I understand the need for forensic study given the gravity of consequence but Alec having stated what he did to selfishly escape or mitigate scrutiny, is galling. I won’t expect an apology from smart Alec

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
FBI report is in. Gun couldn't go bang unless finger was on the trigger.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/gun-...d-not-015300975.html

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

As much as I don't like Baldwin, are we know believing what the FBI says?

Right, cause the FBI is out to get Alec Baldwin.

Their lab people and firearm experts i think we can at least take at face value, especially since we all knew this was the case to begin with.

Don't be an ass.

I think Baldwin is a tool.

Everyone is up in arms are the FBI searching Trumps residence.

Now, we believe them?

Can't have it both ways.

So you're saying that you don't believe the report then.

Clearly it was so important to exonerate Baldwin that those FBI dudes figured: “Hey, if we raid Trump’s house, then we’ll lose all respect from half the country and when the forensics on Baldwin’s gun comes out, no one will believe it!” Yeah, right. I’ve got a bridge I’ll sell ulsterman if he believes that.

Liars don’t always lie 100% of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Don't be an ass.

I think Baldwin is a tool.

Everyone is up in arms are the FBI searching Trumps residence.

Now, we believe them?

Can't have it both ways.

I "believe" them because I know how a Colt SAA works, have always known how one works, and knew from the very beginning of this incident that he had to have pulled the trigger. All the FBI report does is confirm what anyone knowledgable about the operation of this type of firearm already knew, so it is not a matter of believing them.

Just a reminder, for those not keeping score. An article earlier in this thread indicated that this .45 had been borrowed or rented for use on this production from another party. There was always the possibility that it had been previously modified...and we all know that no matter how proven a design, there is always the possibility that a gun will break.

The FBI report now conclusively eliminates those from the decision making, and puts the trigger pull squarely on Baldwin.

Excerpt from the article on the FBI report on the gun:

The local district attorney has yet to make any charging decisions in the case. Detectives are awaiting phone records from Baldwin as part of their investigation, the sheriff's office said Thursday.

The fact that the FBI report on the . 45 took this long to come back doesn't surprise me in the least. Between C-19 lockdown created backlogs and delays, supply chain disruptions, manpower shortages, and the critical need for thorough and accurate test results and time to write the report, its understandable... but, LE has had access to Baldwin's phone since he surrendered it last year, and I'm mildly surprised they haven't obtained his phone records by now, which I'm guessing are maintained digitally.

In order for a SAA to fire with the hammer pulled back and released but without pulling the trigger, all three notches on the hammer would have to be broken. That was realistically never a possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Everyone is up in arms are the FBI searching Trumps residence.

Now, we believe them?

Can't have it both ways.

One of these is not like the other.

I've heard stories of super-sensitive primers going off on SAA revolvers with the hammer dropping before the first safety notch. Like a one-in-a-billion occurrence. So maybe there's a very small chance that Baldwin is telling the truth that he never pulled the trigger.

However, it just doesn't matter that much anyway. He still violated a cardinal rule of firearm safety, in fact the first rule: All guns are loaded unless you yourself check it. He must share some amount of responsibility in this tragedy. It's just a question of how much.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
In order for a SAA to fire with the hammer pulled back and released but without pulling the trigger, all three notches on the hammer would have to be broken. That was realistically never a possibility.

Guns have been intentionally modified in Hollywood productions for decades. There is a cottage industry of gunsmiths or armorers that specialize in modifying Hollywood guns and ammo to meet a director's specific needs for a production. Guns modified to deactivate them so that they are incapable of firing live rounds, guns modified to fire 5-in-1 blanks, guns modified to cycle reduced loads, guns modified to produce more flash, blanks modified to produce different levels of sound, blanks modified based on whether a gun is to be fired on set at night or during the day...

The famous Winchester used by Chuck Connors in The Rifleman had several modifications made to it for the TV series.

As I pointed out earlier, the SAA in this low budget production was either borrowed or rented... which leads to the possibility that this gun MAY have been modified/ customized by the owner or a previous owner, either for their own personal use, or possibly for use in a different Hollywood production.

I have my doubts about the experience and skills of the young armorer on the set of Rust, and whether she would have even thought to check whether the gun was capable of safe function, or if she even knew how to.

We've seen several posts in this forum of guns that completely or partially failed to function or failed in a way that was unsafe due to a previous owner that didn't know what they were doing, and yet performed a DIY home action job, and later sold the gun to an unsuspecting new owner.

There is even a term for it; "bubbaing" or "Bubba'd", or "Bubbafied" .

And yet you somehow think there is no realistic possibility that the SAA couldn't have been modified/ customized, or bubbafied in a way that caused it to be unsafe?

Look, most members in this thread, myself included, are NOT the least bit surprised by the results found in the FBI forensic report.

But the law, the victims, and the accused (if any) require that mitigating factors like manufacturing defects, abuse from hard use, and that modifications/ customizations don't factor into the assignment of blame and possible criminal or civil charges. You can't just assume the gun was safe to use, it needs to be tested and proven.

Most of us were expecting this determination, and now the FBI forensic report has conclusively proven it.

How would 'smith modify a prop SAA revolver to facilitate firing by fanning the hammer?

Remove all the notches on the hammer?

No permanent mechanical modifications needed. Just hold the trigger back with the finger, or simply tie it back with a piece of cord, and fan away.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
In order for a SAA to fire with the hammer pulled back and released but without pulling the trigger, all three notches on the hammer would have to be broken. That was realistically never a possibility.

The trigger could have the sear broken off it so it's rounded. The hammer will just slide right over. My grandfather's Hy Hunter does this and it's a 4 click gun.

Regardless, the forensics says this did not happen with this particular weapon.

My wife brought up an interesting question "Would Alec have checked the gun a little bit closer if this was a scene where he put the gun to his own head?" I think I've figured out that answer.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
I've heard stories of super-sensitive primers going off on SAA revolvers with the hammer dropping before the first safety notch. Like a one-in-a-billion occurrence. So maybe there's a very small chance that Baldwin is telling the truth that he never pulled the trigger.
...

Excerpt from the article on the FBI forensic report:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
Excerpt from the article on the FBI forensic report:

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.

Yeah, but Baldwin didn't have a large rock in his left hand to beat the hammer with, so that's a moot point.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
Excerpt from the article on the FBI forensic report:

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.

Yeah, but Baldwin didn't have a large rock in his left hand to beat the hammer with, so that's a moot point.

I thought the point I was making was obvious, but maybe not. If the gun is capable of detonating a primer with the hammer at rest, then it is most certainly capable of detonating a primer with the hammer held partially back and released before the first notch is engaged, just as kkina was suggesting.

Anyone handling this gun on-set should have been instructed not to partially pull the hammer back and release it before a notch was engaged