Gun Goofs on Stargate

Terdwilicker

Well-Known Member
#1
In Stargate: SG1, in the pilot episode invading Jaffa are shot multiple times with 5.56x45 NATO rounds from full length M-16s. That puts the 62 grain standard issue bullet to 3200 feet per second, delivering something more than a .44 magnum at point blank range. I've fired this round against steel. Goes through about 3/8 inch of it.

SG-1 switches up to the P90, which got heavily popularized by the series with plinkers and mall ninjas. Its a neat firearm for something that's meant to be cheap to build and disposable like all military firearms. The thing is, that firearm is based on a reshaped case on a shortened version of the 5.56 NATO, shooting at lower velocity using VERY light bullets so they'll still reach full velocity in the very short barrel of the P90 and the MUCH CHEAPER and simpler blowback action instead of the M-16's gas action. FN did make a model that's similar to the M-16 and uses standard NATO rounds, called the FN-2000 but its unpopular largely because if it jams, you have to tear it all apart to pull the case out. And its 4x more expensive than an M4 Hbar with grip pod etc. The stuff being actually used in the Gulf War and Afghanistan.

I really find it hilarious that the guys in the show are using 9mm pistols for sidearms when the FN-57 pistol shoots the same ammo as their P90's and would probably work against Jaffa armor. Alternatively, they ought to be carrying 45's with silencers for dealing with sentries until they've got enough of those Zats to go around. Note that the 57 pistols are the standard sidearm in Ghost in the Shell TV. Its got a clever rotating barrel-bolt lock up required due to the extra recoil of the high velocity bullet. Please note that a similar cartridge design was tried and discarded by the Russians in the 1890's in the Tokarev 7.62x25mm. The improved CZ-52 used to sell for $100 after the Iron Curtain fell and the armories were sold off to collectors. I'm told shooting the 3 inch barrel sounded like a rifle going off but the sight radius left something to be desired. So that idea has been tried and discarded.

The producers of the show fixed their boo-boo with the 5.56 much later in the series when the Gulf War 2 heated up and led to shortages of ammo for their P90's (the Saudi Security forces use them for counter-terror work, and the blanks are used for training) by first having SG1 in Season 9 or 10 using the HK MP7, a 4.7mm bullet designed to penetrate kevlar at 100 feet to replace the P90's until ammo could be found. They also got a deal to show off G36 rifles, which are actually just the HK version of the M-16, shooting standard NATO ammo again. It looks like a space gun, but so did the M-16 when it was new. The end result is the same. I felt way more appreciative when I saw them toting around SAW's with big box magazines full of belt ammo. That's a proper way to deal with the Jaffa. That and M-203's.

It is hard to be educated about firearms without actually owning them and reading their histories. My favorite discovery is that military guns are junk, military ammo is often utter crap, and hunting firearms are far better. They don't tell you that in these shows. When SG-1 gets kidnapped/captured nearly every episode so they can talk to the monologuing villain with the glowing eyes or wonder-technology, I often find myself laughing but sympathetic towards just how many of their P90's get "lost" on missions. From my count, they only keep some of their gear about 25% of the time. And that's funny too. The real firearm is around $3K apiece. And a PDW should be cheap because its meant as a panic weapon, like any machine-pistol. Its likely to get part of one magazine through it in anger, then the victor cleans the blood off and sells it on to the next fool. Only dropped once. It does make for good TV though.

Stargate is a fun and funny series and as long as you don't mind the compulsive adherence to bad science (string theory was disproved in 1981) that belongs in comic books, its good entertainment.
 

iiradned

Well-Known Member
#2
For more info about the guns used on Stargate SG-1 there is the Internet Movie Firearms Database.

The SG-1 main is at <a href='http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Stargate_SG-1' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Stargate_SG-1</a> and is further divided by season.
 

grant

Well-Known Member
#3
Why was this made into its own thread? Besides telling us what we already know* there's no major point I can find to this.

*That Stargate fails at science, ancient history, mythology, international relations/American politics, military tactics, military chain of command, military tech etc. so much that even the average viewer should realize it.
 

Terdwilicker

Well-Known Member
#4
grant said:
Why was this made into its own thread? Besides telling us what we already know* there's no major point I can find to this.

This is the complaint of someone with Aspergers? Or a future librarian? Do you get upset when people other than you have opinions of the universe you don't share? That's kind of odd. Or maybe that's how you tell jokes. Work on the delivery.

*That Stargate fails at science, ancient history, mythology, international relations/American politics, military tactics, military chain of command, military tech etc. so much that even the average viewer should realize it.
All those failures you list? Those are intentional parody and a good part of the lantern hanging and snarking that made the show fun.

Are you suggesting that the gun failures were parody too? They get their explosives right. C4 DOES answer many problems small military forces face. Keep in mind that SG1 has a similar mission to a Green Beret or SEAL team with the added fun of reconnaissance. I suspect that the persons writing the Pilot episode screwed up and got schooled on it later, then hoped the viewers would forget by season 8. Looks like most of them did.

Btw, if you don't like Stargate, what compelled you to comment here? Are you a Troll?
 

grant

Well-Known Member
#5
Amazing. Questioning why a thread was made in the interest of keeping the site tidy and not cluttered with ad hoc threads leads to accusations of being a troll.

If I'm forced to defend myself, then let's start. Nothing in Stargate is ever intended as parody of their awful idea of using mythology. Anyone who actually bothered to think about it for a couple of minutes would realize that many of those religions existed thousands of years apart, and that if you take what they say at face value (which you're intended to do) it means that the Goa'uld controlled the planet at the same time the Ancients did.
The science is not only off, there are enough errors that I noticed them.
The military tactics are horribly off, and considering their choice of weapons, armor (notice the total lack of helmets, HELLO shrapnel!). Then there's the blatant disrespect shown for superiors (O'Neill should have gotten at least a reprimand if he was lucky) and Hammond on occasion deciding major policies that should be brought up to the White House. Unless you're acting under the assumption that U.S. generals regularly consider assisting in coups without even mentioning it to the people in charge.

In other words, the writers had no understanding of what they were writing about, and relied on the audience enjoying action and patriotism.

Oh, by the way. Adding the following comment into my quote even though I never wrote it:

This is the complaint of someone with Aspergers? Or a future librarian? Do you get upset when people other than you have opinions of the universe you don't share? That's kind of odd. Or maybe that's how you tell jokes. Work on the delivery.
Real mature. You're equating why someone would suggest that this thread should not have been created and, if it really needed to exist, could have easily been put into an already existing thread with Asperger Syndrome.

I'll say it again, and I'll make it simple so you can understand it. Don't just create a thread for something as random and pointless as a few paragraphs on guns in Stargate.
 

Terdwilicker

Well-Known Member
#6
grant said:
Oh, by the way. Adding the following comment into my quote even though I never wrote it:

This is the complaint of someone with Aspergers? Or a future librarian? Do you get upset when people other than you have opinions of the universe you don't share? That's kind of odd. Or maybe that's how you tell jokes. Work on the delivery.
Real mature. You're equating why someone would suggest that this thread should not have been created and, if it really needed to exist, could have easily been put into an already existing thread with Asperger Syndrome.
I think what you're trying to say is there's no point posting anything about realism or errors for Stargate because its not a serious show. By your logic, would you say that there's no point posting about any parody show? Buffy? Eureka? Do those not deserve comments either. This is the TVShowTalk section so this IS the right place. Or does your world require sense and order? Ergo my question as to whether this is Aspergers or Librarian aspirations. Should have broken the quote box there so you could see it was me, but then again, anyone who read the prior posts or scrolled up would notice that.

Considering the responses I've been getting here lately, I can see why Hawk is letting this forum die.
 

trevelyan1983

Well-Known Member
#7
You get the responses you get because your topics are a waste of both time and bandwidth.

Frankly, I think you're the troll in this thread.
 
Top