Posted on 12/03/2021 12:33:12 PM PST by budj
Baldwin said he pulled the hammer back and released it and the pistol fired without pulling the trigger. The pistol was a replica Pietta, but we don't know now if it had a transfer bar. Assume it doesn't.
Has anyone here ever had that happen, or have known that it happened?
“the cowboys in the old movies used to just fan the hammer for rapid fire”
I have been picturing that also all this time since the shooting.
Also I gotta wonder...had the gun been modified in any way?
One has to wonder if there is film/video footage of the event which might reveal Baldwin’s actions in detail.
SA revolvers would typically have an unloaded cylinder under the hammer for a reason. But when you cock it, guess what? I don’t think AB understands very much about guns.
Its all moot as far as the hammer block or not as far as I’m concerned because the larger question is why did he point the weapon at someone? Is it confirmed that the weapon wasn’t a Colt Thunderer clone? The Thunderer has a smaller frame size so it might be a little more manageable for people with tiny hands like Baldwin. This might be why Bill McLarty and John Wesley Hardin carried them on the frontier
Wouldn’t you have to pull the hammer back until it hits a ‘click’ that holds the hammer back? Then you’d aim and pull the trigger. If his finger slipped before it fully cocked it could happen.
I think this scenario is the source of “Going off half-cocked!” Early revolvers were not designed to modern safety standards, the intent was multiple shots without need of reloading. One thing for certain in Hollywood for the near future, gun safety is no joke and there is no such thing as a safe gun!
Have to pull the hammer all the way back for the cylinder to fully rotate to the next cartridge and go into full battery. The hammer won’t fall unless the trigger is pulled.
and the Thunderer is a double action. - just pull the trigger and it indexes the cylinder and drops the hammer on a round
Agreed. It's looking more like the armorer lost chain of custody and believed no live rounds in the cylinder. As much as I despise Baldwin, it's not his responsibility to check for live rounds once he's told "cold gun".
Yes, us who don't have professional armorers will check once handed a gun even if checked by the person handing it to us. Yes, guns are always loaded. Actors have been depending on armorers since the Tom Mix days. There are a lot of restrictions and even laws that address gun safety on movie sets. The armorer is going down for this. She didn't do her job.
Plus, there should never have been even a blank in the aligned cylinder while doing the rehearsal. I've read that the cinematographer instructed Baldwin to aim at the camera and cock the gun somewhat. It was a perfect storm starting with the armorer.
Baldwin will never be charged. This County voted over 70% Biden. An indictment means the DA will lose her job.
does not matter. he pointed a loaded weapon and it discharged under his control.
“The problem lies elsewhere.”
What I don’t understand is why anyone would bring real ammo to the set. What is the point of that unless you plan to hurt someone?
The critical evidence will be the shell casing and the nature of the hammer strike witness mark on the primer.
Yes, and I've also read where the trigger sear can get worn after use even if the "click" happens at half-cocked. Near as I can tell, Baldwin didn't get to the first (half-cocked) sear and it either slipped out of his thumb from sweat/oil and the hammer firing pin hit the bullet primer.
This is all on the armorer. However, if Baldwin did fire others according to the crew and brought in a novice armorer, he probably has some liability.
Just wondering though if the loaded chamber was coming into position for the hammer to fall without pulling the trigger; wasn’t there a picture of him pointing the gun in one hand while his left hand was away from him? If so, that hammer had to have been cocked over the live chamber as he pulled the trigger.
“What I don’t understand is why anyone would bring real ammo to the set. What is the point of that unless you plan to hurt someone?”
What I don’t understand is why someone doesn’t understand why live ammo is used in certain shots in movies. And yet somehow after all these movies being made there are few accidents.
The problem is not pointing guns at people on movies sets or in certain cases using real ammo on selective scenes. This is done all the time.
The problem lies elsewhere.
This putz went on national TV and lied his a$$ off. And people will feel sorry for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.