...I bought my 29-3 in the 1990s at a gun show...guy wanted $325...I offered $275...and he took it!...still has the best double action pull I've ever experienced on any revolver...

__________________
A Country Boy Can Survive

No idea of the numbers, but you have to say that the Dirty Harry movies sold a lot of model 29s for many years. Not many of the .44 owners really need that kind of power. I know that I have never really needed one, but it was the first Smith revolver I bought and I have acquired several more since then!

But, they are fun!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

I have never owned a 29, I have had 27,57 in the wood presentation box and I made the wise decision to sell them, I am still sick. I have had all three barrel lengths 25-5 again made another wise move to sell them. and now have another 25-5, now I have two first year 28s and had 696 no dash, made a wise move to let it go, and untold amount of other 38s and 357s. several super blackhawks. maybe I will find the right 29 and have the good sense TO KEEP IT!

If it was a .45 Colt, it was a custom job. That was well before the 25-5.

I read somewhere that they wanted a nickel revolver but couldn't get one in time so they used the blue instead. Just something I read. Idk.

__________________
No gold. Only lead. Bobby

It's been many years since I last watched Magnum Force but I seem to recall that when held at gunpoint in the car Harry is asked why he carries the .44 (it's too bloody big for the badge) and his reply is along the lines that "...the .357 is too light and I've seen a .38 bounce off a car windscreen".

I may have got it he wrong way round but that's my recollection.

I find it more interesting that in some movies he is right handed and in others left handed.

Wonder which he preferred, and if it was his decision for each movie.

There really needs to be a sticky for this. The truth be told, these internet and gunrag "theories" that the guns were not Model 29's is a major steaming pantload. One Hundred PerCent total B.S..They were guns built in Smith & Wesson's tool room/ service department especially for the movie from parts in inventory and then shipped to a dealer in California. If you PM Doc44, he can tell you when they were built and shipped, who the dealer was. I sometimes wish that we could reflash some folks memory to get rid of things of this nature just the way Tommy Lee Jones did in "Men in Black". Incidentally, how tough do you think it was to make .44 Special/Magnum blanks even back then.



Bruce

Simple:

1. Reloading would have ruined the entire scene, and made the question of 5 versus 6 shots irrelevant.

2. He's Dirty Harry, no bad guy is going to shoot him in the back.

3. It's a rubber gun when he walks through the water. I'm actually more impressed with his amazingly fast drying sport coat. I'm guessing there was a fair bit of time between the fire hydrant take and the final takes next to the bank.

4. In general you have to understand that it's a movie made for entertainment, not a documentary or training film.

Probably not.

The continuity person and/or the firearms consultant most likely pointed out the problem with selected takes, and most likely the director said "I like those takes anyway, so we're going to use them". Directors are normally concerned with many things other than total accuracy in the portrayal of firearms. In some cases, it's just done purely for dramatic effect. I've lost count of how many times I've had to watch someone cock a 1911 to intimidate someone, after that pistol had already been fired. Even summing it wasn't being carried in Condition 1 in the first place, it's a completely gratuitous cocking event. But it adds drama - for those of us who are thinking that's just wrong.

The reality is that unless the error is incredibly glaring the general audience won't notice, and least during the theater screening where they paid an admission.

Watching old movies on DVD where you can re-watch and pause scenes gives everyone a wonderful ability to be the movie equivalent of a Monday morning quarter back.

Agreed. It's been well documented where the revolvers came from.

People also put way too much importance on 5 in 1 blanks. It's one thing to have 5 in 1 blanks in a run of the mill western, or a weekly TV series where the production costs were low and where the details just were not that important. It's something else entirely when it's a big budget production where the firearm used is a key piece of the story line.

And as noted, it's neither hard nor expensive to make a .44 Special or .44 Magnum blank cartridge - not now, and not then.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from people seeing the model used in the Enforcer which also sits in a museum.Clearly stamped on the outside of the yoke is 5 in 1.

Although most of our residents experts view this topic of Dirty Harry's gun as a non serious issue.I feel it might be worth while to have a complete history of each gun used in each of the movies documented and kept as a sticky.After all this model that most of us here are so fond of may not have even survived to where it is now,if it hadnt been for Dirty Harry.So I absolutely
consider this to be an important piece of its legacy.

Film editing is not easy.

It's one of the most difficult tasks in the movie-making process.

Whether the director does the task him/herself or a film editor
is in the process, it's a tedious and headache inducing job.
It can involve many takes and retakes with multiple angles.

The question is, did you or did you not like the overall story presentation?

Also understand that a complicated scene like that is shot over a number of days. There's usually an "A" and "B" camera shooting a scene from mildly different angles and/or different lenses. If there's explosions or gags that are too complex to be repeated than quite a few more will be used.

Now add in that months later the editor/s and director have been working on even a brief scene for hours and it's perhaps easier to explain film goofs.

One shining example of a lack of continuity I like to point out is in "The Untouchables". Sean Connery and Kevin Costner are talking at Connery's apartment. As the scene cuts back and forth between them Connery's top shirt button varies between buttoned and unbottoned.

Why would the yoke be stamped "5 in 1"? Do guns need to be modified to use 5 in 1 blanks?

Continuity is also affected in films by the fact that the movie is
often filmed in disparate locations and the proper props are
not available based on shooting skeds.

A good example in firearms is The Steve McQueen version of The Getaway. In much of the film the arch bad guy Rudy uses a
6-inch Python but in the hotel shootout his Python has morphed
to a 6-inch Trooper. Didn't spoil the film one bit as far as I'm concerned.

Hey I gots to know?
Look closely he cocks the hammer, them does the double action the cylinder turns, then The hammer drops. Click, it's two takes.

Surely looks like a 8 3/8" barrel.

Nope! The only time an 8 3/8" gun was used was in post-product still shots for lobby posters, etc..

Bruce

I don't know if modification is needed.I also dont know why the prop department would ruin the finish on a classic revolver with a stamping,instead of having in stamped on the inside of the frame.

If you watch his movies, he always shoots a handgun right handed, but usually shoots a rifle left handed. So maybe he left eye dominant, who knows.

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

After a little research I think I found the answer why the yoke was stamped 5 in 1. Apparently the movie and prop industry will modify firearms so they do not accept live ammunition as a safety measure. These guns will not accept regular cartridges. Such guns are marked 5 in 1 showing only blanks will work in them.

That may or may not be so but.........revolvers don't require modification to shoot blanks the way semi-auto and full auto firearms do. With full and semi-auto guns, barrels are restricted, springs are changed, ejection ports are enlarged if necessary and more. I know that the blank firing Bren Tens from Miami Vice did not carry any "5 in 1" proof marks. Then again, those guns were not modified or owned by a large movie prop house such as Stembridge or ISS.

Bruce

Every time we have a thread on Dirty Harry, someone dredges up this untrue allegation that this was NOT a Model 29. Depending on who is shoveling the "gun store rumor," it is either a Model 19, a Model 25 or a Model 57.

Despite Roy Jinks, the Director of the movie, the Skelton article, and despite the fact that the NRA museum has displayed the revolver, people either do not read or research it before repeating this statement.

So, perhaps for the last time - it really was a Model 29. It was assembled by Archie Dubia at S&W, two were obtained, one was refinished after the movie and presented to Clint, and the other movie gun was given to John Milius, and a plate was affixed to a new set of grips, which were installed on the gun.

I, and others who are members of the SWCA, have handled the revolver, and I can guarantee it is a 6 1/2 inch Model 29.

Attached Images

Dirty Harry Model 29.jpg (92.9 KB, 23 views)

Thank You!!!!

You're welcome!