https://www.npr.org/2022/08/15/1117577604/alec-baldwin-fbi-report-movie-shooting

For months, actor Alec Baldwin has said that he did not pull the trigger of a gun that fatally shot a crew member while they were filming in New Mexico. But new forensic evidence may tell a different story.

The FBI recently finished and sent a report to the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office, which is handling the investigation. Officials found that the weapon, meant to be a prop, could not be fired without pulling the trigger.

Baldwin's lawyer called the FBI's findings "misconstrued," adding that the gun in question was in "poor condition," in a statement to NPR.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/08/15/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-fbi-gun-report/10330160002/

The gun used by Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of "Rust" could not have been fired "without a pull of the trigger," an FBI forensic report obtained by USA TODAY concludes.

The report, released by Special Agent Jose Cortez, reveals the FBI did three accidental discharge tests of the firearm used by Baldwin to determine if it could have fired without a trigger being pulled.

Each test — with the hammer at rest, with the hammer in the quarter- and half-cock positions and with the hammer at full cock position — resulted in the same conclusion that the gun would not have fired "without a pull of the trigger."

During the testing of the gun by the FBI, authorities said portions of the gun's trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. That allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin to detonate the primer.

"This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms," the report stated.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2022-08-15/fbi-rust-shooting-review-baldwin-gun

“With the hammer in the quarter- and half- cock positions, [the revolver] could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger,” the FBI report said. “When enough pressure was applied to the trigger, each of these safety positions were overcome and the hammer fell. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.”

But the report seemed to leave open other possibilities. Even when the gun’s hammer was in the “rest” position, the report said, it could have fired “without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly.”

I could provide dozens, if not hundreds of links that say the same thing. The FBI concluded that the gun absolutely could not fire without pulling the trigger. They even broke the sear end of the trigger trying.

Baldwin's lawyers are, of course, trying to introduce doubt. Now we get to hear from "sources" - not the FBI - that the gun was "worn", which may have led to an accidental discharge. The FBI never said this.

Believe me, I have seen, handled, and fired many, many very seriously worn old Colts. The kind of wear they suffer is of a nature that will not lead to an ability to discharge without pulling the trigger. Oh, they can get pretty darn sloppy and loose, but I have never seen one (and I've handled hundreds of these) that will actually fire without pulling the trigger due to "wear". If parts are broken, yes. If simply "worn", never.

The doubt that Baldwin's lawyers have raised is aimed squarely at the inexperienced, unknowing public at large. Folks with no experience with these guns, no knowledge of how they work. Those of us who live and breath Single Action Colts agree with the FBI's assessment - there is simply no way that is possible.

Why did it take them so long to do what everyone knew they would do?

Apparently, you are utterly and completely unfamiliar with the man.

He is the sort of guy who was verbally abusive to his own young daughter. That alone is enough to do the trick for me.

^^^ and this....

https://www.insider.com/prosecutors-alec-baldwin-skipped-mandatory-firearms-safety-training-for-rust-2023-1

You missed 30 years of arrogant jackass behavior apparently.

I am really curious to see this modification. What the hell do you have to do to get a single action colt to magically fire on its own?

and the irony of it all.

Examined for modifications? Another red herring meant to cast doubt amongst the inexperienced and unknowledgeable.

The FBI tested this revolver, finally broke the sear extension on the trigger, and then disassembled it. Any modifications would have been noticed over the course of their testing and disassembly. These are not complicated mechanisms.

It requires an absolute suspension of logic and reason to accept these latest attempts to cast doubt. Why on Earth would they have a worn gun on set? Why on Earth would they have a modified gun on set? These Colt "clones" are inexpensive enough that there would be no reason to have anything but a functioning, safe example on set. And how on Earth could it have been fired and used enough to be "worn" to the point of being unsafe to use? A movie set gun?

I have an example purchased new about 40 years ago. The darn thing gets fired, easily, at least 500 to 1,000 rounds per year, and that's being extremely conservative for the sake of discussion. That means it has had a minimum of 20,000 rounds through it, or as much as 40,000. Again, being extremely conservative.

It's as tight as the day I bought it. The only part ever replaced is the bolt/trigger spring, which broke many years ago. These are flat springs, known to do this (I've had them break in other Colts as well). I replaced them with Wolfe music wire springs and have never broken another one. This failure mode, incidentally, will not result in an ability to fire without pulling the trigger. And remember, the FBI said nothing was broken or out of sorts when they took possession of this revolver.

So how would a movie set gun get "worn"? Really? Did someone just bring it from home or something? Even then, even if it were someone's privately owned gun, I will absolutely guarantee it has not seen even a small percentage of the use my afore mentioned example has seen.

So, yeah, Baldwin's lawyers are now trying these "worn" or "modified" angles. Trying to cast doubt. And, as stated earlier, it's only those with little or no experience with these guns that will buy into that. That, and people who are willing to suspend logic and reason because they so desperately want to believe that narrative.

Jeff- I would suggest that you might be getting ahead of yourself. Why don't you wait until all the facts are in? Your points are good, but not necessarily the end of the story.

It almost seems like you're implying a conspiracy for the benefit of Baldwin. How would such a conspiracy come up with investigators who are approved to inspect the gun Baldwin used? The prosecutors against Baldwin have accepted their findings for the time being (but have left the door open to re-filing the charges against him).

I'd like to know more about who these investigators are, how they could find something the FBI missed, and what they found. I'd like to find out how there can be two completely different findings.

As I said before, I don't think Baldwin's pulling the trigger (if he did) is sufficient to find him guilty of a crime. The safety protocols don't rely on actors being capable of controlling where they point a weapon or if they pull a trigger. That's like saying hot weapons are acceptable on set and it's up to the actors. Maybe accepting a pistol from an unqualified member of the crew or skipping safety training qualifies him, I don't know. I'm not a legal expert.

It's what lawyers do. "If the glove fits...."

I'm sorry, Steve, but there are few things on this (or any other internet forum) over which I will "go to the mat". Firearms, particularly 19th Century firearms, are one of them.

The facts are in. Concerning the firearm in question, the facts are in. Those facts are, indeed, "the end of the story". Baldwin pulled the trigger. Or held it back while he cocked the hammer. There is absolutely no other possibility.

These new "investigators" have found nothing that the FBI missed. There was nothing to miss. These "investigators" were hired by the defense to cast doubt amongst folks like you. Folks who know nothing about, who have no experience with, these mysterious contraptions known as "Single Action Revolvers".

There is no conspiracy attempting to benefit Baldwin. This is 100% his defense lawyers. Their sole purpose in life is to cast doubt. They have succeeded, at least with folks like you. Those of us familiar with the revolver in question do not harbor those doubts, and nothing the defense team has said, or will say, will sway us. It's only guys like you, who are completely unfamiliar with these revolvers, who will listen to them and thereafter harbor doubts. And it's only because you do not know a blessed thing about these guns. They are counting on that. And you, my friend, are a shining example of their target audience, and of their success.

Steve isn’t the target, Jeff. Ultimately, the jury is the target. In the interim, the prosecutors are the target. The defense has successfully cast enough doubt in the minds of the prosecutors to shake their resolve that a jury would not have reasonable doubt. So they dismissed the charges without prejudice. It’s gonna take allot of time to mount a solid rebuttal against this new argument about a faulty gun, even if it is a phantasy.

You should try reading my posts rather than listen to your own head roar.

Show me where I said Baldwin didn't pull the trigger. Notice where I've said even if he did, it's something that can be considered likely to happen, and safe in the sense of the safety protocols which should have been followed. Oh- I've noticed all along the way that you assume the same protocols that apply to you and me apply to a movie set. I disagree. The protocols on a movie set assume an actor can't be trusted to be the one in charge of safety, hence the presence of armorers. But you don't let go and acknowledge that. Everything has to be the same as how you handle guns. Different situation.

Show me where it says these investigators were hired by Baldwin's defense team. If they were, I'd discount their findings about 99%.

That's the old Higgins in action. We had it out over Boeing years ago. Jeff is passionate.

This whole shooting mess is just that. A CF of mistakes. If just one thing that happened did not happen, the film would have been done by now. I think Hugh knows more about how this could have happened, or better yet, prevented. Placing the blame on anyone in particular more than any other involved is not going to work out for anyone, especially the woman killed.

I think we can all concede that a live bullet got fired and killed someone. I wouldn't think for an instant that anyone would ever want something like this to happen. Yet there are mishaps on shoots, in construction and in factories. These are accidents.

So now we come to why did an accident happen. Probably as many reasons as there are accidents but if you absolutely had to sum it up with one word it would be what? Carelessness? is that enough? Neglect? Does that cover enough?

It's hard to put an analogy together here. If someone gets killed in an auto accident and the at fault person was drunk, that's cause for a big time punishment. But take in consideration something that happened to me 2 years ago. I hit a pothole in L.A. in a the rain in a LOT of traffic. It caused a tire to blister on the sidewall. I had to get a new tire, obviously. While getting that tire installed after waiting 2 weeks for it, the shop calls and says the inside sidewall of the other side tire is also blistered. This was not noticed until then. It very well could have gone unnoticed altogether.

So say that's what happened and the tire blew at speed and someone got killed. As I said, tough to come up with an analogy. You could find a cop story and so on. The point is where does downstream culpability start and stop? The tire is not a bullet. The only similar situation is the a few people were involved including me. I looked at both tires and missed the 2nd one. So if the tire shop had not caught it, am I ultimately responsible?

You bet I am even though I checked which showed my due diligence. Tires and firearms, both can be lethal. Baldwin never said that he checked the gun. He's one step closer to culpability than I was.

Let's say I never checked, so the fact that I missed it is not relevant. My car that had been worked on causes a death. What crime do I get charged for? If the shop released the car with a bad tire, what crime have they committed? Insurance is the civil side, so that's not germane right now.

If there had never been a pothole.... But there was and now someone wants people to face a jury WRT a crime. It's a sad story for sure but nothing will bring back Halyna Hutchins.

The argument Steve has been advancing is concerning some newfound doubts about the condition of the firearm. I have done nothing more than address those points, from a purely mechanical, functional perspective, as a guy with no small amount of experience with these specific guns. I have pressed the point that the FBI found no undue "wear", no mechanical faults of any kind, and no modifications. And, in light of that, the irrefutable fact that these guns simply cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled, or the trigger is held back while the hammer is cocked. It really is that simple.

It has become clear to me that Steve has absolutely no experience with these revolvers. No idea how they function nor, more importantly, how they fail. I have been up against this before on this forum. Like I've said, there are few topics over which I will "go to the mat". This, obviously, is one of them. I have been faced with similar "google experts", who know so little about the topic that they cannot even separate "the wheat from the chaff" on their google search results. Their need to be "right" - about a topic they clearly have no knowledge of - trumps everything.

Zeke, I'm still patiently waiting for the "evidence" you were going to present in our dispute regarding Boeing. The "evidence" that you were going to use to "publicly humiliate" me. You never presented that "evidence", instead trying to claim that the parties who had that "evidence" were "unwilling to speak". You could not bring yourself to apologize for calling me a "liar", nor could you ever bring yourself to admit you were wrong. I had quite literally a "front row seat" to the goings on we were discussing. You were in no way involved. Yet you were "right" god dammit, and your "proof" was going to "publicly humiliate" me. I'm still waiting...

Steve is doing the same thing now. My comments have been very strictly limited in scope to the mechanical function of this revolver. No more, no less. Not having the background to actually discuss the finer points of Single Action revolvers, I see Steve has now resorted to insult and obfuscation. Steve - what is your personal experience with the Single Action? Do you actually own any, have you actually handled any, have you actually fired one? Or is everything you think you know about them gleaned from google searches and the press releases related to this case? That's purely rhetorical, of course, you have already answered those questions.

I don't care who hired these new "experts". Neither have I addressed the safety protocols that were violated - we covered those ad nauseum some time ago. My only interest in this latest round was to address the mechanical function of this revolver design, and to express support for what the FBI found when they tested this particular example.

They noted no undue wear, no mechanical modifications, no broken parts. Nothing that this new "team" - who remain unnamed, it appears - would like to introduce into the conversation. The natural assumption, of course - and I freely admit it is an assumption - is that they are working with the defense. Introducing doubt...

Anyway, my only interest at this point is in clearing up the misinformation that some parties appear to be trying to introduce into this situation. I'm trying to introduce some insight, insight gained from 56 years spent with these things. Folks who are interested in learning might listen. Folks who have a burning desire to be right about things they know nothing about will take other approaches. To each his own.

There was negligence all around that set imo.... starting with live ammo being there, loaded in the gun, and gun protocols not being followed... by several folks whose professional job required them to do so. Multiple failures by a few folks .... led to a tragic death.... not just one.

I do know this much .....

Higgins is passionate ;)

I don't doubt that Jeff is right about gun. What we don't know are the details of the "evidence" that the special prosecutor is citing. Again, this dismissal may be just what they say it is-temporary. To buy time because they feel that a jury could be swayed if the they went to trial right now and then double jeopardy prevents fixing that. Or it could be a dodge.

He knows the SAA .45, for sure for sure

I always like him. He is a great comedic actor. His parodies on SNL are hilarious. I didn't hear anything about being abusive toward his daughter. Does that make him guilty of murder?

I'm curious to see it also. Without having it in hand to examine, I don't see how anyone can say it absolutely could not have fired unless AB pulled the trigger.

In those old SAAs, there is a reason they didn't keep a live round in the chamber under the hammer. Because they could fire if dropped, etc. and to be adament that there is NO WAY for it to fire unless someone is holding, or pulled the trigger is assumptive. If one was cocking the gun in a fast, cross-draw and the hammer slipped while just barely lifted off the cartridge?

Is that possible Jeff?

You are absolutely right about the old "five beans in the wheel" safety protocol regarding these revolvers. If there is a round under the hammer, any sharp blow to that hammer - usually caused by dropping the gun - will set it off. The firing pin on the nose of the hammer rests right on the primer.

Oh, there is a cursory "safety notch" on the hammer, where the sear extension on the trigger engages to hold the hammer just far enough back (maybe 1/8" or less) so that the firing pin is not resting on the primer. Unfortunately, the sear extension on the back of the trigger will simply break off if enough force is applied, like if the gun is dropped. This is the piece the FBI broke in their testing.

I like to say that Single Actions are like cats. They always land on their "feet". In the case of the Single Action, it is balanced in such a way that no matter how you drop it, it will land on the bottom rear corner of the grip and the hammer spur. Every time. And guess where it's pointed when it does that?

All of that said, Baldwin did not drop this gun, so this avenue through which the gun will fire without pulling the trigger is moot. He was holding it in his hand, pointing it at someone when he pulled that trigger.

As far as your second scenario, the hammer needs to be a certain minimum distance back to have the mainspring storing enough energy to detonate a primer. I've played with this, and have found that it depends both upon the particular gun in question and the weight of its mainspring, and the sensitivity of the particular brand of primer being used. I have lightened mainsprings in a couple of mine, and with those, I need to be selective with my primers. Even at full cock they won't always hit the primer hard enough to set it off. CCI's have the hardest cups and are the most problematic. Remingtons are the softest, and most reliable with those lightened mainsprings. Anyway, with a full weight "stock" mainspring, I've found the hammer needs to be at least halfway back to fire the gun most of the time.

It seems by the message posted, that Jeff Higgins misconstrued my comment as being derogative. It was not meant to be, just a light jab. Nevertheless, what is, is. When guns are the subject people seem to move a little closer to the edge of their seat.

I'll refrain from being familiar with any members in a buddy sense in the future. I don't know any of you personally and that's the way I think I like it.

.................................................. ..............................................

I'll state my Alec Baldwin position once and for all. The man was in the right place at the wrong time. He's a victim as much as he is a perpetrator, such as a passenger in the seat of a car involved in a crime. I never did understand automatically charging a passenger who had nothing to do with the crime other than being in the car.

Automatically being the key word. But as it were, EVERYONE on the "Rust" set is an accessory to the incident. Time for some consistency. Then they can present their case one by one to be absolved.

For instance, it has been reported that some film crew members on the movie shot guns for fun (away from the set). They are accessories, plain and simple because they (you would assume) handled live ammo. Starting with the source of ALL guns and ammo, everyone there should be considered being an accessory or we need better laws.

One more thing: resuming production of this film with the widower as a producer (not just that) is preposterous. WTF are people thinking? It has been reported some crew will not return. Good for them.

I consider those to continue to be involved to be scavengers from somewhere else going through the remains of a disaster site for gain. Scumbags.

Zeke, you have my apologies. If all you meant was a light hearted jab then yes, indeed, I completely misconstrued what you were saying. That was a rather contentious exchange between us way back when, so my impression was that you were trying to be contentious again. I was clearly wrong. I'm sorry.

Jeff thanks for that reply. I was specifically thinking about the second scenario... with a hammer in the process of being cocked, but not at/past the first notch. If it slipped, say with a heavy spring and a "light" primer, then "in theory", mebbe it could fire? I have ZERO experience with a SAA, but have always been extremely cautious with squeezing the trigger while releasing a cocked, or half-cocked spoon, sometimes even sticking a finger between the hammer and firing pin (modern guns).

And I've never practiced any "fast draws", cross draws, and the like.....

That kind of stuff is for TV and the mov....

Aw crap :D!

Never criticized him as an actor. Glengarry Glenn Ross, red October, I even liked the shadow. It’s his personal life. He has a decades long history of entitled douche behavior.

I know my way around single action colts. Others here seem to know more so I don’t say much. I am having a real hard time figuring out what you’d have to do to one to make it just go off in that scenario.

^^^^ Mebbe by practicing some BS movie "cross draw" scenario and not really being safety conscious?

Seems to me, a cross draw would wave the muzzle in an approximate 120 degree arc (at least) while going from the holster to the target, while being cocked, and while being 100% focused on "the movie" .... freaking make believe until it got REAL :(.

I know nothing about AB either ... other than those SNL skits that were replayed later.

It's a tragedy with multiple players at fault ....criminal? I dunno .... but certainly liable imo.

The hammer would have to be pulled back well past the first notch in order to compress the mainspring enough to give it enough energy to detonate a primer.

Here is a good little sketch showing the trigger and hammer. The hammer is shown at half cock, notice the hammer has one notch above and one notch below the notch where the end of the trigger rests.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682180517.jpg

Here are the four hammer positions. First is the full rest, hammer down position:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682180966.jpg

Next is that "safety" notch. Notice there isn't much difference between this and full rest:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682180517.jpg

The half cock notch. We place the hammer in this position to load and unload. When the hammer is in this position, the bolt (the part that fits into the notches around the cylinder and locks it in alignment with the bore) drops out of the way so the cylinder spins freely:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682180517.jpg

The full cock notch. Notice how big of a swing the hammer takes when we get serious about it. Much less than this, and it just won't go off. And, unless the trigger is held back, either the half cock or safety notches will arrest the hammer's fall anyway:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682180517.jpg

So, again, unless the gun is dropped and that sear extension of the trigger breaks off, the trigger must be held back in order for the gun to fire.

Oh, and just for the hell of it, how they land when dropped:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682180896.jpg

Where does the expression "going off half cocked" come from?

Just thinkin' a bit more about TV/Movie stuff.... practicing a cross-draw.

On a set, is there any way to do this and NOT point the muzzle at folks during the arc of the draw? Is that part of what happened here.... just speculating .... as I don't think anyone really thinks AB pointed the gun at her and consciously pulled the trigger.

I am SO cognizant about the muzzle direction..... ALWAYS!

I actually think he could/would have. It would not at all surprise me for some folks to get so used to and complacent about "it's not real".

Take 2 actors, AB and Keanu who is a "serious gun guy". I would think that Keanu is probably hyper vigilant about the rules. I don't know a thing about AB, but I could see him NOT being a serious gun guy, and getting very used to everything just always being make believe.

He’s well known for holding guns and 2A types in contempt. Which isn’t a good attitude when handling guns.

Maybe he shouldn't have skipped the mandatory firearms safety training for 'Rust':confused:

Exactly where you think it comes from. Except, well, maybe earlier than you think.

The earliest use of this term dates from the era of the flintlock. Along with it came "flash in the pan". I think we are all pretty familiar with, and might even still use these quaint old terms.

"Going off half cocked" is, of course proceeding before we are ready. Usually before we have all of the information necessary to be effective in our actions, or to have even chosen the proper course of action. We are sure to miss our mark.

Being more innocent times, the "cock" was that part of the flintlock that held the flint. You can kind of see it, looking sorta like a rooster's head. This, of course, evolved into the "hammer" with the coming of the percussion ignition system.

"Flash in the pan" denotes a lot of commotion, very briefly, with no tangible results. Soon forgotten. Flintlocks have a pan that holds a few grains of powder right next to a hole in the side of the barrel, known as the "touch hole", a term carried over from cannons that were fired by touching a flame to a hole in the barrel. On the flintlock, a cover with a striking plate is held over the pan full of priming powder, held by spring pressure. This is known as the "frizzen".

Cock with flint held in place, touch hole, frizzen open exposing the pan:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682203342.jpg

Filling the pan with powder:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682203342.jpg

Frizzen closed, flint at full cock:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682203342.jpg

Fired position. Note how the flint is centered in the pan. This is important, ensuring that the sparks generated by flint striking frizzen land in the powder in the pan. It's important, too, that the touch hole be free and clear, of we get just a "flash in the pan".

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682203342.jpg

Probably more than anyone here wanted to know...

Early firearms, with their not yet refined metallurgy, were not nearly as robust and reliable as today. Parts would break, or wear, and they certainly could "go off half cocked". We pretty well had it down by the time of the Rocky Mountain fur trade era, and certainly by the time of the Civil War. Not perfected by any means, but much better than the early "blacksmith" guns.

Which raises an interesting, salient point. Firearms prior to the age of modern heat treated alloys achieved their strength and durability through sheer size and mass of their various parts. There was no other way in the day of cast iron frames, actions, and barrels.

So, where does that lead us when we manufacture reproductions, true to original dimensions, in this day and age? Using modern heat treated alloys? I'll tell you where it leads us - to some of the strongest, most robust, most durable firearms ever made.

And that is precisely what Baldwin had in his hand that day. A modern made reproduction of a revolver design from 1873. I believe it was manufactured by Uberti in Italy, a very reputable manufacturer of these reproduction arms. Or it may have been Investarms, another very reputable manufacturer.

In light of that, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that this revolver was "worn". The sheer amount of use such a revolver would have to see to be "worn" is orders of magnitude more than any movie prop gun could ever see. Oh, competitive Cowboy Action Shooters do shoot theirs enough to require periodic "rebuilds", but we're talking far more use than even my examples see. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of rounds.

So, yeah, as stated earlier, no more than a red herring meant to introduce doubt. The FBI's forensic and firearms experts made no note of any "wear". To suggest they must have missed it is even more ludicrous than to suggest it was "worn" in the first place.

Jeff has all the nice toys... Jealous :(

Thanks Jeff. There's nothing I enjoy more than being taught by someone with knowledge and patience.

Do you have a link to the FBI findings you mention?

Please show me where I have done this. I'm not aware of doing any of this.

I am only discussing the situation and advancing my clearly stated opinions. I would suggest that you are missing the forest for the trees. Where have I stated that it matters if Baldwin pulled the trigger or not? You are hell bent on stating the trigger had to have been pulled. I'm fairly certain you are right. You're right about me having zero knowledge of single action revolvers. So what. I'm curious about what the findings are of these "investigators" and who they are. I've stated that. You leave no room for any such evidence. You have been invaliding my opinion- you insulted me first. Where have I obfuscated?

Coming from a place of having zero experience with single action revolvers, I noticed in my expert google use that Baldwin spoke about "fanning" the revolver. That requires holding the trigger down, right? In the videos I've seen of Baldwin rehearsing, his finger is clearly wrapped around the trigger. I suspect he held the gun with his finger on the trigger when it went off and may not have even known it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9cPVVztp3fE?start=1130" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I haven't watched any of the videos, and had seen it mentioned that AB was practicing a cross-draw.... with the arc of the muzzle issues I mentioned earlier. If you add in "fanning" the hammer, then this is total "made for TV/movie" scenario BS .... and the trigger would have to be held back the whole time..

That's not "real life" .... it's Little Joe Cartright stuff and if ya put real rounds in the gun then bad stuff is bound to happen....

And it did.

The whole nine yards is the length of a Vickers gun as fitted to aircraft during the First World War usually had ammunition containers capable of accommodating linked belts of 350-400 rounds(wiki)

The Phrase Finder:

What's the origin of the phrase 'The whole nine yards'?

Abstract
This piece is quite long, so here's a summary:

Many people are convinced they know the origin of this expression, which has numerous speculative derivations, but aren't able to provide any evidence to support their belief of choice.

The earliest known citation of a form of the phrase in print is from 1907, which clearly disproves the commonly circulated World War I and World War II origins.
The phrase originated in the central states of the USA in the early 20th century.

All of the numerous supposed explanations as to the origin of the phrase are incorrect.

I have already posted several relevant news stores that quote directly from those results.

You have done this repeatedly throughout the course of this discussion. You keep posting links to stories that reference "sources", "sources" that are unnamed, in an effort to counter stories that quote directly from the FBI's report.

The FBI has some of the finest forensics experts in the world. They have some of the world's foremost experts on firearms. You have tried, repeatedly, to invalidate their findings (which are quoted directly in the articles I have provided) with these various articles referencing "sources".

You have apparently bought into the pretense that these "sources" are attempting to bring forward - the idea that this revolver was "worn" or "broken". It is clear, based on the fact that the FBI report does not mention any "wear" or "breakage", that the FBI did not find any. Yet you persist, responding with more links that say the same thing in an effort to support your contention. You are finding those links through internet searches. You apparently do not know enough about these guns to be able to sort valid, truthful, reasonable results from those that are not. You persist in posting only those that fit your narrative, and those that do are providing at best erroneous, at worse purposely deceitful (I lean towards the latter) information regarding these guns in general, and this one in particular.

You have not stated that it matters whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. That's the largest part of the problem regarding what you have said. It matters a great deal that Baldwin did in fact pull that trigger. This young lady would be alive today had he not.

You have been trying to push the narrative that the gun may have malfunctioned because it was worn, broken, or faulty in some way. My objective has been to counter that argument, and explain why that is simply impossible. I have raised two key points supporting my contention:

A) The FBI did not find any fault with the gun.

B) The amount of use required to "wear" such a firearm is vastly beyond what even very active users of these revolvers can ever invoke in their lifetimes, and that this is a gun used in movie production, which would see far less than even "average" use. Remember, this is not an old gun - it is a modern reproduction of an old gun.

Your obfuscation occurred in the post in which you were ranting about something in my head. You threw in a lot of unrelated nonsense in with that one.

Yes, "fanning" involves holding the trigger back while rapidly swiping back over the hammer with the palm of the other hand. The very best way to actually break something in one of these, by the way. Pure movie nonsense.

Had this gun been broken through this practice, it would have been immediately obvious the very next time anyone handled it. They simply won't stay cocked, the hammer won't stay back. And the FBI would have picked up on that in a nanosecond.

So, again, my only objective here has been to try to offer what little I know about these guns in an effort to clear up just what is possible and, more importantly impossible with them. It is patently impossible that this example fired, in this instance, without pulling the trigger.

Does anyone in "the real world" (pro trick shooters?) ever fan the hammer with any accuracy .... or is it even done at all? I think it's a "given" that AB held the trigger back if fanning during his cross-draw if that's what the script called for. IMO .... that's something no safety conscious shooter would EVER do with other folks around .... and why? It's movie/TV nonsense .... not real world .... add live rounds to the gun, skip set protocols, and THAT is where it can get tragic..... and did.

You overstate what the FBI results were. Your words. Show me where the FBI says there were no parts replaced or seriously worn. I just want to see who these investigators were and what they found. You stated that they work for Baldwin's defense team, and then later admitted assuming that. What's wrong with waiting for the facts and who is claiming them?

Here's the FBI report. I didn't see them claiming all the parts were original and there was no wear.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22138100-alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-fbi-and-medical-examiner-reports-aug-2022

You seem to make up stuff as far as who the investigators are and that I'm posting links to invalidate the FBI's findings. That's made up. Show me where I said any of that. I'm just conversing on this situation and making my own opinions based on what I've seen. For you, that seems unacceptable and your 56 years of experience makes you the oracle of the truth and what happened.

Now you're stating "facts" from the FBI that don't exist (at least I haven't seen them). Show me if you can. I don't claim to have seen everything.

I have stated more than once that it may not matter if Baldwin pulled the trigger or not- that the safety protocols on the set should account for an accidental trigger pull in the wrong direction. Let me know if you need the quotes.

I'm not trying to push any narrative. I'm simply discussing the fact that the prosecutors have decided to dismiss the charges, at least for the time being. Show me where I'm "pushing" such a narrative vs asking questions about it.

I didn't say there was something in your head. Something missing might be comprehension, though. I said you should read my posts vs listening to your head roar. That observation still stands.

After all this is said, perhaps this will help you: I'm pretty certain Baldwin pulled the trigger or had it held back when he pulled back the hammer. Video of him rehearsing show his finger on the trigger. He's an actor, not a gun expert. Movie set protocols are supposed to take this into account. That's been my contention all along, if you had been reading my posts you should have noticed that.