How accurate is this scene from good bad and the ugly when Tuco takes pieces from different black powder cartridge revolvers to make one perfect gun?
How accurate is this scene from good bad and the ugly when Tuco takes pieces from different black powder cartridge revolvers to make one perfect gun?
Are you stupid or just dumb
Are you homosexual or just gay
It can't be done in real life sheldon
>It can't be done in real life sheldon
I actually did exactly that to make my perfect pietta
I did something very similar. With a few minor adjustments, I turned one regular gun into five guns.
Me on the left there
He doesn't take them from different models, all the parts he uses are from 3 separate navy colts
He's doing that to confirm that they all work together right? Something like that?
He is taking the less fucked up parts from all three to make one that is in great condition
Manufacturing isn't the same as it was then so it's plausible he was trying different combinations in search of a specific quality i.e. smooth, fast, replaceable or something of the sort. It's also kind of a central theme of the movie that all the characters are the epitome of their "designation." Tuco, being the "Ugly," embodies the worst of every experience. He doesn't come in and steal one gun, he steals one that is suppose perfect which would imply he made the other two worse in some way.
>It's also kind of a central theme of the movie that all the characters are the epitome of their "designation." Tuco, being the "Ugly," embodies the worst of every experience. He doesn't come in and steal one gun, he steals one that is suppose perfect which would imply he made the other two worse in some way.
>implying a stinky italian spaghetti-western movie director would put that much thought into his work
dude is just dumb and ugly lol.
the scene is to show he's not completely retarded and actually know a thing or two about guns, otherwise he'd feel too non-threatening.
There's all sorts of interesting details in the final shootout, like Angel Eyes positioning himself for a better cross draw, and if I'm not mistaken Tuco actually beats the other two on the draw.
The central idea is ironically that Tuco is the tiebreaker, and "Blondie"/No Name knows this. It comes down to a kind of game theory; Tuco is a survivor and he knows for a *fact* angel eyes will kill him, which is infinitely worse than a chance that Blondie kills him. Blondie doesn't actually need him to shoot, it's enough that Angel Eyes has to split his focus.
Tuco does 'win' you're correct
kys
pretty fucking accurate, because that's how it happened historically. Colt licensed their gauges, stamps and supplied parts to European factories under the brevet system. That way he could make money off the competition instead of losing it to counterfitters, which he had done for years until the brevet system. So there was alot of interchange between the clones and the NYC originals. Supposedly the first colt clones under Gregorelli were not yet made in large enough numbers for the film industry, so real Colts were used. The muskets and Lee van Cleef's .46 rimfire Remington conversion were genuine antiques. It's possible Wallach used a blend of antique clones.
It's stupid, but badass + fits and builds his character.
So it gets a pass from me.
Not really accurate because back then things weren't as standardized as with today's fabrication qualities, so the parts of each gun were already fitted to each other, so taking parts from different guns has a really slim chance to actually make a better one than each of the original ones were.
But it looks cool and spaghetti westerns operate on rule of cool.
I read somewhere that Tuco`s actor knew absolutely diddly squat about guns. So he just walked around and improvised.
Be that as it may, he must've practised or else he couldn't have dis/assembled them as smoothly
Lol most actors don't. I fail to see a point here. Tucos actor is a literal garden gnome who had trouble drawing from a holster, so they let him carry his gun on a sash and a lanyard since he couldn't get the hang of doing quickdraws using the more traditional "cowboy" gear.
This is true and is part of the directors commentary
According to Eli Wallach the actor of Tuco, he improvised the entire scene. He was told to put together several guns, but not how. He had little knowledge of guns at the time so just played it out like he thought it should be. That would not have happened in a modern movie but for a penny-saving spaghetti western barely intended for US distribution as a secondary market, it was perfectly acceptable.
Source on this? He operates them a little too smoothly to have zero idea
Okay, let's see.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/trivia/?ref_=tt_ql_trv
Almost on the top of the list.
Hm. There used to be a very good website for the GBU stuff but I can't find it. Admittedly haven't visited it for years.
>That would not have happened in a modern movie
Most acting in modern movies is improvised on the spot as filming happens, and the Italian school of cinema is partly why that method became popular
> but for a penny-saving spaghetti western barely
GBU wasn't a budget film for that era, it cost over $1m to make even in Italy and it was intended for wide release and global distribution
>little too smooth
He's an actor. It was his job.
>He's an actor. It was his job.
Sure but if he doesn't know anything about guns then disassembling and putting them together like he did would not really be feasible
>t. Unclear on what actors do
Select fit is a thing, anon.
Yes, it is accurate. Not only were various "Colts" made by different companies from different countries, this often led to slightly different tooling. As you manufacture a gun, the tooling wears down a bit. Say you have to ream a hole for the base pin to fit into the barrel. This base pin is threaded on the back end, and the barrel has a spot for the base pin to fit into. When you machine these parts, the tools wear down. This occurs nearly imperceptibly, but you can wind up with a gun that comes from the two extremes of the manufacturing process, such as a hole cut with a new tool and a pin tapped with an old tool or vice versa. This leads to slop and loss of accuracy. Additionally, if the owner was selling used guns or guns not properly manufactured, the notches on the cylinder might have been peened, or the cylinder bolt itself might have been slightly damaged. By replacing these parts with ones that are in better shape, he is potentially improving the timing and tightening up the revolver. There is also an interaction with the pawl and the ratchet on the back of the cylinder, but when he listens to the gun he is listening for the clicking of the notches interacting with the cylinder bolt. All in all, its a good scene right until he asks for cartridges for a cap and ball gun that hasn't been converted for use with cartridges.
Only posts in this thread that matter.
I take it back, upon rewatching the scene, the gun has been converted to accept cartridges. However, it lacks the ejector rod common on many conversions, which threw me off. Great attention to detail.
It was prop masters using any gun available, including Uberti's current line up.
They were not going for any kind of accuracy.
The two revolvers he picks up do not interchange parts.
From what I can tell, he picks up 3 different Navy's. Even if the middle gun is a Colt Army, you can swap the frame between that and the Navy if I remember correctly.
If you can't identify these guns by sight, why are you pretending to be an authority?
T. Ex Prop Master/Armorer for a Western
He picks up and 1851 navy, visibly a percussion gun.
The next two are 1872 Navy's.
The barrel from an 1872 will not fit on an 1851 frame. not to mention the percussion hammer will not strike the primer of a cartridge.
If you watch closely, he picks up 3 1851 Navy's. When the shooting scene occurs, he is using an Italian made 1860 Army that has been converted for use with cartridges. Notice the loading lever and lack of an ejector rod housing. This would be present on an 1872. Back in the day, many 1851s and 1860s were made to accept cartridges that lacked the ejector rod.
However, when he assembles the gun, you can clearly see all the guns he selects are from cap and ball revolvers, hence their loading levers and percussion nipples.
They used conversion rings and short cylinders to convert.
Yeah, I wish I knew who made that particular example because it looks pretty slick. Kirst is fine and all but it would be fairly neat to build an old Spaghetti Western gun.
Uberti.
They were just mixing features from different guns at the time. For a long time their 1872 was just an 1851 frame with a few tweaks.
From what I can tell, he is using (in the later scenes) one of the old Italian .44 Navy's. Its not an 1872 though. The front sight, the dimensions of the underside and profile of the barrel, and the lack of the ejector rod denote an 1851 in .44.
Also I appreciate you triggering my autism this much, as I've rewatched this scene five times now.