I thought about putting this question in the thread about the shooting involving Alec Baldwin, because it’s that situation which prompted it, but I decided not to derail it.
My question is why there would ever be real bullets anywhere near a gun used for filming something.
I’ve tried to conjure up scenarios, and the only thing I can think of, is that in order to look convincing handling the weapon, the actor might take it to a shooting range, and fire real bullets at a target.
It seems like there would be pretty good controls, though-- don’t load it until you get there, and disassemble it afterwards-- or even better, use a different but identical weapon-- albeit, the best controls fail all the time.
What other reasons could I be missing?
I suppose once upon a time, real bullets were fired for the camera on a range or some other controlled situation, and spliced together with scenes of blanks being fired at whatever actor needed to be shot, but I’d think that would all be CGI at least for the last 20 years.
I can think of only one reason - if you are shooting at a target like an apple or a lock (and want it to look realistic) with very few people on set. But even that’s not a good reason, because the risk (of mixing up bullets with blanks) is usually too high. I think I’ve seen this done successfully on Mythbusters and similar shows, where we saw dead fish in a barrel getting shot, what happens if you shoot a lock (a pistol dents the lock, a rifle puts a hole in it but the lock still works, and a shot gun rips it apart), etc. In that case everyone on set knew that was a real gun with real bullets and nobody was anywhere near any place where a bullet could conceivably go.
It’s possible to injure someone with a blank, wadding, etc, so even if there were no real bullets on set someone could still get injured. Using actual bullets just raises the risk to unacceptable levels.
If you have a competent armorer, with sane and sensible procedures, and a production staff (producers, directors) willing to let the armorer do his or her job properly, then the risk is minimal. Industrial maintenance does horrendously dangerous jobs all the time, but follows strict safety protocols and procedures, with proper equipment, and no management jogging their elbows to cut corners to save time. Same principles apply to movie set safety.
The scenario you describe (showing an actual bullet impact on an object for realism) can be safely done with proper planning and procedures, and strict adherence to same.
It’s my understanding that, as is the case with a lot of props, you start with something that already exists and make it up to look like it belongs in the movie.
Having said that, I’d think, to prevent another accident, there could be a rule that any gun on a set, while it can be real, has to be modified to only work with blanks.
It doesn’t seem like a huge stretch for prop and gun makers to work together to do something like this. For example, Glock could make a barrel with some goofy shape (say, oblong) that would accept blanks made with the same goofy shape but would not accept any (commercially available) live bullets. These barrels could be dropped right into an existing Glock. It could even be required that once the gun has been modified it can’t come back apart without being destructive. So, a snapped off grub screw or a few spot welds.
From there, whatever other safety protocols that should be in place should cover the rest, right? Armorer personally checks the gun before giving it to the actor etc.
This would also (help to) prevent issues with someone taking the “prop” gun to a firing range to practice with it. They can, but it would just be blanks and if they practice with a real gun and real bullets, they wouldn’t even be able to accidentally use those bullets in the prop gun. They wouldn’t fit in the gun.
Also, you have to keep in mind, this would only prevent accidents. It’s not going to stop a determined person getting live ammo into the hands of an actor or stop anyone from just bringing a real gun onto the set.
If it can fire live ball rounds, then it’s more than a “stage gun”, it’s a real gun. It was probably owned and used by someone before the film, and will be after the film. So in that sense, yes, a “stage gun” likely has fired real bullets in the past, and will do so in the future.
I’m not in the film business, so I can’t speak to the need for firing live ball rounds in a film project. I can say that if I were in charge, once we have a real gun entered into custody and safety controls for filming, it never gets loaded with live ball, and it never leaves custody or safety controls until our project is done and we dispose of the assets.
If (big if) there is a need to fire live ball for crew familiarization purposes, I would not use the stage gun. Every time a gun exits safety controls and re-enters them, that’s an opportunity for a mistake. There ought to be an identical replica gun for that. There should never be a case when someone needs to fire live ball from a unique, one-of-a-kind weapon that can’t be replicated.
I’ve read recent statements from film armorers that it’s absolutely forbidden to bring live ammo onto a film set. I’m not sure if that was always the case. The safety rules were tightened after the Brandon Lee accident (The Crow) in 1993.
Today’s safety rules primarily focus on the wadding in blank rounds. They can injure someone at close range. They’re considered fairly safe at longer distances. Probably 8 or more feet away. But actors are still taught to aim slightly away from other people. Camera angles can make it appear they’re shooting directly at other actors.
I’ve been surprised at the precautions that are taken. No live rounds are allowed. But the armorer still checks dummy (prop) rounds by shaking. There’s bb’s inside that rattle and confirm its not a real round.
Blanks are easy to verify because they have crimped ends. There’s no projectile.
I heard a radio clip about what they do when the prop does need to have a projectile for the shot. This may happen if it’s a revolver or if someone is shown reloading or even just loose rounds on a table. The primer isn’t installed into the brass so there’s a big old hole on the end of the round. Multiple people inspect the props to make sure they’re all empty and missing the primers. Of course, these won’t bang and flash like a blank but there can be slugs on-set.
Bwuh? Like a snake load that still throws potentially lethal stuff out the business end? Why would there be BBs in a blank round? What if there’s 9 of these + 1 quiet ball round? Does the armorer know how a non-rattly round sounds?
The BB is put in there so that you can do a rattle test. If it rattles, it’s a dummy. The armorer should be checking each round. If one doesn’t rattle, they know that there is a problem.
I don’t know how to attach the image. You can see the difference, but it looks like you have to take the bullet out, or look at it’s back end, to see the crimping, and I can imagine someone not looking closely enough to spot the difference (even when it’s their job). IMO they should color code dummy rounds, front and back. Movie fans should accept unrealistic looking rounds for safety reasons. (And, of course, use guns that can only fire blanks.)
Note that “a stage gun should never have live rounds” is itself a safety protocol, and that protocol needs to be supported by other practices. It’s the same with “a real gun should never be on set.” This is also a protocol, and someone has to consciously enforce it.
There is nothing you can do to avoid the need for safety protocols in firearms. Human judgment can’t be removed from the equation at any point. You can only choose the ones that seem effective and easy to oversee/enforce, and layer it with other practices.
To answer the OP, yes, once in a great while, under strict control, like for a target shoot, they might do it. But squibs, etc work just as well. I think the OP is asking a legit question, but many here are instead trying to fix gun safety on sets, which isn’t actually the OP’s question.
This wouldn’t be on a regular set with actors and production people milling around. It would be done in a completely different and specialized location just for that one shot. The only people there would be firearms experts and maybe one camera operator.
The other reason you might fire a real bullet is if you absolutely need to show recoil. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that some sniper closeups showing someone shooting a .50 cal or something might be shot at a range so a live round can be fired. But it woul dn’t be on a ‘movie set’.
Guns that are modified for blank fire only don’t solve anything with respect to safety. The reason they are modified is generally to put a restrictor in the barrel so enough gas is diverted back to the action to cycle it. On a gas blowback type gun. the pressure is a lot higher when a bullet is in the barrel until it leaves, so on some guns the action won’t cycle without a bullet or a restrictor. And once a restrictor is in place, you can’t fire regular bullets.
But you would still treat that gun as deadly, because it could be. The restrictor could fail and be launched, or the barrel could have a plug of dirt or a rock or something in it. So you still need safety protocols, and the gun needs to be handled like any other firearm.
There is really not much of an issue with gun safety on set. The number of gun-related accidents on a movie set can be counted on your fingers. Now think of how many thousands of guns have been used in movies and TV, for many decades. in the meantime, any action movie can result in hospitalization or death for stunt people and actors. There’s hardly a stuntman out there who hasn’t broken bones on a movie set, and many have died.
Movies that depict dangerous things can be dangerous to make. That’s why safety protocols are so important. And if you follow them, there’s no reason a real gun can’t be safely used.
