Why you can never be too careful

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had read an article some time back about all of the real guns owned by the entertainment industry. It was describing the safety procedures in place to assure live ammunition doesn’t get mixed in. But I don’t remember where I read it and not interested in trying to find it.

I was always under the impression that “prop” was short for “property” of the production company and doesn’t necessarily mean “fake”.

I’m still dumbfounded that a real bullet was around this workplace and how much effort is being put into absolving the person who fired the gun. During the 911 call that I listened to, there were people already arguing about who was to blame.
 
I saw a pretty great synopsis of this:

The first responsibility for ensuring that the procedures are in place to prevent this type of thing falls on the producer.

The FINAL, last check to ensure this type of accident doesn't happen falls on the actor.

In this case, they were the same person.

I'm not even a little bit surprised that all this work is going on to absolve Baldwin of any blame.
 
There are plenty of anonymous sources so far. It's worth remembering that this set involved union issues, at least worth remembering while the dust settles. Guns aren't the only agenda involved.
 
Anyone who thought the use of the movie guns for plinking was even a tiny bit ok needs to have their head examined.
These people were doomed from the get go tragically.
 
Anyone who thought the use of the movie guns for plinking was even a tiny bit ok needs to have their head examined.
Click to expand...

I don't know that the idea of using the guns for plinking was automatically bad, but the way they DID IT certainly was.

I've been a unit armorer. When proper procedures are in place, AND FOLLOWED, it works and is safe.

GUN gets checked out of secure storage to someone (a specific individual) A record is kept of who and what gun.
Gun gets checked back in by that individua, not just "dropped off"l. Gun gets inspected PRIOR to return to storage. ANYTHING wrong, the individual it was checked out to gets called to account. Damage, live ammo left in the gun, anything wrong, you have a name to go to about it.

In a military arms room, the armorer won't accept the gun back if it has ammo in it. OR dirty, or damaged. The gun is inspected right there, with the guy returning it standing there, (and not allowed to leave) until the gun is accepted by the armorer.

Clearly this was not the case on the movie set.

But exactly what was the case, we don't have an official statement about, yet. We have reports from "people who were there" or "were in a postion to know" being anonymously quoted by various news and quasi news reports. Damn few facts. And the latest round of statements I've seen quoted SEEMS to be a "circling of the wagons" to protect Baldwin as much as possible, from people who's names are given and various things attacking him, and his production company from people who's names are not being given. (or not at this time, given)

I'm actually rather surprised that so far, nothing I've seen suggests the possibility of deliberate sabotage. There was a lot of tension involved, lots of people were very unhappy. Union people don't walk off jobs because they are happy.

Considering what has already been reported about the physical security of the firearms onsite, I think it possible some "disgruntled employee" COULD have deliberately slipped a live round into a gun, with the intent of causing an accident that would shut down production. This would, of course, be a serious criminal act, and possibly deserving of a murder conviction IF enough facts could be proven.

it's not likely, but its not impossible to rule out, at this time, with the information available.

Some of the players involved have now had enough time to get their collective stories straight and plausibly matching. Whether or not these are the actual truth is still to be determined.

I think I've stirred the discussional pot enough for the moment, lets see what bubbles up next.
:rolleyes:
 
I'm actually rather surprised that so far, nothing I've seen suggests the possibility of deliberate sabotage. There was a lot of tension involved, lots of people were very unhappy. Union people don't walk off jobs because they are happy.
Click to expand...
That thought crossed my mind--briefly--but I dismissed it as it seems to me the "ignorant Yahoo factor" is extremely high in this case.

However, as the title of this thread suggests, you can never be too careful --unless you're in a deep-poop firefight maybe. And I would be a liar if I denied EVER having had a close call.
 
My Son works in the industry . I asked him about this incident , mainly about the guns . Below is his reply...

Depends on the movie but usually 3 different ones per each gun. 1 "Hero" model, the real deal for close ups, a "rubber" one for heavy stunts (like falling off a horse and stuff like that) and then usually a third that's in between, blank firing

They NEVER use real ammo on any quality film sets. Amateurs might but it's against union by-laws

And the "armorer" on that set is a dunce. Her dad is a big time armorer and she's riding his coattails. She should have never been the head armorer, that's one role you really, really have to pay your dues to get ahead. She's only 24...

They should have never loaded that gun. Idk what happened exactly but it sounded like a bad squib in a real gun was lodged in the barrel and they used real ammo. Turned it to shrapnel and injured both when it went off. Baldwin is lucky he didn't lose a hand on top of it all


Three IATSE union crew members lodged formal complaints against the producers and assistant director for unsafe and hazardous work conditions the week before too. Specifically mentioned the armorer in one as well.

From what I understand he wasn't at fault at all. He was told it was safe to use

One report even said he was told it wasn't loaded with anything and they were free to do a dry fire test run to line the shot up.

That's what they call the hero shot

Think Dirty Harry, do you feel lucky punk. That scene when he points it right at the camera

Those are usually easier to fake with shallow lenses, then you can move off to the side

And they normally use 1/2" or thicket ballistic glass. Think mythbusters when they did the super dangerous stuff
 
Last edited:
Members of the crew had used the gun that morning for "target practice" -- real ammunition.
EVERYBODY in the chain from that point on was at fault.

Baldwin was at the end of that chain...
and since he was actually pulling the trigger ...w/o checking...
... most at fault.
IMHO
 
Last edited:
I was always under the impression that prop guns had filled barrels or were functionally equivalent to a starter pistol such as this.

https://blankgunarmory.com/22-calibe...ol-wood-grips/

Clearly, I was mistaken.
Click to expand...

The term "prop" as in "prop" gun is a term shortened from "property" and is a reference to an item used in a production that belonged to that production...their property (actually owned or used in the production). Usually, these were movable objects that were part of the scenes.

The term "prop" does not mean that an item is not functional. In fact, many or most props must be functional in order to work in a scene. However, their level of functionality may not reflect reality. Weapons may be real or non-functional recreations. Some may have partial functionality. Some may function in ways not reflective of the actual item that they are supposed to be.
 
I am NOT directing this at anyone in this thread. Simply reinforcing the post above.

That whole "prop gun" thing is part of the ignorance of the media and the general public.

They imply it should be a non-functional replica, which is (as pointed out directly above) NOT the case, but it suits their "scary weapon" agenda.

Do you have "prop cars" that are non-functional? Prop doors to rooms that don't open?
 
That whole "prop gun" thing is part of the ignorance of the media and the general public.

They imply it should be a non-functional replica, which is (as pointed out directly above) NOT the case, but it suits their "scary weapon" agenda.

Do you have "prop cars" that are non-functional? Prop doors to rooms that don't open?
Click to expand...

You can count me among the ignorant on this. I assumed a replica when I first heard the story, but I think that's a reflection of my ignorance of stagecraft more than guns.

I've learned a great deal about the crucial role of the armorer in all this. Here's a good breakdown: https://ascmag.com/blog/filmmakers-forum/filming-with-firearms

I understand a prior set of posts about the rules on set dictating that an actor could assume things were safe when he was handed a weapon from the armorer. Yet if I'd been working with an identical rubber, replica, and real gun I'd still clear it myself.
 
A little tidbit of info I'm happy to share ,even with anti-gun actors.

There is some space between the rear end of the cylinder and the recoil plate of the frame.
You can easily look through a SAA from the side,behind the cylinder. This is the space the cartridge rims occupy when the cylinder is loaded. The rim is quite visible at a glance. Its far more visible than using the Semi-auto pistol loaded chamber notch in the breech.

Now,please don't get me wrong! Its NOT a substitute for opening the loading gate and rolling the cylinder,inspecting each chamber. That still needs to be done to "Clear the gun"

Looking at the gap could conceivably miss a single round hiding behind the base pin / ratchet,.

But if you are looking at the left side of the gun, any cartridge positioned to move into battery if the hammer is cocked will be quite visible.

I always load a full wheel (Ruger New Model) or 5 rounds (Traditional) .

For a general quick check,a glance will determine "Yes! There IS something in the cylinder.
To satisfy "This gun is unloaded",open the gate,turn the cylinder,look in each chamber.

This is easily done with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. Looking in the front end of the cylinder is not a good idea
 
The shooting by Baldwin happened because:

1. Cast and/or crew were shooting that weapon previously that day. Someone failed to clear the weapon.

2. Baldwin failed to check the condition of the weapon.
 
I have seen more than one article about this incident in which the writer asked why they were using real guns when they could have been using blank-only guns. IMHO that comment tells us the writer hasn't done any research.

Years ago, after seeing a student who showed up at an NRA Basic Pistol class (rules announced to all registrants: no guns, no live ammunition allowed in the class) with some 9mm rounds in his pocket, I resolved to use only dummy guns and blank-firing replicas in my classes. I had no trouble finding a DA revolver that looks exactly like a Ruger DA revolver. I found an 8mm blank-firing semi-auto that's a passable copy of a 1911, and I found another 8mm blank gun that's a very good copy of a Beretta 92.

But a non-firing or blank-firing copy of a Colt SAA? They may be out there, but I couldn't find one. I had to settle for a Kimar (Italian) six shooter that takes 209 shotgun primers. For the purposes of the class it does the job, but it would NOT work in a movie.

https://blankgunarmory.com/m1873-9mm-blank-firing-old-west-replica-revolver-antique-gray/

It would do the job for an extra in a scene shot from a distance and at an angle. For a moderately closeup shot with the gun pointed at the camera, total fail. The cylinder isn't solid. The front is open, with just thin webs between the chambers. From the front or in a 3/4 angle shot, it would definitely look fake.

Could Hollywood afford to modify real six guns so they couldn't fire live ammo? Sure they could. Any halfway competent machinist would make up a screw-in plug that would restrict the barrel to smaller than the caliber of the chambers. It wouldn't surprise me if the bigger Hollywood gun rental houses have such guns. But this was a low-budget production that was being filmed on a shoestring in New Mexico. We don't know who supplied the guns, but if Ms. Gutierez-Reed was only 24 years old and this was only her second film as the armorer, she probably didn't supply the guns.

A decade of two ago I remember reading that either Uberti or Pietta had come out with a non-firing copy of their "Colt" SAA clone, intended specifically for cowboy action and quick draw competitors to be able to practice their draw and fire without having any concern about possibly making a mistake and allowing live ammo into a practice gun. I don't remember what it was called, and I have looked for it a number of times and I have not been able to find any indication that it's still for sale.

[Edit to add]A new search brought me to this: a Pietta SAA clone, available with 4-3/4" or 5-1/2" barrel, chambered for .380 blanks. This would make an excellent prop gun.

https://www.westernstageprops.com/Blank-Firing-Californian-1873-Single-Action-p/sg401.htm

It appears to have full-size chambers at the front of the cylinder. I don't know if there's a way it could be set up to show bullets to simulate a full load for a closeup frontal camera shot.

I need to start saving my lunch money. I want one of these.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top