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.

I think they would need a primer to go "bang", and missing primers like you posted would be obvious.... mebbe a dummy primer???

Where is Craigster :D?

Steve did a great job of illustrating the differences in appearance, and explaining the differences in functionality of live, dummy, and blank rounds. I only have a couple of things to add.

Dummy rounds are used in scenes where we can see the front of the cylinder, so we can see the noses of the bullets. They are also used in scenes where we can see the gun being loaded. They have to look real, because we can see them. Most have a hole drilled in the side of the case, no primer in the primer pocket, and a BB inside. Visual and tactile indications they are dummies.

Blanks do not look anything like a real round. Steve shows us the common crimped together case mouth, which is one version. The other version is an uncrimped case with a wax plug in the end. There was a TV actor in the '70's or '80's who foolishly put one of these up to his head when he was horsing around with his buddies on set. The wax wad, at touching his head range, had enough energy to penetrate his skull (as thick as it must have been) and kill him. For this, and other reasons, they are seldom used in prop guns anymore.

The wax wad "blanks" are commonly used in fast draw competitions, where they shoot balloons at very close range. Mounted Cowboy Action shooters use them as well, in a contest that crosses barrel racing with balloon shooting (as an aside, you guys should watch the ladies competing in this. Boy, can they ride. And shoot.) These competitions need something to come out of the gun, just preferably not a bullet. With the wax wad, anyone more than ten yards away is in no danger of getting hurt.

I'm suspicious of the whole ammo story. Reed is a shooter - why would she not ever buy ammo? It sounds like someone is trying to insinuate that because she has purchased ammo in the past, she just must have brought some onto the set. Just silly, really.

Nowhere did she say she could not tell the difference between these various ammo types. I'm sure she can. My three year old grand daughter can. It ain't hard. The important things to remember here, that seem to keep getting lost, is that:

a) She was away from the set, at lunch, when this incident occurred.

b) She did not handle this firearm before it was handed to Baldwin.

c) She did not have full, absolute, sole access to the gun storage utilized on set. Baldwin insisted he have access as well. Highly irregular, from what I understand. Perhaps a more forceful, older armorer (like her dad) would have told Baldwin to fck himself. Baldwin bullied her into providing him access.

One more thing that increases his culpability

Obviously, we cannot assume facts in articles like this are solid.

The rookie had been in charge of initially loading the vintage Colt .45 revolver Baldwin ultimately used in the October 2021 disaster.

But she then allegedly left the church set where the scene was being filmed and was not present when the life-ending shot was fired.

She claimed later to police no one notified her the weapon was being used on the set.

Cops also obtained text messages which showed Reed had tried to use live ammunition on set during a past film production, although she maintained the “Rust” revolver was only loaded with dummy bullets.

Immediately following the shooting, investigators who scoured the “Rust” set described finding a combination of live rounds and dummy bullets on the set, a serious safety violation, which fell under Gutierrez-Reed’s purview.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/21/rust-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-gets-new-hearing-date/

I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that HG-R couldn't tell the difference between types of rounds.

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/rust-investigation-live-round-hannah-gutierrez-reed-1235243228/

Calling them "facts" is even a bit of a stretch.



"Rookie". This young lady grew up with guns. Her dad, Thell, is one of the most respected, accomplished shooters of our time. This young lady had spent more time around firearms by the time she was six years old than most avid shooters will spend in a lifetime.

"Allegedly." This much has been established by every witness report.

She wasn't even there. No way to notify her. Nobody should have even touched that gun in her absence. Yet Baldwin insisted on his authority to have access in her absence.

Again, she purchased live ammunition. God only knows where she used it, but it stands to reason that a shooter such as herself would, at some point, buy ammo. She was told not to use any in prop guns, and she agreed not to do so. The fact that she, at some point, purchased ammo does not in any way indicate she used it in prop guns. A non-sequitur that many would like us to believe.

Only if she had sole access to, and sole authority over, the firearms in use. Baldwin would not allow her to have that. Let's not forget this. This is crucial.


Again, any shooter will tell you that is absolutely ludicrous. The differences are that obvious. Like I said, my three year old grand daughter can tell the difference. I'm not being facetious when I say that.

Those who make statements like this are counting on their audience never having seen nor handled the items under discussion. If I handed you one example of each of the three - real rounds, dummy rounds, and blanks, explaining which is which, you would, for the rest of your life, have no trouble discerning the difference. Even blind, feeling them in a paper bag or something. The differences are that pronounced. For obvious reasons.

Except for your first and last quote of me, you're arguing with the text of the articles I linked.

What do you think of the "information" in this article?

https://www.insider.com/who-is-hannah-guttierez-reed-rust-armorer-alec-baldwin-shooting-2021-10

All of my comments were directed at the contents of the articles you linked. My intent was never to "shoot the messenger" - you. You thought this was about you? :confused:

Just another pig-pile "hit piece". Lots of innuendo, lots of Hollywood types being "quoted". Lots of pretty much assuredly out of context quotes. Pretty transparent, really. The "big guns" are all aimed squarely at Reed in an all too obvious effort to shift the blame to her.

Again, even these Hollywood types have said that things were highly unusual on this set. Baldwin demanded access to the guns. The guns were out of locked storage when she wasn't even on the set. The fact that she may or may not have handled the guns that day, prior to this fatal incident, would be irrelevant had they followed the usual, customary protocol. That protocol would have had those guns locked up and inaccessible to anyone else while she was not on the set. The fact that they were accessible, per Baldwin's demands, changes everything. The fact that they did not put them away, and lock them up, and leave them locked up while she was away from the set changes everything.

Oh, and it does not escape me that you have now dropped the "she couldn't tell blanks from live rounds" argument. Again, absolutely ludicrous. I would be interested to read your thoughts on that, since that appeared to be very much a centerpiece of your argument.

Jeff, I know you have some respect for H G-R and some disdain for Baldwin, but this begs the question of HOW did a live round end up in a gun on set? Even assuming that Baldwin pulled the trigger and bears responsibility, whomever allowed live ammo on the set also does. Lots of things wrong here.
And yeah, Cowboy Action Shooting is awesome. I'm always in awe of not only the riders but the horses, as its very unnatural for a horse to be calm when someone is blasting away.

I read that somewhere. I'm referencing what I've read along the way, it doesn't make it a fact and I don't present these things as facts. You seem to speak from your vast experience as if what you say is fact- there's a difference. I haven't "dropped" the argument over HG-R's ability to recognize what ammo is what. You shouldn't assume that.

There were incidents on the set of The Old Way caused safety concerns about HG-R and led to her firing, apparently.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/entertainment/armorer-rust-set/index.html

Jeff- you've claimed Alec Baldwin had access to the guns. I believe the Assistant Director David Halls did, and I believe he probably shouldn't have. I haven't heard that Baldwin did- do you have any links to that?

Dummy rounds look real but of course are empty except for a BB inside which rattles when you shake it. We normally shake the round just to double check even though it's a hard and fast rule that no live rounds are EVER brought onto a studio lot or location.

I'm still sold on the "after hours plinking" theory. The Armorer is 100% at fault for this. "She had one job".

It's probably been covered before, but guns are never just sitting out with access to cast and crew. The Armorer hovers over them and watches them like a Hawk. I don't even touch them on set and they are part of my department.

After the director yells "cut" the Armorer takes and clears the gun and keeps it in his/her possession until filming commences. The old days of letting an actor hold onto a gun between takes ended with the Jon Erik Hexum incident. Since then it has been protocol to clear and secure all weapons when not being filmed.

HG-R complained of having to do other tasks outside of her Armorer duties. Propmasters are responsible for bringing and placing all the directors chairs for the cast, eyeglasses, wedding rings, watches, food being consumed in the scene and any other items that the actors handle.

Armorers are usually propmasters or assistants with all of the FFL credentials and weapons knowledge. I can work on a show and do props and ready actors for a scene on multiple days, but if weapons are involved on that day of filming I put on my Armorer hat and that is my sole purpose on set that day. No eyeglasses/wedding ring detail, strictly weapons.

That's where the wheels started to fall off the wagon on Rust.

Craig- should Baldwin have refused to take the gun from David Halls?

If Baldwin pulled the trigger, should that possibility been allowed for in the on set safety protocols, which are designed to accommodate such a mistake?

He should have questioned why the Armorer was not on set, especially in his capacity as a Producer.

A normal production would have had multiple guns for the lead actor. "Hero" (practical/operating), inop prop gun (which should have been used in this instance) and rubber guns for stunts and wider shots. There's an old Prop Man adage "If you have one, you have none" meaning you always have doubles and backup for your props in case they break or get lost or stolen. Holding up production due to a missing prop is very costly.

The fact that it was low budget and had inexperienced crew played a large part in this tragedy. There's areas where you can cut corners on the budget but crew safety and firearms is not one of the areas.

What we don't know is how a live round got into that gun.
- Who put it in there and when?

Was it the day before at a plinking session?
- If yes then why wasn't the gun cleared?

These are basic questions and yet the investigators can't answer them.

This could be behind a paywall if you've read too many articles for free. Sure seems like this process is slow. This is dated today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/arts/rust-prosecutors-alec-baldwin.html

‘Rust’ Prosecutors Seek Further Tests on Gun Handled by Alec Baldwin
The prosecutors, who dropped criminal charges against Mr. Baldwin after learning that the gun he was rehearsing with might have been modified, are sending the gun to a forensic specialist.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1684366604.jpg


An old-fashioned revolver, resting on a pile of material and other things, as seen in a sheriff department photo.
Prosecutors want to send the gun that was used in the fatal “Rust” shooting for further tests to see if it was modified. Credit...Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office

By Julia Jacobs
May 17, 2023, 6:53 p.m. ET
Prosecutors are seeking further testing on the gun that Alec Baldwin was handling on the “Rust” film set when it fired and killed the cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, as they work to decide whether to revive a criminal case against the actor.

Mr. Baldwin was initially charged with involuntary manslaughter, but prosecutors in New Mexico dismissed the case against him last month. They withdrew the charges after being presented with evidence suggesting that the gun Mr. Baldwin had been rehearsing with that day had been modified, which potentially made an unintentional discharge easier.

The old-fashioned revolver at the center of the case has already been examined by the F.B.I., but on Wednesday, the prosecutors, Kari T. Morrissey and Jason J. Lewis, sought court approval to have it tested by an outside ballistics expert. They wrote in court papers that they had learned during their investigation that the hammer of the gun may have been intentionally modified.

“The modification appears to be related to the notches on the internal portion of the hammer for full-cock, half-cock and quarter cock positions,” the prosecutors wrote in court papers. “It appears that these notches may have been partially removed or ground down so that they are less prominent.”

The ballistics expert, Lucien Haag, who has worked as a consultant for prosecutors and defense lawyers, would also be asked to determine whether other firearms that had been on the set had also been modified “possibly for ease of use by actors,” the prosecutors wrote. Live and inert ammunition found at the scene, as well as powder residue left on Ms. Hutchins’s clothing, would be submitted for testing as well.

Mr. Baldwin has long denied responsibility for the fatal shooting of Ms. Hutchins in 2021, asserting that he had been told the gun did not contain live ammunition and that he had not pulled the trigger before it went off. He said that the gun fired after he had pulled its hammer back and let it go.

A lawyer for Mr. Baldwin did not immediately comment on the request for further testing.

The prosecutors who filed the charges against Mr. Baldwin had maintained that based on F.B.I. testing of the gun, it could not have fired without the trigger having been depressed. But any modifications to the gun that would have made it easier to go off would complicate a prosecutor’s argument that Mr. Baldwin had behaved negligently on set.

The involuntary manslaughter charges against the movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, still stand. A lawyer representing her, Jason Bowles, has said she plans to plead not guilty. Mr. Bowles said on Wednesday that he welcomed the continued investigation into the source of the live rounds that were found on the set and into the functionality of the firearm.

"He said that the gun fired after he had pulled its hammer back and let it go."

I understand that a normal single action revolver would be 'cocked' if you did this. After pulling the hammer back wouldn't the person remove their thumb or finger from the hammer as a normal course of action?

I guess if you want to get technical about semantics, AB says he didn't pull the trigger. Nope. It was already pulled or disabled. Now it may boil down to a decision of semantics. He let the gun shoot unaware of the status of the ammo.

I will conclude that AB will be charged with something. The situation is unusual to say the least. It's a movie unto itself.

These two questions need to be answered and yet...

- Who put the live round into the gun?

- Why wasn't the gun cleared before being handed to AB?

Don't care about who did or didn't do what. I wouldn't point a gun at someone my own mother had handed me, even if she were as experienced as I am. I fondle guns several times per day, have done so for decades. I clear them. Every. Single. Time. Repeat. This kind of "incident" could not have happened with responsible, gun-trained people.

I agree 100%... I was trained long ago when I was in the army that you must clear all weapons as soon as they come in your possession (handed over or picked up, it doesn't matter... They must be cleared even if the person handing you the weapons clears it in front of you).

But after everything that's happened I think my two questions are important and should be answered.

- So who put the live round into the gun? (Not as important as my next question)

- And why wasn't the gun cleared before being handed to AB?