I have a Colt Army model 1860 cap and ball black powder revolver that someone made from a kit. I bought it used as I wanted to play with black powder. Yes, you have to pull the trigger, but that pistol has a hair trigger. Not a big deal if you know about it but unless you want it to go off you keep your finger off of the trigger. Standard trigger pull for double action revolvers is over 10 lbs. Single action is ~ 5 lbs. That pistol, although I've never measured it, is probably less than 1 lb. Bottom line is you never put a weapon in someone's hand without training first. Even with training there are lots of Bozos that do not practice keeping the weapon always pointed in a safe direction and not touching the trigger unless you are firing. Especially if it has a light trigger pull.

guess you've had extras in your gun pack :-"

 

For anyone curious about the operation of a single action revolver

in animation form.

The gun in question was a Pieta manufactured copy of the .45 Colt. Both Pieta and Uberti make really nice copies for those on a budget and can't just run out and buy a 100 plus year old Colt.

Ron

 

I would remove the cylinders with live amo and have extras all locked away until I’m ready to host any or all shooters. That way we can handle firearms in a controlled space or range.

When ready to film, pop the cylinders with dummies and you’ll know when fools handle them we don’t kill people.

kv

 

I would remove the cylinders with live amo and have extras all locked away until I’m ready to host any or all shooters. That way we can handle firearms in a controlled space or range.

When ready to film, pop the cylinders with dummies and you’ll know when fools handle them we don’t kill people.

kv

Genuine experts with decades of work on sets where firearms are used have developed extremely effective and well thought out procedures to ensure safe handling. The problem isn't the procedures, its not doing them.

Cars are involved in tens of thousands of deaths each year in the US.

Very few of the cases were because*of the car(s) involved. It is possible to safely drive a car with very little chance of deadly or life changing event if good maintenance, the rules of the road and the principles of defensive defensive driving are followed by a competent driver.

Firearms on movie sets are involved in single digit deaths (or none at all) each year, and in a much more controlled context.

The risk of death or serious injury from a firearm on a set is vanishingly small, if they are in good working order, handled according to well established rules, and with awareness of the potential danger by a competent person (i.e.: one with training in firearms handling and under the supervision of a qualified armorer.)

Like so many things, new procedures, rules, or laws aren't needed—adherence to the existing and extremely effective best practices is. If actors need to handle firearms as part of their professional activities then they need to take responsibility and be professional about it.

They need to learn about the guns they are handling, how they must be handled to be safe, and what is not acceptable to do—and not be treated like imbeciles that must be handed an inherently safe object claiming any damage they might do with it is the fault of the person who gave it to them.

Considering the potential outcome of mishandling firearms, if the actor is not willing to explicitly take responsibility for their own actions while in control of a gun they shouldn't be allowed to be—no matter how "important" they are. Firearms safety is not rocket science. These actors, who work very hard, and train in so many other ways for their roles, can certainly take even tens of hours to train with the potentially deadly guns they will be paid handsomely to handle—to ensure their competence, and that they will not be a danger to everyone else on set.

This video, referenced earlier in the thread, is worth watching. While it doesn't specifically cover this aspect, it gives an excellent idea of some of the challenged of firearms in film making, why and how competent armorers use unmodified firearms—spoiler: they really don't—and just how carefully done the whole enterprise is. I strongly recommend giving it a watch if you haven't seen it.

*In those cases where they are implicated, the problem is a different one like the antique case of Ford and the exploding Pinto, or the modern case of Tesla and Elon's ego.

 

Like so many things, new procedures, rules, or laws aren't needed—adherence to the existing and extremely effective best practices is. If actors need to handle firearms as part of their professional activities then they need to take responsibility and be professional about it.

The responsibility of the Actor to follow prescribed procedures. We seem to agree with, however the above statement was “ What would you do “ senario.

If I’m held liable, then I choose to remove it literally Or change professions.

kv

 

I would remove the cylinders with live amo and have extras all locked away until I’m ready to host any or all shooters. That way we can handle firearms in a controlled space or range.

When ready to film, pop the cylinders with dummies and you’ll know when fools handle them we don’t kill people.

kv

Doesn't work very well on a firearm that doesn't have a removable cylinder, or any cylinder at all.

There are multiple types of firearms used in movie production. There are deactivated firearms that can't fire anything, not even blanks. These are used for scenes that do not require the discharge of the weapon. There are weapons that have been modified to work with blanks while not being able to work with live ammunition. These can require extensive modification in order to get the actions to work properly when firing blanks. Even blanks can be deadly at sufficiently close range. Then there are fully operational weapons for shoots that call for it. The different classes of weapons are marked in a way so that a handler can determine which type it is, but the marks also have to be such that the audience can't tell which is which when they see the finished product, so the markings can be obvious such as an orange barrel.

The problem is neither the weapons nor the procedures -- industry best practices have been long-since developed and are well known. The problem is that not every production crew follows them. Just like safe-food handling practices are well-known, but not all food workers follow them and so you get E.coli outbreaks and other problems. Just like best practices to make sure that fasteners are not left loose when assembling an airplane are well known, but they are not always followed.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/rust-armorer-fair-shot-trial-1235823841/
Is the Embattled Young ‘Rust’ Armorer Getting a Fair Shot?

Gutierrez-Reed, one of the youngest and least powerful people working on the movie, is the likeliest person to go to prison for those mistakes. Now 27, she is set to stand trial in Santa Fe on Feb. 21 on charges of involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering (unless a Hail Mary motion her attorney filed to dismiss the case, scheduled for Feb. 14, succeeds, or she takes a plea deal in the interim). Prosecutors say she was negligent in loading Baldwin’s gun with live ammunition and that she tampered with evidence by asking another person to take possession of narcotics she had on her on the day of the shooting.

She will have her day in court, that's a fair shot.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/rust-armorer-fair-shot-trial-1235823841/
Is the Embattled Young ‘Rust’ Armorer Getting a Fair Shot?


She will have her day in court, that's a fair shot.

It’s not looking good for her because the prosecution has text messages and testimony that she was a regular user of illegal drugs during the production, and that she could not distinguish dummy and live rounds (though they were clearly different from the photos in the case).

Her name—Gutierrez-Reed—is a fiction as well. She took it by adding “Reed” to her own in order to invoke her father the very famous armorer Thell Reed. They really do have a relationship, but she never had his name. I don’t know of him complaining about her adopting it, but it’s not her legal name.

While this isn’t really directly relevant, it will be used by the prosecution to cast doubt on her competence and with other evidence of that sort, could very well sway the interpretation of relevant facts and so the verdict.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/rust-armorer-fair-shot-trial-1235823841/
Is the Embattled Young ‘Rust’ Armorer Getting a Fair Shot?


She will have her day in court, that's a fair shot.

I agree. She is being charged with things that directly relate to her not doing her job, and not doing so in an extremely negligent manner, that led directly to this incident. While you can assert that others share some level of accountability, I think she stand well-and-above on the top of that pile.

Having said that, someone, even if just internally, should be looking at how she came to be in such a position. Who vetted her for the position of armorer? Was she actually qualified? How did they miss her drug use, which appears to have not been a particularly well-kept secret? Is this all just indicative of a generally careless and complacent attitude within the industry with regards to safety on set? Or was it just unusually poor on that particular production?

To what degree where industry best practices followed or not followed? If so, do those best practice need to be reviewed and revised? If not, what steps can be taken to encourage/ensure compliance with best practices in the future?

 

Having said that, someone, even if just internally, should be looking at how she came to be in such a position. Who vetted her for the position of armorer? Was she actually qualified? How did they miss her drug use, which appears to have not been a particularly well-kept secret? Is this all just indicative of a generally careless and complacent attitude within the industry with regards to safety on set? Or was it just unusually poor on that particular production?

Sadly I doubt we will ever know the answers to those questions. We can speculate how she got her position but I doubt we will ever know. I would think a urine test would have been in order but apparently not.

Ron

 

I agree. She is being charged with things that directly relate to her not doing her job, and not doing so in an extremely negligent manner, that led directly to this incident. While you can assert that others share some level of accountability, I think she stand well-and-above on the top of that pile.

Having said that, someone, even if just internally, should be looking at how she came to be in such a position. Who vetted her for the position of armorer? Was she actually qualified? How did they miss her drug use, which appears to have not been a particularly well-kept secret? Is this all just indicative of a generally careless and complacent attitude within the industry with regards to safety on set? Or was it just unusually poor on that particular production?

To what degree where industry best practices followed or not followed? If so, do those best practice need to be reviewed and revised? If not, what steps can be taken to encourage/ensure compliance with best practices in the future?

It appears they wanted someone cheap since she also worked as a prop assistant.

 

Skip forward to the start of the trial about 40m from the beginning.

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1236448169/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust
'Rust' film armorer found guilty in death of cinematographer

A jury in New Mexico has found Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer for the film Rust, guilty of involuntary manslaughter. During the criminal trial, prosecutors successfully argued that her negligence and recklessness led to the death of the film's cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, in 2021.
...
Both sides argued in court that as a co-producer of Rust, Baldwin was also to blame for the shooting. Baldwin maintains the bullet fired without him pulling the trigger and has pleaded not guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter. His criminal trial is set to begin on July 9.

Want to bet that she's a witness for the Baldwin case?

 

Want to bet that she's a witness for the Baldwin case?

What are the odds?

While she was negligent I figure there will be plenty more blame to go around. I am waiting to see how Baldwin comes out of this. Not to mention who dragged live ammunition onto the set for target shooting during breaks?

Ron

 

'Rust' film armorer found guilty in death of cinematographer

Glad to see that, she deserves it IMO.

 

Sadly I doubt we will ever know the answers to those questions. We can speculate how she got her position but I doubt we will ever know. I would think a urine test would have been in order but apparently not.

Ron

Seriously? I suspect more than half of the people working in the film industry would be out of a job if they did that.

On principle, I refused to sign a clause in my last employee agreement (with a major US tech corporation) submitting to drug testing. They hired me anyway.

 

Seriously? I suspect more than half of the people working in the film industry would be out of a job if they did that.

On principle, I refused to sign a clause in my last employee agreement (with a major US tech corporation) submitting to drug testing. They hired me anyway.

Yeah, that was my reply to Wbahn based on his post.

Having said that, someone, even if just internally, should be looking at how she came to be in such a position. Who vetted her for the position of armorer? Was she actually qualified? How did they miss her drug use, which appears to have not been a particularly well-kept secret? Is this all just indicative of a generally careless and complacent attitude within the industry with regards to safety on set? Or was it just unusually poor on that particular production?

Anyway I have to agree with you unfortunately I never had the option to decline urine test. I worked under a DoE and DoD secret clearance and because the Fed views weed for example as a disqualifying factor for security clearances I had to stay clean. Piss positive and you were escorted out of the building and your clearances were toast. Lose my clearances and lose my income. Simply because of how the fed views weed and consider likely half the states have legalized recreational use of weed. It will be 11 years in May since I retired and no more pee in a bottle surprises. The Fed really needs to get their act together. As of today here in Ohio recreational use of weed is perfectly legal much like maybe a few dozen other states yet certain controlled substance drugs require an annual pee test or no prescription. Anyway I never had the opportunity to decline other than walking away from a great job and career I enjoyed. Technically when buying a firearm the transfer form is an ATF 4473 form where they mention:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

Answer Yes and no gun for you. Even though the evil weed may be legal in your state of residence. Go figure.

Ron

 

 

I discovered a true expert in firearms and firearms training, a couple of years ago, Mr. Paul Harrell; he's recently been unwell but I wish him all the best:

 

Think a gunners mate setup the Skipper for the photoshoot? Rule, never give your loaded weapon to a Naval officer, give it to the Marine E1 (lowest enlisted) instead.