Checking book references to guns.

P

Pond James Pond

New member
As we know it is not uncommon for writers of both page and screen to refer to guns in their works in ways that the knowledgeable recognise as false or inaccurate.

I am knowledgeable enough to think that something sounds off, but not enough to be sure so here are some bits from one of the first books I have been able to sit down and read since my first was born almost 4 years ago!!

So, central to the plot is a .22 calibre pistol which fires subsonics with a silencer, uses soft-point ammo that are still powerful enough to "blow half a guy's face off" with the exit wound. The only .22 subsonic I can think of is 22LR or 22Short and neither has the power to do that, AFAIK. Any others that could be?
Anyway it seems to follow a long tradition of the little .22 cal being the cold-hearted killer's cartridge of choice!


The other eye-roller was when the main character is given a "pistol" to protect himself and he is handed a .44Mag DE! Subtle!
However, the bit I'm not sure about is the bit hen the author assigns the gun an 14.5" barrel.
Was such a DE ever made?

Only half way through the book. Could more gems follow? If so I'll post them here.
 
James Patterson seems to take pleasure in writing nonsense about guns in his books. I took the time to catalog a number of egregious gun errors in his books and offer him some assistance in the future, but he never responded to my communication.

Among the errors were things like checking for bullets in the magazine of a revolver, clicking the safety on a Glock, a 30 gauge shotgun and a .40 caliber PSG-1 takedown sniper rifle.

I wonder if he may actually be making a statement by the obviousness of the errors. e.g. "Hey, I have to use guns in my stories but look, I obviously know nothing about them--I'm not one of those nasty gun guys."
 
So, central to the plot is a .22 calibre pistol which fires subsonics with a silencer, uses soft-point ammo that are still powerful enough to "blow half a guy's face off" with the exit wound
Click to expand...

Were all the main characters in the story squirrels or rabbits? That might explain it.
 
Considering there are plenty of guides to keep authors straight on all kinds of things, it's downright irritating to see this kind of stuff.
I've given up on quite a few authors who are too lazy to do the research of what they write.
And it seems to be often true that their stories are as unbelievable, too, usually with lousy endings.
Hate that, after putting in all the effort to get there.
If the story you're reading ends up a waste of time, maybe you should scratch that guy altogether.
And don't forget to add your review to the Amazon page for the book.
Might save others the expense of money and time.
 
The "tradition" of modern writers to not bother to be accurate when it comes to guns and gun related things goes back a ways. At least to Ian Fleming and the James Bond books, and likely much earlier, though I have no current references to point to.

When Bond gets his .25 Beretta replaced with a .32 Walther PPK (which became the iconic James Bond pistol) he is told that it "hits like a brick through a plate glass window". This, to Americans anyway, is the complete opposite of the traditional British penchant for understatement.

.22 calibre pistol which fires subsonics with a silencer, uses soft-point ammo that are still powerful enough to "blow half a guy's face off" with the exit wound.
Click to expand...

Subsonic means below the speed of sound, which is approximately 1,068fps at sea level. Standard velocity .22 Short is subsonic, even out of a rifle barrel (though just barely subsonic) .22LR breaks the sound barrier and modern "hi vel" ammo out of a 6" pistol barrel (~1250fps) is still supersonic.

.22 rimfire slugs are lead, or plated lead, and are softer than jacketed bullets, so even without a hollow point they all work like "soft point" ammo. .22WMR (.22 Magnum) uses an actual copper jacketed bullet, but its even FURTHER from subsonic than a .22LR.

I do wonder, if he's only half a guy, why one would need to blow his face off...:rolleyes:

The other eye-roller was when the main character is given a "pistol" to protect himself and he is handed a .44Mag DE! Subtle!
However, the bit I'm not sure about is the bit hen the author assigns the gun an 14.5" barrel.
Was such a DE ever made?
Click to expand...

The Desert Eagle was, at one time, offered with either the 6" (standard) or a 10" or a 14" barrel (either 14" or 14.5" I no longer remember exactly). So, as far as technically, the writer got that one right, as something that does/did actually exist.

Fiction writers write FICTION. The best of them write believable fiction, but many do not. They're usually smart enough not to put a 440 Dodge Hemi on a Harley Davidson, but when it comes to gun terms it seems many of them simply put all the terms in a hat, and draw one out when they need to describe a gun, or anything related.

One trash post apocalyptic fiction I read had Pythons shooting .44 Magnums (Python is .357) and M16s shooting "7.62mm tumblers". (easily a couple decades before a 7.62mm AR15 existed). I no longer remember the author, or the book, only stuck in my mind because that guy got EVERY gun he described wrong!

If you want a real "eye roller" then look at Don Pendleton's "Executioner" series, especially the early ones. 600yard shot, from a boat on Lake Michigan, using a .460 Weatherby with a 20x scope, shoots golf ball off the tee at the feet of a Mafia Don (first shot, as a "warning", the rest were all head shots, with the "super sniper Executioner "riding out the recoil" keeping the target in the scope field of view.

With a 20x scope at 100yds, I can barely keep the target in the field of view shooting a 12lb .22-250 from a solid bench, so in this, Mack Bolan is a better man than I...way better...inhumanly better...:rolleyes::D

I won't say they all get them wrong on purpose, but it happens so often, it does give one cause to wonder....
 
Considering there are plenty of guides to keep authors straight on all kinds of things, it's downright irritating to see this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is plenty of help out there for them. Maybe they really do, do it on purpose.

And there seems to be a 'trend' for authors to seek out others for help for their books. I must be getting old here but I think the writers should write their books, look stuff up themselves if they need it and stand on their own two feet as far as the content goes.

I'm getting a bit riled up here but there is a female author (and I'm not going to give her any additional publicity, she is already really famous) and she had 32 contributors to one of her books. THIRTY-TWO!!!. Heck, let each one write four or five pages and she wouldn't have had to contribute at all!

And then, AND THEN, her heroine works in a GUN SHOP and knows all things 'gun' and STILL doesn't know the difference between the CYLINDER and the BARREL of a revolver!!! Couldn't just ONE of those 32 contributors have been a gun guy or gun gal???

(I think these threads are healthy for me. With my clogged up arteries the higher blood pressure keeps the stuff circulating through the old body. Thanks guys!)
 
So nonsense on the .22 but OK on the DE, although laying it on a bit thick with the tough guy image.

If a .44Mag DE makes the lead character a tough guy, 44AMP, what kind of unstoppable machine does your collection make you, I wonder? :eek:
 
I once spotted the cover of a paperback western .The cowboys revolver spit out empties like a semi-auto ! Then on second look I realized he was shooting a cap and ball revolver !!
Of course it could have been artistic problem rather than writers problem ! :rolleyes:
 
Same author, second book....

.... and I've just learnt that the Glock 17 is a piece of fine craftsmanship that gets its name from its 17rd capacity but lacks the stopping power of the Beretta 92F (which presumably gets its name from its 92rd capacity...).

I suppose I won't complain about the Glock having a firing pin rather than a striker. That would be pedantic....
 
I suppose I won't complain about the Glock having a firing pin rather than a striker. That would be pedantic....
Click to expand...

Go ahead and complain. These guys are getting a paycheck for this stuff so I think you're entitled.

Personally I feel all kinds of superior when I find these glitches. I mean, here I am knowing this stuff and a big time, high paid author doesn't... huh... maybe I SHOULD go out and get a life.
 
44 AMP said:
One trash post apocalyptic fiction I read had Pythons shooting .44 Magnums (Python is .357) and M16s shooting "7.62mm tumblers". (easily a couple decades before a 7.62mm AR15 existed). I no longer remember the author, or the book, only stuck in my mind because that guy got EVERY gun he described wrong!
Click to expand...

Tsk, tsk.

The AR-10 preceded the AR-15/M16. Stoner originally designed it in 7.62x51, anticipating that the military would continue using the same ammo as the M14. The design was downsized to 5.56 when the military decreed that they weren't looking for the new rifle to be 7.62x51.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Stoner

Wikipedia said:
In 1955, Stoner completed initial design work on the revolutionary AR-10, a lightweight (7.25 lbs.) selective-fire infantry rifle in 7.62×51mm NATO caliber. The AR-10 was submitted for rifle evaluation trials to the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground late in 1956. In comparison with competing rifle designs previously submitted for evaluation, the AR-10 was smaller, easier to fire in automatic, and much lighter. However it arrived very late in the testing cycle, and the army rejected the AR-10 in favor of the more conventional T44, which became the M14. The AR-10's design was later licensed to the Dutch firm of Artillerie Inrichtingen, who produced the AR-10 until 1960 for sale to various military forces.[2]
The AR-15 rifle, derived from Stoner's original design.

At the request of the U.S. military, Stoner's chief assistant, Robert Fremont and Jim Sullivan designed the AR-15 from the basic AR-10 model, scaling it down to fire the small-caliber .223 Remington cartridge, slightly enlarged to meet the minimum Army penetration requirements. The AR-15 was later adopted by United States military forces as the M16 rifle.[2][3]
Click to expand...
 
So, central to the plot is a .22 calibre pistol which fires subsonics with a silencer, uses soft-point ammo that are still powerful enough to "blow half a guy's face off" with the exit wound.
Click to expand...

The only thing wrong with that statement is the "powerful enough to blow half a guy's face off" part. I often shoot 22LR subsonics out of my Ruger Single Six. I suppose a round nose lead bullet might be called a 'softpoint'.

The 14" Desert Eagle is complete fabrication though. Did they even sell Thompson Contender pistols with a barrel that long?
 
Thompson Contender sells 10" and "Super14" 14 inch barrels for the pistol and 16" barrels for their rifle than can be used on the pistol (without the rifle stock).
You could place any of the Contender barrels on a gun with the pistol stock. I have a 22" 30-30 barrel that I can use with a pistol stock. They all fit the same frame and there is no law against a "long barreled" pistol. You can't legally use the barrels shorter than 16" with the rifle stock because there is a law against a "short barreled" rifle.
 
I'm well aware of the AR10 and its history. The author of the trash I was referring to (again, sorry I've forgotten what it was called) specifically referred to AR15s and M16s shooting "7.62mm tumblers".

While the name of the author and the book have faded from my memory, the degree of the error stuck in my memory.

The 14" Desert Eagle is complete fabrication though. Did they even sell Thompson Contender pistols with a barrel that long?
Click to expand...

The only way you can consider a 14" Desert Eagle to be a complete fabrication is that the factory fabricated them. They are real, and a google search will turn up dozens of pictures and some videos. The intent, of course was for long range shooting and the silhouette game.

T/C indeed has a number of 14" barrels, I have 3 of them, one in .45-70, one in .30-30, and one in .45Win Mag. While I don't have one, I understand the 14" .35 Rem barrel is a popular one too. 14" barrels for Contenders are easy to find. If you want a challenge, try finding a factory 6" barrel for the Contender! (I have 2, one in .357Mag, and one in 9mm Luger)

the Glock 17 is a piece of fine craftsmanship that gets its name from its 17rd capacity but lacks the stopping power of the Beretta 92F
Click to expand...

This is almost priceless! Or at least good for a chuckle. Lacks the stopping power of another gun that FIRES THE EXACT SAME AMMUNITION?

Whatever the author got paid for his work, it was too much.;)
 
This is almost priceless! Or at least good for a chuckle. Lacks the stopping power of another gun that FIRES THE EXACT SAME AMMUNITION?

Whatever the author got paid for his work, it was too much.
Click to expand...

A further note. The author's characters must be wearing heavy duty clothes. The lead character was carrying that 14.5" DE in his pocket the hole time! If I did that, I'd be walking in circles!

We also found out the mystery .22: a Ruger Mark II which is allegedly a small .22 automatic. Well I owned a Mark III and it was not small!!

There was also an Ithaca Mag 10 featured that basically pulverised everything in a 45 degree cone ahead of it.

FYI, this author is a leading thriller writer and this character of epic pocket size has featured in a Hollywood film recently, so yeah: being paid pretty well!
 
It's not just the guns, these folks put BARs in the trenches of WWI, Patton at El Alamein, etc., etc. They don't care what you think about it, it's all about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top