aggiehawg said:

---

If the firearms are not required for the next shot the armourer should remove them from set and store where only the armourer has access.

---

Just how much recoil does firing a blank produce?

I have never shot blanks. My guess would be that they would have very little recoil.

While they don't propel a mass forward, the pressure escaping the muzzle will produce a kick.

With blanks loaded to the bare minimum for the firearm to operate (and with a revolver, that is no-charge) there is just enough recoil to cycle the action. Reports, and flashes are added in post.

Why any film production uses a firearm capable of chambering a lethal cartridge is beyond my grasp. …then they disregard the line of fire. Simply irresponsible behavior.

It depends on the blank, whether it is smokeless or black powder, full or half load, etc. I have fired 0.45 Long Colt smokeless and black powder blanks. They have smaller kicks than a live round but it is not a large difference. I have also fired 10-gauge black powder blanks and those have large kicks with a lot of sound and smoke. They are commonly used in signal cannons.

He needs to be excluded from existence. Flush him.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

If the firearms are not required for the next shot the armourer should remove them from set and store where only the armourer has access.

---

Just how much recoil does firing a blank produce?

I have never shot blanks. My guess would be that they would have very little recoil.

---

For kicks a few years back, I bought a US Army Launched Grapnel hook, surplus. It's meant to be fired/launched off the muzzle of your rifle, across the battle field, and in the act of retrieving it (with a trailed lanyard) you'd clear any trip wires.

While it can be launched with a live 223 round, it's designed to be fired with a 223 blank. A blank will send it ~100 feet and it weighs a couple pounds.

Same concept as my dog trainer. Bumper gun. Users blank .22s to launch a dummy 100 or so feet depending on load.

That's a hot "blank" though. It serves a purpose other than entertainment.

There are also things like starter blanks. A charge that does nothing other than make noise. A proper starter pistol is spiked. There is no direct path for a projectile, just vents for escaping gas.

Very true. There are a variety of blanks produced for different purposes and for different weapons systems. The blank needed to cycle a 1911 in 45ACP would be hotter than the blank you'd need to give a muzzle flash and report in a 45 LC revolver.

The Duke Boys didn't even use guns.

TexasRebel said:

---

While they don't propel a mass forward, the pressure escaping the muzzle will produce a kick.

With blanks loaded to the bare minimum for the firearm to operate (and with a revolver, that is no-charge) there is just enough recoil to cycle the action. Reports, and flashes are added in post.

Why any film production uses a firearm capable of chambering a lethal cartridge is beyond my grasp. …then they disregard the line of fire. Simply irresponsible behavior.

---

If the "kick" is just enough to cycle the action, then that would mean absolutely minimum recoil felt by the shooter. Even with a full load powder, there shouldn't be that much recoil.

It sounds like Baldwin didn't just disregard the line of fire, he intentionally fired it directly at the two.

VaultingChemist said:

---

It depends on the blank, whether it is smokeless or black powder, full or half load, etc. I have fired 0.45 Long Colt smokeless and black powder blanks. They have smaller kicks than a live round but it is not a large difference. I have also fired 10-gauge black powder blanks and those have large kicks with a lot of sound and smoke. They are commonly used in signal cannons.

---

Interesting! That's not what I would have thought.

With the conservation of momentum, I wouldn't think that the momentum of the gases would be enough to do much at all.

rocket science.

Quote:

---

With the conservation of momentum, I wouldn't think that the momentum of the gases would be enough to do much at all.

---

Just reimagine the firearm using blanks as a tiny booster rocket. The gases provide backwards thrust, but not as much as having a bullet to provide additional momentum. Smokeless powder is very fast reacting compared to black powder, so it builds up higher pressure in the barrel.

TexasRebel said:

---

rocket science.

---

I always cringe when I see someone shot in a movie and they go flying backwards.

Boo Weekley said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

I could see hitting another actor like happened to Brandon Lee, bit how f'ed up you got to be to shoot two crew members?

dude managed to fire in the direction of two people that weren't even a part of the movie.

How would they even be in a position to get shot?

---

Because that was the designated shot for the camera angle

---

You KNOW this?

---

How do you know it wasn't the angle for the shot?

Shots get fired at the camera all the time.

---

I'm not the one stating things as absolute facts like you are. You don't know anything.

---

Maybe THATS why she voted for Biden…

Tanya 93 said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

I could see hitting another actor like happened to Brandon Lee, bit how f'ed up you got to be to shoot two crew members?

dude managed to fire in the direction of two people that weren't even a part of the movie.

How would they even be in a position to get shot?

---

Because that was the designated shot for the camera angle

---

You KNOW this?

---

How do you know it wasn't the angle for the shot?

Shots get fired at the camera all the time.

---

i mean just read the news articles out there and youd knoe he was practicing his draw when he dhot they werent even filming

The worst thing that happens to Baldwin will be possibly him becoming uninsurable as a Director/Producer in the near future, and a pile of attorney fees defending off lawsuits. Maybe some punitive settlements but that's about the gist of it.

TexasRebel said:

---

The Duke Boys didn't even use guns.

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

insulator_king said:

---

Daily Mail article also mentions the crew used the same gun for target practice joy shooting outside of filming hours using LIVE ammo.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10124917/Gun-went-Alec-Baldwins-hands-killed-Halyna-Hutchins-used-target-practice.html#reader-comments

Wonder if some of the union crew that left were also some of the ones doing the shooting too. Something that would be absolutely forbidden in CA.

---

The police will test for fingerprints and compare them. Anyone that handled that gun, unless it was cleaned between uses, could be identified. BTW, an armorer should never allow those weapons to circulate unless it is a designated person. Losing that amount of control is bad gun safety, losing it on a movie set, is very bad gun safety.

If that is true, and the props were available to other crew members for shooting live rounds, no bueno.

---

I wonder if the firearms on the set were kept secure or if a crew member could take them out without permission, shoot them, and put them back, all without the armorer knowing about it.

---

Not if the armorer was competent. Guns should be locked up at all times when not in use.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

If the firearms are not required for the next shot the armourer should remove them from set and store where only the armourer has access.

---

Just how much recoil does firing a blank produce?

I have never shot blanks. My guess would be that they would have very little recoil.

---

Neither have I.

BusterAg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I wonder if they are using a revolver with a very light trigger pull (aka hair trigger) and that's part of what led to multiple accidental discharges.

---

If a gun has that type of trigger, it should be taken out of the props available for use on set. If it can be repaired, fix it before it is available for use again. That would apply to the very first unintended discharge.

Reporting is that there was at least one and maybe two other such incidents. If the above did not happen, it is gross negligence on the armorer's part and negligence on her employer's part. The circumstances surrounding her hiring might also constitute a negligent hiring cause of action. How did she get that job?

---

On the gun, the hair trigger doesn't seem to me to be a complete no-go. People own and use guns like that safely every day. They were common in the old west and behave slightly differently, so they might have done it for verisimilitude. But if they were repeatedly firing it accidentally, the training was at fault. They were probably handling it without the proper care.

So far based on what I've heard, it sounds like mixing ammunition, an inexperienced armorer who may not have felt like she could tell Alec Baldwin and company what to do, and general lack of respect for gun safety were at fault.

---

There is no such thing as a revolver with a hair trigger.

When you pull back the trigger on a revolver, the trigger cycles the cylinder in the revolver, putting the next round in the cylinder in position to fire. This takes significant pressure from the shooter, as they have to work against the spring that keeps the round in the correct position after a successful cycle.

This is usually between 12 and 15 pounds of pressure. A hair trigger is anything less than 2 pounds of pressure. HUGE difference.

Now, you could cock the hammer by hand, cycling the cylinder, and the gun could accidently go off with no more than a hard bump or a drop. But, no one should be carrying a revolver around with a cocked hammer. That shouldn't be done until you are pointing the gun at the direction it is going to fire.

So, this excuse is completely bogus in my mind.

---

Clearly, a hair trigger would apply to a single action revolver, not a double action revolver.

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I wonder if they are using a revolver with a very light trigger pull (aka hair trigger) and that's part of what led to multiple accidental discharges.

---

If a gun has that type of trigger, it should be taken out of the props available for use on set. If it can be repaired, fix it before it is available for use again. That would apply to the very first unintended discharge.

Reporting is that there was at least one and maybe two other such incidents. If the above did not happen, it is gross negligence on the armorer's part and negligence on her employer's part. The circumstances surrounding her hiring might also constitute a negligent hiring cause of action. How did she get that job?

---

On the gun, the hair trigger doesn't seem to me to be a complete no-go. People own and use guns like that safely every day. They were common in the old west and behave slightly differently, so they might have done it for verisimilitude. But if they were repeatedly firing it accidentally, the training was at fault. They were probably handling it without the proper care.

So far based on what I've heard, it sounds like mixing ammunition, an inexperienced armorer who may not have felt like she could tell Alec Baldwin and company what to do, and general lack of respect for gun safety were at fault.

---

There is no such thing as a revolver with a hair trigger.

When you pull back the trigger on a revolver, the trigger cycles the cylinder in the revolver, putting the next round in the cylinder in position to fire. This takes significant pressure from the shooter, as they have to work against the spring that keeps the round in the correct position after a successful cycle.

This is usually between 12 and 15 pounds of pressure. A hair trigger is anything less than 2 pounds of pressure. HUGE difference.

Now, you could cock the hammer by hand, cycling the cylinder, and the gun could accidently go off with no more than a hard bump or a drop. But, no one should be carrying a revolver around with a cocked hammer. That shouldn't be done until you are pointing the gun at the direction it is going to fire.

So, this excuse is completely bogus in my mind.

---

Clearly, a hair trigger would apply to a single action revolver, not a double action revolver.

---

90% of revolvers are both single and double action.

In a double-action only pistol, you cannot pull the hammer back and cock it. Only the trigger pulls the hammer back.

On a single-action only pistol, the only way to fire it is to pull the hammer back by hand, and then pull the trigger. You can also "fan the hammer" with the trigger down. The trigger cannot prepare the hammer to fire.

In almost all revolvers, the trigger is double action, but you can also pull the hammer back and cock it, making the gun single action.

In any case, the only way to have a "hair trigger" on a revolver is if the hammer is already pulled back. There are zero reasons that a hammer should be pulled back on a gun that has any rounds in it (blanks or live) unless you are preparing to fire.

Again, this argument is irrelevant.

Not all revolvers are double action.

There are many revolvers that have hammer mounted firing pins (as opposed to a transfer block or inertia driven pin). Proper procedure for these revolvers is to carry with the hammer down on an open chamber to avoid resting the hammer on a primer.

Updated versions of these sometimes have a hammer block, but the "load 5" procedure is still best practice.

The carboard or paper plug holding the powder in the casing in place, is often discharged from the end of the muzzle. I think somebody in hollywood was actually killed by the wadding many years ago.

Geez he was using an era correct single action 45 Long Colt.

The real issue is what was a live round doing on location at all. No cardboard wad went through one person and wounded the person standing immediately behind her, so suggesting that is ridiculous.

When they fire a weapon, even with blanks straight into the lens, there is a piece of Lexan placed in front of the camera between the muzzle and the lens if they are following proper protocol.

There evidently a lot of industry standard protocols that were being breached in this instance. The set Armorer is really in deep Kimchi over this, he's 100% responsible for weapon security. Allan Graf the Stunt Coordinator has 35 years in the business, lots of war movies and action movies with a lot of shooting going on. He was involved with "We Were Soldiers" and you find a set with more shooting on it than that movie.

If Baldwin's insurance was up to date as it should have been, they will pay the bulk of the freight. Just not certain they will be able to find enough evidence to support any type of criminal negligence. Money will change hands and lawyers will make a lot of money.

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I wonder if they are using a revolver with a very light trigger pull (aka hair trigger) and that's part of what led to multiple accidental discharges.

---

If a gun has that type of trigger, it should be taken out of the props available for use on set. If it can be repaired, fix it before it is available for use again. That would apply to the very first unintended discharge.

Reporting is that there was at least one and maybe two other such incidents. If the above did not happen, it is gross negligence on the armorer's part and negligence on her employer's part. The circumstances surrounding her hiring might also constitute a negligent hiring cause of action. How did she get that job?

---

On the gun, the hair trigger doesn't seem to me to be a complete no-go. People own and use guns like that safely every day. They were common in the old west and behave slightly differently, so they might have done it for verisimilitude. But if they were repeatedly firing it accidentally, the training was at fault. They were probably handling it without the proper care.

So far based on what I've heard, it sounds like mixing ammunition, an inexperienced armorer who may not have felt like she could tell Alec Baldwin and company what to do, and general lack of respect for gun safety were at fault.

---

There is no such thing as a revolver with a hair trigger.

When you pull back the trigger on a revolver, the trigger cycles the cylinder in the revolver, putting the next round in the cylinder in position to fire. This takes significant pressure from the shooter, as they have to work against the spring that keeps the round in the correct position after a successful cycle.

This is usually between 12 and 15 pounds of pressure. A hair trigger is anything less than 2 pounds of pressure. HUGE difference.

Now, you could cock the hammer by hand, cycling the cylinder, and the gun could accidently go off with no more than a hard bump or a drop. But, no one should be carrying a revolver around with a cocked hammer. That shouldn't be done until you are pointing the gun at the direction it is going to fire.

So, this excuse is completely bogus in my mind.

---

Clearly, a hair trigger would apply to a single action revolver, not a double action revolver.

---

90% of revolvers are both single and double action.

In a double-action only pistol, you cannot pull the hammer back and cock it. Only the trigger pulls the hammer back.

On a single-action only pistol, the only way to fire it is to pull the hammer back by hand, and then pull the trigger. You can also "fan the hammer" with the trigger down. The trigger cannot prepare the hammer to fire.

In almost all revolvers, the trigger is double action, but you can also pull the hammer back and cock it, making the gun single action.

In any case, the only way to have a "hair trigger" on a revolver is if the hammer is already pulled back. There are zero reasons that a hammer should be pulled back on a gun that has any rounds in it (blanks or live) unless you are preparing to fire.

Again, this argument is irrelevant.

---

As was mentioned in the post above this, it was a single action revolver. So the argument IS relevant.

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

Geez he was using an era correct single action 45 Long Colt.

The real issue is what was a live round doing on location at allNo cardboard wad went through one person and wounded the person standing immediately behind her, so suggesting that is ridiculous.

Went they fire a weapon, even with blanks straight into the lens, there is a piece of Lexan placed in front of the camera between the muzzle and the lens if they are following proper protocol.

There evidently a lot of industry standard protocols that were being breached in this instance. The set Armorer is really in deep Kimchi over this, he's 100% responsible for weapon security. Allan Graf the Stunt Coordinator has 35 years in the business, lots of war movies and action movies with a lot of shooting going on. He was involved with "We Were Soldiers" and you find a set with more shooting on it than that movie.

If Baldwin's insurance was up to date as it should have been, they will pay the bulk of the freight. Just not certain they will be able to find enough evidence to support any type of criminal negligence. Money will change hands and lawyers will make a lot of money.

---

That's during filming. This was a rehearsal and there was some problem with the lighting and they were repositioning the camera angle. So the Lexan wasn't up yet until they decided on the angle. Nor does it appear the armorer, the 24 year old woman was in the building when Baldwin was handed the gun by the Assistant Director.

I disagree about the payouts from the insurers. Pretty sure those contracts require the insured to follow all union rules and safety protocols for the policies to cover this incident. From what I have read so far, they have ample reason to deny the claims. However, this being such a low budget movie, they may not have a lot of $$ at stake, either. Might be cheaper to do some payout versus fighting it.

Regarding the gun, Baldwin was practicing a cross draw and he was apparently seated at the time. He was inside a set that is a church and he was sitting in a pew. Assuming he is right handed, the holster would be on his left hip with butt of the gun facing to the front. From that position, with that size of a gun, not an easy draw, I've been told.

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I wonder if they are using a revolver with a very light trigger pull (aka hair trigger) and that's part of what led to multiple accidental discharges.

---

If a gun has that type of trigger, it should be taken out of the props available for use on set. If it can be repaired, fix it before it is available for use again. That would apply to the very first unintended discharge.

Reporting is that there was at least one and maybe two other such incidents. If the above did not happen, it is gross negligence on the armorer's part and negligence on her employer's part. The circumstances surrounding her hiring might also constitute a negligent hiring cause of action. How did she get that job?

---

On the gun, the hair trigger doesn't seem to me to be a complete no-go. People own and use guns like that safely every day. They were common in the old west and behave slightly differently, so they might have done it for verisimilitude. But if they were repeatedly firing it accidentally, the training was at fault. They were probably handling it without the proper care.

So far based on what I've heard, it sounds like mixing ammunition, an inexperienced armorer who may not have felt like she could tell Alec Baldwin and company what to do, and general lack of respect for gun safety were at fault.

---

There is no such thing as a revolver with a hair trigger.

When you pull back the trigger on a revolver, the trigger cycles the cylinder in the revolver, putting the next round in the cylinder in position to fire. This takes significant pressure from the shooter, as they have to work against the spring that keeps the round in the correct position after a successful cycle.

This is usually between 12 and 15 pounds of pressure. A hair trigger is anything less than 2 pounds of pressure. HUGE difference.

Now, you could cock the hammer by hand, cycling the cylinder, and the gun could accidently go off with no more than a hard bump or a drop. But, no one should be carrying a revolver around with a cocked hammer. That shouldn't be done until you are pointing the gun at the direction it is going to fire.

So, this excuse is completely bogus in my mind.

---

Clearly, a hair trigger would apply to a single action revolver, not a double action revolver.

---

Would have to cock the hammer

Do we know yet if multiple rounds were fired or was all the damage done with one round?

Quote:

---

Another witness, cameraman Reid Russel, gave additional insight into the moments leading up to the horrific tragedy.

"[Russel] said while preparing, there was a shadow coming from the outside light and they had to move the camera at a different angle from Alec," the warrant says.

"He said Alec was trying to explain how he was going to draw out the firearm and where his arm would be at when the firearm was pulled from the holster," according to the warrant.

"[Russel] was not sure why the firearm was discharged and just remembered the loud bang from the firearm," the document states.

Souza, who was looking over Hutchins' shoulder when the Thursday tragedy unfolded, was struck in the shoulder and Hutchins in the chest.

"[Russel] said after the firearm was discharged, he remembered [Souza] having blood on his person, and [Hutchins] speaking and saying she couldn't feel her legs," the record says.

"[Russel] stated once [Hutchins] was on the ground, medics began to treat her injury as she was bleeding while on the floor of the building they were in."

Souza told authorities that Hutchins stumbled backward while complaining of pain before she was helped to the ground. Hutchins was airlifted to the hospital, but could not be saved. Souza has since been released from the hospital.

---

Link