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

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.

Yes, typical of a non-transfer-bar design, such as that of my OM Ruger Single Six Convertible. This is why you're not supposed to carry one of those with a round under the hammer. Drop the gun or it falls out of your holster, lands on the hammer: *Bang*.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
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

Speaking with a lifetime of experience with single action handguns, what you are stating is virtually impossible. Even going to a lighter hammer spring such as Cowboy Action shooters do can and does cause misfires with the hammer pulled all the way back, not just before the safety notch.

No, the FBI stated that if the hammer was struck not if you pulled it back a small amount and let go.

This phenomenon is exactly why everyone was instructed to leave the hammer on an empty chamber when you carried it loaded as if you dropped it and it landed on the hammer, the round could go off. That's exactly what the FBI report stated.

Flash is correct. No SAA will ignite a primer by falling from a position prior to the safety notch being engaged.

You can debate munitia and non-zero probabilities 'til the cows come home. Everyone knows what happened- Baldwin pulled the trigger with the pistol fully cocked and with a live round under the hammer. The only real question is what should be done about it. With the two sets of rules of conduct we have in this country, Baldwin may manage to skate, but something tells me that he's not going to make it out of this unscathed.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
...

Speaking with a lifetime of experience with single action handguns, what you are stating is virtually impossible.
...

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying it isn't possible to pull an SAA hammer back 2-3 mm, and then release it to contact with the primer before notch engagement?

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
...

Speaking with a lifetime of experience with single action handguns, what you are stating is virtually impossible.
...

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying it isn't possible to pull an SAA hammer back 2-3 mm, and then release it to contact with the primer before notch engagement?

It's not impossible to do that, but it will not produce enough force to ignite a primer.

But Para is correct. Why are we debating this? It's clear now from the FBI report that the gun was not malfunctioning. He pulled the trigger. End of story.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
It's not impossible to do that, but it will not produce enough force to ignite a primer.

Ok. Then the next question is just how far does the hammer need to be pulled back and released to produce sufficient force to detonate a sensitive primer?

quote:

But Para is correct. Why are we debating this? It's clear now from the FBI report that the gun was not malfunctioning. He pulled the trigger. End of story.

If my previous comments haven't made it clear, and for the record, with the findings of the FBI report, I'm convinced he pulled the trigger too.

But you ask why we're debating the idea of whether an uncommanded hammer fall could detonate a live round... because after Baldwin and his lawyer read the FBI report they are going to start concocting scenarios refuting it... things like, oh I dunno, maybe "I never pulled the trigger, but maybe my thumb slipped off the hammer as I was cocking and pointing the gun at the director of cinematography... so, it must've been the armorer's fault for loading the live round and it was the gun manufacturer's fault for producing an unsafe design... but nope, I didn't pull the trigger so it couldn't possibly be my fault".

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
But Para is correct. Why are we debating this? It's clear now from the FBI report that the gun was not malfunctioning. He pulled the trigger. End of story.

In light of this revelation, I suspect the defense will focus on the how and why a live round was on the set and who was responsible for the loaded revolver. As gun enthusiasts, we recognize the responsibility falls upon the individual handling the weapon. I was surprised however by the number of non-gun folks I've spoken to who have pointed an accusatory finger at the prop crew rather than the individual (mis)handling the weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

But you ask why we're debating the idea of whether an uncommanded hammer fall could detonate a live round... because after Baldwin and his lawyer read the FBI report they are going to start concocting scenarios refuting it... things like, oh I dunno, maybe [i]"I never pulled the trigger, but maybe my thumb slipped off the hammer as I was cocking and pointing the gun at the director of cinematography... so, it must've been the armorer's fault for loading the live round and it was the gun manufacturer's fault for producing an unsafe design... but nope, I didn't pull the trigger so it couldn't possibly be my fault".

There is no scenario with a properly functioning SAA where releasing the hammer WITHOUT the trigger pulled will allow the hammer to fall with sufficient force to ignite a primer. We didn't need the FBI to tell us that, but they have confirmed that the gun in question was properly functioning.

I personally think any criminal charges that stem from this, if there are any, will be levied against someone from the crew who was responsible for live ammo being on the set and ultimately making its way into the gun. Baldwin is morally culpable, and will definitely face all sorts of civil actions, but I think the prosecutors will let him off the hook criminally under the theory that he had a reasonable expectation that the gun was rendered safe when handed to him by the crew.

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
As gun enthusiasts, we recognize the responsibility falls upon the individual handling the weapon. I was surprised however by the number of non-gun folks I've spoken to who have pointed an accusatory finger at the prop crew rather than the individual (mis)handling the weapon.

That is easily explained. As shooters, we're viewing it as a shooting...just as if it had occurred at home or in public.

That isn't what we have here. They are seeing it as a workplace accident which would usually be covered under OSHA rules. The fault/negligence is determined by if the correct industry procedures were followed...and who didn't follow them. That isn't always the end user

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
There is no scenario with a properly functioning SAA where releasing the hammer WITHOUT the trigger pulled will allow the hammer to fall with sufficient force to ignite a primer. We didn't need the FBI to tell us that, but they have confirmed that the gun in question was properly functioning.

But that was WHY the SAA was sent to the FBI for testing. It was assumed that the SAA was safe and properly functioning, but not PROVEN to be when considering legal ramifications.

The law doesn't accept what is thought to be true, it doesn't depend on what is assumed to be true, it instead depends on what can be proven to be true.

The FBI forensic firearms lab is highly respected throughout the world and has a long and extensive history of thorough and accurate firearms and ammunition testing and reporting. The reports they generate are often considered definitive and the gold standard that many LEA and DAs accept when determining possible criminal charges. They are the final authority in firearms and ammunition evaluations. The FBI forensic lab has now PROVEN the SAA was safe and functioning, to such an extent that the New Mexico DA must consider the legal ramifications in her decision on possible charges.

quote:

I personally think any criminal charges that stem from this, if there are any, will be levied against someone from the crew who was responsible for live ammo being on the set and ultimately making its way into the gun. Baldwin is morally culpable, and will definitely face all sorts of civil actions, but I think the prosecutors will let him off the hook criminally under the theory that he had a reasonable expectation that the gun was rendered safe when handed to him by the crew on these points.

We're in agreement on these points.

Just another case of democrat evading accountability. Anybody’s fault but my own. Din du nuthin.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
Ok. Then the next question is just how far does the hammer need to be pulled back and released to produce sufficient force to detonate a sensitive primer?

That will vary with the weight of the hammer and the stoutness of the hammer spring and the primer itself, but having said all that:

The most sensitive primer is a Federal, they're used a lot by steel and cowboy shooters who use light hammer/striker springs so they can shoot faster.

I would guess, and it's purely a guess that with a stock hammer spring and a Federal primer, you'd have to be at half cock or slightly more to detonate a Federal.

He is at fault no question. His defense will probably be he's not been trained sufficiently and the armorer should have made sure the gun was safe. Still he pulled the trigger and at minimum it's involuntary man slaughter. The armorer is also culpable. This will drag on for years I think, but I doubt you'll see him in any films, especially those evolving guns. I don't like the guy for many reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
As gun enthusiasts, we recognize the responsibility falls upon the individual handling the weapon. I was surprised however by the number of non-gun folks I've spoken to who have pointed an accusatory finger at the prop crew rather than the individual (mis)handling the weapon.

That is easily explained. As shooters, we're viewing it as a shooting...just as if it had occurred at home or in public.

That isn't what we have here. They are seeing it as a workplace accident which would usually be covered under OSHA rules. The fault/negligence is determined by if the correct industry procedures were followed...and who didn't follow them. That isn't always the end user

On it's surface, beyond the accident and the tragic loss of life that resulted from it, this case is about which party(ies) were negligent and who to assign blame to.

But, at the 30,000' level, I think this particular case has much broader ramifications.. which is why I find it so interesting.

Regarding viewing this as a workplace accident, I made a somewhat similar comment months ago in an earlier post. I'm particularly interested to see which view the law will take in assigning negligence and responsibility.

As you point out, responsible shooters learn and practice firearms safety rules. We understand our responsibilities and accept that when we shoot a gun, the consequences are ours to bear.

But Hollywood has created a cottage industry of specialized movie/ TV armorers and have effectively transferred responsibility for safe firearms handling... in other words, they've displaced blame from the one professional to another.

Viewing it as a shooter who accepts responsibility and consequences while shooting, and knowing that I'm the one who will be charged if something goes wrong, I'm wondering how it is legally possible to transfer one individual's negligence to a paid professional.

Does the mere transference of money to a professional hired for their experience alleviate me of all negligence within the realm of their job?

Hypothetically speaking, say I hit the Powerball and decide to hire a professional competition shooter and armorer to both train me, and maintain, clean, and load my guns. He brings me my gold-plated SIG X-6 special Ghost Busters limited edition on a silver tray, wearing white gloves, and he tell me "it is unloaded sir". I fail to verify it's unloaded, proceed to have my Swedish women's volleyball champion girlfriend place a blindfold on me, and I dry-fire the gun only to hear a loud bang and a "very good sir", followed by a crumpling sound and, lifting my blindfold, I see that I've now killed Chauncey, my Butler. When the trial starts can I just say "hey, I paid that professional over there, go talk to him", displacing my negligence on him as my hired professional?

Is it really so simple to displace negligence as to just hiring a professional 'fall guy'?

As I said, I think this case has broader implications on firearms negligence and displaced responsibility.

I'm certain it will drag on, probably for a few years, and will likely spawn additional lawsuits... but in the end I'm following this case with interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
That will vary with the weight of the hammer and the stoutness of the hammer spring and the primer itself, but having said all that:

The most sensitive primer is a Federal, they're used a lot by steel and cowboy shooters who use light hammer/striker springs so they can shoot faster.

I would guess, and it's purely a guess that with a stock hammer spring and a Federal primer, you'd have to be at half cock or slightly more to detonate a Federal.

I haven't shot an SAA in years so thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

As big as the hammer is with that much mass, and considering how strong the spring is, I assumed that as little as a few millimeters or perhaps a 1/4" of hammer travel would've produced enough force to detonate the primer.

My opinion (which means absolutely nothing at all) is this is a case of contributory negligence. The armorer failed to run a tight ship and Baldwin failed to ensure the firearm really was "cold."

Whether or not the charges will concur with my opinion, much less how juries will decide, remains to be seen.

Yes: To us this is a slam-dunk. Baldwin was the one holding the gun. Baldwin was the one aiming the gun. Baldwin was the one who apparently pulled the trigger. We know we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens with a firearm under our control. But we are gun guys and he is not. He believed he could reasonably pass such a responsibility to a paid professional. We would never think to do such a thing. (I have never once taken possession of a firearm claimed to be clear and failed to check it myself. Even after having just watched it being checked by another. I doubt any of you have, either.)

The thing that annoys me the most is Baldwin's public attempts to absolve himself of all responsibility, to the point of repeatedly insisting he hadn't pulled the trigger. He should just STFU, other than expressions of remorse over the tragedy, let the investigations run their courses, save whatever defenses he can muster for the trials, and save his public protestations of innocence until after the trials are over.

Baldwin pulled the trigger. In real world it would all come down to the last link in what is a series of bad choices. Alec should have checked the gun before handling it. But also hiring competent people to manage the guns AND provide training to the actors in proper handling.

What the FBI report is good for is it eliminates the claim he tried to make that the gun went off on its own. Between the video clip purported to be of him shooting and this report, the only failure was Alec. Now it will come down to was it simple negligence, or were things so poor there that it raises to a depraved indifference to the basic safety rules. If it is the latter, then Alec could be in bigger trouble.