Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

Ed Haywood said:
I agree. Blanks spray hot powder and are dangerous at close range without a blank adaptor on the muzzle. Good way to blind someone. Most likely they were going to line up the scene, then step out of the way and have him shoot at or past the unmanned camera.

He claims the gun went off without him pulling the trigger. The FBI tested the gun and could not replicate the event. But the testing damaged the gun to the point where the parts had to be replaced.

My guess is his finger was on the trigger and he had an AD. Have not read anything about the FBI testing trigger pull. A 2 pound trigger is really easy to accidentally fire.

A competent armorer or safety director would have had him do all that with the hammer forward.
Click to expand...

a 2 pound trigger on a handgun is ridiculous

(and it was a negligent discharge, not an AD).
 
Half Fast said:
Just a guess, but I suspect he did a fast draw and habit took over. Actors are trained to do a quick draw using a “holster cocking” technique. When the hand first grabs the gun’s grip, the thumb pulls back the hammer and holds it. As soon as the trigger clears the holster, the forefinger pulls back the trigger and holds it. As soon as the muzzle clears and points at the target, the thumb is slipped off the hammer and the gun fires.

Skilled handgunners can do it in less than 0.3 seconds. If Baldwin was trained in the technique, he may have done it without thinking, and have no recollection of consciously pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...
I doubt Baldwin had any skills in this regard at all. But without a drop safety, he could have just thumbed the hammer and dropped it.
 
Bob Noel said:
If baldwin had any training, it should have started with don't-point-the-gun, and should have ended with don't-point-the-gun. (safety first, last, and always)

NDs are kind of hard to do if you've had proper training.
Click to expand...

Muzzle and trigger discipline is second nature to those of us who were brought up with guns or do any shooting, but I suspect that group doesn't include many Hollywood actors given the liberal nature of that community.

If that and "every gun is considered loaded unless you have personally checked it" isn't second nature, it's harder to blame him. I blame whoever allowed live ammo to be anywhere near the movie set.
 
Wasn't there a statement saying that the Armorer was not allowed on the set due to Covid concerns?
 
Bob Noel said:
a 2 pound trigger on a handgun is ridiculous

(and it was a negligent discharge, not an AD).
Click to expand...
A 2lb trigger on a center fire handgun is too light, and not good for accuracy, but I've seen it done frequently. I think 2.5 is minimum for a 22 for national match shooting, and I kinda like 2lb better. I think CF is 4 or 5? Not sure.

As I'm positive you know but non shooters might not, a single action trigger should be way shorter than a striker fire or DA gun. BUT....none of this is an excuse to fire or point at a person.

I don't know why they'd have anything capable of firing live ammo on set, but that's just me. I know firearms OK but not making movies.
 
Non gun guy here… know almost nothing about them, but…
For movies sets, instead of (or in addition to), making sure the gun is not loaded with live ammo, why not have look alike toy guns? It’s been stated that the effects can be added in afterwards, so why have actual guns in the first place?

A toy gun that nothing can be loaded, blanks or otherwise..??
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
Non gun guy here… know almost nothing about them, but…
For movies sets, instead of (or in addition to), making sure the gun is not loaded with live ammo, why not have look alike toy guns? It’s been stated that the effects can be added in afterwards, so why have actual guns in the first place?

A toy gun that nothing can be loaded, blanks or otherwise..??
Click to expand...
Just a thought (as a LEO/gun guy) yes, they 100% could add the effects in post, but you can’t accurately simulate recoil of the wrists by “faking.” Your wrists absorb some recoil before the firearm starts to “break” upwards, but when people simulate, they usually make that upward motion too exaggerated or not at all. Even without a projectile, a the powder burn and muzzle blast of a blank still provide the necessary energy to correctly simulate that movement.
 
And if you fake it, gun enthusiasts will all be talking about and criticizing the errors, just like we do about unrealistic airplane scenes.
 
no need to fake the recoil... just think of the person (actor) as someone who correctly manages the recoil and follows through on the shot.
 
Albany Tom said:
A 2lb trigger on a center fire handgun is too light, and not good for accuracy, but I've seen it done frequently. I think 2.5 is minimum for a 22 for national match shooting, and I kinda like 2lb better. I think CF is 4 or 5? Not sure.
Click to expand...
A few target disciplines go lower, Olympic Free Pistols being the extreme case. A few examples are in the photo below. But those pistols and their shooters are a breed apart

The guns are .22 single shots, and trigger pulls adjust down to 0.2 ounces or so. The guns are usually guaranteed to shoot 5 shot groups under 1 cm at 50 meters, and they ship with the factory test target.

1706015550274.jpeg
 
Bob Noel said:
a 2 pound trigger on a handgun is ridiculous…
Click to expand...

Albany Tom said:
A 2lb trigger on a center fire handgun is too light…
Click to expand...
Trigger weight on a prop gun is a red herring. Six pounds would not have made a bit of difference.

The cascading series of failures that resulted in a live round on the set, the culture that tolerated the procedures that allowed that to happen, and a flagrant disregard for basic industry accepted procedures are the larger, more relevant issues.
 
GaryM said:
A few target disciplines go lower, Olympic Free Pistols being the extreme case. A few examples are in the photo below. But those pistols and their shooters are a breed apart

The guns are .22 single shots, and trigger pulls adjust down to 0.2 ounces or so. The guns are usually guaranteed to shoot 5 shot groups under 1 cm at 50 meters, and they ship with the factory test target.

View attachment 124634
Click to expand...
I have a lovely pair of Hammerlis ... but they actually project lead.
 
flyingpreacher said:
but you can’t accurately simulate recoil of the wrists by “faking.”
Click to expand...


Some shooting galleries that are using fake guns with lasers have mechanical relays installed in the stocks, like a solenoid, that slams back to give a recoil-like effect. Not 100% accurate, but not too bad.
 
The simple truth is this man pointed a gun at someone, pulled the trigger, and killed them.

The delayed charges was due to gun testing. As I understand it the only way that particular gun could fire is if the trigger had been pulled.
 
Kritchlow said:
Non gun guy here… know almost nothing about them, but…
For movies sets, instead of (or in addition to), making sure the gun is not loaded with live ammo, why not have look alike toy guns? It’s been stated that the effects can be added in afterwards, so why have actual guns in the first place?

A toy gun that nothing can be loaded, blanks or otherwise..??
Click to expand...
Not toys, but large productions often use replicas that may be completely non-functional or that are only capable of firing blank ammunition.
 
Blank recoil is negligible. Basic physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Recoil is the reaction to acceleration of the projectile from chamber to the muzzle, and is directly proportional to mass of the bullet and velocity. F=MA. A 30-06 kicks way harder than a .243 Win, despite having lower muzzle velocity, because the bullet weighs twice as much.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Blank recoil is negligible. Basic physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Recoil is the reaction to acceleration of the projectile from chamber to the muzzle, and is directly proportional to mass of the bullet and velocity. F=MA. A 30-06 kicks way harder than a .243 Win, despite having lower muzzle velocity, because the bullet weighs twice as much.
Click to expand...
Not just the projectile; in the absence of a bullet the combustion gasses, while much lighter than the bullet, are exiting at a much higher velocity though the chamber pressures will be much lower. If the powder charge is the same (is it?) the energy released would be the same so I'd think the recoil would be similar. But I've never fired a gun with blanks, so I really don't know.

How does the powder charge (or muzzle energy) of a 30-06 compare to a .243? With a higher muzzle velocity, the smaller projectile spends less time in the barrel so it's a shorter duration recoil.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I have fired many thousands of blanks, including from heavy automatic weapons like 50 cal machineguns. No comparison with real bullets. No felt recoil.
Click to expand...
I defer to your greater experience. No recoil at all? Is it a reduced powder load compared to a standard round?
Ed Haywood said:
And way more time spent clearing jams. Especially with the M60.
Click to expand...
That I know, insufficient chamber pressure to cycle the action.
 
Dana said:
I defer to your greater experience. No recoil at all? Is it a reduced powder load compared to a standard round?.
Click to expand...
Mostly due to there being no projectile opposing the force of the expanding gas. That’s why some semi-/autos require a blank firing adapter or operating system mods for blanks. The BFA serves as a block for the expanding gases so pressure builds to the point necessary for operation. In others, the recoil springs are swapped to very lightweight springs and/or locking lugs are removed to achieve the same result.
 
Dana said:
I defer to your greater experience. No recoil at all? Is it a reduced powder load compared to a standard round?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there is some measurable recoil, but it is so small as to not be noticable.

I have no knowledge of powder load, but the physics are quite clear. Heavier bullet = more recoil. Same reason a 45 ACP has considerably more recoil than a 9mm, despite being marginally slower.

To bring it back on topic, old Western guns had big, heavy bullets, so they kicked hard. If movies are to be believed, everyone shot with one hand, so there would be a lot of muzzle rise. That's why I speculated the live bullets might have been to show the actors what the gun felt like.
 
Ed Haywood said:
To bring it back on topic, old Western guns had big, heavy bullets, so they kicked hard. If movies are to be believed, everyone shot with one hand, so there would be a lot of muzzle rise.
Click to expand...

OTOH, they were also heavy and long-barreled compared to modern plastic semi-autos. But I haven't shot an old single-action .44, so I don't really know.
 
I think where Baldwin will run into problems regardless of the trigger pull is he was a producer on the set. Sure you can blame the armorer and safety protocol. Experienced people walking off set, previous gun issues, etc. But as a producer, Baldwin played a hand in hiring and creating this atmosphere. So if Baldwin the trigger pulled passes the buck to the armorer, what's stopping the armorer from passing the buck to Baldwin the producer. Who hired the first time head armorer
 
GaryM said:
A few target disciplines go lower, Olympic Free Pistols being the extreme case. A few examples are in the photo below. But those pistols and their shooters are a breed apart

The guns are .22 single shots, and trigger pulls adjust down to 0.2 ounces or so. The guns are usually guaranteed to shoot 5 shot groups under 1 cm at 50 meters, and they ship with the factory test target.

View attachment 124634
Click to expand...
I've fired one. Didn't like it at all... Couldn't get used to either the trigger, or the "stretched out" feeling that the downward angle has. Would much rather have a High Standard, and they'll both shoot x's all day long. With pistols more than probably any other non-shotgun shooting sport, it's the person way more than the equipment.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I have no knowledge of powder load, but the physics are quite clear. Heavier bullet = more recoil. Same reason a 45 ACP has considerably more recoil than a 9mm, despite being marginally slower.
Click to expand...
The weight of the bullet is not what causes recoil. It's the force generated by the burning powder and expanding gases. The same powder charge would give you the same recoil regardless of bullet weight.
 
Racerx said:
I think where Baldwin will run into problems regardless of the trigger pull is he was a producer on the set. Sure you can blame the armorer and safety protocol. Experienced people walking off set, previous gun issues, etc. But as a producer, Baldwin played a hand in hiring and creating this atmosphere. So if Baldwin the trigger pulled passes the buck to the armorer, what's stopping the armorer from passing the buck to Baldwin the producer. Who hired the first time head armorer
Click to expand...
You're certainly correct here, I'm sure civil trials will show producer Baldwin with a significant responsibility.

However, it's the degree of *criminal* responsibility at issue with the recent indictment. The more fingers can be pointed elsewhere, the less likelihood that Baldwin will be convicted. The armorer is already on the hook for a live round being in the pistol. Baldwin's responsibility will probably hang on the exact circumstances. Were they just joshing around, and did he "playfully" point and shoot was he assumed was a non-lethal gun? Or were they blocking out the scene, with Baldwin drawing the gun and pulling the trigger as the director dictated?

There's a Youtube channel hosted by a member of an Arizona-based group of re-enactors and occasional western movie extras. It gets a bit silly at times (with a T-Rex tromping through) but he has some good insights into how productions he's been involved with have handled the safety issues.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Half Fast said:
OTOH, they were also heavy and long-barreled compared to modern plastic semi-autos. But I haven't shot an old single-action .44, so I don't really know.
Click to expand...

I have. Both original black powder loads and modern cartridges in modern repros built to withstand modern pressures.

What you think of when you hear .44 today is likely much different than what was original, the .45 Colt and .44-40 Winchester. Both used 40gr black powder pushing ~255gr projectiles at about 1000fps and around 650ft-lb of energy out of a rifle. For pistols, it was common to download to 26-28gr BP to keep the softer than modern steel from being destroyed. Tons of smoke with either; so much so the BP CAS shooters can’t see a 7-yd target after putting six rounds down range.

Today’s 44 Mag with modern powders pushes 1300+ fps on a 305gr bullet with 22gr of H110 and upwards of 1650ft-lbs energy out of a pistol.

Science and history are neither here nor there in entertainment, blanks are smokeless and recoil-less.
 
Lindberg said:
The weight of the bullet is not what causes recoil. It's the force generated by the burning powder and expanding gases. The same powder charge would give you the same recoil regardless of bullet weight.
Click to expand...

That sounds wrong. Physics is not my forte, but is it not the mass that’s being accelerated that causes the recoil? Pretty sure a very light bullet - or just a wax plug in a blank - would have much less recoil than a heavy bullet, even given equal powder charges.
 
FastEddieB said:
That sounds wrong. Physics is not my forte, but is it not the mass that’s being accelerated that causes the recoil? Pretty sure a very light bullet - or just a wax plug in a blank - would have much less recoil than a heavy bullet, even given equal powder charges.
Click to expand...
F = ma

Some powder burns slower and thus the acceleration will tend to be less (generally speaking) or gentler

Another factor is length of time in the barrel. A short barrel and slow burning powder may result in the bullet exiting the barrel before all the powder is burned (more likely with lighter bullets)

And then the weight of the gun itself effects how much recoil is felt.
 
Bob Noel said:
F = ma

Some powder burns slower and thus the acceleration will tend to be less (generally speaking) or gentler

Another factor is length of time in the barrel. A short barrel and slow burning powder may result in the bullet exiting the barrel before all the powder is burned (more likely with lighter bullets)

And then the weight of the gun itself effects how much recoil is felt.
Click to expand...
Yep. You should see the fireball I get shooting loads using 2400 out of a 4” barrel .44 Mag. I have to use a faster burning powder or I get an orange basketball and enough concussion to get the attention of everyone at the range.
 
F=MA ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

44-40 FIRED FROM A RIFLE, F= 40 grains of powder X A
F= 255 grains of bullet X A
Since the powder is accelerating at the same rate as the bullet, A is the same for both.

Total force is 295 grains X A, and the powder represents less than 14% of the recoil force.

A blank with the full 40 grains of powder would have that same 14% recoil, compared to a "real" cartridge, but in most cases, less, because blanks are loaded with very fast burning powder, and smaller quantities, to get a sharp "crack". Without the resistance of a bullet, regular powder simply burns slowly, producing no noise at all. Cardboard discs are used to provide resistance (inertia) to the expansion.

Factory pistol blanks are dangerous, at 5 feet they will punch a hole through a steel window screen. They have very stiff cardboard discs on top of the powder for resistance to expansion, and they retain velocity for quite a distance. Learned that the hard way.
 
wanttaja said:
There's a Youtube channel hosted by a member of an Arizona-based group of re-enactors...
Click to expand...
A few years ago a Civil War re-enactor was killed with a gun that was supposed to contain no projectile but was accidentally left loaded with a ball. Black powder shooters often leave the gun loaded (but not capped) if it's not fired and expected to be used the next day.
geezer said:
F=MA ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

44-40 FIRED FROM A RIFLE, F= 40 grains of powder X A
F= 255 grains of bullet X A
Since the powder is accelerating at the same rate as the bullet, A is the same for both.
Click to expand...
If there is no bullet, the mass (of just the expanding gases) will be much less, but the acceleration will be much higher as they're not held back by the mass of the bullet. What is the velocity of an explosion wavefront?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top