Yes. Long Colt refers to .45 Long Colt ammo, the original cartridge for this gun.
Almost certainly, the modified gun is a recent replica, originals are too expensive to convert like that.
Nothing. A projectile is not a live round. A “live round” or cartridge is primer, powder and projectile in a case. It’s a sloppy statement of what happened, which is that they recovered a projectile that was presumably fired from a live round.
My glaring omission there was … litigation.
Litigation, too, is also just a spreadsheet calculation of probability x potential cost – to defend, to settle, to pay a judgment, to appeal, etc.
And all the while, powerful interests are seeking to prevent litigation, stack laws in their favor, cap awards, shift into mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution, etc., etc.
Which, I’d imagine, is all going to play heavily in this Baldwin/NM/homicide incident.
There is a .22 bb cap, and a .22 cb cap. They do use primers only. Targets and rats. But I doubt they would cycle a semi-auto.
La mordita, graft, corruption.
With those strict gun laws, how do the cartels walk around openly armed?
The person making the statement trying to find a better term than “what looks like a real bullet”?
The confusion with terminology is going to go on for a while – I’m sure the terminology used by different LEAs, by people in the film trades, by non-industry firearms professionals and by lay firearms enthisiasts are going to differ.
'cause they’re criminals. That’s their thing.
So unless people would move their production to Mexico with the intent of bribing someone into letting them do illegal things, it’s not necessarily an answer.
Do you have any knowledge that these are rife in the Mexican film industry, or are these just stereotypes?
Some of Gutierrez’s claims (through her attorneys) have been disputed. I’m not sure these counterclaims are any more reliable than Gutierrez’s claims, given that NBC merely cites “sources within the production,” but they’re probably not less reliable:
Claim:
“Hannah was hired on two positions on this film, which made it extremely difficult to focus on her job as an armorer.”
Counterclaim:
But sources within the production told NBC News Friday that it’s common practice for an armorer, like Gutierrez-Reed, to also have separate responsibilities within a prop team. And in Gutierrez-Reed’s case on “Rust,” she only worked two days in props and never had dual prop and weapons responsibilities on the same day, the production sources said.
The “Rust” production was within guidelines set by the Teamsters, SAG, the Directors Guild of America, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and other unions, according to the sources.
[Bolding within quotation mine.]
Claim:
“She fought for training, days to maintain weapons and proper time to prepare for gunfire but ultimately was overruled by production and her department.”
Counterclaim:
There were multiple safety meetings on the “Rust” set, including on the day of deadly shooting, and the production was not trying to cut corners, they said.
All this is aside from her original claim that there should have been no live ammo on the set at all, a claim Sheriff Mendoza said was “not accurate”.
“They” would not include the people who quit over safety concerns. If they testify in court it’s not going to go well for those who where in charge.
CB and BB caps, which usually have only the primer as a propellant, are capable small game ammo for short ranges, shot from .22 rifles. From my experience using them, one could be used to kill a person, given a short distance and a hit in a vulnerable spot. The fact that average .22 ammo has tremendously more kinetic energy doesn’t mean these are harmless, by a long shot (heh).
Are you under the misimpression that safety meetings mean there were no safety concerns?
That’s an oversimplification. The truth is that nothing is perfectly safe, and everyone makes cost-benefit tradeoffs all the time.
In engineering we use tools like FMEA (Failure Mode Effects Analysis) to try to put numbers to this. How can something fail, how many people will be affected by the failure, and what is the severity of the failure? Balanced against this is what it will cost to prevent or minimize the failure. That doesn’t have to be just money, but things like impact on other features customers want.
For example, we could make cars more safe tomorrow. We could put roll cages in all of them, five point harnesses, more crumple zones, stronger chassis, etc. But each one of those changes would affect other characteristics of the car such as acceleration, gas mileage, or introduce other safety issues such as ease of being removed from the car in a crash. So you do an FMEA, and the safety guys sign off on a document that admits there are safety issues with the product. Because every product has safety issues.
That’s not the result of evil corporations - it’s the result of reality. Nothing is perfectly safe, and engineers constantly have to make hard decisions trading safety for other characteristics. There’s no way around it. Of course if someone is harmed by one of those defects the situation looks totally different to them, and if activists want to show that evil corporations are choosing ‘profits over safety’, they can point to the mere existence of an FMEA as ‘proof’. “See? It says right there that this safety problem exists, but wasn’t fixed because it cost too much!”
You can’t really have this ‘conversation’ without understanding engineering. ‘Acceptable losses’ are a part of life. We could save 30,000 lives per year if we just limit cars to no more than 10 miles per hour. We could reduce fuel starvation accidents in aviation by requiring much larger fuel margins. We could reduce pedestrian accidents by lining all roadways with chain link fencing. In all of these cases, we decided that doing so costs too much per life saved. In other words, we ‘accept the losses’.
Demanding that corporations accept nothing less than perfect safety is unreasonable. So choices have to be made, and whenever they are there are bound to be marginal cases, and also errors. It’s totally the case that a harried manager on an overdue project might sign off on a bug or failure mode that they wojodn’t have signed off on before the pressure mounted. That’s just human nature, and we try to minimize or eliminate that. But engineering is hard.
Getting back to this issue, we could probably come up with a system that guarantees no one will ever be shot on a set again. We could demand the use of non-functional guns. But if they look identical to real ones you still have to do all the checks in case a real gun slipped in. If you make them look different, the audience will notice. So the cost goes up and audience appeal goes down. Instead, we accept a tiny risk of something happening to short-circuit all the safety procedures. The risk is small compared to all the on-set risks people take.
Why not demand that stunt men can no longer do live stunts? CGI or dummies only. Far more stunt people are injured or killed than people accidentally shot on set.
It almost certainly is. The gun was described as an “F.LLI Pietta long Colt 45 revolver” and Pietta is apparently an Italian company that makes replica firearms.
We’re really not saying anything different, but …
In business, the people on Mahogany Row (ie, Senior Management) virtually always get their way vis-a-vis Engineering.
This is closer to the crux of my premise.
There were far too many all/nothing statements in your response for me. It’s a continuum, of course.
What I’m saying is that – as often as not – the average person would be pretty shocked to be a fly on the wall when these decisions are made, and when the actuarial bet fails to pay off as expected.
Or, I would argue, without understanding US-based capitalism – particularly in publicly-traded companies.
In the press conference, the sheriff said the gun that fired the deadly round was the Pietta, but merely described the other functioning weapon as an SAA, with no brand or other descriptor. He said it might have been modified to fire only blanks, but that had not been determined.
The first inference I drew was that it might be a real period SAA, which I thought could have been a reason why crew members wanted to fire it after hours: shooting a genuine antique. But I’ll yield to those here with more experience who believe that’s not likely.
It’s annoying that the sheriff was not more precise about the second gun, and that none of the reporters at the conference pressed him on it. Perhaps the sheriff’s department is not familiar enough with these reproductions to identify them accurately.
Are modern replicas so accurate that someone reasonably familiar with firearms couldn’t tell they weren’t genuine? Do they lack any indication of the (actual) manufacturer’s identity?
No, the second gun, the one modified for blanks.
OK, sorry.
BTW, is the current belief that Alec Baldwin didn’t actually pull the trigger but that it went off without him doing so? Is that plausible on a real antique gun and if so, could the replica be sufficiently “loose” that this is what happened?
The one possibly modified. We don’t know yet.
Ok, thanks. I trust this guy. It’s odd though. I think the rifle he uses is a Ruger 10/22 and he knows that I know guns pretty well. But I guess it works for him. Perhaps he has a bolt action I am unaware of. Maybe it doesn’t cycle the weapon and he clears it manually.
You’re sure that they were using real firearms? Because as far as I’m aware, there is no legal authority to have a handgun other than in your home, the range, and in transit between. And I’ve been involved in a few court cases dealing with the application of the law.
Instead, federal law has a category of “replica firearms”, which are devices that are designed to look as closely as possible as a real firearm, but cannot fire a bullet. The offence of pointing a firearm therefore would not apply.
Replica firearms are heavily regulated. They are “prohibited devices” under the Criminal Code, and can only be used or possessed for certain purposes, such as " a motion picture, television, video or theatrical or publishing activities". The business needs to have a Firearms Business Licence to possess replica firearms.
See this page from the RCMP:
https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/specific-types-firearms#rf