THE moment in “Sudden Impact” has become legendary. Inspector “Dirty Harry” Callahan (Clint Eastwood) is witness to a robbery and calmly tells the crooks that “we’re not just gonna let you walk out of here.” With a bemused expression, the would-be thief asks, “who’s we sucka?” “Smith and Wesson…and me.” And with that, Mr Eastwood saves the day with his beloved handgun.

It is a fitting scene for such an indefatigable supporter of the Second Amendment as Mr Eastwood (he has previously joked that he has “a very strict gun control policy. If there is a gun around, I want to be in control of it”). The film industry as a whole has become increasingly gun-friendly, according to the Internet Movie Firearms Database; their crowd-sourced data suggests that the median number of weapon models featured in films has increased by 11% from 1995 to 2015. Researchers also found that gun violence in PG-13 films has more than tripled since 1985; in recent years, it has even exceeded the violence of R-rated films.

The demand for them is there; action movies, once comprising only 4% of the top films in the 1930s, now make up around 34%. But does the on-screen presence of firearms influence consumers in the same way that a Heineken beer or an Aston Martin featured in a James Bond film is believed to drive up sales? Mr Eastwood’s nod to his Smith & Wesson Model 29 is said to have bumped up sales of 44 Magnum revolvers in America and contributed to brand awareness more generally. The appearance of the Glock 7—a fictional model—in “Die Hard 2” (1990), has helped the gun manufacturer to great popularity and sales. By the end of that year, there were over 300,000 Glock pistols in use across America. Glock was able to strengthen its marketing efforts, open a third subsidiary in South America and begin production on new G22 and G23 models.

The Glock 17 and the Beretta 92fs models appear most often on-screen, but maintain comparatively low production volumes: either fans do not rush to buy them, or they deliberately produce fewer models in order to seem rare and desirable. A former technical adviser and gun fight choreographer—who has asked not to be named—says that firearm companies can forge kinships with certain films. “Lone Survivor” (2013), which narrates a SEAL counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan, allegedly received $250,000 from Beretta for a product placement deal. He states that they replaced all existent handguns with their own .45s model; in reality, the SEALs would have carried Sig Sauer p226 and Kimber 1911s. This sort of arrangement is very rare, however. Manufacturers know that their models will appear in films regardless of sponsorship.

On the whole, it is armorers—technicians (and gun enthusiasts) that obtain, modify and advise on guns on a film-by-film basis—who are responsible for the presence of particular firearms. They liaise with manufacturers and are accountable for making sure that any guns used on set are legal, safe and properly handled, say Tom Diaz, a writer and lawyer. They regularly attend firearm trade shows, such as the Shot Show in Las Vegas, to find new models that meet specific creative needs and can be easily modified. Mike Tristano, an armorer based in Los Angeles, says that after being taken on board for a film, he will create a breakdown of guns required for the film script. Naturally, armorers can be swayed by their own personal biases.