Uh, Alec Baldwin just shot and killed someone

[Jersey Girl]

Lem I read your post. Do we have any definition of what constitutes live rounds?

Here is why I ask. I've read or heard that prop guns are configured in such a way as not to accept actual bullets in the sense that I think of as a bullet.

Was this a prop gun?

Are blanks considered a live round?

Is there some other type of projectile that is NOT a blank and NOT considered a live round?
Is there a type of projectile that is NOT a blank and IS considered a live round?

I'm confused about the terminology being used. I do have access to an on-site armorer of my own, but I doubt the terminology that they use is the same as what is being used in the film industry.

If anyone can pull out an answer to my muddled questions, feel free.

[Res Ipsa]

Lem I read your post. Do we have any definition of what constitutes live rounds?

Here is why I ask. I've read or heard that prop guns are configured in such a way as not to accept actual bullets in the sense that I think of as a bullet.

Was this a prop gun?

Are blanks considered a live round?

Is there some other type of projectile that is NOT a blank and NOT considered a live round?
Is there a type of projectile that is NOT a blank and IS considered a live round?

I'm confused about the terminology being used. I do have access to an on site armorer of my own, but I doubt the terminology that they use is the same as what is being used in the film industry.

If anyone can pull out an answer to my muddled questions, feel free.

From what I've read, the gun in question was a fully functional firearm. It had been used by someone for "plinking" (shooting at cans or bottles or similar targets). I've always equated "live round" with bullet or shell (handgun/rifle or shotgun). I've never heard "live round" used to describe "blanks." But those with more firearms experience than me may have better insight into terminology. The media articles don't seem to use a consistent terminology.

[Jersey Girl]

Lem I read your post. Do we have any definition of what constitutes live rounds?

Here is why I ask. I've read or heard that prop guns are configured in such a way as not to accept actual bullets in the sense that I think of as a bullet.

Was this a prop gun?

Are blanks considered a live round?

Is there some other type of projectile that is NOT a blank and NOT considered a live round?
Is there a type of projectile that is NOT a blank and IS considered a live round?

I'm confused about the terminology being used. I do have access to an on site armorer of my own, but I doubt the terminology that they use is the same as what is being used in the film industry.

If anyone can pull out an answer to my muddled questions, feel free.

From what I've read, the gun in question was a fully functional firearm. It had been used by someone for "plinking" (shooting at cans or bottles or similar targets). I've always equated "live round" with bullet or shell (handgun/rifle or shotgun). I've never heard "live round" used to describe "blanks." But those with more firearms experience than me may have better insight into terminology. The media articles don't seem to use a consistent terminology.

That the media articles don't seem to use a consistent terminology is exactly the reason for confusion. I had a discussion with the resident armorer over here but until someone from the film industry or LE puts a definition on it (legal or otherwise, I guess) the armorer here is using the terms in the same way that you are. And if I am not mistaken he also said that blanks would be painted a color or I might be misremembering that.

I'm lost. It's like speaking different languages. Actually, it's exactly that.

I did see a post earlier in the thread by Cam---something about cloth inside the projectile. Maybe he'll have more to say about that here.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, after following this thread this for a few days I think I’ve come to the conclusion that Alec Baldwin is primarily at fault for his AD. He’s been on numerous movie sets that have followed established procedures for years, and he has seen proper safety protocols throughout the years - he knew better. He had a responsibility to check his weapon once it was handed to him because he knew better.

In one of my units an AD would get you immediately fired. Like, pack your crap, no second chance, gtfo of here. For example, if an armorer handed me my weapon, I failed to clear it, and I had an AD, I would’ve been fired (probably along with the armorer). I think anyone looking to remove or reduce Baldwin’s culpability probably just has a problem with a man being accountable for his actions. Because I knew better.

Obviously the armorer is responsible for her failures, which are numerous.

After her, then it’s whoever is responsible for the overall protocol for on-set safety, whatever that entails. A culture that allowed a clearly incompetent armorer on set to do a dangerous job starts at the top, and then we can work our way down to stagehands shooting live ammo on or near the set.

Just my two cents.

- Doc

edited to clean the point up a bit

[Res Ipsa]

From what I've read, the gun in question was a fully functional firearm. It had been used by someone for "plinking" (shooting at cans or bottles or similar targets). I've always equated "live round" with bullet or shell (handgun/rifle or shotgun). I've never heard "live round" used to describe "blanks." But those with more firearms experience than me may have better insight into terminology. The media articles don't seem to use a consistent terminology.

That the media articles don't seem to use a consistent terminology is exactly the reason for confusion. I had a discussion with the resident armorer over here but until someone from the film industry or law enforcement puts a definition on it (legal or otherwise, I guess) the armorer here is using the terms in the same way that you are. And if I am not mistaken he also said that blanks would be painted a color or I might be misremembering that.

I'm lost. It's like speaking different languages. Actually, it's exactly that.

I did see a post earlier in the thread by Cam---something about cloth inside the projectile. Maybe he'll have more to say about that here.

Blanks do involve a projectile that can injure and even kill at short range. One of the firearm deaths on film sets was a guy who pointed a handgun loaded with a blank at his head and pulled the trigger.

[Jersey Girl]

So, after following this thread this for a few days I think I’ve come to the conclusion that Alec Baldwin is primarily at fault for his AD. He’s been on numerous movie sets that have followed established procedures for years, and he has seen proper safety protocols throughout the years - he knew better. He had a responsibility to check his weapon once it was handed to him because he knew better.

In one of my units an AD would get you immediately fired. Like, pack your crap, no second chance, gtfo of here. For example, if an armorer handed me my weapon, I failed to clear it, and I had an AD, I would’ve been fired (probably along with the armorer). I think anyone looking to remove or reduce Baldwin’s culpability probably just has a problem with a man being accountable for his actions. Because I knew better.

Obviously the armorer is responsible for her failures, which are numerous.

After her, then it’s whoever is responsible for the overall protocol for on-set safety, whatever that entails. A culture that allowed a clearly incompetent armorer on set to do a dangerous job starts at the top, and then we can work our way down to stagehands shooting live ammo on or near the set.

Just my two cents.

- Doc

edited to clean the point up a bit

I'm glad you posted since I had just mentioned you in a current post. This that you wrote:

He had a responsibility to check his weapon once it was handed to him because he knew better.

That's exactly how I see it, too, and posted to that effect.

I think I am going to hang back here and just follow the thread. I don't know enough about the topic to carry my own weight and hopefully I can learn something more.

[Physics Guy]

All the blank rounds I’ve ever seen were brass casings that just crimp together at the front, where the bullet would be. So there shouldn’t be any real projectile.

Blanks do hold propellant, though, to make the Bang sound, and it’s a lot more than you get in a kids’ cap-gun. If the barrel isn’t plugged when you fire a blank, there is a blast of hot gas out the muzzle. There may also be small solid bits of unburnt propellant in the blast. At very short range, like a foot or two, that blast alone can be deadly. Even at several yards it could injure or blind. Blanks aren’t harmless.

You can make blanks much safer by plugging the muzzle, which is what soldiers do in training, with big yellow plugs well secured. That makes the sound a lot less, though, and eliminates the muzzle flash. It likely also reduces the jump of a handgun from recoil when fired (which is a lot less with blanks anyway, making shooting in general look a lot easier in films than it really is). So movies may not want to plug barrels with blanks.

It sounds as though in this case a blank round was not even involved, but a normal live round with a bullet. How in hell even a single live round was anywhere near a movie set, let alone loaded into a prop gun, is sheer insanity. In the military, if even one live round gets found anywhere in a blank training exercise, everything stops, all the lights go on, and everyone’s mission changes immediately to checking in case there any more live rounds around. And someone is likely going to jail.

I’m surprised they don’t just edit in gun effects with CGI nowadays.

[Chap]

It sounds as though in this case a blank round was not even involved, but a normal live round with a bullet. How in hell even a single live round was anywhere near a movie set, let alone loaded into a prop gun, is sheer insanity.

Can't find the link now, but in a recent piece on this incident one of the crew was said to have reported that the guns used on set were also "used by some members of the crew for recreational shooting [with live rounds]" during breaks. What a completely stupid idea. What a completely irresponsible props manager to have let that happen ...

And of course huge responsibility lies with the person who should have opened up the damn gun and done a visual check that it contained only blanks. I mean, how long would that have taken, before handing it to Baldwin and declaring it to be a "cold gun"?

[Cultellus]

So, after following this thread this for a few days I think I’ve come to the conclusion that Alec Baldwin is primarily at fault for his AD. He’s been on numerous movie sets that have followed established procedures for years, and he has seen proper safety protocols throughout the years - he knew better. He had a responsibility to check his weapon once it was handed to him because he knew better.

In one of my units an AD would get you immediately fired. Like, pack your crap, no second chance, gtfo of here. For example, if an armorer handed me my weapon, I failed to clear it, and I had an AD, I would’ve been fired (probably along with the armorer). I think anyone looking to remove or reduce Baldwin’s culpability probably just has a problem with a man being accountable for his actions. Because I knew better.

Obviously the armorer is responsible for her failures, which are numerous.

After her, then it’s whoever is responsible for the overall protocol for on-set safety, whatever that entails. A culture that allowed a clearly incompetent armorer on set to do a dangerous job starts at the top, and then we can work our way down to stagehands shooting live ammo on or near the set.

Just my two cents.

- Doc

edited to clean the point up a bit

Agree with this. All of it.

I can say that, because I accept how Doc is using the AD term and application.

I do not use the term that way. I use it to apply to a mechanical failure that does not require one to interpret the intent or imagination of the person in control of the weapon. Doc is using the term differently, but consistently with this conclusion.

[Res Ipsa]

Updates: https://www.today.com/popculture/rust-a ... un-t236336

“Rust” assistant director David Halls told authorities he should have checked the gun used on set last week more thoroughly after noticing a difference in the ammunition rounds, according to a search warrant affidavit.

Halls told investigators in an interview that he did not check each individual round of ammunition in the gun before handing it back to the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the day cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died, the court document said.

After the shooting, Halls took the gun to Gutierrez-Reed and recalled seeing at least four "dummy" casings with the hole on the side, and one without the hole, when she opened the gun, according to Halls' interview. The round without the hole did not have the "cap" on it and was just the casing, according to the warrant.

“David advised when Hannah showed him the firearm before continue rehearsal, he could only remember seeing three rounds,” the warrant affidavit said. “He advised he should’ve checked all of them, but didn’t, and couldn’t recall if she spun the drum.”

The rounds recovered from the set include blanks, dummy rounds and what investigators suspect are "live" rounds.

https://www.today.com/news/news/rust-sh ... n-rcna3990

"Nobody’s been cleared as of yet," Mendoza told Savannah Guthrie. "Again, there’s three people that handled the firearm prior to the death of Miss Hutchins, so those people will be interviewed, are the focus of the investigation, and so nobody’s been cleared as of yet.”

...
Investigators questioned 16 cast and crew members who were inside the church set where Hutchins was killed. Among the 600 items of evidence recovered were three guns, 500 rounds of ammunition and what are believed to be live rounds.[/quest]