracy. The scene where he shoots through a snipers scope is a nice homage to Carlos Hathcock but not possible since the German scopes had numerous lenses that would cause the bullet to exit out the side of the scope body. I don't understand why Tom Hank's squad had a sniper in their unit but in the scene where Wade dies, Jackson is not utilized to take out the machine gun position and they decide to try and bum rush it instead. Lastly, I don't think that a sniper in a bell tower would want a machine gun next to them giving away their position, but then again they was pretty desperate.
That whole emplaced MG position assault was the worst part of what is otherwise a very good film overall, in my opinion. A well entrenched MG nest surrounded by open fields and woods, so NATURALLY the experienced captain decides to charge the position with his entire squad across open ground from the direction the gun's already set up facing in, not even leaving anyone to give suppressing cover fire, and even going so far as to make his sniper remove his scope and charge too. I mean... what? All Hollywood war films have bits that require the suspension of disbelief (Some far more than others), but that was just too much.
The movie has in general some historical inaccuracies. The one that triggers me the most is the soldier, that shoots through the Tigers viewport. There should be a 10cm hardened glassblock, it wouldn't accomplish anything. But there wouldn't even be Tigers in the area where the film takes places.
@@bastianspiekermann6702If you mean Hanks' character at the end, that Tiger gets hit by air support.
Yeah, there was a lot more historical accuracy weak links. I mean, there was a freaking TIGER TANK included because it can't be a Hollywood movie without a FREAKING TIGER. Even though the US in the ETO encountered Tiger's on only THREE occasions.
@@giklab Not that. When they are in the process of disabling the first Tiger, Cpt. Miller (Hanks) fires through the tank's port with his Thompson. Another flaw that I saw was the tank's machine gun only firing once in the whole ending battle, with soldiers running in front of it quite a few times.
Great video. Always enjoy watching Forgotten Weapons. Thank you, Ian! Another ooops moment for me was the .30 cal ammo belt around Sgt. Upham's neck, where all rounds were intert, all punched primers exposed.
Because live rounds on stage are a must?
A friend of mine worked on TV and movies as a production assistant. After Lord of the Rings came out I asked her about props and she said that it was up to the propmaster and their staff to search out appropriate props. Some things that were historically accurate were not used because the audience would have not been familiar with the real stuff but be more "comfortable" with a newer iteration. Having the audience immediately recognize something means less "wait, that didn't look right" in the backs of their minds. When Ian first showed the Weaver scope, my mind's reaction while he was talking was "that's a weird place for adjustment knobs" and I really didn't fully take in what he was saying. In a fast paced scene, that would mean I lose a little bit of the action and story. So, yes, inaccuracies are made to keep the story moving in the viewers minds.
Another aspect in going a little loose with accuracy is to build not only tension, but solution into a scene. Jackson says his standard scope isn't going to do the job, so he takes out a bigger scope that will do the job, ie, a solution to the problem. He also adjusts the scope adding to a sense of solution. About his line about adjusting windage while he's adjusting parallax, this is about visuals. Important solutions require visuals that match. His adjustment of the scope bell provides that visual, much more so than adjusting the small windage knobs (this is a visual medium first and foremost). Saying "windage" instead of parallax could be because parallax is a rather unfamiliar term, while windage is relatively well known. Jackson's action - adjusting the large bell - combined with the "windage" line cements in the viewers mind his confidence and competence; the man knows his business.
Another oft complaint is the lack of recoil. Even a 22 has some motion while firing, so much more with a 30-06 or 45 Colt. Blanks have almost no recoil, so it's up to the actor to make the recoil motion. Most of the time that it's done that way it looks "off": the timing isn't right, not enough or too much flip, it just looks made up. Those things nag the back of the mind of viewers, even those who are not shooters. So directors just ignore the recoil to keep the viewers mind on the movie and not on the little "off" bits.
I appreciate this comment and wish that historians would consider the ins and outs of filmmaking when making their criticisms. I think it's good both to acknowledge and explain inaccuracies on the one hand, and understand why those inaccuracies were a part of the production. From there we can then determine whether a particular inaccuracy was best for the story, understandable but could have been avoided, simply ignorant, etc.
This
@@two_owls I mean I understand the Idea but I guess I would prefer the movie to be as accurate as it possibly can because using the actual solutions they would have used and struggling with the equipment the way they did adds a lot more layers to how things were in that time and place thus giving us a stronger understanding of what those men went through. Sacrificing Realism for the sake of a "Good Movie Experience" really kind of pulls some people like me out and misinforms others about the reality so I'd prefer realism and clever writing to interact with that realism in my movies.
How does one approach inaccuracies in fiction? Want to alk about inaccuracy? Let's talk about how the 2nd Rangers assaulted Pointe Du-Hoc and didn't land on Omaha beach. Let's talk about how the captain of the second Rangers wasn't John Miller. His name was Ralph E. Goranson. The movie was loaded with inaccuracies but, then..it's a fictional story. Not a play by play documentary. It's a story. Nothing more. Treat it as such. Ther movie refers to the Sullivan Brother's incident, which really happened but, there never was a 5 man Ryan clan in WWII in which the Army sent the captain of the 2nd Rangers to save the last member of.
Of course, Hollywood and TV MADE those errors that caused audiences to see certain things as period appropriate when they're not; usually as a cost-cutting measure, or even out of pure laziness.
As a lefty having to live in a right hand world, I'm impressed with his ability to shoot. I was able to fire the M-16 while on active duty. My Grandson is a USMC with Expert Medal.
I am very right handed but I shoot ambidextrously. Is there really that big of a difference? It's not really a fine motor action like writing, and my preference really lies with whichever eye is less near-sighted
Im a lefty .. ive only ever found bullpups and revolvers a nuisance
See this is great, you can tell Ian is a huge fan of the movie and possibly that is something that influenced his journey in life. He's not knocking the movie, he's discussing it!
I mean, it was a groundbreaking movie that spawned a whole movement of gritty realism in war movies. Spielberg led to Band of Brothers, Dunkirk, 1917, Jarhead, Hacksaw Ridge, I could go on all day. You don't even have to like it to accept its influence in the genre (although who doesn't like it?).
As a former Infantry soldier the detail spot on that I noticed was when they stepped into command center at the beginning and all the radio ops and remfs are eating big thick sandwiches and drinking hot coffee after the Rangers have been eating field rations for some time. Totally accurate. Lol
My favorite historical detail in the movie, which takes the scene from already shocking and uncomfortable to tragic, is when the two "German" troops try to surrender (and get executed on the spot), they're speaking Czech, meaning they were most likely pressed into service against their will and didn't want to fight in the first place.
It's worth bearing in mind that although you do get technical advisors on movies, their advice is not always taken. Some very knowledgeable people employed in the advisor role have expressed dismay at their knowledge or suggestions being ignored and stopped working as advisors, with others being pragmatic enough to know that there can be plenty of production and artistic reasons which override the adherence to accuracy on occasion. A good example of such a choice is the shots of troops being hit underwater by German fire; aside from the trajectory of the bullets being a bit suspect, it's a fact that two or three feet of water will slow those rounds right down, but of course it looks frightening and deadly, so it's a good dramatic choice regardless of it not being partiularly physically accurate, as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of guns, let alone a technical advisor, would know.
But as such with movie production, we've got boat inaccuracies, with US-crewed LCVPs ferrying the troops when they would of course have been RN-crewed LCAs. This might have been a case of availability of suitable vehicles as well as being an artistic choice too, since it was a scene with American troops being deployed. The landing assault scene itself has a number of inaccuracies, such as the position of the tide, the distance from the water's edge to the inland cover, the type of bunkers and emplacements in the defences and the beach obstacles. One glaring mistake here, is that the obstacles are in fact placed the wrong way around; this last one is something where a technical advisor would really have been useful to have on hand to supervise the placement of these for the set design, because whilst it might seem like you'd want the jagged bit facing an incoming landing craft, which is probably why the set builders put them that way, in fact this type of obstacle was designed with the intention to have landing craft ride up over the thing in the hopes that it would flip the boats over.
Similarly, we have numerous aircraft mistakes too. We hear a soldier saying that his glider crashed, killing 22 men because of the weight of a Jeep on board it. This is not possible because the glider depicted is a Waco CG-4A. Whilst this is the correct type used at Normandy, the CG-4A carried 13 troops maximum and certainly not a Jeep in addition to that loadout. They were either ignoring this for dramatic scripting purposes, or confusing this with either the Waco CG-13A, which was larger, but was not used in the Normandy invasion, or possibly the British Airspeed Horsa, which did have the necessary capacity to carry such a load. Similarly, we see North American P-51 Mustangs in a ground attack role dropping bombs. There were indeed some P-51s used in ground attacks and there was even a specific P-51 variant designed for that role (the A-36 Apache), but the standard fighter variants did not typically carry bombs and would have used their machine guns to strafe targets instead. However, the ones we see in the movie have no bomb racks and have incorrect markings too, being depicted as from the 78th fighter Group (checkerboard markings). The 78th did indeed perform ground attacks at Normandy, but they were flying P-47 Thunderbolts and would not be equipped with P-51s until December of '44. Interestingly for the real plane nerds and historians out there, the P-51 replaced the P-47 not because it was better, as most people might suppose would be the reason, but because it was in fact much cheaper to build than a P-47.
Back with guns in the movie, we see a number of shots where Thompson sub machine gun variants flip between being the correct versions in one shot, to the earlier 1928 variants with different sights and the cocking lever located on the top as opposed to on the side where it was on the kind which troops would have had at Normandy. Of course most people are not nerdy enough to be bothered about all these things, and it's still a great movie even if everything from the initial premise to a bunch of 'mistakes' appear through it. But it's fun for the sticklers for accuracy to see how many things they can bore people with in this regard!
Overall, I like SPR. There are many things they got at least reasonably correct, but also a long list of problems with it, some so glaring that they stretch my ability to suspend disbelief to the point of taking me out of the movie and reminding me that it's just a bunch of actors playing dress up and pretend. You mentioned some of them.
For example, anyone who's been to Normandy and extensively walked Omaha Beach, or even just looked at photos of the actual landings, the glaring inaccuracies of the landing sequence in SPR are hard to ignore. Neither the tide, the beach itself, the type and arrangement of the defense emplacements, nor the German strategy for defending against a landing are accurately portrayed. What's shown in the movie is very theatrical, but in real life, the defenses were much more difficult and time consuming to overcome than the single wave landing and breakout that is implied in SPR.
The thompsons flip around because the M1928 variants in the movie are rubber props.
At one end of the scale, we were changing number plates on vehicles to represent different German units at different points in the chronology of events. At the other end, there are the "P51 tankbusters".
Yes there are some very knowledgeable people who take on advisory roles on movies, thinking that they are going to correct all the inaccuracies they've seen in other films, only to quit in frustration as their advice and suggestions are continually ignored. They don't seem to grasp that it's a MOVIE and not a DOCUMENTARY, and only as long as accuracy does not get in the way of the cameras, slow down the action, increase the budget, cost more time (films are also budgeted on time and not just money), or most important of all, interfere with the director's "vision", will their advice be taken.
Take for instance the speed at which the troops moved up the beach, we all know that it took hours, but showing that it took hours would slow down the action and was really irrelevant to the story being told; the movie was not about the D-Day landing itself. Also, who besides someone that was there, a military historian or a gun nerd is even going to recognize an incorrect scope? Other than someone who was there or a historian is really going to notice (or care) that the traps were the wrong way round? Most people today only have a nodding acquaintance with WWII anyway; in my old high school textbook, WWII started on December 7, 1941 with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we fought Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Facist Italy, D-Day occurred on June 6, 1944, Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, Japan surrendered on Sep 2, 1945 and that's pretty much it.
Homie, this is a video in itself.
Share this in the format of a video!
I appreciate the information but this is still the best sniper scene in all war movies to me. This movie alone got me into collecting old school guns from the Ww2 era or before. The movie still makes me shed a tear. Especially the cemetery scene.
Do you have an MG42? Hitler's bone/buzz saw? Those things were just plain scary. If I remember correctly they had an effective range of over 1,000 yards but the rate if fire is conflicting. I've read anywhere between 1,400-1,800 rounds per minute. Of which either is exceptional for a single barrel that can be changed out in under half a minute. I have asked myself if I could have stepped out of those boats knowing those things are pointed at me and I don't like the answer I come up with.
I just so happen to have a rifle that if you don't already have, you would give your right arm for. But it's a family eirloom. A Lee Enfield Mark V jungle carbine with the flash suppresser. Right along with it's all original. Floating zero! I'm sure you know the history of this weapon.
@@jamesstreet228the danish army used/are using a modified version of the mg42, called LMG62 machinegun. It shoots around 1200 rounds per minut. It was used to shoot Talibans 😆😅
Thank you Ian for too many years making such a good and interesting videos!
Hey Ian, in your video about "What's Wrong with Private Jackson''s Sniper Rifle". it was stated "there weren't any Marines at D-Day". Marines were there. though they did not go ashore, they adopted the duties of the Marines of past centuries, of perching in the upper superstructure of the ship looking for and shooting mines, or anything in the water that would pose a danger to the ship, during the landings. A Marine from my home town, who served from '43-'46 in Europe told me, in '81, that the D-Day landing was the only action he saw of war. Regretfully I didn't have the presence of mind to ask which ship he was on, or if he used a 1903, or m1. I definitely did not think to ask if they had optics... Hell he could have used an M1917.... But if they did have optics, my guess would be the Weaver. That would be available in Theater. I hope this was informative, James.
Also there were a lot marines on D-Day on the beach, just not US Marines. For example No. 47 (Royal Marine) Commando landed on Juno beach. I know thsi was about US military weapons, but it is worth reminding there was a lot going on that day up and down the coast with men from all the allies armies
If you read American history books in schools here, they downplay the contributions of other nations on D-Day to the point you'd think the US were the only people to fight against the entire Axis. Heck, they state WWII lasted from 1941-1945.
@@johnalbers6422 Yeah they probably should talk more about the allies. But they do mention them. They talked about the Battle of Britain and Stalingrad among others. I figure they talk more about what they know most, not unreasonable.
As a technical advisor for surgical/trauma scenes in TV and movies, I get the struggle the advisor for this movie must have had. Directors and screenwriters typically care about accuracy right up to the point that it starts to interfere with their vision or storytelling. At that point their question tends to be, "Will the average viewer notice or care if we do X or substitute Y?" A good advisor must know what battles to fight and which to let go. You learn quickly which people want true accuracy (usually directors and actors) and which simply want validation (usually screenwriters). A stubborn advisor is often labelled as "difficult" and doesn't get asked back to subsequent productions, so it's a definitely a compromise sometimes. Even as an expert, you must check your ego at the stage door.
As my friend found out though it is almost impossible to do anything when neither of the two groups you mention, wanted him there. He even talked to the director after it all finished, and asked why he was there, and the director basically admitted just so his name was in the credits as an advisor.
@abdulkarimelnaas7595 I couldn't agree more about Sheridan and writing what you know. Most of the writers I have worked with understandably knew little about the medical field and were usually very defensive about the accuracy of their creations. Unfortunately, my involvement tended to be on the day rather than during the writing process, so corrections of flagrant inaccuracies were sometimes difficult to affect without significant disruption in shooting. I once had to listen to a major star give a very inaccurate monologue in a scene about a procedure he had just performed. I immediately informed the writer and was forbidden by them to tell the star (who was a big stickler for accuracy) as he would "lose faith in the writers".
Why do so many times on set the x-rays are put up backwards on the View box. It's ridiculous....
@@georgeadcock2347 Yeah, that always makes me twitch, too, especially chest views. The time they did it in the 'Scrubs' intro for a season or so I think was supposed to be ironic, but I don't know that for a fact.
Gun Jesus Smites Scientologist Sniper!
I’m under the weather on a Saturday afternoon, watching this on tv while I have zero energy.
All I want is hours and hours of this kind of analysis of movies. This is remarkable!
That scope-recoil fact is honestly so cool. I wish it was more well known.
Please, make more of this movie-ruining videos. I may be a masochist, but I love them!
Fun fact- Marines actually did participate in D-Day, as well as every other amphibious landing in Europe. They were instructors to Army personnel who went ashore, and were posted on the warships supporting the landing as marksmen in order to destroy anti-ship mines with rifle fire. Mark Felton did an excellent video on this, and I would absolutely love to see a Forgotten Weapons/Mark Felton Productions collaboration sometime! ruclips.net/video/_1XH-nfJc3Y/видео.html
Fascinating, and makes sense too. Marines are always a smaller force. They sped a lot of time gaining experience with nautical and littoral stuff, and the Army only needs that for one day.
Before I even clicked I knew it would be a Mark Felton video and heard the intro music in my head lmao
I wouldn't rely on Mark Felton being historically accurate but it is true there were Marines present at DDay.
Agreed Mark Felton makes fantastic videos
Mark Felton Copy pastes information from other sources, including wikipedia, without citing and without addressing the fact.
While I enjoy range shenanigans & ADD breaks I have mad respect for Ian’s approach & attention to detail. This man has clearly done his homework. Well done.
An interesting side note. I found a book written in 39 by Hans Hobb, he was a novelist that escaped Warsaw or so. In his story there's a French officer that his soldiers under him have a bet going on what he did prior to the nazi invasion of France, he is portrayed as a real pro soldier and along the way of the prison camp experience he gives up that he was a school teacher. Something like that. Spielberg really did tell "everyone's" story. I always considered finding this book at a thrift store a real cool miracle. The reason i picked it up was because the title
"A Thousand Shall Fall" is a reference to Psalms 91
During his escape time he and the other expert hid in a lot of places. He was eating a pastry while hiding in a wall and wrote " men can be made to carry stones and sell trousers but the application of icing lines" I dont have the rest memorized, I'm sure Steven Spielberg does though
As a left handed shooter I've used bolt action rifles. I usually used my right hand to cycle the action. However I did occasionally use a strap to hold the rifle for longer distances and so had to use my left hand, I found that if I twisted the rifle through 90 degrees I could easily use my left hand.
wow
I'm right handed, but fairly ambidextrous. Rolling (twisting) the rifle over was the first thing I thought of when I saw Ian struggle with it.
I’m a lefty and I use my right hand.
As many of us south paws are, being ambidextrous, I have routinely ALWAYS operated regular bolt action rifles (like my 1903/A3) like a righty. My theory being that it's more about which eye you are. As a lefty, I would rather have my stronger hand and arm SUPPORTING the rifle up front and leave the minor things like trigger work to the right hand. Operating the bolt is simple for any real lefty. We learned early on how to be ambidextrous!
Did you notice that Jackson is also left-handed? Given that, he may just feel more comfortable cycling with his left?
My dad was in the USMC - twice actually, being recalled for Korea. He's always said that in USMC boot camp when they were taught to shoot, or at least taught to shoot "the USMC way" (like many in those days, my dad came from a farm in KY, so could already shoot when he went in), they only taught you/allowed you to shoot right-handed. If he's watching a war movie, or any movie for that matter that involves a person shooting that supposedly came from the military and shoots left handed, he'll make that comment. He's 95 now, so what he would say today I would take with a large grain of salt; however, like I said, he's made that comment forever. Then the subject would arise if the military changed at some point to allow people to shoot left-handed. I admit I have always wondered about it. At a minimum I figured Hollywood didn't care that much, and if there was a left-handed actor, they'd let them shoot left-handed - especially if they looked silly trying to do it right handed.
certainly people were made to write left handed in school back then, so stands to reason they'd make people shoot that way. i think snipers are different though. idk about specifically US policy during WWII but it stands to reason that you wouldn't pick out the precise shooters and then make them shoot in a less precise way.
Thank you for bringing up that point. I’ve always wondered if the military during that time period allowed soldiers and marines to operate their weapons left-handed, and supposed that they did not, given my military experience concerning how military training is conducted. Now I have a first-hand account from your father.
@@dextrodemon I assume you meant to say "people were made to write right handed in school back then". Interestingly, my dad does most things right-handed, but writes left-handed...
@@davefranklin4136 I'm the same. Mostly ambi I guess with the right side dominant, but I just can't write right-handed no matter what.
I did Army BCT in the mid-80s and I remember the plastic brass deflectors that snapped onto the carrying handle (a term that always cracked me up - just go ahead and try carrying your weapon like that as a BCT E-Nuthin - you will bring down the Wrath of God in the form Drill Sgt directed Corrective PT) of our shot out M16A1s. So there were lefty shooters at least that far back. When my dad (left handed) learned how to shoot in the 50s, he was taught to just learn how to shoot right handed "it'll be way easier for you". I think that was a fairly common mindset then.
I love that there are people alive in this world who care about these concerns and have taken the time to develop a curated body of knowledge. Brilliant.
Jackson was using a Lyman scope which did exist at the time. From what I have read, the springs were removed from the 8x Unertl so the glass wouldn’t shatter on larger caliber rifles trying to keep the scope in place. Also noticed they rolled the windage knob up and the elevation knob was on the left in the bell tower scene at end of the movie. Probably so he could rapid fire without catching his sleeve on the knob doing the whole reach over the top reload thing.
On my 16x Unertl Target, the adjustment at the end of the scope is not for parallax, it is for focus in yards. You can adjust it from 50 yards to infinity 250yd. At say 100 yard setting anything further is blurry. It’s labeled in increments so you can adjust the focus accordingly to however far you are shooting. I had it mounted on a 1903a3 and the rifle is a 1000yd tack driver with hand loads.
Jackson’s rifle was a Hollywood setup for the movie. Someone must have read a Carlos Hathcock book and tried to tip a hat in acknowledgment to him. That’s my option.
Bit of a stretch here, but snipers are famous for going to great lengths in modifying their equipment to suit themselves and their physical characteristics.
I'd prefer to think of Jackson as a great scrounger and resourceful pilferer in putting together the "unobtainium" equipment that would work for him. Not army standard issue, not ordinary channels of procurement for our boy Jackson!
We all know that the Charles thing is U.S propaganda, right?
"Also noticed they rolled the windage knob up and the elevation knob was on the left in the bell tower scene at end of the movie"
It seems like it would still work, just use the elevation knob to adjust windage
This is well timed. Just about the time you had made your video on the rifle in the first place I had recently rewatched SPR in memory of D-Day and I noticed these issues with the scope! Didn't know enough about these rifles to say for myself but after seeing your vid (and you even mentioned SPRs Pvt. Jackson in that one) I realized that the film makers made some mistakes. Nice to see some clarity on the issues.
Now, all that said, next time I watch the films I'm not going to be able to unsee these oversights XD
SPRs such a great movie. From the very first scene the entire film makes an effort to compare and contrast the impact and the difference one man can make vs. many. Beautifully and respectfully done the whole way.
Excellent information and well presented. One other thing I will add is this: Whenever I change a scope on a rifle, or take it off for maintenance, or whatever, I have to re-zero it after I mount it back on the rifle. That did not happen in the movie...of course how could it in a combat situation?
Rezeroing has to be done after each remounting. lol that was one of my "BULLSHIT!" moments. If you have a dope card or know your dope, you can rezero down range. Sure as hell isn't automatic zeroed.
@@ScrappyXFL When I first saw the movie, I couldn't figure out how he didn't screw up his zero when changing out scopes. I shot high powered rifles with optics as a kid with my grandpa, and I remembered changing out a scope being a small project, not something you would do on the fly. I couldn't figure out what the hell he was doing. I assumed the technical advisors knew something I didn't, lol.
I looked at this video and was like “How am I Not Subscribed to Forgotten Weapons?!?” I love this kinda content, Ian please do more breakdowns. Awesome
Ian there's a problem with this video to me. The audio and the video are out of sync and for whatever reason, the video is 13:12 minutes long, but the video cuts off (ends) at 11:14
I thought it was my Bluetooth earphones lagging
Good video, especially explaining how a left handed shooter would manipulate the bolt when firing the Springfield. Given how fast Jackson was able fire his weapon, he had the bolt portion down pat!
Also, why didn’t Miller have Jackson pick off the Germans at the radar site instead of charging across the open field and getting their medic killed?
I always wondered this as well. It was glaringly obvious too....
Or why not flank and hit it from behind instead of a frontal attack directly towards the mg nest
Ikr, or call in an artillery strike.
@@KillrMillr7 that’s right! They didn’t even bother to take a radio with them!
Why did the medic participate in the attack? He wouldn’t be armed, contrary to Geneva Conventions.
first video ive ever seen from you. I was captivated, really enjoyed your explanations. I specifically liked how you explained how the scope should've shifted backwards, such a cool note.
Soldiers in Europe often brought, or had sent, items they wanted from home. Rank and file with 1911s is the standard example. A good sniper could well be expected to acquire a non-standard scope and finagle it to fit the existing mounting brackets, including the lack of a slide mount. Bigger issue is field-mounting a scope in combat with no zeroing...
I'll disagree about scopes, which were rarities at home except for long-distance target shooters and certain western hunters who were after small distant targets. They were costly items and we really hadn't cleared the depression fully before we w3ere drawn into the war. Other items from home yes, but not scopes.
@@P_RO_ - We really have no knowledge of his background. I was just positing a rational explanation for the on-screen choices. Complete failure of the movie's technical department of this singular detail is certainly another...
The Lyman Alaskan seems somewhat possible that way but the target scope flat wouldn't work the way it is depicted. Even if it didn't break, the way it's shown mounted wouldn't allow for any adjustment or zeroing.
Side note, unlike personally supplied sidearms, Jackson theoretically would be modifying government property and might have to answer to supply officers about that.
Ever since I was a kid I noticed so many of these issues! It drove me crazy haha
Like the “Tiger” in the film though, I’m willing to overlook it all just because of the sheer effort put into and believability most of the the rest of film had. Tom Hanks and the others leads knocked it out of the park.
I haven't seen it in years, but Saving Private Ryan is one of my favorite WW2 movies. Though he didn't see battle my grandfather served for the navy during WW2. I asked my grandmother why he never spoke about his experiences while serving. She said that my grandfather just saw it as a job. He wanted to help and when he was done and returned home he never said anything.
As far as WW2 films go the last time I visited with him about 5 or so years ago he was watching FURY on tv. When it came to the scene with the US troops talking to the German women he said "If you pulled something like that when I was serving you'd be court-martialed." I told him it was a movie. They have to add crap like that for suspense.
I love your detail on these. I saw a civilian Unertl that had the spring, and had wondered about that, thank you.
Am I the only one seeing an audio desync after 0:49? It's like the video portion goes straight into the analysis, while the audio is still talking about the contest to win the rifle. It's so uncanny, I actually duplicated the tab and started one video with audio around that time and then muted the first video so I could watch it in a more or less synced up manner.
I think the reason why he was cycling with his left hand was because he was supporting himself against the window with his right arm and didn't want to have to readjust each time he cycled with his right hand.
It is more what he was used to. I had never seen anyone outside of benchrest shooters do it the way Ian did. As a kid in the 60's, I always cycled the bolt from over the top.
Very good video! When I first watched Saving Private Ryan, I was taken aback by Jackson's operation of the bolt on the Springfield because my Dad worked a Springfield bolt in the exact same way. He got his Army Commission in 1939. By the time WW2 started he had lots of practice on Springfields. As a left eye predominant shooter, he always sholdered the rifle on his left and used his left hand/little finger over the top of the rifle to access the bolt. Cycling was a fluid operation for him, but as you said he did not have to contend with a scope. I'll bet he would have made it work. Also, I have a picture of him firing a BAR during the 1942 Lousiana maneouvers, off his left shoulder, with a towel tied around his head as a pad for the ejecting brass. The Army really doesn't do left handed...
So I watched the presentation and was impressed with the technical knowledge and the way you explained things. I do have one observation to make though. I was a soldier, Australian army and note that anyone in the army in a specialist position is likely to personalise their equipment. So what is military and official issue is not what any given soldier might be carrying. I was barely in 6 months and got a hold of extra pouches for my webbing. A small thing but it meant more food for me. Now a dedicated sniper who knows the Lyman Alaskan scope is better, he could well have acquired one, as soldiers do, and it would not be official record. So is it safe to say that none existed at Normandy?
Everything was in short supply even on/in the states. The ability to barter and trade for something high end (for the day) is possible but very unlikely, and especially for a Marine Corps scope that would never cross into the EU theater at all. If this movie was based in the Pacific theater, I would agree with you.
The majority of movies portray aiming down a scope left-handed because it's deemed that the right side of the face is the dominant side for closeups. Not sure if that's a mental predisposition to favor the right, or it's a mirror effect for the viewer, or what else, but that's something I've explicitly been taught in the industry-always film shooters up close with a lefty stance.
For context, the actor is right-dominant and the person portrayed was also right-dominant. This is a conscious cinematic choice.
That would explain why a good sniper would be so fumbly with his cycling of the bolt- even of a right handed rifle.
interesting, cause even a lefty with a right handed bolt has serious hurdles to overcome and not fumble, granted the ones ive had to use because left handed bolts are a pain to find (yes they make them, good luck finding one) had a much bigger scope
makes a whole lotta sense
I believe ret. USMC Col. Dale Dye ran the boot camp for the actors of "Saving Private Ryan" USMC shooting doctrine has been for many years that when operating a rifle , The foreward sling hand you do not move, to perform operations on the weapon. So there may have been just a bit of bleed over from ingrained USMC training. "Always have positive control of your rifle" Just my opinion, Ret. USMC Recon Marine.
Dale Dye was responsible for the incomprehensible hand and arm signals in Band of Brothers and SPR. Nothing remotely like what would have been used during WW2.
It's a bit more of a frivolous use of your knowledge but I'd love to see more of this sort of thing
To all your points: perhaps. By this time in WW2, the US was low in all equipment and I'm believing that substitutions of just about anything and sharing between the individual forces was likely. That the movie picked up on that isn't all that likely. The substitution of the Alaskan for the Weaver - that for me was a real possibilty. I have one of the alaskan scopes from that era, which doesn't say much, but I certainly can see it on that gun in that location at that time. My scope is on a gun with a mauser action and it works with the bolt just fine - no issues.
The bolt issue isn't. Every guy will cycle his gun the way he does it.
BTW did anyone else see the clear plastic bag covering the gun in the landing craft-unloading scene in that movie? Now there's a real out-of-era mistake.
Fascinating! I’ve always wondered about the way he left handed cycles the bolt. And I always laughed about the number of shots he took in the last battle.
😳 “Parker get outtt!!!”💥
I’m a righty but I can do just about everything ambidextrous, I know not everyone is capable of that but if I had a left handed rifle I would shoot it lefty and same for a right handed rifle. When I started training I made a point to switch hands a lot and get good with Both. Same thing with welding. I can lay a bead just as good with my left because I trained to do so. So whatever position is going to yield the best result I go with it.
I still can’t hardly write my name left handed but by god I can throw a knife 20 feet with it,
I shoot left or right. For a bolt action rifle, rotate the rifle with the top of the rifle to the left then work the bolt with the left hand.
@@nicholaspayne349Dominant hand isn't the issue so much as dominant eye for many of us
@@wilfredmacdonald8245 That's a better method than depicted in the movie but still inferior to the method Ian demonstrated for a couple of reasons. One of them is ejection issues. Another is quicker target acquisition. I have been shooting ambidextrously since 1968 and have extensively tested many methods of left-handed operation for every weapon I have handled. The method Ian demonstrated is far superior to any method involving left-handed operation of the bolt.
I think that it might depend on the rifle model. I have never had to use a bolt action in combat. I have only used an 8mm, an early model 70 Winchester, a model 67 Winchester 22 .And a 1905 Mannlicher.
Being a left-hander, and having only ever used bolt-action rifles, I can understand how much of a pain it would be to have your reloading hand wrapped in a strap. I always operated the bolt with my right hand and fired with my left, and used my left eye to sight.
I'm Australian, so my use of rifles was curtailed many years ago. However, I did use a rifle back in the day. Left-handed, and with a right eye that has retina damage made for interesting adjustments in the way I used a rifle and sights. Yep, never used a scope on a rifle. Oh, and I need to thank you. This was one of the most interesting videos on this subject that I've seen. It was a brilliant, geeky critique of movie accuracy that both entertained and educated me. Cheers, mate.
You would let your use of a rifle get curtailed.
@@cannibalcorpse75 No. It is relatively easy to get a firearms license in Australia, as long as you pass relevant security checks and have a bona fide reason to have a rifle, either for sport shooting at a club, stock control on a property, or as a licensed feral animal hunter.
But hey, look at our mass-shooting record compared to the US. Well-implemented firearms ownership laws work. It's too late for the US though. That place has become a gun lover's utopia. Better to have open gun laws and children dying every day from gun violence than to hinder that 2nd Amendment bull-kaka.
@@BradGryphonn ah mate, whilst you’re correct all the way, that bloke is surely a troll and not worth your time ;)
If your government suddenly tells you your right to speak was "bull-kaka", I'm sure you'd be fine with that to and shut on up right? Because what are you going to do about it? Nothing.
So, given a lot of the small details included in this movie, and the attention to detail paid, I have a headcanon resolving the scope issues. Jackson is one of, if not the only unit members to be shown with the telltale "grand thumb" bruise, meaning he was doing things before D-Day on his own, such as practicing with a garand "just in case" and him getting the garand thumb makes sense because he would be less used to avoiding it as the people who used them exclusively. On to the scopes. Given that the Alaskan became publicly available in 1939, and D-Day was in 1944, I say Jackson acquired it on his own, thinking, since the military preferred them, it was a better scope. Given having the Alaskan, and the garand thumb, this is a soldier who likes to be prepared for as many possibilities as possible. So, to cover his second scope, I believe private Jackson, when back on base in the U.S., whether through his company armorer, or range time with marine snipers, requested, bartered or outright bought his own unertl scope, and because they were able to cludge together a scope mount that worked on his rifle for the movie, there is no reason to think that wasn't his own idea and tinkering.
-- Your first point is wrong. The Lyman Alaskan scope were on tier 1 shooters rifles. One of my grandfathers had one on his Springfield in WWII, carried it through training and onto downrange. They were also gifted from families, much like the civilian Thompson that could take the box and drum, where the military version could not. How do I know. Pictures, stories from gran, and I have his rifle.
Your remaining points are correct, all of them.
Note as a left handed shooter myself I'd be remise if I didn't mention they tried to play this on Kyle Rittenhouse in a round-about way. And also as a lefty with a right handed bolt, no, you don't reach over and cycle. You cycle with your right, keep your left on fire control. From a rested position, it's a real advantage, a lefty with a right handed action. I learned with a sling and a scope. Found it easy to outpace lever actions easily with that technique.
Thumbs up.
its fascinating to hear names in historical context like weaver and lyman that we kinda overlook today as the people that pioneered the ability to put a scope on just about anything
Hey Ian, I’ve been doing my own research into this topic, and I think I figured out why they used a Lyman Alaskan instead of a Weaver.
If you look closely at the scope in the bell tower scene, you may notice that the scope isn’t actually a Unertl USMC scope. It looks very similar, but the adjustment knobs on it don’t correspond to what the Marines used.
After some further digging, I’ve come to find out that the scope used is actually a Lyman Supertarget, which does look similar to a Unertl and WAS procured by the US military for competition shooting purposes.
It’s possible that the scope mounting rings for the Lyman Alaskan would fit onto the Supertarget, so they just used that as a stand-in for the Unertl.
No, they would not have.
@@ForgottenWeapons thanks for the speedy reply. However, I still think the scope is a Lyman Super Targetspot. On the IMFDB discussion page for the movie, somebody points out that the parallax adjustment sleeve is different between the two and it more closely resembles the Lyman Super Targetspot.
Also, the adjustment knobs on the scope when he has the Targetspot mounted don’t look the same as the USMC Unertl ones.
The scope is a Lyman, the AO is different on the 2, most Unertls had a double locking ring for the AO, pushing and pulling the lenses back and forth, but the big give away is the markings, Unertls are fewer (10) and more separated where the Lyman had more, 50 I believe. The Lyman objective has an overall tapered shape where the Unertl is straight.
If the scope were a Lyman Alaskan, then his activity at the bell tower may have been adding on a Litschert power booster making the scope roughly 8x. I believe both were available during the period. Made sense to me....
Lyman Targetspot or Super Targetspot that is, bot of which were externally adjustable and have black knobs like the one he added.
Being a Marine left handed shooter ( 1968 ) i to struggled with reaching over the scope to work the bolt - in fact i still have that very problem even now 😀
I finally found a lefty converted 03 back about 1986. Was done by sedgely back in the 50's.
As usual, Ian hits another home run. Thanks!
Always thought Jackson firing left handed was the most unique aspect of Saving Private Ryan. Pepper supposedly being left/left takes a little of the magic away, but them adapting the role to the actor is pretty cool as well. Being left handed but right eye dominant, I actually prefer shooting rested bolts with left hand actions like Ian shows as I maintain consistent control of the grip.
I think in filmmaking, there’s a desire to ride the middle between accuracy and film-presence or gravitas. The detail of him switching scopes is supremely cool in theory and executes a Chekov’s gun (by explaining why he was carrying that weird tube the whole movie) even though it’s not realistic. That said, depending on the project, I think filmmakers should prioritize accuracy over gravitas. That extra level of attention to detail really takes action scenes to the next level for me.
I think filmmakers rarely bother with historical accuracy, especially where weapons are concerned. I remember when I was growing up people talking about the movie El Cid, and I was anxious to see it. Since we didn't even have VHS back then, it was years before I had a chance to satisfy my wish. By then I'd become somewhat knowledgeable about the history of weapons development, so I could tell what kinds of swords and armour were worn in which periods. El Cid was a DISASTER in this aspect! All the weapons were completely wrong for the period, even El Cid's famous sword was at least 200 years off, not to mention some pretty silly choices in shields and other details. That ruined the film for me(even more than the excessive screentime given to Sophia Loren's tedious character...) Ignorance is bliss.
@@psychonaut5921S'truth! The same for the movie 'Excalibur' showing men with full plate armor for a period where the best you could hope for was chain mail or segmented armor.
Almost completely ruined the movie for anyone with a clue.
@@ronsmith1573 that's like 1% of the viewers
@@ronsmith1573 LOL
I own a J.W. Fecker version (the original) competition scope. It's a wonderful optical and mechanical device, and is one of my cherished possessions, along with a pair of (highly modified) model 1922 M2 Springfield target rifles. These were passed down to me by my maternal grandmother, who was a southeast regional target shooting champion in the 50's.
Ian, you might want to explore the history of J.W. Fecker/Unertl. J.W. Fecker was an optics giant in the pre-WWII era, the firm producing huge astronomical telescopes and sophisticated optical instruments. Rifle scopes were just a component of their business. Unertl worked at J.W. Fecker, and in 1928 started his own business or spun off to become "Unertl". My scope is a later one as it has coated optics. Optical coating technology was not available until after WWII, however, it is possible that my grandma had the scope rebuilt and upgraded by J.W. Fecker or Unertl, she was a serious competitor. I'm not aware of any Fecker spotting scopes so I think Unertl developed those products. As far as I know the Unertl rifle scopes are essentially Fecker designs, both are known for excellence. J.W. Fecker the company went on with the core optical business for many years, eventually being bought and incorporated into a succession of optical firms.
Should train to shoot Both ways...if one eye injured other is intuitively familiar ..
This was really fascinating. It's cool to learn about how the weapons were really used at the time. SUBSCRIBED!!
I love surplus firearms and also have an eye problem that requires me to shoot lefty. One of the best things that happend for me was the popularity of scoped pistols finally causing decent long eye relief scopes to become common. It's so much easier to reach over the action and to load from stripper clips with the scope in a foward mount. An added bonus is the availability of forward mounts that use the original front sight base without modification.
This is very cool to see; as when I first saw the movie, and being a left handed shooter myself; I wondered why Pvt. Jackson was reaching over the rifle with his left hand to operate the bolt (I always used my right hand to cycle the bolt); interesting that you’ve done this video all these years later and mentioned this. Thanks for all you do, Ian!
I’m a lefty shooter, 45 years, and have manipulate right handed rifles both ways shown. Just kind of depends on how the rifle is configured and to probably some degree the weight.
The 1917 sling isn't just for carting the rifle around. It's a shooting aid, and pretty much all military training was done with the sling. In The Art of the Rifle, Cooper talks about Marines slinging up and taking seated shooting positions to shoot Japanese soldiers retreating across a river.
I can't imaging NOT using a sling for a distant target, in which case, your hand simply isn't free to operate the bolt.
So I got a weird glitch. The audio is not matching up to the picture? Anyone else having this issue?
I heard the Marines offered to help with D-Day, but the Army said no.
When the Rangers where delayed at Point Du Hoc one of the OICs of the the Marine advisor teams offered to go ashore but it was quickly shot down as the news papers would have likely read “Marines save Rangers at Normandy” like when 5th and 6th Marines stole the spotlight from 2ID and 3ID in 1918.
@jackncoke8527 makes sense. I heard they offered to help in the planning stages, too. I heard the Rangers landed at Point Du Hoc first, then tried to get more people to land there, but their comms wouldn't work.
Plinking with 30-06 is more like BLAMKING.
Audio doesn’t sync up with the video past 0:55
This was really interesting, as someone who likes to break down firearm use in films. I’d like to see more of your takes on this, Ian.
Guys let me share a story from Afghanistan. A group of friends I knew captured a No. 1 Mk3 Enfield and took it upon them selves to mount a scope on it. From what I understand this was just a standard iron sight rifle that they devised scope mounts for. They used it repeatedly during their deployment in Afghanistan, apparently to good effect.
They destroyed it when they rotated back to the States.
The point is, did soldiers do in field modifications to their weapons? They sure did, and still do. Was this a common practice? No. But it wasn’t, and isn’t unheard of.
I think there is a saying used by Ian in an earlier post.
“Soldiers will be soldiers”
If there is a way to make things happen ( both good or bad) soldiers will find a way to do it.
As usual a great analysis from Ian!
As a former movie student and movie armorer here is my thoughts on "Saving private Ryan":
Movies have to find the balance beetween accuracy and "realism", this last notion being relative in movies and can be best translated to : "what the average spectator might perceive as realistic, given what they might know about weapons, war and history in the context of this movie".
As such the free floating scope in that instance, while accurate, would have been seen as a "distracting error" for modern audiences used to fixed scopes.
-Film editors are not the most aware of guns and weapons which might explain the tendancy of movies to have guns that fire more rounds than their magazine capacity or not to show reloads unless it is relevant for tension built up.
FYI : there is an other "gun error" at the end of the movie.
When Miller shoot at the Tiger with his 1911, the slide does not actually open on an empty magazine. If you look closely at the slide it is halfway back with the recoil plug still forward of the grip assembly, meaning he had a failure to feed. Most probably because of the profile of the blanks used in that scene. (i had many instances during movie shooting, some guns just HATE blanks!).
"Saving private Ryan" tell a story and is not as a whole a war documentary. It has many innacuracies and "errors".
The funny one is that according to the book "the longest day", there was a Ryan who turned 20 on D-Day who was part of the 2nd Rangers bataillon (Miller's unit) and survived, at least, the day.
Given that Miller's platoon links up with the 101st in Carentan before the battle of Hill 30 we can set the date at June 13th BEFORE Utah and Omaha beach heads were linked. Then it made no sense to send a Platoon from Omaha when it would have been far simplier to send one from Utah which had linked up with the 101st and 82nd by the end of june 6th!
There is no village across the Mederet river, the village of "Ramelle" is made up and is supposed to represent the bloodly battle of "La Fiere", which is 3miles west of Sainte-mère-église, fought by the 82nd during that time.
Even then that movie raise the bar on "realism" closer to accuracy than any WW2 movie or war movie before it.
This was a great read, thank you for sharing!
Coming from a Mexican neighborhood where almost everyone had a war hero Dad we didn't like the phony death scenes of the WWII movies. SPR helped lots of grandkids appreciate what our Dads and Uncles suffered for freedom. My Dad was the hero of our war hero family, he had 3 younger cousins that did multiple jumps in Korea and 2 nephews that were Navy corpsmen in Vietnam
Ian you have taught us all for a long time now but today you answered a question that has been at the back of my mind for 35 years.
Ages ago, I used to shoot at a rifle range quite often and got to know the RSO quite well. He would ask for my spent 30-30 brass, but only if it was Winchester brand. He reloaded for and shot a wildcat round (I think it was .18 cal?) using those casings which he necked down. He competed in bench rest events. One day he brought his rifle out and let me shoot it. That was the first and last time, until today, that I saw a scope with a spring on it. I guess he had a Unertyl scope. Maybe there were other models with springs ...who knows? That rifle shot like a laser beam and drove tacks a long way out.
Ian, you have to remember that in many cases, historical errors in movies are done deliberately for some reason, often aesthetics etc. Given that SPR is somewhat fictional, giving Jckson the scope the US Army wanted, but didn't get in reality, makes sense.
The main thing I saw the first time I watched it was the scope change out when he was shooting the German sniper. That scope can't be swapped out and the scope he changed too wasn't used by the Army that was a Marine Corp scope used on the 1903 not the 1903A4 used in the move I know i own one.
When I first saw the movie I also caught the scope issue, much to the pleasure of my wife, who just loves me to comment on all the mistakes in movies. Like you, I found it interesting that Spielberg/Hanks would allow such a slip up. Might as well call an 88mm a 105mm. Given the small diameter of the objective lenses and 2 1/2X power, a guy would have to be pretty skilled to hit running targets.
Do you believe hanks or Spielberg know anything about guns?
@@austindenotter19 No.
I recall the last point coming up in a video Ian did some years ago where he cycled a bolt-action with his right hand. I commented that this seemed an easier way to do it. So it's interesting to hear that addressed. Barry Pepper is apparently left-handed IRL, all that remains would be to hear his thoughts on the matter.
audio is not sincronized, dammmm
@ Ian - Forgotten Weapons - Great analysis, Ian, thanks for doing it. A few comments, if you don't mind...
Regarding the presence - or lack thereof - of the U.S. Marine Corps in the ETO generally and at the invasion of Normandy specifically, the decision was taken very early on in the war that the conflict in the Pacific was to be "their" war and that the Army would do the fighting on land in North Africa, the Med, and Europe. Technically, there were Marines in those theaters, but only token forces - mostly afloat aboard men of war of the U.S. Navy, embassy guards, and things of that nature. U.S. Marines also participated to an extent in a few small operations on Greenland and Iceland. Navy beach-masters were ashore at Normandy as well, the Navy and USMC both being a part of the Dept. of the Navy (in those days the Corps was not as independent as it became later after the Key West Agreement of 1948).
Great breakdown of the numerous errors in the sniper rifles shown being used by Private Jackson. Many fans have known about the switch in size/power of the scopes from early in the film to later in the film when he is obviously using an 8x Unertl and not a low-power 2 or 2.5x Lyman or Weaver.
For too many reasons to mention here, "Saving Private Ryan" was a watershed WW2 film. Perhaps most-importantly, Director Steven Spielberg and his technical advisors took the time to recreate the landing at Ohama and subsequent battles in such a way as to immediately raise the bar for all films that came after in terms of their technical and historical accuracy. However great the film was/is, however, it is filled with historical errors. There is an expert on the 101st A/B Division who wrote a series of lengthy articles on the errors just about the paratroopers depicted, I am sorry I don't recall his name - but it can probably be found on the web.
The Tiger tank is actually a cleverly-disguised T34-85 mocked up and modified to resemble a Tiger I. Honestly, only someone who is a WW2 history nerd would even notice that the road wheels and suspension on tank are those of a T34 and not a Tiger. Likewise, the scene in the climatic battle where the Germans fire their "20mm cannon" against the American troops - that is actually a British Boys .55-caliber AT rifle, heavily-modified to resemble a 20mm cannon. Again, not many folks in a general audience know that.
One of the biggest flaws, historically-speaking, in the film - was pointed out early on by Dr. Stephen E. Ambrose, upon whose books the film was based. Namely, that the soldiers depicted in the various American units were often too old to have held that rank or been in combat, or even in uniform at all. Age and time in grade requirements existed then. You'd need a waiver to be a captain in the Rangers as old as Tom Hanks, and it is highly doubtful a man in his forties (as Hanks was at the time) would have been leading a squad in combat. Captains command companies, they don't act as squad leaders. The script explains it away as a "special mission," but whatever. The criticism of Ambrose was shot down by Spielberg and Hanks and that was that.
Hollywood likes to cast somewhat older men as younger men in war films; they've been doing it for a long time. "Band of Brothers" - which came a few years later from the same production team - was better in this regard, but still did it.
The last problem in the film isn't an just an error per se, but a criticism of an unnecessary part of the film. The whole "mutiny scene" is unnecessary and detracts from otherwise good story. It is also bogus in the sense that no U.S.Army Ranger unit during WW2 engaged in mutiny or failed to follow orders. Rangers were an elite, and half-steppers and malcontents didn't get into the unit in the first place to any great extent, and those that did were ruthlessly weeded out. The stakes on D-Day were too high for the Rangers for anything but the best officers and enlisted men to be there.
But I digress.... thanks for an interesting video.
Former Infantry. Machine gun nest, scene... The sniper, alone, could have taken the gunners out from distance, unobserved. No American casualties.
There were a couple more glitches in the SPR movie. One being, if I recall correctly, the motorcycle Tom Hanks took cover behind was actually a postwar model. But, going back to the sniper position in the bell tower ... the German Marder was far too close to the tower to be able to take out the sniper position. The cannon in the Marder had a maximum elevation of 16⁰ above horizonal. That means the Marder would have had to be at least 90-100 feet from the base of the tower - all the way across the square. Not directly below the tower as shown in the movie.
I was thinking that too.
Actually , the glaring error in Saving Private Ryan is that the US never encountered Panzer divisions
equipped with tiger tanks during the Normandy Campaign . It was the British and Canadian divisions who faced nearly all the Panzer divisions around Caen . The one exception , as shown in Band of Brothers , is the 101st and 82nd airborne faced the 17th Panzer Grenadiers . By June 30th , The US 2nd div may have faced the 2nd Panzer div equipped with Panther tanks .
I think you could call Ian a nitpicker.