Exhibition shooters still do this. The late, great Bob Munden was the best of the best. His "quick draw" and "fanning" guns were very highly modified for the purpose. Treating an unmodified Single Action like this would ruin it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iS9uGktUCrY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is incredibly simple, Steve. The mere fact that the FBI failed to note any worn or broken parts means that there weren't any. If they had found any, that would have been an extremely important finding. Extremely important, to the level of validating Baldwin's claim that he had, indeed, not pulled that trigger. Again, very simple logic here - no assumptions whatsoever. If they found worn or broken parts, they would have noted worn or broken parts. Just like any other examination of any other mechanical device at the center of an accident, especially a fatal accident.

Beyond that, as I've stated previously, this is a movie set gun. A modern reproduction of an old, historic firearm, but a modern reproduction nonetheless. Made by a reputable manufacturer from modern, quality steels. I've described my own efforts to wear one out over 40+ years of steady use, with tens of thousands of rounds through one of my own examples. I've explained how competitive shooters, in the disciplines in which these guns are used, put many, many times more rounds through theirs than I ever will my own.

It is, essentially, well neigh impossible to wear one of these out to the point where it needs new parts, or has gotten dangerous to use. And I've explained how that situation would become immediately apparent to anyone who handled one that was, in fact, worn out or broken. And, again, this is a movie set gun. There is simply no way it would ever see that much use. And, again, had it been in such a condition, the FBI would have certainly highlighted that in their report. Its condition is that important to unraveling and understanding what happened. They would not fail to mention it, much less notice it, if that had been the case.

And, no, I'm not making anything up regarding who these other "investigators" might be. The FBI has already examined the firearm, and the prosecution is using their findings. The only other party that would be legally allowed to have access to this piece of evidence would be the defense. This gun is, no doubt, kept under lock and key and is very closely guarded as one of, if not the key piece of physical evidence in an investigation involving the loss of someone's life. Not just anyone gets to examine it. With the prosecution having had their turn with it some time ago, it doesn't take one hell of a lot of thought to figure out who else has just looked at it and released their findings. It takes even less thought to understand their objectives.

Have you ever been involved in, or conducted any sort of an investigation into any incident wherein the failure of some sort of mechanical device was a possible contributor? I have. On many, many occasions. We want to know why the mishap occurred, and if mechanical failure was indicated, you can bet your bottom dollar that would be noted in the report we generated. Think simple automobile accident scene investigation - if some component of an involved vehicle was suspected of having failed, or of being faulty in such a way as to have contributed to the accident, it would absolutely be included in the report. If nothing failed, there would be no reason to note that. It is simply assumed there were no mechanical failures if none are noted.

There is nothing unusual about the FBI's report, nor the handling of this key piece of evidence. The FBI absolutely would have noted any faults with the gun, as these would be extremely critical in determining what happened. The parties allowed to examine this piece of evidence are the same as they would be in any similar case - the prosecution and the defense. No one else. Pretty darn straightforward, simple stuff, Steve.

I'm sure you're right, Jeff. I'm just not ready to dismiss new evidence- assuming it's legitimate. I have faith in the FBI. As I've said, I'm pretty certain that Baldwin pulled the trigger or held it down. Thanks for being courteous about this discussion. That's all I'm looking for is a discussion and airing of opinions.

It will be interesting (at least for me) to see who these investigators are and what they claim they found, and I'm sure the FBI or someone of equal skills will be brought back to verify or refute the claims. Even still, I don't think criminal negligence for Baldwin will hang on whether he pulled the trigger. I think he'll avoid that due to his expectation of handling a "cold" gun, as is the norm on a movie set.

The FBI has violated your faith many times in the last few years Steve

I disagree and this is not PARF.

Like you, I'm very curious to see this new "evidence". For reasons I have already outlined, I'm sure this "evidence", provided by this new investigative team, will attempt to introduce uncertainty about the condition of the revolver. This new investigative team is working for the defense. The prosecution, through the FBI, has already examined it. No one else, outside of those two parties, gets to touch the thing at this point.

I have faith in the FBI as well. Down in the trenches, below the levels indicated in the political fray, they have outstanding people. They don't miss much. In this case, there just isn't much to miss - this is one step beyond examining a hammer for any undue wear that would affect function, or for any replacement parts not properly fitted, etc. Single Actions really are that simple.

Hand one to any competitor at a Cowboy Action Shoot, or even to anyone at any gun range who is familiar with them, and they could tell you in 30 seconds or less if it was damaged or malfunctioning in any way. Even utilizing the FBI is more to add credence to the findings than anything else - the local sheriff is every bit as qualified. This is akin to "Forensics 101" in their book. It's not like they're trying to determine why the Space X launch failed...

I have agreed all along that, at the end of the day, it does not matter whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. At least it shouldn't, nor should it matter if the gun malfunctioned. That should all be moot. But, well, Baldwin has made it so it matters.

As we've discussed, gun safety is a "layered" approach. There are a handful of very simple rules, kept simple so we remember them. We can violate all but one of these simple rules, and everyone remains safe. And alive. It doesn't even matter which of these simple rules we choose to follow - pick one, any one of them, violate all of the others, and nothing bad happens. It's only when we violate all of them that something bad happenes.

So, Baldwin has hung his hat on just one of the rules that he violated. He doesn't even mention the rest. I doubt he even knows the rest... So, in light of that, Baldwin has unwittingly made it important. Had he treated it as if it were loaded - rule one - she would still be alive. If he had not pointed it at her - rule two - she would still be alive. If he had checked to see if it were loaded - rule three - she would still be alive. But, to Baldwin, it all hinges on "I didn't pull the trigger", which makes it appear as though he thought the rest of his actions leading up to this tragedy were perfectly alright.

Unless I missed it I still haven't heard anything about how a live round got onto the set.

Considering what's going on right now...
- I'm guessing at some point we'll find out that the armorer was directly involved with the bullet ending up in the gun.

My theory...

"IF" Baldwin's gun was used for "plinking" the evening before the shooting then that's when it happened.
For whatever reason a live round was left in the gun and Hannah Gutierrez was there (plinking session).

After that a chain of mistakes led to the shooting. The gun was simply not checked and cleared.

And Baldwin did pull the trigger.

New information (to us) coming out about allegations Hannah Gutierrez-Reed claimed she purchased some .45 long Colt ammunition, the same type that killed Halyna Hutchins. Seth Kenney, who owns PDQ Arm and Prop in Albuquerque, supplied guns to the movie set. He claims HG-R asked to purchase some and he told her no way, she acknowledged that, and told him she found some somewhere else to use in her own gun, which was supposedly unavailable to her. The story is muddy because HG-R was suing Seth Kenny, claiming he sold her live rounds. So, it's a he-said, she-said thing going on there.

My suspicion is Seth Kenny's story makes sense, in light of plinking supposedly going on and HG-R's apparent total incompetence. I have doubts prosecutors will be able to establish a solid trail for the ammo here. I believe HG-R has admitted she loaded the prop gun and was unable to tell the difference between live ammo and blanks.

https://www.koat.com/article/man-who-supplied-rust-with-guns-and-ammo-bad-mouths-armorer-in-sheriffs-interview/39872780

https://news.yahoo.com/armorer-bought-live-rounds-rust-030413010.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6 Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIyI SAzO8e7k9o2gUSE3kx_KS_4s35LvaDRd7-MjGRc0wdIpJDW3MW1ruWBSR2pK4L2ufD2mKjqy30Sr-Vjo1R6hoPdBMzqMA6--a4o699ie8SYfKytHmRbPYVjry7IHjXHAzFrauCp7UuWGp4fXbe Rb_vXMxn8D_hvSnb1VeADp

Interesting there's no news regarding the supposed wear and/or replaced trigger on the gun yet. It doesn't even seem to be available who made that determination and what double checking is being done.

She was the armorer and she admitted she could not tell the difference between live and blanks?

Wow

Still fail to get how Mr Baldwin bears no culpability.

What distinguishes movie set "blanks" from a live cartridge? If the blanks are realistic looking, and just lack powder, for realisim in a gun belt, or are loaded in the gun, what distinguishes them just by looking at the back end?

Craigster, Hugh, movies guys?

Allowing live cartridges on the set location, and in the gun were negligence for sure .... an actor practicing a cross draw and fanning a gun with his/her finger holding the trigger ... as is required for the fanning .... I dunno. Anyone practicing that is sweeping the muzzle direction over a very wide arc ... mebbe 120 degrees and the muzzle is likely pointing at numerous off camera folks at times .... enter a live round into that TV/Movie nonsense and tragedy is bound to happen eventually .... and did.

Blanks typically have no projectile (bullet). The casing is crimped on the end, as opposed to having the lead bullet protruding from the casing.

Can't tell the difference? First of all, what is a 'blank'? There seems to be confusion in searching. I'm sure the aficionados here know the difference and terminology for a round that has powder and no projectile, and one with no powder, a hole drilled in the side of the casing and a BB inside.

So could she not tell? One has no bullet and the other rattles. That to me makes 3 kinds and they are all much different. IOW, if it looks like a live round, it has to be treated as a live round. She'll have to come up with something better than that.

There is another issue I thought of: Baldwin is supposedly 'fanning'. OK, to me that means he's scripted to shoot more than one round. Did anyone say if this was the only shot? If not, he needed to stop when the first round fired as there is no reason for the noise during rehearsal.

Another point as I haven't followed the closely, but usually (AFAIK) there is some kind of camera shooting at all times during "action." It might be a small video camera just to check some basics like lighting and actor's positions. Has it been determined that there is any tape of the incident, or are we past that and now just trying to figure out the handling of the ammo and who gets spanked? I guess a video aimed at Baldwin won't prove anything we don't already know. I'd still like to know if more than one round was fired. I'm going to guess no.

This is a real freakish deal especially since they want to finish the movie. I guess they are counting on people thinking oh I've got to see the movie where the cinematographer was killed. Sick. They won't see my money.

Blank round.
https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/m...our-blanks.jpg

Dummy round (looks like a real round, but no bang)
https://amedia.concealedcarry.com/wp...0-300x300.jpeg

Real blanks sure, but what about movie set blanks that must look real (i.e. a bullet showing) in a cowboy gun belt. And once loaded into a cylinder (unable to see bullet/none), what's on the primer end to differentiate?

My understanding is as follows.

Real cartridge = casing, primer, powder, projectile (goes bang, makes holes)
dummy cartridge = casing (possibly/likely modified), projectile, NO primer, NO powder (no way for any bang)
blank round = casing, primer, powder, no projectile (or maybe just wax) (will make bang, but won't make holes in sturdy stuff)

I think a blank round that goes bang will have a primer and appear very much like a live round if one looks at them while loaded in a revolver ... again, they are going for realism on a movie set. And a cross-drawing, gun "fanning" shooter is gonna be waving that muzzle gawd knows where practicing a scene that calls for such nonsense.

'Sounds' good to me. I'd hate to get hit with wax, wadded paper, etc.

I think if they need to look real, then dummy rounds are used which have no primer and no powder. But I'm not "in the biz" so I could be wrong.

Exactly. Don't point it at me, and certainly don't fire it in my direction.