1917 movie 2




 
--
 
February 19th, 2020  
BritinAfrica
 
 

Topic: 1917 movie 2


I the first time in 30 years visited the local cinema to watch the movie 1917, I cant say I was impressed, but what it did show quite clearly was how fast the old Number1 Mk3 action could be used.
February 19th, 2020  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I the first time in 30 years visited the local cinema to watch the movie 1917, I cant say I was impressed, but what it did show quite clearly was how fast the old Number1 Mk3 action could be used.
And the Germans couldn't use their Mauser.
February 19th, 2020  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I the first time in 30 years visited the local cinema to watch the movie 1917, I cant say I was impressed, but what it did show quite clearly was how fast the old Number1 Mk3 action could be used.
I found once you got used to them they were very efficient.
--
February 21st, 2020  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
And the Germans couldn't use their Mauser.
I've used Mauser rifles, good accurate rifles but a very sloppy action. A better Mauser type is the Enfield P14/P17, very accurate and far less sloppy then Mauser.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I found once you got used to them they were very efficient.
I was trained in the RAF on the Number 4 Mk2, a stronger action then the Number 1 Mk3, but not as slick. I far prefered the Number 1 Mk3*

In my opinion the Lee Enfield Number 1 Mk3* was the best British battle rifle until the L1A1 SLR arrived on the scene.

The only real problem I've had with Lee Enfield is case head separation due to excessive headspacing.
February 21st, 2020  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I've used Mauser rifles, good accurate rifles but a very sloppy action. A better Mauser type is the Enfield P14/P17, very accurate and far less sloppy then Mauser.



I was trained in the RAF on the Number 4 Mk2, a stronger action then the Number 1 Mk3, but not as slick. I far prefered the Number 1 Mk3*

In my opinion the Lee Enfield Number 1 Mk3* was the best British battle rifle until the L1A1 SLR arrived on the scene.

The only real problem I've had with Lee Enfield is case head separation due to excessive headspacing.
I have used the Swedish M-96 Mauser a lot, it has a 6.5x55 caliber. A nice caliber, used a lot in competitions. However, the majority of our hunters don't use it when the caliber is considered to be too weak for moose hunting. Why I said the Germans couldn't use their Mauser is in the movie when the British guy is running in a strait line while a German is running behind him and firing his rifle and isn't hitting him
February 22nd, 2020  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
I have used the Swedish M-96 Mauser a lot, it has a 6.5x55 caliber. A nice caliber, used a lot in competitions. However, the majority of our hunters don't use it when the caliber is considered to be too weak for moose hunting. Why I said the Germans couldn't use their Mauser is in the movie when the British guy is running in a strait line while a German is running behind him and firing his rifle and isn't hitting him

I have never had a Mauser that wasnt "sloppy" in fact the only firearm I have ever owned that was worse was a 1942 Russian Cavalry carbine that was damn near semiautomatic because everytime you put a round through, it tried to eject the bolt.


I have never understood why anyone with a bolt action rifle (or any for that matter) would bother to run after someone while shooting, it is an illogical "movieism" after all you have about a minute before the runner gets any significant range on you which even on a slow day gives you 30-50 rounds and if you cant hit a moving target in that time you really should be looking for a new profession.
February 22nd, 2020  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
I have used the Swedish M-96 Mauser a lot, it has a 6.5x55 caliber. A nice caliber, used a lot in competitions. However, the majority of our hunters don't use it when the caliber is considered to be too weak for moose hunting. Why I said the Germans couldn't use their Mauser is in the movie when the British guy is running in a strait line while a German is running behind him and firing his rifle and isn't hitting him
The 6.5x55 is a fabulously accurate cartridge, but its only suitable for Springbok or similar. A cartridge only available in South Africa is a 6mm Musgrave, its a 303 cartridge neck sized to 6 mm in a Musgrave barrel. Unlike the .243 Winchester it noes not bloody meat.

At my gunshop a few years ago we built a rifle on a 30-06 heavy bull barrel fitted to a slicked 1898 Mauser action. The rifle manged sub MOA accuracy. We then took at apart and put it back in the vault.
February 22nd, 2020  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
I asked myself why the German soldier didn't stop and fired his rifle at the running British soldier. The German soldier was maybe 20-30 meters behind him.

Can we draw a conclusion now? We three have seen the movie 1917 and none of us are impressed. We may see a lot of war movies and we don't get impressed easily. I can only speak for myself, but I had expected much more from it, even though I don't care for if a movie is historically correct or not. I more or less got the same reaction when I watched "Dunkirk" even if I think Dunkirk was slightly better than 1917, but just slightly.
February 23rd, 2020  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
I asked myself why the German soldier didn't stop and fired his rifle at the running British soldier. The German soldier was maybe 20-30 meters behind him.

Can we draw a conclusion now? We three have seen the movie 1917 and none of us are impressed. We may see a lot of war movies and we don't get impressed easily. I can only speak for myself, but I had expected much more from it, even though I don't care for if a movie is historically correct or not. I more or less got the same reaction when I watched "Dunkirk" even if I think Dunkirk was slightly better than 1917, but just slightly.

We can draw a conclusion and it is that 1917 is just another cookie cutter movie in a new skin.
For most people it is fine but for those that have a greater understanding of the real event historical accuracy is more important than we care to admit or perhaps realise.


For example I can happily watch the Avengers series because it is not real and there is nothing to measure it against yet I cant watch Saving Private Ryan because the Tiger I scene is pure fiction as the Allies never came up against a Tiger until August.
February 23rd, 2020  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
We can draw a conclusion and it is that 1917 is just another cookie cutter movie in a new skin.
For most people it is fine but for those that have a greater understanding of the real event historical accuracy is more important than we care to admit or perhaps realise.


For example I can happily watch the Avengers series because it is not real and there is nothing to measure it against yet I cant watch Saving Private Ryan because the Tiger I scene is pure fiction as the Allies never came up against a Tiger until August.
I haven't watch any of the Avenger movies and I must say most movies today are made for 12 year old boys. The Hollywood is losing it and making sequels, remakes, and crap. I'm so tired of all these Terminator movies, Jurassic Park crap, super hero crap, and much more. Our history is full of interesting people and events that can be interesting and entertaining movies. I miss the years when they made really good movies for grown ups.

I am now looking for a movie about Marie Curie "Radioactive" it might be something to watch when she was a very bright scientist.