It has no primer or powder, so it’s safe. The purpose of the BBs is to distinguish a dummy from a live round easily.
It seems like blanks would be needed to cycle the gun. But I went back and his story doesn’t say it was close to his head and the actor just said ‘bang.’
He said the rounds would cycle the semi automatic pistol. Dummy rounds will not do that as far as I know. They need the gas from the fired cartridge to cycle the weapon.
There are many ways to do that without introducing a projectile into the equation. Dummy rounds could be any number of things from wood to foam to plastic. There is absolutely no reason for a dummy round to have a projectile in it. I think that’s similar to how Brandon Lee was killed, a dummy round stuck in the barrel.
And this again shows a terminology difference. In the Bill_Door anecdote, they were called practice rounds. I don’t think that term has showed up in any of the news stories I’ve seen. It also tells you nothing about if the gun is hot or cold.
This. My first thought on how to be certain that you have no powder in the cartridge was to drill a hole in the side of it. Apparently, at least one Hollywood armorer does this according to an interview I read.
It’s considered a bad practice in the shooting world to “dry fire” a gun with no cartridge in it. The primer helps to absorb some shock of the firing pin hitting the round. With no primer at all, the firing pin hits harder and can break after a while. Frankly, this wouldn’t be my biggest concern with a prop gun but I’m not a Hollywood armorer.
I think someone in this thread talked or maybe something else I read talked about dummy cartridges having a dimpled primer to distinguish them. I assume this means a used and inert primer. Even that used primer would offer some cushion for the firing pin and hammer.
There are probably many good ways to design cartridges to distinguish between live and dummy rounds. Perhaps a standard would be good so Associate Producers and actors handling guns all had the same expectations. It seems, in any event, that whatever system Rust was using failed.
Wait @Bill_Door . It was a semi-auto? Not to be fired? No need to cycle it? Why would it have anything in it at all?
Yeah, I don’t get his story at all. The armorer should have just showed him the gun was empty, no need for anything to be in the weapon. Here’s what he said:
That sounds like it has some kind of powder charge or it wouldn’t cycle the gun. IMHO, that gun should have been totally empty.
Good point. Maybe it was demonstrated to Bill and the stunt man at the same time.
I own dummy rounds used for dry firing. They are handy to practice loading a gun, ejecting a round, checking it, and so on. In my case they are metal shells with plastic “bullets” colored neon orange. You can easily tell they aren’t real ammo even from a distance.
If you were filming something and wanted realistic bullets that were dummy rounds, you couldn’t make them neon orange. You’d need them to look real. But how would you be able to tell them apart from real bullets? If they are designed to fool the viewer of a film, they would also likely fool the people involved in making the film, at least with a cursory examination. A smart solution would be to have the bullets rattle when shaken so that even if they look real, you can tell from the sound that they aren’t.
Again, I assume we’re talking about realistic dummy bullets and not blanks or anything else that is meant to be fired with any kind of explosion. In that case adding BBs seems dangerous, yes.
Why not just shoot .22 short? Those are already very underpowered rounds. What are you avoiding with the CB rounds that a .22 short will do? Is it just a mattermof the gun not properly handling a short round?
This is a very good observation and a very worrisome event. @Bill_Door may have been at far more risk than he realized. Perhaps this illustrates why relying on actors to ensure the safety of firearms isn’t really as helpful as it seems.
When you board an airline with a gun, you have to show the airline attendant that it’s unloaded. People question what airline attendants know about guns. The truth is, they don’t have to know The real benefit is forcing the owner to verify that the gun is unloaded before checking in. The real benefit of making the actor responsible for gun safety is that the actor will force the knowledgeable expert to do the proper check at least once. Of course, that requires the expert to still know what the proper thing is.
CB’s I have. .22 Shorts I have not.
Correct. Again, it’s a redundant system. You could just look to see if the primer is dimpled, and assume that the bullet is a dummy. But maybe, just maybe, it’s a real bullet that misfired and it’s still dangerous. Or someone thinks it’s just a dummy and throws it in a fire and it cooks off.
Drilling a hole in the side of the dummy cartridge would definitely show it was supposed to be a dummy, but the rattling of bb’s inside proves that it doesn’t have powder, rather than having an indirect method such as marking the cartridge. If the primer is expended and the thing rattles when shaken, it is guaranteed to be completely inert.
As good a reason as any. A .22 short is a really low-powered round. It would be very hard to kill someone with it. I don’t think it will even penetrate the skull at close range.
But the people on the movies should not be doing cursory checks, they should be doing a thorough check. Which just brings us back to doing the checks they should have done in the first place. You can have all kinds of safety protocols, but you need people to follow them.
You could actually, just like you could make them out of any substance you want. It’s not like the audience sees the actual cartridges very often on screen. It should be child’s play to change the orange to copper on one or two scenes in post cgi. They already do muzzle flash and sound.
I suppose this is literally true in the sense that there are hundreds of thousand of companies. It’s a very, very small minority of them these days.
In fact, most companies do make a good faith effort to meet essential safety requirements. I have visited - I dunno, 500 factories? Something like that by now, across a wide swath of industry categories. The number that would deliberately make a decision that is quite likely to result in someone being hurt was zero. The number that clearly didn’t respect workplace health and safety was not zero, but certainly not many; it’s sufficiently unusual that it’s striking to me when I see it.
H&S laws, and insurance premiums, ensure most companies take this stuff pretty seriously.
From the linked article:
As for the shooting that resulted in the death of Hutchins and left director Joel Souza wounded, Mendoza said during a press conference Wednesday that a live round was recovered from the director’s shoulder.
What makes the projectile they removed from the director’s shoulder a “live round”?
Also, this:
However, in a statement made through her attorneys that was provided to Fox News, New Mexico-based lawyers Jason Bowles and Robert Gorence, Gutierrez Reed blamed rushed conditions on the low-budget set for the tragic mishap.
That’s one hell of a sentence! I guess it could be some typo-like issue but I think it was purposely written that way. Bad.
I’m not sure if your post considers outsourced production, particularly production that is outsourced to ‘emerging nations,’ or if your post considers the harm that sometimes inures to consumers of the products in question.
There are no end of consumers harmed by no end of products. It’s often an actuarial bet by corporations as to whether the harm caused will rise to the level that the cost outweighs the profit.
[That speaks to bad press, fines levied by regulatory agencies, voluntary, and mandatory recalls as potential costs, not all of which make a calculated up-front risk that most of us would consider unconscionable … an economic loser.]
Zuckerberg is, in essence, being taken to task for putting profit above humanity. It’s hard to imagine the level of naivete associated with a tacit belief that FB is anything even remotely close to unique in this regard.
Even Medicine and BigPharma … just f’rinstance … kill people every day. And one could certainly point to the NRA, the gun industry, big tobacco, mining, alcohol …
There’s just a ‘conversation’ that we’re really not a part of where the concept of ‘acceptable losses’ is hashed out.
It isn’t always a forklift operator at an Amazon DC in Lake Bluff, IL.
Do those apply to the special blank only guns? I doubt that, since they are not firearms.
What makes you think Mexico has less regulation?
There is no need for new laws or regulations.
The ones in place are safe if actually followed.
I am not a expert in this field, so I would not dream of telling people in another industry what new rules they have to have.
If the present rules were followed, the shooting would not have happened.
And if new rules aren’t followed either, bad things will still happen.