..Guns Guns & More Guns

[Odinson]

I know who you are talking about.

That sounds possible... The prop-guns probably aint the best maintained guns.

The gun is a Pietta long colt .45 btw... So its at most 50 years old, I think.

A sear failure would explain why the hammer didnt stop at half-cock.
Maybe the gun was really worn down and they simply ignored the fact that the hammer aint functioning properly while they were checking the cylinder... It is just a prop-gun after all.

Though they apparently used this particular gun to plink cans during their free-time... So it functioned to a point.
Maybe the notches on the hammer are worn down... Only engaging at full cock.

About the dummy rounds.
Apparently there are also BBs inside that rattle when you shake the dummy round.
Shaking it is the final confirmation that it is indeed a dummy round.

Even if she made a mistake or the friend made a mistake, its still on her... Only thing the cops have to determine is whether it was intentional or an accident... 1st degree murder or manslaughter.

Pietta has been supplying guns here in the US for a long time. Along with Uberti they are considered one of the more upper end spaghetti guns. The newer ones have transfer bar safeties but if the sear was compromised, that doesn't matter.

Hollywood has a history and habit of using foreign repros as old western prop guns. Some of the more common manufacturers are Hawes, Uberti, Mirouku, or Chaparral. Most of the older ones have a reputation of having softer than US made metal parts. Back in the 50s and 60s probably the biggest supplier of single action revolvers for TV and film was a company called "Great Western" many of those weapons are poorly timed, sloppy junk. They have sort of a checkered past in terms of manufacturer with some being made in the US, some in Germany and some in Itay. Currently I think the "Great Western" name is owned by Pietta.

In any event if the gun in question was an older Pietta, with sloppy build quality and softer metal parts, it just reinforces my theory of mechanical failure.

So it is a lower quality Colt...

Cant really tell until we know more about the whole thing.
It can take a while.

Here is another question.

Alec Baldwin is a veteran actor and he has been around firearms before... He has used firearms in his movies.

He has went through numerous gun training sessions.

He knows guns.
Is it possible that he started to de-cock the gun without pulling the trigger?
And why did he let the hammer drop instead of lowering it with his thumb?

He held his aim steady while he released the hammer like an asshole.

It all sounds so unnatural to me.

[Mel Gibson]

It wouldn't be possible to de-cock that gun without pulling the trigger.

This makes me wonder if Baldwin is lying. If he was directed to cock the hammer for a close up, I could only imagine that it would be a full cock hammer pull back expected on that single action. Anything else would make no sense for a closeup scene.

So now the gun is at full cock, the scene is over, and he de-cocks... This would be done by pulling the hammer back, and then pulling the trigger, and then slowly lowering the hammer back to rest with your thumb. If your thumb slips off the hammer at this stage, gun will go bang if there's a live round in chamber.

I'd bet money this is what happened.

As I'd mentioned, this exact thing was drilled into us by my firearms instructor during mandatory class here, except on a Winchester 1894. If that hammer slips during de-cock, gun will go bang, so know the feel of the hammer. On the Winnie, the hammer can have a surprising amount of pull once you start initiating a de-cock, and he wanted to make sure the class got a feel for that in a safe environment with an unloaded gun. And unlike Baldwin's set, each of us were asked if we had any live ammo on person, since no live ammo allowed in class.

[Blue Frost]

Here is a psychological analysis on Alec Baldwin Oscar-winning performance in the interview.

That's a long video just to0 say what i about said in my comment.
Good analysis of the interview, and Baldwin in general.
Baldwin has had some experience though with guns, him, and Cloony both have.

[Renee]

I know who you are talking about.

That sounds possible... The prop-guns probably aint the best maintained guns.

The gun is a Pietta long colt .45 btw... So its at most 50 years old, I think.

A sear failure would explain why the hammer didnt stop at half-cock.
Maybe the gun was really worn down and they simply ignored the fact that the hammer aint functioning properly while they were checking the cylinder... It is just a prop-gun after all.

Though they apparently used this particular gun to plink cans during their free-time... So it functioned to a point.
Maybe the notches on the hammer are worn down... Only engaging at full cock.

About the dummy rounds.
Apparently there are also BBs inside that rattle when you shake the dummy round.
Shaking it is the final confirmation that it is indeed a dummy round.

Even if she made a mistake or the friend made a mistake, its still on her... Only thing the cops have to determine is whether it was intentional or an accident... 1st degree murder or manslaughter.

Pietta has been supplying guns here in the US for a long time. Along with Uberti they are considered one of the more upper end spaghetti guns. The newer ones have transfer bar safeties but if the sear was compromised, that doesn't matter.

Hollywood has a history and habit of using foreign repros as old western prop guns. Some of the more common manufacturers are Hawes, Uberti, Mirouku, or Chaparral. Most of the older ones have a reputation of having softer than US made metal parts. Back in the 50s and 60s probably the biggest supplier of single action revolvers for TV and film was a company called "Great Western" many of those weapons are poorly timed, sloppy junk. They have sort of a checkered past in terms of manufacturer with some being made in the US, some in Germany and some in Itay. Currently I think the "Great Western" name is owned by Pietta.

In any event if the gun in question was an older Pietta, with sloppy build quality and softer metal parts, it just reinforces my theory of mechanical failure.

So it is a lower quality Colt...

Cant really tell until we know more about the whole thing.
It can take a while.

Here is another question.

Alec Baldwin is a veteran actor and he has been around firearms before... He has used firearms in his movies.

He has went through numerous gun training sessions.

He knows guns.
Is it possible that he started to de-cock the gun without pulling the trigger?
And why did he let the hammer drop instead of lowering it with his thumb?

He held his aim steady while he released the hammer like an asshole.

It all sounds so unnatural to me.

Yes, in general the spaghetti guns can be lower quality than an old Colt or S&W or a Ruger single action. But there was a time in the 80s and early 90s when Colt was making crap as well. I have and old Colt Bisley single action from 1909 in .38-40 win. The Bisley was supposed to be the target model of the Colt single action army. It has a different grip and frame shape and adjustable rear sight. It was my maternal grandfather's revolver and is almost as tight today as it was when it left the Colt factory.

The only way that the Baldwin shooting could have gone down as he says it did, was a bad sear engagement. If that was not the cause then he is either lying or the trauma of the incident has left his memory of the events befuddled. He could very well have had enough pressure on the trigger to let the hammer release when he thumbed it back... As I mentioned before regarding "fanning" a single action; It is performed by holding the trigger down and pulling the hammer back in rapid succession. Essentially the sear which is part of the trigger never engages the hammer and the hammer just slam fires the revolver.

[Mel Gibson]

I'm still betting on him letting the hammer slip from his thumb when he went to de-cock the gun, which isn't a big deal if the gun was free of live rounds like it should have been on that set. And it's the gun wranglers job to ensure the gun is free of live rounds for the scene, which she obviously didn't do...

[Odinson]

I know who you are talking about.

That sounds possible... The prop-guns probably aint the best maintained guns.

The gun is a Pietta long colt .45 btw... So its at most 50 years old, I think.

A sear failure would explain why the hammer didnt stop at half-cock.
Maybe the gun was really worn down and they simply ignored the fact that the hammer aint functioning properly while they were checking the cylinder... It is just a prop-gun after all.

Though they apparently used this particular gun to plink cans during their free-time... So it functioned to a point.
Maybe the notches on the hammer are worn down... Only engaging at full cock.

About the dummy rounds.
Apparently there are also BBs inside that rattle when you shake the dummy round.
Shaking it is the final confirmation that it is indeed a dummy round.

Even if she made a mistake or the friend made a mistake, its still on her... Only thing the cops have to determine is whether it was intentional or an accident... 1st degree murder or manslaughter.

Pietta has been supplying guns here in the US for a long time. Along with Uberti they are considered one of the more upper end spaghetti guns. The newer ones have transfer bar safeties but if the sear was compromised, that doesn't matter.

Hollywood has a history and habit of using foreign repros as old western prop guns. Some of the more common manufacturers are Hawes, Uberti, Mirouku, or Chaparral. Most of the older ones have a reputation of having softer than US made metal parts. Back in the 50s and 60s probably the biggest supplier of single action revolvers for TV and film was a company called "Great Western" many of those weapons are poorly timed, sloppy junk. They have sort of a checkered past in terms of manufacturer with some being made in the US, some in Germany and some in Itay. Currently I think the "Great Western" name is owned by Pietta.

In any event if the gun in question was an older Pietta, with sloppy build quality and softer metal parts, it just reinforces my theory of mechanical failure.

So it is a lower quality Colt...

Cant really tell until we know more about the whole thing.
It can take a while.

Here is another question.

Alec Baldwin is a veteran actor and he has been around firearms before... He has used firearms in his movies.

He has went through numerous gun training sessions.

He knows guns.
Is it possible that he started to de-cock the gun without pulling the trigger?
And why did he let the hammer drop instead of lowering it with his thumb?

He held his aim steady while he released the hammer like an asshole.

It all sounds so unnatural to me.

Yes, in general the spaghetti guns can be lower quality than an old Colt or S&W or a Ruger single action. But there was a time in the 80s and early 90s when Colt was making crap as well. I have and old Colt Bisley single action from 1909 in .38-40 win. The Bisley was supposed to be the target model of the Colt single action army. It has a different grip and frame shape and adjustable rear sight. It was my maternal grandfather's revolver and is almost as tight today as it was when it left the Colt factory.

The only way that the Baldwin shooting could have gone down as he says it did, was a bad sear engagement. If that was not the cause then he is either lying or the trauma of the incident has left his memory of the events befuddled. He could very well have had enough pressure on the trigger to let the hammer release when he thumbed it back... As I mentioned before regarding "fanning" a single action; It is performed by holding the trigger down and pulling the hammer back in rapid succession. Essentially the sear which is part of the trigger never engages the hammer and the hammer just slam fires the revolver.

Colt Bisley... Pancho Villas gun.
1909, thats an old gun and probably worth a few bucks now.
Making quality products was about honor in those days.


So the gun broke down after they used it for plinking?

Maybe they were fanning it at the cans.

Btw I´ve always wondered what its called in English... The Clint Eastwood move where he takes down multiple banditos.
Its fanning.

I´m thinking that Alec Baldwin is lying his ass off... Or as you said that he doesnt remember having his finger on the trigger.
He probably tried to de-cock the gun and it failed.


As for the legality of the whole thing..

The law might hold him responsible as he was the one holding the gun.
The fact that he is an actor and somebody else is supposed to handle the guns, might just be an assumption.

Dont assume shit.

[Odinson]

I'm still betting on him letting the hammer slip from his thumb when he went to de-cock the gun, which isn't a big deal if the gun was free of live rounds like it should have been on that set. And it's the gun wranglers job to ensure the gun is free of live rounds for the scene, which she obviously didn't do...

Its the armorers job... But... Is it legally so.

Alec Baldwin should have checked the gun himself.

[Odinson]

Here is a psychological analysis on Alec Baldwin Oscar-winning performance in the interview.

That's a long video just to0 say what i about said in my comment.
Good analysis of the interview, and Baldwin in general.
Baldwin has had some experience though with guns, him, and Cloony both have.

These videos help to understand the interview.

Alec Baldwin played the blaming game while saying that he is not the victim... But he did act like he is the victim.


He is wielding a gun in many of his movies.

Hard to think that he hasnt gone through gun training multiple times.

[Mel Gibson]

Its the armorers job... But... Is it legally so.

Alec Baldwin should have checked the gun himself.

An actor has zero legal responsibility to ensure that anything with the firearm is safe. This responsibility falls on the weapons master, who is supposed to oversee every aspect of firearms handling while on set.

[Odinson]

Its the armorers job... But... Is it legally so.

Alec Baldwin should have checked the gun himself.

An actor has zero legal responsibility to ensure that anything with the firearm is safe. This responsibility falls on the weapons master, who is supposed to oversee every aspect of firearms handling while on set.

How about when he violates the armorers instructions to not point the gun at anybody?

[Mel Gibson]

How about when he violates the armorers instructions to not point the gun at anybody?

There is no proof that Baldwin did something that he was told not to do though. Again, the real issue here is how the weapons master could allow live ammo to get into the gun used on set. Safety protocols were not followed, and that is a responsibility that falls on the weapons master.

[Renee]

Technically Mel is correct. Baldwin is not at fault pending further investigation. He was handed what is known as a "cold gun" and he took the armorer's word for it. Although any time you are handed a gun, it is your responsibility to make sure it is safe, Baldwin took the so called armorer at his word as he probably did a 1000 times before. For that reason he will never face any legal punishment. But he will have to live with the fact that he killed someone by his own negligence.

Now maybe his ego and narcissism will absolve him of any responsibility but I doubt it. For all his faults he doesn't strike me as a psychopath who can just ignore and move on like nothing happened. He's playing the blame game right now because no doubt his lawyers are telling him to admit no wrong doing.

[Renee]

Its the armorers job... But... Is it legally so.

Alec Baldwin should have checked the gun himself.

An actor has zero legal responsibility to ensure that anything with the firearm is safe. This responsibility falls on the weapons master, who is supposed to oversee every aspect of firearms handling while on set.

How about when he violates the armorers instructions to not point the gun at anybody?

I believe he was instructed where to point the gun. He was taking direction from those filming the scene just as an actor is supposed to do... Unfortunately in movies you can tell that they violate normal safety protocol with firearms all the time.

[Odinson]

Its the armorers job... But... Is it legally so.

Alec Baldwin should have checked the gun himself.

An actor has zero legal responsibility to ensure that anything with the firearm is safe. This responsibility falls on the weapons master, who is supposed to oversee every aspect of firearms handling while on set.

How about when he violates the armorers instructions to not point the gun at anybody?

I believe he was instructed where to point the gun. He was taking direction from those filming the scene just as an actor is supposed to do... Unfortunately in movies you can tell that they violate normal safety protocol with firearms all the time.

He does look like he has been on a months long bender.

It doesnt make sense that the actor has to check everything he is supposed to be using at the movie set.

Is he supposed to check the hand-grenade too?

How about the sticks of dynamite or the anti-infantry mine that looks exactly like the real thing?

[Odinson]

How about when he violates the armorers instructions to not point the gun at anybody?

There is no proof that Baldwin did something that he was told not to do though. Again, the real issue here is how the weapons master could allow live ammo to get into the gun used on set. Safety protocols were not followed, and that is a responsibility that falls on the weapons master.

For some reason he is scared.

Deleted his twitter account.

[Mel Gibson]

For some reason he is scared.

Deleted his twitter account.

I can't blame the guy. I'd do the same if I were him.

While I am no fan of Baldwin, I also understand how 'real life' works... People are often quick to place blame when something goes wrong, and may focus on the wrong person in their search for justice, without even knowing or understanding any of the facts.

I had an incident with my work once, a very close call incident. Multiple agencies wanted to fuck my shit up. Once I discovered the construction site had cameras all over the place, I demanded that footage be sent to me.

They refused to release the footage after multiple requests, and magically the multiple government law enforcement agencies "forgot" about all the shit they tried to slap me with initially. The victims employer magically "forgot" about it also. The subcontractor "forgot" about it also.

If it wasn't for that camera, I have no doubt that stupid bitch would've tried to pull an insurance scam.

[Renee]

How about when he violates the armorers instructions to not point the gun at anybody?

There is no proof that Baldwin did something that he was told not to do though. Again, the real issue here is how the weapons master could allow live ammo to get into the gun used on set. Safety protocols were not followed, and that is a responsibility that falls on the weapons master.

For some reason he is scared.

Deleted his twitter account.

Twitter is full of morons and the worst people imaginable. He was probably inundated with hate tweets and death threats. As Mel stated, people open their big ignorant yaps without knowing the facts and many say vile things that are just uncalled for. Today's cancel culture has made a bad situation even worse..

The internet has provide some good things while more often than not, it has provided a venue for ignorant scumbags to spew their stupidity and nasty personal opinions.

[Odinson]

How about when he violates the armorers instructions to not point the gun at anybody?

There is no proof that Baldwin did something that he was told not to do though. Again, the real issue here is how the weapons master could allow live ammo to get into the gun used on set. Safety protocols were not followed, and that is a responsibility that falls on the weapons master.

For some reason he is scared.

Deleted his twitter account.

Twitter is full of morons and the worst people imaginable. He was probably inundated with hate tweets and death threats. As Mel stated, people open their big ignorant yaps without knowing the facts and many say vile things that are just uncalled for. Today's cancel culture has made a bad situation even worse..

The internet has provide some good things while more often than not, it has provided a venue for ignorant scumbags to spew their stupidity and nasty personal opinions.

I sort of feel bad for him.

It was an accident due to negligence.
That interview was a big mistake from his part.

He should have just swiped his beard and say that this is where we are at... Instead of looking for people to blame and defend himself.

He let the emotions get the best of him.

[Odinson]

For some reason he is scared.

Deleted his twitter account.

I can't blame the guy. I'd do the same if I were him.

While I am no fan of Baldwin, I also understand how 'real life' works... People are often quick to place blame when something goes wrong, and may focus on the wrong person in their search for justice, without even knowing or understanding any of the facts.

I had an incident with my work once, a very close call incident. Multiple agencies wanted to fuck my shit up. Once I discovered the construction site had cameras all over the place, I demanded that footage be sent to me.

They refused to release the footage after multiple requests, and magically the multiple government law enforcement agencies "forgot" about all the shit they tried to slap me with initially. The victims employer magically "forgot" about it also. The subcontractor "forgot" about it also.

If it wasn't for that camera, I have no doubt that stupid bitch would've tried to pull an insurance scam.

I´m glad we have less scammers like that in here.

People are generally honest.

[Mel Gibson]

I sort of feel bad for him.

It was an accident due to negligence.
That interview was a big mistake from his part.

He should have just swiped his beard and say that this is where we are at... Instead of looking for people to blame and defend himself.

He let the emotions get the best of him.

Ya, him and his career will probably never be the same no matter the outcome. And I do agree that it's best to not make any public statements until the final investigation and results are complete.

Deaths due to accidental negligence are nothing new, and they happen all the time. Humans are not perfect beings, and will make mistakes.

That said, the gun wrangler is incompetent, and has no business doing that job. Even in my mandatory gun course here, the instructor asked each and every one of us upon entry, if we had any live ammo on our person. This was to ensure the room was kept completely live ammo free, since we were all handling various fully functioning firearms.