Page 1 of 2

had to watch quigley again.

PostedCOLON Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:59 pm
by spurdude
Figured to post this here as I been hangin out too much up at general discussion. seems I had to watch Quigley again for the 400th time. seems we find and see things not noted as seen before... for instance.. he used paper patched bullets, I think 540 grn. thing is he carried them bullet down in his cartridge belt. this would suggest to me that they were crimped, so as not to fall out while riding and generally being drug around.also during one of the many shootouts he aimed , fired with a thumb distinctly pointed up in the air, this being on his hammer hand. I assume this because of the tang sight "biting "said thumb upon recoil. and also I found interesting the sound effect when the action of the sharps was opened and closed. instead of the clunk slap that mine makes, his had a silky smooth 3 click sound one finds on lever action Marlins. He also claimed that .452 brittish Musket lead would work for reloading. I assume with paper added to it, to make up any difference. I gotta get a life!

PostedCOLON Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:33 pm
I think they used a Rem 870 pump shotgun for the sound.

Ed Malinowski

PostedCOLON Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:02 am
by Harry Eales

You've got to get a life, :(

You should know that there is a great difference between FACT and FICTION. Hollywood isn't interested in FACTS their prime motive is to make MONEY. :twisted:

The film is full of factual holes, you don't even have to look hard to see them. Even the cover on my DVD box tells lies. It bills the Sharps rifle as being SIX feet long. :shock:

As a film it is good entertainment, fantastic scenery, great music and the usual happy ending.

Alan Rickman who invariably gets cast as the 'badman' stole the show as Marston, as he also did in Kevin Costners Robin Hood where he played the Sheriff of Nottingham. His best line in Quigley being "Get him out of here, he's bleeding on my mat." :lol:

The film did wonders for those gun makers who manufactured replica Sharps Rifles. I understand from a Californian friend, that you couldn't buy a Sharps replica for three times it's usual price shortly after the film was released.

I wonder how many people took up BPRC shooting as the result of watching this film?


PostedCOLON Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:45 am
by Bad Ass Wallace
Darn film makers;

I got hooked on Zulu years ago then along comes Quigley and I had to buy 5 more Sharps. Wife says, "why do you need 5 for?"

Well, my dear, one of them has to be accurate enough to hit that bucket".

PostedCOLON Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:42 am
by Hiwall
Mr. B.A. Wallace,
While you were hung up on Zulu how many Martinis did you buy? :)


PostedCOLON Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:28 am
by Bad Ass Wallace
:oops: only 16 :shock:
one each 577/450 rifle and arty carbine and 9x303 Enfields and 5x small trainers. I had to limit myself to mint bores with full rifling!




PostedCOLON Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:15 pm
by spurdude
Yeah I know it's Hollywood, But in fairness to Tom, he is a shooter, and does ride a horse well. owns a few I suspect. as for the movie, when he fired that Sharps, looked to me to be kickin quite a bit. I think they was real bullets comin out the end on a few shots. not enough smoke for BP though. duplex maybe? I don't know.

PostedCOLON Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:37 pm
by DML
I remember reading about the Quigley rifle in a gun magazine. Here's a link to that article. ... _n15402263

PostedCOLON Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:49 pm
by spurdude
thanks DML interesting. anytime I see a fine firearm thrown on the ground, or when someone says " Drop IT" I cringe! at the thought. too bad we can't find out about loadings used in the movie. maybe theres a Tom Selick web site that can answer those questions.

PostedCOLON Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:05 pm
by Kelley O. Roos
That rifle thrown to the ground was a rubber rifle.

You guys are looking for to much authenticity, just enjoy the movie.

Kelley O.

PostedCOLON Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:25 pm
by spurdude
did enjoy the movie, and really am not looking for anything that isn't there. how do you know the rifle was rubber? read DML's link. we all go to work and do our jobs as best we can. so do movie makers. I just wonder the details of how they do their jobs. the fact that they used a rifle we all enjoy only serves to spur the interest that much further.

PostedCOLON Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:23 pm
by Kelley O. Roos

I was told the rifle was rubber or sum such material, at any event the thrown rifle was fake. Movie makers would not damage such a valuble rifle, three were made, I believe. There is a rental place that has every type of firarm made, I am talking thousands. It is a building that was made into a gun vault. I read about that place many years ago and now don't remember all the details. I do remember in part of article it was said that rubber firearms were used with the gun had to be tossed or thrown, as the rental owner did not want his firearms damaged.

Kelley O.

PostedCOLON Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:33 am
by DML

A $3000 or $4000 rifle is peanuts to the movie people. I used to live in Hollywood and knew quite a few folks in the business. One guy had a gun collection that came from leftovers. Once he was a crew member working on a western that was filmed in Mexico. The producers bought a dozen Browning Broadway shotguns just to keep the actors entertained. When the filming was done they just handed them out to anyone on the crew who wanted one.

How many cars do you think were destroyed while filming Starsky & Hutch? Like I said, it's peanuts when you consider the multi-million dollar budgets involved.

One of the famous movie rental companys is Ellis Mercantile. When I worked for an antique shop in the early '60s I used to go there just to look around. They had hundreds of guns that they rented to the studios. You would have cried when you saw the condition they were in. They were beat to hell, rusty and most had parts missing, but they looked ok when filmed. They were just props to the producers.

PostedCOLON Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:55 am
by Kelley O. Roos

If a movie was slowed down you would see that those cars, for the most part, were junkers, that had been fixed up.

Kelley O.

PostedCOLON Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:07 pm
by DML
Kelley O. Roos wroteCOLONDML,

If a movie was slowed down you would see that those cars, for the most part, were junkers, that had been fixed up.

Kelley O.
Hey Kelly:

I am not arguing with you over this, but from my experience, Hollyweird does not worry about the cost of props. I read an article many years ago about some of the "crash and burn" movies in CAR & DRIVER or ROAD & TRACK. In those days they used new stripped down cars for the crash scenes. Now, amazing things can be done with computers.

The estimated cost of producing Quigley Down Under was $20 million. If you read the first two paragraphs of the article from GUNS magazine you will see that there was no rubber rifle.

Someone once said, " I don't believe anything I can't touch. Didn't we all see Forest Gump shake John Kennedy's hand?"