Re: OT. Movie Prop Guns

Oct 23, 2021 Last reply: 4 years ago 35 Replies
Saved reading
Jump to replies (35)



>No matter how much incompetence there was, it was still Baldwin who
>thought it was a good idea to point a gun at his boss and pull the >trigger.
>

I don't believe that's what has been reported to have happened. It's being spun as a misfire after the gun was handed to Baldwin. True or not. The person killed was cinematographer. Baldwin a producer.


It goes back to the one basic question - why can't Hollywood use safe prop guns ? ... seriously ! Duh ! John T.

CNN this morning said the bullet went through the chest of one person, killing her, and then into the shoulder of the person behind her, injuring him.

That does seem likely.

IMDB is pretty good on identifying guns used in movies but doesn't have Rust yet, and I couldn't find anything on the type of weapon.

But it's a period western, 1880s, so most likely a single action revolver. Could be in .45 Colt, but there would be a lot of other choices.

That doesn't make sense to me.

It's not a Glock. It had to be a single action revolver, so the hammer has to be manually cocked to fire it, and trigger pulls on those are usually pretty heavy.

Is it a "misfire" or a gun accident? I thought a misfire was when a gun does not fire when it should.

So who is responsible for this, a worker that was sent home, or the quickly hired replacement.

Old saying: The two worst sounds in the world are Bang! when you were expecting click, and Click! when your live depended on bang.

If that was the time frame it would be a single action Colt .45. Someone familiar with guns would have looked it over and noticed that there was a bullet in the cartridge or the blank did not look right.

Correct but don't expect the media to know that. This is at best an Accidental Discharge (AD) but there is more to it than that in this case.

The people on strike intended to shut down the movie but it sounds like they were is so much financial trouble they couldn't afford it so they got who they could get.

I wouldn't expect an actor to do any of that.

IMFDB, a similar site but just firearm oriented.

formatting link

If that's true, it still doesn't explain how a live round was on the set, got in the gun, etc.

Beyond that, why would a live round ever be on a movie set? You would think for realistic looking empty rounds they would be exactly that and clearly marked in some way once created. One possibility, they were in NM, I wonder if someone was doing some target shooting or something in their spare time.

The words you're looking for are 'accidental discharge'. If the revolver was true to the period, the 1880's, it would be single action and would have to have been cocked. Because of the hammer design it was common to have an unloaded cylinder under the hammer so dropping the revolver wouldn't fire it.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Further, a single action revolver of that period would be loaded one cartridge at a time through a loading gate. The 1889 Colt was the first commonly available revolver with a swing out cylinder.

Yes and whoever loaded it should have noticed or maybe they fully loaded it with the same cartridge. They should have known what they were doing.

Yes, why would a live round even be on the set of a modern movie. From the looks of things the movie was a low budget one and they may have been using some live rounds so as not to need any special effects. Real dumb idea.

I would think by now some OSHA or other rules would be in effect that no gun on the movie set could have an open barrel where anything could even come out the end. The could be plugged and vents put on the top or sides to let the gas escape for firing rounds.

Not making excuses at all, but this reminds me of the time a girl from upstairs came to my door worried that she had drunk bleach.

It turned out that one of her roommates had some left-over bleach and she put it in a plastic milk bottle.

Then the other roommate came home, found the bottle on the table and thought she should put it in the refrigerator.

Then this one came home, saw the "milk", and drank some.

3 little mistakes creating one big one.

It turns out drinking a little bleach isn't a problem. This may be what inspired Stumpie. He is doing his own research on what injecting it can do, maybe a good cleaning.

I read a report about 20 years ago where a man put some chemical in a different bottle and put it in his refrigerator. Some of his son'e friends came over and they drank the chemical thinking it was a soft drink. Burnt the throat out of several of the boys.

That is why there is always a caution of not putting things in containers other than the origional ones. I have a couple of garden sprayers and lable one for weed killer and another for safe chemicals to spray on the garden so as not to kill the tomatoes when spraying them with growth chemicals.

I would expect the armorer on every movie he's done since The Hunt for Red October to explain gun safety to him every time he's handed a gun.

Back in the day, a fair number of actors had prior military experience. Now they're just a bunch of pretty boys.

Cindy Hamilton

That person should be subject to some charges too. Negligent homicide or similar.

There should be enough safeguards in place to avoid something like this. With technology, the bang and flash could have been added later if need be.

Ruger invented the transfer bar over 40 years ago to prevent this. I have an old replica cap and ball Army revolver where you can also have the hammer rest between the chambers so this can not happen. Found that interesting as it is not around today.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required