Firearm errors in books

[wvfarrier]

I read quite a bit, we rarely ever watch TV in this house and the book I am currently reading has some glaring firearm issues. Its pretty clear that the writer knows very little about single action revolvers and how the function. Its distracting enough to take away from the actual story. So my question to ya'll......do firearm errors make a book unreadable to you?

[JimT]

I read quite a bit, we rarely ever watch TV in this house and the book I am currently reading has some glaring firearm issues. Its pretty clear that the writer knows very little about single action revolvers and how the function. Its distracting enough to take away from the actual story. So my question to ya'll......do firearm errors make a book unreadable to you?

Some do.
Depends how egregious they are.

[Rockrat]

Like 'jimT' it depends on how bad it is and how much of it is in the book.

Now TV, I just laugh at how stupid some things are

[gamekeeper]

To me it casts doubt on how accurate the other things are that I know less about, if it is a novel the odd mistake is acceptable but shows lack of research on the part of the author. I once worked for a writer and film director who was also a shooter, he hated mistakes about firearms.

[GunnyMack]

It's any thing a person might be an expert in, for us it's guns. My dad was a professional pilot and he would always point out flubs in the aviation shows or movies.
Next time you see actors driving just look at their hands, if ya cranked back and forth on the wheel driving down the road you would be causing accidents, rolling over. It's the fact of people are dumb...not just writers but editors as well.

[AJMD429]

.
If it is a few years off availability and the type of firearm isn't important to the plot (i.e. using a '94 in 1890) I probably won't notice, but I'm sure if a movie about the Alamo had a Glock in it I'd be disturbed...!

HOWEVER what really ticks me off is how 'casual firearms use' will happen in movies, such as a father and son who are having a conversation while they happen to be skeet shooting or something, and it ALWAYS means that later on there will be a crime or accident involving those guns or individuals. Now if they were bowling or fishing or playing tennis, it's just a hobby or sport or passing time, but if they are hunting or target shooting, it won't just be in the plot for naught. That subliminal message comes across to the audience as "If there are ever guns involved as a hobby, sport, or whatever - they will also be misused and harm someone..." If that same dad and kid were having the conversation while fishing, it wouldn't automatically mean someone would drown or get blinded by a fish-hook in the eye later in the movie...

[marlinman93]

I've not read any books with enough detail in them to make me wonder about the writer's gun knowledge. I have seen plenty of movies with horrible mistakes to make me turn the channel though. Like just yesterday when I'm watching an old western on Grit channel and the hero is trying to buy a bunch of rifles in late Civil War era, and they're 1892 and 1894 Winchesters!

[piller]

I usually ignore errors about firearms if the rest of the book is good. For example, Louis L'Amour was obviously not a gun person, but his books were great descriptions of countryside and horseback travel. I pay no attention to where his hero can nick someone on the earlobe from 300 yards with open sights and a lever action rifle. Hitting the opponent at 300 yards in the chest would be more likely. John Wayne was a gun guy. So what if his rifle was not period correct. He readily admitted that it was all for the show. His pistols were usually period correct. Richard Boone was also one who tried to get his firearms period correct. Kevin "Chuck" Conners was another who tried for period correct firearms.

I read the Jack Reacher books for fun. The author of those books comes across to me as anti gun.
Clive Cussler owned and shot guns. He occasionally referenced things which only a few would know. In one book, though, someone is fishing with a Bassarino lure. The lure is actually a Bass Oreno. Editing probably messed up the name. Cussler did sometimes make mistakes, but not too often.

[wvfarrier]

In the current book I am reading, a Deputy Marshal "swings out the cylinder on a Colt SAA" proceeds to empty the cartridges and then..........checks the chamber for a round

[jeepnik]

I can overlook the mistakes of ignorant writers. But here's what gets me, and it's epitomized in Dirty Harry. Now Harry is a dead shot. Throughout the movie he makes shots that are spectacular. Then at the end when he's chasing the Andrew Robinson he can't hit the broad side of a barn.

[JimT]

Stephen Hunter got his gun stuff right.

[4t5]

WVFARRIER, apparently he was using a Colt DAA, the often forgotten (double action army).

[Pisgah]

"If it is a few years off availability and the type of firearm isn't important to the plot (i.e. using a '94 in 1890) I probably won't notice, but I'm sure if a movie about the Alamo had a Glock in it I'd be disturbed...!"


Not long ago I watched a so-called History Channel program on WW2. US soldiers on D-Day were armed with Mosin Nagant rifles; by the time of the Battle of the Bulge, troopers of the 101st were armed with flintlock rifles.

This is absolutely true, and I was too disgusted to stay with it and see who they say won the war...

[Griff]

I read quite a bit, we rarely ever watch TV in this house and the book I am currently reading has some glaring firearm issues. Its pretty clear that the writer knows very little about single action revolvers and how the function. Its distracting enough to take away from the actual story. So my question to ya'll......do firearm errors make a book unreadable to you?

Some do.
Depends how egregious they are.

Aye, likewise. It also depends on the age of the book/film. As an interesting aside, good article by Stephen Hunter in the recent NRA magazine on the development of his character Bob Lee Swaggart, ("Point of Impact"/book or "Shooter"/movie).