Posted on 11/01/2021 3:58:29 PM PDT by xxqqzz
On Oct. 21, the 42-year-old was accidentally shot by Alec Baldwin with a loaded weapon that was handed to the actor by an assistant director who mistakenly believed it was safe to use on the New Mexico set of "Rust." Responders flew the 42-year-old in a helicopter to a hospital where she was pronounced dead. Director Joel Souza was also hit and injured but has since been released from the hospital.
On Wednesday, Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said in a press conference that a lead projectile that was taken from Souza’s shoulder came from the F.LLI Pietta Long Colt .45 caliber revolver that Baldwin, 63, fired during a dress rehearsal for the Western at the Bonanza Creek Ranch studio. The weapon in question is described as a black revolver manufactured by an Italian company that specializes in 19th-century reproductions.
"When you’re using period guns from the Western era of the U.S., they don’t require any modification at all to fire a blank," weapons armorer Bryan W. Carpenter told Fox News. "The guns from the 1800s are all mechanically operated. Meaning you have to do something each time to make the cylinder rotate and the gun fire. In the case of Alec Baldwin's gun that he used on this set… you would have to physically cock the hammer back with your thumb each time you wanted it to fire and then pull the trigger. Then cock the hammer back and then pull the trigger each time. It’s done manually."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The nose of a blank looks nothing like the nose of a real round. Just spin the cylinder while looking at the holes!
As I said, the dummy rounds I’ve seen are bright colors, not brass. They are used for dry firing and for safety’s sake cannot be mistake for live or blank rounds.
In modern revolvers, the hammer is blocked from hitting the primer unless the trigger is pulled. They won’t go off even if dropped on the hammer. But I was wondering; couldn’t you see the lead bullet looking at the front of the cylinder? If it were a blank, I wouldn’t want to be struck by a chunk of wax shot out of a .45 revolver (even it it were meant to fragment). As a kid, I shot a .38 blank at a yellow pine board from about five feet. It didn’t go through, but it left a dent.
I'll have to experiment, but off hand it seems clumsy and potentially dangerous.
I'm imagining pulling the "lets see if these are the right bullets" inspection on a SAA at the range, and the Range Safety Officer and other shooters being quite unhappy with me.
With my Ruger, I can look into the crack between the cylinder and the frame to spot bullets. Not sure of the model used in the film. Yes, you CAN safely look at the front end of a SA revolver. JUST DON’T PULL THE HAMMER BACK FIRST!
You cannot fire the gun unless you first pull the hammer back. You can pull on the trigger all day long and it won’t fire UNTIL you first pull the hammer back.
Also, with mine, you can easily see the tips of the bullets from the danger end while holding it 60 degrees away from you. Which is preferable I suppose but it will not fire until the hammer is pulled back. Unlike a double action revolver.
You are correct. It would require something to hit the back of the hammer with some force, like dropping it on concrete. And those revolvers should have an empty chamber under the hammer when loaded, just in case you drop it accidentally.
Just open the loading port or swing out the cylinder (depending on what type revolver you have...Shake out or remove the rounds from the cylinder...See what they are (live, dummy, or blanks) and reload the cylinder...
You don’t have to look at the head of the rounds with the barrel toward you...You don’t have to look through the tiny space between the barrel and the cylinder...
So simple and easy...
With my Ruger, at least, one can point the barrel 60 degrees away from you and still easily see the tips of the bullets. Shouldn’t be a lead bullet in a blank, and for practicing Baldwin’s draw? There shouldn’t be ANYTHING in the cylinder!
If Baldwin didn’t know how to check, he should have ASKED. That is a reasonable precaution any reasonable man would make. And if you don’t take reasonable precautions, you should be liable.
“I keep hearing people who know gun safety saying Baldwin should never have pointed the gun at a person.”
That’s Rule Number 2.
Rule Number 1: Always assume a weapon is loaded. Treat it as such and VERIFY that it is unloaded.
Rule Number 2: (As we were taught) Never point a weapon/muzzle cover an area that you are unwilling to destroy. I.e., never point a weapon at a person unless you intend to shoot them.
Rule Number 3: Never put your finger on the trigger until you have the target in sight and intend to shoot.
Rule Number 4: Always know what is behind the target and the potential consequences of hitting beyond the target.
A single action weapon does not go off ‘accidentally’ as the hammer has to be cocked back into the firing position before the trigger can be pulled.
This is pure speculation on my part, but my guess is the hammer was cocked during the rehearsal and would have been for the live take. Someone who is unskilled at quick firing a single-action revolver, such as an actor in a movie, would likely have the hammer cocked so that it would appear realistic for the scene without fumbling to cock the hammer.
I have done some cowboy shooting for fun, and I’m not very good. I have two friends who cowboy shoot in tournaments, and it take a lot of practice and skill to get good at operating a single shot revolver with accuracy and safety in a hurried manner. I have never felt unsafe around them - those tournaments are operated with an abundance of safety, knowledge and respect for the weapons.
the fingerprint of who ever loaded the round is on the bullet casing.
This is probably true, but reporters typically do not use these "mid-reading" phrases that assign intent. Instead, they usually use words like "claimed" and "alleged."
He had control of the gun. He never cleared it. His finger pulled the trigger of the gun he had control of. Dumbfeckingass.
“the fingerprint of who ever loaded the round is on the bullet casing.”
Unless they used gloves or a cloth. They would have to be stupid to load in a live round either knowingly or unknowingly.
60 degrees,,,
Ouch!
Not necessarily. I have been shooting single action revolvers for over 50 years and have fired thousands and thousands of rounds through them. The hammer drops only when you squeeze the trigger, unless it's a custom hair trigger, touching the trigger won't make the hammer drop.
I was imprecise in my language. I meant he had enough pressure on it to inadvertently slip fire it.
Ok, that makes sense.
Actually, the idea came up by one writer that the gun may have been “fanned”, that is the trigger depressed when cocked, and then the hammer wouldn’t lock back.
I thought that was interesting, and saw I could do it on my SAA replica. Still requires the finger on the trigger.
You guys saying to just “spin the cylinder” and look at the nose of the rounds therein, are a lot braver than I am. NO WAY in hell am I aiming a loaded gun at my face, even one with just with blanks. That is a great way to burn your face or go blind if the gun accidentally goes off.
Dummy rounds are easy to check. Point the gun at the ground, in a safe direction, cock and pull the trigger. Six times.
Take one of your SAA revolvers, hold the trigger down, and you’ll see the hammer won’t lock back.
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.