THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO WIN! go.getenteredtowin.com/forgottenweapons DEADLINE to ENTER is TONIGHT 06/30/23 @ 11:59pm (PST).

I interpreted his bolt technique the exact same way; he's a sniper because he's a country boy so he can shoot, but he has a weird self-taught way to operate the bolt. It's actually a nice touch.

As a lefty myself, I was happy to see a left handed shooter in a film. It portraied the struggle we all have with some rifles. And how we overcome.

My father shot bolt action rifles left handed and used the reach-over technique because he often used a military or Whelan sling on his right arm. He was naturally right handed but lost his right eye at age 9. He had all of his bolt knobs checkered or knurled and would catch it with his pinky finger. With considerable practice in his spare time (and using that practice to lap his actions), he could get off follow-up shots as quickly as many right handers.

I was stationed in France early 1950s. We cleaned the beaches and inspected the bunkers once a week. It was an eerie feeling entering the bunkers. I'll never forget it and I'm near 90 now.

I would love to see more of Ian analyzing and decomposing the portrayal of guns in media.

Just as a correction, the USMC was present at D-Day, not as ground force, but as the crew of the USS Texas. It not only fired all of its ammo, it went back for more. when it returned, the fighting had progressed too far inland for the guns to be effective so Captain Charles Adams Baker had the starboard torpedo tube flooded, tilting the ship 2 degrees providing the needed firing angle.

I'm naturally a lefty as well. I always cycled my M-24 with my left hand using the same technique. The sling was usually tight around my right arm, as you can use the sling to help with those longer shots.

A lot of information about scopes - WOW & thanks. I have the honor to have been a USMC Scout Sniper in Vietnam. I attended the 1st MarDiv Scout Sniper School "in country" at Da Nang. I am a lefty. At school I was required to shot Right-Handed. Initially I did not want to, but did realize that learning to shot Right-Handed would give me the ability to shot both ways (left or right). After school, when I returned to the Scout Sniper Platoon, I shot Left-Handed; I used the Reach-Over Method. In a short time, I believe, I was just as fast as a Right-Handed shooter. Disclaimer: I am proud to report I served in the USMC for one enlistment and then returned to the civilian-world. Over the years, I thought about retuning to active duty. When I talked to the Marines, but they wanted me to return as a Infantryman (MOS 0311) and/or Scout Sniper (MOS 8541; they now identify it as O317). During my break-in-service, I learned that these two skills were not very employable. That being the case, I enlisted into the Army and served there until I retired. That is why my title notes the comment is coming from a CSM Retired.

It might seem strange that there were no marines at D-Day, but there is one sensible reason, and one unfortunate one. The sensible reason is that there just weren’t enough marines. During World War II, the marine corps grew to a force comprising just 6 divisions, whereas the Army expanded to 89 divisions. There was more than enough work in the Pacific theater to keep those 6 marine divisions occupied. Also, since so much of the Pacific war was a naval operation, and the marines fell under navy command, it made sense to keep them consolidated in the Pacific theater. The unfortunate reason was interservice rivalry. The army was still pretty bitter about that during WWII, because during WWI, the press gave the marine corps the lion’s share of the credit at the Battle of Belleau Wood, _even when referring to actions in which marines did not participate, and where the army should have been credited._ At Chateau-Thierry (a few days prior to the Battle of Belleau Wood) U.S. papers published headlines that read “Germans stopped at Chateau-Thierry with help of God and a few Marines.” The army was (quite justifiably to be honest) outraged, since the Germans had in fact been stopped at Chateau-Thierry by the U.S. army’s 7th machine gun battalion. Senior army brass, including Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley, were unanimous in agreeing that the army was _not_ going to be upstaged by the marine corps this time around, and the marines were deliberately excluded from any large-scale participation in the ETO.

As a lefty I cycle bolts the same way Jakcson does vs the way Ian does. The reach over method allows the rifle to stay on target more IMO. As a lefty in life you just kind of learn how to manage things with the bias the world gives you. No wrong answers, just solutions.

first video ive ever seen from you. I was captivated, really enjoyed your explanations. I specifically liked how you explained how the scope should've shifted backwards, such a cool note.

Great video. Always enjoy watching Forgotten Weapons. Thank you, Ian! Another ooops moment for me was the .30 cal ammo belt around Sgt. Upham's neck, where all rounds were intert, all punched primers exposed.

When I worked with Barry Pepper on the set of We Were Soldiers, we had some down time one day and I asked him why he cycled the bolt like that. He said he’s left handed and that’s the way he fires right handed bolt action rifles. He also said he was prepared to shoot right handed if his shooting position made it awkward to shoot left handed. The situation just never came up. I was an Army sniper at the time so he was curious about the M24 and all gear that came with the system. We had a great chat about guns, hunting, and politics, especially about the direction Canada was headed at the time. Super nice guy.

Aside from those obvious points, if you change scopes, you have to re-zero the center by shooting target. If you change scopes, they will never be dead nuts center after the change, especially for a long shot like 400 yds or more.

As a former Infantry soldier the detail spot on that I noticed was when they stepped into command center at the beginning and all the radio ops and remfs are eating big thick sandwiches and drinking hot coffee after the Rangers have been eating field rations for some time. Totally accurate. Lol

I love your detail on these. I saw a civilian Unertl that had the spring, and had wondered about that, thank you.

Those were great observations, but Private Jackson was given the Lyman Alaskan scope by the commander of his sniper training class as a reward for winning the Hawkeye competition. Later on, Private Jackson “won” the Marine Unertl scope and the weather tube in a poker game with a Navy supply chief on their ship, just three days before the D-day landing. Private Jackson later admitted that he had cheated in order to win that scope, and he felt so guilty about it, that on the way to board the landing craft, Private Jackson handed an envelope to the supply chief which contained the money he had won during that poker game. Jackson figured, paying for the scope made up for the fact that he had cheated to win it.

Holy shit, only 01:15 into the video and the still shot of Pvt. Jackson shows that he has a Garand Thumb bruise under his thumbnail that I never noticed. Video proves Ian's point about "tiny little details that nobody would normally notice" in the first minute or so , and then goes on to explain how they got so much else wrong "for cinema". More fantastic work from Ian, great stuff.

This was really fascinating. It's cool to learn about how the weapons were really used at the time. SUBSCRIBED!!

When I saw the title of the video, I thought you were going to talk about the fact that he shot more than 5 rounds. Then I figured you were probably smart enough to recognize it was more of an edit issue/trope instead of an actual inaccuracy. You didn't disappoint.

My uncle, who served as a Marine in the Pacific during WWII, had to walk out of Saving Private Ryan because the sound and the chaotic presentation of the Omaha Beach landing were so realistic that it brought up memories of his own landings under fire. Normally he never showed any symptoms of PTSD, but that sequence did it for him. Note that the incoming artillery scenes in Patton were declared by my Kesanh veteran cousin as equally realistic.

2 things Ian missed that are kind of big things: 1. The Unertl in the movie wasn’t a Unertl. It was a Lyman Target Spot. Very similar but not the same. 2. The reason the safety flag was up for the close ups in the bell tower was because when the safety is set like that, the firing pin spring is cocked and captured so the bolt is super easy to use. This makes it easier for Jackson to appear to perform rapid fire firing left handed, it is much easier if you don’t have to actually cock the rifle.

Thank you Ian for too many years making such a good and interesting videos!

My shooting partner is a guy who is a lefty. Using right hand rifles most of his life. I satrted him in long range, he was a hunter all his life 46 and only shot to 2 to 300 yards. His first rifle was a right hand and made things odd. He since built a custom with a left hand action. At first hesitant as he had never tried a lefty. Today after working with him, he reloads and shoots to 1500 yards with very good precision. Left hand weapons usually cost more and are not as available. Also worked with a guy who was a right hand shooter up until 26 years old. Lost his right eye in a motorcycle accident. Changing to left hand for him was tough but practice and sheer stubbornness got him shooting spot on. Enough so he used a 7mm Mag. that hunting season. Cross eye dominate, you can use a patch over the dominate eye to train the weaker. Outstanding content. Keep'em coming sir!

Another thing that Ian didnt mention: Isnt swapping a scope mid battle without zeroing it complete bs especially with making such a precise shot right after?

One of the largest issues is the lack of zeroing the scope. You can't just slap a scope on a rifle and expect the bullets to hit where you aim. In fact I would say this may be the most unrealistic part of that scene next to the fake rings.

Really informative and interesting! Thanks for this breakdown!

fascinating. I own a Diana Model 54 recoilless air rifle which used with solid mounts will break the crosshairs of a cheap scope in one shot, and I also use a Diana recoil absorbing scope mount, they both work together just perfectly. I can use any scope now as the mount isolates the scope completely. Thank you for this, and I also enjoyed the scenes you discussed in Saving Private Ryan.

Charles Aksins was a lefty and he spoke having to shoot off his right shoulder during WW2 basic training. But as soon as he got out in the field he switched back to his left shoulder and reached over the action to work the bolt. His book Unrepentant Sinner is worth a read if you can find it. Thanks for all you do. And yes, details do matter and thanks for pointing them out.

My son is a lefty... and you should see him shooting in vintage rifle matches. Watching him operate an Arisaka Type 99, working his left arm over the action to operate the bolt is absolutely mesmerizing!!! He operates the Arisaka, Krag and 1903 rifles just as easily left handed as I do right handed!!!

There were Marines at D Day. Marines serve on capitol ships like battleships, cruisers, and carriers. They acted as sharpshooters and were employed shooting mines as they crossed the channel. Several Marines landed later as part of the staffs they belonged too as well. Marine contingents from the USS Texas and USS Nevada were considered as reinforcements for the Rangers at Omaha beach. The brass decided at the last minute they didnt want the Marines to participate. The press LOVED the Corps, and the Army thought if they landed, it would make them look bad. During WW I, the press had made the Corps look good, all out of proportion to their actual combat success, which was still outstanding. The Army didnt get the credit it deserved, and they still held a grudge for it. Dozens of Marines served as advisors and trained the Army in amphibious landings, and had done so since before Operation Torch. Several times prior to D Day, small Marine contingents, primarily from the Marine complements aboard Navy capitol ships, had landed to assist in the various landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. They also landed Marines from two cruisers during Operation Dragoon, the Invasion of Southern France. They participated in the surrender of German forces in the Toulon and Marseilles areas.

That is some serious detail knowledge you have there. Very educational. 👍👍

Jackson might have gotten the Unertyl scope on his own. I can imagine him reading about the guns and scopes that other snipers use, discovering the Marines' Unertyl scope, and finding a way to buy one through back-channels (maybe a friend or family member back in the U.S. bought one for him and mailed it to him while he was in England waiting for D-Day). Also, another plot hole in Saving Private Ryan might be Tom Hanks not tasking Jackson with killing the three-man machine gun crew during the radar station scene. Instead, he just charges forward across an open field with the rest of the squad. A smarter tactic would have been to have Jackson hide in the bushes and snipe the machine gun crew while the rest of the squad distracted them by shooting at them from a different location, and from behind heavy cover. There would have been a guaranteed kill right off the bat as Jackson's first bullet hit the guy manning the machine gun, and the remaining two Germans wouldn't have been able to tell where exactly the gunfire was coming from or how many Americans were attacking them.

Dad was raised by folk that beat him if he used his left hand. A drill sergeant recognized that he was naturally left-handed when he was in basic training in 1943. Most marksmanship training at Camp Roberts was done with M1903 and the Drill taught Dad the overhand method. After the war, Dad had a Mauser action converted to a gear drive left-hand bolt operation. Dad taught me to run his rifle that same way. Under his tutelage, I had to run his left-handed .270 as fast at the right-handed sporterized 1903. You know, because reasons...Cold War...Cubans...Russians...shit like that.

Amazing detail and video as usual!

While I enjoy range shenanigans & ADD breaks I have mad respect for Ian’s approach & attention to detail. This man has clearly done his homework. Well done.

As a lefty having to live in a right hand world, I'm impressed with his ability to shoot. I was able to fire the M-16 while on active duty. My Grandson is a USMC with Expert Medal.

Also, why didn’t Miller have Jackson pick off the Germans at the radar site instead of charging across the open field and getting their medic killed?

Great video! Interesting thing I noticed about the movie “Army of Darkness” there is a “reloading” sound consistent with the shots from the shotgun throughout the movie. Usually just sounds like chambering a round, still keeps up with # of shots

As usual, Ian hits another home run. Thanks!

My favorite historical detail in the movie, which takes the scene from already shocking and uncomfortable to tragic, is when the two "German" troops try to surrender (and get executed on the spot), they're speaking Czech, meaning they were most likely pressed into service against their will and didn't want to fight in the first place.

I appreciate the information but this is still the best sniper scene in all war movies to me. This movie alone got me into collecting old school guns from the Ww2 era or before. The movie still makes me shed a tear. Especially the cemetery scene.

Real great video! Love the movie and did notice some of the things you mentioned (8x unertl scope). Appreciate your observations! Top Notch!

Very interesting information sir, thanks for sharing your in-sites with us! There is a lot that goes on in creating a film of that caliber and the details can matter. You have nice looking M1903A3-A4 rifle there too! Happy 🎉 New Year! 🥳!

As a fellow wrong handed person in a right handed world, I had to learn to shoot a right handed bolt gun the way as well. On my mauser, enfield, and M1903, after firing I’d come over top of the comb of the stock and hook my thumb under the bolt to lift and pull back and then push forward and down with my fingers. I didn’t have a scope on the rifles tho, I could see that being more in the way.

It's worth bearing in mind that although you do get technical advisors on movies, their advice is not always taken. Some very knowledgeable people employed in the advisor role have expressed dismay at their knowledge or suggestions being ignored and stopped working as advisors, with others being pragmatic enough to know that there can be plenty of production and artistic reasons which override the adherence to accuracy on occasion. A good example of such a choice is the shots of troops being hit underwater by German fire; aside from the trajectory of the bullets being a bit suspect, it's a fact that two or three feet of water will slow those rounds right down, but of course it looks frightening and deadly, so it's a good dramatic choice regardless of it not being partiularly physically accurate, as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of guns, let alone a technical advisor, would know. But as such with movie production, we've got boat inaccuracies, with US-crewed LCVPs ferrying the troops when they would of course have been RN-crewed LCAs. This might have been a case of availability of suitable vehicles as well as being an artistic choice too, since it was a scene with American troops being deployed. The landing assault scene itself has a number of inaccuracies, such as the position of the tide, the distance from the water's edge to the inland cover, the type of bunkers and emplacements in the defences and the beach obstacles. One glaring mistake here, is that the obstacles are in fact placed the wrong way around; this last one is something where a technical advisor would really have been useful to have on hand to supervise the placement of these for the set design, because whilst it might seem like you'd want the jagged bit facing an incoming landing craft, which is probably why the set builders put them that way, in fact this type of obstacle was designed with the intention to have landing craft ride up over the thing in the hopes that it would flip the boats over. Similarly, we have numerous aircraft mistakes too. We hear a soldier saying that his glider crashed, killing 22 men because of the weight of a Jeep on board it. This is not possible because the glider depicted is a Waco CG-4A. Whilst this is the correct type used at Normandy, the CG-4A carried 13 troops maximum and certainly not a Jeep in addition to that loadout. They were either ignoring this for dramatic scripting purposes, or confusing this with either the Waco CG-13A, which was larger, but was not used in the Normandy invasion, or possibly the British Airspeed Horsa, which did have the necessary capacity to carry such a load. Similarly, we see North American P-51 Mustangs in a ground attack role dropping bombs. There were indeed some P-51s used in ground attacks and there was even a specific P-51 variant designed for that role (the A-36 Apache), but the standard fighter variants did not typically carry bombs and would have used their machine guns to strafe targets instead. However, the ones we see in the movie have no bomb racks and have incorrect markings too, being depicted as from the 78th fighter Group (checkerboard markings). The 78th did indeed perform ground attacks at Normandy, but they were flying P-47 Thunderbolts and would not be equipped with P-51s until December of '44. Interestingly for the real plane nerds and historians out there, the P-51 replaced the P-47 not because it was better, as most people might suppose would be the reason, but because it was in fact much cheaper to build than a P-47. Back with guns in the movie, we see a number of shots where Thompson sub machine gun variants flip between being the correct versions in one shot, to the earlier 1928 variants with different sights and the cocking lever located on the top as opposed to on the side where it was on the kind which troops would have had at Normandy. Of course most people are not nerdy enough to be bothered about all these things, and it's still a great movie even if everything from the initial premise to a bunch of 'mistakes' appear through it. But it's fun for the sticklers for accuracy to see how many things they can bore people with in this regard!

I looked at this video and was like “How am I Not Subscribed to Forgotten Weapons?!?” I love this kinda content, Ian please do more breakdowns. Awesome

Thank you for your detailed analysis.

Hey Ian, in your video about "What's Wrong with Private Jackson''s Sniper Rifle". it was stated "there weren't any Marines at D-Day". Marines were there. though they did not go ashore, they adopted the duties of the Marines of past centuries, of perching in the upper superstructure of the ship looking for and shooting mines, or anything in the water that would pose a danger to the ship, during the landings. A Marine from my home town, who served from '43-'46 in Europe told me, in '81, that the D-Day landing was the only action he saw of war. Regretfully I didn't have the presence of mind to ask which ship he was on, or if he used a 1903, or m1. I definitely did not think to ask if they had optics... Hell he could have used an M1917.... But if they did have optics, my guess would be the Weaver. That would be available in Theater. I hope this was informative, James.

I always felt like Pvt. Jackson was Saving Private Ryan's weak link in terms of historical accuracy. You brought up most of the issues with his rifle but I think there are more issues with his tactics in this film. First off on D-Day he is used to make some, what appears to be close range shots on a sandbagged position that looks like any soldier with a M1 rifle can make. He also constantly switches between the lower and high magnification scopes without re-zeroing his rifle, which would not be good for accuracy. The scene where he shoots through a snipers scope is a nice homage to Carlos Hathcock but not possible since the German scopes had numerous lenses that would cause the bullet to exit out the side of the scope body. I don't understand why Tom Hank's squad had a sniper in their unit but in the scene where Wade dies, Jackson is not utilized to take out the machine gun position and they decide to try and bum rush it instead. Lastly, I don't think that a sniper in a bell tower would want a machine gun next to them giving away their position, but then again they was pretty desperate.

So I watched the presentation and was impressed with the technical knowledge and the way you explained things. I do have one observation to make though. I was a soldier, Australian army and note that anyone in the army in a specialist position is likely to personalise their equipment. So what is military and official issue is not what any given soldier might be carrying. I was barely in 6 months and got a hold of extra pouches for my webbing. A small thing but it meant more food for me. Now a dedicated sniper who knows the Lyman Alaskan scope is better, he could well have acquired one, as soldiers do, and it would not be official record. So is it safe to say that none existed at Normandy?

Can you please do more of these? I would love to see more! One thing I have been told from re-enactors is that in modern movies they sometimes don't hold rifles correctly for the time period. I was told that in WWII the US method was called "post" would be curious about Ian's thoughts on that.

Fascinating! I’ve always wondered about the way he left handed cycles the bolt. And I always laughed about the number of shots he took in the last battle. 😳 “Parker get outtt!!!”💥

Am I the only one seeing an audio desync after 0:49? It's like the video portion goes straight into the analysis, while the audio is still talking about the contest to win the rifle. It's so uncanny, I actually duplicated the tab and started one video with audio around that time and then muted the first video so I could watch it in a more or less synced up manner.

Thanks for the level of detail in the lesson.

Very interesting and enjoyable. Great work!

Gun Jesus Smites Scientologist Sniper!

See this is great, you can tell Ian is a huge fan of the movie and possibly that is something that influenced his journey in life. He's not knocking the movie, he's discussing it!

Thanks for this vid. Really informative.

Great analysis. I been looking for an ‘03 as a collectible for a while.

That scope-recoil fact is honestly so cool. I wish it was more well known.

Soldiers in Europe often brought, or had sent, items they wanted from home. Rank and file with 1911s is the standard example. A good sniper could well be expected to acquire a non-standard scope and finagle it to fit the existing mounting brackets, including the lack of a slide mount. Bigger issue is field-mounting a scope in combat with no zeroing...

As always...... Great, Informative Video!!

I’m under the weather on a Saturday afternoon, watching this on tv while I have zero energy. All I want is hours and hours of this kind of analysis of movies. This is remarkable!

As a technical advisor for surgical/trauma scenes in TV and movies, I get the struggle the advisor for this movie must have had. Directors and screenwriters typically care about accuracy right up to the point that it starts to interfere with their vision or storytelling. At that point their question tends to be, "Will the average viewer notice or care if we do X or substitute Y?" A good advisor must know what battles to fight and which to let go. You learn quickly which people want true accuracy (usually directors and actors) and which simply want validation (usually screenwriters). A stubborn advisor is often labelled as "difficult" and doesn't get asked back to subsequent productions, so it's a definitely a compromise sometimes. Even as an expert, you must check your ego at the stage door.

A friend of mine worked on TV and movies as a production assistant. After Lord of the Rings came out I asked her about props and she said that it was up to the propmaster and their staff to search out appropriate props. Some things that were historically accurate were not used because the audience would have not been familiar with the real stuff but be more "comfortable" with a newer iteration. Having the audience immediately recognize something means less "wait, that didn't look right" in the backs of their minds. When Ian first showed the Weaver scope, my mind's reaction while he was talking was "that's a weird place for adjustment knobs" and I really didn't fully take in what he was saying. In a fast paced scene, that would mean I lose a little bit of the action and story. So, yes, inaccuracies are made to keep the story moving in the viewers minds. Another aspect in going a little loose with accuracy is to build not only tension, but solution into a scene. Jackson says his standard scope isn't going to do the job, so he takes out a bigger scope that will do the job, ie, a solution to the problem. He also adjusts the scope adding to a sense of solution. About his line about adjusting windage while he's adjusting parallax, this is about visuals. Important solutions require visuals that match. His adjustment of the scope bell provides that visual, much more so than adjusting the small windage knobs (this is a visual medium first and foremost). Saying "windage" instead of parallax could be because parallax is a rather unfamiliar term, while windage is relatively well known. Jackson's action - adjusting the large bell - combined with the "windage" line cements in the viewers mind his confidence and competence; the man knows his business. Another oft complaint is the lack of recoil. Even a 22 has some motion while firing, so much more with a 30-06 or 45 Colt. Blanks have almost no recoil, so it's up to the actor to make the recoil motion. Most of the time that it's done that way it looks "off": the timing isn't right, not enough or too much flip, it just looks made up. Those things nag the back of the mind of viewers, even those who are not shooters. So directors just ignore the recoil to keep the viewers mind on the movie and not on the little "off" bits.

The second lever to the left with OFF engraved into it adjusts whether the bolt will pick up a round from the magazine or not. The five-round magazine is inside the rifle. There is no clip, and the strip clip doesn't go inside like it does in a Garand. It is my understanding that the soldiers were trained to manually insert each round into the chamber after each shot, and only flip the lever to use the five rounds in the magazine if rapid fire was needed. I was told they were trained to shoot up to a half mile away with the gun sight - no scope. My 1903 is extremely accurate and LOUD. It sounds like a cannon compared to other rifles. (30.06) I also noticed that Jackson fired about twenty rounds without reloading in the film.

Ever since I was a kid I noticed so many of these issues! It drove me crazy haha Like the “Tiger” in the film though, I’m willing to overlook it all just because of the sheer effort put into and believability most of the the rest of film had. Tom Hanks and the others leads knocked it out of the park.

As a left handed shooter I've used bolt action rifles. I usually used my right hand to cycle the action. However I did occasionally use a strap to hold the rifle for longer distances and so had to use my left hand, I found that if I twisted the rifle through 90 degrees I could easily use my left hand.

@ Ian - Forgotten Weapons - Great analysis, Ian, thanks for doing it. A few comments, if you don't mind... Regarding the presence - or lack thereof - of the U.S. Marine Corps in the ETO generally and at the invasion of Normandy specifically, the decision was taken very early on in the war that the conflict in the Pacific was to be "their" war and that the Army would do the fighting on land in North Africa, the Med, and Europe. Technically, there were Marines in those theaters, but only token forces - mostly afloat aboard men of war of the U.S. Navy, embassy guards, and things of that nature. U.S. Marines also participated to an extent in a few small operations on Greenland and Iceland. Navy beach-masters were ashore at Normandy as well, the Navy and USMC both being a part of the Dept. of the Navy (in those days the Corps was not as independent as it became later after the Key West Agreement of 1948). Great breakdown of the numerous errors in the sniper rifles shown being used by Private Jackson. Many fans have known about the switch in size/power of the scopes from early in the film to later in the film when he is obviously using an 8x Unertl and not a low-power 2 or 2.5x Lyman or Weaver. For too many reasons to mention here, "Saving Private Ryan" was a watershed WW2 film. Perhaps most-importantly, Director Steven Spielberg and his technical advisors took the time to recreate the landing at Ohama and subsequent battles in such a way as to immediately raise the bar for all films that came after in terms of their technical and historical accuracy. However great the film was/is, however, it is filled with historical errors. There is an expert on the 101st A/B Division who wrote a series of lengthy articles on the errors just about the paratroopers depicted, I am sorry I don't recall his name - but it can probably be found on the web. The Tiger tank is actually a cleverly-disguised T34-85 mocked up and modified to resemble a Tiger I. Honestly, only someone who is a WW2 history nerd would even notice that the road wheels and suspension on tank are those of a T34 and not a Tiger. Likewise, the scene in the climatic battle where the Germans fire their "20mm cannon" against the American troops - that is actually a British Boys .55-caliber AT rifle, heavily-modified to resemble a 20mm cannon. Again, not many folks in a general audience know that. One of the biggest flaws, historically-speaking, in the film - was pointed out early on by Dr. Stephen E. Ambrose, upon whose books the film was based. Namely, that the soldiers depicted in the various American units were often too old to have held that rank or been in combat, or even in uniform at all. Age and time in grade requirements existed then. You'd need a waiver to be a captain in the Rangers as old as Tom Hanks, and it is highly doubtful a man in his forties (as Hanks was at the time) would have been leading a squad in combat. Captains command companies, they don't act as squad leaders. The script explains it away as a "special mission," but whatever. The criticism of Ambrose was shot down by Spielberg and Hanks and that was that. Hollywood likes to cast somewhat older men as younger men in war films; they've been doing it for a long time. "Band of Brothers" - which came a few years later from the same production team - was better in this regard, but still did it. The last problem in the film isn't an just an error per se, but a criticism of an unnecessary part of the film. The whole "mutiny scene" is unnecessary and detracts from otherwise good story. It is also bogus in the sense that no U.S.Army Ranger unit during WW2 engaged in mutiny or failed to follow orders. Rangers were an elite, and half-steppers and malcontents didn't get into the unit in the first place to any great extent, and those that did were ruthlessly weeded out. The stakes on D-Day were too high for the Rangers for anything but the best officers and enlisted men to be there. But I digress.... thanks for an interesting video.

It has been quite a while since I saw the movie, but I do remember one scene with a goof. It was an ammo belt loaded with bullets without primer caps.

Plinking with 30-06 is more like BLAMKING.

I think the reason why he was cycling with his left hand was because he was supporting himself against the window with his right arm and didn't want to have to readjust each time he cycled with his right hand.

Good video but always remember when you say "this character wouldn't have used this" remember that Jack Churchill was running around with a Claymore sword and a Longbow. So basically stuff happens in war.

Great video Ian, as always. Just curious what the high power scope option would have been in the European theater (Army snipers)?

This video was more fun than I though it would be. More, please!

Remember, when it comes to the military and media portrayals never assume not issued kit means not an accurate portrayal Troops buy, modify, and customise kit all the time in Canada, where I serve. Some regiments allow troops to buy their own tac vests and chest rigs. We are all allowed to buy our own boots Troops put custom forgrips on their C7s Jackson's sights clearly lose zero as the movie goes on And as it was said he definitely could have just tactically acquired the 8x scope

I heard the Marines offered to help with D-Day, but the Army said no.

This is why movie producers need to reach out to people like you. Given i had no idea all these small details but very interesting!!

I believe ret. USMC Col. Dale Dye ran the boot camp for the actors of "Saving Private Ryan" USMC shooting doctrine has been for many years that when operating a rifle , The foreward sling hand you do not move, to perform operations on the weapon. So there may have been just a bit of bleed over from ingrained USMC training. "Always have positive control of your rifle" Just my opinion, Ret. USMC Recon Marine.

An interesting side note. I found a book written in 39 by Hans Hobb, he was a novelist that escaped Warsaw or so. In his story there's a French officer that his soldiers under him have a bet going on what he did prior to the nazi invasion of France, he is portrayed as a real pro soldier and along the way of the prison camp experience he gives up that he was a school teacher. Something like that. Spielberg really did tell "everyone's" story. I always considered finding this book at a thrift store a real cool miracle. The reason i picked it up was because the title "A Thousand Shall Fall" is a reference to Psalms 91

If you noticed in the movie Jackson switches through a few different optics on the move…I don’t think snipers of the skill and caliber of the ones the Americans had were limited to just one type of “scope”

I bought a used Lyman All American 10x fine cross hairs to put on my then new Rem788 222Rem 9/72’. Great scope. I don’t know how old it was when I bought it used at a gun store in Grand Forks ND along with a base and rings for the 788. That scope now sits on a rebarreled 17 Rem. Have had the All American over fifty years and still a favorite of mine.

I haven't seen it in years, but Saving Private Ryan is one of my favorite WW2 movies. Though he didn't see battle my grandfather served for the navy during WW2. I asked my grandmother why he never spoke about his experiences while serving. She said that my grandfather just saw it as a job. He wanted to help and when he was done and returned home he never said anything. As far as WW2 films go the last time I visited with him about 5 or so years ago he was watching FURY on tv. When it came to the scene with the US troops talking to the German women he said "If you pulled something like that when I was serving you'd be court-martialed." I told him it was a movie. They have to add crap like that for suspense.

Fun fact- Marines actually did participate in D-Day, as well as every other amphibious landing in Europe. They were instructors to Army personnel who went ashore, and were posted on the warships supporting the landing as marksmen in order to destroy anti-ship mines with rifle fire. Mark Felton did an excellent video on this, and I would absolutely love to see a Forgotten Weapons/Mark Felton Productions collaboration sometime! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lZeIe5Cfy7DHY40.html

Hello Ian. I also watched Saving Private Ryan I had to watch it without my grandfather who was a World War 2 veteran he was in the African European theater and got captured after the Anzio landing. He told me during his basic training that everybody that was in his training unit had to learn to shoot right-handed even though they were left-handed. My grandfather asked his training instructor why they don’t let people shoot left-handed and the drill instructor says what makes left-handed people so special everybody's right-handed why should they make a special rifle for left-handed people. My grandfather was left-handed and still wrote left-handed until his dying day. Yes, there were left-handed people, and they shot the weapons left-handed especially in stressful situations or situations where they could not get to a right-handed shooting position they would shoot left-handed. At least that's what my grandfather told me. As far as the scopes on the rifles of that time period and that theater of war European theater you are very correct on the scopes that were in use the main complaint of my grandfather was it was no different than the long brass scope that was on his single shot 4570 that was it was looking through a little dinky peep site to him, the rifle had Been passed down through the family since the World War 1 then it was either given or sold to some cousin and that was the last he heard of where the rifle itself went. I kind of wish I was able to get that single shot 45-70, according to my grandfather it had a long barrel and it was extremely heavy.

-- Your first point is wrong. The Lyman Alaskan scope were on tier 1 shooters rifles. One of my grandfathers had one on his Springfield in WWII, carried it through training and onto downrange. They were also gifted from families, much like the civilian Thompson that could take the box and drum, where the military version could not. How do I know. Pictures, stories from gran, and I have his rifle. Your remaining points are correct, all of them. Note as a left handed shooter myself I'd be remise if I didn't mention they tried to play this on Kyle Rittenhouse in a round-about way. And also as a lefty with a right handed bolt, no, you don't reach over and cycle. You cycle with your right, keep your left on fire control. From a rested position, it's a real advantage, a lefty with a right handed action. I learned with a sling and a scope. Found it easy to outpace lever actions easily with that technique. Thumbs up.

Excellent information and well presented. One other thing I will add is this: Whenever I change a scope on a rifle, or take it off for maintenance, or whatever, I have to re-zero it after I mount it back on the rifle. That did not happen in the movie...of course how could it in a combat situation?

Jackson was using a Lyman scope which did exist at the time. From what I have read, the springs were removed from the 8x Unertl so the glass wouldn’t shatter on larger caliber rifles trying to keep the scope in place. Also noticed they rolled the windage knob up and the elevation knob was on the left in the bell tower scene at end of the movie. Probably so he could rapid fire without catching his sleeve on the knob doing the whole reach over the top reload thing. On my 16x Unertl Target, the adjustment at the end of the scope is not for parallax, it is for focus in yards. You can adjust it from 50 yards to infinity 250yd. At say 100 yard setting anything further is blurry. It’s labeled in increments so you can adjust the focus accordingly to however far you are shooting. I had it mounted on a 1903a3 and the rifle is a 1000yd tack driver with hand loads. Jackson’s rifle was a Hollywood setup for the movie. Someone must have read a Carlos Hathcock book and tried to tip a hat in acknowledgment to him. That’s my option.

As a South Paw myself, I have an interesting way I've been known to work the action on a Bolt Action Rifle.. I lower the rifle slightly from my shoulder, and cause it to roll to the left.. With the butt braced against my left forearm & the Rifle now upside down, I work the bolt with left hand, pushng the bolt knob downward as I draw the bolt to the rear... I then slam it forward into battery with an upward motion, as I bring the rifle back up to my should and prepare to fire... This can work extremely well once you build up the muscle memory... It's lightning fast...

amazing video. you know your stuff. Respect

I think you could call Ian a nitpicker.

Being a left-hander, and having only ever used bolt-action rifles, I can understand how much of a pain it would be to have your reloading hand wrapped in a strap. I always operated the bolt with my right hand and fired with my left, and used my left eye to sight. I'm Australian, so my use of rifles was curtailed many years ago. However, I did use a rifle back in the day. Left-handed, and with a right eye that has retina damage made for interesting adjustments in the way I used a rifle and sights. Yep, never used a scope on a rifle. Oh, and I need to thank you. This was one of the most interesting videos on this subject that I've seen. It was a brilliant, geeky critique of movie accuracy that both entertained and educated me. Cheers, mate.

I'm a lefty and my father who was right handed taught me the reach over technique. I later changed to using my right hand as I'm short armed and had a hard time with the reach over. I later solved the problem by buying left handed bolt guns. I was glad to see a lefty and the inherent problems with firearms represented in SPR. The lack of zeroing the Unertl was a big no no. I once shot a Winchester model 70 in 220 Swift with a Unertl on a ground hog hunt. Awesome setup.

First off tremendous respect to you sir for your knowledge on history and weapons. I will say that the grunts are notorious for “engineering” new ways to get chit done. There were all kinds of interesting things done to weapons during war. Anything is possible when you get too many grunts working on a problem…

Being a Marine left handed shooter ( 1968 ) i to struggled with reaching over the scope to work the bolt - in fact i still have that very problem even now 😀

I believe your question about why the armorer on this film utilized a Lyman Alaskan scope instead of a Weaver M73B1 (330C), might be answered in the very detailed reference book entitled "The Collectible '03" by J.C. Harrison. On page 171 in the section on the M1903A4 sniper, Mr. Harrison writes "M81, Lyman Alaskan, blued, 2.5X, 7/8" tube with military markings." "Occasional use on original M1904A4 Rifles produced in the first half of 1944". I myself have two of these WW2 sniper rifles, one of which has the correct Lyman Alaskan scope as mentioned my J.C. Harrison whom I personally spoke with many years ago. I believe your premise that only Weaver M73B1 scopes should be on the example shown in the movie to be incorrect.

This is well done breakdown, thanks for this! I did miss some of these details. I am a ration reviewer, but my weapons knowledge is fairly limited.

I love how he literally says he loves this movie and acknowledges how accurate it is and yet people are still upset in the comments over how he's pointing out what's wrong with a certain part of the movie in a video explicitly about that one thing.