Page 2 of 2

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:04 pm
by Reds45ACP
I'm not a super big fan. However: "The series features other famous cinematic guns including the Magnum 45, as used by Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry" Last I checked It was a S&W N-Frame in .44 Mag.

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:23 pm
by nyj
RogueUSMC wrote:Actually no...the bottom is not a Ruger...I'll go with Colt Woodsman
I think you were right the first time, or it's a buckmark like Dave said.

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:57 am
by Pawpaw
Reds45ACP wrote:I'm not a super big fan. However: "The series features other famous cinematic guns including the Magnum 45, as used by Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry" Last I checked It was a S&W N-Frame in .44 Mag.
I read (or was told) the prop gun was actually a .41 magnum.

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:18 am
by Wodathunkit
92f-fan wrote:I mentioned in a post about reloading that I used to own an Xray company

Here is an Xray I took of a few of my guns from the 80s
Points to folks who can guess the models ...

Its a picture of an OLD 14x17 film xray backlit by my Dell Monitor and photographed with an IPhone so the quality has suffered some

Looks like I over exposed the wood grips on the revolver ... Too many KV of power used ...

I wasnt doing it to deglamorize - i was doing it cause it was cool ..

Its clear I should have taken the image with the magazines in the pistols and a round in the chamber
No ball comparator, I reject this film. :biggrinjester: :biggrinjester: "rlol"

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:28 am
by 92f-fan
LAYGO wrote:
92f-fan wrote:here is a cool non gun related image
again - has to be CGI
http://www.nickveasey.com/communities/4 ... 438420.swf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Seems Legit. I bet that is one big xray machine.
forget the machine and the distance and Kilovolts of energy it would take to penetrate a plane length wise ( not possible )
Where do you get film that size and where do you develop it ?

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:31 am
by 92f-fan
Wodathunkit wrote:
No ball comparator, I reject this film. :biggrinjester: :biggrinjester: "rlol"
funny - there is a PENETRAMETER at the lower right - widly over exposed though - all you can see is the lead numbers on the label

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:47 pm
by Wodathunkit
92f-fan wrote:
Wodathunkit wrote:
No ball comparator, I reject this film. :biggrinjester: :biggrinjester: "rlol"
funny - there is a PENETRAMETER at the lower right - widly over exposed though - all you can see is the lead numbers on the label
Hahaha, I'm wanting to see the 2T hole (but I don't). :smilelol5:

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:08 pm
by psijac
I think this highlights how little antigun types understand guns and gun owners or even the real appeal of guns.


Also a silencer with no baffels? What!

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:17 am
by AdioSS
psijac wrote:I think this highlights how little antigun types understand guns and gun owners or even the real appeal of guns.


Also a silencer with no baffels? What!
Indeed. I'm pretty sure that's just a movie prop though.

Re: X-ray of guns deglamorizes their appeal?

Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:24 pm
by FigNewton
Reds45ACP wrote:I'm not a super big fan. However: "The series features other famous cinematic guns including the Magnum 45, as used by Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry" Last I checked It was a S&W N-Frame in .44 Mag.
You sure it wasn't a Magnum PI? That thing could break the skin and cause an infection you know.