“With the hammer de-cocked on a loaded chamber, the gun was able to detonate a primer "without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly," which is normal for this type of revolver, the report stated.”

That is not what took place.... as stated above all original Colts hammers rested near the primer of a loaded cylinder..fully forward, not cocked. If you struck the hammer spur hard, like with a rock, or dropped the weapon landing on its hammer it could discharge. However, you had to hit the hammer with something for this to happen...just holding it in your hand would do nada. Striking the hammer with the heel of your hand would likely give you a nice bruise but would not discharge a round unless you were the Hulk.

Many carried a Colt, myself included, with 5 rounds chambered and the hammer down on an empty chamber.

When cocked, as numbnutz did, this event is not in play. You can hit the hammer when cocked and the trigger sear will still hold it in place.

As the investigation showed...when at full cock the hammer would only fall when the trigger was pulled....numbnutz cocked the weapon and admitted as much. He pulled the trigger.

I like your Original Colt but don't care for the 'safety' non original styled models...this is my snaker/varmint Colt....is very accurate as the rear and front sight in the '71 model are on the barrel.
It has the same hammer / sear system as the later Colts.
This was the modern Colt design made from the pre cartridge/cap and ball models before the '72/'73 popular Colt single action we all grew up with.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1660443637.JPG

Yup. The idiots running cover for Mr. Baldwin do not know enough about any of this to even tell good lies about it.

Yeah, not a big fan of the transfer bar Rugers. They necessarily add some weight and creep to the tigger pull, and I've never felt like the added round was enough of an advantage to put up with that. At least not for where and why I pack a single action.

On our 'Gold Rush Day's' town event you see more Colts worn than anything..real Colts.
It is the official State gun of Arizona.

Lots of Cowboys still pack them when working out by themselves too....

Yes, indeed. Colt Single Action Armies are still, even in this modern age, eminently useful guns. If I'm packing a sidearm, it is as often as not a Colt SAA. I like them because they are quite small, very rugged, and powerful enough (with my handloads in .45 Colt) to offer real protection when in the wilderness. I do go through them and replace all of their flat springs with music wire springs from Wolfe, but that's just me. I've had the flat trigger/bolt springs break in as little as 50,000 rounds, so I'm taking no chances... ;)

In the simplest terms... Mr Baldwin may have pulled the trigger without realizing it.

I wonder what the pull weight on that trigger is?

Stuff like this kinda sucks because I really enjoyed Baldwin's acting in most of his movies, "The Hunt for Red October" being his best.

That said - look at what happened to the director of "The Hunt for Red October" - Mr. John McTieirnan, who also directed "Die Hard" and "Predator"....click

It's the nature of the beast for mankind to have ups and downs. At the end of the day it mostly boils down to both Karma and/or just irresponsible behaviour....

Unless it's been worked on to reduce the pull weight, most SAA's and their clones I've seen are over three pounds, if not four to five pounds. I see no reason why a prop gun would ever receive any attention in an effort to reduce its trigger pull and, even if it did, it's almost impossible to get these things under about two and a half pounds. Unlike double actions, the rear end of the trigger goes into a notch on the hammer, directly, with no intervening mechanism to help with leverage. The hammer must fall with a certain minimum force to make the thing go off, requiring a certain minimum weight of hammer spring, which directly influences how hard it is to pull that end of the trigger out of the notch in the hammer.

In other words, there is no such thing as a "hair trigger" on a single action. It takes a very deliberate pull to make the hammer fall. Those of us who have played this game for awhile all knew, from the get go, that Mr. Baldwin deliberately pulled that trigger. Worse yet, he had to have deliberately pulled the hammer back before he did that. Two very deliberate, unmistakeable actions carried out against some very noticeable resistance.

Like I said, these idiots don't even know enough about any of this to tell good lies about it. But, they do count on their adoring fans and apologists to not know either. The fact that this had to go all the way to an FBI forensics test is ludicrous but, in the end, probably necessary to convince folks what really took place. Experienced single action shooters knew from the first report but, then again, we see self appointed experts who have never handled one who think they know better. We see that at play on this very forum, every day, on a myriad of topics...

If his role entailed him as a 'shootist' and he'd been doing draw/cock/fire, then as a neophyte, muscle memory may have simply taken over.

He still pulled the trigger and aimed a weapon at folks for a joke. Some joke.

The problem with this is that Mr. Baldwin first had to pull the hammer back to its fully cocked position. Look at the photos above. Look at how far back that is. A very long arc, against noticeably stiff resistance making four very audible and tactile clicks along the way. There is simply no way he could have cocked the hammer without realizing it.

Do we know the status of the gun before it came to be in Baldwin’s hands?

Was it cocked, decocked, partially cocked?

If the gun was decocked before he even got his hands on it, while holstered, it is possible he didn’t pull the trigger.

Just sayin’. I’m not defending the guy in any way. But it seems to me, from everything in this thread, it is possible, however unlikely, that the gun fired without Baldwin having pulled the trigger.

To reiterate: I’m not defending him. He is ultimately responsible for what happened even if he didn’t pull the trigger. The man probably thinks that even though he quick-drew a weapon and aimed it somebody but did not pull the trigger he should be absolved of any responsibility.

Now, did he somehow impact the hammer with sufficient force to fire a round? If the the gun was decocked, per what I’ve read here, he had to have for it to fire.

Maybe I'm being thick headed but how can a revolver in a de-cocked status have enough energy to activate a primer?

Applied external energy....IE: stuck with any object, say a rock or the forehead of a liberal..

I just saw an old interview [Dec?] with Alex Baldwin where he said "I let go of the hammer and it just went off". That would suggest that the sear didn't hold the hammer in place or he didn't cock the pistol enough to engage the sear.
Still sounds like bullshyt to me.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1660527321.jpg

So anyway... They whole thing has been determined to have been an accident.
IMO Mr Baldwin is off the hook legally for now but there will likely be some legal "costs" ahead of him.

Meanwhile he'll never admit fault or liability but because of that he may find in time dealing with what happened difficult on a personal level.

RIP Ms Hutchins.

Sociopaths don't seek clarity. They are "clear" from the jump and they don't care about anything other than how it affects them. He murdered a friend because he was too important to think about what might happen or who might be affected.

Like this? (ugh)
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1660533001.jpg

You guys are thinking way, way too much in terms of modern firearms, with their decockers, safeties, and such. These guns simply do not work that way. They are very, very simple mechanisms.

The only way to "decock" one of these is to hold the fully cocked hammer, by its spur, with the thumb. Pull the trigger, and carefully lower the hammer while controlling it with that thumb. When that hammer is lowered, to its rest position (fully forward) there is no "stored energy"as there would be in, say, a "decocked" Glock.

If there is an empty chamber aligned with the hammer and the barrel (as there should be), the hammer will be resting on the frame. If there is a live round aligned with the hammer (and the barrel), the hammer mounted firing pin will be resting on that round's primer. There will not be enough energy stored in the system, via spring pressure, to detonate that primer and fire that round, regardless of how the gun gets handled or jostled about. That firing pin, mounted to that hammer, is resting very lightly on that primer. It would take an external force - a sharp blow - to that hammer and firing pin assembly to drive it with enough force into that primer to detonate it. A force equivalent to dropping that gun from some height, or striking the hammer spur deliberately, with some force, with something like a hammer. As Reiver points out, we cannot hit that hammer spur hard enough with our hand to ignite the primer. If we tried, our only reward would be a deep, painful gouge in our hand, and the gun still would not fire.

IMO Alec "Baldballs" is way more guilty of (insert your preferred descriptor here) than anything The Idiot Chauvin did.

DC was trying to do his job, very poorly as it turned out.
AB was careless and/or ignorant but we still don't know how that live round got into the gun.

i have been meaning to test my revolver, (cimarron 357) and see if it will fire if i let go of the hammer before it locks into the hlaf cock position.

there is NO WAY in heck mine will fire once the hammer is pulled to the half cock position WITHOUT pulling the trigger.
in the half cock position you even have to pull the hammer back a little more before you can pull the trigger to release it.


this is my opinion:
i think baldwin and his buddies were shooting live rounds in the gun.
somehow the live round was missed. either it was not checked or even maybe baldwin kept it in his possession until the accident. either way i think baldwin and definitely the armorer should be held responsible.
i think he was probably goofing around and being his typical A$$ and was going to pretend to shoot it and he pulled the trigger with it pointed at her.
why else for the tv setup of "i didnt pull the trigger"
i think his guilt and conscience was actually getting the better of him and he did this to convince HIMSELF that it really wasnt his fault.

i dont think the actor should be responsible for a live round going off. you cant expect them to know anything about guns. should baldwin be held responsible as an actor, no. should he be held responsible based on his other roles in the movie/set, probably yes. if he was shooting live rounds on set, yes

do i think anything will happen to him, no.

Henry's cross section actually shows a double action revolver. Below is a single action revolver. While related, they are two different animals.

Sorry I couldn't find a better diagram. I would have thought that finding a cross section or cutaway side view would have been a piece of cake, but it proved to be anything but. Hopefully this illustrates a single action well enough to provide some idea how they work, and why Mr. Baldwin's lies were so obvious to those of us familiar with these guns.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1660600064.jpg

If that won't do it, maybe an animation found on YouTube might:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/koI8ydNT8aA" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is all very interesting but we still don't know how the bullet got into the gun.

Why don't we know that? You'd think that would have been a big part of the investigation.

We discussed all of that at length when it happened, Peter. My opinion (and that's all it is) has not changed. It does not matter how that gun wound up loaded. Not one whit. What matters is that Mr. Baldwin did not personally check that gun when it was handed to him. From the moment he took possession, he became responsible for that gun, and whether or not it was loaded. That is the single most basic rule of firearms handling. Someone tells you the gun they just handed to you is "unloaded", the first thing you do is check. Each and every time, without fail, no excuses. Mr. Baldwin failed to do that, and as a result, Mr. Baldwin killed that lady. No one else killed her, no one else shares any responsibility whatsoever. Not even the guy who loaded it.

Sorry, there is simply no wiggle room here. There are never any "do overs" when it comes to this. These rules are absolutely inviolable, for anyone and everyone who handles firearms under any circumstances. No quarter. I don't care who they are, how "important" they are, if they have convinced others that such plebeian tasks are below their exalted station - it is their responsibility and theirs alone. Accepting possession of a gun is accepting responsibility for its condition and anything that happens with it while in your possession. Period.

Not if this goes to a trial by jury, Jeff.

The law is the law except in the jury room.

Anything can happen. If just one member of the jury can be convinced there’s reasonable doubt about who is responsible Baldwin is not guilty.

Oh, I know. The glove won't fit.

But the brand new ones that weren't soaked in blood did.

I agree with you 100% but the fact that there was a loaded gun on a movie set pulls a dark shadow over all of this.

Why don't we know how that happened? Mr Baldwin didn't load the gun with a real bullet so who did?

I'm not sure we even know that much for certain, Peter. Maybe Mr. Baldwin was one of the folks plinking with it the night before, and he was the one who put it away loaded? We have no idea.

Interestingly, it appears the FBI forensics folks still have not recovered everything from his cell phone. I find that rather curious. How long have they been in possession off that phone? It sounds like he deleted an awful lot of stuff from it before he finally handed it over. I wonder if he wiped it, like with a cloth?

I thought the law was the law, except in Hollywood regarding firearms on the set

exactly
and it took THIS long to come with what any gun owner already knows. it CANT be fired without pulling the trigger.

you would think the priority would be where did the bullet come from and how did it get past the armorer with a bullet in it.

cant go along with its the actors responsibility.
what if they handed a gun to someone like angelina jolie, jen anniston, or julia roberts. do you think any of them would or should have the knowledge to be held responsible for checking a gun. once handed to them their responsibility falls in not letting the gun out of their site.
thus the purpose of the armorer.
for that matter, would you hand a gun to biden and expect him to know how to check it, what about KH. (they should only be given water pistols)

it does matter how the gun got loaded.
suppose someone wanted her dead.
live ammo is not suppose to be on a set

Jeff has summarized the situation succinctly. Whatever the device was that was handed to Baldwin, it was his responsibility to inspect it and ensure it was safe. Regardless if he had been told it was a non firing prop, it was his ultimate responsibility to ensure its safety. If Baldwin was not confident of his abilities to ensure the weapon could not/would not fire he should have refused the weapon until which time he knew how to properly manage the artifact.

Had the scene require him to drive a stagecoach he would likely have had more training than what it appears he had for the Colt.

Alec Baldwin did NOT intend to kill Halyna Hutchins, however, his inexperience (or recklessness) led to this tragic death. Did the Armorer have any culpability? Yes. The chain of possession should have been from her to Baldwin then back to her. Any intermediary should have been properly credentialed as an armorer, NOT an assistant director.

In essence, Baldwin screwed up and is in full CYA mode. Any non-celebrity would already have been charged with involuntary manslaughter by now.

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results either from recklessness or criminal negligence or from the commission of a low-level criminal act such as a misdemeanor. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or even intent. Since these mental states are not required, involuntary manslaughter is the lowest category of homicide.
Source: https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/involuntary-manslaughter/

How many of the six basic gun safety rules did he break? I count all six.


THE SIX BASIC GUN SAFETY RULES

There are six basic gun safety rules for gun owners to understand and practice at all times:

1) Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Always assume that a gun is loaded even if you think it is unloaded. Every time a gun is handled for any reason, check to see that it is unloaded. If you are unable to check a gun to see if it is unloaded, leave it alone and seek help from someone more knowledgeable about guns.

2) Keep the gun pointed in the safest possible direction. Always be aware of where a gun is pointing. A "safe direction" is one where an accidental discharge of the gun will not cause injury or damage. Only point a gun at an object you intend to shoot. Never point a gun toward yourself or another person.

3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Always keep your finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot. Even though it may be comfortable to rest your finger on the trigger, it also is unsafe. If you are moving around with your finger on the trigger and stumble or fall, you could inadvertently pull the trigger. Sudden loud noises or movements can result in an accidental discharge because there is a natural tendency to tighten the muscles when startled. The trigger is for firing and the handle is for handling.

4) Know your target, its surroundings and beyond. Check that the areas in front of and behind your target are safe before shooting. Be aware that if the bullet misses or completely passes through the target, it could strike a person or object. Identify the target and make sure it is what you intend to shoot. If you are in doubt, DON'T SHOOT! Never fire at a target that is only a movement, color, sound or unidentifiable shape. Be aware of all the people around you before you shoot.

5) Know how to properly operate your gun. It is important to become thoroughly familiar with your gun. You should know its mechanical characteristics including how to properly load, unload and clear a malfunction from your gun. Obviously, not all guns are mechanically the same. Never assume that what applies to one make or model is exactly applicable to another. You should direct questions regarding the operation of your gun to your firearms dealer, or contact the manufacturer directly.

6) Store your gun safely and securely to prevent unauthorized use. Guns and ammunition should be stored separately. When the gun is not in your hands, you must still think of safety. Use a California-approved firearms safety device on the gun, such as a trigger lock or cable lock, so it cannot be fired. Store it unloaded in a locked container, such as a California-approved lock box or a gun safe. Store your gun in a different location than the ammunition. For maximum safety you should use both a locking device and a storage container.

Source: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips

When the weapon changes hands it is up to whomever is in control of it to determine it's status. An accident may not be their fault alone , but it is their responsibility AND the chain of responsibility is not limited to one.

my comments in *** above.

I’m having difficulty understanding why the practice of gun safety should be any different on a movie set than in real life.

The reason someone is dead is exactly why the practice of gun safety on a movie set should NOT be different than in real life.

I believe this was an accident, but it was preventable. Everybody who handled that gun and anyone responsible for the safety on the set has a part in causing this tragedy, including Baldwin.

That being said, how this plays out will be very enlightening, especially if and how certain privileges determine who is/is not held accountable.

You've accepted the realities of movie/tv set gun handling until now. How is that an honest way to assess the problem here?

If folks following Jeff's logic didn't jump off the couch doing their best Cathy Bates when watching John Wick or any of thousands of other shoot em up movies and yell 'no, no, no you can't point the cockatoodie gun at that cockatoodie bad guy!' then this entire argument about how baldwin should've checked the gun, never pointed it at anyone, etc is specious. And knowingly so.

There is absolutely a guilty party here but it is, in my view based on what we know, the person/people responsible for providing/maintaining the firearms aka the armorer along with whoever brought live ammo to the set.

That said i think it might be possible that Baldwin shares guilt if he participated in or maybe knew of the live ammo use. I'm not 100% on that but I see it as maybe having some traction. But any culpability to be found there would be based on workplace rules as practiced by the film industry.

It is an interesting situation of culpability regarding corporate rules vs. law.

Certainly in real life if someone loans a weapon to a friend at the range, that person is completely responsible for the total possession of it at all times. From checking status to the safe operation of it. If a construction operator kills someone with a bulldozer on the job then they would normally be held 100% responsible, provided there was not any action by the victim, the company equipment was in good condition, and the workspace environment was safe. Unless there there were some egregious mitigating circumstance which affected the situation the operator would be held fully accountable. Personally.

OTOH, in this Hollywood situation it could be claimed the actor is not the owner of the equipment. They are just workers handed a 'prop' (which is actually a real functioning weapon) and told what to do with it. As a condition of employment, and per company policy, they are not allowed to modify or even verify the safe functionality of said company equipment. When hundreds or thousands of blank rounds with multiple weapons are used for only one scene it would be nearly impossible for the layman actor to verify the safety of every single element involved in their job role. And by corporate standards the actor world be blameless for any one of the dozens of specialized roles assigned to others in a support crew of hundreds.

The situation could be spun either way.
One leads to criminal negligence charges and one leads to a simple insurance payment.

That said, there are significant factors which haven't been revealed yet and nobody ain't saying nothing.
Did the amourer sign off on the equipment, or were the the gun props just taken with the assumption they were ready to be used that day?
Who loaded real bullets and left them in the equipment? And why?
Was pointing a weapon at the Director part of the scene and job description, or did the actor do that on his own?
Since the actor was also the producer, ie the company itself, which role did Balwin fit into at that moment?

This right here. I know we've been over firearms safety but on a film set protocols are different than "real life".

There is never, under ANY circumstances, a situation where live ammo is brought onto a film set much less a studio lot. Never.

As far as "plinking" after hours, the weapons are always in the armorers possession, locked in a gun safe when not being used on set. No handling by other crew members except the property department and the actors assigned to the weapon only while filming.

As the saying goes, "You had one job". When an armorer is hired that's all they are there for. Make sure the weapons are operable, cleared and back in the armorers possession when not filming, and either loaded with the proper blanks if needed or empty when rehearsing or filming scenes with no gunfire.

The culpability that falls on AB is that he was a producer and in order to cut costs, had the armorer multi task to the point that she could not focus on always being on set with the guns at all times. Otherwise all fault falls on the armorer.

This thread has completed it's travel around the sun and is back to page one....

But, the real rule (although Craigster is correct), is "Those with the gold make the rules."