I finally got this movie from the library and watched it today. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. It seemed like a low budget (direct to video?) movie, but I thought that most of the acting and the production values were above average for that type. The costumes and sets looked good. There were revolvers from Colt, Remington and Smith & Wesson as well as a double-barrel shotgun (affectionately called "The Growler"), a Spencer carbine, a Henry rifle and even an 1876 rifle. The gunfire sounded good too.
Of course there were a number of things that were wrong, like the follower on the Henry being all the way to the rear unless the character was about to fire it, characters preparing to shoot while the hammers were down on their rifles, ranch hands who didn't know how to brand a calf, etc., along with a few plot holes.
My favorite part, though, was the location used. It was filmed in one of my favorite parts of the world, the area in and around Bannack, Montana. That was cool, and I'll likely look for a used DVD online just for that.
As for a couple of the previous objections, a character calls a S&W Russian a "Schofield", but people make mistakes, even in the old west, when they are being threatened at gunpoint. I forgive him. Also, as for the kind of raspy voice being overdone, if you listen to the interviews, that is pretty similar that actor's voice. I'll forgive him for adding a bit a gravel.
The film is about the classic "western sidekick" character (the old man with the beard and hat with the brim folded up in the front) being forced into the position of being the hero. I like it. The writer calls it a "coming of age story" for a guy in his 60's. There is also a 16 year old kid who is coming of age too. It's an interesting angle on a classic story.
Nope, not a perfect movie. Not even among my favorite westerns. It is, though, better than I thought and worth watching.
CC Griff