Talk:No Country for Old Men

Colt Delta Elite or a smaller frame 1911?

I thought the Delta Elite wasn't manufactured until 1987. Could this be another anachronism?

I'm a little more curious to know what makes us think this is a Delta Elite to begin with. It looked to me like it might have just been a regular Commander-type 1911. But if it is a Delta Elite, then yes, it is yet another of the movie's many firearms-related anachronisms.

I thought it was a 1911 myself.

I agree, does not look like a Delta Elite to me. Don't know why it is considered to be one.

It also seems like a 1911 would be way more common for a sheriff to carry than a Delta Elite.

I don't mean to be rude to the person that made this page, but unless we can find a good reason to state this is a Delta Elite, I think we should change the section to a 1911.

It's definitely not a regular 1911 or 1911A1. It has a circular hammer, so it's gotta be a Commander variant such as the Series 80. The only question is whether it's the Delta Elite (which is similar externally to the Commander line, but chambered for 10mm).

Agreed. Mabey it would be better if we moved this to the discussion page so we do not clutter up the page?

Sheriff Ed Tom's gun has a high-rise beavertail grip safety, visible when he thumb-cocks the gun before entering the El Paso motel. Such grip safeties were not available in 1980, and became popular in the '90s. I can see why someone could think the gun was a Delta Elite, as that was probably Colt's best-known, older 5" gun that came from the factory with a rowel hammer, but, as noted, it wasn't available in 1980. The Combat Government Model was available then, but had neither a beavertail nor rowel hammer. The later Special Combat Government Model does have a rowel hammer, but no beavertail. The Combat Elite - also not available in 1980 - had the rowel hammer, but no beavertail until reintroduced in 2008. Any "1911" can have the hammer switched out, so the presence of the rowel hammer isn't anachronistic, but the beavertail is.

Definitely appears to be a Commander with a 1980-inappropriate beavertail grip safety. All the "Elites", Delta and otherwise, are 5" guns.

The Book

The ending of the book was way better. The sheriff hunts Anton down and puts a slug in his face-S&Wshooter 04:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Anton is arrested. It's hard to tell because of the writing style.DRC92

Remington 11-87

Unless this movie is going for historical inaccuracy, the gun would be a Remington 1100. It's not a Remington 11 since it doesn't have the same exterior design. Doubt it would be an 11-48 since the recoil seems too low. The 1100 is the most likely gun, since the Remington 11-87 wasn't produced until 1987, hence the name "Remington 11-87". 70.157.131.56 02:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Book Guns

So far I'm only about a third of the way through the book but I'm pretty surprised as to how close the two follow each other, even in terms of guns used. For example, so far I've seen:

Moss's "heavybarreled .270 on a '98 Mauser action with a laminated stock of maple and walnut... Unertl telescopic sight of the same power as the binoculars", reflected as a Remington 700 in the film
the "shortbarreled H&K machinepistol with a black nylon shoulderstrap" that Moss picks up in the book is an H&K SP89 in the film
Moss finds a "nickelplated government .45 automatic" in the hands of a dead drug dealer, which is what he finds in the film as well (with mentions in the book of the grip safety, etc.)
Chigurh shoots the two men at trucks with a "nine millimeter Glock", as seen in the film
Moss buys a "twelve gauge Winchester pump gun and a box of double ought buckshot shells" with references later made to the hammer and his sawing-down process seen exactly duplicated in the film with the Winchester '97 that Moss purchases
Chigurh carries a "twelve gauge Remington automatic with a plastic military stock and a parkerized finish... fitted with a shopmade silencer fully a foot long and big around as a beercan", fitting the description of the Remington 11-87 he carries in the film
however, instead of a TEC-9 as he carries in the film, Chigurh uses a "shortbarreled Uzi" with a 25-round magazine in the book during the hotel shootout

Several other guns are mentioned, such as Bell reflecting on "Colts .44-40" and how "if that won't stop him you'd better throw the thing down and take off runnin'" and how he "likes the old Winchester model 97. I like that it's got a hamer. I don't like havin' to hunt the safety on a gun." All in all, safe for the unforgivable error of constantly referring to magazines as "clips", Cormac McCarthy did a good job incorporating guns into the story and the filmmakers did a good job sticking to the ones in the book. (I'll update later once I've read further on.) Speakeasy804 22:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cobray not MAC-10?

The gun used in the motel doesnt look like a MAC-10, looks more like a Cobray M11. --Mauser 04:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right the receiver looks longer on the back like on the Cobray. -Predator20 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Shotgun Suppressor

Can you even shoot buckshot out of a shotgun with a suppressor? I've never scene one in real life, but my understanding is that the inside is not exactly barrel like, or as durable, couldn't the buckshot possibly scatter enough while inside to damage it? 174.112.18.193 22:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.saddleryandgunroom.co.uk/Gunroom/SG_Hushpower.htm --Joffeloff 16:17, 16 April 2011 (CDT)

When a shotgun fires buck shots, the metal balls don't bounce around the barrel, otherwise, the first time you shoot it, the barrel would be ruined. What happens with a shotgun shot is that the balls stay clustered together for a time and the farther away it goes, the more spread pattern is. Excalibur01 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read on this, the problem is that a suppressor is supposed to encourage the stuff going through it to expand and slow down while a barrel's job is to keep the stuff in it contained and make it speed up. It's fine having stuff expand inside the suppressor when it's just gas, but not so much when it's lots of metal balls that can end up shooting through baffles and suchlike. IIRC it would work with a shot cup, though. Evil Tim 03:57, 17 April 2011 (CDT)

In the new show Sons of Guns a guy was able to suppress a Saiga 12 shotgun. However, I couldn't tell if he was shooting buckshot or slugs. -SasquatchJim.

In the beginning of the suppressor project on Sons Of Guns, they use a high-speed camera to determine how far it takes shot to spread after it exits the barrel to find out how much of the suppressor can project from the barrel itself. I believe it was something like ~2 inches. I think I can safely say they were using buckshot. For that show's sake, however, I hope a lot of it was dumbed-down for the audience. There were a couple of annoyances that kept me from taking the show seriously (calling a Cobray CM203 a grenade launcher? Attaching a Saiga to a M4 is a new thing?). But I digress. --Graybass 20x6 22:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on attaching the shotgun to the M4. I laughed when they kept saying they'd never heard of it, yet he repeatedly mentions the masterkey. -SJ

Right. And I believe the M26 accomplishes the same task as a Saiga under-mounted on an M4. Granted, the MASS is still in the preliminary phases of military testing, but it's not necessarily a brand-new concept. It was in Vegas 2, for crying out loud. --Graybass 20x6 09:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

At least the Saiga is semi-auto, do they plan on changing the M26 from straight-pull bolt-action to semi-auto? If not, a Saiga makes some sense.--Mr-Jigsaw 10:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with a Saiga making sense. For example, the following shots after the breech shot could be buckshot, or possibly nonlethal loads such as beanbags. It could add another dimension to breaching and the follow-up, considering the Saiga could execute a second shot much faster than the straight-pull bolt-action M26. For the show to make the concept sound revolutionary was a bit of a stretch for my taste, though. --Graybass 20x6 12:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Anachronisms all throughout

I watched this again not very long ago. Seems the movie's full of anachronisms. Many of the guns are obvious here of course, but there are several anachronistic vehicles present as well. Of course it is inherently somewhat difficult to get many older vehicles and weapons, other issues (such as budget) notwithstanding, but there are a few that are quite obvious. BUT, most people won't pick them up so whatever I suppose. That said, this was indeed a good movie and fairly intense, though I would have preferred a bit more conclusive of an ending myself, probably closer to the book (as noted a few comments up). StanTheMan 18:07, 1 July 2011 (CDT)

Well that's not as bad as COD: Black Ops which had a 2010 Jeep Wrangler in 1968 Vietnam. :D - Mr. Wolf 18:20, 1 July 2011 (CDT)

Good point. I guess I'm kind of a stickler for accuracy sometimes. StanTheMan 23:23, 1 July 2011 (CDT)

Aren't we all. :) - Mr. Wolf 00:43, 2 July 2011 (CDT)

Was the suppressor meant to be some sort of technological device?

I ask because the sound it makes was rather computer-like, very different from how silencers are usually rendered in movies. - 2wingo

No, maybe it was just a sound editing error or is something symbolical about Chigurh.--Dillinger (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2014 (EST)