Jump to content

News Forum - 1 dead, 1 injured in prop gun shooting on Alec Baldwin movie set


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

No and that is where Baldwin will be on the hook, as executive producer

Your posts were interesting and informative, thanks

Thanks - I have to agree with you about responsibility from all the evidence so far.

Brandon Lee's death was due to a series of serious errors, but the production company weren't directly negligent.

This seems very different, though, and a real cowboy operation in every way. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2021 at 9:17 PM, Marc26 said:

From what I read, they said the crew was using the guns for target practice and that is why the live rounds were in it

 

On 10/25/2021 at 8:00 PM, mickkotlarski said:

Cracking stuff. I'll have a good look before the cricket. Nobody can say for sure just yet about the cause of Alex Baldwins death. But it will be interesting. Thank you for the explanations. 

There have been a few seriously worrying developments / allegations in the media in the last couple of days, which I'll put in a separate post as they take negligence and incompetence to a whole new level, but I think it may be worth pointing out a few things about revolvers, particularly 19th century ones as used here, which some may not be aware of.

https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/online-course/images-firearms/copy2_of_DSC_0120revolver.png/image

There are a few exceptions such as top-break revolvers, but in general there are two different types of revolvers: single action and double action.

Single action revolvers are cocked manually by pulling back the hammer, usually with the thumb, and then fired by pulling the trigger which releases the hammer which then hits the primer at the base of the cartridge, etc.

Double action revolvers can be cocked manually, like a single action, which gives a smoother and lighter trigger pull, or they can be cocked by pulling the trigger: the first "action" cocks the weapon, pulling back the hammer, and then continuing to pull the trigger releases the hammer (the second "action") which then hits the primer, etc.

Both look virtually the same externally.

Pulling back the hammer in either a single or double action revolver also turns (revolves) the cylinder by one chamber.

The reason I mention this is that unlike a pistol / automatic where it's difficult to know if they're loaded or not or whether there's a round ready to fire in the chamber without physically checking and handling the weapon, removing the magazine, etc, with a revolver it's much simpler to do with a visual check since you can see most of the rounds in the cylinder.  You usually can't see them easily from behind as there's a shield / plate behind the cylinder to stop the rounds falling out, but from the front you can easily see the heads of all the rounds in the cylinder except those at the top or bottom of the cylinder which are behind the frame.

Since cocking the revolver turns the cylinder by one chamber, the "top" round which was hidden isn't the one fired when the trigger is pulled, but it's the round in the next chamber which is fired which was easily visible with a quick glance, which would have told you straightaway if that chamber was empty or not.

In this instance there was no reason for the weapon handed to Alec Baldwin to have any sort of rounds in it at all - drill / dummy rounds, blanks, or live rounds.  All the chambers should have been empty, and a cursory glance by anyone with even a passing familiarity with weapons could and should have confirmed that.

It wasn't even a shoot, as the cameras weren't even rolling at the time, it was simply a practice run through so that Baldwin could practice a cross draw - where you draw a gun that's holstered pointing backwards on the opposite hip rather than the same side, which is still how many carry a gun operationally as it's much easier to access when sitting down.

image.jpeg.26aabcc815bbef0e6a87b11657a6facf.jpeg A top-break revolver - a S&W .38 Hammerless five chamber

 A cross draw and conventional rig:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/09/30/5c0930a20cda3da32670edd37ae76ac2.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stonker said:

There have been a few seriously worrying developments / allegations in the media in the last couple of days, which I'll put in a separate post as they take negligence and incompetence to a whole new level, but I think it may be worth pointing out a few things about revolvers, particularly 19th century ones as used here, which some may not be aware of.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/RhoqebLScEurjUNcwdCRFYcQ_qy8aZ441sE168D6fXdjU6BncdntMujU39R153JbjqfWANwAvD_UixY0eGSAaRyBthay7Y9N55CRTHal-xQa

There are a few exceptions such as top-break revolvers, but in general there are two different types of revolvers: single action and double action.

Single action revolvers are cocked manually by pulling back the hammer, usually with the thumb, and then fired by pulling the trigger which releases the hammer which then hits the primer at the base of the cartridge, etc.

Double action revolvers can be cocked manually, like a single action, which gives a smoother and lighter trigger pull, or they can be cocked by pulling the trigger: the first "action" cocks the weapon, pulling back the hammer, and then continuing to pull the trigger releases the hammer (the second "action") which then hits the primer, etc.

Both look virtually the same externally.

Pulling back the hammer in either a single or double action revolver also turns (revolves) the cylinder by one chamber.

The reason I mention this is that unlike a pistol / automatic where it's difficult to know if they're loaded or not or whether there's a round ready to fire in the chamber without physically checking and handling the weapon, removing the magazine, etc, with a revolver it's much simpler to do with a visual check since you can see most of the rounds in the cylinder.  You usually can't see them easily from behind as there's a shield / plate behind the cylinder to stop the rounds falling out, but from the front you can easily see the heads of all the rounds in the cylinder except those at the top or bottom of the cylinder which are behind the frame.

Since cocking the revolver turns the cylinder by one chamber, the "top" round which was hidden isn't the one fired when the trigger is pulled, but it's the round in the next chamber which is fired which was easily visible with a quick glance, which would have told you straightaway if that chamber was empty or not.

In this instance there was no reason for the weapon handed to Alec Baldwin to have any sort of rounds in it at all - drill / dummy rounds, blanks, or live rounds.  All the chambers should have been empty, and a cursory glance by anyone with even a passing familiarity with weapons could and should have confirmed that.

It wasn't even a shoot, as the cameras weren't even rolling at the time, it was simply a practice run through so that Baldwin could practice a cross draw - where you draw a gun that's holstered pointing backwards on the opposite hip rather than the same side, which is still how many carry a gun operationally as it's much easier to access when sitting down.

image.jpeg.26aabcc815bbef0e6a87b11657a6facf.jpeg A top-break revolver - a S&W .38 Hammerless five chamber

 A cross draw and conventional rig:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/09/30/5c0930a20cda3da32670edd37ae76ac2.jpg

The whole affair is looking more sloppy and unprofessional as facts emerge. Thanks again Stonker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stonker said:

There have been a few seriously worrying developments / allegations in the media in the last couple of days, which I'll put in a separate post as they take negligence and incompetence to a whole new level, but I think it may be worth pointing out a few things about revolvers, particularly 19th century ones as used here, which some may not be aware of.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/RhoqebLScEurjUNcwdCRFYcQ_qy8aZ441sE168D6fXdjU6BncdntMujU39R153JbjqfWANwAvD_UixY0eGSAaRyBthay7Y9N55CRTHal-xQa

There are a few exceptions such as top-break revolvers, but in general there are two different types of revolvers: single action and double action.

Single action revolvers are cocked manually by pulling back the hammer, usually with the thumb, and then fired by pulling the trigger which releases the hammer which then hits the primer at the base of the cartridge, etc.

Double action revolvers can be cocked manually, like a single action, which gives a smoother and lighter trigger pull, or they can be cocked by pulling the trigger: the first "action" cocks the weapon, pulling back the hammer, and then continuing to pull the trigger releases the hammer (the second "action") which then hits the primer, etc.

Both look virtually the same externally.

Pulling back the hammer in either a single or double action revolver also turns (revolves) the cylinder by one chamber.

The reason I mention this is that unlike a pistol / automatic where it's difficult to know if they're loaded or not or whether there's a round ready to fire in the chamber without physically checking and handling the weapon, removing the magazine, etc, with a revolver it's much simpler to do with a visual check since you can see most of the rounds in the cylinder.  You usually can't see them easily from behind as there's a shield / plate behind the cylinder to stop the rounds falling out, but from the front you can easily see the heads of all the rounds in the cylinder except those at the top or bottom of the cylinder which are behind the frame.

Since cocking the revolver turns the cylinder by one chamber, the "top" round which was hidden isn't the one fired when the trigger is pulled, but it's the round in the next chamber which is fired which was easily visible with a quick glance, which would have told you straightaway if that chamber was empty or not.

In this instance there was no reason for the weapon handed to Alec Baldwin to have any sort of rounds in it at all - drill / dummy rounds, blanks, or live rounds.  All the chambers should have been empty, and a cursory glance by anyone with even a passing familiarity with weapons could and should have confirmed that.

It wasn't even a shoot, as the cameras weren't even rolling at the time, it was simply a practice run through so that Baldwin could practice a cross draw - where you draw a gun that's holstered pointing backwards on the opposite hip rather than the same side, which is still how many carry a gun operationally as it's much easier to access when sitting down.

image.jpeg.26aabcc815bbef0e6a87b11657a6facf.jpeg A top-break revolver - a S&W .38 Hammerless five chamber

 A cross draw and conventional rig:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/09/30/5c0930a20cda3da32670edd37ae76ac2.jpg

The explanation also helps explain why some shooters have the palms of the hands cocking the firearm (I guess these are the  single action type and the revolving cylinder is emptied after discharging all rounds.

If the actor was simply practicing drawing the weapon he (or more over the armourer) could have easily noticed if rounds were inserted.

I believe that unlike side arms or military guns there is no safety on the revolver so just makes more sense to double check.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, the pics that should have gone with that are here:

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

I hazard a guess and say that this is the (single action) hammer cocking mechanism. Do the double action have some kind of ratchet rather than a hammer stretching the spring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

The whole affair is looking more sloppy and unprofessional as facts emerge. Thanks again Stonker.

It gets MUCH worse - MUCH, MUCH WORSE.

Wait a few minutes ....

 

3 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

The explanation also helps explain why some shooters have the palms of the hands cocking the firearm (I guess these are the  single action type and the revolving cylinder is emptied after discharging all rounds.

If the actor was simply practicing drawing the weapon he (or more over the armourer) could have easily noticed if rounds were inserted.

I believe that unlike side arms or military guns there is no safety on the revolver so just makes more sense to double check.

That's known as "fanning". Incredibly inaccurate, you simply fan / sweep the hammer while holding the trigger back.

Very, very few revolvers have external safeties, but it takes a heavy pull on the trigger to cock a double action as it's all manual, and most modern revolvers have an internal safety that means the revolver can't be fired without pulling the trigger.

An experienced "action" actor could have been expected to notice, but at the same time it's not their direct responsibility and they should be shown the state of the weapon by the person handing it to them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

I hazard a guess and say that this is the (single action) hammer cocking mechanism. Do the double action have some kind of ratchet rather than a hammer stretching the spring?

Yes, that's a single action. The double action looks nearly identical externally, but there are different types of action including hammerless so it's veering a bit off topic to go into them all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Yes, that's a single action. The double action looks nearly identical externally, but there are different types of action including hammerless so it's veering a bit off topic to go into them all.

No problem but with the additional information provided the reality of gross negligence seems the culprit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2021 at 7:42 PM, Stonker said:

This is simply not correct, and obviously so since it all depends on the size of the "obstruction" - in some cases it will "raise the chamber pressure to the point where the barrel and perhaps the chamber of the firearm is burst", if the obstruction is large enough, in others if the obstruction is small enough it will simply be blown out of the barrel.

What you are stating is not possible.  If the "bullet part" was lodged inside the barrel from a previous round and not expelled from the ignition of the cartridge it came from then a second charge would blow the barrel, possibly the chamber.  It would not be propelled from the second charge.  If the "bullet part" was smaller than the bore of the barrel it would have easily been expelled by the prior cartridge.  

Even dirt in a barrel let alone a metal object stuck inside of it will cause chamber pressure to rise to the point it will burst the barrel.  I have personally witnessed two occasions.  One where a person incorrectly loaded a 20 gauge shell into a much bigger 12 gouge gun barrel.  Upon opening the gun, he thought he had not loaded it and put a 12 gauge shell in and fired it.  The chamber pressure blew the sideplates of the gun and split the barrel.  That was of a shotgun which has a much larger bore than a rifle and much lower chamber pressure than created in the much smaller diameter rifle.  I have seen where a person incorrectly loaded a 12 gauge shell.  He thought he had not put the shotgun pellets in.  He had actually forgot the wad. These are small pellets going through a very large bore and here again, the chamber pressure rose to the point the barrel of the gun was thrown in the air over 30 feet, the chamber exploded and the force broke the stock of the gun.  

If you put any solid object inside  the much smaller diameter  rifle  or handgun barrel, particularly one that is lodged in the barrel from a prior shell, any firing of that gun will not eject the object but rather blow the gun apart. There have been numerous instances where paper or plastic wadding from a dud/misfire has been lodged in a barrel.  Even the plastic or paper let alone a "bullet part" is enough to raise pressures to the point where the barrel splits. 

  A shot discharged from a handgun with anything lodged in the barrel would knock the person firing it dramatically and more likely blow apart in the persons hand. 

As can be seen in this photo.  A plastic wad was lodged in the end of the shotgun barrel.  That alone was enough to split the barrel.  There is no way a metal obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a handgun would not cause any gun not to be split rather than discharge the "metal bullet part" 

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/55/67/36/12023723/3/1200x0.jpg

 

Edited by longwood50
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

What you are stating is not possible.  If the "bullet part" was lodged inside the barrel from a previous round and not expelled from the ignition of the cartridge it came from then a second charge would blow the barrel, possibly the chamber.  It would not be propelled from the second charge.  If the "bullet part" was smaller than the bore of the barrel it would have easily been expelled by the prior cartridge.  

Even dirt in a barrel let alone a metal object stuck inside of it will cause chamber pressure to rise to the point it will burst the barrel.  I have personally witnessed two occasions.  One where a person incorrectly loaded a 20 gauge shell into a much bigger 12 gouge gun barrel.  Upon opening the gun, he thought he had not loaded it and put a 12 gauge shell in and fired it.  The chamber pressure blew the sideplates of the gun and split the barrel.  That was of a shotgun which has a much larger bore than a rifle and much lower chamber pressure than created in the much smaller diameter rifle.  I have seen where a person incorrectly loaded a 12 gauge shell.  He thought he had not put the shotgun pellets in.  He had actually forgot the wad. These are small pellets going through a very large bore and here again, the chamber pressure rose to the point the barrel of the gun was thrown in the air over 30 feet, the chamber exploded and the force broke the stock of the gun.  

If you put any solid object inside a rifle barrel, particularly one that is lodged in the barrel from a prior shell, any firing of that gun will not eject the object but rather blow the gun apart. 

I'm sorry, but I just can't be bothered to reply any more of your posts after this.

What you keep saying is "not possible" is exactly what happened to Brandon Lee, as the inquest found based on expert evidence and the police found after over a month's enquiry.

I've already given several links confirming this, referencing the district attorney's conclusions, and it's been widely reported again recently.

"In 1993, Brandon — the 28-year-old son of martial arts legend Bruce Lee — died after being shot with a prop gun that was supposed to fire blank cartridges on the set of The Crow. The tip of a .44-caliber bullet was lodged in the gun’s barrel and when the blank was fired, it was expelled. The bullet hit Brandon's abdomen, damaged several organs and lodged near his spine. He died on March 31, 1993."

It happens in some cases, as I said, but not in all. What you are saying is simply completely incorrect, and that's being as polite as I can be.

If you disagree, as you keep on doing, maybe you should contact the North Carolina District Attorney's Office as I suggested before and I'm sure they'll give your opinion that they and all the firearms experts who gave evidence under oath were wrong all the respect you deserve.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about that, I'm trying to be patient and informative but my patience is being tried to the limit!

The guns for that particular shoot had apparently been checked by the armourer, Hanna Gutierrez-Reed, before a lunch break and put on a cart on the set where they appear to have been left unsupervised.  After the lunch break, off set, the guns do not appear to have been checked again and one was picked up by Dave Hall, the assistant director, and handed to Alec Baldwin, telling him and the crew that it was a "cold gun".

Reportedly none of those who handled the weapons on the set, including the propmaster and the armourer, were members of Local 44, the propmasters and armourers' union and not only was the armourer inexperienced as I've described before but she was also unlicensed as required by IATSE .

According to CNN and the Associated Press, Dave Halls, the assistant director who handed Alec Baldwin the gun, "was fired from the 2019 production [of 'Freedom's Path'] after a crew member suffered a minor injury "when a gun was unexpectedly discharged.” The producer, who asked not to be identified by name, wrote that Halls “was removed from the set immediately." Production did not resume until Halls was gone."

As @Marc26 mentioned before, it's now been reported (but not confirmed) that the set guns had not only been used by the crew for off-set target practice, but the live rounds used which should never have been brought on to the set had been stored with the shoot's blank rounds contrary to all industry standards and rules.

While reported as "misfires", stand-ins for Alec Baldwin had previously had two accidental discharges on set, coincidentally with the same gun only a few days before which had not yet been invetsigated with no action taken, and crew members had walked off the set in protest at the lack of safety precautions.

It's not just one instance of negligence or even a string of unfortunate coincidences, but a whole string of constant negligence and disinterest in any form of safety, regulation and checks.

 

Edit:   any questions on any aspect, please ask away as it's not only something I'm interested in but one of the few things I know much about and may be able to easily shed some light on.

2nd edit: please, though, stay away from suggesting that maybe the inquest in the Brandon Lee case and all the recognised experts who gave evidence were wrong, as I really have got bored with that particular line which has tried my patience 😪

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alec has always been a bully who is a potential powder keg.  Domestic abuse, constant altercations with others and now this.  He needs to be locked up for a long time.

Edited by billywillyjones
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

What you keep saying is "not possible" is exactly what happened to Brandon Lee, as the inquest found based on expert evidence and the police found after over a month's enquiry.

It is not as you represent that it was a bullet part stuck in the barrel.   First of it is "theorized"  that a bullet from a dummy load was in the revolver when it was loaded with blanks.  

The theory is that for close ups of the REVOLVER that dummy loads containing real bullets were used on close ups to show the bullets in the cylinder of the gun.  The theory is that one of the bullets remained not in the barrel but in the cylinder of the revolver which was then used later with dummie loads.  With the addition of the dummy load to the bullet that was already in the cylinder it turned a dummy load into live ammunition. 

That is infinitely different than a portion of the bullet fragment was left inside the barrel.  Again, anything stuck inside the barrel, will cause the gun barrel to split.  That is true even with paper wadding let alone a metal bullet.  

If the theory behind Brandon Lee's death is accurate, there was not a spent bullet in the barrel but rather a bullet left inside the cylinder which the dummy load then transformed into live ammunition.  That is possible though I would suggest not particularly likely.   The dummy cartridge would have to be short enough to load into the cylinder even with the bullet in the cylinder.  If the cartridges were conventional length the neck of the dummy cartridge would have contacted the base of the bullet and prevent it from being seated far enough into the cylinder to allow it to be closed.  

If for some unknown reason the fake dummy loads were very short cartridges it is possible but that would mean that when the cartridge with the real bullet was placed in the revolver the bullet remained in the cylinder.  It takes considerable force to extract a bullet from the neck of a cartridge.  Far more than can be exerted using ones fingers to remove cartridges from the chamber.  The only way that would be possible is if bullets were seated in cartridges without being properly resized allowing the bullet to sit loosely in the neck of the cartridge. 

There are several pieces of equipment including an inertial extractor and a bullet puller that can be used to extract the bullet/projectile from the force the cartridge case places holding the bullet into place.  Those all use a force far greater than someone's fingers pulling out a cartridge and leaving the bullet behind.  Again the only way that would be possible is if someone tampered with the ammunition, pulled the bullet, removed the gun power and did not resize the neck but merely pushed the bullet in the cartridge so it was only loosely held.  

If the bullet was lodged/stuck inside the barrel and not cylinder, it would have blown the gun apart. 

Hornady Cam-Lock Bullet Puller Collet #12 43 Caliber (430 Diameter) From  Hornady | xhunteronline.co.nz
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

It is not as you represent that it was a bullet part stuck in the barrel.   First of it is "theorized"  that a bullet from a dummy load was in the revolver when it was loaded with blanks.  

Jesus H Christ.

I've tried to be tolerant and avoid being argumentative, and I've tried to be polite and to avoid belittling your opinion as I've been warned about it, but I've had enough and it's time to finally be blunt.

That was the finding of the inquest, the police investigation and the District Attorney based on statements from all involved including the crew who made the dummy rounds and from leading firearms experts at the inquest and on all sides in the civil action.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

The theory is that one of the bullets remained not in the barrel but in the cylinder of the revolver which was then used later with dummie loads. 

No, that is NOT the "theory", which I've explained to you several times and given definitive links to, and quoted from in case you don't read the links.

The experts' conclusion and the conclusion of the police and the District Attorney, as detailed in all the links is  that the bullet was STUCK IN THE BARREL, as has been widely reported recently and was widely reported at the time and as I've explained repeatedly (my bold):

"a bullet tip became lodged in the handgun barrel"

" when the dummy round was loaded into the gun for that shot, the lead tip got lodged in the barrel."

"The tip of a .44-caliber bullet was lodged in the gun’s barrel and when the blank was fired, it was expelled."

"... lodged in the barrel of the gun during the filming of another scene several weeks earlier.

 

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

That is infinitely different than a portion of the bullet fragment was left inside the barrel.

I've never referred to "a portion of the bullet fragment", but only to the "bullet", "one of the bullets / heads" and " the head of one of the rounds (the "bullet" part) ".

That is EXACTLY what the police enquiry and the District attorney concluded, EXACTLY what was reported, and EXACTLY what I've said here repeatedly.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Again the only way that would be possible is if someone tampered with the ammunition, pulled the bullet, removed the gun power and did not resize the neck but merely pushed the bullet in the cartridge so it was only loosely held.  

Which is EXACTLY what happened and what's been reported.

That is EXACTLY what the prop crew told the police enquiry and the District attorney they'd done, and EXACTLY what was described in the link I gave which I have already quoted:

"In an effort to save time, the prop guys took the live bullets from the car and modified them into blanks, also creating dummy rounds – which didn’t have gunpowder but kept the lead tip – to be used for close-ups. Unbeknownst to anyone on set, when the dummy round was loaded into the gun for that shot, the lead tip got lodged in the barrel."

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

If the bullet was lodged/stuck inside the barrel and not cylinder, it would have blown the gun apart.

Well, that's your view.

The police enquiry, the inquest, the District Attorney, and all the firearms experts called, on both sides and including by Brandon Lee's family, at the inquest and in the civil case, all disagree with you.

I don't want to be argumentative or condescending, or to belittle your opinion, particularly as I've been warned in no uncertain terms of the consequences, but on balance I'll go along with not just my own experience but their view.

(and that really is the end of my interest in this particular aspect of the thread).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the gun this irresponsible idiot named Alec Baldwin fired was a Colt Revolver.  A gun which must be "cocked" prior to firing.  This is negligence of the highest order.  

Anyone defending Alec saying he is not liable for his actions is an idiot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 5:10 PM, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

Conspiracies everywhere! Could just as easily have happened to Stephen Baldwin. LA Times reports that there were problems on the set with working conditions and union crew walked out five hours before accident. There had been problems with prop gun misfiring previously. Unclear why you would think why Alec Baldwin's personal issues would play any part in this.

When firearms are used on a movie set, the regulations and procedures require an armorer to be responsible for the maintenance of the firearms. They check each firearm then supply the gun to the actor or actress and he is fully liable in case of an accident due to malfunction.

The armorer should be fully licensed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2021 at 4:10 AM, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

Conspiracies everywhere! Could just as easily have happened to Stephen Baldwin. LA Times reports that there were problems on the set with working conditions and union crew walked out five hours before accident. There had been problems with prop gun misfiring previously. Unclear why you would think why Alec Baldwin's personal issues would play any part in this.

haha how do you misfire a revolver that needs to be cocked?  it's not like a hairpin trigger... you need change your name to lawyers, nuns and unfunny lol

Edited by billywillyjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, billywillyjones said:

haha how do you misfire a revolver that needs to be cocked?  it's not like a hairpin trigger... you really need to drop "guns" from you slogan lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2021 at 1:26 PM, NidNoi said:

When firearms are used on a movie set, the regulations and procedures require an armorer to be responsible for the maintenance of the firearms. They check each firearm then supply the gun to the actor or actress and he is fully liable in case of an accident due to malfunction.

The armorer should be fully licensed.

Absolutely spot on.

Licencing is a statutory requirement of the IATSE, as I linked to above.

The armourer wasn't licensed, and reportedly none of those who handled the weapons on the set, including the propmaster and the armourer, were members of Local 44, the propmasters and armourers' union.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, billywillyjones said:

haha how do you misfire a revolver that needs to be cocked?

As I've explained before, they weren't "misfires" but accidental / negligent discharges.

 

23 hours ago, billywillyjones said:

it's not like a hairpin trigger...

Not of much relevance here, but actually a single action revolver or a double action revolver that's cocked separately rather than by pulling the trigger to cock the gun as the first "action" CAN have a "hairpin trigger", and the trigger pull is far lighter than for a double action revolver, as I've explaine previously.

This was apparently a Pietta .45 Single Action Cavalry Model, a "clone" of the Colt 1873 "Peacemaker" with a 7.5" barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2021 at 4:10 PM, Stonker said:

As I've explained before, they weren't "misfires" but accidental / negligent discharges.

Not of much relevance here, but actually a single action revolver or a double action revolver that's cocked separately rather than by pulling the trigger to cock the gun as the first "action" CAN have a "hairpin trigger", and the trigger pull is far lighter than for a double action revolver, as I've explaine previously.

This was apparently a Pietta .45 Single Action Cavalry Model, a "clone" of the Colt 1873 "Peacemaker" with a 7.5" barrel.

yes that gun needs to be cocked and Alec should have been cold cocked a long time ago lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, bottom line in all of this is how live ammo ended up on the set let alone in the prop gun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use