How Much Do You Care About Weapons Accuracy? - CrimeSpace2024-03-29T08:47:44Zhttps://crimespace.ning.com/forum/topics/how-much-do-you-care-about?commentId=537324%3AComment%3A284969&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThey aren't silencers they ar…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-23:537324:Comment:2856172011-04-23T19:12:30.641ZTim Scanlonhttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/TimScanlon
<p>They aren't silencers they are suppressors. Lol.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For the original question, I do and don't care. I like to know that the writer has researched their topic but I also understand that it is fiction. I find it more jarring in movies than I do in books, probably because they do it for the visual effect. In books the errors are usually technical details the reader doesn't need anyway.</p>
<p>They aren't silencers they are suppressors. Lol.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For the original question, I do and don't care. I like to know that the writer has researched their topic but I also understand that it is fiction. I find it more jarring in movies than I do in books, probably because they do it for the visual effect. In books the errors are usually technical details the reader doesn't need anyway.</p> Depends on the make and model…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-20:537324:Comment:2849582011-04-20T04:06:50.202ZBenjamin Sobieckhttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/BenjaminSobieck
<p>Depends on the make and model. A Colt 1911 would. A Glock would. A Luger would not. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>When people use "pistol" in a generic sense, they most often think of the Colt 1911 (whether they know it or not). It's probably the most ubiquitous handgun in crime fiction. Most movies nowadays use Glocks, since they're more modern. And Lugers, they're always used by the bad guys.</p>
<p>Depends on the make and model. A Colt 1911 would. A Glock would. A Luger would not. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>When people use "pistol" in a generic sense, they most often think of the Colt 1911 (whether they know it or not). It's probably the most ubiquitous handgun in crime fiction. Most movies nowadays use Glocks, since they're more modern. And Lugers, they're always used by the bad guys.</p> This may be ignorance on my p…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-20:537324:Comment:2849692011-04-20T03:45:39.157ZZ. LaPorte Aireyhttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/ZLaPorteAirey
This may be ignorance on my part, but when the magazine is emptied from a pistol, doesn't the slide always lock in the open position? In many movies I have seen, the slide returns to the closed position. I have always wondered about this.
This may be ignorance on my part, but when the magazine is emptied from a pistol, doesn't the slide always lock in the open position? In many movies I have seen, the slide returns to the closed position. I have always wondered about this. The absolute worst is the "ge…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-20:537324:Comment:2849522011-04-20T03:43:43.707ZZ. LaPorte Aireyhttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/ZLaPorteAirey
<p>The absolute worst is the "generic gun sound" that happens in movies whenever a character raises their pistol. "cli-chick". Also, when suppressors are referred to as silencers and when magazines are referred to as clips. So annoying!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me, technical accuracy should be in one of two schools. Either use the bare-minimum of descriptions ("she shot him!"), or really understand how weapons work and use the technical details to enhance the atmosphere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For the…</p>
<p>The absolute worst is the "generic gun sound" that happens in movies whenever a character raises their pistol. "cli-chick". Also, when suppressors are referred to as silencers and when magazines are referred to as clips. So annoying!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me, technical accuracy should be in one of two schools. Either use the bare-minimum of descriptions ("she shot him!"), or really understand how weapons work and use the technical details to enhance the atmosphere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For the record, I have never fired a gun in my life, but I am a snob about firearm misinformation in stories. I'd suggest writers buy a high quality, gas powered airsoft pistol (with operating slide!) and learn to use it. I got one that is a near-exact replica of a Glock, and I am confident that I could dis-and-reassemble a real one if I had to.</p> There's enough information ou…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-17:537324:Comment:2845342011-04-17T23:35:37.728ZMatty Ohttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/MattyO
<p>There's enough information out there to get it right on guns or, for that matter, pretty much any other topic. But unless you're Stephen Hunter, I doubt it's really necessary to cover more than the basics. Unfortunately this is apparently a tough job for some writers. God is in the details, whether it be cars, guns, medicine, football, the nutritional value of twinkies, or whatever.</p>
<p>I recently read an excellent post-apocalyptic trilogy by a writer by Mitchell Smith, set in a future…</p>
<p>There's enough information out there to get it right on guns or, for that matter, pretty much any other topic. But unless you're Stephen Hunter, I doubt it's really necessary to cover more than the basics. Unfortunately this is apparently a tough job for some writers. God is in the details, whether it be cars, guns, medicine, football, the nutritional value of twinkies, or whatever.</p>
<p>I recently read an excellent post-apocalyptic trilogy by a writer by Mitchell Smith, set in a future ice age. I was impressed by the amount of research he'd done on numerous topics, including melee and stringed weapons (all information on 'boom-powder' lost). More importantly, it was all done with a purpose. It's all wasted if it doesn't serve the story or the character.</p> I don't know anything about g…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-15:537324:Comment:2841612011-04-15T19:08:51.485ZCaroline Trippehttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/CarolineTrippe
<p>I don't know anything about guns, so I wouldn't know about inaccuracies with weapons. There are lots of things I don't know about, so it would be difficult for me to spot an error---how a certain poison acts, whether killing someone in a certain way is actually feasible. But if I do know enough to spot something that's wrong, then it does bother me---at least in any serious novel.</p>
<p>If something doesn't SEEM right, or even possible, that bothers me too. Murders that hinge on too much…</p>
<p>I don't know anything about guns, so I wouldn't know about inaccuracies with weapons. There are lots of things I don't know about, so it would be difficult for me to spot an error---how a certain poison acts, whether killing someone in a certain way is actually feasible. But if I do know enough to spot something that's wrong, then it does bother me---at least in any serious novel.</p>
<p>If something doesn't SEEM right, or even possible, that bothers me too. Murders that hinge on too much chance, or circumstances that don't add up---how a body was disposed of by someone who couldn't even have lifted it, for instance. Writers do owe their readers that much--- to get it right, even if 90% of those readers won't notice. Whether it's guns, or poison, or forensic detail. You write for the one reader who's going to know. And, as IJ says, you do the research you need, and don't worry about the "know it all!" :)</p> On the other hand, I have had…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-15:537324:Comment:2841562011-04-15T17:24:06.631ZI. J. Parkerhttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/Ingpark
<p>On the other hand, I have had an Amazon reviewer take me to task because she thought I was wrong about a weapon, when it was she who had the wrong info. The frustrating thing was that I couldn't do anything about it.</p>
<p>My point is that you cannot worry too much about reader reactions. At best, they make small stuff seem like earth-shaking ignorance. At worst, they know a lot less than the author.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I have had an Amazon reviewer take me to task because she thought I was wrong about a weapon, when it was she who had the wrong info. The frustrating thing was that I couldn't do anything about it.</p>
<p>My point is that you cannot worry too much about reader reactions. At best, they make small stuff seem like earth-shaking ignorance. At worst, they know a lot less than the author.</p> Details matter. Someone, some…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-15:537324:Comment:2840782011-04-15T14:20:36.677ZJohn McFetridgehttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/JohnMcF
<p>Details matter. Someone, somewhere is concerned about everything.</p>
<p>I got email from a reader a little while ago pointing out that the marijuana-per-plant ratio in one of my books was wrong - or my growers were terrible at their jobs and should be replaced.</p>
<p>But there is a tendency to fetishize weapons and to draw out scenes in which they're involved.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Details matter. Someone, somewhere is concerned about everything.</p>
<p>I got email from a reader a little while ago pointing out that the marijuana-per-plant ratio in one of my books was wrong - or my growers were terrible at their jobs and should be replaced.</p>
<p>But there is a tendency to fetishize weapons and to draw out scenes in which they're involved.</p>
<p> </p> I agree that inaccuracies ten…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-15:537324:Comment:2840672011-04-15T08:26:41.633ZJessicahttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/Jessica
<p>I agree that inaccuracies tend to draw your attention away from the plot line. I remember reading a book once and getting so frustrated that the author had given a soldier life insurance, that I stopped reading the book! The problem was that it was a significant plot point and I know for a fact that soldiers don't ever get their lives insured - they get pay outs for their widows and pensions in the event of death.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But maybe that's an anal retentive thing...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I…</p>
<p>I agree that inaccuracies tend to draw your attention away from the plot line. I remember reading a book once and getting so frustrated that the author had given a soldier life insurance, that I stopped reading the book! The problem was that it was a significant plot point and I know for a fact that soldiers don't ever get their lives insured - they get pay outs for their widows and pensions in the event of death.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But maybe that's an anal retentive thing...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I prefer to read up on the weapons before I write about them (or ask my dad, who was an RSM in the Australian Army and is trained in most firearms including pistols) because otherwise I feel like a fraud when I'm describing them to other people. I agree with what Tanis and I.J. said, though - if you're putting in detail for detail's sake then it gets boring. Lee Cook springs to mind here. Some of his books are like instruction manuals. I just use enough detail to make sure the reader knows whats going on. Then I get back to the bloody story!</p> Except for the egregious erro…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2011-04-15:537324:Comment:2840312011-04-15T01:52:53.171ZDana Kinghttps://crimespace.ning.com/profile/DanaKing
Except for the egregious errors--like the rifle/shotgun thing Ben mentioned--I think the key is to keep the accuracy proportional to the amount of description or relevance the weapon has to the scene. If the guy has a handgun and any old handgun will do, call it a gun and it can shoot five, six, seven, fifteen rounds. Fine. Specify its a M1911 .45 ACP and it had better not fire fifteen rounds unless you made it clear he's using an extended magazine. Shoot a guy 150 yards away, and it had better…
Except for the egregious errors--like the rifle/shotgun thing Ben mentioned--I think the key is to keep the accuracy proportional to the amount of description or relevance the weapon has to the scene. If the guy has a handgun and any old handgun will do, call it a gun and it can shoot five, six, seven, fifteen rounds. Fine. Specify its a M1911 .45 ACP and it had better not fire fifteen rounds unless you made it clear he's using an extended magazine. Shoot a guy 150 yards away, and it had better be a rifle.