Alec Baldwin update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here are those case head strikes up close , Note the edge of the head actually has one strike that deformed the edge of the head . Based on my limited test it seems unlikely the hammer will fall on the primer unless the hammer was cocked all the way back and the cylinder fully indexed .

ovk5OT.jpg
 
Here are those case head strikes up close , Note the edge of the head actually has one strike that deformed the edge of the head . Based on my limited test it seems unlikely the hammer will fall on the primer unless the hammer was cocked all the way back and the cylinder fully indexed .
Click to expand...
What are we looking at here? I distinctly heard the gun used was 45 long colt--the brass in this picture appears to 44 mag.
 
You need to watch the video I made linked in my post #259 for context . FWIW I don’t have a 45 colt so I used some 44mag dummies in my demonstration linked above .
 
Last edited:
Are movie set Amorer's required to have certification? I know the union that Hanna was going to join has Cert classes and Safety Classes available - it was mentioned in one of the interviews. Just don't know if it's required to perform the job as a movie set Armorer.

If it is required by law, that's probably how their holding AB accountable. He was cutting corners to save money by hiring these inexperienced nitwits Hanna and Sarah.
 
I watched the video, not too bad for a first attempt.

I get it you didn't have any .45 Colt so you used .44mag for dummies. It would have been better if you had gotten (made) dummies from .45 Colt cases, that way there would be nothing confusing.

You had an SAA, why didn't you use that, instead of the Bisley model??

The mechanisms are identical, the Bisley differs only in the shape of the trigger, hammer, and grip frame. (also often Bisleys have "target" sights)

small technical terminology critique; couple times you refer to the head of the case or the side of the head, where the firing pin strikes are. The correct term for that location is the rim, not the head, and those strikes are on the edge of the rim, not the side.

It can be correct to refer to the bottom where the markings are, as the "base of the case" and the portion of that which sticks out beyond the diameter of the case body is the rim.
 
You need to watch the video I made linked in my post #259 for context . FWIW I don’t have a 45 colt so I used some 44mag dummies in my demonstration linked above .
Click to expand...
Understood. I'm presently overseas and for some reason the video host won't play here.
 
The Beasley is a single action army the other one I had has pewter grips on it and it was very heavy and it was easier to use the Beasley. They operated exactly the same. There was zero difference. I tested that.
 
Last edited:
Metal god said:
The Beasley is a single action army the other one I had has pewter grips on it and it was very heavy and it was easier to use the Beasley. They operated exactly the same. There was zero difference. I tested that.
Click to expand...
The action is the same but a Bisley (not "Beasley") is not a Single Action Army. Technically, a Single Action Army is a Colt model of 1873 with a 7-1/2" barrel.
 
Yes,and Dodge made the Power Wagon and the Charger.

Your point is?

The basic design of the Colt SAA was tweaked a bit to make the Colt Bisley.

The Bisley was created for target shooting. Better sights,a different trigger,a more vertical grip frame,and a lower hammer.

Its still a Colt single action. But its not a Single Action Army.

I have a Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 Magnum. Its the classic hog leg grip. I have a 44 Spl Ruger Lypsey Special. Its a "Bisley" version of the Ruger single action. I much prefer the recoil characteristics of the Bisley grip frame.

As far as the working designs and "manual of arms" a "standard model" and the Bisley are the same.

(The Ruger and the Colt have their differences)
 
Thanks HiBC for the clarification , and to add the firearm Baldwin used was not even a Colt . I think the demonstration in the video is representative enough for our purposes . As I said before I did that test with the SAA as well . In fact I did it twice with both on video but didn’t like the results . The video posted/linked was my third take and I just stopped after the Bisley because it seemed redundant at that point knowing the SAA had the exact same results both other times and I believe I said that in one of my post above . I know some here are actual gunsmiths and I respect that but lets not loose sight that I’m just guy trying to help some understand the function of the firearm Baldwin used . I’m not trying to explain all the differences of old colt single action firearms . Keeping that in mind , I believe I accomplished the task . :-)
 
Last edited:
The gun Baldwin used was an Italian made copy of the Colt single action (Pietta? I think). Functionally no different from the Colt.

I will admit to having a degree of "doesn't everyone know this?" when it comes to the Single Action revolver "manual of arms". I know how the Colts and clones work and also how the New Model Rugers work, and the differences between them.

Obviously, everyone doesn't know this, and your video would be very helpful to those who don't.

I did notice you mentioned how the cylinder wants to rotate back if you lower the hammer BEFORE reaching the half cock notch. That's entirely proper and the way the gun was made. Until you click the hammer into the half cock position, the mainspring is going to push things back to their "at rest" position. There is no safety concern in this as, if properly loaded, the chamber under the hammer is either empty, or contains a fired case.
 
The cylinder rotates back-ish even past half cock , both holding the trigger back or not . It needs to get really close to fully cocked before it stops rotating back . I say ish because it does not rotate all the way back to its original position either This was shown when I went past half cock and let the hammer go . The cylinder did not fully rotate back . We see that both by seeing the cases on each side of the top strap and the hammer hitting the case heads .

HiBC may be able to give a more detailed explanation on what the innerds are doing in that case .
 
What's happening is that the ratchet on the back end of the cylinder is machined into six small ramps in a circular array. The hand rides on this surface, in the deepest part of the recess, and is under pressure applied by the mainspring. The hand pushes up against each notch to advance the cylinder. Until the cylinder locks into place, releasing the hammer withdraws the hand, which is being pushed into the notch by pressure from the mainspring, which results in the hand dragging the cylinder in the reverse direction.

https://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/551/551520.jpg

[Photo from Midway]
 
So how can the D.A. make mistakes like this? I have to assume they are not fresh out of college. I have to assume they know how to charge someone?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...harge-against-Alec-Baldwin-Rust-shooting.html

Both have now had their enhanced gun charges dropped after the actors legal team filed an argument in court
Click to expand...

They say that the charges could not be brought because a change in the law used to file them was not completed until seven months later
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for this kind of incompetence, none, period.
 
There is no excuse for this kind of incompetence, none, period.
Click to expand...

Assuming it was incompetence....

What if it wasn't??

What if it was simply a test, something they expected to be challenged and thrown out, (in this case withdrawn) I'm sure they'd have been happy to accept it, if it had "stuck", but I feel like it was something done simply to see if Baldwin's legal team would catch it.

Consider this, NOW it can be said that he "won" a victory, which might either create some false confidence, or alternately create the feeling in some people that since he "beat" the gun enhancement he shouldn't be allowed to get off on the other charges.

It COULD simply have been a PR move. OR it could have been an actual error on the part of the DA's staff. I have no way of knowing....
 
The way I heard it, it wasn't "never", it was "one should not" which, to me, leaves enough wiggle room to allow the consideration that sometimes simple ignorance might not be so simple.

:D
 
The worst part about this isn't whether or not Baldwin gets a suitable spanking by his cellmate--it's that the core issue of prevention of a live round making its way onto the set might not be adequately addressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top